Publishedb,' ()xbow Books,ParkEnd Place,()XfOl Oxbow Books, John Chapman andBisserkaCiaydarska,200? A CIP record of thisbook isavailablefromtheBritishLibrary ISBN978-1-84217_222-31-84217-222-0 TbiJbookiJ(ll'ailabledired./rofl' ()xbo\\' Books,ParkEnd Place,()xford()X 11 Hi\: (phone:01865-241249;Fax:01865-794449) and The DavidBro\vnBook Company PC)Box511,()akville,eT 06779,lTSA (Phone:860-945-9329;Fax:860-945-9468) or from our website W\v\v.oxb()wbooks.com Frollt COIJer:TheW,?Yu'eu'ere - jragnlfll/s.!ron'deepBalkan(and other) prf'hi.rlones PrintedinGreat Britain by AIdenPressLtd, Witney,()xon Contents l ... ist()ffigures......................................................................................................................................................................................... \!ii I __ist()ftables............................................................................................................................................................................................ix l ... ist()f plates.............................................................................................................................................................................................x Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................................xi J\ckn()\.Jlledgements............................................................................................................................................................................... xiii Introductiontothe lifecycleof things - categorisation, fragmentationand enchainment ..............................................1 2\X'hatwe can do \vith\vhole objects - the categoricalanalysisof pottery........................................................................19 3Partsandwh()lcs- Hamant-,riafigurines ...................................................................................................................................53 4Schiffer \'isitstheBalkans.......................................................................................................................................................... 71 :;Using objectsafter the break - beyondrc-fitting studies.....................................................................................................81 ()The biographicalapproach - firedclayfigurinesfromthe LateEneolithic tellof Dolnoslay.................................... 113 7Personhood and thelifecycleof .SpOlu(l'IIIJrings.................................................................................................................. 143 8Re-titting thenarrative:beyondfra!-...Tfllents............................................................................................................................173 9Concluding pointerstowardsfutureresearch....................................................................................................................... 203 /\ppenciix1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2()5 .I\ppendix 2............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2()6 /\ppendix3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2()7 i\ppendix 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 2()8 -,\ppendix 5............................................................................................................................................................................................ 216 Bibli()graph)'.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 217 Indexes................................................................................................................................................................................................... 229 ,Colour plates Listof Figures 1.1Amodelforthetransformationofmaterialculture (source:Cziesla1990,Fig.7) 1.2The identity triangle 2.1Relationship between personhood, cObTl1itive structures andsocialstructures 2.2Zonal structuring of pottery decoration 2.3Common pottery forms and decoration from Rakitovo 2.4Decorational reinforcement by context and form from Rakitovo 2.5Commonpotteryformsanddecorationfrom Hlebozavoda 2.6Typeof reinforcementbyshapedifferentiationfrom HlebozavodaII 2.7Typeofreinforcementbyshapedifferentiationfrom Hlebozavoda 11-1 2.8Type of decorational reinforcement by vessel category fromHlebozavodaIII 2.9Type of decorational reinforcement by vessel category fromHlebozavoda II-1 2.10Common pottery formsand decoration fromAzmak 2.11Profile differentiationbvsite 2.12Decorationalstylebyshape rangefromAzmak 2.13Typesofreinforcementbydecorationalstylefrom Azmak 2.14Commonpotteryformsanddecorationfrom Dolnoslav 2.15Decorational categoriesfromA.zmakandDolnoslav 2.16Decorationalcategoriesvs.shaperangesfrom Dolnoslav 2.17Numberofreinforcementsbyprofiledifferentiation fromDolnoslav 2.18formsofmortuarypotteryfromthe\TarnaI cemetery, witha keyto the shading usedthere 2.19\Tesselwithmultipleprofiledivisions,grave5,\Tarna cemetery(source:FolandLichardus1988,catalogue Abb.117) 2.20Presence/absenceofdecorationaccordingtovessel profilebreaks 2.21Typesofreinforcementbynumberofvesselprofile breaks 3.1TypesofHamangiafi!,TUrines 3.2AndrogynousHamangiafigurines 3.3The "Thinker", Cernavoda cemetery 3.4Haman!.,Tiafigurinefromahoardfoundinthecliffs aboveBalchik 3.5Fragmentation chainforHamangiafigurines 3.6Fi!,TUrinecompleteness by context 3.7Changing gender identities 3.8Frequency offigurinesingraves 3.9Frequency of figurinesinsettlement contexts 4.1Transformationsofmaterialculture(source:Deal 1985) 4.2Sixmodelsofarchaeologicaldiscard(source:Deal 1985) 5.1Completenessindex,Phylakopianthropomorphic figurines 5.2Completeness index, Phylakopizoomorphic figurines 5.3Horizontalsherdre-fitsat\\\szogr6d (source:Kobyliriskiand1992,Fig.3) 5.4Horizontalandverticalsherdrc-fits,EarlyNeolithic Endrod119(source:1992,siteplan) 5.5DistributionofrefittedfragmentsatRoccadiRivoli (source:DallaRiva2003,figure,p.98) 5.6CompletenessIndexofSedlareanthropomorphic figurines 5.7RefittedLateCupper:\ge vesselfromDurankulak 5.8Completeness of pottery inEarlyCopper Agegraves atTiszapolgar-Basatanya 5.9Completeness of pottery in Copper l-\ge graves atTiszapolgar-Basatanya 5.10Reconstructionofdepositionalprocessesat RunnymedeBridge(source:1996,Fig. 48) 5.11Flo\vchartofdepositionalpath\vays,Runnymede Bridge(source:Needham1996, Fig.1(8) 5.12Depositional sequence and horizontal sherd and lithic re-fits, Cluster B,Kilverstone, ...\rea E (source: Garro\,' et al.2005,Fig.11) 5.13Depositional sequence and horizontal sherd and lithic re-fits, KihTcrstone, ;\rea E(source: Garro\\' et al.2005, Fig.10) 5.14Horizontallithic,re-titsbenveenLakeGyrinossites (source:Schaller-A.hrberg1990, Fig.8) 5.15Re-titted fragments of an E\vart Park Late Bronze ;\ge s\vord,foundatHanfordandTrentham(source: BradleyandFord 2004,Fig.20.1) 6.1 aSiteplanoftheLateCopperAgefeaturesattell Dolnoslav(source:Koleva2002) 6.1 bRe-fitting of figurinesat Dolnoslav: lineswith arrows =re-fitsbetweenfragmentsfromdifferentcontexts; filledpentagons = re-fitsbetween fragmentsfromthe same context 5.2Distribution of joins deriving from the middens 5.3Figurinesby gender fromDolnoslav 5.4Distribution of left,rightandneutralfragments S.5Distributionofleft,rightandneutralfragments, phase C Distribution of left,right and neutralparts, middens 5.7Distribution of left, right and neutral parts, open areas 5.8Distribution of left,right andneutralparts,buildings 5.9Distributionofleft,rightandneutralpartsineach building S.10Example of category L (left torso, left leg and left arm) S.11Example of category R(right leg) S.12Example of category \'\'1..(\\:-holeupper torso and left arm) S.13Example of category \'fR (whole torso and right arm) 5.14Distribution of lower andupper parts S.15Distribution of lo\ver andupper parts, middens 1.16Distribution of lo\ver andupper parts, open areas S.17Distribution of lower andupper parts,buildings S.18Distribution of lower body parts ).19Distribution of upper body parts ).20Distributionofupperandlowerbodypartsineach building S.21Figurine withhole inthestomach S.22Join5 S.23Decorationalmotif 167 Decorationalmotif 172 ).25Join11 5.26Join19 S.27Join14 ).28Join 22 ).29Join10 7.1Left-valvenngandright-\-alvering,Durankulak cemetery 7.2Typeof ringsby period, Durankulak cemetery 7.3Naturalfeaturesof \rarnajpol1c!ylusring 7.4Naturalfeaturesof DurankulakSponcfylusring 7.5Naturalfeaturesof DurankulakSpon4)iusring 7.6Naturalfeaturesof Durankulak.sponcfylusring 7.7Naturalfeaturesof Durankulakjpon4ylusring 7.8Naturalfeaturesof Durankulakjpon4ylusring list ofFigures 7.9RingswithdifferentnaturalpathwaysfromVarna cemetery 7.10Classesof naturalshellfeatures,Hamangia 1-11 7.11Classesof natura]shellfeatures,Hamangia, Ill-IV 7.12Classesof naturalshellfeatures,Hamangia, Varna 1-III 7.13Classesof natural shellfeatures,Varna cemetery 7.14Complete ringsin graves,Hamangia 1-11 7.15Fragmentary ringsin graves,Hamangia 1-11 7.16Complete andfragmentaryringsingraves,Hamangia 1-11 7.17Complete ringsingraves,HamangiaIll-IV 7.18Frablffientaryringsin graves,I-lamangia111-1\' 7.19Complete andfragmentaryringsin graves,Hamangia Ill-IV 7.20Complete ringsin graves, \'arna I-Ill 7.21Fragmentary- ringsin graves, \Tarna 1-111 7.22Complete and fraf,'1l1entaryrings in graves, \'arna I-Ill 7.23Complete ringsin graves,\-rarna cemetery 7.24Fragmentary ringsingraves, \Tarnacemetery 7.25Completeandfragmentaryringsingraves,\rarna cemetery 7.26CompletenessIndicesof shellrings,Hamangia I-Ill 7.27Completeness Indices of shell rin,hTS,Hamangia I11-I\! 7.28CompletenessIndicesof shellrings,\Jarna I-Ill 7.29CompletenessIndices of shellrings, \rarna cemett;ry 7.30Ringswithdifferent life-historiesfrom\rarna 7.31Ringswithdifferent life-historiesfromDurankulak 7.32Ringswithdifferent life-historiesfromDurankulak 7.33Ringswithdifferentlife-historiesfromDurankulak 7.34Ringswithdifferent life-historiesfrom\,rarna 7.35Ringswithdifferent life-historiesfrom'larna 7.36Completenessindexforrefittedshellringfragments fromDimiru 7.37Sizeof ringsfromDimini 7.38Rings withburning bycontext fromDimini 7.39NaturalfeaturesonringsfromDimini 7.40Representation of natural features on rin!