327
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Tell communities and wetlands
in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
Goce Naumov
Center for Prehistoric Research, Museum of Macedonia, Skopje, MK
gocenaumov@gmail.com
Introduction
The Balkans played a significant role in the intro-
duction of agriculture and new ways of life in
Europe. This process started in the middle of 7th
millennium and continuously modified a large num-
ber of societies and landscapes on the continent. In
this dynamic prehistoric environment, a particular
group of communities inhabiting a valley in Pelago-
nia significantly contributed to the integration of
new economic, social and symbolic practices (Fig. 1).
The elongated valley, oriented north-south, lies in
the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, incorporat-
ing the towns of Prilep, Bitola and Florina. Since
prehistory, this basin has provided solid subsistence
and so it has been continuously settled until the pre-
sent. The fertile alluvial soil near wetlands was the
major feature that prompted numerous communi-
ties in the Neolithic to build the first dwellings on
the artificial mounds they created. The calibrated
dates based on radiocarbon analysis from the 1970s
indicate that the region was occupied around the be-
ginning of the 6th millennium BC, although some
dates with high standard deviation reach back to the
middle of the 7th millennium (Srdo≤ et al. 1977; Va-
lastro et al. 1977; Naumov 2016a). New AMS radio-
carbon analysis will determine the precise dates of
earliest sites, but nevertheless the process of Neoli-
ABSTRACT – Pelagonia is the biggest valley in the Republic of Macedonia, positioned in its mountain-
ous southwestern area. It was first inhabited around 6000 BC by agricultural societies, which estab-
lished the tell settlements in the region. Their villages were densely concentrated in several regional
centres located near wetlands and rivers. These farming communities produced a variety of ceramic
household items with pronounced features of a distinct identity, such as white painted pottery, anthro-
pomorphic house models, figurines, tablets and stamps. The particular landscape and isolated net-
work of Early Neolithic tell societies in Pelagonia remained unaffected until the Late Neolithic, which
was an outcome of the idiosyncratic and strong relationship between the environment, dwellings and
human body. Therefore, the paper discusses the first farming communities in Pelagonia, as well as
the process of how identity was manifested in regard to the wetland environment and networks.
IZVLE∞EK – Pelagonija je najve≠ja dolina v Republiki Makedoniji in le∫i v jugozahodnem goratem
predelu. Poljedelske skupnosti so regijo prvotno poselile dolino ok. 6000 pr. n. ∏t. in postavile t. i. tell
naselbine. Njihove vasi so bile zgo∏≠ene v ∏tevilnih regionalnih centrih, ki so bili omejeni predvsem
na obmo≠ja mo≠virij in rek. Te poljedelske skupnosti so izdelovale razli≠ne kerami≠ne hi∏ne izdelke
z izrazitimi zna≠ilnostmi, ki ka∫ejo posebne identitete kot so belo slikana lon≠enina, antropomorfni
hi∏ni modeli, figurine, plo∏≠e in ∫etoni. Zna≠ilna pokrajina in izolirana mre∫a povezav zgodnje neo-
litskih tell naselbin v Pelagoniji so ostale nespremenjene do poznega neolitika, kar je rezultat zna≠il-
ne in mo≠ne povezave med okoljem, naselbinami in ≠love∏kim telesom. V ≠lanku se zato ukvarjamo
tako s pojavom prvih poljedelskih skupnosti v Pelagoniji kot tudi z na≠inom, kako se je glede na vla∫-
no okolje in mre∫e povezav oblikovala njihova identiteta.
KEY WORDS – Pelagonia; Neolithic; wetlands; networks; chronology
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.16 
Goce Naumov
328
thisation was synchronous
with that in the neighboring
regions. The large scale exca-
vations in the 1970s supports
this argument, as numerous
finds are similar to those un-
earthed in the Korçë basin
(Albania) and Amindeon area
(Greece).
Interest in the prehistory of
Pelagonia started during the
First World War, when seve-
ral Paleolithic sites were re-
searched (Malez 1979; Kuz-
man 1995). Thereafter, some
campaigns by different teams
commenced, including those
of American institutions direc-
ted by Vladimir Fewkes and
by British archaeologists guid-
ed by Walter A. Heurtley (Few-
kes et al. 1933; Heurtley 1939;
Galovi≤ 1964). These were
smaller-scale excavations and
mainly prospections which recorded the first Neoli-
thic sites and indicated the character of settlements
as tells. It was a significant step forward in intro-
ducing Pelagonia as a region where numerous com-
munities established villages in the Early Neolithic
and chose the wetland area as an integral part of
their lives. Furthermore, the interest in the Neolithic
of Pelagonia increased after the Second World War,
when more thorough excavations were performed,
but an apparent boost in research was initiated in
1970s, when a number of excavations were execut-
ed on sites at Porodin, Mogila, Dobromiri, Karama-
ni, Radobor, Trn and Topol≠ani (Simoska, Sanev
1976; Todorovi≤ et al. 1987; Sanev 1995; Naumov
2009a).
These campaigns provided most of the data which
even today is the main source for understanding
Neolithic societies living on this valley. After the re-
search boom in the 1970s, archaeological interest in
Pelagonia suddenly decreased, with the exception of
excavations at Vrbjani and Opti≠ari in the 1980s (Ki-
tanoski et al. 1990; Simoska, Kuzman 1990). Nearly
three decades passed without any thorough research
in this region, until the 2000s, when excavations at
Senokos, Mogila, and Vrbjani began, as well as geoph-
ysical scanning, GIS mapping, the calibration of chro-
nology and archaeobotanical research of Neolithic
tells in Pelagonia (Temelkoski, Mitkoski 2006; Nau-
mov et al. 2014; Naumov, Stojkoski 2015; Naumov,
Toma∫ 2015; Naumov et al. in print). Although still
modest, the current data obtained from the research
in 1970’s and that of the last decade, provide ele-
mentary information on Neolithic communities, their
dwellings, material culture and environment. There
is still much to be done for a thorough understand-
ing of the social setting and interaction with nature
in Neolithic Pelagonia, but the available data allow
for the initial reconstruction of the landscape and
settlements and how they were integrated in the
wetland environment.
The geography of wetlands
Pelagonia is an elongated valley in the geographic
region of Macedonia, in Southeast Europe. The val-
ley is nearly 5000m2 in area, with a length of ap-
prox. 80km and width of 35km. Geologically, it dates
to the Pelagonia horst anticlinorum and consists of
a neotectonic basin structure initiated in the Middle
Miocene (Arsovski 1997; Dumurdzanov et al. 2004).
The wider region is built from Precambrian and Pa-
leozoic metamorphic rocks developed by the peri-
pheral mountains surrounding Neogene lake sedi-
ments. To the North is Mt Dautica, eastward are Ba-
buna and Sele≠ka, southernmost are Nidje and Ne-
redska, while to the west are Baba, Plakenska, and
Bu∏eva (Trifunovski 1998). The valley is formed on
Fig. 1. Map of the Republic of Macedonia with location of sites discussed
in paper. Pelagonia: 1 Senokos; 2 Slavej; 3 Topol≠ani; 4 Radobor; 5 Mogi-
la; 6 Trn; 7 Karamani; 8 Dobromiri; 9 Opti≠ari; 10 Porodin; 11 Velu∏ka
Tumba. Lake Ohrid: 12 Dolno Trnovo; 13 Ohridati; 14 Ustie na Drim.
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
329
Neogene lake sediments including saline sandstones,
clean siltstone, clay, sandy clay, and gravel (Fig. 2).
Quaternary lake sediments consist of coarse sandy
gravel fraction and marshy sediments, proluvial and
diluvial deposits from roughly clastic sediment of
silty-clay, sands and gravels (Mir≠ovski et al. 2015).
The graben itself is developed on Precambrian gneiss
and schist and Paleozoic schist and granite of the Pe-
lagonian tectonic unit. This unit was formed in the
Late Miocene and contained lacustrine environment
from the Late Miocene until the end of the Pliocene
and Pleistocene. The Miocene-Pliocene section is co-
vered by 5–15m of Pleistocene alluvial-proluvial se-
diments (Dumurdzanov et al. 2004).
