_UDK 903.02'i2/'i5(4/5)''633/634'':575.i:29i.37_
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIII (2006)
The transition to farming
and the ceramic trajectories in Western Eurasia:
from ceramic figurines to vessels
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI
miha.budja@ff.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT - In Eurasia the invention of ceramic technology and production of fired-clay vessels has
not necessarily been related to the dynamics of the transition to farming. The invention of ceramic
technology in Europe was associated with female and animal figurine making in Gravettian techno-
complex. The fired-clay vessels occurred first in hunter-gatherer contexts in Eastern Eurasia a millen-
nia before the agriculture. The adoption of pottery making in Levant seems to correlate with the col-
lapse of the 'ritual economy', social decentralization and community fragmentation in the Levantine
Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In South-eastern Europe the adoption of pottery making was closely associated
with social, symbolic and ritual hunter-gatherers' practices.
IZVLEČEK - Začetki in razvoj keramične tehnologije ter lončarstvo v Evraziji niso vezani na pojav
kmetovanja. V Evropi so najstarejši keramični artefakti - figurice v obliki ženskih in živalskih teles -
dokumentirati v Gravettianu. Najstarejše lončene posode se pojavijo v vzhodni Aziji, tisočletja pred
kmetovanjem. VLevantipojav lončarstva sovpada s kolapsom 'ritualne ekonomije' in družbeno de-
centralizacijo na koncu predkeramičnega neolitika. V jugovzhodni Evropi so začetki lončarstva po-
vezani z različnimi socialnimi, simbolnimi in ritualnimi praksami lovcev in nabiralcev.
KEY WORDS - ceramic technology invention; demic diffusion; ritual economy; transition to farming
Introduction
The appearance of ceramic technology and produc-
tion of fired-clay vessels has an extended history
that has not necessarily been related to the dynam-
ics of the transition to farming. It is increasing clear
that diverse forms of ceramic technology had been
'inhabited' into the agency of Eurasian hunter-gathe-
rers long before the emergence of sedentary social
structures appeared. The invention of ceramic tech-
nology in Europe was associated with female and
animal figurine making in Gravettian techno-com-
plex, dated to about 26 000 BP. The introduction of
fired-clay vessels occurred first in hunter-gatherer
contexts in Eastern Eurasia, where it was associated
with small-scale sedentary or semi-sedentary commu-
nities millennia before the advent of agriculture.
The adoption of pottery making in Levant seems to
have been caught up in processes of social decen-
tralization and community fragmentation, which
were part of the collapse of the 'ritual economy' in
the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In the South-east-
ern Europe the adoption of pottery making seems to
have been incorporated within the hunter-gatherers'
social, domestic and mortuary structures. It was the
agency of hunter gatherers which initiated and made
possible, both the later structural transformations in
the economy, but also the almost simultaneous dis-
persal of a new form of ceramic materiality into the
region.
Neolithic demic diffusion and the ceramic
figurine paradox
Jacques Cauvin (1978.134; 2000.22-29, 204-205,
207-208) has postulated that Levantine ceramic fe-
male figurines were markers of the new 'expansio-
nist' religion, which became a powerful social force
and facilitated at an ideological level the transition
to an agricultural way of life. In identifying what he
understood was clear evidence for an inter-linked
economic and religious transformation he believed
that he had also discovered the reason why hunter
gatherer people in villages outside the Levant did
not develop subsistence production for themselves.
He suggested that their failure to move over to the
'humanisation' of art and related new divinities
could also have prevented them from moving over
to a new type of economic practice. According to this
interpretative scenario Europe thus could not have
become Neolithicised until the 'wave of advance' and
ceramic female figurines had reached the Balkans.
It was suggested recently that the distribution of Neo-
lithic ceramic female figurines appears to have links
with human genetic evidence. As Roy King and Pe-
ter A. Underhill (2002.707-714) have hypothesised,
these figures are perhaps 'the best genetic predictor'
of Neolithic farmers' haplogrups and of the (^po-
pulation dynamics in Europe and Western Asia. It is
due to the postulates that their geographic distribu-
tion correlates closely with the southeast-northwest
cline of frequencies of Y chromosome markers and
associated haplogroup Eu9 (J-M67* and J-M92 ac-
cording to Semino et al. 2004.1030) in modern po-
pulations in Asia Minor and Europe, and, that all ap-
pear to originate in the same area of south-central
Anatolia. The ceramic female figurines were hypo-
thesised to appear at the same time as the emer-
gence of cereal cultivation in the PPNA of the Levant.
Moreover, they were believed to symbolise a series
of gender and symbolic attributes that were carried
forward with the spread of farming and went on to
constitute part of the 'new ma-
teriality' that defined the key
economic and ideological fea-
tures of the Balkan Neolithic
(Gimbuts 1989; Biehl 1996.
153-175; Marangou 1996.
176-2002; Chapman 2000;
Bailey 2005; Hansen 2005.
199-200).
mal figurines and constructional ceramics were cer-
tainly not within the cultural domain of earlier Le-
vantine hunter-gatherer societies, and nor they did
not appear only on the 'eve of the appearance of an
agricultural economy' as Cauvin (2000.25) sugges-
ted. The tradition of making figurines can be traced
back to Central Europe, across the Russian Plain, into
southern Siberia, and ultimately back to the Levant
and Northern Africa. It is now clear that the clay fig-
urine tradition was deeply embedded in pre-existing
Eurasian hunter-gatherer social and symbolic con-
texts and that the dates of these figures begins as
earlier as 26 000 years BP (Verpoorte 2001; Budja
2004.59-81; 2005.53-72). For example, more than
16000 fragments of anthropomorphic figurines, zoo-
morphic statuettes, pellets, 'earplugs', flat fragments
and constructional ceramic were recovered from the
Central European Palaeolithic sites of Dolni Vestoni-
ce, Pavlov, Petrkovice, and Predmosti in Moravia. In
the same region poorly preserved fragments of fired
clay have also have also been recorded at Krems-
Wachtberg, Moravany-Lopata, Jarosov, and hypothe-
tically at Kasov and Cejkov (Soffer and Vandiver
1997.383-402; Verpoorte 2001) (Figs. 1 and 2), and
while some may have been statuettes, their exact
form remains unclear. Further to the East, on the
Russian Plain, low-temperature-fired clay fragments
were reported at Zaraisk and Kostenki Gravettian
sites. At the latter, located on the banks of the River
Don, more than four hundred fragments were found,
contextually associated with marl and ivory Venus
figures, and animal statuettes (Iakovleva 1999.125-
134; Soffer, Adovasio and Hyland 2000.511-537;
Soffer et al. 2000.814). Finally, the most easterly an-
thropomorphic ceramic figurine was found at an
open air site at Maininskaya (Maina), on the left bank
of the Yenisei River in Siberia (Vasil'ev 1985.193-
196; Maina on-line).
All these early ceramic figurine assemblages can be
assigned to the Pavlovian, a local variant of the East-
ern Gravettian techno-complex, which dates back to
Site
Anthropomorphic
Figurative
'Ceramics'
Dolm Vestonice I
Dolm Vestonice II - north
Dolni Vestonice II — west
Dolm Vestonice III
Pavlov I
Pavlov II
Predmosti I
Jarosov II
Krems-Wachtberg (note 2)
12 (note 1)
8 (note 1)
>721
>2(10?)
1
> 100
?
>2
> 5,760
431
7
1?
- 10,000
- 135
>2
I?
3
However, the introduction of Fig. 1. Statistics of ceramic assemblages of Upper Palaeolithic Pavlovian
ceramic female statuettes, ani- sites in Central Europe (after Verpoorte 2001.Tab. 5.1).
Fig. 2. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic figurines from the Up-
per Palaeolithic Pavlovian sites Dolm Vestonice, Pavlov and Predmosti
(from Verpoorte 2001.Figs. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, 46, 3.73, 8.1 and 54).
around 26 000 BP (Verpoorte 2001.86). For example,
the ceramics at Kostenki were embedded in range
of contexts, the oldest of which dates to 24100 BP,
and the most recent, to 18 000 BP (Soffer et al. 2000.
814). Two dates are available for a ceramic figurine
at Mayininskaya: at 16 540±170BP and 16176±180
BP (Vasil'ev 1985.193-196; Vasil'ev et al. 2002.526,
Tab. 1). In addition, a lesser known fired ceramic
sculpture, possibly representing a wild Barbary sheep
(Ovis tragelaphus), was recovered from Tamar Hat
Cave in Algeria, in an Ibero-Maurisian context which
has been dated to 19800±500 bp (Saxon 1976.327-
329).
These finds point clearly to the fact that knowledge
of ceramic technology had become 'embedded' into
the agency of Eurasian hunter-gatherers many mil-
lennia before the appearance of food-producing agri-
cultural societies. We must also note two other facts,
first, that the making of ceramic figurines predates
the making of pottery, and second, that pottery was
not necessarily associated with the emergence of
farming, as ceramic vessels were being made before
the practice of early agriculture in Eastern Asia, and
subsequently in the Levant, and Anatolia in South-
western Asia.