-,ySfromDurankulak andDimini 7.41Ringswith differentnaturalpath\\?aysfromDimini 7.42Rings with different natural pathways by context from Dimini 7.43Phasesinringsmicrostratigraphy 7.44l\-1icrostratigraphic sequence groups by context groups from Dimini 8.1Cultural complexity in allmaterial media in the Climax Copper Age Listof Tables 11.1Socialcontextsfor the study of fragmentation !1.2Selectedchronology of the BalkanPeninsula 2.1Potteryassemblagesinvestigatedusingcategorical analysis 2.2Summary of categoricalanalysisofBalkanNeolithic and Chalcolithic pottery 3.1Twocontrastingformsofpersonhoodinand Southern India 3.2CategoriesofHamangiafigurinesbygenderand completeness 3.3Combinationsof femaletraitsinHamangiafigurines 3.4DistributionofHamangiafigurinegendertraitsby body parts 3.5HamanbriafigurinesinPit1,3.6HamangiafigurinesinPit2,Durankulak-Nivata 3.7 Hamangiafigurinesinthe Durankulak cemetery 5.1Bol1ong'scriteriaforre-fitting sherds 6.1 offigurinesaccordingtotheirmorphological characteristics 0.2Frequency of figurinetypesinnun1ber of houses 6.3Bodypartsaccordingtonumberofgenderrep-resentations 6.4Joinsbetween middensandbuildings 6.5Joins between middens 6.6Joinsbetween buildings 6.7Joinsbetween buildingsandthe open areas 6.8Joins betweenmiddens and open areas 6.9Joins between open areas 6.10Fragments \vithsecondary burning on axisbreak 6.11Fragment with secondary burning on arm or neck break 6.12Body parts withrepetitivetracesof wear 6.13Frat,l"ffientswithsecondary burning on torsos or legs 6.14Number of fibrurineswithcombined treatment 7.1Tsuneki'schaineoperatoireforSpontfylusshellrings 7.2FeaturesofSponcjylus / G!Yt)'mensringsatDurankulak and \Tarna 7.3Sponqylus combinations of naturalfeaturesfrom \Tarna cemetery 7.4Differential lifehistorieson re-fittedshellfragments 7.5Physicalandpostulatedre-fitsbetweenpairsofshell ringfragments,Late N eolithicDimini 7.6DifferencesbetweentheDiminisettlementSponc!J1lus ringassemblageandtheDurankulakand\Tarna mortuary assemblages 8.1Context classes for the assemblages under investigation 8.2Inter-site re-fits 8.3Intra-site re-fitsfrom closed and semi-closed contexts 8.4Orphan sherdsfromsettlement contexts 8.5()rphan fragmentsfromclosed contexts 8.6Relationsbet\veenkeyentities Listof Plates of sitesmentionedinthetext:SouthEastand CentralEurope 2:\lap of sitesmentioned inthe text:\X:esternEurope .1\Iap of sitesmentioned inthetext:and A.merica 4Grave643fromtheDurankulak cemetery .)A richset ofgoods,\'arna cemetery, graveNo. 43 6TellKaranovo, general 7Decorational reinforcement by context from Rakitovo 8BlackBurnished\'("arevessel,LateNeolithic,tell Kaloyanovets(source:Kalchev200S,21,top left) 9Place of decoration vs.vesselformbyphase 10\Tesselswithincisedand \vhiteincrusteddecoration 11Typeof reinforcement by profile differentiationfrom j\zmak 12Distribution of number of vesselprofilebreaks 13Horned stand, \Tarna cemetery 14Distribution of fit,rurineparts insettlement 15Distribution of tIgurinepartsingraves 16DistributionofsimplifiedtypesoffigurinesIn Dolnoslav 1 7Fibrurinetypesbynumber of breaks 18Siteplan withrefitsbetween contexts, Dimini 19Number of breaks, re-fittedfragments 20Categoriesof sidednessand \,vholeness 21LT nitIedcategoriesof sidednessand \vholeness 22Categoriesof sidednessand wholeness,phaseC 23l' nifiedcategoriesofsidednessand\,vholeness, phase C 24Categoriesof sidednessand\vholeness,middens 25Unifiedcategoriesofsidednessandwholeness, middens 26Categories of sidednessandwholeness, open areas 27C nifiedcategoriesof sidednessandwholeness,open areas 28Categoriesof sidednessandwholeness,buildin.hrs 29 nifiedcategoriesofsidednessandwholeness, buildings .10Distribution of categoriesbybuilding 31 nmodifiedbivalves:upperandmiddlerows-Spoflq)'/UJ pper,\ge\'arna cemetery &burials WO( )densculptures :\eoJithicseyeredheads :\eolithicpottery near megaliths megaliths Bn >I1ze:\gedomestic materialculture Bronze,-\gcmortuan' domain 1.B.-\- EI:\metalwork &hoards Iron:\geIberianstone sculptures In>nAgem< >rtuarydomain Iron,-\gehill fort materialculture I(>mntiredclay settlement &mortuary pottery Table1.1Social (ol1te:dsjor thestuc!)' jra.2,mentatiol1 Banffy, n.d. Biehl, n.d. Gheorghiu 2{)( )() Catuna, n.d. Kuchlcr. n.d. Talala\' 2()()4 Hoiten 2()()() Holtorf 20()3 Bruck(inpress) Hamilakis, n.d. Turk, n.d. ChapaBrunct, n.d. ()livier,n.d. Hill,n.d. Bausch, n.d. Buko, n.d. Introductiontothe1-1fe(yde ofThings beenattested,fragmentationanditsrelatedconceptsof enchainment and accumulation have made contributions toseveralmajordebatesinworldprehistory.Inhisre-assessmentoftheearliesthominids,theemergenceof anatomically modern humans and the transition he terms the"sedentismrevolution",Gamble(2004,2(05)has recognizedtheutilityofconceptsoffragmentation, enchainment and accumulation for the creation of a social frameworkforthePalaeolithic.ForGamble(2004,23), "thepracticesofenchainmentandaccumulationreach down deep into our hominid ancestry", acting as a material demonstrationofPalaeolithicsociallifeandsocial networksfrom2.5millionyearsBP.Practicessuchas butcheryandstonetoolmakingactasmaterial demonstrationsofPalaeolithicsociallifethroughthe construction of social networks whose maintenance rests onthecontinualreproductionofdividualsand individuals. Gamble(2004, 22-24) identifiesthe wider and denser networks of enchainment implicated in the more complex bladetechnologyoftheincomparison with the flakeand Le\TaIloistechnologies of Neanderthal groups,asoneof theneglectedmaterialaspectsof the emergence of anatomically modern humans at the Nliddle - li pperPalaeolithictransition.Theexchangeof retouchedtoolsmadefromexoticmaterialsoverlarge distancesintheandUpperPalaeolithicindicate enchainedrelationscarryingpersonalandartifact biographiesbetweenlocalesandhunting groups.These locales became increasingly important as centres of social lifeandsitesofaccumulationfortheincreasing productionof setsof thingsfrom100,000 BP. Gamble'scriticismoftheideaoftheorigins(,f accumulationintheNeolithicis\veIltaken- thesocial lifeofsetsclearlybeginsatanearlypointinthe Palaeolithic!Agoodexampleofenchainmentisthe accumulation of fired clay fibl'Urinesin the (;ravettian sites ofHere,thehighlevelsoffigurinefrag-mentation, as exemplified at Dolni \!estonice (Klima 1963, 409,422-427andTab.106),arepartlyexplainedbythe deliberateuseofthermalshocktoproduceexploding bodiesinthehearth(\landiver et al.1989)but thepoint overlookedbytheinterpretationofritualexplosionsis thatmanyof thefigurinesareleftincompleteafterthe explosion,promptingthefragmenterist'squestion: ''Wherearethemissingfragments?"Theof figurinefragmentsout of thehearth-centredcontext of explosion was paralleled by the movement of body parts, especiallyskulls,intotheburialsof complete articulated persons (Svoboda et al.1996, 170) - a sign of enchained relationsbasedupon object and body fragments. InhisapproachtotheoriginsofN earEastern sedentism,Gamble(2005)characterizesthemateriality of the move towards sedentism inthe Natufian and Pre-5 Pottery Neolithic of the Levant in terms of a shift towards accumulationfromenchainment throughtheincreasing emphasisoncontainersratherthaninstruments.Here, thehouseisvie\vedasacontainerandvillagesas accumulationsofhouses,justascemeteriesaresetsof Natufian bodies and PPN ossuaries are sets of fraf,Yffients of the dead(2005,91-92). Gamble interestingly extends the use of enchainment, accumulation and fragmentation to architecture, so housesare'fragmented' into different rooms,'enchained'bybeingjuxtaposedindense settlementandformthelocalesforoftenmassive accumulations of artifacts. The social relations sustaining suchpracticesareenchainedrelationsthatareextended byintensificationnotonlyofproductionbutalsoof deposition - anearlyexample of \vhathasbeentermed the "Concentration Principle"(Chapman 2000b). Another contributionbyfrat,Yffientationtheorytothe debate over the origins of the Eurasian Neolithic is .lones andRichards'(2003)proposalthatacriticalgapinthe modelforsocialandsymbolicdomesticationprocesses proposedbyCauvin(1972),\X:ilson(1988)andHodder (1990) was the creative potential provided by social actions suchasconsumptionandfrahYffientation.Ratherthan domesticationarisingoutofasymbolicrevolution representedbyhousesandyillages,domestication wasa set of novel relationships that occurred at different locales inthelandscape- principallyatvillagescomposedof manyhouses.Inanotherpaper,Jones(2005,216) recot,'11iseshouseholds as relational identities just asmuch aspersons.Therole of fragmentationinthesene\v relationshipswasconsideredtobethewayitenabled elements of the nlaterial \vorld that were hitherto discrete tobe brought intometaphoricalrelationship - elements such asbutchered and divided animalbones, the osseous remains of human ancestors and fragments and complete objects.For JonesandRichards(2003,46),eachanimal bone was enchained to allother bones of that animal and theanatomiesof animalsarticulated\\;thparticular sets ofhuman- animalrelationships.breakingand sharing established aftiliations benveen actors, composite tools re-incorporated and re-articulated ne\\:" sets of social relations(2003,49).\,"hatJonesandRichardsdonot establish,ho\\reyer,isthe\vaysinwhichfragmentation andenchainment areenacted in dailysocialpractices. Thisaspectof enchainment practicesisdiscussedby Skourtopoulou (inpress a and b) in her study of the lithic assemblage from the large open Late Neolithic settlement ofNorthern Greece. Skourtopoulou (in press a)seesartifactsas"'materialmetaphors of inter-personal relations"atvanoussocio-spatialscales.Enchainment, then, usesthismetaphorical yalue of artifacts in order to objectify social relations, with different aspects symbolised at these variousscales- personal relationsasthin!