Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија - Гоце Наумов, Никос Чаусидис by Sonjce Marceva

Ð&#x2C6;

Гоце Наумов и Никос Чаусидис НЕОЛИТСКИ АНТРОПОМОРФНИ ПРЕДМЕТИ ВО РЕПУБЛИКА МАКЕДОНИЈА

Издавач МАГОР ДОО Скопје За издавачот Горјан Лазаревски

Англиски превод на резимето Андријана Драговиќ Лектура Верка Мечалова

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC OBJECTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Publisher MAGOR DOO Skopje For the publisher Gorjan Lazarevski

Summary translation into English Andrijana Dragović Proof reading Verka Mečalova

Коректура Андријана Драговиќ

Editing Andrijana Dragović

Дизајн на корицата Никос Чаусидис

Cover design Nikos Čausidis

Фотографија на корицата Неолитска фигурина од Говрлево (Музеј на град Скопје) Автор на фотографијата Гоце Наумов Графичко уредување Филип Митрoв

Издавањето на публикацијата е поддржано од страна на Министерството за култура на Република Македонија

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

This publication has been supported by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Macedonia

Ð&#x2C6;

, 2011

Goce Naumov and Nikos Ä&#x152;ausidis

NEOLITHIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC OBJECTS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

MAGOR DOO Skopje, 2011

Предговор ................................................................................................................................................ 7 I.

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи во Република Македонија (Н. Чаусидис) .................................................................................. 11

II. Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево (Н. Чаусидис, Г. Наумов) ....................................................................................... 21 III. Неолитски антропоморфни фигурини во Република Македонија (Г. Наумов) ............................................................................................................... 37 IV. Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија (Г. Наумов) ............................................................................................................... 47 Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia – Summary (G. Naumov, N. Čausidis) .................................................................. 57 Користена литература ................................................................................................................. 71 Табли со илустрации .................................................................................................................... 78 Список на илустрации ............................................................................................................... 111

, .

, ,

, .

. .

– .

, ,

, , . , ,

(

, .

(

è,

. .

. . .

, , ,

( ).

. . .

, . , „

“

2010

. ,

. , . , –

–

. ,

„

, :

“–

„

“–

. , 1:1,

, ,

, . , ,

, ,

. ,

, -

. , ,

– –

, .

, ,

. -

, . ,

, ,

, .

. 1979

, è .

2010

è . , . ,

, ,

. , . ,

. ,

, :

, –

, .

1948–2010 , ( ,

“,

„ .

. ,

, .

. ,

. .

, ,

“.

–„

1985

, ,

2001

, ,

:„ “, „

(

“, „

)“, „

“

, ,

, ? ,

: , -

“

. ),

“

„

„ „

“

„ “(

, .

, ,

(

). . .

„

“. ,

, –

, ,

, . Авторите

, . : , , , , , , (Mantu Lazarovici 2004; 2000; Müller-Karpe 1968, Taf. 108, 150, 157, 159, 165, 208; Müller-Karpe 1974, Taf. 45, 677, 678, 688). , , -

. , .

„

, (Watrous 1991; Oelmann 1959; Hoernes 1925, 528-534). , , -

–

„

“

ј .

“

)

( ,

(

.I) ( .II – T.VII). :

, (

), ,

– ,

, ,

. ,

e ,

(T.II: ; T.III: 1, , . . -

3, 4, 6-9; T.IV: 4, 5). , è, .

. -

( 15

50 cm (Čausidis 2010; 2007; – 2005; Sanev 2006; Zdravkovski 2008). 2010 . , , , , . , ,

(T.III: 9) (Grbić i dr. 1960; 33-35).

1976, , ,

, (T.III: 8).

, ,

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, (T.III: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7).

, ,

(

). (T.IV: 9; T.II: F).

, ,

, (T.V: 4)

(T.VI: 6). , .

(

–

2005, 63).

„ “.

(T.VII: 2). , ,

, ј

, 4, 10, 11; T.VI: 7; T.II: B, C).

(T.VII: 2

. , (T.V: 5) (

. 1976, 37, 38).

. ,

„ ( ( 31-33).1

“ 1975;

ј . ) (T.III: 2, 5) 1976,

, –

, (T.V: 7; T.II: A) ( 2005, 61; 2005, 37, 39). ,

„ “ (T.IV: 8; T.II: F). ,

, , (T.IV: 1, 2). ,

– , (

?), , (Čausidis 2009a, 114-116).

) ( Simoska i Kuzman 1990,

(

1976, 40; 2005, 33). ,

, -

, ,

(T.IV: 8). ,

( (T.IV: 3)

(T.IV: 9; T.II: F) ( ,

1976, 40, 41). , , , ,

T.V: 7

T.III: 8,

9 T.IV: 4, 5, 8, 9). ,

ј,

, .

4 Во постарата литература овој локалитет се поврзувал со селото Велушина, поради што тоа е така направено во нашите претходни трудови. Во поновата литература, во контекст на современата состојба на теренот, тој се сместува во рамките на село Породин, поради што и ние во овој случај ја следиме оваа состојба. 1

( ,

, , (T.V: 8; T.II: D). , ),

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи во Република Македонија

(Sanev 2006; Zdravkovski 2008; – 2005). in situ, „ “( 1988, 15-18). , . ,

( ), „ “ 116;

„ “ (Čausidis 2009a, 1142009 , 54, 55, 59, 60). , . . , , , , , (T.IV: 6; T.VI: 3; T.II: G; T.XII: 6). , (T. IV: 7; T.V: 1, 2). , (T.IV: 7), (T.IV: 2), . , 7 cm, . , (T.XII: 8).

(T.VII: 10; T.II: C). , ,

, ( )

, (T.VI: 7; T.II: B). (

), (T.V: 3). . . .

Ѓ , ( : 2005; Kitanoski 1989).

, (

, (T.VI: 8

1; T.II: џ , -

D).

–

„

( ),

“

, ,

(T.VI: 1). , 30

. -

, ,

, (T.V: 3; T.VI: 4). ,

„

–

“. ,

. . ,

, , .

, , ,

–

, ,

(T.VI: 5, 8; T.VII: 4, 10, 11; T.IX: 9-11). , ѕ , , , (T.VI: 8; T.VII: 10). , , 1 cm (T.VI: 8; T.VII: 10, 11). , џ , ( , ), , , (T.IX: 11).

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, è

, ( 2006, 187, 189;

: T. XIII: 2-6, 8) (Sanev 2003, 57-71). , j (T.VII: 4, -

, 6; T.II: C). ( ѕ

(T.VII: 5) „

“

T.II: C) ( 1984, 43).

è C( 1976, 90, 108; , .

15 cm), (Sanev 1989; Sanev 2006). , , (

, (Galović 1964, Taf. 17: 3).

, (T. VI: T.VI: 1, 8; T.III – T.V). , ?) (Sanev

џ 5; T.II: D ( , 1989; Sanev 2006).

(

, è .

1982

2010), , .

, (T.VII: 11) ,

, -

, .

( 1986; Zdravkovski 2008, 194, 195). , , .

1984; Bilbija

, ,

, (T.VII:

11). ,

, .

( 2005; Zdravkovski i Saržoski 1989).

è,

, . ,

(

T.VI: 6 ,

3), „ “ (

, (T.IX: 9, 10; T.II: I). ,

, .

, (Garašanin 1979; 1976, 107) ( .IX: 7, 8; 2007, 55, 56; Naumov 2008b).

, T.X: 6) ( ,

ѕ ,

: T.VI: 6 .IV: (T.XII: 7),

8). ,

, ( .V: 7, 8) (Čausidis

2009a). -

, . , è ,

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи во Република Македонија

, „

–

“.

, ,

. -

( .VII: 3; T.II: C),

, (Garašanin 1982, 9, 147; Sanev 2006; Naumov 2008b). -

, ( ) .

: (T.VII:

, 7-9) (

1975, 220, 221).

њ ) (Karmanski 2005) -

( й

, ,

( .X: 4; .II: C). , . 2002, . 8) ,

, (T.XII: 10),

(T.IX: 8) ( (Zdravkovski

2008, 199).

, (T.II: C),

è,

. , ,

, (T.XII: 9).

(

, -

, . ,

Dunavec ( .X: 3),

) (T.X: 6) (Hoernes, 1925, 281). (Korkuti 1995)

, (Naumov 2008b, Fig. 9: 1-3).

„ “ (T.IX: 12, 13) (Sanev 2006, 181, 182; Zdravkovski 2008, 198, 199).

è -

, H).

( .II: -

, (T.II: A-I) ( 2007; Sanev 2006).

(T.XII: 4, 5) , ( 2008) , , 2010).

, -

. ( , è, – .