If we look more closely at the contexts in which early
hunter gatherer ceramics were produced we can at-
tempt to generate insights into social significance of
these sculptures. For example, in Central Europe, a
total of sixteen thousand ceramic objects have been
found in a series of Gravettian and Pavlovian period
Palaeolithic hunter gatherer camps, which points to-
wards the widespread practice of the ceramic craft.
At the famous site of Dolni
Vestonice there was an 'oven-
like hearth' located in the cen-
tre of the hut-like structure,
where "two thousand pieces
of 'ceramic', among which
about one hundred and se-
venty-five with traces of mo-
delling" were dispersed (Ver-
poorte 2001.56 and 128). In
addition, other ceramic finds
had been deposited in the vi-
cinity of a single male burial,
around a triple burial, and in
the vicinity of a large hearth
(Verpoorte 2001.95). The
available statistics indicate
that almost all the figurines
and statuettes were delibera-
tely fragmented, although many of the pellets and
balls which form a large part of the ceramic inven-
tory was found in an intact state.
Vandiver, Soffer, Klima and Svoboda (1989.1002-
1008; Soffer et al. 1993.259-275; Sofer and Van-
diver 1997.383-401) generated some very interes-
ting insights into the material by attempting to re-
construct the ceramic production process by exami-
ning the technological skills involved. They discove-
red that the local loess was suitable for shaping the
female figurines, animal statuettes and pellets. Figu-
rines and statuettes had been made from several
small pieces of clay joined together, with heads, legs,
feet, ears and tails shaped separately and then at-
tached to the bodies. Firing temperatures were low,
between 500° and 800°C. However, the most impor-
tant finding was widespread evidence that thermal
shock, rather than breakage, had caused the frag-
mentation of the artefacts. This explosive reaction
occurs when clay is subjected to sudden increases in
temperature, for example during firing, and is espe-
cially violent when the clay is not fully dry. The re-
searchers discovered that the figurines had been
either dried or partially fired, but then subjected to
a deliberate re-wetting after which they were cast in-
to the fire where they would explode loudly sending
fragments flying in many directions. Rather than
being evidence for poor mastery of ceramic techno-
logy, they concluded that the communities were care-
fully exploiting and manipulating the inherent cha-
racteristics of the clay, with thermal shocking used
deliberately for special visual and audible effect. This
production for spectacular destruction was clearly of
greater significance to the community than creation
of an enduring and final artefact. In contrast, all
ivory objects and stone figurines survive in fairly
complete states. It is surprising that the entoptics, ge-
nerally associated with the shaman's altered states
of consciousness, were not attached to the new me-
dium, the ceramics, although being broadly applied
to ivory and bone imagery, and also stone figurines
(Marshack 1991.24; Svoboda et al. 1996.167-168;
Lewis-Williams 2002; 2004.107-111). The sugges-
tions that the audio-visual effects of 'magic transub-
stantiation, the conversion of mud or dust into stone'
(see Childe below), and figurine fragmentation sim-
ply replace them, and the visual and audible magic
of the new medium, become accessible to the all
members of community remain hypothetical.
We may postulate the ceramic female figurines are
'predictors', to paraphrase King and Underhill, of the
Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers' as much as the Neoli-
thic farmers' genetically determined haplogrups in
Eurasia. It is unlikely that they represent the mate-
rialisation of the ideological conditio sine qua non
for the successful transition to farming or the demic
diffusion and the associated replacement of indige-
nous European population by which farmers expan-
ded geographically, carrying with them their own
culture (Budja 2005.53-72). We must note that the
European genetic landscape was reshaped recently
by the identification of subclades IIa, I1b*, I1b2,
and I1c of I Y chromosomes. The haplogroup I is the
only autochthonous haplogroup that is almost enti-
rely restricted to the European continent where it
shows frequency peaks in two areas, Scandinavia
and Southeastern Europe (Semino et al. 2000.1155-
1159; Rootsi et al. 2004.129-134; Barać et al. 2003.
535-542; Peričić et al. 2005.1964-1975; see also
Peričić et al. and Rootsi in this volume). We must
note that I1b* lineages expanded from the refuge in
South-eastern Europe before the Neolithic at ca
11 100+4800 BP.
The invention of fired-clay vessels technology
The invention of vessel technology has become archa-
eologically conceptualized with pottery making since
Morgan (1878) hypothesised that in context of hu-
man social evolution 'lower barbarism' could be dis-
tinguished from 'upper savagery' by the presence of
vessels, and, since Childe (1951) put forward the idea
that pottery making represented '...the earliest con-
scious utilization by man of a chemical change...',
and went on to suggest that the ceramic vessels were
the universal characteristic of Neolithic farming com-
munities and the markers of their cultural identity.
More recently it has been suggested that early pot-
tery actually occurred first in hunter-gatherer con-
texts in Eastern Eurasia, where it was associated with
small-scale sedentary or semi-sedentary communities.
Currently, the earliest known dates for ceramic ves-
sels are from Southern China, where the direct dat-
ing of pottery at Miaoyan and Yuchanyan sites, based
on insoluble residues, yield 14C values of 17 200-
16300 calBC (15 220+260 BP [BA94137b]) and
16150-15400 calBC respectively (14390+230 BP
[BA95057b]) (Zhao and Wu 2000.236-237; Pear-
son 2005.823). In the Russian Far East very early
pottery found was also produced by hunter gathe-
rer societies at the sites of Gromatukha and Gasya
and has been dated to between 14 560-13 070 calBC
(13 240 BP+85 [AA-20939] and 14160-12 530 calBC
(12960+120 BP [LE-1781] (Kuzmin 2002.41,Tab.
1; Zhushchikhovsaya 2005.13,17). Kuzmin, on con-
trary suggests there was an almost simultaneous ap-
pearance of pottery in Southern China at c. 13 700-
13 300 BP, in Japan at c. 13 500 BP, and in the Rus-
sian Far East at c. 13 300 BP (Kuzmin 2006.362-
371; see also Keally et al. 2004.349).
It was hypothesized that the earliest pottery was
fired at less than 250° C (Pearson 2005.823) or at
about 350° C (Zhushchikhovsaya 2005.14-15). This
seems unlikely, as vessels fired below 350° C are not
appropriate for boiling food, the presence of which
has been confirmed by organic residues. The earliest
vessels are described as deep bowls, with flat or
pointed bases, with walls up to two centimetres
thick. The estimated volume of the pots is approxi-
mately 5.5 to 6 litres. The secondary burning, carbo-
nized adhesion, soot and water lines seen on many
fragments, show that the basic functions of the pot-
tery were for boiling water and food or other orga-
nic materials (513C values are closest to C3 plants
and herbivore meat) and extracting fish oils from sal-
monids (Keally, Taniguchi and Kuzmin 2003.5;
Kuzmin 2002.42; Zhushchikhovsaya 2005.15, 29).
These data correspond well with the concept of
'hearth-centred fe-male activities' that stem from in-
creased levels of group sedentism, and are linked to
an increasingly gendered focus of food processing
and cooking, centred at/or around the hearth (Haa-
land 1997.381).
In recognising that the production of fired-clay vessels
has an extended history, we must acknowledge that
the emergence of this technology may not necessa-
rily have been related to the technical and economi-
cal trajectories and dynamics of the transition to far-
ming (see below), as had been suggested by Childe.
It is increasing clear that diverse forms of ceramic tech-
nology had been 'inhabited' into the agency of Eura-
sian hunter-gatherers long before the emergence of
sedentary social structures appeared. Moreover, these
hunter gatherer ceramic technologies included not
only vessels, but also the much older practice of ma-
king figurines from fired clay. In fact, the earliest Eu-
ropean ceramic assemblages consist of anthropomor-
phic and zoomorphic figurines, pellets, 'earplugs' and
'structural ceramics' rather than pottery vessels, and
have been dated to the Pavlovian, a local variant of
the Eastern Gravettian techno-complex, dated to
about 26000 BP (Verpoorte 2001. 86).
Why ceramic vessels?
To answer the question 'Why clay pots?' Brian Hay-
den (1995; 2001; 2003) has suggested an economi-
cally oriented socio-political scenario, based on the
interconnected concepts of 'private ownership','eco-
nomically based competition' and 'prestige techno-
logies' which appeared among complex hunter-gathe-
rers and early farmers. He hypothesised that cera-
mic vessels were first created to impress guests at
communal feasts. Pottery could be made in unusual
forms and decorated in different ways, making it an
ideal medium for the host to accrue prestige by ser-
ving food and drink during the event.
Hayden argued that the emergence of pottery as a
'prestige technology' can be linked to the critical eco-
nomic distinction between 'generalized' and 'com-
plex' hunter-gatherers. While sharing food is an ab-
solute obligation among the former, the private ow-
nership of stored food and the competitive use of
food resources together with socio-economic inequa-
lities are characteristic of the latter, trans-egalitarian
societies. Hayden (1995.258) suggests that:
"Once technologies evolve to the point where pri-
vate ownership and economically based competi-
tion can be sustained without immediate detri-
mental effects, it seems that some individuals in
every community attempt to aggrandize themselves
and to acquire material, social and political ben-
efits for themselves and their families."