-,J"Sand people \vithinandbenveen households, economic 6 andsymbolicvaluesforexoticexchangesurpassingthe communalscaleandembeddedininter-culturalcontact (inpressb).These insightsareappliedto intra-site lithic analysis in an attempt to extend social agency theory. They helpustoseehowenchainmentworksatthelevelof everyday practice byshowing ho'\van expedient quartzite flakeisneveranI\'itsmaterialformbutembodies production relations and personal skills that are rooted in settlementspace.Althoughnotexplicitlymentioning Hurcombe (20()O)emphasises the gendered relations benveen persons involved inthe different stages of anycraftsequence- apositionimplyingthatoften severalpeopleareenchainedtoanyobjectatitsbirth, providing the basis for the metaphorical relations to \vhich Skourtopouloualludes. Criticisms of thefragmentation premise Thisrevie\vofthewaysin\vhichotherscholarshave de\"clopedandextendeddifferentaspectsoffrag-mentationtheoryindicatesana\varenessof itspotential for arangeof time/space problems.J-Io\vever,thereare many archaeologists \vho,faced\vithstrong evidence for deliberate fra.h'1l1entation,i,hrt1orethese approaches.In her revie\\;of/\egeanfiredclayfigurines,i\larangou146)notesthe widcspreadevidenceforbrokenfigurines butarguesthatmost\verebrokenatthevulnerable junctures,thejointsbenveenseparatelymodeledparts. \Xrhileadmitting that "deliberate dismemberment...(of figurines)... cannotberuledoutinsomecases"(1996, 146), misses the opportunity to ground figurine breakageinwidespreadsocialpracticesof enchainment and accumulation.Equally,Nanoglou (2005)emphasizes \vhathetakestobethecircularargumentthatbecause figurinesarebrokenalonglinesofweakness,the fragmentation was accidental- an argument countered by Gheorghiu(2006)forCucutenifihTUrincs,for\vhomthe principleofbreakingwasbuiltintomaking.For Nanoglou, the basic unit of analysis and conceptual entity of Greek Neolithicfigurineswasthe completefigurine. l'etothercolleagueshaveraisedobjectionstothe fragmentation project. The most banal comment - but he surelyhasapoint(!)- isMilisauskas'(2002,859) observationthat "testing the(fragmentation)hypothesis wouldinvolveanenormousamountofworkandtime andI doubt that any archaeologist would conduct such a studyinthefuture".Fortunately,thework ethicoutside Nevl'YorkStateisstrongerthan would suspect!(seeChapters 4-7). serious criticisms are related to three main areas offragmentationtheory:(a)therelationshipof fragmentation to fractality and the creation of personhood (principally Fowler 2004); (b)areas of additional concern tofragmentationtheory(especiallyGamble2004,2005; PartsandW"holes:inPrehistoricContext Jones2005);and(c)methodologicalissues(particularly Bailey2001,2005;Milisauskas2002). Fowler's(2004,67-70)maincriticismisthat,just because enchainment has been documented in the Balkan Neolithic, it isnot necessarily the same asenchainment as practiced in Melanesia. \XThereas,inthe latter, gift objects cannot be held by two persons at the same time, this isthe defining trait of Balkan prehistoric partibility based upon fragments.Thishelpfulobservationleadsustothe positiverecof,'11itionofsomethingdifferentaboutthe Balkan prehistoric past - not merely a similitude based on modern ethnography. As Gamble (2005, 89)has reminded us,fragmentationandenchainmentaretwodifferent terms- thetirstrelatingtosocialaction,thesecondto process.The Balkanprehistoricformof enchainment is baseduponthe ofthebodyandthin!-,rs, with eachfra!,'1l1entstanding for the whole (synecdoche), each\\'holepotentiallyor actuallypart of awider set of \vholeandpartialobjectsandeachsetandeachwhole bearingthecapacityforfurthersub-division.'rhe ovenvhelming evidence that objects and bodies are treated inthesame\vaysinrespectofthesethreelevelsof completenessandinthecourseof theirlifehistories (Chapman20(0)supportsthenotionthatthereisan interpenetration of persons and things that typifies fractal personhood.Thisreducesthecontrastiveforceof Fo\vler'stwokindsoffrah'1l1ents- thosethatarenot wholesandarenot usedto makecomposite objects(e.g figurinelegs)andthosefragmentsthatFowler describes as'fractal'thatareusedtomakecompositethings(e.g beads in a necklace).Individual beads and shell fragments \verenotmadeoriginallyascompleteobjectsbutfrom complete objects (shell ring fragments)or as parts of sets (beads). In our perspective, both types of object are fractal - indeed, we may think of object fragments as non-human dividuals.\X'hileFo\vleriscorrectthatfragmentationis notnecessaryforpartibleexchangerelations,andvice versa, the Balkan prehistoric world provides good reasons for believing that both practices co-existed there. Another concern over fractality has been expressed by A.Jones(2005)namelytheinherentdangersofthe reificationofthedividualpersonratherthancon-centrating on ways of relating. \X:e believe that this concern ismisplacedifitisrecohmizedthatthe dividualformof person isintension withtheindividual - afundamental pointthatLiPuma(1998)hasdemonstratedand\vhich has won widespread acceptance in studies of personhood. However, Jones'(2002a,170)identificationof thespace where personhood emerges as between the partible nature of artifacts and the bounded integrity of the human body misses the point about the metaphorical divisibility of the humanbody inlifethroughfra!-,'1l1entenchainment(the inalienable link between persons andexchanged objects) anditsphysicaldivisionafterdeath(themovementof IntroductiontotheLifeC)cle Things relics).Theimportantaspectaboutprehistoricfractal personsandthingsisthatbothareimplicatedineach others'fractalityandwholenessandthattheserelation-ships stands for other relationships in everyday life and in sacred space. The principalemphasisontherelationshipsbetween persons andobjectsinthefirstFrahl111entationbook has attractedcriticalcommentfromseveralcolleagues-comments that we accept in principle. Fowler (2004, 114) hasobjected that the exchange of substances wasjust as important asthe exchange of objects inprehistory(cf. J. Thomas 1999). At the time, we felt that this was a step too far.AlthoughGamble(2005,89 and Table 8.2)observes thatthevitalstageof consumptionismissingfromthe firstFragmentationbook,thepracticeisactually implicated in the process of accumulation that isa central featureofthebook:itisworthre-emphasizingthe distinctionbetweenconsumptionasapracticeand accumulationasprocess.Recently,,r\.Jones(200S)has madeastrongcasefortheimportanceofplaceand architecture in the creation of personhood. \X'c can hardly disagreewith Jonessincetheidentitytriangleonwhich muchofourprehistoricresearchhasbeenbased(Fig. 1.2)includesthe reflexiverelationshipsbetween persons andthin!-,rs,thingsandplacesandpersonsandplaces. However,itistruethattheimpactonpersonsand personhoodof livingonthe\Tincatellatvariousstages ofitsplace-biographywasnotexploredasfullyas possible.Finally,Bailey(20tH)askstheguestionof fragmentationstudies:"\X'hereisthemundane?", implyingthatiffragmentation,enchainmentand accumulationdiddriveBalkanlife,thensuchprocesses mustbesoughtinthemostmundaneofactivities places.Thisseemsattirstsightareasonablepointbut when Bailey criticizes the book's emphasis on special sites andclassesof specialartifactsratherthan'normal' sites PL\CE PERS()NTHING 7 and things, we begin to see the emergence of a dangerous dichotomy between everyday and special(?'ritual,) that is unhelpful in studies of deposition. In point of fact, ritual thingswerejustasimportant ineverydaycontextsasin specialceremonies,acting,forinstance,asmaterial citations(lonesj\.2005)inthedomesticcontextfor seasonal ceremonies. In any case, in his recent book, Bailey (2005,198-199)undermineshiso\vndistinctionin positingthat"theimportanceoffigurineslayintheir frequencyandcontinuouscirculationandvisibilityin people's daily lives". This latter is a position that \ve accept and whichformsthe basisfor a re-evaluation of the role of enchainment in everyday practices, asdiscussed above by Skourtopoulou (pp.5-6). It isa position related to the point made by Fowler (2004, 67-70) about the social value of shell rings ascompared to sherds - the former with an andhighlyvisiblesocialvalue,thelatter usedin a different sort of enchainment, perhaps based upon the essentialqualitiesoftheclayorsomehistoricalor commemorative potential. ()ne of the important research questionsdiscussedinthisbookisthewaysinwhich thingsmade of different materialsconstructed different potentialsforforming relationships. Thethirdfocusofcriticismquestionstheevidential basisfordeliberatefragmentation.Both(2002)an dBa i I e y(200 1)corn p I a int hatthefi rs t Fragmentationbookdidnotprovideasuitablemethod fordistinguishingintentionalbreakagefromdiscarded rubbish. Clearly, the discussion of the fiveprincipal \.vays of explaining broken artifacts did not satisfy these critics; neither did the identification of \vaysof breaking objects suchasfigurinesthatcouldneverbeenproduced accidentally.Atthetimeofpublication,experimental fragmentation\vasinitsinfancy;no\v,\vecanprovidea summaryoftheresultsofthe\:'"adastraexperiment (ChapmanandPriestnlan,inpress).A.numberofsets, \vith10 examples in each set, of replica prehistoric objects \vasmadebyceramicsstudentsfromtheof - . FineA.rts, underthesupervisionofG heorghiu and Ernestof the objects in each setwerebrokenaccidentallybydroppingthemfroma standardheightof1 montofivedifferentkindsof 'prehistoric' surfaces - grass,a \\loodenfloor,astamped clayfloor,atiredclayfloorandastonecobbledfloor. Keeping one complete object as a reference collection, we triedtobreaktheother fourexamplesdeliberately,\vith manualpressureand\vithablo\vfromagrindstone,a bovidmandibleandatlint.Ceramicsweremore susceptibletoaccidentalbreakagethansmaller,lighter objectssuchastiredclayfigurines,pintaderasoraltar-lamps.Nonetheless,evenceramicsbrokeinfewerthan 40%of cases on firedand stamped clay floors, with 80(Yusenlodeb and altars" otherproductintheBalk.lnsthatin\"()h-csa nlajor technological transforll1arionfronlitsra\\"nlaterial toitstinalf()rnlisnletal.