The environment deposited a thick layer of alluvial
and Neogene lake sediments which affected the qual-
ity and fertility of the soil (Puteska et al. 2015). This
was one of the primary motives for the dynamic in-
habitation of Pelagonia since the Early Neolithic and
its continued exploitation. Also, the abundance of
underground waters and rivers contributed to soil
fertility. The Crna Reka River is one of the biggest in
the region and is used as a main waters ource in the
agriculture. The Crna Reka’s branches, such as the
Dragor, πemnica, and Ele∏ka rivers, also contribute
to irrigation. Hydrogeological complexes distributed
swampy sediments (Mir≠ovski et al. 2015), and the
flooding of rivers and appearance of underground
waters caused by melting snow creates large areas
of wetlands. In the period of heavy rains or snow
melting, the rivers overflow their banks and in com-
bination with underground waters create several
smaller marshy lakes which were used throughout
the year for fishing, hunting birds and providing
resources for house building and weaving. These
marshy lakes were intentionally and systematically
dranied in the early 1960s, but were often exploited
for subsistence economy, communication and boat-
ing (Trifunovski 1998). The recent floods confirmed
that the marshes are again being created in the par-
ticular areas where swampy lakes existed before
being drained, which indicates that their
surroundings were preferred even in the
Neolithic (Naumov, Stojkoski 2015).
Without new hydrogeological research
in Pelagonia, it is hard to specify the en-
vironment at the end of 7th millennium
BC. Although it could be expected that
the landscape did not significantly
change in the last 10 000 years, sam-
pling is still necessary in order to under-
stand thoroughly the climate and pro-
cesses concerning waters and sediments
in the central alluvial plain. Geographi-
cal maps from the end of 19th and first
half of 20th century indicate that there
were several isolated areas with marsh-
es which were the same size or perhaps
bigger in prehistory. Medieval sources
even indicate that there was a smaller
lake in Pelagonia and an island near the
site known as Staroselo and Katarsko
(Chausidis 2003). The frequent floods
and dynamic underground waters pro-
bably affected the quantity and extent
of the wetlands which were changing in
various eras until their final drainage in
the 1960s. The climate had an important
role, as the one in Pelagonia is consid-
ered as modified continental and mod-
erate continental, with hot, dry sum-
mers and cold, wet winters. Wide tempe-
rature fluctuations are frequent with aFig. 2. Geological map of Pelagonia (Puteska et al. 2015.Fig. 2).
Goce Naumov
330
maximum of 40°C and minimum –30°C in summer
and winter, respectively. Annual precipitation is ap-
prox. 915mm, which, along with river floods, allow
constant watering of the soil and the cultivation of
cereals (Puteska et al. 2015).
Nevertheless, archaeological research in the 1970s
asserts that Pelagonia in the Neolithic was mainly
wetland area and therefore later inhabited by the
first agricultural communities (Kitanoski et al. 1980;
Naumov 2009a). This is also indicated by the cali-
brated dates of several sites in Pelagonia, which are
somewhat later than those from Neolithic settle-
ments in Ov≠e Pole, a region north-east of Pelagonia
(Naumov 2015a; 2016a). In spite of recent chrono-
logical and hydrogeological results, archaeological
excavations confirm large number of sites in this
wetland area next to the Crna Reka and marshes (Si-
moska, Sanev 1976). The fertile fields attracted larg-
er groups of communities to establish settlements
near wetlands, which is also supported by similar
radiocarbon dates from several Neolithic villages
(Fig. 3). This process began around 6000 BC, but
continued throughout the entire millennium, with
a number of tell sites appearing and vanishing after
several centuries of intensive occupation.
Chronology of tells
The date of the establishment of tells is still under
debate as the proposals are based mainly on relative
chronology, i.e. on comparison of material culture
(Sanev 1995). There were few dates from radiocar-
bon analysis of samples unearthed at sites in Pelago-
nia, but they were not used in Macedonian archae-
ology. They have recently been incorporated into
the research of tells in this region and provided an
entirely new perspective on the initial stages of the
Neolithic and its progress in the 6th millennium BC
(Naumov 2009a; 2015a; Naumov in print). Several
tells in Pelagonia were dated in the 1970s in two
laboratories at the Ru∂er Bo∏kovi≤ Institute in Zag-
reb and the University of Texas in Austin (Srdo≤ et
al. 1977; Valastro et al. 1977). Although this was a
few decades ago, they remain the only reference for
the prehistoric chronology of Pelagonia. There are
high standard deviations among the provided dates,
but some could be used as a reference for a chrono-
logical framework.
The earliest date so far is from Topol≠ani, which
dates to the middle of the 7th millennium (Fig. 3).
This quite early date is under discussion due to sev-
Fig. 3. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from tell sites in Pelagonia (after Naumov 2016a.Fig. 10).
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
331
eral problems. First, there is high standard devia-
tion in the result, which currently is not considered
in archeological research as adequate information.
Also, the sample could come from organic material
which is much older than the period of its use at the
Neolithic settlement at Topol≠ani. But if some dates
from northern parts of Greece and Central Albania
are considered, then such early date is not uncom-
mon for the Balkans (Reingruber 2011; Karamitrou
Mentessidi et al. 2013; Bunguri 2014), and they are
sometimes associated with the first farming pioneers
exploring and later settling this peninsula (Perlès
2001). The second date from Topol≠ani corresponds
more with the chronology of other tells in Pelago-
nia, although with a high standard deviation in the
result, which is much later and could be set at the
very beginning of the 6th millennium BC.
Several dates from Mogila, Velu∏ka Tumba, and Po-
rodin are close to this one from Topol≠ani, and there-
fore could be proposed as more referential for the
initial Neolithic stages of tell sites in Pelagonian wet-
lands. New dating and detailed chronological sequen-
ces are required in order to propose more complete
dates for Pelagonia, although currently this should
be considered as the only precise reference1. In re-
gard to the very end of the Neolithic period in Pela-
gonia, the tell at Trn provides several dates from the
first half of the 5th millenium BC. Both dates and
material culture are common for the Late Neolithic
in the Balkans and therefore could be proposed as
the current chronological reference for the last Neo-
lithic stage in Pelagonia (Simoska, Sanev 1977;
Naumov 2016a; in print). This temporal range indi-
cates that Neolithic tells appeared and were abondo-
ned over a period of approx. two millennia. Some of
these settlements were occupied for only a few cen-
turies, while others were reused in later periods
(Chalcolithic and Bronze Age) and even as an area
for Roman villas rusticas in the Classical Period or
necropolises in the Middle Ages.
Settlements in wetlands
The first Neolithic villages were established accord-
ing to the environment and natural conditions. Wet-
lands and the surrounding fields were chosen as fer-
tile ground able to provide a subsistence economy.
Although paleoecological research has not been un-
dertaken for Neolithic Pelagonia, a survey from the
neighboring regions indicates progressive refore-
station after the Pleistocene and a densely forested
landscape with oak, pine, elm, hazel, etc. (Demoule,
Perlès 1993). Both the alluvial plain and hills around
it were preferred locations for Early Neolithic settle-
ments, but the highest number of villages has been
recorded in the flatlands (Simoska, Sanev 1976).
The majority were close to marshes due to the well-
watered soil and proximity of resources for food,
building, plaiting and basketry. Recently, the marsh-
es were considered as source of a malaria, but cur-
rent research shows that particular communities de-
veloped cultural, dietary and behaviour adaptations
and reduced the risk of death (Sabattani et al. 2010).
Therefore, the Pelagonian wetlands could be consi-
dered an ideal landscape for siting some of the first
agricultural villages in the region.
