The Everyday Life and the Symbolism in the Prehistoric Balkans
In 2002 in Karlovo (Bulgaria) was held the Exploratory Workshop "Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe" sponsored by European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, France (Nikolova (ed.) 2003a) (http://www.iianthropology.org/symbolsystems.html). Contributions to this workshop are included in Nikolova (ed.) 2003b. One of the main outcomes of this workshop was the shielded opinion to search for the symbolism of the prehistoric culture in depth and at different levels of social integration and hierarchy, as a purposeful means of communication between households and communities, as well as between the generations, and as a social strategy for social cohesion and integration. From the same point of view, three case studies from Balkan Prehistory are introduced in this communication: the symbolism of spinning and spindle-whorls, of the ornamented pottery and of the village-interments. It will be proposed that many prehistoric activities in the everyday life embodied both utilitarian and symbolic functions and understanding the prehistoric symbolism is a very difficult task that requires a multi-aspect functional and contextual analysis.
For the most part, the prehistoric symbolism functioned in social
systems in which the language and the symbols were two equal or complementary
systems for communication and the writing was not or only initially
developed. The social character and the cross-cultural generality of
the symbolic significance (Hallpike 1979) lay the foundation of the
symbols as a strong device for communication.
The culture as a system of symbols and meanings consists of two fundamental functions - integrative and generative (in terms of David Schneider): the integrative is a synchronic function while the generative is diachronic.
The other classification concerns the symbols themselves - for instance
the so-called cognitive and so-called expressive symbols or symbol-systems.
Both are extrinsic (v/s intristic) sources of information in terms of
which human life can be patterned - extrapersonal mechanisms for the
perception, understanding, judgments, and manipulation of the world.
It is worth the opinion of Clifford Geertz (1973) that the culture patterns
(religious, philosophical, aesthetic, scientific, ideological) are "programs"
since they provide a template or blueprint for the organization of social
and psychological processes, likewise genetic systems provide such a
template for the organization of organic processes.
A considerable part of the prehistoric symbols are element of the
religious systems. At the same time, the religion as a "system
of symbols by which man communicates with his universe" Jan van
Baal equals with models mediating between the individual's conflicting
needs for self-expression and self-containment. Then, "the interhuman
communication is realized by the communication between the individuals
and their common model of ritual action" (Baal 1971:242).
In terms of Victor Turner, the rituals are aggregations of symbols
(1975:59). For both, Edmund Leach and Victor Turner, from information
standpoint the distinction between verbal and nonverbal symbolic communication
was unimportant (Turner 1975:59 and ref. cited there).
Social environment and the changing meaning of the artifact within
the time give the material culture a potentials for ambiguity that according
to Ian Hodder, is higher than by the speech and the writing which are
linear (as ordered sequence of words) (1989:72-73). "There are
therefore reasons to argue that material culture meanings are more contextual
and practical than language. The study of material culture thus raises,
even more acutely than in the study of language, the relationship between
structure and context" (1989:73).
Most of the rituals have been interpreted based on the recognized
by Arnold van Gennep structure including three stages - separation,
transition, and incorporation (1960:10-11). However, the rituals are
characterized by a great diversity and as Jan van Baal stresses
"The form and contents of the symbols for communication differ
from one culture to another. The study of religion necessarily results
into the study of religions, of the diversity of the total complexes
of symbols permitting man to enter into discourse with his culturally
." (Baal 1971:278).
In prehistory of primary importance were the ritual gifts and social-symbolic exchanges. For instance, the shells were one of popular forms of exchange in Prehistory. An ethnographic case study is reported from Melpa society (Melanesia) where the pearlshells were a means of prestige exchange. While the pigs and the lands could be owned by every member of this society, the pearlshells as the most prestige standard of values were exchanged only by the bigmen in return for "political allegiance, patronage, labour, or simply for prestige" (Feil 1984:83). Obtaining a prestige item could raise the status of the owner. Nevertheless, the symbolism is embodied not only in formal rituals and exchanges, but also in the everyday life.
Everyday Life and the Symbolism
The Balkan prehistoric society was dominated by households at different
levels of organization and interrelations. The basic organization structural
levels were the household and village community.
One of the most intensive household activities in the prehistory,
in particular in Balkan Prehistory was spinning and weaving. Numerous
artifacts interpreted as spindle whorls have been discovered not only
in Balkans, but also in very distant regions such as South America.
