_UDK 903.5-233(4)''633/634''_
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIII (2006)
Early Neolithic jar burials in southeast Europe:
a comparative approach
Krum Bacvarov
Institute of Archaeology and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
krum_bacvarov@sofianet.net
ABSTRACT - A typical product of early farming symbolism, jar burial, appeared in the beginning of
southeast European neolithization. Early jar burial development in south-east Europe displays two
distinct chronological levels: an early Neolithic core area in the Struma and Vardar valleys and the
western Rhodope, and later, late/final Neolithic and/or early Chalcolithic - depending on local termi-
nology - manifestations 'scattered' in various places in the study area. It is the early chronological
level of jar burial distribution that will be considered here in relation to the first expressions of these
mortuary practices in Central Anatolia, in order to throw some light on the specifics of their origins
and variability.
IZVLEČEK - Tipičen element zgodnjega simbolizma poljedelcev, pokop v posodi, se je pojavil na za-
četku procesa neolitizacije jugovzhodne Evrope. Zgodnji razvoj teh pokopov kaže dve kronološki stop-
nji: zgodnje neolitsko jedrno območje v dolinah rek Strume in Vardarja ter zahodnih Rodopih in
mlajse, pozno/končno neolitske in/ali zgodnje bakrenodobne pokope - odvisno od terminologije, raz-
pršene v regiji. V razpravi analiziramo najstarejše žarne grobove in jih v kontekstu izvora teh grob-
nih praks, primerjamo s pokopi v centralni Anatoliji.
KEY WORDS - jar burials; early chronological level; southeast Europe; Central Anatolia
Introduction: grave pit interpretations
The ordinary pit is reasonably conceived as the sin-
gle archetype of burial structure. It is obviously the
simplest, but sufficiently definite form of fulfillment
of the idea of disposing of human remains through
burial, which developed after the original covering
of the deceased on the ground with grass, tree bran-
ches or hides, and later with soil and/or stones.
Many of those who have explored southeast Euro-
pean Neolithic burials believe that the grave pit and
hence the very burial of the dead has not been paid
special attention; they illustrate their case with exam-
ples of refuse pit usage (Javanovic 1967.13; Gara-
šanin1973.27; Brukner 1974). It was even propo-
sed that intramural burials had not belonged to lo-
cal community members, but to their defeated ene-
mies, and that the dead of the respective Neolithic
community were buried in extramural cemeteries.
In my opinion, the main reason for the wide circula-
tion of this thesis in one form or another is the fact
that most Neolithic burials lack grave goods and that
the pits' backfill is the same soil of the cultural de-
posit, which contains various artifacts. Hence the
seemingly reasonable conclusion that the dead were
'thrown away', but not buried.
Such an argument is unacceptable, especially if one
considers the fact that, at least for the area of south-
east Europe, it is based on the incorrect interpreta-
tion of grave pits as refuse pits. Certainly their back-
fill is often identical with that of refuse pits, and
the difference between them is rather 'archaeologi-
cally elusive'. The presence of a great number of
sherds and animal bones does not automatically
transform pits into refuse pits, as is obvious, for in-
stance, from two 'ritual pits' from Parta I (Resch
1991; see also the analysis of the so-called structu-
red deposition in Chapman 2000).
Moreover, there is the case with the re-use of al-
ready existing pits, for instance pits left from clay
digging, as at Ajmana in the Danube Gorges (Stalio
1992.65-66), and of silos, as at Nea Nikomedeia in
western Macedonia (Rodden 1962.286). On the
other hand, there are unquestionable examples of
'rejection' or 'isolation' of the deceased, as at Vaxe-
vo in the Struma Valley, where the situation unam-
biguously demonstrated that the dead body had
been thrown into the pit (Cholakov 1991.231-232,
Fig. 1; Chohadzhiev 2001.170-171, Fig. 10). Quite
instructive in this respect is burial 285 at ^atalhöyük,
which is the only one outside the buildings. Anthro-
pological analysis shows pathological changes sugge-
sting that the deceased young man probably suffered
all his life from a serious disease which was the cause
of his external deformities (Molleson et al. 1998).
And last, but not least, the 'refuse pits' interpreta-
tions always fail to consider burials beneath house
floors, which are especially valuable as arguments
against these allegations. These burials' position
does not allow one to suppose that they belong to
'rejected' individuals; neither are they limited to in-
fants and children only in order to be explained as
'sacrifices', although it is not very clear either why
these so-called sacrifices should be related to chil-
dren. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the
burials in the Anatolian Neolithic and early Chalco-
lithic are most often not interpreted as belonging to
marginal members of the local communities, and
they generally correspond to the southeast European
burials, both culturally and formally.