Most of the settlements are tell sites, although some
sites are positioned on the hills near the valley. Con-
sidering that most of the valley is flatland, it was
necessary to establish artificial mounds close to mar-
shes. The first agricultural communities in Pelago-
nia used small natural humps on which they con-
structed wattle and daub houses (Simoska, Sanev
1976; Kitanoski et al. 1990; Tolevski 2009; Nau-
mov et al. in print). Tells were dispersed all over
the valley, but the majority around the marshy lakes
(Fig. 4). Recent research indicates that Neolithic so-
cieties in Pelagonia used the principal water resour-
ces, so that many of them are close to marshes and
along the Crna Reka. Although the total current
number of documented tells in Pelagonia is more
than 120, in its central part alone 93 sites have been
recorded, most of which are tells (Naumov, Stojko-
ski 2015). There are major bigger tells all over the
valley, with a number of smaller tells established in
their vicinity. Until thorough excavations and further
dating, it remains open as to whether these clusters
of tells were synchronous and related to each other.
In some areas there are groups of 3 to 8 tells, which
indicates several scenarios: 1) they could have been
established in different periods, although pottery at
some neighboring sites is quite similar; 2) a single
tell could be the area‘s centre, while a few others
could be peripheral, consisting of communities not
incorporated within the centre or belonging to a
group of newcomers willing to be integrated into
the society (Naumov, Stojkoski 2015). Nevertheless,
such a high density of tells in a particular area indi-
cates more complex social processes in the Neolithic
and a division of both status and space.
1 Few months ago 14C analysis on seeds unearthed from tells at Porodin and Opti≠ari was done at The University of Bern. These
still unpublished dates indicate that the initial occupation of the sites was at the very beginning of 6th millennium BC and partially
correspond with the dates from 1970s.
Goce Naumov
332
In regard to the division of space,
geophysical scanning at a few tells
shows practices common to well-
organised societies. At the tell at
Dobromiri, a number of dwellings
are disposed in lines, while the cen-
tre consists of constructions organ-
ised around an empty circular area
(Fig. 5a). The entire village is enclos-
ed with a ditch and a few entrances
apparently divided the tell from its
surroundings (Naumov et al. 2014).
This ditch could be to protect the in-
habitants from attack, from wild ani-
mals and fires, but it could also be a
symbolic border between the domus
and agrios, i.e. domesticated and wild
world (Hodder 1990; Bradley 2005;
Harding et al. 2006). In spite of this,
at other sites the geophysical scan-
ning does not show a similar division
of space. The tell at Trn is later, has
no ditch enclosing the village and has
one massive building at its very cen-
tre (Fig. 5b). These differences could
relate to dissimilar social practices or
to diverse communities inhabiting
sites divided only by the wide Crna
Reka. That they belong to different
chronological and cultural Neolithic
levels could be a further explanation,
although this does not always con-
sider diverse societies, but sometimes the absorption
of new cultural features (Naumov et al. 2014).
The buildings in the Neolithic villages of Pelagonia
are mainly unified, with only a few exceptions. Most
of the architecture consists of rectangular dwellings
made of wattle and daub, with posts and triangular
roofs covered with straw (Tolevski 2009). The dwel-
lings at Velu∏ka Tumba and Tumba at Porodin have
feature common to the Neolithic houses in the Bal-
kans, while at many other sites no outlines of struc-
tures are confirmed (Grbi≤ et al. 1960; Simoska, Sa-
nev 1975). The dwelling at Slavej has the same plan
(Fig. 6), but differs from the others in having an
enormous elongated structure consisting of one main
large container and four smaller disposed laterally
(Mitkoski 2005). There are different explanations of
this structure, with some stressing cultic aspects and
others focusing on its economic features symbolical-
ly intensified by the applied patterns on the walls (Ki-
tanoski et al. 1990; Mitkoski, Naumov 2007). Re-
cent excavations at the same site indicate another
dwelling in the vicinity of this one. The concentra-
tion of many structures within one dwelling for pro-
cessing cereals (platforms, ovens, fire places, grind
stones, grinders, etc.) indicates an area with inten-
sive economic dynamism (Naumov et al. in print).
Considering these two large buildings in the central
part of the tell it could be proposed that a huge quan-
tity of wheatflour and bread was produced there.
They could be communal buildings for the public
provision of bread, which has already been proposed
for some other sites in the Balkans (Budja 2003).
The pit houses at the Pe∏terica and Senokos sites,
with banches and platforms in their interior, are ex-
ceptions to common Neolithic architectural tradi-
tions (Kitanoski et al. 1980; Temelkoski, Mitkoski
2006). A specific structure is confirmed on a tell at
Mogila, where a building with a dense concentra-
tion of posts but without the remains of daub in its
vicinity was recorded (Naumov, Toma∫ 2015). This
structure is on the very periphery of the tell, which
indicates the building of pile dwellings in Pelagonia
Fig. 4. Location of tell sites around wetlands in central Pelagonia
(after Simoska, Sanev 1976.Map 1).
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
333
due to the presence of water beside and below the
site. The building of structures on posts was a com-
mon practice in Pelagonian villages even in the 20th
century. Many were used for economic purposes in
order to protect food resources from waterlogged
ground and were sometimes used as huts for fishing,
seasonal work or ritual purposes (Chausidis 2009).
With regard to pile dwellings or structures on wood-
en posts, house models should be an indication of
the presence of such buildings in Pelagonia. House
models are a common feature of the Balkan Neoli-
thic, and there are several variations in shape (Ni-
kolov 2007). Those in Pelagonia have particluar fea-
tures which accentuate architectonic details, and
have so-called ‘legs’ on the bottom (Naumov 2011).
The study of house models has mainly focused on
their symbolic aspects (Temelkoski, Mitkoski 2005;
Chausidis 2009; Naumov 2011), but the social and
architectonic features have also been considered
(Tolevski 2009; Naumov 2013). The majority have
‘legs’, without a hearth or oven in the interior, and
could be stylised representations of pile dwellings or
buildings used to store cereals, vegetables, meat, etc.
(Fig. 7a, c). The model found at Porodin has a bro-
ken bottom and a house interior, so it could be inter-
preted as a wattle and daub ground-level dwelling.
But recent finds at Lemnochri II in the Amindeon
basin (Greece) confirm the wider production of al-
most identical models which are thought to be rep-
resentations of two storey houses (Chrysostomou et
al. 2015). Such houses have not been documented
in Pelagonia so far, but given the proximity and simi-
lar environment of these regions, similar buildings
could be expected in Pelagonia as well.
Material culture
The house models produced at Neolithic sites in Pe-
lagonia are an appropriate introduction to the ma-
terial culture of the societies living in the wetlands
of this region. Regarding the amount of house mod-
els and its architectonic details, Pelagonia is one of
the rare regions in the Balkans with such a focus on
house representations. It indicates that the commu-
nities producing these models were focused on the
social and symbolic significance of the house and its
importance within Neolithic life (Naumov 2013).
An emphasis on the house throughout ma-
terial culture was related to the stylised
portrayal of dwellings, but also integrated
these miniature rerpesentations of buil-
dings into more complex symbolic realm.
Besides their specific visual features, asso-
ciated with variety of semiotic atributes,
the models also have a shallow container
not designed to store a large amount of
material. There have been different obser-
vations on how and why this part was used,
but archeologists are mainly united on the
ritual function that these models could have
had (Temelkoski, Mitkoski 2005; Nikolov
2007; Chausidis 2009; Naumov 2011).
The remains of fire suggests that something
was burnt in their interior, although fur-
ther chemical analysis could trace the ma-
Fig. 5. Geomagnetic
maps from geophy-
sical scanning of
tells at Dobromiri
(a) and Trn (b) (af-
ter Naumov et al.
2013. Fig. 11–12).
Fig. 6. Large clay structure (granary) inside a Neolithic house
in ‘Vrbjanska ∞uka’ at Slavej (after Mitkoski 2005.Pl. 1).
Goce Naumov
334
terials which were used in
these practices. The deposi-
tion of figurines, stones and
organic materials (flour, veg-
etation, liquids, etc.) should
certainly not be excluded as
composite parts of symbolic
activities associated with these
artefacts in the Neolithic.
