by Chris Fowler
(A: after Hansen 2007, Tafel 140; b: courtesy of K. Gallis; c. after Theocharis 1973, fig. 192; d: after Theocharis 1973, fig. 193; e: after Theocharis 1973, fig. 131; f: after Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2007, fig. 25. All reproduced with permission).
So in the southern part of the Balkans we can reconstruct a miniaturized landscape populated predominantly by human representations that focused on an active body. Some of them were produced expediently from a single lump of clay, others with great care and significant investment of time and effort, many times from various conjoined parts that were occasionally held together using pegs from perishable materials (Hourmouziadis 1973; Talalay 1993; see also Berger 2005; Hansen 2004 on specific case studies). Whether the latter practice had any meaning other than facilitating production is debatable (Hourmouziadis 1973, 40; Nanoglou 2008b, 318), but it has been invoked as evidence to suggest that figurines were made this way to aid their fragmentation (Chapman 2000; Talalay 1987). The life of the objects after their manufacture is hard to explore, but certain wear traces (Nanoglou 2005, 147) and breaks (see Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; cf. Gaydarska et al. 2005, 2007 on later material) suggest that they were used in a repeated fashion for such wear to happen. Their final deposition was in settlements, both within and outside buildings, as well as in burial grounds, so it seems that there was not any single overall pattern (Hansen 2007, 130, 155–156, 182–185; Nanoglou 2008a, 3–4). There are cases in Greece where groups of figurines have been deposited together, but in a disorderly fashion, which speaks in favour of interpreting the figurines as parts of groups rather than individually and gives a new perspective to the details depicted (Nanoglou 2008a, 8). Some of them were probably made ad hoc, others to be used frequently and repeatedly. Some may have been discarded right after use, others long after. In any case, these objects naturalized an active body, which only occasionally and under specific conditions invoked further details, like genitals and breasts (Nanoglou 2010). When in groups it seems as though each group combined bodies involved in a variety of actions and poses, rather than, say, a group of figures in the same stance (Nanoglou 2005, 149; cf. Fig. 32.4b). The cases where groups of figurines have been found together do not include any animal figures and this might suggest that these occasions were extremely anthropocentric (Nanoglou 2008a). Whatever the role reserved for animal representations was, and we remain in the dark regarding that, it did not presuppose any specific action or characteristic on their part. On the other hand, house models from Thessaly perhaps invoked ‘special’ buildings (Nanoglou 2008c, 148–149), whereas the models from FYROM perhaps materialized a specific metaphor that identified the building with the human body. It is probably important that the one class of objects that were literally parts of the body, pendants, were made of another material and this could suggest that there was indeed a categorical distinction between ‘actual’ human bodies and clay ones, something that resonates with the representation of animals almost always in clay. On the other hand, it could suggest that bodies of flesh and clay were deemed ontologically similar and that any prosthetics were clearly distinguished, in the fear of being somehow absorbed.
In contrast, in the northern part of the area the focus was balanced between humans and animals. Humans were represented generically with only occasional depiction of posture and/or gesture (Nanoglou 2008a; see also Hansen 2007) and a sporadic exaggeration of the buttocks (Hansen 2007, 156). Animals were quite common as self-standing figurines, as zoomorphic vessels, or attached to vessels (including so-called ‘altars’) and as small clay animal heads, usually with horns—a type which is not found in the southern part of the Balkans (Bánffy 2001; Budja 2003; Elenski 2004; Kalicz 2000; Nanoglou 2008a, 5; Vuković 2004). Most animal figures (including zoomorphic vessels and figures attached to vessels) did not show many details, although there are cases where deer have been identified (Bánnfy 2001; Karmanski 2005). Horned animal heads were not infrequent (Budja 2003; Elenski 2004; Kalicz 2000; Vuković 2004), although it is interesting that this type of object depicts only part of the animal. All in all this lack of detail is deployed alongside a non-detailed human image, highlighting no essential difference in the way humans and animals were represented and allowing us to consider them as equal components of whatever practice was enlivening them, although there is no evidence that human and animal figures were actually used together, apart from their co-existence in the communities. The presence of an animal on a house model from Röszke-Ludvár, Hungary (Bánffy 1990–91, 213; Tringham 1971, 85, fig. 14e) attests perhaps to the suggested importance of animals, especially if compared with the models from FYROM (but see another possible example of an animal on a house model from Thessaly, Greece: Toufexis 2003, fig. 29.3).