: , , „ (T.II: G), “( 2006, 58, 60). , : T.II: H-G-D-A-B-C. ,

, : T.II: C-B-A-D-G-H.

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

;

(T.II: F-E-A-D), . . (T.II: A-D-E-F)? -

Truşeşti Vădastra ,

, (T.X: 1, 2).

. . .

, ,

– , , (T.II: A, D; T.V: 7; T.VI: 5). , ( ) : – ( ) (T.II: A-D-E-F; T.III: 8, 9; T.IV: 8, 9). – ( ) (T.II: A-B-C; T.V: 7; T.VI: 7; T.VII: 2, 4, 6, 10, 11). – , , ( ) (T.II: A-D-I; T.IX: 9, 10). – , ( , ) (T.II: A-D-G; TVI: 3, 6). –

. ( .X: 5),

, (Azor)

(T.X: 7-10).

(T.X: 10) (Müller-Karpe 1968; 2007, 53-59). , ,

19. ,

20.

(T.VIII: 2, 3).

. . .

(

) (T.II: A-D-G-H; T.IX: 12, 13). ,

(T.VIII: 1,

T.IX: 5).

: -

(T.VIII: 4; T. IX: 1, 2). , -

( .IX: , -

3, 4, 6)

„

“

. , . .

, ,

( 2008b, 95, 96).

. . 2006, 66-68; Naumov -

, (T.XII: 9) (

(

)

(T.VIII: 9) (Karmanski 2005). , ( T.VIII: 9 5-8), ,

2001;

. 2008).

(

, ,

(T.VIII: 10-12) ( 2007, 51-53).

2007, 53, 55; ѕ ,

, è,

2009 , 225-228). . ,

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи во Република Македонија

–

(T.XI: 3).

2007; 1972). -

, , ,

(T.XI: 1a, 1b, 2, 4, 5) ( . 2008, 77-81;

, ,

, (T.XI: 6).

, ,

„ “. ,

, .

. . ,

, ,

– (

, .

. .

2007).

, è , ,

. .

(

, ,

;

. „

“–

. . ,

. , 2007, 51-53; Čausidis 2010, 32, 33; 1996; 1994, 205-217). ,

(

). ,

, -

(

2000;

? -

2009) ,

. -

, , . “

,„

„ “,

, ,

. , . . -

, .

„

“ . . . ,

, .

, –

( –

–

2009 ).

, . . .

, „

“

. .

„

“

, „

, (

“

„ “ (T.IV: 8; T.VI: 6),

. -

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, , .

, .

(

„

“

2009 ). , , ,

, ,

(

(T.V: 7, 8; T.VI: 8; ,

T.VII: 10; T.XII: 7).2

, ,

, , (

„ 6, 8; T.VI: 5; T.XIII: 2).

, “ (T.IV: 9; T.V:

, ,

, :

„

“,

2000). ,

„ “

(Hodder 1990, 85). , ,

„

(

2008).

“ (

)

. (Čausidis 2009a).

, ,

, (T.XII: 1-3).

, 1 cm (T.V: 8; T.VI: 6, 8; T.VII:10,11; T.IX:11). , Sanev 2006, 189, 190). ,

(

, , ( .XII: 1, 2) (

2008). ,

(

1988, 18; 2005, 24, 37)

60;

1988, 18;

2006,

. ,

( ),

. .

, -

: (

, ), ,

( , , ,

, ( )

) (

, ,

, -

За други примери на вакви отвори, присутни на моделите од Говрлево, види го наредното поглавје од оваа публикација.

. . : T. XII: 8)

(

, ,

(

), (

– 2005, 61; 2005, 53, 55). -

( 2006, 54).

–

2005, 10;

, ,

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи во Република Македонија

( , . . , 2008,

, )

, (

(

) ,

79-83).

, , . -

„

“, . . (Čausidis 2009a). , ,

, ,

–

(

). (

) (T. XII:

3).

(

)

. . .

(T.XII: 2). – (

)

, (T.XII: 1).

, .

“, „

è : T. XIII: 1) (

1974, 216, (

, . .

. . -

– , . .

“, „ (

, “,

.„ “, „

, (T.XII: 3).

2008, 83, 84).

, (

, ,

“)

„

2007; – 217). è

, .

.„

“(

(

, (

:„ “.

“, „

. , . . „ “( 217).

/ ;

, -

2008, 83, 84; 1994, 205 , , (T.IV: 9; T.V: 6, 8; T.VI: 5).

1996;

. Plateia Magoula Zarku (T.XIII: 7) (Bailey 2005, 170 – Fig. 7.13) ( , ; Cucuteni, Ghelăieşti; Isaiia-Balta Popii, Raducaneni, ) . .

Ќ Ј ,

. ( 1982 ,

, -

, . „

“ 2 km

5 5 m) 1985 . (Bilbija 1986), 12 9 m), 2000, 2010). ,

(

1,5 km

(T.I).

,( , 2010 .

, .

(

), ,

. -

(

, 500 m,

„

“.

, .

(XIV: 1-3), , , . ,

, .

, ( „

“)

, -

, (

, , (Bilbija 1986; 1982, 26, 27, 74 – 76; 2004).

) 1984, 39;

2010 .1 :

– ,

2009 .

– (

Ќ Во подготовка е детален каталог на овие наоди кој ќе биде публикуван во рамките на некое издание специјално посветено на овој локалитет. 1

„ ,

“ ,

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

–

(

, ,

, -

). –

( ),

, -

è -

, ,

– -

–

(

1:1)

– (

)

–

. .

– a 1:1) ,

600 dpi,

a, (Photoshop, TIFF:

, -

, . è,

(

in situ. , ( ,

)

, ,

„

158,

“

, , ,

. ,

: . 1982 . (

) (T.XIV: -

, 1-3);

(

: T.XV: 1a-b, 5a-b). , .

, , 2010 . (

). „ , : 1982 1983 1984 1985 2000

.– 3 .– 9 .– 7 .– 6 . – 26

2001 2002 2004 2008 2009

, ,

. – 48 .– 5 . – 22 .– 1 . – 30

, .

, 2

“

, .

. , -

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

. -

50 ,

; ,

è ; . ,

. (Bilbija 1986),

, -

( 5-10

, .

. -

, ,

, , (

( , )( , 1988; Sanev, 2006, 188).2 . џ , , “, , ( 2009 , 224; Sanev, 2006, , , . ,

2000; „...

190). џ

1988,

1995).

, , , (Naumov 2009). , ,

, , .

. 2-3

, ,

. -

, (T.VI: 1; T.VII: 10) (Sanev, 2006, 190). 158 , (T.XV: 1a-b).

, , .

, „ „

“,

“. , ,

Подетално за оваа тема, види: Чаусидис 2009а, 59, 60; Naumov in print (d). 2

(T.XV: 1; T.XIX: 1, 2, 4

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.IX: 9-10). : ѕ ,

);

(

(T.XIX: 1a-b, 2a-b).

. -

T.XXI: 3).

, ,

(

1976)

. ,

(T.XIV: 3

(

. 30). „

“

. (T.XIV:

1-3; T.VII: 11)

, ,

, .

„

“ (T.XVI: 3;

, T.XX: 1),

, 1982 .

(T.XVI; T.XX: 6a-b). ,

1m( , 40-42).

(

, .

), ,

, .

è,

in situ, : “)

(„

„ ,

, .

“,

(T.XVI: 2) ( -

, 41, 42 –

. 1).

, :

( .XVI: 3), ,

( ),

, ,

(

, ,

1985 .,

3; T.VII: 11),

, „

“ (T.XIV:

( ѕ

(

11). џ

(

)

(T.VII: 10).

, ,

), T.VII: 10

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

cm (

T.XIV: 2

3).

. , o (T.V – T.VII; T.XV: 1, 5),

, , „C“.

, ,

17 , -

, (T.XIV: 1, 2).

(

T.XXI: 5-8).

, -

(

T.II).

(T.XXI: 8) ( – ,

. 29).

„D“

, , .

, ,

„C“

(T.XVI: 1a-b).

. ,

(T.II: C).

, ,

(

, ,

). ,

. (T.XV: 1a-b, 2, 3), ,

, , .

, ѕ

, .

, „D“ (T.II: D).

. , ѕ

, , , ,

(T.XVI: 4a-c),

, (T.XV: 5a-b). -

, (

T.II: A, B, C).

, (

). , ,

0,5

. ,

(T.XVIII:

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

2a-b).

. .

, „G“, „A“ „B“.

„D“,

. 16

„G“

(35) ,

. ,

(T.XIV: 11-13). -

, :

, (T.XVIII: 2b;

, „G“ (T.II: G).

T.XIX: 1b, 2b),

( ) (T.XIV: 13).