The symbolism within the
house models was not only
applied to their ritual use, but
also to the more complex se-
miotic identification of the
house and the human body. From the last stages of
the Early Neolithic in Pelagonia anthropomorphic
house models were produced (Simoska, Sanev 1976;
Sanev 2006; Chausidis 2007). They comprise a cylin-
der with a representation of a human face and house
model instead of the lower half of the human body
(Fig. 7b). Although similar artefacts were produced
in neghbouring regions north and north-east of Pela-
gonia, those particular to this region have apparent
features of dwellings, in spite of others which con-
sisted of a box instead of a house model. Such appa-
rent identification of humans with houses is not
common in the wider region, so discussions raised
the question of who or what was manifested through
these artefacts. Alhough they were speculatively in-
terpreted as ‘Great Mothers’ (Sanev 1988; Zdrav-
kovski 2006a), still more thorough observation in-
dicates that they probably represented the individ-
uals associated with the house, such as the family
head (paterfamilias), an ancestor, deceased person,
distinguished individual, etc. (Naumov 2013). Never-
theless, the anthropomorphic house models attest
to the symbolic relationship with communities and
their dwellings, which was particularly emphasised
among the Neolithic villages within the wetlands of
Pelagonia. It is in accord to Hodder’s concept of do-
mus and the accentuation of the domestic sphere in
the Neolithic (Hodder 1990), but also emphasises
the idea of the domestication of human body as a
process synchronous with the domestication of ani-
mals and cultivation of plants.
The prominence of symbolic features of the human
body in Pelagonia was not only manifested in this
hybrid relationship between man and house, but
also in the production of figurines. The figurines
were miniature representations of bodies, and stres-
sed particular segments of corporeality and embodi-
ment (Joyce 2000; Lesure 2011). In spite of other
regions where sexless figurines prevail, in Pelagonia
most of the figurines are female, with an apparent
focus on the buttocks and genital area (Fig. 8). Cor-
poreality employed body gestures which often in-
cludes hands on the abdomen or genitalia and also
covering of genitalia with particular round applica-
tions (Naumov 2014). Animal figurines were also
found in Pelagonia, but in significantly smaller num-
bers compared to human representations (Temelko-
ski, Mitkoski 2001; Vasileva 2005). The interpreta-
tion of figurines ranges from individuals to deities
(Gimbutas 1989; Bailey 2005), but although their
meaning is hard to grasp, it is indicative that they
were intended to represent features of a human
body. The characteristics that were represented bear
the apparent features of humans and thus reflect re-
gional identity and the understanding of embodi-
ment in that particular region.
In terms of regional identity, pottery is one of the
most distinguished representatives. Not only typol-
ogy, but patterns painted, applied, and incised on
the vessels are indicators of regional preferences in
pottery production (Fig. 9). Along with the first ex-
tensive excavation of Neolithic tells in Pelagonia,
pottery was regarded as a cultural and chronological
marker. Thus, the types of vessel and their decora-
tion were primarily determinants for the archaeo-
logical culture identified with Pelagonia (i.e. the
Velu∏ina-Porodin group) and consequently the ref-
erence for each Neolithic phase (Simoska, Sanev
1976; Gara∏anin 1979). Particular shapes and pat-
terns were associated with the Early, Middle or Late
Neolithic, although further analysis demonstrate that
such an archaeological division of decoration is not
always accurate and was thus modified (Sanev 1995;
Naumov 2009b; 2015a). Nevertheless, besides its
chronological, economic and technological engage-
ment pottery also has complex social features.
Fig. 7. Neolithic house models from ‘Tumba’ and ‘Velu∏ka Tumba’ at Po-
rodin: a no scale (Vasileva 2005.40); b height 25cm (Koli∏trkoska Naste-
va 2005.Fig. 43); c no scale (Vasileva 2005.40).
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
335
The majority of Early Neolithic
white painted patterns or Late
Neolithic incrustations were not
only an aesthetic expression of
communities inhabiting Pelago-
nia, but also markers of their
identity. Most of the patterns on
vessels were common mainly in
Pelagonia, but not in the sur-
rounding regions. This indicates
that as a geographically encircled
area, Pelagonia was inhabited by
communities which developed a
distinct identity mainly manifest-
ed in pottery, but also in other
elements of material culture
(Naumov 2010), which includes
figurines, models, stamps, and tools, which besides
their general characteristis also have authentic fea-
tures unique to this region. Nevertheless, although
geographically isolated, the communities in Pelago-
nia established dynamic networks mainly with those
to the southwest, while northerly regions were ap-
parently omitted. A number of painted vessels, an-
thropomorphic house models, ‘altars’ and stamps
found at Neolithic sites in the Lake Ohrid basin are
almost identical to their counterparts in Pelagonia
(Kuzman et al. 1989; Kuzman 2013; Naumov
2016b). Although geographical obstacles were not
prominent between these two regions, networks
were intensified in the Early and Late Neolithic, des-
pite less intensive interaction with other northern
areas (Naumov in print).
Tools comprise the final group of material culture
incorporated in this review of Pelagonian wetlands
in the Neolithic, although more objects should be in-
cluded in an extensive review. Regarding regional
specifications, ceramic projectiles should be men-
tioned, as they are absent or rare in neighbouring
regions (Grbi≤ et al. 1960; Mitkoski 2005). They
are found in large numbers at Pelagonian sites,
which suggests they were more
frequently used in hunting and
fighting than for other purposes.
Arrowheads are almost absent,
thus confirming the preference
for clay sling missiles for both
hunting and fighting. Also their
use in stockbreeding and control-
ling pasturing flocks or herds has
been proposed (Perlès 2001), and
the accuracy of sunbaked projec-
tiles in combat has also been em-
phasised (Runnels et al. 2009). In contrast to arrow-
heads, flint blades are more frequent and vary in
shape and function, as well as a number of polished
axes (Simoska, Sanev 1975; 1977; Kitanoski 1977;
Simoska, Kuzman 1990; Kitanoski 1989; Naumov,
Toma∫ 2015; Naumov et al. in print). Bone tools are
also very rare, perhaps because of the excavation
methodology or chemical features of soil, as animal
bones from the Neolithic are rarely present or re-
ported. Ornaments are not within the scope of tools
and are more concerned with decoration and iden-
tity. Bracelets and necklaces of stone, bone or shell
are almost absent at Pelagonian sites, but their pre-
sence on human representations such as figurines
and anthropomorphic house models indicate they
were composite parts of an emphasised individual
or communal identity (Naumov 2015b).
Wetlands and networks
Due to the vast bodies of water, wetlands were con-
sidered as areas consisting of unrefined and conser-
vative societies incapable of producing a sophisti-
cated material culture or establishing more complex
spatial organisation within settlements and land-
Fig. 8. Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines from ‘Tumba’ and ‘Velu∏-
ka Tumba’ at Porodin: a height 7cm (Koli∏trkoska Nasteva 2005. Fig.
7); b height 12cm (Koli∏trkoska Nasteva 2005.Fig. 26); c height 6cm
(Koli∏trkoska Nasteva 2005.Fig. 5).
Fig. 9. Neolithic pottery from ‘Tumba’ and ‘Velu∏ka Tumba’ at Poro-
din: a height 48cm (Fidanoski 2009.Pl. 66/7); b width 23cm (Fidano-
ski 2009.Pl. 66/5); c height 17cm (Fidanoski 2009.Pl. 67/3).
Goce Naumov
336
scapes. But more thorough research on excavated
finds and contexts, as well as the integration of sci-
ence and theory within wetland archaeology, has
provided a new understanding of these areas and
the communities living there (Van de Noort, O’Sul-
livan 2006). The first agriculturists in the wetlands
of Pelagonia are a remarkable illustration of how so-
cieties inhabiting such areas were far from unrefined
or unskilled at crafts. The brief overview of materi-
al culture presented above indicates that the Neoli-
thic wetlanders in Pelagonia and in many other si-
milar areas of the Balkans were exceptional manu-
facturers, rational exploiters and meticulous organi-
sers of living space. Moreover, they engaged their
cognition in a sophisticted way in order to incorpo-
rate hybridism and embodiment within material cul-
ture or to geometrically organise the scrupulous white
painted patterns on the curved surfaces of vessels.