For our topic of interest is that spinning was not only a practical
but deeply symbolic activity of household economy (Chokhadzhiev A. 2003
and ref. cited). As it has been emphasized:
"Spinning goes through stages of growth and decline, waxing
and waning, similar to those of a child-bearing woman. The spindle set
in the spindle whorl is symbolic of coitus, and the thread, as it winds
around the spindle, symbolizes the growing fetus, the woman becoming
big with child
Weaving, too, the intertwining of threads, is
symbolic of coitus, and thus spinning and weaving represent life, death,
and rebirth in a continuing cycle that characterizes the essential nature
of the Mother Goddess (McCafferty & McCafferty 1998:218 and ref.
In Balkan Prehistory, the spindle whorls are usually non-ornamented
(e.g. from Early Bronze Dubene-Sarovka, http://www.iianthropology.org/Dubenesmallfinds).
In context of the symbolic theory, this fact points to the symbolic
meaning of the activity that the artifact supports itself, as it is
proposed above. Nevertheless, there are also ornamented spindle whorls.
Some of the most expressive instances are from Northwest Anatolia Early
Bronze Troy that include symbolic signs designed in symmetrical compositions
consisted of swastika, triangles, spiral, zoomorphic and other signs
and motifs with "powerful meaning" that could indicate their
magical function, to stimulate and help the spinning process. John Chapman
even presumes that the signs on the spindle-whorls (and on figurines)
(e.g. Vinca culture) represents a formal, ritualized request at a health
or life crisis and probably involving the mediation of a shaman (after
Chapman 2000:86). If our interpretation is correct, the spindle-whorls
are an argument that the symbols could occur not only in the ritualized
formal rites but also in the everyday life because of their supplemented
function to some activities that have both utilitarian and symbolic
Another instance from the everyday life is the ornamented pottery.
The dominating Balkan prehistoric ornament is geometric (painted, encrusted,
incised, relief etc.) (see instances at Nikolova 2002-2003, http://www.iianthropology.org/thebalkansites.html)
. It can be divided into three main elementary groups - linear, curvilinear
and other included in a variety of motifs and compositions: single or
parallel lines, triangles, rhomb, metope or more complicated compositions.
The curvilinear ornament varies from arch-shaped motifs to spiral and
more complicated motifs and compositions. In some periods the geometric
ornament may represent zoomorphic motifs (e.g. snake). As exception,
realistic anthropomorphic, zoomorphic or floral motifs occur. Another
peculiar group includes zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels in which
the ornament can have complimentary function. A specific cluster of
ornament occurs on the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels which
in most of the cases is similar to that of the contemporaneous pottery
decoration. The dominated conception in the interpretation of the Early
Neolithic pottery is the symbolization of fertility in different aspects
(wreath of fertility, phallus, etc.) (e.g. works of Vassil Nikolov).
Nenad Tasic (2003) connects the Early Neolithic ornament with the idea
of domus. During the late Copper Age was popular the snake ornament
(Todorova 2003). In the Early Bronze Age symbolic meaning of triangle,
rhomb, chess and other geometric motifs can be proposed (see instances
in Nikolova 1995, Nikolova 2002b (http://www.iianthropology.org/Dubenepottery)).
In all cases the location of the ornament is one of the main backgrounds
for the interpretations. Despite in most of the cases the visibility
of the ornament is a precondition for its communication function, there
are many instances when the ornament is placed on invisible part of
the vessel or of the object.
Douglass Bailey (2000:234) discusses the visibility in context of
the problem of the so-called incised marks which are very popular in
the Balkans especially during the Early Copper Age - e.g. Vinca and
Boian cultures (Winn 1981, Sîrbu & Pandrea 2003). That author
pointed to the fact that the marks on vessel bases are visible only
when the pot "was moved, stored, sold, bought, or transported",
but not when it was used.
The problem posed by Douglass Bailey provoke research in depth since
the visibility is an important feature but the bottom of the vessel
is its integral part and we have numerous instances when the bottom
is ornamented similarly to the walls or as a part of more complex compositions.