(T.XVIII: 1b, 7b); , ѕ 2a; T.XX: 2);

; T.XVIII: 1, 2, 7), (

. , -

2);

(T.XVIII: 1a, 4, 7a; T.XIX: 1a, , ( : 2008) (T.XIX: 1, , ( : T.XXI: 5, 6, 8).

, ,

(T.XIX: 4a). 16

, .

(T.XVII: 1, 5).

. .

, 1, 2).

(T.XV: 5; T.XIX: ѕ -

, (T.XVIII: 2b),

(T.XVII: 1 ). . .

, (T.XVIII: 1, 7).

(T.XVII: 1, 3, 5),

(T.XVII: 4, 7a),

. . (T.XV: 5a).

, ,

(T.XVII: 6; T.XX: 7). ,

(

). , ѕ

, , .

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

–

, (

, -

, . (T.XVIII: 2a; T.XX: 5a). (T.XVIII: 2a), ( .18: 1 , ( ),

) (T.XVIII: 4).

–

( ,

, (T.XV: 5b).

, ,

, .

( .) (Čausidis 2009a; .

–

, 2009 ).3 -

, ,

. .

, (T.XVII: 6, 7; T.XVIII: , , , , , „ “, . „ “. -

5, 6; T.XIX: 3b, 5b).

–

, .

, ,

)(

)

, й 2009 ).

– (Čausidis 2009a; .

: T.XVIII: 3, 7). , ѕ

(T.XIX: 3a, T.XX: 2

T.VII: 10).

, , (T.XVIII: 3).

, , .

ѕ .

(

– (4

. .

–

„

“.

, (

(

T.XX: 3, 4, 5, 7).

. 19; T.XII: 2, 3).

(T.XIX: 3b).

, .

Отворите на кубусот, В. Санев ги смета за „декоративни отвори“ (Sanev, 2006, 188).

(T.XX: 7)

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

. ѕ

(T.XX:

3a-b).

, џ

11 ,

(T.XX:

T.VI: 8). –

( .

, (T.XVII: 3, 4),

T.XIV; T.XVI

T.VI T.VII).

, , (T.XVI; T.XX: ,

(T.IV: 9; T.V: 6) (T.VI: 5; T.XIII: 2

1, 6). ,

8).

, . , -

, –

. ,

. , , , 1, 2, 4, 5; T.XX: 6).

(T.XVI: ,

, ,

(

T.XVII: 2). -

, (T.XVI: 3; T.XX: 1). ,

, , ,

(

, (T.XVI: 5; T.XX: 6).

T.XIII: 8). ,

, ,

(

, (T.XVI: 1, 4).

„C“, „D“ (

, , „G“

(T.VI: 2).

, , (T.XVI: 4). , ,

T.II).

. , , (T.XIV; T.XVI). -

, ,

(T.XVI: 6a-b).

, ,

( -

. ѕ

) ,

, ,

, , .

(

,( ), T.VI: 2;

1 cm

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

T.V: 7) . .

. ,

, ,

. ,

, „C“ (

– T.XV: 1; T.XXI: 5-8). , . / T.XXI: 7, 8).

, ,

(

, -

, . ,

(

, -

) (T.XXI: 5, 6, 8).

, ,

, (T.XXI: 6). .

ќ ,

„ ,

(T.XIV; T.XVI; T.XX: 1).

, .

, ,

“

(T.XXI: 1a-b) ,

. . .

, ,

. „C“ (T.II: C),

, й .

(T.XVI: 2, 4a). ,

(T.XIV: 5b) (T.XIV: 9a; T.XX: 1 ),

, , ,

(T.XIV: 10; T.XVI: 5b).

. (T.XXI: 2a-b),

, (T.XIV: 6, 9; T.XVI: 1 ).

, .

, (T.XVI: 1 ).

, , ,

, ?) (T.XIV: 8, 9).

, ,

. , .

(T.XIV: 7; T.XVI: 1).

. ,

, (

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

(

. 50; Stanković 1986, 17-28). . ,

, ,

, „C“,

„C“. ,

, ,

, , ,

„I“.

. ,

, ,

(T.XXI: 3, -

4). ,

, ,

. ,

, è . -

158

, .

, (

. 47),

è,

(

. ( Naumov 2008b). (T.XXI: 3)

2006;

. „

, . . .

–

“

(. . -

, .4

, , .

, ,

, . .

, .

, (

mm),

, 1-2

4-5 ,

, ( 4). è

T.XXI: 1, 2 ,

(T.XIV: 4; T.XV: 4). За составот на глината кај моделите во вид на куќа од скопскиот регион: Sanev, 2006, 187. 4

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

. (T.XVIII: 1)

T.XIX: 3), .

, ,

, ( T.VI: 1; T.XIII:

(T.XV: 1) .

(

5),

. , .

, . .

, .

, ,

, , , (T.XIX: 1, 2). -

, . (T.XV: 1), ,

, (

, -

, , (T.XIX: 4), .

. .

(T.XV: 1).

, ,

. .

њ ,

ѕ 5 mm. (T.XV: 5).

(T.XVI: 5),

(T.XX: 5) . (

T.XVIII: 2, 3, 4; T.XX: -

4). ,

, , ,

, (T.XIX: 5). ,

, ,

, , -

, , .

, (T.XIV: 12).

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, .

, , ,

(T.XV: 1a, 2, 3). ,

, , ,

, T.XIV: 5a).

(

. ,

(Sanev, 2006, 187, 190), ,

. ,

(

. , ,

, , (T.XVII: 2;

T.XVIII: 2; T.XX: 4, 5b).

, .

( )

(

)

(T.XVIII: 3, 6). ,

. ,

, . .

(T.XIX: 5b; T.XX: 4, 5b).

, , . .

: , -

. ,

, -

, .5 ,

, . (T.XV: 1)

, , -

. -

, ,

„

, ,

, , . “ . .„

, “

Прелиминарните анализи на пигментите на керамиката од Говрлево беа изведени од Винка Таневска на Институтот за хемија при Природно-математичкиот факултет во Скопје во рамките на FP6 проектот „Reinforcement of the Research Capacities of the Spectroscopy Laboratory for Archaeometry“, координиран од Билјана Минчева – Шукарова. 5

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

– ,

. -

, ,

, -

, . .

, :

(

. 19). ,

. ,

(T.VI: 2) ,

. „

Ѓ Њ

“ -

, (Sanev, 2006, 190). ,

„

“, . -

, 1

( ),

, “. 2000 ., ,

„ , ,

, ,

. (GPS

) è .

(

) .

(

), , -

. . . 18). ,

( ,

. .

, (T.XVIII: 2). ,

, ,

. : – (GC/MS) – MicroRAMAN

è, -

, ,

, .

– XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence)

, -

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

in situ : T.VII:

1; T.VI: 8

5 T.IX: 11 .

(

(Sanev 2006, 190).

T.XVII: 7).

(T.VII: 4, 6)

(

, )

, . 18).

(

(Sanev 1989, 42).

, è ,

, . ,

. џ

(T.IX: 11 – ѕ

in situ,

. ,

è, (Chapman 2000; Talalay 1993; Naumov 2009; Naumov in print (a)). , . , -

(

, .

( -

, (T.XVI: 1)

), ,

„C“

, -

, (T.XXI: 5, 6).

, .

, (T.XXI: 7, 8).

, ,

, ),

in situ.

(

(T.XIV: 1-3,

), (T.XV: 5).

„ ,

„ -

“,

“ „

“( .

, è

, , ,

, ,

( 2006, 98-100, 122-126).

. -

Неолитски антропоморфни модели на куќи од Говрлево

, „

“

, .

, (

( 2006, 114-117).

1995;

. . -

) ( 2001, 185). . “–

„

, ,

. (

, „

, -

. .

“ ,

.).

„

, ,

“

. ,

, -

, (

2009 ). , è

20.

, ( ).

(

, ,

) , .

: й

–

. . (

).6

„

“.

6 Петреска 2001, 171 – 180; Петреска 2002, 104, 140, 234; Малешевић, 1995, 181, 182; Naumov 2009, 54.

III

Ј ,

. -

, ,

, , -

, ,

è,

, ,

, .

, , ,

(

) ,

Во некои случаи фигурините се именуваат и како минијатури. Иако терминот минијатури (анг. miniatures) е доста широк и вклучува разни форми на современа и архаична материјална култура, во овој случај се однесува на фигурини со помали димензии (од 1 до 20 cm.).

Ucko 1962; Ucko 1968; Bartel 1981; Gimbutas 1989; Benac 1991; Marangou 1992; Talalay 1993; Вайсов 1993; Skeates 1994; Чаусидис 1995; Biehl 1996; Marcus 1996; Conkey and Tringam 1998; Chapman 2000; Gheorghiu 2001; Lesure 2002; Kuijt and Cheson 2004; Bailey 2005; Biehl 2006; Sanev 2006; Nanoglou 2006; Hansen 2007; Hardie 2007; Meskell 2008; Mina 2008; Nakamura and Meskell 2009; Tasić 2009; Naumov 2009; Наумов 2009а; Gheorghiu and Cyphers 2010.