If miniatures solicited a reaction towards the recognition of oneself and others, this most probably entailed the invocation of action in the southern Balkans. The focus on humans and their actions, as opposed to humans-cum-animals in the northern Balkans, normalized an anthropocentric community of sorts, even if this community was only sanctioned for the specific occasion during which the miniatures were used. The ontological status of the entities admitted to the occasion was contingent on their actions, whereas in the northern part of the area entities were judged and recognized by their generic form. It seems significant that house models are commoner in the part of the area where the concern with human action was prominent and settlement space more densely occupied (Nanoglou 2008a, 8; see also below). Their appearance might suggest that at least some kinds of buildings were institutionalized and objectified as definable social entities.
This picture changes after 5300 BC, when in the whole area from eastern Hungary to Greek Macedonia we can discern a concern with the generic human image and a preoccupation with the surface of the body, evidenced in the significant (but not predominant) presence of incised or painted decorations, whilst a certain focus on the head has become evident in some regions (Fig. 32.2; Bailey 2005; Bánffy 2001; Chapman 1981; Hansen 2007; Letica 1988; Milojković 1990; Nanoglou 2009b; Nanoglou and Pappa 2009; Talalay 2004). Seated figures did exist (Berger 2005; Hansen 2004; Lichardus et al. 2002), but not the variety of postures and gestures seen in earlier Neolithic Thessaly. Incised or painted decorations are present on both human and animal representations, so again there were similarities between them. This view is perhaps strengthened by the increased presence of ambiguous or hybrid images that are difficult to categorize as either human or animal, images that are quite common in the whole area (Bánnfy 2001; Chohadzhiev 2007, 114; Nanoglou and Pappa 2009). Nevertheless animals proliferate in this period, especially as figures attached to vessels (Fig. 32.3b, 3c; Bánffy 2001; Nanoglou 2009c; Nanoglou and Pappa 2009) or to buildings and house models (Fig. 32.4f; Koukouli-Chrysanthaki et al. 2007; Marangou 1996; Nanoglou 2009c). It is difficult to assess what was going on in Thessaly and southern Greece, for there are not many assemblages published from this period. Certainly there is a lack of incised figurines both in the mainland and the Aegean islands (Evans 1964; Nanoglou 2006, 167; Talalay 1993), but the human body is again only generically rendered. Some stone figurines were produced around this period (Berger 2005, 195; Chapman 1981, 120; Evans 1964, 237; Talalay 1993, 66), but they are in the minority.
Contextual information for this and the following period is sketchy, but when offered (Bánffy 1990–1; Bailey 2005, 62–63, 109–112; Letica 1988; Tringham and Conkey 1998) suggests that there was no overall common practice towards miniatures. They have been found in both cemeteries and settlements (Bailey 2005, 60–63; Nanoglou 2009b, 291) and most of the objects from the settlements are found in discard contexts (Tringham and Conkey 1998), yet there are cases where some of them have been deposited as a group (Bailey 2005, 109–112; Chapman 2000, 108–112; Letica 1988, 179; Marangou 1996; Todorova 1982, 67; Ursulescu and Tencariu 2006). Marangou (1996, 179) refers to a few cases where animal figurines have also been found in groups, and this might suggest that animals were also meaningful when in groups rather than indiv
idually. It is difficult to evaluate these cases towards a tradition, since we do not know much about previous depositional practices. If they were gathered separately, it may suggest that humans and animals do not mix ‘on stage’.