Although this blossoming of art, symbolic visualisa-
tion and patterning of space appear as a kind of sud-
den ‘explosion’ in Pelagonia, it was gradually inte-
grated in a long-term process developed by many
generations in diverse regions.
The wetlands in the valley within the encircled land-
scape of mountains in Pelagonia were even more of
a challenge to newly arrived farmers or to the indi-
genous population that rapidly absorbed Neolithic
ways of life. Constant access to fertile fields, confron-
tation with floods and isolation from other regions
by high mountains enabled a solid focus on local
identity and particularly a genuine understanding of
the human body and the landscape. Therefore, the
spatial organisation of tells around marshy lakes,
the conception of corporeal hybridism or incorpo-
ration of geometry within pottery decoration were
advanced as achievements not similar to, or at least
modified, further north of Pelagonia. The material
culture associated with these principles was exceptio-
nal, made with a high level of expertise and quality
and attractive to communities in neighbouring re-
gions.
Although developed within an area enclosed by
mountains, Pelagonian societies were not preserved
in regional isolation. Its aesthetic and symbolic fea-
tures reached other farming communities in the vi-
cinity. Some of them absorbed or exchanged only
parts of this Pelagonian ‘culture’, while others were
established thorough networks. In terms of material
culture, Pelagonian societies were more southerly
oriented, and did not favour strong relationships
with those to the north or east. The painted patterns
of vessels, figurines’ features, model houses and an-
thropomorphic cylinders significantly differ from
what was produced by the so-called Amzabegovo-
Vr∏nik, Star≠evo, and Karanovo cultures (Gara∏anin
1979; Todorova, Vaisov 1993; Sanev 1994). There
are surely glimpses of Pelagonian artefacts in regions
defined by these ‘cultures’, as witnessed by the an-
thropomorphic lanterns, figurines and the few paint-
ed patterns in the Skopje and Ov≠e Pole region (Nau-
mov 2010). More evident elements of the Pelago-
nian Neolithic are present in the very close region of
Raec across Mt Babuna and in the Polog valley north-
west of Pelagonia (Sinadinovski 2016; Zdravkovski
2006b). The similarities are mainly in the white paint-
ed patterns on vessels from the Middle Neolithic le-
vels of a few sites in Pelagonia. Therefore, it can be
proposed that contacts were firmly established later,
although communication between these regions in
the Early Neolithic should not be excluded.
The solid networks of Pelagonia with other areas
are most apparent in the Lake Ohrid basin. From the
Early Neolithic, settlements produced white painted
pottery, anthropomorphic model houses and ‘altars’
almost identical to those in Pelagonia (Naumov
2016b; in print). This is evidenced at Dolno Trno-
vo, which is on the alluvial plain close to the lake
(Kuzman et al. 1989). Some painted patterns are
also present in Korçë basin in Albania, but anthro-
pomorphic house models are entirely absent there
(Ruzi 2009; Bunguri 2014). Intriguingly, the Pela-
gonian features are not so apparent or present at
Neolithic sites south and south-east of this valley,
like those in the Amindeon, Servia and Giannitsa re-
gions in Greece, which are more like the pottery
produced by communities in the Korçë basin and
even in the Ov≠e Pole valley than in Pelagonia. Fu-
ture research on Early Neolithic data could provide
a model different from the one proposed, but cur-
rent research and published material suggest the lack
of a strong relationship with the south, in spite of
firm networks with the south-west, i.e. Lake Ohrid
basin.
The firm networks between Pelagonia and the Lake
Ohrid basin were maintained in the Late Neolithic as
well when an abrupt change in material culture ap-
peared synchronically in both regions (Naumov in
print). Black polished pottery with white incrusta-
tion and stamps with identical patterns have been
unearthed at sites at Ohridati and Ustie na Drim
(Kuzman 2009; 2013). In the Late Neolithic levels of
Ohridati, an anthropomorphic cylinder was found
that has apparent similarities with those previously
produced in Pelagonia, but utterly absent in later pe-
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
337
riods. This cylinder indicates that some Pelagonian
elements were retained in the Lake Ohrid basin even
when they were abandoned among communities in
Pelagonia. Nevertheless, the recently published re-
sults of a dendrochronological analysis of piles in
Ohridati provide Middle Neolithic dates around 5500
BC (Westphal et al. 2010). This indicates that some
social processes were synchronous in these two re-
gions, so some earlier features from Pelagonia do not
have to be considered as Late Neolithic in the Lake
Ohrid basin.
Regarding the apparent geometrical incrustations on
pottery, it was previously suggested that such Late
Neolithic novelties were introduced from Adriatic
communities (Benac 1979; 1989; Sanev 1995), but
recent research indicates that the same features on
pottery were present quite early in Western Turkey
and gradually transposed to the Balkans, including
Pelagonia and the Ohrid area (Özdogan 1993; 2011;
Steadman 1995; Naumov 2016b). The networks be-
tween Ohrid and Pelagonia continued in later pre-
historic periods as well, as witnessed by the similar
pottery, jewelry, burial masks, weaponry, etc. (Mikul-
≠i≤ 1966; Mitrevski 1997). This connection was pro-
bably interrupted at the end of the Iron Age, when
novel cultural features dominated and the ethnic re-
organisation of territories became more dynamic.
Although these two regions were divided by high
mountains – Baba, Gali≠ica and Bigla – the Neolithic
and later prehistoric communities inhabiting the se-
parated valleys established and maintained solid con-
tacts, economic exchange and a shared common
identity. In spite of this, regions which were closer
to Pelagonia and easier to approach were culturally
more distant and material culture was not very simi-
lar to what was found in the Lake Ohrid region. Fu-
ture research will provide new data for a more thor-
ough understanding of the motives for having strong
networks between these geographically divided re-
gions and elaborate the integrated processes with-
in social relationships and symbolic practices. Until
then, it may be proposed that similar wetland envi-
ronments and the proximity of a lake as resource
and symbolic landscape were major reasons for in-
tensive communication and shared identity mani-
fested in pottery, models, ‘altars’ and stamps.
Conclusion
The particular focus on tell sites has attracted more
attention in recent decades than hitherto. Although
many tell sites have been partially excavated in
Southeast Europe, they have rarely been regarded
as architectural and social entities (Kotsakis 1999;
Perlès 1999; Rosenstock 2009; Hofmann et al.
2012). Recent research indicates that tell sites are
complex settlements with highly intensified social
and infrastructural dynamics, which is manifested
in their outline, building patterns, material culture,
rituals, etc. The Neolithic tells in Pelagonia have
similar features and require further exploration in
order to specify the dynamics within these specific
agricultural settlements. They were excavated main-
ly in the 1970s, but a thorough understanding of
their social, architectural, economic, and symbolic
spheres was never extensively explored or proposed.
Given their authenticity, they can provide a novel
insight into the establishment and development of
these specific settlements in the Balkans.
Most Pelagonian tells are located on alluvial flatlands,
while the surrounding mountains slopes mainly con-
sisted of flat settlements on hilly areas. This concen-
tration of vast numbers of tells on flatlands was in-
tentional rather precarious due to frequent flooding,
therefore the first agricultural communities in this
region have deliberately chose small bulky mounds
made of Neogene lake sediments. These were the
fundamental basis for the villages which gradually
developed into tells. This bulky and sandy ground
has been found to be the lowest level at many tells
in Pelagonia where the first dwellings were estab-
lished (Simoska, Sanev 1975; Simoska et al. 1979;
Naumov, Toma∫ 2015; Naumov et al. in print). In
this way, the first Pelagonian farmers interacted with
the wetland environment and evaded the rising un-
derground water after heavy rains, flooding of the
Crna Reka and snowmelt water from the surround-
ing high mountains. The forests on the mountain
slopes provided plenty of wood for wattle and daub
houses, but also for pile dwellings on the periphery
of sites. Such constructions are recorded in Early
Neolithic levels of the tell at Mogila, while a wood-
en post was unearthed from the Kru∏eanska ∞uka
tell (Naumov, Toma∫ 2015; Todorovi≤ et al. 1987).