The grave pit was considered in the same semantic
context as the contracted position of the dead body.
If the symbolic meaning of the body position is ge-
nerally assumed as embryonic, it is completely rea-
sonable to view the pit as the womb of the female
divinity, even though this 'Mother-Goddessist' inter-
pretation would probably be considered by many as
outdated. The later megalithic tombs in northern
Europe had similar significance; their entrance was
viewed as a divine vagina, and the bringing of the
dead body into the tomb imitated the act of impre-
gnation (Gräslund 1994.22-24). Of course, burial
structures of a semantically similar plan existed as
early as the Starčevo period at Zlatara in Srem and
at Vinča-Belo Brdo (Vasić 1936.9-17; Leković 1985.
159-161), and are a logical development from or-
dinary pits. It is clear that, as a whole, the mortuary
rituals reproduced the mythological act of creation,
and the burial features played a fundamental role in
them.
Jar burials: early types and distribution
An additional argument here is the group of graves
in southeast Europe where the human remains were
buried in clay pots. This practice was common in the
Levant, both in earlier and contemporary contexts.
The clay pot itself was also considered as a womb,
but this symbolic aspect had been secondarily stres-
sed in burial contexts, as is the case with the later
Alishar Hüyük, where two of the urns were model-
led with conical 'breasts' (Schmidt 1932.72). In its
symbolic aspect of container, the womb of the fe-
male divinity or the mother goddess, if one should
use the convenient term, the pot - without respect
to the material - played a significant role in many
rituals, all the more so in historical times. One speci-
fic feature of the burial in clay pots in the Neolithic,
which differentiates it from the evolution of this
practice in later periods, is the re-use of vessels,
which originally had a different function and had
not been made especially for burial. The original
purpose - both real and symbolic - of clay pots
from Neolithic sites remains unknown, but the tra-
dition of burying in silos can be traced back to the
Levant. It is worth considering the burials at Ajmana
and Nea Nikomedeia once again and especially the
original purpose of the grave pits: the former was a
pit left from clay digging, and the latter was an old
silo. Certainly one should not belittle the expedient
aspects of re-using pits but it is evident that there is
a semantic similarity to the clay pot on the one hand,
and to grain, on the other. The burial in a vessel/pit
- which is a container/womb - obviously reproduced
the mythological act of creation; it confirms again
the symbolic relationship between grave/death/bu-
rial and grain/fertility/rebirth (Bacvarov 2003.129-
133). In this sense, on a practical level, these clay
pots were originally used as food containers, as cook-
ing pots or for other purposes, and were later re-used
in burials as death-containing vessels; on a symbolic
level they were originally used as containers of cul-
turally transformed or transforming matter, or mat-
ter prepared for transformation in the future, and
were later re-used in burials as 'birth-giving' vessels.
All these were different aspects of the same concept
in the religio-mythological beliefs of early farmers.
Nevertheless, burials in clay pots do not constitute
a homogenous group, but can be separated into
three different types, each with specific features. I
will consider them here with respect to their ori-
gins and territorial distribution.
A total of four cases of individual formal inhumation
in a clay pot - or typical jar burials - have been
found in southeast Europe: two at Kovačevo in the
Struma Valley, one at Rakitovo in the Rhodope and
one at Anza in the Vardar Valley (Lichardus-Itten et
al. 2002.116, 127, Pl. 9, 1-2; 10, 1; Raduncheva et
al. 2002.35,150-151, obr. 24/2,12; 81/3; Gimbutas
1976.397, Fig. 242, Pl. 47). All four complexes date
back to the early Neolithic: the first three burials be-
long to the Karanovo I culture, and the fourth be-
longs to the Kremenik-Anzabegovo culture. The bur-
ial from Rakitovo was found near the western wall
of a house, beneath the floor, and the other three
graves were discovered between houses. All vessels
were pots, one of which - that from Kovačevo - had
a clay lid. The globular pithos from Anza had four
broken handles and a broken bottom, most proba-
bly intentionally. Grave goods were found only in
the Rakitovo burial: a flint tool and lumps of red
ochre. The skeletal remains belong to newborn or
stillborn infants buried in a contracted position.
Only one of the Kovačevo skeletons was explored in
situ by an anthropologist and in this case the posi-
tion was found to be contracted on the right side,
with the head aligned to the north. It is worth men-
tioning that a total of seven infant or children buri-
als were excavated at the same site, and only two of
them, belonging to stillborn/newborn babies, were
interred in clay pots, whereas the rest belong to chil-
dren buried in ordinary pits. In one case the dead
child was wrapped in a thick cover, probably a mat
or possibly a sack.