Their advantage was maintained through competi-
tive feasting during which aspiring 'aggrandizers'
could display their wealth, power and prestige, there-
by signalling their successes and attracting new fol-
lowers, but also through acts of conspicuous redistri-
bution which would generate social debts in the
wider collective towards the emerging leader. The
crowded and intensely social nature of communal
feasting represent ideal conditions for bringing se-
lected products and substances into the focus of
wider attention. The vessels used to prepare and
serve these foods and beverages would also serve as
a powerful means of advertising the prestige, wealth
and influence of the event sponsor.
It has been suggested repeatedly that the emergence
of social ranking in the farming communities of the
Early Eurasian Neolithic grew out of cycles of compe-
titive feasting. These became closely linked to both
agricultural intensification, and the desire to pro-
duce more exotic foods (for example, domestic ani-
mals and cereals), as well as to the increasingly wide-
spread production and use of ceramic serving bowls.
The quantity, shape and size of pots associated with
luxury foods formed an important indicator of house-
hold status (Hayden 2001.59; 2003.458-469; see
also Van der Veen 2003.405-427). While the pres-
ence of large vessels may point to the occurrence of
communal feasts, a change from large communal
pots and serving bowls to the use of individual plates
and drinking vessels may also point towards a shift
away from eating from a communal bowl to the con-
sumption of individual portions.
This 'competitive feasting' hypothesis for the emer-
gence of agriculture was based on ethnographers'
observations of trans-egalitarian societies in which
"the primary force behind intensified subsistence
production is not food shortage, but the desire to
obtain social and political advantages - to obtain
the most desirable mates, to create the most ad-
vantageous alliances, to wield the most political
power" (Hayden 2003.465).
We must note, however, that domestic foodstuffs as
luxury foods and the use of ceramic vessels as serv-
ing pots do not necessarily have to occur together (if
at all) in contexts of transition to farming. The social
dynamics of feasting can produce trans-egalitarian so-
cieties with or without the presence of either farming
or pottery, and as the ethnographic parallels show
that 103 of 862 non-sedentary and non-agricultural
societies were pottery-making (cfr. Rice 1999.28).
Why so many ceramic figurines and why the
absence of ceramic vessels in the West Asian
Pre-Pottery Neolithic?
The first occurrence of ceramic vessels in Western
Eurasia at circa 6900-6800 calBC marks the transi-
tion from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) to the
Pottery (or Late) Neolithic. The earlier pottery as-
semblages consist of coarse-wares, which are plant-
tempered and undecorated. Several centuries pass
before the emergence of elaborate painted styles
and diverse shapes, which suggests that pottery had
acquired a much wider significance in wider social
contexts (Le Miere et Picon 1999.5-26; Aurenche
et al. 2001.1197; Akkermans et al. 2006.123-156;
Kozlowski and Aurenche 2005). However, the know-
ledge of firing clay was older than the first pottery
vessels. We see the production of fired ceramic fe-
male and animal figurines from the very start of Pre-
Pottery Neolithic (PPNA), at about 10 200 calBC on-
ward, although these were being produced alongside
'white ware' vessels of carved sandstone, alabaster
and marble.
The Early Neolithic is marked by a series of inter-re-
lated changes in subsistence practices, economic sys-
tems, the emergence of built environments, and in
the formalization of ritual and religious practices.
These diverse trajectories culminate in the Middle,
Late and Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNC) peri-
ods that span c 9800-7300 calBC. In this period the
estimated mean site size increases dramatically from
3 to 12 hectares, with shifts in the control of resour-
ces into centralized larger settlements, and increas-
ing population aggregation into regional centres.
These transformations in the built environment also
reflect ideological trajectories in two social domains,
the first, in the rise of monumental 'public structu-
res', and second, with 'ritual' architecture placed
both inside and outside settlement boundaries. Most
ritual buildings of this period were constructed with
unique architectural features. They often appear to
have been situated in highly visible locations and
physically separated from residential areas. The re-
sidential area is marked by a shift from oval to small-
scale sub-rectangular architecture to standardized
rectangular multi-roomed buildings. Buildings were
constructed, some with two floors, of stone and/or
unfired mud brick in tandem with coloured lime-pla-
ster floors which curved up to the walls. The very
small size of the cells suggests they were used for sto-
rage and other facilities. Geometrically shaped cera-
mic objects - counting tokens - were found in some
of these settings at Ain Ghazal, Mureybet, Cheikh Has-
san, Tell Aswad, Tepe Asiah, Tell Ramad (Schmandt-
Besserat 1992.168, 170-171; Iceland, on line).
While there is evidence for domesticated caprines at
some Middle PPNB settlements, by the end of the
Late PPNB domesticated species including goat and
sheep, pig and cattle, provided the evident bulk of
meat protein. Herding emerged in the context of
crop cultivation, and an 'intensive mixed farming'
was well suited to the provisioning of nuclear house-
holds. Culling patterns for ovicaprines reflect a stra-
tegy of keeping animals primarily for meat produc-
tion rather than dairying. It has been suggested that
the economic practices of small-scale herding and
the close control of herds in the vicinity of settle-
ments, rather than the keeping of extensive, loosely
controlled herds, would fit well with a relative de-
gree of household autonomy (Flannery 2002.417-
433; Byrd 2000.63-98; Wright 2000.89-121; 2005;
Bogaard 2005.184-198).
In these early farming communities mortuary, ritual
and cultic practices, as well as the lack of obvious
material differentiation among individual burials,
have all been interpreted as evidence that the com-
munity was practising the intentional homogeniza-
tion of community members at times of death, which
may have emerged as a strategy for minimizing dif-
ferences and tensions within communities and be-
tween households at a time of emerging social and
economic differentiation. These community rites are
also believed to have included both primary and se-
condary mortuary rituals which involved skull remo-
val and plastering. In addition to these practices,
there is evidence that large plastered statues were
being produced, some about half life-size, which were
displayed in upright positions within public structu-
res (Goring-Morris 2000.103-136; Kuijt 1996.313-
336; 2000.75-102; 2001.80-99; Kuijt, Goring-Mor-
ris 2002.361-440). These practices persist over 3000
years and the high-profile nature of these public ce-
remonies suggest both a degree of community cohe-
sion, as well as the persistence of a common under-
lying belief system.
There are hints, however, that certain individuals
were afforded special treatment after death, perhaps
an indication of the growing tensions between com-
munity cohesion, growing social differentiation and
the emergence of individual power. The skulls of
certain young males are removed post-mortem and
subjected to plastering, moreover, many of these
skulls also display specific morphological (brachyce-
phalic) tendencies, perhaps resulting from in vivo
skull deformation. The skull plastering practices de-
monstrate that the communities already had a sophi-
sticated knowledge of 'pozzuolanic reaction', which
is believed to be the domain of potters in creating
hard, resistant and long-lasting clay products (Goren,
Goring-Morris and Segal 2001.671-690). Whether
the practitioners also had other special leadership or
other symbolic roles, such as organizing planting,
herding, harvesting, and the building of monumen-
tal public and ritual structures remains speculation.
For example, Brian Hayden has suggested that these
individuals were being commemorated as 'succes-
sful aggrandizers' (see above), but they may have
served as 'shamans', or members of a ritual elite who
possessed the necessary authority to impose econo-
mic order and a sense of social cohesion and collec-
tive identity (Rollefson 2000.183-186; Kuijt and
Goring-Morris 2002.361-440; Lewis-Williams (2004.
28-59; 2005; Bischoff on line).
In addition to the plastered skulls and stone figuri-
nes thousands of small ceramic (fired clay) female,
male and animal figurines have been recovered from
West Asian Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites (Figs. 3 and
4). In Levantine and South-eastern Anatolian sites
these artefacts were deposited within the residential
architecture, and may be connected to household
cult practices. Many of the ceramic animal figurines
also appear to have been ritually killed by stabbing
with pieces of flint before the clay was fully fired
(Rollefson 1986.5-52; 2000.167-168; Hauptmann
1999.77; Hauptmann online; Voigt 2000.253-293;
Cauvin 2000.105-120; Kuijt, Goring Morris 2002.
389). Human figurines were carefully handled but
almost all were found in broken state as heads or as
bodies. Some were deposited in ashy deposits within
the roasting pits, and it was suggested they were in-
tentionally destroyed as exploded in an uncontrolled
firing which might be taken to reflect ritual death at
the decease of the figurine's owner (Rollefson 2000.
168; Voigt 2000.265).
It is important to note that in Western Asia pottery
production had not occurred prior to the end of the
Fig. 3. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic ceramic figurines in West
Asian Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic (from Kuijt & Goring-Morris
2002.Fig.5 and Cauvin 2000.Fig. 8)
Pre-Pottery Neolithic (ca 6900-6800 calBC). Even
after this point the manufacture and use of ceramic
technology followed different trajectories in differ-
ent areas; some communities remained 'aceramic'
throughout, others adopted pottery at much later
dates and only then in its more advanced rather
than incipient form. Early pottery appears to have
been types of container, which were used alongside
'white ware' and basketry.