House models show some changes too. Alongside the models which continued the tradition of the previous period, namely perpendicular models with pitched roof (see especially examples from Bulgaria, Todorova 1982), in some parts of the area (particularly Thessaly and Macedonia, Greece) open-roofed models became more common than before. Given the small number of published examples it is difficult to say anything meaningful on the relative occurrence of these two types. The earliest examples of open-roofed models also date to the previous period; Nikolov describes one from Slatina, Bulgaria (1990, 83), which dates to the earlier Neolithic, whilst the model from Platia Magoula Zarkou, Greece, which included eight figurines (Fig. 32.4b; Gallis 1985, 2001), probably dates around 5300 BC. But most examples date from the fifth and the fourth millennia (Toufexis 1996; Todorova 1982, 67, as do the figurines found inside; see also Marangou 1996) and they probably designate a change of focus from the exterior of the building to the interior (Toufexis 1996, 161) or even to the users of the building and their actions (Nanoglou 2001, 309). This interpretation is perhaps reinforced by the occurrence of a few oven models (Fig. 32.4e; Chohadzhiev 2007, 120; Renfrew et al. 1986, fig. 8.20b), which are placed indoors where they occur in house models (e.g. Gallis 1985; Gallis 1992, 129; Renfrew et al. 1986, fig. 8.20a). This change does not seem to replace the previous trend, but rather to accompany it. Furniture was modelled separately from figurines, although still associated contextually with them (Mantu et al. 1997, cat. no. 12; Todorova 1982, 67).
At the same time, that is the period after 5000 BC, we again see significant changes in various regions. In northern Greece stone figurines, especially marble ones, proliferated (Fig. 32.1b; Nanoglou 2008b), amounting to half the objects on certain sites (e.g. Makriyalos: Nanoglou and Pappa 2009). Incised decorations proliferated in many areas (Bailey 2005, 119; Berger 2005, 209; Milojković 1990, 412; Popov 2002; Renfrew et al. 1986), but not in others, such as north-east Bulgaria or southern Greece (Bailey 2005, 119; Talalay 1993). During this period the association of animals with vessels remained strong, particularly quadrupeds of a generic type that, as before, defies categorization according to species (Bánffy 1997, 2001; Berger 2005, abb. 2, Kalicz 1998; Nanoglou 2009c).
Accordingly, figurines would have guided some people across the area to continue focusing on a generic image, and others to reject previous practices and refocus on a motionless body. In both cases many bodies were further elaborated through incisions, presenting a body with identifiable insignia as a naturalized precondition, prompting viewers to identify these bodies by their insignia, to address them and to situate themselves within the world through these traits, although we remain in the dark as to whether people used relevant insignia on their bodies too. Furthermore, in many communities in Greece (in some cases alongside the practice just described) people were confronted by figures that used their material as a major distinctive point. New variables entered the scene and reformulated the field of normality, with some sort of elaboration of what people should look like. Along with an ongoing, and in some areas increasing, association of animals with vessels, these changes set the ground for a new ontological status of humans and animals, whereby humans were judged by their appearance and animals were further, and perhaps restrictedly, defined as containers of some sort (Nanoglou 2009c).
The preoccupation with the use of different materials is evidenced in more regions after 4000 BC, as in the case of the fourth millennium BC bone figurines from the eastern Balkans (Hansen 2007, 224ff; Popov 2002; Terzijska-Ignatova 2004), although they did appear earlier (Berger 2005, 213), or the figures made of shell (e.g. from Durankulak, Vajsov 2002, 261–262), but still most figurines were made of clay (Berger 2005; Bondár 2008; Hansen 2007). Artefacts usually called ‘ring-idols’, found all over south-east Europe and dating to the fourth millennium BC, were also made of a variety of materials (gold, silver, copper, stone, or clay: Hansen 2007, 282ff, with references). Finally, a reversal of the predominance of clay can be seen in the Aegean islands during the third millennium BC (Broodbank 2000; Hendrix 2003), where marble was used almost exclusively in many cases. In these later periods, animal representations are not very common, but certain aspects of what was practised up to then were continued, whilst others changed. Animals were still associated mainly with vessels (Rutter 1993), whilst in other cases, animal figurines were found in comparatively large numbers (Tzavella-Evjen 1984). House models were also scarce (Marangou 1990, cat. no. 23), whereas furniture was again mostly merged with seated figurines (Marangou 1990). Both of these categories of artefacts follow the current trends, being made of stone.