. -

, ,

, (

.),

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, (Gimbutas 1989; Ucko 1962; Bailey 2005).

. ,

, . , , (Pfaffenberger 1992; Dobres 2000). , -

, ,

, . ,

, .

. .

, -

, ,

. ,

, .

è, e -

( 1954; Benac 1991; Sanev 2006; 2007; Naumov 2009; 2009 ; 2009 ; 2010 ; 2010 ; Naumov 2010 ; Naumov in print (a)), ( . 1971; . 1976; 1976; – 2005; Šemrov and Turk 2009). , , (Grbić i dr. 1960; 1975; Gimbutas 1976; 1975; 1989; 1989; 1993; 1993; 2001; – 2008). , , , , -

, , ,

. -

2009 .,

274 (Naumov 2009, 105), ,

, ,

, -

. , ( -

, ) .

, ( ) (Gimbutas 1976, Fig. 152; Sanev 2006, 178, 215). , ,

, .

. , .

, , è

, ,

Неолитски антропоморфни фигурини во Република Македонија

. .

. ,

. , , 2009 , 180).

(

. -

(

), , .

(Sanev 2006,

, , ,

212-217; Naumov 2009, 49-51). , : , ( . ,

)

. -

, . , 2,7 cm

12,5 cm (

( .XXII – T.XXVIII). , -

2009 , 174). -

, -

. ,

. .

, . ,

, .

( .XXII: 4; .XXIII: 4).

è,

, , .

1, 3, 4; .XXV: 2, 3). (Bailey 2005, 28, 33).

, , „

, , ( .XXII: 1, 3, 4; .XXIII:

“

. , ,

(Bailey 1994, 223; Bailey 2005, 159-162), , . , , , (Naumov 2009, 49; Naumov in print (a)). , . , , , ( .XXII;

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

.XXIII), 1, 4) (

, ( . XXIV; .XXV: -

2009 , 177). .

, ,

(Sanev 2006; 2009 ;

, . 2007; Naumov 2009; 2010 ).

, -

( .XXV). , ,

. ,

, ( .XXII; .XXIII).

( 1954; 1964; 1976;

20. 1954; Galović

– 1967; 1988).

, , ,

, ,

(

1976),

1967;

, (

, ,

. 2009 , 51; , . ,

( ,

2011, 91).

1967).

, , ,

1994).

(Garašanin 1979; .

, . , .

(Galović 1964),

, è , -

, ( „ ,

“ -

2011). -

, ( .I: 1). ,

– .

. ,

Дел од предметите се во фаза на документирање, така што се очекува нивно скорешно публикување. 3

Неолитски антропоморфни фигурини во Република Македонија

, ,

. . . ,

. ,

, ,

, .

. ,

. 1975 .,

1974 . I, II .

III,

5 m,

, , 83 ,

, .

1953 ., . 10 4 m.

, .

(83), . ,

( (T.XXVI: 1),

)

(T.XXVII). ,

e . , . (Galović 1964; 1967, 140; 1976, 105-107),

. , (19) (12)

(Naumov 2008a;

. .

(29),

(

2010a).

RAMAN

, -

, (Naumov in print(а)),

. ,

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

. ,

. .

, ,

, (Voigt 2007; Nanoglou 2008).

. .

. ,

29,

. .

„ушите“ ( ),

, , ,

„птицолики“ ( 1976).

12:1.

1967;

(T.XXVI;

(Naumov in print(а)), -

T.XXVII).

, .

, )

. (

Њ (Curtis 1997), O

, . 12 , . ,

(

)

Акуа’мма (Cameron 1997), , . , , , ( – T.XXVII: 1). ,

10 ,

, ,

(T. XXVII: 2). , ,

. ,

, -

, (Bailey 2005). , ,

. .

2005;

( во печат),

– -

, . ,

, .

(Naumov 2009, 50), , . , ,

, ,

(T.XXVI:

Неолитски антропоморфни фигурини во Република Македонија

2).

(T.XXVII: 2).

, ,

(T.XXII: 2, -

3) (Naumov 2009). ,

, (

2006;

2007).

Mwana Hiti, (Felix 1990;

Epštajn 2008). ,

T.XXVIII).

, „

(T.XXVII; ,

“

. , , (T.XXVIII: -

40 1, 4). ,

, , , , (T.XXVII: 1). -

(

) „

“ ,

(T.XXVIII).

, , , . ,

, .

, ,

. ?

, ,

. ,

„ “

, (T.XXVIII: 4).

, . .

(29)

(19), ,

(3),

(9), (3).

(Talalay 1993). ,

, .

. (

3),

, .

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, ,

? è

, -

, , .

, .

, , -

. 29-

(. .

)

„

“

. ,

, (Talalay 2004).

(T.XXVIII).

, ,

, . -

. . ,

, . -

, .

. -

(Talalay 1987), ,

, è -

. .

. ,

„ ,

, ( .).

“,

, :

Неолитски антропоморфни фигурини во Република Македонија

(Naumov 2009). ,

, ,

. .

Ј .

, ,

, -

(Bailey 2005; Gimbutas 1989). , ,

. , -

. , .

(Budja 2006; Haaland 2007),

, -

„

, “.1

. .„

, , „

„

, ( è (Naumov 2010a).

“

“. , ,

“,2

, ,

)

, . ,

, .

, (Naumov 2009; Naumov 2010b; Naumov in print (b)).

2009 ; -

. ,

, -

(

Под терминот „неолитски пакет“ се подразбираат техничките, социјалните и религиските новини воведени на Балканот при процесот на неолитизација, вклучувајки го грнчарството, земјоделството, доместикацијата, архитектурата, погребувањето, изработката на фигурини, т.н. „жртвеници“ итн.

, )

Во рамките на визуелните, но и вербалните медиуми подразбира процес при кој еден предмет, ликовна претстава или лик се комбинира со одделни објекти или суштества (Наумов 2009б; Naumov 2010a). 2

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, ,

, è

. , (Grbić i dr. 1960),

(Naumov in print (c)).

, ,

, . , ,

, ,

(Galović 1964; 1989),

Ј , .

. ,

, ,

. , , .

( 2006; Naumov 2008b; Naumov 2009; Naumov in print (c)). , è,

, ,

. .

, . .

, , (Grbić i 1961; Galović

dr. 1960; 1964; 1976;

. 1971; 1989).

Во 2007 г., во рамките на проектот “Neolithic Decoration in the Republic of Macedonia” поддржан од организацијата The Prehistoric Society, направен е целосен преглед на керамичкиот инвентар од Амзабегово, при што не е констатиран ниту еден фрагмент од антропоморфни садови од овој локалитет. Губењето на артефактите може да е резултат на честото преместување на материјалот од овој локалитет во разни згради и институции во Скопје и Штип. Слична ситуација е констатирана и во однос на останатите наоди што се регистрирани во монографијата за локалитетот (Gimbutas 1976), но ги нема во музејските депоа, поради што и во иднина ќе биде неопходен детален преглед и проверка на комплетниот инвентар од овој локалитет. 3

, 6 3, 5-7), ,

(T.XXIX: 1, , (Gimbutas 1976). , .

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

, .

, -

, ,

. ,

(T.XXX: 2), , (

2006).

(

. (6),

, ,

(1),

, ,

, .

, “ (T.XXIX- T.XXXII). , , .

„

, ,

(3),

1989, 21).4 ,

)( ,

(3),

(2), (1),

, -

, (

, , 4).

(T.XXX: , ,

, „ “ (Grbić i dr. 1960; Naumov 2009; Naumov 2011). ,

. .

, .

. , . ,

, . -

(T.XXIX: 7),

( 1959;

(Gimbutas 1976, fig. 209). ( 90 cm), , ,

1961).

Овие проблеми поврзани со реставрацијата и презентацијата на антропоморфниот сад од Ангелци, се поопширно образложени (Наумов 2009в).

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

. ,

, .

(T.XXX: 1).

, (

. ,

(

1989, 21; Naumov 2009, 61).

. -

2005, Pl. II: 1;

(T.XXIX: 4), ,

(Stalio 1977, sl. 203; Karmanski . 2002, . 41: 3), -

(T.XXXII: 4), ,

, (

. 29). , ,

(

.).

( –

)

. . (Stanković 1986; Gimbutas

, -

1989, fig. 53).

(

, ).

, .

, ,

, .

. ,

, ( ,

, . , 1976, 45), ,

(Bilbija 1986),

, (Čausidis 2009b, 74, 75).