As far as I am concerned, this practice had no paral-
lels in the neighbouring areas, neither culturally nor
chronologically. The closest analogies are three jar
burials from Kösk Höyük and Pinarbasi-Bor in Cen-
tral Anatolia, which were also found beneath house
floors like the Rakitovo grave, and belong to the Ana-
tolian late Neolithic/early Chalcolithic (Yakar 1991.
192). On the other hand, however, this tradition pro-
bably originated in the Levant, where it had already
become quite common and was related, for instance,
to the archaic Hassuna culture and the Tell Sotto cul-
ture. Six jar burials at the eponymous site at Tell Sotto
and one burial at Tell Hazna II are especially instru-
ctive (Bader 1989.132-135, Tab. 47/1-2; Munchaev
et al. 1993.27-34). The strong influence of Levan-
tine traditions on the life and culture at Kösk Höyük,
especially on mortuary practices, manifested itself in
the local variant of the 'skull cult' which was obser-
ved at that Anatolian site. The earliest 'decorated'
skulls of this kind were found at Jericho. The skull
from Kösk Höyük, however, was found in Layer III,
which resembles the late Neolithic at Catalhöyük,
whereas the skulls from Jericho are of a much ear-
lier date.
The second type comprises only one Neolithic grave
related to a secondary collective burial. It was disco-
vered in Layer III at Tell Azmak in Thrace and be-
longs to the early Neolithic Karanovo I culture. The
clay pot contained several skulls (the excavator does
not give the exact number) as well as separate bones
(Georgiev 1966.9-10). This find remains unique and
could be related only to the secondary collective bu-
rials in ordinary pits, from Layer II and IV of Tell Ka-
ranovo, for instance (Bacvarov 2000).
This is not the case with the last type, known from
as many as six sites in southeast Europe and related
to cremation burial. A large clay pot containing the
burnt bones of a child was found close to the oven
in a house from the early Neolithic layer at Tell Az-
mak. The pot was very probably buried beneath the
house floor, but this is not explicitly stated in the
only source available: the ground plan of the house
published in 1972 (Georgiev 1972.17, Abb. 4). This
burial is not unique in the southeast European early
Neolithic, although it is the only one found in Thrace.
Cremation burials in clay pots were found in the late
Starčevo layer at Vinča-Belo Brdo and at the Körös
site of Gorza in the Tisza Valley (Vasić 1936.182; Ga-
zdapusztai 1957). The burials from Vinča and Gorza
formally correspond to the Azmak complex; the cal-
cined bones were interred in clay pots.
Cremation was known as a ritual practice as early as
the Upper Palaeolithic, but the bones were often only
burnt superficially (Binant 1991.145-146). Such bu-
rials were also found at Epipaleolithic sites, although
rather occasionally. However, it is possible that the
separate burnt human bones were not recognized
and collected together with the animal bones, as is
the case with the Franchti cave, where skeletal re-
mains of about thirty individuals were recovered af-
ter careful sieving of the soil and analysis of the ani-
mal bones (Cullen 1995.274). More numerous exam-
ples of cremation burials in pots come from the late
Neolithic layers at Souphli Magoula and Plateia Mago-
ula Zarkou in eastern Thessaly (Gallis 1975; 1996a;
1996b). At Souphli, besides the charred skeletal re-
mains buried in round pits with grave goods and
belonging to the early Neolithic Protosesklo culture,
seven pots containing charred bones were found to
the south of the Magoula, belonging to the Tzangli-
Larissa phase of the Dimini culture. The cemetery of
Plateia was excavated at less than five hundred me-
ters from the site; it contained more than seventy
cremation burials in clay pots covered with other
vessels, in one case a zoomorph. The grave pits were
surrounded with stones, or in some cases the bot-
toms of the pits were covered with a layer of peb-
bles. Smaller vessels were buried as grave goods.
There are many different interpretations of the Neo-
lithic cremation burials, ranging from purification to
ways of releasing the spirit. Ina Wunn assumes that
the burials from Souphli and Plateia are clear indi-
cators of a belief in the existence of a soul which de-
taches from its earthly shell through cremation, thus
facilitating its transformation into another existen-
tial form (Wunn 2001.134-137). I cannot agree with
the idea that these practices were the result of the
elaboration of concepts of an afterworld, because
they appeared too early. It is rather that the crema-
tion burial was considered in the same religio-mytho-
logical context as inhumation in a contracted posi-
tion, but in an aspect more closely related to fire.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that in most
cases the cremated human remains were interred in
clay pots, whose symbolic meaning has already been
considered here. The position of the Azmak burial
near the oven should be viewed in the same light.