Regarding the successful management of settlements
in various climatic conditions, the wetland environ-
ment in the valley was not an obstacle to the appea-
rance of a large number of Neolithic villages. On the
contrary, the frequent floods and marshy lakes pro-
vided more resources used for subsistence, architec-
ture and communication. Consequently, many tells
were established in the initial Neolithic phases and
many continued in use at later stages and even in
the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (Simoska, Sanev
Goce Naumov
338
1976). They were mainly concentrated around mar-
shy areas and next to riverbanks, so a pattern of
tells distribution in Pelagonia is identifiable. There
are discussions on the density and absence of tells in
particular regions. For the Thessalian tells, it is pro-
posed that farming communities living there inten-
tionally avoided particular areas or these were used
as buffer zones (Perlès 1999; Runnels et al. 2009).
In Pelagonia, such avoidance could be due to marshy
areas, as partly documented by geographic research
(Naumov, Stojkoski 2015), or could be the result of
using these areas for raising crops. Consequently, the
majority of tells tend to be densely clustered close
to marshy lakes and riverbanks, i.e. near the most
fertile soil.
There are larger tells, which were probably econom-
ic centers, and few smaller ones were erected in their
vicinity at the same time, but some were established
later. The question remains as to whether the later
tells were founded by the same communities living
on neighbouring tells or settled by newcomers. There
are cases, such as Çatalhöyük in Anatolia, where the
community from the East Mound in the Late Neoli-
thic established the West Mound, which was conti-
nuously occupied in the Chalcolithic (Biehl et al.
2012). The Pelagonian tells at Trn and Slavej could
have the same site history, as they both have very
closely positioned tells with phases of the Early and
Late Neolithic accordingly (Simoska, Sanev 1977;
Naumov et al. in print). Future detailed research will
determine whether there the material culture was
shared with neighbouring tells and thus elaborate
resettlement from one place to another.
Another question is why life on one tell was inter-
rupted and did not continue on the same tell, but
the same or different community later established a
new tell, in some cases only a few metres from the
earlier one. The height and general occupation area
of tells is not that great, especially compared to those
in Anatolia and Near East, so capacity was not an ob-
stacle to the continuation of life in the same settle-
ment. Some Neolithic tells were even reoccupied in
the Bronze Age, such as those at Karamani and Rado-
bor (Simoska et al. 1977; Todorovi≤ et al. 1987).
Thus a reduction in resources or climate changes
could be a further reason for tells to be abandoned
and for the later establishment of new ones nearby.
The space in the central area of tells was not used
to expand the site, such as in the Great Hungarian
Plain or at Sesklo in Thessaly, which were parts of
larger horizontally extended settlements (Kotsakis
2006; Parkinson, Gyucha 2012). The vertical exten-
sion of the settlement was common at tells in Pela-
gonia, although there are exceptions, such as the site
at Slavej, where there no buildings were above or
below the house level at the very centre of the site
(Naumov et al. in print).
The reuse of a central place for occupation resulted
in the rebuilding of new houses on existing ones,
which further affected the creation of an artificial
mound. This process was not only social, i.e. with
a concentration of elites at the very centre, but was
also a symbolic manifestation of a continued relation-
ship with previous occupants. In the Balkans, this
tradition began in Thessaly, as reflected not only in
architecture, but also in material culture and burial
rituals (Kotsakis 1999). The deceased were buried
below houses which were later reoccupied or rebuilt
and house models were also produced in order to
maintain a link with ancestors, relatives, or those
who built the first houses. Although no burials have
been found inside Pelagonian settlements, the occu-
pants produced a large quantity of house models, es-
pecially those with human representations (Fig. 7).
Such anthropomorphic models are powerful repre-
sentations for the identification of dwellings with
particular individuals and the human body in gene-
ral (Naumov 2013). In this sense, the rebuilding of
houses and massive production of models indicate
strong liaison between several generations within
these agricultural communities and the accentuation
of dwellings as focal points for the establishment of
lineages.
According to the proposed dates, most Early Neoli-
thic tells in Pelagonia were constituted around 6000
BC, probably as a Thessalanian tradition, i.e. at the
beginning of the Middle Neolithic in Thessaly (Fig.
4). Therefore, such transposition of practices and
traditions is not surprising, although it is not fre-
quent or common in other regions in the Republic
of Macedonia. These habitual and symbolic tradi-
tions were further modified and localised through-
out novel building techniques, spatial organisation
and the production of more advanced house mod-
els, i.e. identified with the human body. This was
also manifested in other spheres of material culture
such as pottery, stamps, figurines, ‘altars’, ornaments,
etc. This localised production of the Neolithic ‘inven-
tory’ was synchronic with the initiation and further
development of novel identities evident in pottery
decoration, figurine details, stamp patterns, house
models, features, etc. (Naumov 2010; 2015a). It was
reflected in the understanding of the landscape, set-
tlements and inhabitants as particular groups that
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
339
are differentiated from others in surrounding re-
gions. In such a vibrant isolated environment en-
circled by mountains, the numerous tells in the flat-
lands had a significant role in the establishment of
social and symbolic relationship with human made
and natural features of Pelagonia. This is evident
both within tells themselves and their spatial orga-
nisation in the valley and thus can be further explor-
ed by means of advanced archaeological methods
and more thorough research.
Arsovski M. 1997. Tectonic of Macedonia. Faculty of Geo-
logy and Mining. πtip.
Bailey D. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation
and corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge. London.
Benac A. 1979. Prelazna zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Prais-
torija jugoslavenskih zemalja II – Neolitsko doba. Aka-
demija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar
za balkanolo∏ka istra∫ivanja. Sarajevo: 363–472.
1989. Neki problemi odnosa Makedonije i Zapadnog
Balkana u neolitskom dobu. Macedoniae Acta Archa-
eologica 10: 9–24.
Biehl P., Franz I., Ostaptchouk S., Orton D., Rogasch J.
and Rosenstock E. 2012. One Community and Two Tells:
The Phenomenon of Relocating Tell Settlements at the
Turn of the 7th and 6th Millennia in Central Anatolia. In
R. Hofmann, F. K. Moetz and J. Müller (eds.), Tells: Social
and Environmental Space. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn:
53–65.
Bradley R. 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric
Europe. Routledge. London.
Budja M. 2003. Seals, Contracts and Tokens in the Balkans
Early Neolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 115–130.
Bunguri A. 2014. Different models for the Neolithization
of Albania. Documenta Praehistorica 41: 79–94.
Chausidis N. 2003. Dualisti≠ki sliki. List. Skopje.
2007. Ωenata kako personifikacija na prostorot za ∫ive-
enje (od neolitot do sovremeniot folklor). In J. Lu∫ina
(ed.), Makedonskiot teatar vo kontekst na Balkanska-
ta teatarska sfera. Fakultet za dramski umetnosti. Skop-
je: 45–101.
2009. Balkanske ‘ku≤arice’ i neolitski kerami≠ki ∫rtveni-
ci u obliku ku≤e. In S. Petrovi≤ (ed.), Etnokulturolo∏ki
zbornik XIII. Svrljig: 53–72.
Chrysostomou P., Jagoulis T. and Mäder A. 2015. The ‘Cul-
ture of Four Lakes’: Prehistoric lakeside settlements (6th–
2nd millennium BC) in the Amindeon Basin, Western Ma-
cedonia, Greece. Archäeologie Schweiz 38(3): 24–32.
Fewkes V., Goldman H. and Enrich R. W. 1933. Prelimi-
nary report on an archaeological reconnaissance in Yugo-
slavia. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Re-
search 9: 17–32.
Fidanoski Lj. 2009. Pottery Production. In G. Naumov, Lj.
Fidanoski, I. Tolevski and A. Ivkovska, Neolithic Commu-
nities in the Republic of Macedonia. Dante. Skopje: 65–
80.
Demoule J.-P., Perlès C. 1993. The Greek Neolithic: a new
review. Journal of World Prehistory 7: 355–416.