, , ,

, 2010, 17, 18).

, (T.XXX: 3).

( ,

. .

(T.XXXII: 1),

, , .

, –

(Naumov 2009, 62.).

, ,

(Čausidis 2009b).

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

, (

2006), -

(

, – .XXXIII: 2),

, .

(Naumov 2009, 52).

, (T.XXIX: 7), (Gimbutas 1976, fig. 209). , „V“ . , , , “ , . , ,

, , , . „

, -

(T.XXIX: 3). -

, .

, ( .XXX: 2; T.XXXII: 2),

, .

, ,

, -

, ,

, , .

, -

, .

. .

, (

2006, 64).

, , .

, Вакви антропоморфни садови без лице и глава се пронајдени во Дреновац, Доња Брањевина, Ракитово, Сводина, Erfurt, Gorzsa, Kökénydomb и други локалитети (Stalio 1977, сл. 203; Karmanski 2005, Pl. II: 1; Радунчева и др. 2002, Т. 41: 3; Pavuk 1981, fig. 24; Müller – Karpe 1968, Pl. 186: 1, 13, Pl. 223: 13). 5

(T.XXX: 2).

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

, . -

, -

, (

2001, 281).

, .

: , ,

, , -

, ,

(

) ,

, , ,

. ,

? , (Gimbutas 1976, 215),

(

, ),

. -

, ,

. ,

, ( .)

, .

, . ,

, .

(

2006).

è,

. ,

, (Garašanin 1971), , ,

( 1961),

, ,

. .

( 2009 , 64),

. è , , ,

, ,

, -

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

. , ,

, . , ,

o (

Bacvarov 2008),

2003;

, ,

„

“

. .

, (Neumann

1963, 162; ,

. -

1997, 288-290). -

, -

, (Hoernes 1925; Adam 1963, .18; Gimbutas 1989, 191), . , , (Hodder 1990, 52).

, : ?

, -

, ,

„

“

, ,

. ,

, .

(Naumov 2010a).

, ,

( ,

, .

, „

(

“

), , ( )

. ,

è,

: „опредметува човекот“ „очовекува садот“?

, -

(

). (Naumov 2009; Naumov ,

2010b).

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

“ -

„ ,

, , -

, (Naumov 2009; in print (a)). , . , ,

2010 ; Naumov , .

(Naumov in print(c)). „

“

, -

, ,

, .

(Naumov in print(c)). , -

, , , ,

. .

, ,

, .

, è ,

. ,

, .

, , . . „очовекувањето на садот“, , .

, -

, , ,

, ,

, . ,

, . -

, . .

, .

, ,

, -

. , ,

, (

, . -

2009). , , .

. -

, ,

. ,

, -

, .

. , ,

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

, -

(Naumov 2009, Pl. XXXVIII). . ,

(

, , ,

, ,

). -

, ,

, .

, ,

, , .

, ,

, , .

За вакви примери види во Pavuk 1981, fig. 24; Gimbutas 1989, fig. 66, 291; Сталио 1977, Сл. 165

7 Elijade 1984, 342; Гордон 1977, 224; Fowler 2008, 51; Braithwaite 1984, 126, 128; Маразов 1992, 242 и Neumann 1963, 162; Njegovanović – Ristić 1982, 7; Feest and Kann, 1992, 149, 157163; Чаусидис и Николов 2006, 104-107; Haaland 2007, 165; Наумов 2006, 68-70.

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Nikos Čausidis Neolithic anthropomorphic house models in the Republic of Macedonia The Prehistoric ceramic house-shaped objects are well-known among the Neolithic and Eneolithic sites in the Balkans, Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. In the last fifty years, a new type of such objects, which are combination of a house model and a human figure ( .II-T.VII), was being found at Neolithic sites in the Republic of Macedonia (see map on T.I). They are composed of two basic elements: a hollow cubic part which represents the house (realistic or schematized) bellow and an anthropomorphic hollow cylinder with opening on its upper part above. The cylinder is applied onto the house model roof and it is shaped as a human head or a body, often with female gender features (schematized breasts). The average height of these anthropomorphic house models is between 15 and 50 cm. Nearly one hundred of these mostly fragmented and rarely complete artifacts were published till 2010. So far, most of them are dated in Middle Neolithic, while there are some which could have belonged even to Late Neolithic phases. On this occasion, all of the published models are incorporated and organized according to the sites where they were found. The finds review Based on the geographical and cultural features of the settlement where they were unearthed these finds could be divided in two groups: ‘Velušina-Porodin’ cultural group – The Pelagonian Plain (Bitola region). The anthropomorphic house models from Porodin are specific

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

by their realistic house representation with gabled roof where head with dominant nose is applied and supplemented with ornaments or dress (T.II: ; T.III: 1, 3, 4, 6-9; T.IV: 4, 5). The serrated lateral openings (door or windows) and segments similar to shoulders distinguish one example as unique (T.V: 6). There is also a cylinder as female bust with a well-modeled arm which is typical for Skopje Plain (T.VII: 2). Similar artifacts were found at the neighboring site of Veluška Tumba (T.III: 2, 5). The cubic part of one of the models is with huge vaulted roof and M-like openings (T.IV: 8; T.II: F). Analogous cylinders were found in Optičari where necklase with spherical beads and earrings are also applied (T.IV: 1, 2). Similar objects are confirmed in Grgur Tumba (T.IV: 3) and Dobromiri (T.IV: 9; T.II: F) where a building with domed roof and unusual doors (or windows) is also represented. A rope design (jewelry or dress?) on the chin is added on one of the Mogila fragments (T.V: 4). The model from Živojno (T.V: 5) has no distinguished chin and neck and has a round opening bellow the mouth. The complete anthropomorphic model from Suvodol is crucial for tracing the typology of such artifacts (T.V: 7; T.II: A). Here the house is stylized in the cubic shape with eye-like openings and pubic triangle incised into one wall. The cylinder is modeled as female torso with breasts, head and arms, along with rows of half-rounded bulging. – The Pelagonian Plain (Prilep region). The model from Slavej represents a house schematized as a cube with four pairs of moon-like openings placed on its angles (T.V: 8; T.II: , D). Along with the huge quadrangular openings they resemble mouth and eyes. At the roof angles, four small round openings are perforated, which is more typical for Skopje and Polog regions. There are also three more fragments unearthed at this site (T.IV: 6; T.VI: 3; T.II: G; T.XII: 6). The second one is without anthropomorphic features while the third one is specific by its notched vertex. In Topolčani there are also three fragments of head-cylinders confirmed (T. IV: 7; T.V: 1, 2), the second one being the smallest one in Pelagonia so far, with only 7 cm height. The fragments of cube base with huge central perforations are found as well (T.XII: 8). Smaller fragments of cylinders are also unearthed in Gjumušica. ‘Amzabegovo-Vršnik’ cultural group In the last thirty years a new group of anthropomorphic house models has been confirmed in the regions of Skopje and Polog Plain, Ovče Pole and Middle Povardarie, mostly as part of ‘Amzabegovo-Vršnik’ cultural group.

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

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

resented house with ‘the house of the deceased’ or ‘the house for initiation’ which on a ritual level ‘eat’ the one who enters inside. Ritual use Considering the shape of anthropomorphic house models and their comparison to other adequate folk traditions, several assumptions for their ritual use could be suggested. The numerous openings on the cube could be used for putting objects i.e. substances (food, plants, figurines, fire etc.) in order to stimulate the represented house to be fulfilled with such goods or whatever they symbolized (T. XII: 1-3). The four openings in the corners on cube’s top were also for putting particular substances, so that the four angles indicated the complete house area (T.V: 8; T.VI: 6, 8; T.VII: 10,11; T.IX: 11). The opening on the top of the cylinder might have had two purposes (T.XII: 1, 2): (a) pouring liquids (milk, oil, blood etc.) which were entering into the cube; (b) emanating smoke or steam produced by burned or glimmering material within the cube. The opening perforated on the bottom of models could be associated with the floor or earth where these substances were poured. Analogous ritual actions in the Balkans were practiced within actual houses (during settling or each new year etc.) or with the employment of ritual breads named as ‘house’ which represented the dwelling (T.XIII: 1). Some ethnographic examples suggest that these models might have been used for housing and feasting the souls of the deceased who were former inhabitants of a particular house.