Certain additional hints to the interpretation of the
symbolism of cremation burials in clay pots are
found in the fact that the complexes at Tell Azmak
and Gorza are earlier, whereas the graves at Vinca,
Souphli and Plateia are of later date. Moreover, the
Azmak burial - and probably the burial from Gorza -
was of a child, which perhaps relates it more closely
to formal individual inhumations than to the typical
late Neolithic cremation burials; it should be noted
also that it was found beneath a house floor.
Instead of a conclusion: Late/Final Neolithic and
Chalcolithic development
Jar burial continued to be practiced in the late/final
Neolithic and the Chalcolithic of southeast Europe.
Six more burials were found beneath house floors
or outside houses. A new element here was the use
of bowls to contain or cover the infants' bodies, while
in the early Neolithic cases, only pots had been used.
Such a burial of a neonate, covered by a deep, dark-
burnished bowl with channelling was found at Tell
Ezero in Upper Thrace and date back to the late Neo-
lithic Karanovo III period (Georgiev et al. 1979.46).
They are similar to the final Neolithic cases at the
tells at Mandalo in northern Greece and Lerna in
Argolis, where two more burials were uncovered un-
der house floors, in an open undecorated bowl and
a patterned beaker, respectively (Caskey 1957.159).
However, the old tradition of burial in pots also sur-
vived in the same areas it had been practiced before,
as is suggested by the infant burials at Polgar, site 7
(Alföld Linear Pottery Culture) in the Great Hunga-
rian Plain, and in the Kouveleiki cave in Laconia,
Greece (Papathanassopoulos 1996), as well as the
burials at Rachmani in Thessaly (Wace and Thomp-
son 1912).
Nine more jar burials were found in the cemeteries
at Moragy-Tuzkodomb (southern Transdanubia), Du-
rankulak (Dobruja), and Kephala on the Cycladic is-
land of Keos, which belong to the late Neolithic Leng-
yel culture, Hamangia III and the final Neolithic, res-
pectively (Zalai-Gaäl 2002; Todorova 2002; Fow-
ler 2004).
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
An early draft of this paper was presented in 2003 at
the international symposium in Stara Zagora, Bulga-
ria, and was later published in its proceedings. I am
grateful to Dr. Mihael Budja, who kindly invited me
to take part in the 12th Neolithic Seminar and topre-
sent an updated version of this research project. I
should also acknowledge here Professor Päl Raczky,
who kindly shared the information about the unpub-
lished jar burial from Polgär with me.
REFERENCES
BACVAROV K. 2000. The Karanovo Neolithic Mortuary
Practices in their Balkan and Anatolian Context. In S. Hil-
ler and V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo, 3. Beiträge zum
Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien, Phoibos: 137-140.
2003. Neolitnipogrebalni obredi: intramuralni gro-
bove ot balgarskite zemi v konteksta na Yugoiztoch-
na Evropa i Anatolia. Bard. Sofia.
BADER N. O. 1989. Drevneyshie zemledeltsy Severnoy
Mesopotamii. Moskva.
BINANT P. 1991. La prehistoire de la mort: les premie-
res sepultures en Europe. Paris.
BRUKNER B. 1974 Rani neolit. In B. Brukner, B. Jovano-
vic and N. Tasic (eds.), Praistorija Vojvodine. Novi Sad:
29-68.
CASKEY J. L. 1957. Excavations at Lerna: 1956. Hesperia
26:142-162.
CHAPMAN J. C. 2000 Pit-digging and Structured Deposi-
tion in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society 66:1-27.
CHOHADZHIEV S. 2001. Vaksevo. Praistoricheski selish-
ta. Faber. Veliko Tarnovo.
CHOLAKOV S. 1991. Antropologichno prouchvane na
kostni ostanki ot rannoneolitnoto selishte pri s. Vaksevo,
Kyustendilsko. Izvestiya na Istoricheskiya muzey - Kyu-
stendil 3: 231-244.
CULLEN T. 1995. Mesolithic Mortuary Ritual at Franchthi
Cave, Greece. Antiquity 69:270-289.
FOWLER K. D. 2004. Neolithic Mortuary Practices in
Greece. British Archaeological Reports S1314, Archaeo-
press, Oxford.
GALLIS K. 1975. Kauseis nekron apo tin Arhaisteran Neo-
lithikin epohin tin Thessalian. Arhaiologika analekta ex
Athinon 8(2): 241-258.
1996a. Burial Customs. In G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.),
Neolithic Culture in Greece: 171-174. Athens.