Despite these regional variations we can note that
the earliest appearance of ceramic vessels in West
Asia correlates with the collapse of a 'ritual economy'
and aggregation centres, the cessation of previous
mortuary and ritual practices and the dispersal of
peoples after the 'package' of crops and livestock had
been adopted (Kuijt 2000.75-102). The beginning
of pottery production may thus have been linked to
the processes of settlement de-centralization, social
fragmentation and, to the appearance of smaller com-
munities or even autonomous households. The tran-
sition to small Pottery Neolithic households seems to
follow scenario which anticipates the 'scalar stress'
(Johnson 1982.322-333; see also Bandy 2004.322-
333), and the tensions between ritual and emerging
economic elites, and between new forms of commu-
nity cooperation, individual lineages (households)
and traditional kinship organisation over rights and
greater access to and control of resources and privi-
leges, and in shaping social arrangements within
communities in combination with regional environ-
mental changes and local environmental degrada-
tion.
If earlier periods of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic had seen
the activities of food preparation take place in more
open arenas which facilitated wider social interaction
and linked households, so later periods saw food pre-
paration and storage facilities
placed under greater control
within the more private spa-
ces of each household's archi-
tecture. This increasing 'priva-
tisation' of storage, milling,
cooking and eating that took
place at the household level
(Wright 2000.89-121; Boga-
ard 2005.177-196) may have
been material manifestations
of the social and status ten-
sions referred to above. We
may postulate that the pro-
cess of social fragmentation
and the cessation of commu-
nal ritual practices also led to a shift away from the
production of ceramics within a set of ritual acts, to-
wards a 'secularisation' of the ceramic craft, which
produced vessels used in more utilitarian roles. With-
in the newly emerging economically and socially au-
tonomous household units we see the emergence of
coarse and undecorated ceramic containers and ves-
sels which became associated with food processing
and consumption. Easy access to ceramic technology
certainly initiated craft specialization and the much
later appearance of 'potters marks' (Flannery 2002.
417-433).
In considering the history of the fired-clay techno-
logy in this region we may hypothesise that the ear-
lier figurines were produced as part of a 'ritual eco-
nomy' which had close links to household rituals and
mortuary practices carried out in the hearth rooms
and most secluded domestic spaces of the house.
Less attention has been directed to reconstructing
the form and content of much later rituals at sites
like Catalhüyük and Asiklihüyük, and the extent to
which ceramic technology might have been control-
led by ritual practitioners, shamans is, of course, spe-
culative, although early ceramic making could have
been not only a prestige, but also a sacred craft, con-
trolled by privileged individuals or groups.
We may postulate the collapse of a 'ritual economy'
and the apparent decrease in the manufacture and
use of figurines marked the shift away from the pro-
duction of ceramics within a set of ritual acts. Cera-
mic technology seems to become 'broadly available'
with the emerging economic elites. When applied to
vessel production it was clearly associated with food
processing and consumption, and well embedded
within new forms of community cooperation and
more individual - household's access and control of
food resources.
The pottery and the transition to farming in the
South-eastern Europe
Seventy years ago Gordon Childe (1936) argued that
ceramic technology and pottery were an almost uni-
versal characteristic of Neolithic farming communi-
ties, with pottery styles playing important role an in-
dicator of cultural identity. This argument gained
widespread support and there remains a lasting as-
sumption that the appearance of pottery is one of the
clearest markers of cultural and technological discon-
tinuity between Late Mesolithic hunter gatherers and
the farming societies of Early Neolithic. Moreover,
the discovery of spatially restricted pottery ornamen-
Fig. 4. Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic ceramic ani-
mal figurines pierced by flint bladelets (from Cau-
vin 2000.25, Fig. 38).
tation traditions pointed towards the dispersal of
early farming and pottery making cultures out of
Anatolia.
The linking of farming and pottery gave rise to
'centre and periphery' models of the origin and dis-
persal of farming communities. In these models
finds of pottery have been employed as proxy indica-
tors for determining the direction of farmer's migra-
tions, and have been used to locate geographical
boundaries marking out the line between advancing
pottery-making farmers, and earlier hunter-gatherers,
who were assumed to have had no prior knowledge
of this technology. These interpretations are groun-
ded in the assumption that Neolithic colonising po-
pulations brought an integrated 'package' of skills,
technologies and languages with them when they
crossed the border between the Levant and Europe.
If we look in more detail at early farming commu-
nities in South-eastern Europe we see that the role
of pottery in these societies is more ambiguous. For
example, in settlement contexts at Thessaly and Pe-
loponnesus in South-eastern Europe, potters appear
to have made few vessels, and that the pots do not
show evidence of use on fires, and that the vessel
volumes are too small for adequate storage Claude
Björk (1995), Karen Vitelli (1993; 1999), Paraskevi
Yiouni (1996), and Catherine Perles (2001). In addi-
tion, annual pottery production has been estimated
at between 12 to 13 pots at Franchthi and 7 to 22
pots at Nea Nikomedei (Perles 2001.214). These in-
sights suggest that pottery was not a mundane form
of vessel technology in widespread day-to-day, but
rather, that pottery appears to have the characteris-
tics of 'elite goods' with special meanings and values.
More recently, for example, Vitelli (1993.213-219;
1999.184-198) has suggested that these early cera-
mic vessels were produced for, and used in, shama-
nistic ceremonies, for a number of the highly deco-
rated saucers and plates show evidence of burning
incense or narcotic substances. These point to their
manufacture for special public occasions and ceremo-
nies. Vitelli also argues that these vessels were pro-
bably made by female shamans who had the re-
stricted knowledge of pottery technology, as well as
a deep understanding of how to use the medicinal
and narcotic properties of plants to produce altered
states of consciousness and relief from pain, perhaps
during public ceremonies. These specialist vessels
are chronologically embedded in the period of ca
7050-6450 calBC (Perles 2001.84-92; Reingruber
and Thissen 2005 on-line).
In the Danube Gorge in the Northern Balkans the
earliest pottery was well embedded in local archi-
tectural traditions and closely associated with social
and symbolic hunter-gather-
ers' practices. A series of mor-
tuary and domestic palimp-
sests at Lepenski Vir, Padina
and Hajdučka Vodenica pro-
vide a useful window onto
the agency of social and spiri-
tual interactions, practices
and ritual landscape. I have
argued elsewhere that pottery
was a new form of materiality
that was adapted by local
complex hunter-gatherers,
and as such should be under-
stood as a material medium
which was intentionally incor-
porated into rituals and feas-
ting practices which upheld
and reproduced across gene-
rations the communal percep-
tion of cosmological systems
(Budja 2004; 2005).
The uniformity of the con-
structed spaces and internal
structures at the complex hun-
ter gatherer sites of Lepenski
Vir, Padina and Hajdučka Vo-
denica is striking, and points
towards a shared set of val-
ues, tastes and practices. The
buildings consist of trapezoi-
dal structures whose interior
floor is mortared with limestone, with rectangular
hearths made of vertical stone slabs are positioned
in the centre. The interiors are also decorated with
figurative stone statues and boulders sculpted in
complex designs and coloured in red and black.
They are placed on the floors primarily at the rear
of the hearths. In addition, many of these sculptures
were found in association with primary and secon-
dary human and animal burials, which were placed
under the floors (Radovanović 1996; Borić 1999;
2002a; 2002b; 2005).
Over seventy of these structures, which have vari-
ously been described as 'houses' or 'shrines', have
been reported from the site of Lepenski Vir. Pottery
was found in some of the structures, and the pots
found in two deserve further discussion due to its
obvious association with a series of other artefacts.
In the first, the pot was recovered from structure
54 (Fig. 5), which is centrally located within the rest
of the structures. The pot itself is decorated with two
Fig. 5. In the centrally positioned trapezoidal built structure 54, a pot de-
corated with two plastic spirals placed on the two opposing sides of its
body was associated with newborn and infant burials at the rear, the se-
condary burial of the mandible of a mature woman (within the hearth),
and carved and coloured boulders and mortar (from Srejović & Babović
1983.8, 18, 92-93, 167; Garašanin & Radovanović 2001.Figs. 1-3). The
structure was dated to ca 6430-5980 calBC (at 2a)(Whittle at al. 2002.
67; Borić et al. 2004.235).
plastic clay spirals which had
been joined on to opposing
sides of the vessel before fir-
ing. The pot was associated
with new-born and infant bu-
rials located towards the rear
of the house, as well as with
the secondary burial of the
mandible of a mature woman,
which was located under the
hearth, and finally with two
carved and coloured boulders
and mortar. In the second
'house' the peripherally loca-
ted structure number 28 (Fig.
6), the pottery was closely as-
sociated with three child bu-
rials, one with an absent skull.
The entire burial was covered
by a large stone plate with
two flanking sculpted boul-
ders at its sides and a huge red deer skull with ant-
lers placed on the floor (Dimitrijević 2000.113-114;
Borić 2005.59-60; Stefanović and Borić 2004.539;
Radovanović 1996.183). It is worth noting first, that
there is no evidence that domesticated crops and ani-
mals were being used at the site, although farming
practice had already been adopted in the region, and
second, that the first structure can be dated back to
as early as ca 6430-5980 calBC (at 2o) (Whittle at
al. 2002.67; Borić et al. 2004.235).