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

ings are so large that lateral walls were modeled as thin columns (T.XVIII: 3), which could be related to their visibility or insertion of larger items into the cube (T.XII: 2, 3). Arch-shaped openings probably represent the actual ‘windows’ of the dwellings (T.XVIII: 2a; T.XX: 5a). There are examples where they are uplifted (T.XVIII: 2a), sprained ( .XVIII: 1 ) or gabled (T.XVIII: 4). The round openings are detected only on several models (T.XV: 5b; T.XVII: 5 ), which could be associated with sun and full moon as they are bringing the light into the house. The oval opening which could be related to an egg or female genitalia is confirmed on three fragments (T.XIX: 3a, T.XX: 2 compare to T.VII: 10), while its position in pairs sometimes might be related to eyes. The eye-shaped openings were registered on five fragments and they were usually in pairs (T. XX: 3, 4, 5 and 7). There is one example with multiplication of two such pairs on one wall and their combination with huge opening on the next wall which is quite similar to a model from Madjari (T.XX: 3 compare to T.VI: 8). The indentation of openings is confirmed in Pelagonia (T.IV: 9; T.V: 6) and Skopje Plain (T.VI: 5; T.XIII: 2 and probably 8), and it can be noticed on two examples in Govrlevo (T.XVII: 3, 4). The small rounded openings which are common for the roof angles are also present on the upper angles of the lateral wall on few fragments (T.XVII: 2).

(4) rear part with a bun (T.XIV: 8, 9). There are also seventeen fragments of hands placed onto the cube cover, thus belonging to type ‘C’ (T.XV: 1; T.XXI: 5-8). They can be roughly or well-produced with bracelets on the humerus or radius (T.XXI: 7, 8). The fingers were usually engraved (T.XXI: 5, 8), but also there are hands with precisely modeled fingers (T.XXI: 6). In Govrlevo there are also fragments of a new type of anthropomorphic house models. The first one belongs to the left upper part of the cylinder with preserved shoulder, a part of a breast and humerus (T.XXI: 1a-b). Although it seems that it belongs to type ‘C’ (T.II: C), yet it is different due to: (1) channel at the neck intended for lid; (2) it has thin and well-modeled wall with polished interior. The other fragment (T.XXI: 2a-b) belongs to the frontal part of the cylinder whose breasts were supplemented with bulging (ornaments). Exactly as the previous fragment, this one also has a polished interior, but without preserved channel. Another fragment is probably a piece of the same anthropomorphic model where fingers were represented as part of a hand positioned onto the cube. According to this, the new type is in relation to type ‘C’ which is distinguished by cylinder with polished inner wall. Some of them had channels for lids which most likely were also anthropomorphic i.e. the face of the represented individual. Such lids with facial features (eyes, nose) were identified in Govrlevo (T.XXI: 3, 4).

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

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

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

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

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

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

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

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Čausidis

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

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

Neolithic anthropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia

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

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

Goce Naumov and Nikos Ä&#x152;ausidis

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

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

–

– , . . 1972. .

–

(

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

VIII . .Э ( я : .

. . .) V-VIII

VII – . .

: 165-192. , . 2003. . : . , . 2005. Каде е нашето минато – вовед кон праисторијата на Пелагонија. : . , . 1993. . , . , .( .), – я: 188-211. . , .1967. . V: 127-167. . , . , . 1988. 1 . Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 9: 31-42. . , . , . 1959. . Зборник на штипскиот Народен музеј I: 61-65. . , . , . 1961. „ “ . Зборник на штипскиот Народен музеј II: 7-40. . , . , . 1976. . Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 2: 85-115. . , ., , ., , . , . 1971. Предисториски култури во Македонија ( ). .

, .

. 1984. . Културно наследство, IX (1982): 39-48. . , . 2000. . Миф, 5 / II: 5-26. . , . 1954. „ “. Весник на Музејско-конзерваторското друштво на НР Македонија 1-2: 19-21. . , . 1954. . Гласник на македонското конзерваторско друштво I-9: 100-142. . , . . 1947. . я я 1947/2: 67-94. . , . . 1951. . я , 2: 465-491. – : . , . 1993. „ “– . , . Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 13: 19-30. . , . 2003. Среден неолит во Горновардарскиот регион ( , , ). , . 2005. „ – “ . ( ). Зборник – Музеј на Македонија (археологија) 2: 25-31. . , . 2006. . Folia archaeologica Balkanica 1: 53-61. . , . 1993. I „ “ . Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 13: 31-41. .

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

, . 2008.

, . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 18: 109-114. . , . 2010. Неолитска населба Писта кај с. Новосело, Велес. XXI , . , . . 2001. я я . : . , . . , . . 1995. . . . .( .), я (Э ), 1: 498-500. : . , K. 2007. Неолитска антропоморфна пластика на територијата на Р. Македонија. ( ). : . – , . 2005. Праисториските дами од Македонија (каталог). : . , J. 1954. . Гласник на Музејско-конзерваторското друштво на НР Македонија 8: 89-98. . , . 1995. . , . I: 177-184. . , . 1982. Старо Скопје со околните тврдини. : . , . 1984. . Уметничкото богатство на Македонија: 12-21. : . , . 1997. . : . , . 2006. , ( ). Studia Mythologica Slavica 9: 59-95. Ljubljana. , . 2009a. . , ., , ., , . , . Неолитските заедници во Република Македонија: 87-153. : . , . 2009 . : . , .( .) Традиционална естетска култура: Тело и одевање: 41-77. : . , . 2009 . Орнаментиката и телесноста во неолитската материјална култура од Република Македонија. M

.( ) . , . 2009 . . , ., , ., , . , . Неолитските заедници во Република Македонија: 87-153. : . , . 2010 . Фрагментирани неолитски фигурини од Говрлево и Зелениково. XXI . . , . 2010 . : VII V . . . , ; , ; , .( .) Предавања на XLIII меѓународен семинар за македонски јазик, литература и култура: 183-194. . , . 2011. . Македонско наследство 36-37: 73-96. . , . 1974. џ . Гласник етнографског музеја 37: 179-228. . , . 2001. / ( ). Македонски фолклор 58-59: 167-186. . , . 2002. Свадбата како обред на премин кај Македонците од Брсјачката етнографска целина. : „ “. , . 2001. . Годишњак града Београда 2000-2001: 11-21. . , . , . , . 2009. Живот у глини: неолитска уметност на тлу Београда: фигурална пластика из збирки Музеја града Београда. : . , ., , ., , . . 2002. . XXIX. . , . . 1981. я . : . , . 1975. . ( ). Зборник на штипскиот народен музеј IV-V (1964-74): 203-246. . , . 1988. џ , – 1981 .. Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 9-30. .

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

, . 1989.

– , . Arheološki Pregled 1987: 36-37.

Ljubljana. , . 1994. . Археолошка карта на Република Македонија – Том I: 2642. . 1994. , . 1995. . Цивилизации на почвата на Македонија 2: Прилози за истражувањето на историјата на културата на почвата на Македонија. : . , . 2009 . . , .( .) Анзабегово: населба од раниот и средниот неолит во Македонија. : . , . 2009 . – . , .( .) Анзабегово: населба од раниот и средниот неолит во Македонија. : . , . , . 1989. „ " . Зборник на трудови: 9-63, . , ., , ., , . , . 1976. Праисторија во Македонија ( ). . , . , . 1975. . Мacedoniae acta archaeologica 1: 25-88. . , . , . 1976. Праисторија во Централна Пелагонија. : . , . . 1990. . : . , . , . 2001. . Македонско наследство 17: 53-69. . , . , . 2005. – . Зборник – Музеј на Македонија (археологија) 2: 47-56. . , . . 1980. . , . .Э , .( .) я – : 327-417. : . – , . 2008. , . Македонско наследство 32: 52-82. . , . 2009. . , ., , ., , . , . Неолитските заедници во Република Македонија: 35-47. : .

, . . 2000. „ “( , 6). я – 2000: 9-24. . , . 2001. Речник на симболи. : . , . 2009. . , ., , ., , . , . Неолитските заедници во Република Македонија: 109-153. : . , . , . 2010. : „ “– . Македонско наследство 36-37: 61-72. . , . , . 2004. . : . , . 1994. Митските слики на Јужните Словени. : . , ., 1995. . Македонија културно наследство: 14-45. . , . 1996. / The house and its symbolic meanings. Македонско наследство / Macedonian Heritage 2: 37-52. . , . 2007. ( ). , .( .), Македонскиот театар во контекст на Балканската театарска сфера: 45-101. : . , . 2008. „ “ ( ). Macedoniae acta archaeologica, 18: 75-92. . , . 2009 . „ “ . . (ed.) , XIII: 53-72. . , . 2009 . – , . ( ), Традиционална естетска култура: тело и одевање: 202-233. Niš: SANU. , . 2009 . : . . . ( .) я 10 „ . . я“: 97-105. : . , . 2010. ( ), Културен живот, 2010 / 1-2: 8-21. . , . во печат. , . .