\\"hilethere\\"erescattered examplesof earlier Inetal\\"()rk,goldandcopper hecanle 1110tTC()mnlOnfronlthefifthnlillenniumBC.The lllajority of the renlaining artifacts utilized locally available or rcnloteresources;their maincharacteristic isthatthey incorporated nature into day-to-day social practices. Sonle ()ftheobjectsrequiredrelativelynlin( >rtransfonnati( >ns fronltheir initial appearance to the finalproduct (c.gantler tools),othersneedalongerprocessofacquisition((' .. aninlalhonesusedfortool-nlakingaftercullingand butchery)or processing (t.y,.thetransformati()nof matt, colouredstoneintohighlyohjectsthen1seh"esrepresentingcultural order).Eachkindof fil\\"material\\"asusedto produce a di\'Crserepertoireofobjects"The()nlyexceptionis probably tlint and other silica nlaterial thatf()undmainly readytools,blanksordebitage.Stone\vasutilized n1ainlyfortoolsbutalsofortigurinesandornaments. \X"orkedbone and un\\"orked aninlalbones \\"cre comtnon tindson eachlater prehistoricsitc. former consisted of readytoolsor pans of compositetools,figurinesand ornaments, \\"hilethe latter \vere associated\\"ithcontexts of meat consun1ption butalso arpear inmort: structured deposits" \\"c can assume the use of other natural products, suchasreedsandfibres,buttheirpreservation\\'as\"Cry poor" Lxoticobjectsconstitutedanimportantpartof and Copper ,\ge life\\'ays,althoughafulllistof suchobjectscannotyetbeprovided. forexample \vhatma\"ha\"Cbeenconsideredexoticain'fhrace or the (;reat t"1 ungarian Plain \vaslocal in 1'hessaly (e.,g.SP0!lrjr/lIs andIJeJJ/a/iIlIJJshells)andviceversa:thehoney-coloured tlintlocaltoNortheastBulgaria\vasexoticfor C;reekl'\eolithicsite.theabundanceof exotic objects on later prehistoric sitesinSoutheast J':urope \vas beyondany doubt, grounding theexistenceof extended exchange net\\'orks that nlust have had a major inlpact on the perception of self inrelationto ( hhers (Chapnlan, in press c). \\"hether nephrite frogs or piece ()f\"olcanic rock (pumice),exoticobjects\verestaten1entsaboutthe a\\"arenessofother\vorlds,\\'hose"donlestication" (Chapman20(l,))\\"ascrucialforidentityforn1ationin prehistoricBalkans.I.astbutnotleast\vastheuseof colouredsubstances,suchasgraphiteorochre,for decorative reinforcenlent or colour contrast. ( )bjects nlade of allof the aboye-nlentioned I1laterials \\Tref( )undinsettlenlentsinburntandunhurnth( )uses, pitsorhoards. \\"ereho\\'e\'Cr,differentlocaland regionalscalesofin tensi tyintheuseofnla teriality. \lainstreanlsettlen1enttinds\\"olddheconsideredtohe stone, bone andtlinttools, \\'ithornaments made of bone, st()neandshellrather nlore rare.(;enerally rare, if present at all, \\Tre the n1etal Figurines, although notnumerous,\\'ereCOmnH)n()nnlostsettletnents,\\'ith exceptionally10\\"frequenciesinIIan1angiadon1cstic spaces.Ex()tic()bjectsfoundonsettlenlents\\'Crenot and e\"enly distrihuted - ( ..nephrite (>hjects\\Tre foundatnotmore thanahandfulof sites, \\,hile ,\jJOJ/{/dlf,' \\"astC.b I.atc start of 5th millenniumKunchcy &Kunchc\'a19RR _\zmashkamogila Earl\'Cha}Co}jthic4 '"'7 \)()-4S()OYarna ("emeter\" Late Cha1colirhic46()()-440(lh-,-lOO\- 19HR:1991; Higham ctaI.,subtnitted FinalChaJcolirhiccnd of 5th/start of 4thRaduntchcY;l1996 restorable profilesfron1a single occupation horizon \vith contextual data. ;\ potential study region should oprimally compriseatleastonesan1plefromeachof themajorchronolohricalperiodsintheNeolithicand Copper Ageseguence.In the firstinstance,Bulgaria "vas selected because of the reasonably large number of large samples availablefromtellsandtlat sites, as\vellasfrom the \tarna cemetery. The ayailabk samples are listed belo\v (fable2.1). The Early l\:eolithic (Karano\'o 1-11) samples are dra\vn fromt\\'Odi fferingpartsofBulgaria:Cha\'darova Cheshma from the Thracian valley and Rakito\'o fron) the lo'W'erslopesoftheRhodopes,intheSouth.Because of conditionsofdepositioninpitsandunburnthouses,a vcrysmallproportion of complete vcssels\vasfoundat any of these sites. Ncvertheless, the sherd count rcpresents some of the largest samples currently availablefor study. The Rakito\-osample \vasavailablconlyintheliterature, \\'hiIc it v:as possible to study the painted \varc component oftheCha\'da(()\'aCheshmaassemblageinSofia./\11 Rakitovo sherds were exca\ratedfromeither house or pit contexts; interms of Deal'stypology (seebelo\v, pp.73-75), both the pit finds and house groups deri,'c frompre-abandonmcnt contexts.Contextualinformationwasnot recorded for the Chavdarova Cheshma sherds. The same patternofdepositioninhouscsandworkingpitsfrom pre-abandonment contexts was observed at Nova Zagora-Hlebozavoda;thesamplestudiedcomprisedmorethan 90%ofthetotalof completejrestorable vesselsinthe NovaZagoraBy contrast, the Karanovo \T and VI/HIe sampJes from AzmashkamogilaandDolnoslavrespectivelycomprise largely complete vesselsor restorable profilesbecause of millennium theabandonment contextsof depositionindeliberately burnt houses and, in the case of I)olnoslcn', also in midden deposits.The:\zmashkanlogiJasamplestudied compriscd cca.50of the totalof compIctejrestorablc vesselsinthe outstation of the Stara Zagora ;\{useunl.;\ totalofo\-cr2,O()Ocompletc/restorablevessels\vas cxc3\"atcdfronlthefinalabandonmentcontextsofthe PhaseCof theDolnosla\'tell,predominantlyfromthe burnt structuresandthemiddcns(for detailsof thesite stratigraphy,seepp.113-J 17).ThelOo!,)sample \\rasselected in Plo"diy :\1 useum, on tht: basis of recording themaximum varietyof potteryformsanddccorational techniques;therefore,commontypesarcunder-represented incomparison \vith rare amphora or storagc-jarforms. Finally, in\'iC\\Tof the socialcomplexity postulated on thebasisof themortuarygoodsattherichestccnletery yetfoundinCopper AgeSouth [':astEurope, an analysis \vasmadeofasampleofvcsselsfromgravesofthe \Tarnacemetery.Thesemortuarydepositsfalloutside Deal'stypologybut aremost comparableto contextsof deliberate abandonment. A 15/() sample was selected from thedisplayandstoresofthe Varna.Althoughthe\Tarnaassemblageisfromanother partofBulgaria,itisvaluabletomakeacomparison between a Late Copper Age mortuary group (\?arna)and asomewhatlater,FinalCopperAge,settlement assemblage(Dolnoslav). Thisstudyhasretainedthetraditionalphasing of the BulgarianNeolithic(l!iZ.theKaranovoI,11,IIIandIV phasesof C;eorgiev(1961 )),althoughtherevjsions proposedbyV.Nikolov(1993)areundoubtedlymore precise, if more complexto apply wide1yinThrace. If'batlfif CanDoThe EarlYNeolithic assemblagesfrom Chavdarova Cheshma and Rakitovo BecauseoftheopportunitytostudytheChavdarova Cheshmapainted\\lareassemblageatfirsthand,it\vas decidedtolimitcomparativeanaJysisoftheRakltovo assemblagetothepaintedwarecomponents.()ne commonfeatureamongthethreeassemblages\vasthe absence of any painted \vare sherd decorated ina second technique.Thusthedecisiontolimitthestudytothe palnted ware con1ponent prevented detailed consideration of decorativecombinations; inany case,thesitereports indicatethat combinationsarenot acommonfeatureof ENassemblages. Theshaperepertoireateachofthethreecomprisesabroadlysimilarnunlbcrofvesselranges-b()\vls,dishes,jars,amphoraeandlids.\X'ithfe\\' exceptions(platesarefoundatCheshmaonly;flasksat Rakitovo only), most ranges occur at both sites. The total number of \'esse}categories - the mainn:ssd fonns - is similarfor eachsite,\vithanemphasis onho\,,}anddish categories.'"[heyastmajorityofthesecategories emphasised rounded contours, the lack of \Trtical division and the potential f()r open, integrated fieldsfor decoration (Fig.2.3).Nonetheless,categories\,yithasinglebreak(a neck,afootor acarination)occurredinfc\verthan1 in ten cases and there iseven a sprinkling of categories \vith twodivisions.Suchcategoriesaremorecommonat ChavdarovaCheshn1athanatRakitovoandappearto haveincreased\vithtimeatCheshma.Carinatedforms \verepresentatCha"darovaCheshmabutinverysmall numbers;themaindivisions\\lereformedbynecksand feet.\X'hileneckedcategoriesare\vel1representedatall sites, footed categories arc far more pre,>alcnt at Rakitoyo. Practurc patterns of footedvesselsindicate manufacture int\voparts, \vithsubsequentjoining of foottovessel. Thepainteddecorationatthesesitesrepresentsthe nlostcomplexandmosthighlystructuredforn1sof decorationintheentireassemblages.Thesl'llallsizeof the sherds available for study does not hide the complexity ofpainteddecorationtypifyingthesesites.()neofthe strongest trends in the organisation of painted decoration isthe use of zonation, \vhether vertical and/or horizontal. Thereisconsiderablevarietyinthefrequencyof decorationalzonationbet\veenthethreesites.The percentage of vessels \vith decorational zonation is higher at Chavdarova Chcshma than at Rakitovo cf.650/(1); asimilarfindingpertainstothereinforcctnent of shape bydecorationcf.14/(). The only zonational reinforcement utilised in the Early Neolithic" isshapereinforcement.Thedecorative techniqueitselfmaybethought toobviatetheneedfor othertechniquesofreinforcement,fortworeasons:(a) the painting itself differentiates decorationfrom ground 27 by colour - usually white paint uponred ground; and(b) the whole surface of thefinepainted \\'aresiscovered in a light burnished slip to which the paint isdirectly applied. Nonetheless, the exclusion of matt - gloss and additional colour contrastsare explicitchoices\vhichreinforcethe distinctivenessofthepaintedtechnique. There isconsiderablevariationbet\veenthetwosites inthefrequenciesofdifferentstylesofdecorative zonation- bothunreinforcedandreinforced.