It can be even proposed that in some cases the invisibility was very
significant for the function of the symbols. In case of the ornamentation
of the Early Copper Age model of oven from Slatino interpreted by Stefan
Chokhadzhiev (1984) as a calendar, we presume that the calendar (or
similar symbolic message) is incised on the bottom of the oven since
the position had a supplemented symbolic meaning including an element
of mystery or puzzle or related to more common cosmological model. It
is worth one of the walls has a similar ornamentation that could point
to possible symbolic opposition visible - invisible and related ambivalent
meaning of the symbols. This symbolic function of the invisibility is
confirmed by the incised composition on the invisible belly of the animal
figurine from the same epoch (Fol & Lichardus (Hrgs.) 1988:Abb.
In the context of the symbols as communication means and social
strategy in prehistory, we can recognize that the material culture gives
opportunity for a different kinds of transmission of the information
that could be direct and very realistic (or expressive) but it could
be also included in a specific system of symbolic communication in which
the visible or invisible position of the sign was a integral part of
the symbolic message. This conclusion contrasts the ideas that some
symbols in prehistory were only an individual expression, without communication
function. Whether the pottery made from craftsmen or from household
member, the applied ornament produced something that s/he understood
and was understood by others (Mackenzie 1968:54-55). It is important
not only for visible but also for invisible ornament.
The third case study of this communication is the interments in
villages. The symbolic meaning of the burial was a primary source for
kinship and social identity in prehistory. It is worth that the concept
of the village emerged in the Balkans as a village of the ancestors
(Vlasac, Lepenski Vir). The popularity of the village burials during
the Neolithic shows that the burials remained an important social symbol
of household and community identity, connecting the generations and
strengthening the community by integrating the ancestor in the everyday
life of the villagers.
A key problem of the interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the
burial is its relation to the household and community level of worship.
In my opinion, the different kinds of burials (primary village-interments,
secondary village-interments, primary and secondary extramural interments)
represent diversity of levels of interrelations between the household
and community (Nikolova 2002a; 2003). At the same time, within the time
the function of the village-interments changes and there are many regional
peculiarities in distribution of this pattern in the prehistoric Balkans.
In the Balkans the village burials were most popular during Early
Neolithic (Anzabegovo, Nea Nikomedeia, Karanovo, Stara Zagora-Azmak,
Kazanluk, Rakitovo, Kurdzhali, Dositeevo-Tsiganova Mogila, etc.) (Nikolova
2003). But the recent evidence from Maluk Preslavets - together with
Ilipinar IX (Northwest Anatolia) shows that already in the Early Neolithic
in the Balkan-Anatolian social network developed the concept of periphery
village cemeteries on the one hand. On the other hand, the village-interments
were a popular custom, but it is characterized by a series of peculiarities.
The most popular were the burials of the children, but even this practice
is not documented in many excavated villages. Then, we presumed that
despite the social symbolism of the village interment, in some villages
there were even restrictions against this practice. The adult burials
were exceptions in the villages and their analysis infers that the death
of special persons or peculiar death was a precondition for the burial
in the prehistoric village. It is worth in some villages there is a
repeating pattern of a double burial (e.g. Bulgarchevo and Kazanluk)
that also points to specific rituals. Special body positions indicate
possible cases of punishment (see details in Nikolova 2003 for the burials
from Vaksevo and from Sofia-Slatina). The pattern of village-interments
gradually decreases in the prehistoric Balkans, but after the Neolithic,
there is one more pick - Early Bronze Age when it again occurs as a
common specific burial ritual, but only in Thrace and in the northwest
Balkans with regional peculiarities (Nikolova 1999).
In the Zapotec philosophy and cosmology the graveyard occurs as
mediating category between the house (as symbols of inside, boundary,
trust, good, sacred, safe, etc.) and the field (the locus of the dangerous
spirits and symbol of outside, not boundary, distrust, evil, profane,
dangerous, etc.) (Guidi & Selby 1976:186-189). Further, the distinction
between the children and adult depended not on the age but on the marriage
status and the graveyard was divided into old and new, so the people
who died "unnatural death" were buried in the old cemetery
(1976:190-194). The analysis of the special organization of the cemetery
for instance of Late Copper Age Golyamo Delchevo (Northeast Bulgaria)
shows that at least in some cases the location of the graves possibly
depended on gender and the social status. That fact can explain the
concentration of male graves in this cemetery. The household nucleation
characterizes the cemetery of Budakalász (Hungary) (Chapman 2000).