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

( .): Традиционална естетска култура V: Игра, : . , . , . 2006. ( ), Studia mythologica Slavica, 9: 97-160. Ljubljana. , . , . 2010. Неолитски жртвеници во вид на антропоморфизирана куќа од Говрлево и Зелениково, XXI , . , ., , . , . 2008. :

, , , , . . , . , J. Bartminsky, M. Mencej, . ( .) Кодови словенских култура, Т. 10 (ватра): 13-114. : CLIO. –

–

Adam, L. 1963. Primitivna umetnost. Beograd: Kultura. Ba varov, K. 2008. Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory. Oxford. BAR International Series. Archaeopress. Bailey, D. 1994. The Representation of Gender: Homology or propaganda. Journal of European Archaeology 2.2: 215-227. Aldershot. Bailey, D. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Bartel, B. 1981. Cultural Associations and Mechanisms of Change in Anthropomorphic Figurines during the Neolithic in the Eastern Mediterrean Basin. World Achaeology 13/1: 73-86. Abingdon. Benac, A. 1991. Iz problematike neolitske antropomorfne plastike u Jugoslaviji. Starinar 50/51: 25-34. Beograd. Bešlagić, Š. 1978. Nišani XV i XVI vijeka u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Biehl, P. 1996. Symbolic communication systems: Symbols of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from south-eastern Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 153-176. Aldershot. Biehl, P. F. 2006. Figurines in Action: Methods and Theories in Figurine Research. In Layton, R., Shenan, S. and Stone, P. (eds), A Future for Archaeology: 199-215. London. Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheološki Pregled 1985: 35-36. Ljubljana. Braithwaite, G. 1984. Romano-British Face Pots and Head Pots. Britannia 15: 99-131. London.

Budja, . 2006. The transition to farming and the ceramic trajectories in Western Eurasia: from ceramic figurines to vessels. Documenta Praehistorica XXXIII: 183-201. Ljubljana. Cameroon, E. L. 1997. In Search of Children: Dolls and Agency in Africa. African Arts 30/2: 18-93. Los Angeles. Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South-eastern Europe. London: Routledge. Conkey, M. W. and Tringam, R. E. 1998. Rethinking figurines: a critical view from archaeology of Gimbutas, the “Goddess” and popular culture. In Goodison, L. and Morris, C. (eds.), Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence: 22-45. London: British Museum Press. Curtis, E. S. 1997. The North American Indian: The Complete Portfolios. Köln: Taschen. Čausidis, N. 1995. Prehistory. In Macedonia – Cultural Heritage: 14-45. Skopje: Misla. Čausidis, N. 2009a. „Prozori–oči“ i „vrata–usta“ na neolitskim žrtvenicima tipa „Mati–Kuća“ s područja Republike Makedonije. Histria antiqua, 18/1: 113-128. Pula. Čausidis, N. 2009b. The Black Man in the Mythical Tradition of Macedonia. In Kulavkova, K. ( d.) Interpretations, Vol. 3, Figures of Memory: Black Arab, Skopje: MANU, 73-104. Čausidis, N. 2010. Neolithic Ceramic Figurines in the Shape of a Woman – House from the Republic of Macedonia. In Gheorghiu, D.; Cyphers, A. ( ds), Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America. Morphology, materiality, technology, function and context: 25-35. Oxford: BAR International Series. Dimitrijević, S. 1974. Problem stupnjevanja Starčevačke kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos južnopanonskih nalazišta, rešavanju ovih problema. Materijali, 10: 59-123. Beograd. Elijade, M. 1984. Joga, besmrtnost i sloboda. Beograd. Epštajn, E. 2008. Mwana Hiti: više od lutke. Beograd: Muzej afričke umetnosti. Feest, C. F. and Kann, P. 1992. Des Alterum der Neuen Welt: Voreropäische Kulturen Amerikas. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Felix, M. 1990. Mwana Hiti: Life and Art of the Matrilineal Bantu of Tanzania. Munchen: Verlag Fred Jahn. Fowler, C. 2008. Fractal bodies in the past and present. In Borić, D. and Robb, J. (eds) Past Bodies: Body-Centered Research in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

Galović, R. 1964. Neue Funde der Starcevo - Kultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien. Bericht der Romisch-Germanischen Kommision 43-44 (1962-1963). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co. Garašanin, M. 1971. Anzabegovo – Barutnica: site néolithique à plusieurs couches (fouilles de 1969-1970). In Benac, A., Garašanin, M. et Tasić, N. (reds.) Epoque préhistorique et protohistorique en Yougoslavie: recherches et résultats: 136-138. Beograd: VIII UISPP Congrés. Garašanin, M. 1979. Centralno-balkanska zona. In A. Benac (ed.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II – neolit: 79-212. Sarajevo: Academy of Science and Art of Bosnia and Hercegovina. Garašanin M. 1982. Praistorija (Umetnost na tlu Jugoslavije). Beograd – Zagreb – Mostar: Jugoslavija-Spektar - Prva književna komuna. Gheorghiu, D. 2001. The Cult of Ancestors in the East European Chalcolithic. A Holographic Approach. In Biehl, P. et al. (eds.) The Archaeology of Cult and Religion: 73-88. Budapest: Archaeolingua. Gheorghiu, D. and Cyphers, A. 2010. Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic miniature figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America: morphology, materiality, technology, function and context. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress. Gimbutas, M. 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe. London: Thames and Hudson. Gimbutas, M. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia. Los Angeles: The Regents of the University of California. Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. London: Thames and Hudson. Gimbutas M. 2001. The Language of the Goddess. New York: Thames and Hudson. Grbić, M., Mačkić P., Nadj Š., Simoska D. i Stalio B. 1960. Porodin: kasno-neolitsko naselje na Tumbi kod Bitolja. Bitolj: Narodni muzej Bitolj i Arheolośki institut – Beograd. Haaland, R. 2007. Porridge and Pot, Bread and Oven: Food Ways and Symbolism in Africa and the Near East from the Neolithic to the Present. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17:2, 165-182. Hansen, S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit: Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupfzeit in Südosteuropa I und II. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Hardie, R. 2007. Gender Tensions in Figurines in SE Europe, in Malone, C. and Barowclough, D. (eds.), Cult in Context, 82-89. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Hoernes, M. 1925. Urgeschichte der Bildenden Kunst in Europa. Wien: Kunstverlag Anton Schroll and Co.

Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies: Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Karmanski, S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A Neolithic Settlement Near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Milano: Societa per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli – Venezia Giulia. Kitanoski, B. 1989. Vrbjanska Čuka – neolithic settlement. Arheološki pregled – 1987: 47-48. Ljubljana. Korkuti, M. 1995. Neolitikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Kuijt, I. and Cheson, M. 2004. Lumps of Clay and Pieces of Stone: Ambiguity, Bodies and Identity as Portrayed in Neolithic Figurines. In Bernbeck, R. and Pollock, S. (eds.), Archaeologies of the Near East: Critical Perspectives: 152-183. London: Basil Blackwell. Lesure, R. G. 2002. The Goddess Diffracted: Thinking about the Figurines of Early Villages. Current Anthropology 43/4: 587-610. Chicago. Mantu Lazarovici, C. - M. 2004. Sanctuarele Precucuteni-Cucuteni. Arheologia Moldovei, XXV: 47 - 67. Bucuresti. Marangou, C. 1997. Neolithic Micrography: Miniature Modeling at Dimitra. In Grammenos, D. (ed.), Neolithike Makedonia: 227 - 265. Athena: Ekdose Ton Tameion Arhailogikon Poron Kai Apallotrionseon. Marcus, J. 1996. The importance of context in interpreting figurines. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6: 285-291. Cambridge. Mella rt, . 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson. Meskell, L. 2008. The nature of beast: curating animals and ancestors at Çatal Höyük. World Archaeology 40/3: 373-389. Abingdon. Mina, M. 2008. Carving Out Gender in the Prehistoric Aegean: Anthropomorphic Figurines of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 21/2: 213-239. London. Müller-Karpe, H. 1968. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte - Band II. München. Müller-Karpe, H. 1974. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte - Band III. München. Nakamura, C. and Meskell, L. 2009. Articulate Bodies: Forms and Figures at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16: 205-230. New York. Nanoglou, S. 2006. Regional Perspectives on the Neolithic Anthropomorphic Imagery of Northern Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19/2: 155-176. London.