\X'iththe former, \rertical zonation isahvays the dominant category. \XTithshape-reinforcedzonationcategories, ,'ertical-and-horizontalzonationisleast commonatbothsites,\\rhile \"erticalzonationiscommonerthanvertical-horizontal zonationatRakitoyo,\viththecon\"erseatCheshnla. There issome \yariation inthe inlportance of vessels \vith decorationontheinterior as\vellasthe exteriorfaces- rareatRakitoyo(1 (J/u)and rareat Cheshma (90/(i). Insummary,theEarlyKeolithicpainted""raresof Chaydaroya Cheshma and Rakitovo comprised a category ofdecorationalstyle\vhich\vassharplydifferentiated fromother styleson coarse andmediumfine\varesof a yarietyof darker coloursandyetrelatiyelyhomogenous internal1y.The useofarestrictednumber of generative principles\vith,,hichtodeployasmallnunlberofkey m( >ti fsproducesa\videvarietyofdecoration.Because theoverallemphasisuponopenformsandintegrated designfieldsisintension\viththeoptions of horizontal andverticaldiyision,relati\'Clylittleuseismadeofthe rein forccmentofshapezonationbydecorationat Rakitoyo.Ho\veyer, at Ch-;l\ydarova Cheshma, over a third oftheyessclshaveornamentally-reinforcedshape division.Thedifferentiationofroundedformsfavours necks over feet and both oyer carinations but this process isnot faradvanced:fe\vvesselsincorporate spouts, lugs, handlesorhighpedestals.Thus\\hereasthecom-partmentalisation and standardisation found by Keightley intheE.astCoastChineseceramicsispoorlyattestedin theseEarlyNcolithicassen1blage,thereisc\'idcncefor thesYlnmctryofthepaintedmotifsandtheprecision requiredfortheirexecution.Thepaintedlineswereso fine(sotne\\'erecca.1 mm)thattheonlypossible paintbrushes \verethc bristlesof Sussrroja,the \vildboar (p.c., A. Raduntcheya and P.Zidaroy) - a neat conjunction of the \vildandthe domestic. l'he contextual eyidcnce fromRakitoyo indicatesthat both painted and unpainted ",,'ares \vere deposited in c\-ery abandonedordestroycdhousehold\vithoutdistinction butindifferingfrequencies.\X'hilethereno general relationship bet\veen the frequency of painted sherds and thesizeofthehouses,thecomplexityoftheirinternal features and the diversity of their other tinds, an exception was the largest house (house 9), \vith its range of complex internal features, a "cry diverse assemblage and the largest numberofpaintedandunpaintedsherds. a 28PartsandLFnoles:fra..r.n'Jel1tationinIJrehiston"c('ontext ( )) n ! / iJ !I ) 8 """,w. 9 10 F{f!,.2.3(onJnl011 potte,]'jomJs and decoration/ron,Rakitol'O(source:Raduntchet'aetal.2002) 2 4 If7JatU"eCanDoUJ''ithU7JOleOl!jects comparisonofdecorationalreinforcementbycontext indicatesthatHousc9hadthehighestpercentageof painted wareswithout zonaldecoration - \vhilcit \vasin House 1 that the highest percentage of complex (vertical +horizontal)zonationoccurred(Plate7).There\vas greater-variationindecorationalzonationbet\vecnthe houses than between the pit complexes(PC), \vhere very fewsherds with complex (yertical+ horizontal) zonation were deposited.:\ calculation of the ovcralldecorational intensity (Fig. 2.4)indicates the same levelfor both houses and pitsandthe same differentiationbenvecn bo\vlsand dishes,\vithahighervalueofbet\veen4and5,and fruitstandforms,\vithavalueof cca.2. The ovcrall imprcssion fromthese assemblages isthat the potters havc practised a limited range of mechanisms forthereinforcementofceramicdifferentiation.The samcmechanismsareavailablctothcpottersofboth communitiesbut diffcrcnt practices \vereappliedat each sitc. TheLate Neolithic assemblage of Nova Zagora - Hlebozavoda The non-tellsettlement of !\o,a Zagora - J-Ileboza\"oda isone of thekeysitesfortheso-calledI'aranovo 1\', or 1(alojanovec, phasc of the Late 1':eolithic inthe Thracian \'alley.Excavatedperiodicallyfrom1968to19H 1, Hlebozavoda comprises athree-level site \\'ithaseriesof \vell-preservedhousesinthelater !e\relsI I andIand pits and houses inthe earliest level(Ill). \X'hilcthere isoverall stratigraphiccontinuitybet\"eenthethreelevelsat Hlebozavoda,thereisnoindicationofthetime differences benveen the levels.A large sample of complete or restorable vessels \\'asrecovered primarily fromhouse 6 5 4 :/) .......3 Z - 2 C o I-IC)LJ5ESPITS 29 contextsalthoughalsofrompitsinlevelIll. Becauseof thesmallnumberofvesselsfromlevelI(n=13),the samples fromlevels11andI \vere combined, leaving two sub-samples of comparable size - HlebozavodaIII(n= 49)andIl/l (n= 43). A \vell-kno\vnfeature of Balkan dark burnished \\Tares isthe strong emphasis upon carinated and sharply-profiled shapes.Hlebozavodaisnoexception- the\\"hole assemblageisdominatedbyneckedand/orcarinated vessels.Indiffusionistarguments,thischaracteristic \vas heldtoindicatea - aformofceramic skeuomorphism by \vhich the sharp breaks in EBA metal vaseprofi les\vereimi tatedinI\: eoli thicpottery (Schachermeyr1955,cf.the\Tinca-C'Schock'of L.. azaroyici19H7).\X"hilethecaseforsocial,settlement andceramiccontinuitybetweentheEarlYand "" 1\eolithic groups isno\\' much stronger (Nikolov 1997; Chapman1981),indigenistshaverarelypro\'ideda satisfactoryexplanationforthetrendto\\Tardsagradual adoptionof either darkburnishedsurfacesor carinated profiles. The notion that the co-existence of both painted anddarkburnishedfine\varesretlectedthechoiceof different social groups, perhaps lineages, to use pottery to underline their corporate identities(Chapman1981)fails toconsiderthestructuralimplicationsofthepottery formsanddecorationalorganisationforhuman categorisationprocesses. Commentators have like\\'ise overlooked the symbolic andmetaphoricalpotentialofthe(\VOmostob\ious characteristicsofdarkburnished\\"areassemblagesall over theBalkans - namelytheir grey- hlackcolour and theirlustroussurface(plate8).Thegrey - blackcolour stands in strong contrast to the other \vares, \vhether earth colours or light grey \\"ares.Considerable firing skills \vere ALL ST:\:\DF()()T o ()THER 2.4]Jecorational'?,J'col1lf:",,1al1d/o"""jro",RakitOl'o 30 required to produce completely reducing firing conditions, \vhichdifferentiatedthe resulting black waresfromeven medium and dark grey vessels. \Xlhile true black burnished wareiscon1moninmetropolitanVincasites(Chapman 1981),itisvirtuallyunknownfromi\1iddleandLate Neolithic Hungary, \vith its wide range of grey wares (e.g., theK()kenydon1bLateNeolithicassemblage:Archaeo-logical~ l u s e u m ,H()dmez6vasarhely). The most lustrous blackburnished\\Tare\\Tasproducedbyvitrificationof the ceramic surface at temperatures of cca.1200C (Kaiser 1990).Theaestheticresultofthesetwotechnical achievements was a startlingly attractive object that shone likeanobsidiancore,putting allother ceramicsintothe shado\v.Thecombinationofthene\vcarinatedshape w'iththene\\lcolourandthefabulouslustreprovideda distinctivesymbolofgroupidentityandprobablyalso ritualidentity(forfurtherdiscussionoflustreinshelI rings,see belc)\v,Chapter 7). The Hlebozavoda assemblagesaretypicalof the dark burnishedwaresoftheBalkanLateNeolithic.Their combinationofformsshowsatrendto\vardsincreased frequency of necks, carinations and feetfrom levelIII to levelsIl/I (Fig.2.5).Fewer than a third of vessels in level IIIhaveroundedprofiles,\vhilethisproportionfallsto fewerthanoneinteninlevels11/1.However,themain component of this increase isthe predominance of forms with a single break (acarination or a neck), which reaches over80(1/:\ \'( )}):\ 11/1.\/'\L\K 16 14 12 ltl 4 2 D BRI "S [] 1- BRI ':.\" o R()l JJ OCrJlIJ':R 1)]SHLS.\\IPH( )R.\FPL\TLSPI])FST.\LLLI)Lll)S othertechniyues.Themainruleisthat,\\'ithfe\v exceptions, graphite painting isnot mixed \vithany other decorari\'C technique on any \'esse1form.By contrast, the tnajorityofnon-graphitetechniquesareconlbinations usedonaminorityofsurfaces.Theotherruleisthat graphite painting canbe appliedtotheinterior as\vcllas theex t cri () r() ft h c.:\'C S se I,\\' her casn () n -g rap hit l' techniques,\\'ith\'Cryfe\\'exceptions,a\'oidvessel interiors.:\]nlosthalfofthevesselsdt>corated\\.'ith graphiteha\'cintt>rioras\veJ]asexteriorpainting. l-Io\ve\'er,despitethepotentialforinteriordecoration introducedbygraphite painting, there isanabrupt fallin theproportionofvesselswithinteriordecorationIn comparison withtheHlebozavoda 11/1group. Thecategoricaloppositionbetweeninteriorand exterior decoration on shape ranges of bowls and dishes, soimportantintheearlylevelatHlebozavoda,breaks do\vns611further intheAzmak assemblage.No\v,bowls canbe decoratedon theinterior only,aswellason both interior andexterior;amphorae canhaveinterior as\vel] asextcrior decoration; anddishescanhaveexterior only decorationaswellasacombinationofexteriorand interior.AtAzmak,thereisatendencyforexterior decoration to be more common than interior on the ranges ofbo\\r}s,dishesandamphorae.Theonlycategorical oppositionsthatremainrelatetothelocationof exterior decoration on lidsandpedestalsandthe combination of exterior and interior decorationonplates. The decline invessel division at Azmak diminishes the contrastfoundatHlebozavodabet\veen\'essels\\lhose shapedivisionsarcfurtherreinforced,generally\vith decoration,andvessels\vithoutshapedivisionandno reinforcement.AtAzmak,therearefe\vervesselswith reinforced shape divisions than bet()re but reinforcement occursonthesameproportionof vessels,\vhethcr \vith breaks or \\7ithrounded profiles (plate 11).there areminimaldifferencesinmeansof reint()rccmentt()r the different profiles. Thesevariationspointtoaninteresting de\'elopment atAzmak- therc-emergenceofthecategoryofun-reint()rced zona] decoration, a category \\'hich had virtually disappeared at Hlebozavoda; itisfound on some151()of alldecorated surfaces (f.p,.Fig.2.10/9). This development ispartlyrelatedtothefrequencyofgraphitepainting, withitspenchantforbroad,undividedfields;butfe\ver thanhalftheinstancesinvolvegraphite-painting. l1nreinforced decoration also occurs ina\'arietyof non-graphitetechniquesand,interestingly,onvessels\vith shape division more than on vessels \vith rounded profiles. Nonetheless,even\viththere-emergenceofthis unreinforcedcategory,zona]decorationisreinforcedin some wav or other on over 80;(1of decorated\'essels. Thechiefmeansofreinforcingzonaldecoration remainsshapereinforcement,althoughthisproportion has declined a littleincomparison \viththeHlebozavoda group.Inallcategoriesofvesselprofile,reinforced verticalzonationisthecommonesttype,withvertical-and-horizontal zonation declining in comparison \vith the earlier period. Theoverallfrequencyofcolourandmatt/gloss contrastsshowsaslightdeclineatAzmakinrelationto the Hlebozavoda group. The decline inthe use of colour contrastsisoffsetbytheInaindevelopmentinzonal reinforcement- thesharpincreaseinthefrequencyof matt/gloss contrasts, on up to one-third of alldecorated surfaces.Never usedonitsownatHlebozavoda,matt/ 39 glosscontrastsarefoundmoreontheirownthanin combination \vith other types of reinforcement at A.zmak. Their distribution ranges across alltypes of vessel profile, with slightly more examples in rounded profiles than those withverticaldivisions. A comparison of ho\v single and combination decorative techniques are related to other forms of zone reinforcement indicates that combination techniques are more likely to be found\vithvesselswithotherformsofreint()rcement (co]our,matt/glossorshape)thanaresingledecorative techniques (Fig. 2.13). In general, combination techniques aremoreimportantforreinforcingzonalcontrastsat AzmakthanatHleboza\'oda. Theresultsofthereinforcementindexcalculations indicatetheprevalence of vessels\\'ithscoresof 2or 3, "vith\'cryfe\\'potswiththemaximum(i.f.4)rangeof contrasts.