The situation at the contemporary site of Padina is
slightly different. There is no clear evidence of bu-
rials within the trapezoidal built structures, and "the
floors of these houses, made of a hard coating of
burnt earth, do not show any noticeable damage or
repairs corresponding to the position of the burial
pit" (Jovanović 1972.53). Nonetheless, the houses
are stratigraphically, and to some extent chronologi-
cally well-related to the burials and mortuary struc-
tures at the site. Interestingly, the palimpsest of the
burials is chronologically embedded in a consider-
able 'time depth' from 9965-9275 to 5780-5560 cal
BC (at 2g). In contrast, the sequence of 14C dates
of trapezoidal structures is available in fragments, as
research interest seemed to be focused on selected
burial contexts and related individual diet and palaeo-
dietary patterns mainly. Only three of twenty-one tra-
pezoidal built structures and associated contexts are
dated, and are fixed to between 6410-6090 and
5990-5720 calBC(at 2o) (Borić 1999.47-53, 57-59;
Whitle et al. 2002.92; Borić and Miracle 2004.341-
371; Borić et al. 2004.221-248). In total, fifty-two
Fig. 6. In the trapezoidal built structure 28, pottery was contextually as-
sociated with three child burials, one with the skull absent, covered by a
large stone plate with two flanking sculpted boulders at its sides and a
huge red deer skull with antlers (from Srejović & Babović 1983.69, 85,
107, but see also Dimitrijević 2000.113-114; Borić 2005.59-60; Stefano-
vić and Borić 2004.539; Radovanović 1996.183).
individuals have been found buried within the wider
site, some incorporated into four distinct levels of a
stone burial mound, others located below the trape-
zoidal structures, and some in secondary burials (for
example, a skull with pebble and boulder cover).
Four burials consist of individuals in a sitting posi-
tion with legs crossed (Jovanović 1969(1971).32).
Two of these seated bodies were walled into a coni-
cal stone structure up to the skull. Over this a mo-
numental carved boulder with complex designs was
positioned 'at the upper level' of the stone burial
mound, and over the skulls. Although these stone
constructions appear to be spatially well connected
with the two trapezoidal built structures, there are
no 14C dates available for the latter, making conclu-
sions about the chronological and structural interre-
lations between these features speculative (Jovano-
vić 1969(1971).24-38; 1972.53; 1974.1-22; 1987.
1-16; Borić 1999.49-70; Roksandić 2000.26-27;
Borić and Miracle 2004.Figs 2-3) (Fig. 7).
Across the Padina site, similarly to the Lepenski Vir,
complete pottery vessels were found on the floors
deposited within the trapezoidal built structures, and
contextually associated with carved and painted
pebbles and ornamented boulders. One of the most
interesting pottery finds consists of small cups and
bowls, a square dish on a low pedestal and a rhyton.
In their form and scale they appear to be inappro-
priate for the household, and too small, and too un-
usual for routine domestic activities. As a result it has
been suggested that they were perhaps 'prestigious
serving dishes' (cfr. Radovanović 1996a.43; Borić
Fig. 7. Trapezoidal built and mortuary structures at Padina (from Jovanovic 1969(1971); 1972; 1974;
1987; Boric 1999; Boric and Miracle 2004).
1999.53). The second interesting set of pots was
found on the floor of trapezoidal structure number
12, and is associated with a decorated boulder, and
covered 'by a layer of small fish and animal bones'
(Jovanovic 1969(1971.30) (see Fig. 7). 14C dates fix
the pottery sets in structures 12, 17 and 18 within
the period of 6700-64501, 6250-6025 and 5990-
5720 calBC (at 2a) (Boric and Miracle 2004.347,
350).
At the third, contemporaneous site of Hajdučka Vo-
denica in the micro region, pottery was reportedly
linked to an elongated stone construction composed
of a rectangular 'hearth', large plates of stone, with
red burned flooring and a carved boulder. A few in-
dividual burials had been placed beside the hearth
and had been covered by stone plates. In addition,
a group of twenty-seven skeletons and a secondary
skull burial were embedded inside the 'grave cham-
ber' and are suggested to have identified and objecti-
fied the associated mortuary structure, which was lo-
cated by the side of the built structure. The excava-
tor points out the fact that a stone axe and deer skull
and antlers were placed beside the deceased inside
the 'grave chamber'. The mortuary structure is da-
ted to 6500 to 6090 calBC (at 2a) (Radovanovic
1996.219-222; Boric and Miracle 2004.357-361).
In summary, we can suggest that when pottery ves-
sels were placed on the trapezoidal floors of the
structures found at Lepenski Vir Padina and Hajduč-
ka Vodenica, these ceramic containers were being
actively incorporated into the local, whether hunter-
gatherers' (Lepenski Vir) or supposedly farmers' (Pa-
dina, see note 4 below) mortuary and ritual com-
plexes. In addition, the use of pots appears to be em-
bedded into wider enduring symbolic practices and
associations, which include the re-construction of si-
milar architectural structures, the practice of primary
and secondary burials, the placing of inhumations in
1 The date acquired from the dog bone was not corrected for the freshwater reservoir effect, as suggested in Boric and Miracle (2004.
347, 350, Tab. 4). If we apply it, the date is two hundred years later, 6500-6230 calBC(at 2a), calibrated with OxCal v. 3.10 (Bronk
Ramsey 2005) and 220±23 years correction applied.
the sitting position, and associated suite of distinc-
tive artefacts that include carved and painted boul-
ders and mortars, the use of horned skulls of a large
wild bovids, and the placing of deer skulls with a
huge antlers.
In the Balkans and Transylvania these artefacts,
structures and symbolism maintained a long tradi-
tion. The sculpted boulders were embedded in bu-
rials as well as in domestic contexts, and some were
placed on ceramic pedestals and stone plates, for
example, in the Early Neolithic settlement at Gura
Baciului (Vlassa 1972.187-191; Lazarovici and Ma-
xim 1995.379). Children buried in the sitting posi-
tion were incorporated into Early Neolithic settle-
ment contexts at Velesnica and Obre I, and a large
deer skull and infant burial were placed in a cen-
trally positioned trapezoidal pit-dwelling structure at
Blagotin-Poljna. In addition, a horned auroch skull
was placed at top of a female body in a burial in a pit-
dwelling at Golokut. 14C dates indicate that these tra-
ditions continued into contexts in which farming was
present: Blagotin, 6230-6030; Obre2 5730-5520;
Golokut, 5620-5470 calBC 2g (Whittle et al. 2002.
66, 70-71; Benac 1973.27-28,35; Gimbutas 1974.
19; Borić 1999.26-27; Radovanović 1996. 223).
Several new interpretations of settlement, mortuary
and ritual complexes in the Northern Balkans have
been published in the last decade. Some have fo-
cused on the dialectic opposition and symbolic con-
frontation between 'culture and nature' as part of a
wider process which led to the 'the domestication of
society', others have discussed the role of 'apotropaic
power and potency', and 'body metamorphosis and
animality'. In Hodder's (1990.21-31, 41-43) reading,
the trapezoidal structures are seen as the 'locus,
agency and habitus' within which hunter-gatherers
were able to domesticate themselves, their ancestors
and their 'wild' surroundings. In order to undertake
this symbolic process of domestication they per-
formed inhumations of ancestral bones and the
dead, and installed into the domesticated setting of
the home stone sculptures and statues, which repre-
sented wild fish-like ancestors.
In contrast, Boric (2002b.46-74; 2005.35-69), ar-
gues that the huge sculpted boulders commemora-
ted particular individuals as much they commemora-
ted the domestication of a wider 'realm of the dead
and an-cestors' and 'cognitive logic of animality'
which was practiced by hunter-gatherers and farm-
ers in Northern Balkans.
A third interpretation has suggested that the large
stone boulders, which were decorated with sculpted
representations of fish-human beings, were material
commemorations of the '8200 BP event', a global
phase of climatic cooling that may have led to a rise
in the Danube water levels leading to periodic flood-
ing in the Danube Gorge. Bonsall et al. (2002(2003).
1-15) propose that neither the sculptures nor the
mortar-floored buildings can be traced back before
the catastrophic event, and when they appeared, they
were intended to achieve dominance over the floods.
Despite these sweeping interpretations little atten-
tion has been paid to the specific symbols and con-
ceptions attached to the boulders. Possibly, they may
have been linked to altered states of consciousness,
perhaps an important shamanistic element in the
wider hunter-gatherer and early farmer cosmologies
that were present in the Balkans. Correlations have
been made between the boulders, petrogliphs and
the cave paintings in the Balkans3, on the Adriatic
and Ionian coast, where identical symbols and con-
struals have been found in red and black on cave
walls. These have identified as potentially entoptic
motifs and iconography which might have been as-
sociated with altered states of consciousness, and
wider shamanic beliefs, rituals and practices (Budja
2005.63-65).