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

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

Oelmann, F. 1959. Pfahlhausurnen. Germania 37: 205-223. Berlin. Pavuk, J. 1981. Umenie a život kamennej. Tatran. Profantova N. 2004. Rane stredoveka bronzova kovani ze zamosti, Hradište Prachovske Skaly, okres Jičin. In (no eds.) Zbornik na počest Dariny Mialekovej: 293-302. Nitra. Radauš - Ribarić, Szenczi, B. i Konan, M. 1978. Narodni vezovi Hrvatske. Zagreb: Grafi čki zavod Hrvatske. Sanev, V. 1989. Sredselo / Mrševci – Neolithic settlement. Arheološki pregled – 1987: 41-42. Ljubljana. Sanev, V. 2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plastic of Anzabegovo-Vršnik Cultural Group of the Republic of Macedonia. In Tasić, N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garašanin: 171-191. Belgrade: SASA. Simoska, D. i Kuzman, P. 1990. Tumba / Optičari Multistrata Neolithic Settlement. Arheološki pregled – 1988: 63-66. Ljubljana. Skeates, R. 1994. Ritual, context, and gender in Neolithic south-eastern Italy. Journal of European Archaeology 2.2: 199-214. Stalio, B. 1968. Naselje i stan neolitskog perioda. In Trifunović, L. (ed.) Neolit Centralnog Balkana: 77-106. Beograd: Narodni muzej – Beograd. Stalio, B. 1977. Neolit na tlu Srbije. Beograd. Narodni muzej. Stanković, S. 1986. Žrtvenici i prosopomorfni poklopci iz Vinče. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu – Filozofski fakultet. Šemrov, A. and Turk, P. 2008. Neolithic Art in the Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije. Talalay, L. 1987. Rethinking the Function of Clay Figurine Legs from the Neolithic Greece: An Argument by Analogy. Journal of American Archaeology 91/2: 161-169. Boston. Talalay, E. T. 1993. Deities, Dolls and Devices, Neolithic Figurines from Franchthi Cave. In T. W. Jacobsen (ed.). Excavation in Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fascicle 9, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Talalay, L. 2004. Heady Business: Skulls, Heads and Decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia and Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 17/2: 139-163. London. Tasić, N. 2009. Nemi svedoci jednog vremena: figuralna umetnost Vinče. In Nikolić, D. (ed.) Vinča - praistorijska metropola: istaživanja 1908-2008: 139-163. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet univerziteta u Beogradu; Narodni muzej u Beogradu; Muzej grada Beograda.

Неолитски антропоморфни садови во Република Македонија

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

151-169. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Watrous, L. V. 1991. The Origin and Iconography of the Late Minoan Painted Larnax. Hesperia 60/3: 285-307. Wenzel, M. 1965. Ukrasni motivi na stećcima. Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša. Zdravkovski, D. 2008. Neolitska umetnost na območju epublike Makedonije / Neolithic art in the region of the Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije. Zdravkovski, D. i Saržoski, S. 1989. Tumba / Palčište, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age Settlement. Arheološki pregled – 1987: 43. Ljubljana.

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.I

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.II

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.III

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.IV

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.V

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.VI

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.VII

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.VIII

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.IX

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.X

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XI

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XII

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XIII

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XIV

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XV

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XVI

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XVII

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XVIII

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XIX

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XX

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXI

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXII

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXIII

100

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXIV

101

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXV

102

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXVI

103

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXVII

104

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXVIII

105

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXIX

106

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXX

107

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

T.XXXI

108

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

T.XXXII

109

T.I.

– ,„ “, – ,„ “, –„ “, , – ,„ j “, – ,„ “, –„ “, – ј ,„ – – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – „Ѓ “. – ј ,„ “, – ,„ “, – , „Ѕ “, – џ ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ј, „ “, – ,„ – “, –„ “, , – , „Ѓ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, – ,„ “, „ –„ “,

“,

“, ќ , . ( .

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

ј : ).

ќ , . ј : . 1, 2. (Čausidis 1995, 31, 30); 3, 4, 7. (Grbić i dr. 1960, T.VIII: 1976, . 43); 6. (Gimbutas 1974, 62 – Fig. 34); 8. ( . 43); 9. (Garašanin 1979, T.XVI: 7). ; 2, 5.

111

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

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

(

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

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

ќ , . ј : 2005, 51 – T.IV: 7, 4); 3. џ ( ( 2005, 63 – . . 47); 5. ( 1976, . 91); 7. ( (Kitanoski 1989, 48 – sl.4).

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

(

ќ , . ј : ( 2005, 54 – . . 38, 56 – . . 40); 3. ( 2005, 51 – T.IV: 1); 4. џ (Sanev 2006, 185 – Fig. 26); 5. (Sanev 2006, 186 – Fig. (Zdravkovski 2008, 221); 7. џ (Zdravkovski 2008, 185); 8. џ ( 2005, 60 – . . 44).

T.VI. 1, 2.

29); 6.

ќ , . ј : ( , 68 – . . 52); 2. ( 2005, 39); 3. (Garašanin 1982, 9 – sl. 4); 4. ( 2005, 64 – . . 48); 5. ( 1976, 90 – . 7; 6. (Sanev 1989, 42 – Fig. 4); 7, 8, 9. ( 1975, T.XIV: 4, 3, 5). 10. џ (Čausidis 1995, 15); 11. (Čausidis 1995, 33).

T.VII. 1.

T.VIII.

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

, ,

, : 9, 10. 12, 13. , – , 2008 .).

, ,9 ,

, 19-20 ,A (Valcarenghi 1994, 196: 135, 174: 115); , , ( 1982, 169 – . 2: 7,13); 5. , 19-20 , ( 1947, 83 – . 14); 6. , Blatnica, (Profantova 2004, 296 – Obr. 3: 3); 7. , (Gimbutas 2001, 38 – Fig. 62); 8. ( ), ( . 2002, . 8). , , . (Garašanin 1979, T.XXXVII: 7, 8); 11. џ (Zdravkovski 2008, 223); , (

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

112

, „Vierge Ouvrante“, 15 , (Neumann 1963, Pl.176, , : , 15 , ; 3. , , Çatal Höyük, (Mellaart 1967, 125 – Fig. 38); 4. (Neumann 1963, Pl. 174); 5. „ . “( ),

Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија

: 6.

, . . ., Veio,

16. , „ “; 6. 1990, 130 – . 75).

(

T.XII. 1, 2, 3. . ( 2008, 86 – T.I: 1, 2, 3); 4, 5. ( 2008, 112- .IV). 2005, 51-T.IV: 2); 7. ( 2003, 144-99); 8. 2005, 55-T.X: 1); 9. , , , . 19); 10. , T.XIII. 1. „ “( 216 – . 15: 2); 2-6, 8. (Sanev 2006, 187 – Fig. 30, 189 – Fig. 31 a, b; 3. , – Fig. 7.13).

), џ

: – . 6,8 cm (Sanev 2006, fig. 11). – . 5,5 cm ( – – . 12,4 cm ( – – . 7,0 cm ( –

.XXIII. 1. 2. 3. 4.

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

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

, .

(

( (

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

( 2003, 69 – , Plateia Magoula Zarku, ќ

.XXII. 1. џ 2. 3. 4.

, : 6.

T.XIV–T.XXI.

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

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

–

2005, . 5). 2005, . 17). – 2005, . 26). . 1976, . 202).

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

– – – –

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

: – . 12 cm (Šemrov and Turk 2008, fig. 36). – . 10 cm ( – 2005, – . 7,2 cm ( – 2005, – (Sanev 2006, fig. 18).

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

: . : .

). ).

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

: . : .

). ).

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

: : : :

). ). ). ).

. 12). . 9).

: . . . .

113

Г. Наумов и Н. Чаусидис

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

– – – – – – –

ј . 9,1 cm (Gimbutas 1976c, fig. 191). ( 1989, .VI: 7). . 3,9 cm (Gimbutas 1976, fig. 160). ( 1989, . VI: 5). . 4,8 cm (Gimbutas 1976, fig. 194). . 5,9 cm (Gimbutas 1976, figs. 189, 190). . 92 cm (Gimbutas 1976, figs. 209).

.XXX. 1. – . 7,5 cm ( 2. – ( 3. – . 6 cm ( 4. – . 6,7 cm ( .XXXI. 1. 2. .XXXII. 1. 2. 3. 4.

114

– –

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

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

). ).

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

–

. 27).

CIP – Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека „Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје 903.23/.29-023:599.89(497.7)„634“ НАУМОВ, Гоце Неолитски антропоморфни предмети во Република Македонија / Гоце Наумов и Никос Чаусидис ; [англиски превод на резимето Андријана Драговиќ] = Neolithic antropomorphic objects in the Republic of Macedonia / Goce Naumov and Nikos Ćausidis ; [summary translation into English Andrijana Dragović]. – Скопје : Магор = Skopje : Magor, 2011. – 114 стр. : илустр. ; 30 см Фусноти кон текстот. – Библиографија стр. 71-77. – Каталог на илустрации: стр. 78-114. ISBN 978-608-223-066-5 1. Насп. ств. насл. 2. Чаусидис, Никос [автор]. – I. Naumov, Goce види Наумов, Гоце а) Антропоморфни предмети, неолитски – Македонија COBISS.MK-ID 89718026