\7essels\vithshapedivisionsscored'2'more often than \'essels \\'ith rounded profiles, \\"hichtended to scorethehigher'3'moreoften.Theoverall.Azmak reinforcementn1casurccomesto1.9,indicatingthe continuationofatrendtoincreasedvaluesfrom Hlcbozavoda 1Il(1.1)toIl/I(1.5). Finally,themeasurementofdecorationalintensityis based on the same criteria asfor f-Ilebozavoda. The decline incategoricaloppositionsbasedontherelationship bet\veen decorative techniques and location of decoration hy \'essel shape leads to a blurring of the contrast benveen decorationalintensityondifferentshaperanges.The resultsare follo\vs: CLC)SEI) (bo\ds, amphorae, lids,pedestals) ()PEN (dishesandplates) 5 6.5 Theseresultsindicatethatthepeakinintensityfor openforms\\1asreachedatHlebozavoda levelsIl/I and theyareno\\:decliningatA.zmak,partlyrelatedtothe decreased importance of interior decoration. By contrast, theintensityofdecorationonn10reclosedforms continuesto increase. Insummary,t\VOcontradictorypatternscanbe identitied in the Azmak pottery sample. ()n the one hand, the adoption of the \vhole pot asthe potential decorative field,thesignificanceofgraphitepaintinginbroad decorative fieldsand the decline in shape division, shape-reinforced zonal decoration and colour contrasts indicates atrendto\vardsintegration of decorativeprinciples - in effect a denialof division.()n the other hand, the major increaseinvesseldifferentiationinbothformand decorativetechniques,together\vithincreasesinmatt/ glossandcombinationdecorationcontrasts,underlines thediversityofceramiccategoriesandthedivisions .f( ) I (lOll II 9()/I II .:::'(lil" 4(1" 11:,( 11'11( litll SingkI )l'C( )Lltio!1 torepresentdiyersity.Thereislittlesign hereofstandardisation,alth()ughtheand precision of decorati\'C nlotifs is\\idespread.LYen\"Cssels \\'itharoundedprofileexhibitothertypesof contrast, \\'hichInay \\TlIindicate the cross-cutting nature of social tics inI(>ng- terrn tellsettkn1ents. The \\'idespread ad( >pti()n of graphite painting itself stresses the san1e contradictory principles: the denial of difference leads to the decoration of the san1eshape ranges \\'ithboth graphite painting and non-graphitedecoratiyetechniques.Bycontrast,a categoricalopposition largelyifnottotallynlaintained bet"\\Ten graphite painting unnlixed \\'ith other techniques andforuse on bothinteriors andexteriors andthe often nlixednon-graphitetechniques\\,hichtypicallydecorate exteriorsurfacesonly.Theprinciplesgoyerning decorationalorganisationandshapedifferentiationare thusbalancedbet\\'Censub-diyisionandintegration;an increasingrangeofcategoriesislinkedbyamore extensi\"Csetofprinciplesofreinforcement.I fthe ceratniccategorisationisdirectlyrelatedtoprocessesof socialcategorisation,themessage\vouldbethatthe identityoftheindi\'idualrelatiyetoanincreasingrange ofsocialgroupsisbeing definedinevermoreconlpkx \\'ays,sometendingmoretohierarchy,othersto c( )mplcnlentary, cross-cutting membership. The emphasis onintegration, or itsobyerse,the denia1of difference,is analogoustosupportfortheimportanceofcorporate bodies,perhapslineages,O\Trindi\'idualmembers.()n the other hand, the differences bet\veen the l--I1eboza\'oda [J Sf L\PI> REI'F(o ,( )t'R or \1.-\ TI/(; 1'< )SS .,() C()IJ)l'R or \L-\ TT/(; I J )SS and .\znlak assen1hlages introduce the likelihood that onc of the mechanisms at \\'()rkinproducing ceralnic change isthe deliberate emphasis on difference - difference fronl thepaststructuresembodiedintheHlebozavoda cerarnics, \\hik n1aintaining certain elements ()f c()ntinuity \\'iththeceramictraditionsof arecentpast. TheKaranovoVIIllle assemblagefrom the Dolnoslav tell The Finall"arano\"() \'1phase (no\\' termedphaseIIIc)is consideredtorepresentthelatestphaseoftheLatc Copper.-\ge(Petf(n'a2U(4),postdatingbyse\"cral centuriesthe\'1rnacenleten'.Studiesofl'-aranov() indicateconsiderablen1orphological alliedto great decorationaldi\Trsity(fodoro\'a19:H;Le Premier()r19H9,1:2-3).:\largesampleofcomplete and/or restorable vessels\\'asthusreyuiredto carture as fullapictureofthis\'ariabilityas\vaspossiblefrot11a singlesite.Thesampleof1H4\\rhoIcor restoredyessels deriyesfromthetotalexcavationoftheKarano\"o J occupationofthetel1nearOo)nosla\',intheThracian ,"aHey(Raduntchc\'a1996). 'fhe trendto\vardsincreasing differentiation of vessel formfoundatI I1ebozayodaandAzmashkamogila acceleratesatDolnos]a\'.;\1thoughasamplesize approximatelydoublethatofAzmakundoubtedly contributed to this change, this trend remains the defining characteristicoftheI)oJnosJavassemblage.Thereisa If'halU'"/eCanDo U7ho/eOl?jects dramatic increase in both shape categories and sub-types atDolnoslaywhencomparedtoAzmak:28categories compared to18and104 sub-typescompared to 65(Fig. 2.14).Substantialincreasesarefoundinmostshape ranges, especially bowls (from 25 up to 50)and amphorae (from 6up to14).But there isa decreaseinsub-types in nvo shape ranges - dishes /plates(from 14 to 8)and lids (from15to11).Thismajorchangeconcernsboththe functionaldjfferentiationof activitiesrelatedtotheformsof potteryasmuchasthe systemsof social categorisationu:hichfindtheiranalogiesinceramic differentiation.()newayofre-inforcingcross-cutting identitiesofindividualsandlimitedinterestgroupsis throughthedifferentiationofactivities\vhoseper-formance isdialectically related to the emergence of those identities. The second major trend in vessel shape at Oolnosla\- is the substantial increase inthe proportion of \"essels\vith shape division when compared to Azmak. This change is focussedonvessels2- or3-breaks,\vhichincrease fi,-efoldattheexpense of vesselsuiithroundedprotiles, ratherthantheI-breakvessels.Thischangemeansthat thereisastronglikelihoodofincreasesinshape-reinforceddecorationorothercontrasts.Althoughthe varietyof lidsfoundatAzmakdeclinesinDolnoslay,as doesthefrequencyofthedecorativetreatnlentofpot bases, the total vessel nonetheless remains asthe potential decorativefieldatDolnoslay. TherangeofdecorativetechniquesatDolnoslay mirrors that found atAzmak; there isevidence for strong continuityatthelevelof individualtechniquesbe!\veen thet\Vophases/sites.ElevenindhoiduaItechniquesare knou;natDolnoslav,se"enofuThich\verecommonto both sites(Fig.2.14). ()f the shared techniques, three are foundonthesameshaperangesandafurthertwoon closelyrelatedshaperanges.Thethreetechniquesno longerfoundatDolnoslavcomprisegroo\-ing,excision and impression.The neu'techniquesfound atOolnosla,"comprisebarbotine,comb-impression, patternburnishingandanon-graphiticformofblack painting. Despite the similarity in the range of techniques atA.zmakand Dolnoslav, themaindifferenceisthatthe far wider range of combinations usedat Dolnoslay. This leadstotherecognitionof36decoratiyetechniques, which includes 25 categories of combined technique (Fig. 2.15). The Dolnoslay vesselsinclude, for the firsttime in the Bulgarian prehistoric sequence, combinations of three spatiallydistinctdecorativetechniques(i.e.,graphite+ impressed+channellingbutnotexcised+\vhite encrustation and another style). The proportion of vessels u,'ithcombinationsofdecorativetechniquesrisesat Dolnoslav.The extent of decorativecombination varies byvesselshaperange:singledecorativetechniquesare predominantwithdishes,amphoraeand()therranges, 41 whileanvo-combinauondecorativecategoryismost frequenturiththebo\\rlrange,whichisalsodecorated most commonly different 3-combination categories. Alltold,thisdevelopment isresponsibleforasmuchof thetotalvariabilityofthel)olnoslavsampleasisthe differentiationinvesselform.Itmakesdecoratl'T contrastsoneofthemostimportanttypesofzonal reinforcement. A.lthoughregarded asone of the chief 'type-fossils' of the \TI phase (Georgie\" 1961), graphite painting u!asbyno meansascommon atl)olnosIavasat.\zmak, u'here it accountedfor half of alldecorated surfaces ..