While the Climente II and Gaura Chindei caves are
located within the hunter-gatherers' site distribution
in the Danube Gorge in Northern Balkans, the Cervi
and Cosma caves are located a thousand kilometres
to the south, near Porto Badisco at the Strait of Ot-
ranto. Some of the cave paintings demonstrate al-
most an identical canon in the realisating of red and
black symbols and iconographies with those carved
and engraved on sandstone boulders and sculptures
in the Lepenski Vir deposited within the trapezoidal
architecture and directly associated with the mor-
tuary and ritual structures (Fig. 8). It is important to
note that in the both caves, Cervi and Cosma at the
2	The date 5730-5520 calBC 2o, from Obre I (6710±60 BP, UCLA 1605G), calibrated with OxCal v. 3.10 (Brank Ramsey 2005),
relates to the settlement context in which the burials were embedded.
3	In the Danube Gorge, paintings have been recorded in Climente II and Gaura Chindei (Boroneant 1977.23-34; 1999 on line), in
Magourata Cave in the Northern Balkans (Anati 1971) and in Cervi Cave, near Porto Badisco (Otranto) at the Adriatic coast (Gra-
ziosi 1996). For the painted anthropomorphic figure with head-gear see also Devlet (2001.50-51).
Adriatic coast, human burials, stone circles along the
walls, containing cereals deposited on the floor, pits
dug into the rocky ground with the Neolithic cera-
mic vessels deposited inside, were found (Griffoni
Cremonesi 1994.179-197).
One of the most graphic narrative scenes is perfectly
preserved in Cervi cave. The iconography of the
painting (Fig. 9) on the left has a spiral motif and
depicts figures with bows who appear to be hunting
deer. To the right are what appear to be headless
figures riding deer and bovids, and dancing with
raised arms. Above the scene, a painted anthropo-
morphic figure with head-gear was placed (Graziosi
1996.117-119. Pls. 12-17). One possible narrative
reading of the scene is that these are depictions of
shamanistic practices, and associated mental expe-
riences, which are associated with altered states of
consciousness. When interpreting a similar frieze in
^atalhöyük, Lewis-Williams (2004.38-46, see also
Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005) suggested that in
shamanistic societies the hunting of meat-producing
animals is often linked to the belief that successful
hunting requires the acquisition of the animals' super-
natural powers. Moreover, the headless figures may
well represent the dead, who may not merely have
been present during the hunt, but might actually have
been able to influence and as-
sist in assuring a successful
outcome. These ancestors,
who in death may have depar-
ted to the other parallel world
of spirits, may have acted as
intermediaries between the
animals' spirit masters and
the actions of the humans in
their desire to acquire animal
power through hunting. More-
over, the severing of skulls
from bodies may have related
to the enactment of the ritua-
lised 'death' and 'rebirth' of a
shaman, and to his subsequent
ability to travel between the
realms of the lower and upper
worlds. We may note that the
spiritual experiences associa-
ted with the de-composition
and re-constitution of the phy-
sical body may take place du-
ring neurologically-generated
hallucinations generated by
altered state of consciousness,
the painted visualization of
these experiences, whether through the medium of
built structures or in cave tunnels, may have been
driven by the desire to ritually (re)enact the core ex-
periences through a complex ritualised setting, for
example, as part of initiation into shamanism, which
perhaps provided future practitioners with the neces-
sary knowledge and skill, but also the social status
and in some instances, the political influence which
the post both required and commanded.
Returning now to the Northern Balkans we may hy-
pothesise that the cosmological paradigm we noted
above, in which distinctive burials and structured as-
sociations with other material artefacts were placed
within the settings of the trapezoidal structures may
have depicted a similar set of conceptions to those of
shamanism and hunting as depicted in the cave art.
For example, the skull of an old woman, the horned
skull of a large bovid and the skull of a deer with ant-
lers were placed beside the body of a man (Fig. 10);
a headless child burial had been covered by a large
stone plate with two flanking sculpted boulders at
its sides and with a huge red deer skull with antlers
on the floor (Fig. 7); finally, a skull of an older man
was placed beside the body of child in a sitting po-
sition, whose legs were crossed (Radovanović 1996.
Fig 4.15).
Fig. 8. The entoptic motifs and construals painted on the cave walls in
Cervi cave near Porto Badisco (a and b) and carved and engraved on
sandstone boulders and sculptures, deposited within the trapezoidal ar-
chitecture and directly associated with the mortuary and ritual structu-
res in the Lepenski Vir in Northern Balkans (c) (from Graziosi 1996.Pls.
70 and 72; Srejović & Babović 1983.8).
Fig. 9. The painted scene from in Cervi cave (Porto Badisco, Otranto). The iconography of the painting
consist of a spiral motif and figures with bows who appear to be hunting deer on the left, and the head-
less figures riding deer and bovids, and dancing with raised arms on the right. Above the scene, a pain-
ted anthropomorphic figure with head-gear was placed. (from Graziosi 1996.Pl. 12).
We may also hypothesise that, along with monumen-
tal boulders, the 'small cups and bowls, square dish
on a low pedestal and rhyton' (see above), the 'layer
of small fish and animal bones'4 which were depo-
sited within these structures were all part of a ritua-
lised set of practices which involved not only the
'bridging the world of the living and that of the
dead', as suggested, but also included feasting and ri-
tual communion and exchange with different realms
of the cosmos. Like the shamanic soul-flight ritual,
the feast provides a site, medium and context in and
through which social relations could be symbolically
negotiated and represented (Dietler 2001.65-114;
Jordan 2004.117-134; Price 2001.3-16). In the case
of the Northern Balkans these ritualised acts inclu-
ded the control of rites as well as mediation between
the community and the supernatural. They were also
caught up with the reproduction of social hierarchies
and status, but also re-forged social networks within
which the structural transformation of hunting and
gathering communities was eventually leading to
the advent of farming.
Within these local and regional settings it is clear
that if pottery was an element of 'Neolithic' materia-
lity it production, use and deposition was being ac-
tively and creatively incorporated within the endu-
ring frameworks of pre-existing hunter-gatherers' so-
cial, domestic and mortuary structures. Within these
contexts it was the agency of hunter gatherers which
initiated and made possible both the later structural
transformations in the economy, but also the almost
simultaneous dispersal of a new form of ceramic ma-
teriality into the region. This scenario contrasts
strongly with the Levant, where the adoption of pot-
tery making seems have been caught up in proces-
ses of social decentralization and community frag-
mentation, which were part of the collapse of the 'ri-
tual' elements in the Early Neolithic economy. Follo-
wing this, pottery became contextualised within the
more routinised practices of food processing and
consumption that were part of the form and fabric
of the new agricultural economy.
Conclusions
In recognising that the appearance of ceramic tech-
nology and production of fired-clay vessels has an
extended history, we must acknowledge that the
emergence of this technology has not necessarily
been related to the technical and economical trajec-
tories and dynamics of the transition to farming, as
had been broadly accepted. It is increasing clear that
diverse forms of ceramic technology had been 'inha-
4 Animal domesticates: Bos tauros, Ovis/capra and Sus domesticus have been reported from Padina (Clason 1980.141-173).
Fig. 10. Lepenski Vir, burial No 7a (from Srejovic
& Babovic 1983.18 and Radovanovic 1996.Fig 4.3).
The skull of an 'old' woman, the horned skull of a
large bovid and the skull of a deer with antlers
were placed beside the body of a man.
bited' into the agency of Eurasian hunter-gatherers
long before the emergence of sedentary social struc-
tures appeared. Moreover, these hunter gatherer ce-
ramic technologies included not only vessels, but
also the much older practice of making figurines
from fired clay. The earliest European ceramic assem-
blages consist of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic
figurines rather than pottery vessels, and have been
dated to the Pavlovian, a local variant of the Eastern
Gravettian techno-complex, dated to about 26 000 BP.
In fact, there were two very different and indeed in-
dependent technological trajectories in Western Eu-
rasia, the first the use of fired clay to make figurines
and later vessels, and second the plant and animal
domestication and rise of agro-pastoral farming.
We suggest the ceramic vessel as serving pot is cer-
tainly not the part of 'competitive feasting' scenario
for the emergence of agriculture in Levant since the
domestic foodstuffs as luxury foods and the use of
ceramic pots have not occurred together in contexts
of transition to farming in the region. The fired-clay
technology in Pre-Pottery Neolithic was restricted to
the production of female, male and animal figurines
and limited by the ideology of the 'ritual economy'
which had close links to household rituals and mor-
tuary practices. The earliest appearance of ceramic
vessels there correlates with the collapse of aggrega-
tion centres, the cessation of previous mortuary and
ritual practices and the dispersal of peoples after the
'package' of crops and livestock had been adopted.
We may postulate the collapse of a 'ritual economy'
and the apparent decrease in the manufacture and
use of figurines led to a shift away from the produc-
tion of ceramics within a set of ritual acts, towards
a 'secularisation' of the ceramic craft, which produced
vessels in more utilitarian contexts, linked to the
emerging economic elites, and associated with the
new forms of community cooperation and more in-
dividual, household's access and control of food re-
sources.