The popularity of village burials shares both Neolithic and Early
Bronze communities in the Balkans. In the latter period the burials
of animal specified the cult practices in some regions. They occur as
burials in village pits, on floor of house or in human burials. Ivan
Dimitrov (2003) provided a comparative study on the dog burials found
in human graves from later Early Bronze in the Balkans and in Anatolia.
This innovation in the prehistoric burial customs in the Balkans occurs
in graves of persons with high status. Then, at least in some cases
the dog occurs as a symbol of high status in the Early Bronze Age (e.g.
the burial from Lovech, Early Bronze III). But according to the local
traditions and beliefs, in the Vucedol village complex (Early Bronze
II) six burials of dogs were documented including one on a floor of
a house (Juriic 1990). Then, we cannot insist in all cases the
dog was a high-status symbol and accordingly, the interpretation of
the last requires a contextual analysis.
The buried dog on the floor of Vucedol house is in relation with
the pit burial of bull head within Dubene-Sarovka village (Early Bronze
II) next to which was place a cup with ochre (Nikolova 1996). In this
ritual (possible pars pro toto symbolism) again the close interrelation
between the household and the household cattle is demonstrated and the
opportunity the cult of the ancestry to have enforced the everyday life
of the villagers. This is an expressive instance of the Early Bronze
symbolic communication between the people the animal world in which
the rituals characteristics of the human cults (burial-goods of pottery
and the ochre) were employed in the rituals with animals. Then, the
finding from Dubene-Sarovka is directly related to another discovered
feature the South Middle Danube Basin - the bucranium from Vinkovci-Hotel
(Hoti 1990) which is synchronous with the former. The last was found
on a floor of Vucedol house and was originally attached to the wall.
This bucranium was a combination of animal horns and a plastered head.
In contexts of the problems of cultural and social reproduction
(Nikolova 2003c), the symbolism of the village-interments in prehistory
relate both to the generational reproductions and to the reproduction
of complex social structures and possibly to non-conflicting and adhesive
social relations as a meaningful social activity (in terms of Nancy
Folbre). As an aspect of the cult of ancestry and especially of the
household ancestry cult, the village burial was also a social strategy
for strengthening of the household and community units and an aspect
of the cult of fertility. During the Neolithic they were an alternative
burial practice to which were devoted mostly special individuals - from
newborn children to high-status persons and even to possible persons
who we a subject of punishment. But even in the last case (in the interpretation
is correct for the graves from Vaksevo and from Sofia-Slatina with an
unusual body position) the persons desired a grave that increases the
chances non-located cemeteries to have existed.
As the analysis of the meaning of the settlement burials depends on the record base, increasing the last would also develop the knowledge on the function of the different burial locations in the prehistoric society, including the prehistoric settlements.
Conclusion and summary
In the prehistoric Balkans there were a variety of meaningful systems
of symbolic means of communication - figurines, rituals, myths and legends,
etc. But symbolism was embodied not only in these forms of symbolic
expression but also in the everyday life where the utilitarian and symbolic
functions were incorporated or the symbols were used for social cohesion
and a symbolic means of social reproduction.
This approach introduced three different case studies - spinning and spindle-whorls, ornamented pottery and burials in the villages as three aspects of symbolic means of communication in the prehistoric Balkans. From functional standpoint, it was proposed that the symbolism of the spindle-whorls was an integrated part of the symbolic aspect of the spinning process as a household activity. So, the ornament that occurs in some cases on these objects had a supplemental function. The problem of the symbolism of the ornamented pottery was focused on the visibility and invisibility of the ornaments and it was stressed that in some cases invisibility could strengthen the symbolic meaning. And last, the village-interments were interpreted as a means of symbolic communication between generation and social strategies for social cohesion that function in the village life of the community.
Baal J. van 1971 Symbols for Communication. An Introduction to the
Anthropological Study of Religion. Van Gorcum. Assen.
Bailey D.W. 2000 Balkan prehistory : exclusion, incorporation and
identity. Routledge. London.
Chapman J. 2000 Fragmentation in archaeology : people, places, and
broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. Routledge.
London & New York.
Chokhadzhiev A. 2003 The Magic of the Signs or Signs for Magic (Some
Comments Based on Decorated Loom-weights from the Neolithic Tell Samovodene,
Near Veliko Turnovo). In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems,
Chokhadzhiev S. 1984 Arckeologicheski danni za kalendar v nachaloto
na kamenno-mednata epokha. Arkheologiya 2-3, 1-7.