Dumurdzanov N., Serafimovski T. and Burchfiel B. C.
2004. Evolution of Neogene-Pleistocene Basins of Ma-
cedonia. Digital Map and Chart Series 1 (Accompany-
ing notes). Geological Society of America. Boulder.
Galovi≤ R.1964. Neue Funde der Starcevo-Kultur in Mit-
telserbien und Makedonien. Bericht der Romisch-Germa-
nischen Kommision 43–44 (1962–1963). Walter De Gruy-
ter & Co. Berlin.
Gara∏anin M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. In A. Be-
nac (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II – Neolit-
sko doba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercego-
vine. Centar za balkanolo∏ka istra∫ivanja. Sarajevo: 79–212.
Gimbutas M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess. Tha-
mes and Hudson. London.
Grbi≤ M., Ma≠ki≤ P., Nadj π., Simoska D. and Stalio B. 1960.
Porodin: kasno-neolitsko naselje na Tumbi kod Bitolja.
Narodni muzej Bitolj i Arheolo∏ki institut Beograd. Bitolj.
Harding A., Sievers S and Venclova N. 2006. Enclosing
the Past: Inside and Outside in Prehistory. J. R. Collis
Publications. Sheffield.
Hodder I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe – Struc-
ture and Cognistency in Neolithic Societes. Basil Black-
well Ltd. Oxford.
Hofmann R., Moetz F. K. and Müller J. 2012. Tells: Social
and Environmental Space. Rudolf Habelt GMBH. Bonn.
Heurtley W. A. 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia: An archaeo-
logical reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of
References
∴
Goce Naumov
340
the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron
Ages. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Joyce R. A. 2000. Gender and Power in Prehispanic Me-
soamerica. University of Texas Press. Austin.
Karamitrou Mentessidi G., Efstratiou N., Kaczanowska M.
and Kozlowski J. K. 2013. Early Neolithic Settlement of
Mavropigi in Western Greek Macedonia. Eurasian Pre-
history 12(1–2): 47–116.
Kitanoski B. 1977. Neolitskata naselba ∞uka kaj selo To-
pol≠ani. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 3: 27–42.
1989. Vrbjanska ∞uka. Arheolo∏ki Pregled 28: 47–48.
Kitanoski B., Simoska D. and Todorovi≤ J. 1980. Naselba-
ta Pe∏terica i problemot na raniot neolit vo Pelagonija.
Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 6: 9–20.
Kitanoski B., Simoska D. and Jovanovi≤ B. 1990. Der kult-
platz auf der fundstatte Vrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep. In D.
Srejovi≤, Tasi≤ N. (eds.), Vin≠a and its World. Interna-
tional Symposium The Danubian Region from 6000–3000
BC. Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Centre for Ar-
chaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy. Bigz. Beo-
grad: 107–112.
Koli∏trkoska-Nasteva I. 2005. Praistoriskite dami od Ma-
kedonija. Muzej na Makedonija. Skopje.
Kotsakis K. 1999. What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and
Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In P. Halstead (ed.),
Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield Academic Press.
Sheffield: 66–76.
Kotsakis K. 2006. Settlement of Discord: Sesklo and the
Emerging Household. In N. Tasi≤, C. Grozdanov (eds.),
Homage to Milutin Gara∏anin. Serbian Academy of Scien-
ces and Arts, Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Belgrade: 207–220.
Kuzman P. 1995. Podatoci za paleolitskite kulturi vo Ma-
kedonija. In G. Stardelov, C. Grozdanov and M. Mitevski
(eds.), Civilizacii na po≠vata na Makedonija 2. Makedon-
ska akademija na nauite i umetnostite. Skopje: 11–20.
Kuzman P. 2009. Penelope: Prehistoric Settlement. In P.
Kuzman, J. Tri≠kovska and Z. Pavlov (eds.), Ohrid World
Heritage Site. Ohrid: 22–25.
2013. Praistoriski palafitni naselbi vo Makedonija. In P.
Kuzman, E. Dimitrova and J. Donev (eds.), Makedonija:
mileniumski kulturno-istoriski fakti. Univerzitet Evro
Balkan. Skopje: 297–430.
Kuzman P., Simoska D. and Kitanoski B. 1989. Dolno Tr-
novo. Arheolo∏ki pregled 1987: 38–39.
Lesure R. G. 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Con-
text, Comparison and Prehistoric Art. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. Cambridge.
Malez M. 1979. Prirodni okviri, rad na istra∫ivanju i na-
lazi∏ta paleolitskog doba u Makedoniji. In A. Benac (ed.),
Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja I – Paleolitsko i me-
zolitsko doba. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Her-
cegovine. Centar za balkanolo∏ka istra∫ivanja. Sarajevo:
407–417.
Mikul≠i≤ I. 1966. Pelagonija u svetlosti arheoloskih nala-
za: Od egejske seobe do Avgusta. Arheolo∏ki muzej. Sko-
pje.
Mir≠ovski V., Boev B., Efremoski Z., πor∏a A. and Dimov
∑. 2015. Hydrochemical Data for Ground Waters in the
Bitola’s Part of Pelagonia Valley, Republic of Macedonia.
Geologica Macedonica 29: 15–24.
Mitkoski A. 2005. Vrbjanska ∞uka kaj seloto Slavej, Prilep-
sko. Zbornik na Muzejot na Makedonija 2: 33–46.
Mitkoski A., Naumov G. 2007. Neolithic structure of pos-
sible ritual significance from The Republic of Macedonia.
PAST 58: 8–9.
Mitrevski D. 1997. Protoistoriskite zaednici vo Makedo-
nija. Republi≠ki zavod za za∏tita na spomenicite na kul-
turata. Skopje.
Naumov 2009a. The process of Neolithization. In G. Nau-
mov, Lj. Fidanoski, I. Tolevski and A. Ivkovska, Neolithic
Communities in the Republic of Macedonia. Dante. Sko-
pje: 17–27.
2009b. Patterns and Corporeality: Neolithic Visual
Culture from the Republic of Macedonia. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 1910. Archaeopress.Oxford.
2010. Symmetry analysis of Neolithic painted pottery
from Republic of Macedonia. In T. Biro-Katalin (ed.),
Data Management and Mathematical Methods in Ar-
chaeology. Archaeologia e Calcolatori 21. Dipartimento
Patrimonio Culturale. Roma: 255–274.
2011. Visual and conceptual dynamism of the Neolithic
altars in the Republic of Macedonia. In V. Nikolov, K.
Bacvarov and H. Popov (eds.), Interdisziplinäre For-
schungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel.
Humboldt-Union Bulgarien. Sofia: 89–129.
2013. Embodied houses: social and symbolic agency of
Neolithic architecture in the Republic of Macedonia. In
D. Hoffman, J. Smyth (eds.), Tracking the Neolithic
house in Europe – sedentism, architecture and prac-
tice. Springer. New York: 65–94.
Tell communities and wetlands in Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia
341
2014. Neolithic Privileges: the selection within burials
and corporeality in the Balkans. European Journal of
Archaeology 17(2): 184–207.
2015a. Early Neolithic Communities in the Republic of
Macedonia. Archeologické Rozhledy LXVII (3): 331–
355.
2015b. Neolitski figurini vo Makedonija. Magor. Skop-
je.
2016a. Kalibrirana hronologija na neolitskite tumbi vo
Pelagonija. In Lj. Fidanoski, G. Naumov (eds.), Neolitot
vo Makedonija: novi soznanija i perspektivi. Centar
za istra∫uvanje na predistorijata. Skopje: 67–96.
2016b. Prähistorische Feuchtgebiete und Phahlbauten
im Ohrid-see, Republik Mazedonien. Plattform 23: 10–20.
in press. Between Wetlands and Lakes: the network of
Neolithic communities in Pelagonia and Lake Ohrid, Re-
public of Macedonia. In K. Bacvarov, P. Gleser (eds.),
Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory: essays
in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary. Ru-
dolf Habelt Publishing House. Bonn.