This scenario contrasts with the South-eastern Eu-
rope where the adoption of pottery making was clo-
sely associated with social and symbolic hunter-ga-
therers' practices. The pottery seems to have been a
new form of materiality that was adapted by local
complex hunter-gatherers, and as such should be un-
derstood as a material medium which was intentio-
nally incorporated into rituals and feasting practices
which upheld and reproduced across generations
the communal perception of cosmological systems
and social networks within which the structural
transformation in the economy become verified. It
was the agency of hunter gatherers which initiated
and made possible both the transition to farming,
but also the almost simultaneous dispersal of a new
form of ceramic materiality into the region.
REFERENCES
AKKERMANS M. M. G. P., CAPPERS R., CAVALLO C., NIEU-
WENHUYSE O., NILHAMN B. and OTT N. I. 2006. Investi-
gating the Early Pottery Neolithic of Northern Syria: New
Evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad. American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 110(1): 123-156.
ANATI E. 1971. Maggourata Cave, Bulgaria. Bollettino del
Centro Camuno do Studi Preistorici 6: 83-107.
AURENCHE O., GALET P., REGAGNON-CAROLINE E., EVIN
J. 2001. Proto-Neolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Middle
East - the birth of agriculture, livestock raising, and cera-
mics: a calibrated 14C chronology 12,500-5500 cal bc. Ra-
diocarbon 43(3): 1191-1202.
BANDY S. M. 2004. Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social
Evolution in Early Village Societies. American Anthropo-
logist 106 (2): 322-333.
BAILEY D. W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines. Representa-
tion and corporeality in the Neolithic. London and New
York. Routledge.
BENAC A. 1973. Obre I. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bos-
ne i Hercegovine. N.s. 27/28. Arheologija: 5-171.
BIEHL P. F. 1996. Symbolic communication system: sym-
bols on anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic from eouth-eastern Europe. Journal of Euro-
pean Archaeology 4:153-176.
BISCHOFF D. 2002. Symbolic worlds of Central and South-
east Anatolia in the Neolithic Age, on-line http://www.
canew.org/lecbischoffbox.html
BJÖRK C. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece. A technical and
functional analysis of the evidence from Neolithic Achil-
leion Thessaly. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 115.
Paul Äströms Förlag. Jonnsered.
BOGAARD A. 2005. 'Garden agriculture' and the nature of
early farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeo-
logy 37(2): 177-196.
BONSALL C., MACKLIN G. M., PAYTON W. R., BORONEANJ
A. 2002(2003). Climate, floods and river gods: environ-
mental change and the Meso-Neolithic transition in south-
east Europe. Before Farming 4 (2): 1-15.
BORIC D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube
Gorges and beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.),
6th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 26:41-
70.
2002a. The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretation
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Da-
nube Gorges. Antiquity 76(294): 1026-1039.
2002b. 'Deep time' metaphor. Journal of Social Ar-
chaeology 3(1): 46-74.
2005. Body Metamorphosis and Animality: Volatile Bo-
dies and Boulder Artworks from Lepenski Vir. Cam-
bridge Archaeological Journal 15(1): 35-69.
BORIC D. and MIRACLE P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neoli-
thic (Dis)Continnuities in the Danube Gorges: Nes Ams
Dates from Padina and Hajdučka Vodenica (Serbia). Ox-
ford Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 341-371.
BORIC D., GRUPE G., PETERS J., MIKIC Ž. 2004. Is the Me-
solithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New stable
isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. European
Journal of Archaeology 7(3): 221-248.
BORIC D. & STEFANOVIC S. 2004. Birth and death: infant
burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78(301):
526-546.
BORONEANT V. 1977. Arta rupestra dis pe§tera Gaura
Chindei, Comuna Pescari (Judetul Cara§-Severin). Monu-
mente Istorice si de ArtaRevista muzeelar si manumen-
telor 1:23-34.
1999,	on line, The Mesolithic Habitation Complexes in
the Balkans and the Danube Basin, Living Past 1, on-line
http://cimec.cilea.it/livingpast/nr1/boroneant/mesoli
thic.htm
BUDJA M. 2004. The transition to farming and the 'revo-
lution' of symbols in the Balkans. From ornament to en-
toptic and external symbolic storage. In M. Budja (ed.),
11th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 31:
59-81.
2005. The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern
Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains
to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic mar-
kers. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 32:53-72.
BYRD B. F. 2000. Households in transition: Neolithic so-
cial organisation within southwest Asia. In I. Kuijt (ed.),
Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organi-
sation, Identity and Differentiation. Academic/Plenum,
New York: 63-98.
CAUVIN J. 1978. Les premiers villages de Syrie-Palestine
du IXe au Vile millenaire avantJesus-Christ. Travaux de
La Maison de l'Orient 4, serie archeologique 3. Maison de
l'Orient. Lyons.
2000.	The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agri-
culture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
CHAPMAN J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Rout-
ledge. London and New York.
CHILDE V. G. 1936. Man Makes Himself. Watts. London.
CLASON A. 1980. Padina and Starčevo: game, fish and cat-
tle. Palaeohistoria 22: 141-173.
DEVLET E. 2001. Rock art ad the material culture of Sibe-
rian and Central Asian shamanism. In N. Price (ed.), The
Archaeology of Shamanism. Routledge. London and New
York: 43-55.
DIETLER M. 2001. Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Con-
sumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Con-
texts. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts. Archaeo-
logical and Ethnographic Pespectives on Food, Politics,
and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington
and London: 65-119.
DIMITRIJEVIC V. 2000. The Lepenski Vir Fauna: Bones in
Houses and Between Houses. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neoli-
thic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 27:101-117.
FLANNERY K. 2002. The Origins of the Village Revisted:
From Nuclear to Extended Households. American Anti-
quity 67(3). 417-433.
GIMBUTAS M. 1974. Chronology of Obre I and Obre II.
Wissenschaftlichen Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowi-
nischen Landesmuseums 4. Archäologie: 15-35.
1989. The Language of the Goddess. Harper and Row.
San Francisco.
GOREN Y., GORING-MORRIS A. N. and SEGAL I. 2001. The
technology of skull modeling in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic
B (PPNB): Regional variability, the relation of technology
and iconography and their archaeological implications.
Journal of Archaeological Science 28(7): 671-690.
GORING-MORRIS A. N. 2000. The quick and the dead: The
social context of aceramic Neolithic mortuary practices as
seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neoli-
thic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Iden-
tity, and Differentiation. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New
York: 103-136.
GRAZIOSI P. 1996. The prehistoric paintings of the Porto
Badiso cave. Origines. Firenze.
GIFFONI CREMONESI R. 1994. Observations on the prob-
lems related to certain cult phenomena during the Neoli-
thic in the Italian Peninsula. Journal of European Ar-
chaeology 2(2): 179-197.
HAALAND R. 1997. Emergence of sedentism: new ways of
living, new ways of symbolizing. Antiquity 71(272): 374-
85.
HANSEN S. 2005. Neolithic Figurines East-West. In C. Lic-
ter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe. Anatolian-Eu-
ropean relations from the second half of the 7th through
the first half of the 6th millennium calBC. BYZAS 2. Ver-
öffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Istanbul. Istanbul: 195-212.
HAUPTMANN H. 1999. The Urfa region. In M. Özdogan
and N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle
of civilization, new discoveries. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayin-
lari, Istanbul: 65-86.
Upper Mesopotamia in its regional context during the
Early Neolithic, on-line http://www.canew.org/siteplan.
html
HAYDEN B. 1995. The emergence of prestige technologies
and pottery. In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes (eds.), The Emer-
gence of Pottery. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washing-
ton DC: 257-266.
2001. Fabulous feasts: a prolegomenon to the impor-
tance of feasting. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.),
Feasts: Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ar-
chaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food,
Politics, and Power. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington DC: 23-64.
2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? Ethno-
archaeological perspectives from Southeast Asia. World
Archaeology 34(3): 458-469.
HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Struc-
ture and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell
Publishers. Oxford.
IAKOVLEVA L. 1999. The gravettian art of Eastern Europe
as exemplified in the figurative art of Kostenki 1. In W.
Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.),
Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper Palaeolithic
of Eurasia 30,000-20,000 BP. University of Leiden. Ana-
lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 31:125-133.
ICELAND H. Token finds at Pre-Pottery Neolithic 'Ain Gha-
zal, Jordan: a formal and technological analysis, on-line
http://link.lanic.utexas.edu/menic/ghazal/Chap1/chapter1.
htm
JOHNSON G. 1982. Organizational Structure and Scalar
Stress. In C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. A. Segraves
(eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. Acade-
mic Press, New York: 389- 421.
JORDAN P. 2004. Examininig the role of agency in hunter-
gatherer cultural transmission. In A. Gardner (ed.), Agency
Uncovered. UCL Press, London: 117-134.
JOVANOVIC B. 1969(1971). Chronological Frames of the
Iron Gate Group of the Early Neolithic Period. Archaeo-
logica Iugoslavica 10:23-38.
1972. The autochthonous and the migrational compo-
nents of the Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates. Balca-
nica 3: 49-58.
1974. Praistorija Gornjeg Djerdapa. Starinar N.S. 22:
1-23.