1996b. Ausgrabungen der neolithischen Siedlungen
und Fiedhöfe von Platia Magoula Zarkou, Souphli-Ma-
gula und Makrychori 2 in Thessalien. In E. Alram-Stern
(ed.), Die Ägäische Frühzeit: 521-562. Wien.
GARASANIN M. 1973. Praistomja na tlu SR Srbije. Beograd.
GAZDAPUSZTAI G. 1957. A Körös-kultura lakotelepe Hod-
mezovasarhely-Gorzsan. Archaeologiai Ertesüö 85:3-13.
GEORGIEV G. I. 1966. Mnogosloynoe poselenie Azmashka
mogila bliz Staroy Zagory (Bolgaria). Kratkie soobshteni-
ya Instituta arheologii 106:3-10.
1972. Das Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in der
Thrakischen Tiefebene (Südbulgarien). Thracia, 1
(Probleme des heutigen Forschungsstandes): 5-27.
GEORGIEV G. I., MERPERT N., KATINCHAROV R. and DI-
MITROV D. (eds.) 1979. Ezero. Rannobronzovoto seli-
shte. Balgarska akademia na naukite. Sofia.
GIMBUTAS M. (ed.) 1976. Neolithic Macedonia as Re-
flected by Excavations at Anza, Southern Yugoslavia.
(Monumenta Archaeologica, 1). UCLA Institute of Archaeo-
logy. Los Angeles.
GRÄSLUND B. 1994. Prehistoric Soul Beliefs in Northern
Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60:15-
26.
JOVANOVIC B. 1967. Znachenje nekih kultnih elemenata
starchevachke grupe. Starinar 18:11-22.
LEKOVIC V. 1985. The Starčevo Mortuary Practices - New
Perspectives. Godišnjak Centra za Balkanološka ispiti-
vanja 23:157-172.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M., DEMOULE J.-P., PERNIČEVA L.,
GREBSKA-KULOVA M. and KULOV I. 2002. The site of Ko-
vačevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic Period in
Southwestern Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excavations
1986-2000. In M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus, und V. Ni-
kolov (Hrsg.), Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschun-
gen in Bulgarien. (Saarbrücker Beiträgen zum Altertums-
kunde, 74). Habelt, Bonn: 99-158.
MOLLESON T., ANDREWS P., BOZ B., DEREVENSKI J. and
PEARSON J. 1998. Human Remains up to 1998. In gatal-
höyük 1998 Archive Report [http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/
catal/Archive_rep98/molleson98.html].
MUNCHAEV R. M., MERPERT N. Y., BADER N. O. and AMI-
ROV S. N. 1993. Tell Hazna II - rannezemledelcheskoe po-
selenie v Severo-vostochnoy Sirii. Rossiiskaya arheolo-
gia 4: 25-42.
PAPATHANASSOPOULOS G. 1996. Burial Customs at Di-
ros. In G. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic Culture in
Greece. Athens: 175-177.
RADUNCHEVA A., MATSANOVA V., GATSOV I., KOVACHEV
G., GEORGIEV G., CHAKALOVA E. and BOZHILOVA E.
2002. Neolitno selishte do grad Rakitovo. (Razkopki i
prouchvaniya 29) Gal-Iko. Sofia.
RESCH F. 1991 Typologische Studien kultischer Gesichts-
deckel aus der jungsteinzeitlicher Siedlung von Parta I.
Banatica 11:185-192.
RODDEN R. 1962. Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site
at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 season). Pro-
ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28:267-288.
SCHMIDT E. F. 1932. The Alishar Hüyük, I. Seasons of
1928 and 1929. Oriental Institute Publications: 19. Uni-
versity of Chicago.
STALIO B. 1992 Grupno sahranjivanje na Ajmani - Mala
Vrbica. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja 14(1): 65-78.
TODOROVA H. (ed.) 2002. Die prähistorischen Gräber-
felder (Durankulak II). Deutsches Archäologisches Insti-
tut. Sofia.
VASIC M. 1936. Preistoriska Vinca II. Beograd.
WACE A. J. B. and THOMPSON M. S. 1912. Prehistoric
Thessaly. Cambridge.
WUNN I. 2001. Götter, Mütter, Ahnenkult. Religionsent-
wiklung in der Jungsteinzeit. Oldenburg.
YAKAR Y. 1991. Prehistoric Anatolia. The Neolithic Trans-
formation and the Early Chalcolithic Period. Monograph
Series of the Institute of Archaeology. Tel Aviv University.
Tel Aviv.
ZALAI-GAÄL I. 2002. Die Neolithische Gräbergruppe-B1
von Mörägy-Tuzkodomb, I. Die archäologische Funde
und Befunde. Wosinsky Mor Müzeum. Szekszard-Saar-
brücken.