-\t Dolnoslay,graphitepaintingisjustoneofmany decorati\'e techniques, albeit \vitha uTider range of motifs thanmostothertechniques.TheAzmakprinciplethat graphitepainting\vasnotcombined\vithanyother technique iscompletely reversed at Dolnoslav, except for mostofthe remainingdishes(Fig.2.15).Inthe amphoraeand()therranges,singlegraphitepaintingis lesscommonthancombinationsof graphiteandother techniques,\vhicharethemselvesfarlesscommonthan combinationsofnon-graphitedecoration.Inthebo\vl range,halfofthesidesdecoratedbyasingletechnique usegraphitcpainting,combinedgraphitepainting alsocommon.:\satAzmak,al1theDolnoslavshape ranges are decorated \vith non-graphite decoration as well as\\Tithgraphitepainting.Ho\vever,theimportanceof combined decoratiyc techniques isfar greater at Dolnoslav thanatAzmak. The decline in the use ot open forms (dishes and plates) atDolnoslavis,forthemostpart,responsibleforthe continueddeclineofcombinedinterior-and-exterior decoration. This combined decorativelocation occurs in one inthree ,-esse1satAzmak but thishadfallento one in tenat Dolnoslay. Despite the rejection of this decorative option, themaindecorativeprincipleat Oolnosla\- isthe principle of maximunl variability through re-combination. Combineddecorativetechniquesaremostcommonon bo\vls, \vithsimilar proportions on allother vessel ranges. (Fig.2.16). The reinforcement of shape divisions occurs far more oftenatDolnoslaythanatAzmak.Apartfromu71throunded profiles, \vhere oyer hal fundecorated andafurtherquarterpossessedunreinforcedzonal decoration,ahighproportionofvessels\vithshape divisionsreinforcedbyothermeans.There\\Tasa strong tendencytoreinforcet\\;o-breakvessels other contrasts, \vith the same less common for one-break vessels. The preferred zonal decoration in allprottle types at Oolnoslav isvertically-zoned decoration, vertical-and-horizontaldecorationalzoningalsocommon.But there ureremore zonalhT-reinforced ,oessels\vithrounded prottlesatAzmakthanatDolnoslay- theonlyshape clusterwherethisistrue.Similarly,un-reinforced 42 __---J 3 6 10 2.14()}/JI/J101lpotlf':J'.!orltlJand decoration./rottlIJo/l1o.rial'(drau'l1/!J'}:11':6alIf>Can[)oIrlthIflJO/e()/?jecIJ 12 .... i C2 --10 -- H ...-6 =< --() z T--------/ n, 4 2 () [J 1)( ) I .( )S I \. BC)\\'L5 )R;\E i El 01SI-IE5 : r2I()Tf-IER B()\XTS 2-C() i\IB() 3-C() i\fR() 2. 16[Jeroratio1la/ (att:e.orieJ1'.1.shapeIJolno.rit11' 43 zonation,\\'hichcnjoyedaresurgenceat.-\zn1ak,isin declineatI)olnoslay.Ingeneral,thismeansthatthe yast ll1ajoriryof yessels\\'ithzonaldecoration \\'asreinforced byshapediyisionandalmostallyesse1s\\Trereinforced bycombinationsofshape,colourand/ ormatt/gloss contrasts - higher than at.\zn1ak and almost ashigh asin HlcboL(l\'(KlaI II andIl/!. .-\ ni n1 p () r tan tch a r act er i s tic0ftheD () I nos Ia \' assenl b 1ageisthe\\'iderange() foptionsforthe rcinforccnlentof zonatlon.'ot onlyarethetraditional fourmethodsayailabls.J\1oore(1994)shows how the Hua of Papua New Guinea classify their children asmaleorfemalebutbelievethateachcontainsboth femaleandmalebodilytluids,whosebalancefluctuates throughtheirlifetimes.Herdt(1982)demonstratesthat ritualsof nose-bleeding (to shed thefemaleessence)and fellatiowithtribalelders(togainthemaleessence)are essential for the creation of manhood from bovhood. M. Strathern (1988)notes that \lelanesian children are made incomplete (i.e., one-sex) and it is only at marriage that the partner of the opposite gender makes a person "complete again"(viz.,anew,androgynousperson).Egually, Battaglia(1990)observesthatwhileapregnantSabarl womanisandrogynous,after birth,partibilityleadstoa new, categorically gendered condition. According to Cl ark (1991),\X"iruchildrenpossesswhollyfemalebodies, becausethe\"ha\"Cbeen\vholh- createdb\women. ... However,theyreceivetheimpressof maleindividuality from men. \x'iru persons born "male" become less female throughtimethroughgiftexchangeofredpearlshells, whichcreatesthepersonbyindividualizingand masculinizing those receiving hrlfts(seechapter 7). Another relevant example isthe Melpa(Strathern Aand Stewart 1998 and especially Fig.11.1), inwhichthe infant isborn asandrogynous, receiving femaleblood and male semen,continuesassuchthroughtheconsumptionof femalebreast-milkandmale-producedfoodandslowly develops into a predominantly(butnever wholly)single-sex person based upon their bodily, sexual characteristics. Thus, life-course transformations in gender would appear tobetypicalforMelanesiabutratherlesscommonin South India. An exception to this isthe Mekeo, whose de-conceptionofsomepersonsintoastateofpure masculinityfromandrogynousadulthooddefinestheir hereditarystatusofsorcerersandchiefs(Mosko1992, 706). Thenatureandsignificanceof androgynes,andtheir relationshiptohermaphrodites,havebeenextensively discussedbyBleie(1993).Manysocietiesregard PartsandWholes- HamangiaFigurines androgynesasspecial,someinaPOSltlvelightas embodying cosmological powers(e.g.the Navajo), others inanegativelight,asdivineerrors(e.gthePokot)(1993, 263).M.StrathernemphasizestheroleofMelanesian androgyny as a bridge between different states, plural and singular- betweencollectivesingle-sexed,dividual persons and paired cross-sexed persons. Bleie (1993,276) alsonotesthewidespreadoccurrence,inMeleanesia, Somalia,KenyaandPeru,ofthetransformationofthe androgynousstateintoasingle-sexstatethroughritual practices.However, another interpretation of androgyny emphasizestheimportanceofaunioncelebratingthe complementarityofthetwogenders.M.Strathernhas beencriticizedbyHoskins(1998,187)fortreating androgynyas"aconfusionofmaleandfemale,an obscuringofgenderoranabsenceofidentifiably genderedobjects."Instead,Hoskins'readingof androgvnyinSumbasocietyidentifiesnotsomucha bridgebetweentwostatesasacombinationofboth gendersinadualisticsystem.Hoskins'viewsaretoa \"aryingextentsharedbyotherauthors,suchasSinger (1977),whosestudyofthewidernatureofandrogyny leadstoayiewofhumannatureasfundamentally androgynous, with androgyny asaninneror Bern (1976),whoarguesthatandrogynyisastateoffusion and totality, akin to the meq..,>ing/fusing of two persons in anecstaticunion(hierogamy).Thislatterstatehasbeen identified by(1992, 1997)in his analyses of Balkan Copper Age(Cucuteni - Tripolye)figurines. TheseexamplesfromSouthernIndiaand:\lelanesia indicatethecomplexityofgenderedidentitiesann practices, which are fundamentally context-dependent. It isimportanttonotethestrongunderlyingcontribution ofandrogynytoperson hoodasoneoftheinstru-mentalitiesthatpeopleuseintheconstructionand reconstructionoftheirownworldsandthefrequency withwhichalternatingandcyclicaltransformationsof genderedidentitiesoyerthewholelife-courseincludes the androgynous state at one or more stages. Isit possible to identify the state and significance of androgynyinthe prehistoric past? Hamangia figun"necategorisation - gender and complementan"ry Intheirir.terpretationsofNeolithichumanrep-resentations, archaeologistshavebegun toreco!-,rnizethe existence of androgynous figurines inthe corpus.Knapp andMeskell(1997)discussthesmallnumberof androgynousfigurinesinCyprusintheLateNeolithic (e.g.theambiguouslysexedlimestonefigurefromSotira Arkolies,Fig.2), the Copper Age(the limestone "Lemba Lady,withphallicneckandpubictriangle,Fig.:;)and 57 severalBronzeAgeandrogynes(195andFig.6).The previous year,the Greek archaeologistsKokkinidouand Nikolaidou(1996)hadproposedthattheelongated "necks" of the so-called rod head figurine class, so typical of the Early Neolithic in Thessaly, could also be regarded as phallic members, sometimes in combination with other femaletraits; shortly afterwards, \'fhittle (1997) proposed asimilarinterpretationfortheK6rbsrodheadfigurines ofEasternHungary.Oneoftheauthorshasnoteda similar characteristic - an elongated phallic neck - on the commonestformofLateKeolithicandEarlyCopper AgeHamangiafigurines(Chapman1999,200(1). Similarities between Hamangia figurines and other images withphallicnecks arenoted byBailey(2005,155)but he makesnofurtheruseofthisinsightinhisstudyof Hamangia(200S,Chapter3).Trogmayer(1990)also recognisedandrogynyinthefamousclassofthroned fi!-,rurines,somewithsickles,intheLateKeolithicTisza groupofEasternHungary.However,noneofthese commentatorshassoughttolocateandrogynesinany kindof theoreticalframeworkof personhood.Ishould liketoconsidertheHamanf-,>iattgurinesingreater depth here, because of the distinctive social practices with which the\"areassociated. Hamangia figurinesdiffer strongly in form frommost other figurinesmade inthe Balkan and Copper Age but the most striking difference isthat, in contrast to thetypicalh"domesticcontextofdepositionofother representations, the \"astmajorityof Hamangiafigurines were deposited in the mortuary arena. One reason for this isthe emphasison largecemeteriesthat stand out asthe major featuresof theHaman!-,>ialandscapes (Berciu1966; TodoroYa2(02)- farmoredramaticthanmmtsmall-scale dwelling deposits, found at Late :\eolithic sites such as and\'eche1997). However, thesettlementformchangesintheEarlyCopper:\ge, withtheoccurrenceofwhatappearstobepermanent settlementsatsitessuchasthe Big IslandatDurankulak (Todoron2002b).Theretwocontrastsareseen,first betweenthe activeuseof ttgurinesindifferentformsof Hamangia settlement (a diachronic contrast) and secondly betweendailypracticesinvoh"ingfigurinesinHamangia settlementsandpermanentdisposalinlarge,formal cemeteries(a$\"nchronic contrast). Thecontrastinfigurineusebetweendomesticand mortuan"domainsisrecognisedbyBaileyinhisrecent considerationof Hamangiatlgurines(2005,Chapter3) butBaileymakeslittleofthecontextualdifference. Indeed, elsewhere in the book, he downplays the potential of contextualstudiesforunderstandingfigurines(2005, 179),sinceveryfewwerefoundin"primarycontexts" (i.e.contextsofuse);therefore,ttgurine are describedas"merely the detritusof life,kickedintothe corners of the room, tossed out into the yard, thrown into 58 rubbishpits"(2005,179).Theseareseriouserrorsof perception that can be readily refuted (see below, Chapters 5 and 6, aswellasin the following pages). \X'hileBailey is fullofguestionsaboutHamangiafigurines,he unfortunatelyprovidesnoanswersandfewinsights. \X'here Baile,"s work chimes better with our discussion of personhood ishisideathatNeolithiccommunitiestook thehumanbod,tobetheprimary site of the individual andtheself (200S,2(1),buildingupunderstandingsof persons over time throughtheincorporation of multiple images(2UOS,79).\'("hatBaileyignores,andwhat fragmentation studies can illuminate, istheir contribution totheconstructionandde constructionof personhood, aswc now seekto illustrate withHamangiafigurines,:\5 Lcvi-Strauss might havesaid, figurineswereindeed good forthinking, :\ reasonably large group ofHamanhriafigurines(n= 58)waspublished over a decade ago by1.Vajsov(1992), \vhoemphasizedtheconservatisminthedesignofthe group, Together with additions from museum collections, this group formsthe basisof the current study.A.closer look at thet1gurinessuggestsrather more variability than notedbyVajso\"andothers,Fivebasiccategoriesare foundinthet1gurinegroup - standingfiredclay,seated fired clay, shell miniature, marble miniature and schematic astragalusfigurines(Fig.3.1),These categoriesarebased uponoppositionsinform,sizeorboth.