SOUTH-EAST EUROPE AS A REGION IN MINIATURE
This brief exploration is probably enough to suggest that each tradition was apprehended, understood, and negotiated locally. Certain aspects were most probably seen, heard, experienced, and further cited on new occasions, extending particular spatio-temporal instances whereby miniatures were used (Nanoglou 2006). But this citation was not always conscious and not always felicitous, and probably resulted in mixing up, rearticulating, and even misunderstanding previous instances. The use of similar artefacts over extensive areas does not necessarily suggest that they had the same meaning. The continuities we see today, reflecting on such a long period of time, might be a product of our own abstraction process in our effort to make sense of the materiality at hand. Furthermore it should be stressed that humans and animals were not represented solely in miniature form (Hansen 2001b; Robb 2009). Nevertheless, when put into a wider European Neolithic perspective, south-east Europe does seem to stand out regarding the use of miniatures (Thomas 2005; Scarre 2007). So what was distinctive to miniatures? Some authors suggest that miniaturism evokes intimacy (Bailey 2005; Scarre 2007), but someone can experience intimacy in monuments too. On the other hand miniatures can evoke distance if they are unfamiliar. Their size means that they could be handled and carried around (Bailey 2005) and they could be gathered in groups and dismantled (Marangou 1996) with a certain ease, allowing some sort of ‘staging’ or presentation. In this vein they could have affected people in subtle ways, not being visible or set up all the time. They probably did not arrest people’s attention, as we might suppose of more monumental figures. Their materiality does make a difference and in this vein so does the possible change in their materiality, when for instance they were broken. A growing number of scholars suggest that their breakage was intentional as part of a process people performed to relate to each other, holding the broken part as evidence of their transaction (most prominent studies being Biehl 1996, 2003, 2006; Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; Talalay 1987; see also Bánffy 1990/1991, 202–203). Concerns about this model can be found in various studies (e.g. Bailey 2001, 2005, 112; Nanoglou 2005, 143), but one important point is that this approach does bring into focus the materiality of the objects (albeit in different nomenclature) and their life as objects, which is perhaps the only way to break away from a highly decontextualized discussion of representational practices.
This call to contextualization begs the question of the resonance of representational practices with other aspects of social life. In light of the argument followed here, that material culture is constitutive of subjectivities, the differences just described would suffice to talk of different worlds, even if nothing else was different among the various areas explored. The very practice of making and using these artefacts would have constituted and sustained different regional identities (Nanoglou 2006). So, instead of trying to find out whether these differences corresponded to other practices (say architecture or burials), in order to explain representational differences, as if they follow upon deeper structures, perhaps what is needed is to reinterpret these other practices from the perspective of representational practices. Of course the life of the
inhabitants in the various areas examined was different (and similar) in many aspects. The communities of earlier Neolithic Thessaly seem to have invested more on densely occupied locales (Kotsakis 1999), whereas in the north a looser organization is argued by experts (Bailey 2000, 2005, 4–5). We could relate this to the differences in representations, suggesting perhaps that the looser architecture in the north helped incorporate the whole gamut of represented entities—that is, humans and animals—within the settlement, whereas in Thessaly the overt preoccupation with humans is evident in architecture as well (Nanoglou 2008a, 8, but see Nanoglou 2008a, n. 9). We could expand the list of relevant practices, but the point is that living on a tell in sixth millennium BC Thessaly would not be the same as living on a tell in sixth millennium BC Serbia, because people at least would have been drawing on different representations of human bodies. However insignificant these discrepancies might have been deemed, they constituted a different framework for life to go on.
So, what was it like to live in such a world, full of miniature models that invoked entities simultaneously present in other matter, other sizes, other colours, and other textures? A point to remember is that perhaps these categories were not impenetrable and allowed cross-cutting and interchanges, as is perhaps arguable on account of the observable hybridization (see also Meskell 2008): heads that are either human or animal; buildings that merge with humans or animals, and vessels that are formed in the shape of humans or animals. The whole practice of miniature modelling testifies to the mingling of categories and the negotiation of ontologies; new entities were modelled each time certain attributes were chosen for representation or left out of it and these entities in turn crafted what it was to be human or animal or anything else in that world (Joyce 2008). Miniatures reiterated and naturalized a certain way of being in the world, as an active body, as part of a wider community of entities, as recognizable through insignia or from the material used, etc. All this was not imposed through grandeur, but would have subtly (re)defined what counted as acceptable and provided the means to account for oneself and others. Their small size, their persistent association with specific materials or their formal attributes, all affected people’s lives from particular perspectives, yet this influence would have been anything but minute.