Dimitrov I. 2003 Myth Ritual Value of the Human Graves with Dog
Skeletons in Southeastern Europe and Anatolia in the Bronze Age. In:
Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems, 153-156.
Feil D.K. 1984 Ways of exchange : the Enga tea of Papua New Guinea.
University of Queensland Press. St. Lucia, Qld.
Fol A. & Lichardus J. (Hrgs.) 1988 Macht, Herrschaft und Gold.
Das Gräberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfänge einer
neuen europäischen Zivilisation. Moderne Galerie des Saarland-Museums.
Geertz C. 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays.
Basic Books. New York
Guindi F. El & Selby H. 1976 Dialectics in Zapotec Thinking.
In: Basso K. & Selby H.A., Meaning in Anthropology. University of
New Mexico Press. New Mexico, 181-196.
Hallpike 1979 The Foundations of Primitive Thought. Clarendon Press.
Hodder I. (ed.) 1989 The Meaning of Things. Material culture and
Symbolic Impression. Inwin Hyman. London Garvey. Westport, Connecticut
Hoti M. 1990 Novi nalazi konsekrativnih rogova na Vucedolu. Opuscula
archaeologica 14, 33-42.
Juriic M. 1990 Ukopi ivotinja na Vucedolu. Opuscula
archaeologica 14, 17-31.
Kaufmann Ch. 1993 Art and artists in Kwoma society. In: Anderson
R. & K. Field (eds.), Art in Small-Scale Society. Contemporary readings.
Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, 33-52.
Mackenzie D.A. 1968 The Migrations of Symbols and their relations
to beliefs and customs. Gale Research Co. Detroit.
McCafferty & McCafferty Sh.D. 1998 Spinning and Weaving as Female
Gender Identity in Post-Classic Mexico. In: Hays-Gilpin K. & Whitley
D. S. (eds.), Reader in Gender Archaeology. Routledge. London, 213-230.
Nikolova L. 1996 Settlements and Ceramics: the Experience of Early
Bronze Age Bulgaria. In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Bronze Age Settlement
Patterns in the Balkans. Part 2. Prehistory Foundation and Agatho. Sofia.
Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 1, 145-186.
Nikolova L. 1999 The Balkans in Later Prehistory. BAR, International
Series 791. Oxford. 1999.
Nikolova L. 2002a (2001) Diversity of Prehistoric Burial Customs.
Part 1. In: Nikolova L. (ed.) Material Evidence and Cultural Pattern
in Prehistory. International Institute of Anthropology and Prehistory
Foundation. Salt Lake City, Sofia & Karlovo. Reports of Prehistoric
Research Projects 5, 2001, 53-82.
Nikolova L. 2002b Dubene-Sarovka (Bulgaria). Early Bronze Pottery
from the Excavations 1992-2000. The Yunatsite Culture in the Upper Stryama
Nikolova L. 2002-2003 Balkan Prehistoric sites. http://www.iianthropology.org/thebalkansites.html)
Nikolova L. 2003 The Village-Interments and the Social Reproduction
during the Neolithic (in print).
Nikolova L. (ed.) 2003a European Science Foundation Exploratory
Workshop. Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe.
Karlovo, Bulgaria, 14-20 April 2002. Summaries. http://www.iianthropology.org/symbolsummaries.html
Nikolova L. (ed.) 2003b Early Symbolic Systems for Communication
in Southeast Europe. Oxford. BAR. BAR International Series. BAR International
Sîrbu V. & Pandrea S. 2003 Signs on Vessel Bottoms from
the Developed Neolithic in the Carpathian-Balkan Region. In: Nikolova
L. (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems, 193-202.
Tasic N. N. 2003 The White Painted Ornament of the Early and Middle
Neolithic of the Central Balkans, In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Symbolic
Todorova N. 2003 The Ornamentation of Late Chalcolithic Pottery
from Yunatsite Tell, Pazardzhik District (Systematization and Analysis).
In: Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems, 291-311.
Turner V. 1975 Revelation and divination in Ndembu ritual. Cornell
University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.
Winn S.M.M. 1981 Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: the sign system of the Vinca culture ca 4000 B.C. Western Publ. Calgery.
Information: Paul Bouissac
Design by: H. Harris
Copyright ©2003. All rights reserved