1987. Die Architektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padi-
na B am Eisernen Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania 65(1):
1-16.
KEALLY T. C., TANIGUCHI Y. and KUZMIN V. Y. 2003.
Understanding the Beginnings of Pottery Technology in
Japan and Neighboring East Asia. In Y. V. Kuzmin (ed.),
The Nature of Transition From the Palaeolithic to the
Neolithic in East Asia and the Pacific. The Review of Ar-
chaeology 24(2): 3-14.
KING R. and UNDERHILL P. A. 2002. Congruent distribution
of Neolithic painted pottery and ceramic figurines with Y-
chromosome lineages. Antiquity 76(293): 707- 714.
KOZLOWSKI K. S., AURENCHE O. 2005. Territories, Boun-
daries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. British
Archaeological Reports IS 1362. Archaeopress, Oxford.
KUIJT I. 1996 Negotiating equality through ritual: A con-
sideration of Late Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A Pe-
riod mortuary practices. Journalof Anthropological Archa-
eology 15(4): 313-336.
2000.	People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages:
Exploring Daily Lives, Community Size, and Architec-
ture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of An-
thropological Archaeology 19: 75-102.
2001.	Meaningful masks: Place, death, and the trans-
mission of social memory in early agricultural commu-
nities of the Near Eastern Pre-Pottery Neolithic. In M.
S. Chesson (ed.), Social Memory, Identity, and Death:
Intradisciplinary Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals.
American Anthropological Association, Archaeology Di-
vision,Washington DC, Vol. 10: 80-99.
KUIJT I. and GORING-MORRIS N. 2002. Foraging, Farming,
and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the
Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of
World Prehistory 16( 4): 361-440.
KUZMIN Y. V. 2002. The Earliest Centres of Pottery Ori-
gin in the Russian Far East and Siberia: Review of Chro-
nology for the Oldest Neolithic Cultures. In M. Budja (ed.),
9th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 29:37-
46.
2006. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia:
progress and pitfalls. Antiquity. Antiquity 80(308):
362-371.
LAZAROVICI G. and MAXIM Z. 1995. Gura Baciuliu. Bi-
blioteca Musei Napocensis XI. Cluj-Napoca.
LE MIERE et PICON M. 1999. Les debuts de le ceramique
au Proche-Orient. Paleorient 24(2): 5-26.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS D. 2004. Constructing a cosmos. Archi-
tecture, power and domestication at Catalhöyük. 28-59;
2005). Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1): 28-59.
2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind. Consciousness, Cos-
mos and the Realm of the God. Thames and Hudson.
London.
MAINA on-line. http://www.vm.kemsu.ru/en/palaeolith/
plastic/maina.html
MARANGOU C. 1996. Assembling, displaying, and dissem-
bling Neolithic and Eneolithic figurines and models. Jour-
nal of European Archaeology 4:177-202.
MARSHACK A. 1991. The female image, a "time-factored"
symbol: A study in style and modes of image use in the
European Upper Palaeolithic. Proceedings of the Prehi-
storic Society 57:17-31.
MORGAN L. H. 1878. Ancient Society. World, New York.
PEARSON R. 2005. The social context of early pottery in
the Lingnan region of south China. Antiquity 79(306):
819-828.
PERIČIG M. et al. 2005. High-Resolution Phylogenetic Ana-
lysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Pa-
ternal Gene Flow among Slavic Populations. Molecular
Biology and Evolution 22(10): 1964-1975.
PERLES C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first
farming communities in Europe. Cambridge World Ar-
chaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
PRICE S. N. 2001. An archaeology of altered states: Sha-
manism and material culture studies. In N. Price (ed.), The
Archaeology of Shamanism. Routledge. London and New
York: 3-16.
RADOVANOVIĆ I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Inter-
national Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series
11. Ann Arbor. Michigan.
REINGRUBER A. and THISSEN L. on-line. CANeW 14C da-
tabases and 14C charts. Aegean Catchment. (E. Greece, S.
Balkans and W. turkey) 10,000-5,500 cal BC. http://www.
canew.org/data.html
RICE M. P. 1999. On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 6(1): 1-54.
ROKSANDIG M. 2000. Between foragers and farmers in
the Iron Gates Gorge: physical anthropology perspective.
Djerdap population in transition from Mesolithic to Neo-
lithic. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic Studies. Documen-
ta Praehistorica 27:1-100.
ROLLEFSON G. O. 1986. Neolithic 'Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ri-
tual and ceremony II. Paleorient 12:5-52.
2000. Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic 'Ain Gha-
zal. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Comu-
nities. Social Opganization, Identity and Differentia-
tion. Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. Kluwer Aca-
demic and Plenum Publisher, New York: 165-190.
SAXON E. C. 1976. Pre-Neolithic Pottery: New Evidence
from North Africa. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
42: 327-329.
SCHMANDT-BESSERAT D. 1992. Before Writing. From
Counting to Cuneiform. University of Texas Press. Austin.
Volume 1.
SEMINO O. et al. 2004. Origin, Diffusion, and Differentia-
tion of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences
on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory
Events in the Mediterranean Area. American Journal of
Human Genetics 74:1023-1034.
SOFFER O., VANDIVER P., KLIMA B. and SVOBODA J. 1993.
The Pyrotechnology of Perfomance Art: Moravian Venuse
and Wolverines. In H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay, R. White (eds.),
Before Lascaux. CRC Pres. Boca Raton: 259-275.
SOFFER O., VANDIVER P. 1997. The Ceramics from Pav-
lov I -1957 Excavation. In J. Svoboda and P. Skrdla (eds.),
Pavlov I - Northwest (The Upper Paleolithic burial and
its bettlement context. The Dolni Vestonice Studies 4:
383-401.
SOFFER O., ADOVASIO J. M. and HYLAND D. C. 2000. The
'Venus' Figurines. Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status
in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41(4):
511- 537.
SOFFER O., ADOVASIO J. M., ILLINGWORTH J. S., AMIR-
KHANOV H. A., PRASLOV N. D. & STREET M. 2000. Palaeo-
lithic perishables made permanent. Antiquity 74(286):
812-821.
SVOBODA J., LOŽEK V., VLČEK E. 1996. Hunters between
East and West. The Paleolithic of Moravia. Plenum Press.
New York and London: 157-170.
VAN DER VEEN M. 2003. When is food a luxury? World
Archaeology 34(3): 405-427.
VANDIVER B. P., SOFFER O., KLIMA B., SVOBODA J. 1989.
The Origin of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice,
Czechoslovakia. Science 246(4933): 1002-1008.
VASIL'EV S. A. 1985. Une statuette d'argile paleolithique
de Siberie du Sud. L'Anthropologie 89(2): 193-196.
VASIL'EV A. S., KUZMIN V. Y., ORLOVA A. L., DEMENTIEV
N. Y. 2002. Radiocarbon-based chronology of the Paleoli-
thic in Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New
World. Radiocarbon 44( 2): 503-530.
VERPOORTE A. 2001. Places of Art, traces of Fire. Archa-
eological Studies Leiden University 8 (Dolni Vestonice
Studies 6). Faculty of Archaeology, University of Leiden &
Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, Leiden, Brno.
VITELLI D. K. 1993. Franchthi Neolithic Poterrry. Volume
1: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. In Excava-
tions in Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fascicle 8. (T. W. Jacobsen
ed.). Bloomington & Indianapolis.
1999. "Looking Up" at Early Ceramcis in Greece. In J.
M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman (eds.), Pottery and Peo-
ple: A Dyanmic Interaction. Foundations in Archaeo-
logical Inquiry, J. M. Skibo, general editor. University
of Utah Press, Salt Lake City: 184-198.
VLASSA N. 1972. Eine frühneolitische Kultur mit bemalter
Keramik der Vor-Starcevo-Körös" Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciu-
lui, Siebenbürgen. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 47:174-
197.
WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORIC D., PETTITT P.,
RICHARDS M., 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon
dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-
east Hungary. In E. Banffy (ed.), Prehistoric Studies in
Memoriam Ida Bognar-Kutzian. Antaeus 25:15-62.
VOIGT M., M. 2000. gatal Höyü in Context. Ritual at Early
Neolithic Sites in Central and Eastern Turkey. In I. Kuijt
(ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Comunities. Social Orga-
nization, Identity and Differentiation. Fundamental Is-
sues in Archaeology. Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publi-
sher, New York: 253-293.
WRIGHT K. 2000. The social origins of cooking and dining
in early villages of western Asia, Proceedings of the Pre-
historic Society 66: 89-121.
ZHAO C. and WU X. 2000. The Dating of Chinese Early
Pottery and Discussion of Some Related Problems. In M.
Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 27:233-239.
YIOUNI P. 1996. The Early Neolithic Pottery: Functional
Analysis. In R. J. Rodden and K. A. Wardle (eds.), Nea Ni-
komedeia I. Supplementary Volume No. 25. The British
School at Atens: 181-191.
ZHUSHCHIKHOVSAYA S. I. 2005. Prehistoric Pottery-
making of the Russian Far East. British Archaeological
Reports IS 1434. Archaeopress, Oxford.
back to contents
201