Naumov G., Stojkoski S. 2015. Novi predistoriski tumbi vo
Pelagonija. Zbornik na NU Zavod i muzej – Bitola 16:
169–185.
Naumov G., Toma∫ A. 2015. The Excavation of Neolithic
Tell in Mogila, Pelagonia. Patrimonium 13: 67–95.
Naumov G., Trzeciecki M., Chwiej M., Przybyła M., Bugaj
M., Szczepanik P. and Podsiadło M. 2014. Arheolo∏ko, to-
pografsko i geofizi≠ko istra∫uvanje na neolitski tumbi vo
Pelagonija. Patrimonium 12: 345–372.
Naumov G., Mitkoski A., Murgoski A., Bene∏ J., Przybiła M.,
Milevski ∑. and Stoimanovski I. in print. Istra∫uvanje na
Vrbjanska ∞uka kaj Slavej – 2016. Patrimonium 14.
Nikolov V. 2007. Neolitni kultovi masi≠ki. Blgarska aka-
demija na naukite: Nacionalen arheologicheski institut i
muzej. Sofija.
Özdogan M. 1993. Vin≠a and Anatolia: a new look at a
very old problem (or redefining Vin≠a Culture from the
perspective of Near Eastern tradition). Anatolica 19: 173–
193.
2011. Archaeological evidence on westward expansion
of farming communities from Eastern Anatolia to the
Aegean and the Balkans. Current Anthropology 52(4):
415–430.
Parkinson W., Gyucha A. 2012. Tells in Perspective: Long-
Term Patterns of Settlement Nucleation and Dispersal in
Central and Southeast Europe. In R. Hofmann, F. K. Moetz
and J. Müller (eds.), Tells: Social and Environmental
Space. Proceedings of the International Workshop “So-
cio-Environmental Dynamics over the last 12,000 years:
The Creation of Landscapes II (14th–18th March 2011)”
in Kiel. Volume 3. Universitätsforschungen zur prähisto-
rischen Archäologie Band 207. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Bonn: 105–116.
Perlès C. 1999. The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern
Thessaly. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Gre-
ece. Sheffield Academic Press. Sheffield: 42–56.
2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming
communities in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Puteska A., Dimovska B., ∏ajn R. and Stafilov T. 2015. Di-
stribution of chemical elements in soil samples from the
Pelagonia region, Republic of Macedonia. Geologia Croa-
tica 68(3): 261–272.
Reingruber A. 2011. Early Neolithic settlement patterns
and exchange networks in the Aegean. Documenta Prae-
historica 38: 291–305.
Rosenstock E. 2009. Tells in Südwestasien und Südost-
europa: Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition eines
Siedlungsphänomens. Urgeschichtliche Studien II. Bern-
hard Albert Greiner. Grunbach.
Runnels T. C., Payne C., Rifkind N., White C., Wolff N. and
LeBlanc S. 2009. Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case
Study. Hesperia 78(2): 165–194.
Ruzi E. 2009. Investigating compositional variability on
the Early Neolithic ceramics among Korçë Region, Alba-
nia. Chronika 3: 1–15.
Sabattani S., Manfredi R. and Fiorino S. 2010. Malaria in-
fection and anthropological evolution. Saude e Socieda-
de 19: 64–83.
Sanev V. 1988. Neolitskoto svetili∏te od “Tumba” vo Ma-
djari. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 9: 9–30.
1994. Mlado kameno vreme. In D. Koco (ed.), Arheo-
lo∏ka karta na Republika Makedonija – Tom I. Mace-
donian Academy of Science and Arts. Skopje: 26–42.
1995. Neolitot i neolitskite culturi vo Makedonija. In
G. Stardelov, M. Matevski and C. Grozdanov (eds.), Ci-
vilizacii na po≤vata na Makedonija 2. Macedonian
Academy of Science and Arts. Skopje: 21–46.
2006. Anthropomorphic Cult Plastic of Anzabegovo-Vr∏-
nik Cultural Group of the Republic of Macedonia. In N.
Tasi≤, C. Grozdanov (eds.), Homage to Milutin Gara∏a-
nin. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Macedoni-
an Academy of Sciences and Arts. Belgrade: 171–191.
Goce Naumov
342
Simoska D., Kuzman P. 1990. Tumba Opti≠ari. Arheolo∏ki
Pregled 1988: 63–66.
Simoska D., Sanev V. 1975. Neolitska naselba Velu∏ka
tumba kaj Bitola. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 1: 25–
85.
1976. Praistorija vo Centralna Pelagonija. Naroden
Muzej. Bitola.
1977. Neolitska naselba na Mala Tumba kaj selo Trn,
Bitola. Macedonia Acta Archaeologica 3: 215–237.
Simoska D., Kitanoski B. and Todorovi≤ J. 1977. Praistori-
ska naselba Tumba vo selo Karamani kaj Bitola. Macedo-
nia Acta Archaeologica 3: 9–25.
1979. Neolitska naselba vo selo Mogila kaj Bitola. Mace-
donia Acta Archaeologica 5: 9–30.
Sinadinovski P. 2016. Rekognosciranje na neolitski loka-
liteti vo Rae≠kata klisura. In Lj. Fidanoski, G. Naumov
(eds.), Neolit vo Makedonija: novi soznanija i perspek-
tivi. Centar za istra∫uvanje na predistorijata. Skopje: 55–
66.
Srdo≠ D., Sliep≠evi≤ A., Obeli≤ B., Horvatin≠i≤ N. and Bo∏-
kovi≤ R. 1977. Radiocarbon measurements IV. Radiocar-
bon 19(3): 465–475.
Steadman S. R. 1995. Prehistoric interregional interac-
tion in Anatolia and the Balkans: an overview. Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research 299–300:
13–32.
Temelkoski D., Mitkoski A. 2001. Neolitski antropomorf-
ni statuetki vo predistoriskata zbirka na Zavod i muzej
Prilep. Makedonsko nasledstvo 17: 53–69.
2005. Sadova keramika od Vrbjanska ∞uka. Macedo-
niae Acta Archaeologica 16: 29–53.
2006. Praistoriska naselba Mogila Senokos. Macedo-
nia Acta Archaeologica 17: 55–88.
Todorova H., Vaisov I. 1993. Novo – kamennata epoha v
Blgarija. Nauka i izkustvo. Sofia.
Todorovi≤ J., Simoska D. and Kitanoski B. 1987. Osvrt vrz
arheolo∏kite istra∫uvanja na praistorijata vo Pelagonija.
Zbornik na trudovi na Zavod, Muzej i Galerija Bitola
6–7–8: 5–24.
Tolevski I. 2009. Architecture. In G. Naumov, Lj. Fidano-
ski, I. Tolevski, I. and A. Ivkovska, Neolithic Communi-
ties in the Republic of Macedonia. Dante. Skopje: 37–44.
Trifunovski J. 1998. Bitoljsko-prilepska kotlina: antropo-
geografska prou≠avanja. Srpska akademija nauka i umet-
nosti. Beograd.
Valastro S., Mott Davis J. E. and Varela A. G. 1977. Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin: Radiocarbon dates 11. Radiocar-
bon 19(2): 280–325.
Van de Noort R., O’Sullivan A. 2006. Rethinking Wet-
land Archaeology. Duckworth. London.
Vasileva M. 2005. Kade e na∏eto minato? Voved kon pra-
istorijata na Pelagonija. Visoi. Bitola.
Westphal T., Tegel W., Heußner K.-U., Lera P. and Ritters-
hofer K.-F. 2010. Erste dendrochronologische Datierun-
gen historicher Hölzer in Albanien. Archeologische An-
zeiger 2: 75–95.
Zdravkovski D. 2006a. Kultot na Golemata Majka vo neo-
litot na Makedonija. Folia Archaeologica Balkanica I:
53–61.
2006b. New Aspects of the Anzabegovo-Vr∏nik Cultural
Group. In N. Tasi≤, C. Grozdanov, (eds.), Homage to Mi-
lutin Gara∏anin. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts,
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Belgrade:
99–110.