\,\"hilethe miniaturefigurinessharesome of the traitsofthelarger firedclayexamples,theyareuniformlysmall4cmin height)andmade,usingreducti\'etechnologies,of materials that are closer to nature. The seated and standing firedclayfigurinesformVajsm"s(1992)two basictypes. Incontrastto most of thestanding examples, theseated examplesare,forthemostpart,self-supporting,This groupincludesthemostfamouspairofHamangia CategoryComplete Standing FiredclayH PartsandWholes:Fragmentation;nPreh;storicContext figurines- theso-called"Thinker"andhisconsort-foundwithoutsecurestratigraphiccontextinthe Cernavodacemetery(Berciu19(0).This"couple"has beenglorifiedasworksofhighprehistoricart (Dumitrescu 19(8) but are not even typical of the group, insofar asthey were provided withheads aswell asnecks, Thestandingtypesaredistinguishedbytheirelongated necks and lack of head. The schematic astragali are not so much altered asthose inthe 1-:.-G-1-:.VInetwork 1995,61-66andFig.(3)orintheCucutenigroup (Marinescu-Bilcu1981),exhibitingminimaltracesof forming, which underlines the ambiguity of the claimfor the anthropomorphic nature of this type. Thesecategoriescanbefurthersub-dividedonthe basisof two variables - gender and completeness(fable 3.2).Any categorisation by gender ispredicated upon the sexualtraitsbywhichthepersoncanbeidentified.In Vajsm"s(1992)study and other past studies of Hamangia figurines Berciu1966; Dumitrescu19(8), thefemale characteristicshavebeennotedasdistinctiveand predominant.However,therecognitionthatlongnecks couldhavepossessedphallicpropertiesconferring maleness on these objects adjusts our perspectives on the genderofthesefigurines,Thisinsightmeansthat complete Hamangia figurines were normally androgynous (Fig.3.2).Significantly,theandrogmousfigurinewas foundfromthe beginning of theHamangia group in the LateNeolithicuntiltheMiddleCopperAge,\'fhile malenesswasidentifiedonlythroughthe phallicneck,a rich array of traits characterisedfemaleness, including up tofourtraitson asingletlt,rurine. Canwebesurethatthecylindricalnecksymbolised .. maleness?Twopointssupportthisinterpretation:first, theformwasdeliberatelychosenfromawidearra\"of ,, possiblehead/neckformsandoftenbearsaclose Fragmentary FHG-1\l\() SeatedFired clay\1HG-NFH \liniature ShellG-N Miniature\larbleFG-N Schematic G-N Kc)":F - female;\1- male;H - hermaphrodite; G-N - gender-neutral; NO - no evidence Tahlt3.2CateJ!,oriesofHamanx.ia figurinesby gender and completeness Part.randIf'l.Joles- HamanJ!/aF{f!,urines fJ" ..... ; ...., . .: . : : . ~ ,;: ~ o~ c m1-'____--'. ..' .'. 1:", ~ " ],,;;;,:,) ....;; o5 L'____-llcm 2 o54 ~___-'Icm F{f!,.3.17jpes of Hama",f!,ia/i,gllri11eJ 59 1 3 5 60 PartsandW'lJo/es:Fra,gmentationinPrehistoncContext 5 '--____-'.cm 1 II r__ _ ./2 o5 L-I - ___---'1cm 1 0.... ___--'9cm 5.....-----_....'cm4 3 nr..3.2 .l"dr".f!),lIou.rHamo!{f!,ia /iJ!,ur7l1cJ resemblance to the male organ(cylindricalform, broader atbase,narrowingtoapointatthetop).Secondly,the swellingofthe"breasts"atthebaseofthe"neck"on some figurines resembles the male gonads, from thefront(Fig.3.2), However,ifandrogmyistypicalformanyofthe completeHamangiafit-,rurines,therearefourcategorical exceptionsto thisrule: Thecompleteminiatureshellfit-,rurines,allofwhich aregender-neutral(Fig.3.1,.3---4) The"Thinker"andhisconsortfromCerna\"oda (Berciu1960;here,Fig.3.3),whichisgender-neutral insofarasthepresenceofthefacepreventsthe cylindricalneckfrombeing phallic The elaborately decorated female fif.,rurinefrom Balchik (Vajso\' 1992, Tab!. XX, here, Fig..'1.4), with two female tralts The malefi!-,rurinefromCernavocla(Vajsoy1992,Fig. VIII: 1),lacking thelong, cylindricalneckand withno femaletraits PartsandW7holes - Hamangiaj'{l!,lIrines 3.37/;/,"Thinker",Cfrlltll'lidartllli'lerj

\( !! I I nl!,.3.4 a board/vllnd illtbeclijF abm'l'B,i/,Nk. 61 62 If itisthiswiderangeof genderedformswhichisso characteristic of Hamangia communities, then the choice dependscruciallyonthecompletenessof therepresen-tation. I f the assumption is made that Haman!-,riafigurines werecompletewhenmade,and,forthemostpart, androgynous,thenfigurinefragmentationaltersthe gendered identity. In the absence of penises on Hamangia fi!--tUrines,the removal of the head means that the maleness islostor,more accurately,dividedfromthefemalepart. ,\ccording to \'ajso\'(1992,61), the majority of figurines been foundasfra!,'1l1entsand,of allthe body parts, what he terms the "head" (here= the "neck") isthe most foundpart.Howe\'er,thesignificanceof the fragmentedpenishasescaped\'ajso\',whodoesnot illustrateasinglebrokenmemberinhisotherwisewell-illustratedarticle. \X'ehawalreadyalludedtothewidearra\'offemale sexual traitsfound on Hamangia figurines. The basic traits arethe following:breasts insizefromdelicate to buxom),prq..,mantstomach(also\'aryinginsize),pubic triangleand\vide,exaggeratedhips,asifpreparedfor childbirth.Therepresentationofbothbreastsand stomachprovidesthefortheportrayalof indi"idualcharacteristics.Withbreasts,ageand/or physiquecanberdlectedinthesmallorpointed,large andpendulousor saggingform,whilethestomachcan indicatedifferingstagesofpregnancy.Tenoutofthe totalof 15possiblecombinations of thesefourtraitsare represented (Table 3.3). This allows for the representation ofaspectrumofgenderedidentities,notmerelya polarisedmale - femalebut a rangefromgender-neutral t..1 structures, yielding over 4,500 sherds. Pottery restoration produced 10 whole vessels and 37 partial vessels.Asonly afewof the4,500sherdscouldbeassignedtothese vessels,themajoritycouldbedescribedas"orphan sherds". A search for sherd cross-mcnds was restricted to rimsherds and sherds with distinctive incised decoration (n=675)(1983,166). The re-fitting produced 25 cross-mends - allrestricted to their own structure. Most cross-mends were recovered fromsingleoradjacentstluaresontheedgeofthe structure, benmd the central use sector, with no e\'idence for intentional discard of sherds inabandoned structures (1983,169).Probablythissherdrefusewasleftto accumulate after discard, with little subsequent movement (1983,170)- anindicationoftheremainsofaliving assemblagedepositcd instructuresthat hadrarelyhada thorough cleaning. Of the three classes of pottery, the whole \'Cssels were foundtobe "75_95"/"complete, withHallyclaimingthat missing sherdswerelostbecause onlyhalf of thehouse tloor deposits were subject to tlotation - therefore, it was assumedthatallof thesevesselsweredepositedwhole. The partial vessels were found to be 5-60/" complete; the extantfragmentswereselectedashavinghighpotential, bothinsizeandshape,forre-useaspotlids,serving bowls, water dishes, griddles or scoops. The three vessels withtracesofre-firingwereprobablyusedasgriddles (1983,171,176).Oftheorphansherdsfoundinthe structures,"hundredsof vesselsarerepresentedbyone or a fewsherds that presumably were not picked up \vhen \'esselsbroke"(1983,180).Onthisbasis,Hallyclaimed that the assemblagesfromthethreestructuresrepresent systemic inventories with minimal disturbance.Howe\'er, thenotionthat 25% of anotherwise wholevesselcould bemissingbecauseofalackofflotationseemsatrifle exaggerated.Ifsherdscouldbedetachedfrombroken potsthatareremovedfromahouse,itseemsatleast possiblethatsherdscouldberemO\'edfromvessels remaininginthehouse.Hallydoesnotformulatethe guestion "where arethe missing parts?" for his structural assemblages- justaspertinentforthepartialvessels, with up to missing. It is possible that the vast majority ofthemissing\'esselpartswcretransformedintoan abandonmentassemblagethroughprocessesofre-use andrecycling.Butitdoesappearasif7()......80%ofthe totalceramicassemblageismissingfromthepartsthat representit.It isworthunderliningtheoccurrenceof such a pattern in AD 16th-17 thcen tury Georgia, in yiew oftheoccurrenceofsimilarpatternsinprehistoric Europe(seebelow,pp.1(l()......103) . A promising approach to site formation processes has been developedbyresearchersworking intheAmerican South\X'est,whohavedevelopedinnovativewaysof approachingtheuseoffragmentsofvessels.Three UsingObjects After theBreak - Bryond Re-fittinl!, Studies examples of their work are presented here. First, re-fitting wasmadeonacompleteceramicassemblagefromthe totalexcavationofAZ1:1:17IASJ\ll,asmallKayenta Anasazi settlement near the Grand Canyon, that was burnt downafteraIS-yearoccupation(AD1049-1(64) (Sullivan1989,102-3).Outofagrandtotalof2,067 sherds,615sherdswerefoundinthe burnt architectural debrisofthefourstructures.Fiwhypotheseswere inyestigatedtoaccountforthepresenceofthese sherds: 1.Discarded artifacts that had been dumped in the houses 2.Vesselsstored on the roovesthat then broke when the houses burnt down 3.Sca\'engedrefuseincorporatedintothehouseswhen built 4.Vesselfragments that had been stored on the ro(lyes as "prurines ofdifferenttypesineachmiddenaccordingtospecific principles,tobe discussedlater. The distribution of typesinbuildings showedatonce a greater diversity and a higher concentration of rare types. The majority of both- parts wasrepresentedbylessthan 1 1 withonlytwotypesabove14'1 4.rl (B1-',4(125(1319) 43::;;(R2'i2834mW\ ,)(1-(1CB I I)34.;4(B 111' Tu/J/e6.6 /oill"- belwI'f/J122 ClD1 III D2 DD3 .D4 \\-ithoutmatching of but followeda principle_ This ma\' sm1bolizethat some householdshad moreinterrelatedlinksthanothers,InfiYeofthe remaimng1:;buildings,therearecompletetigurines, whichmayexplainwh\'therewerenopartsofjoins.,-\ll but one of the complete examplesfromthese:; buildings were S,\tigurines,ma\'beforming a set,anditispossible thattheirdepositionisbasedontheprincipleof accumulationofwholeobjectsstandingforasetof ohjects(Chapman2011(1)andohYiatingtheneedforthe additionalreinforcement of enchainedrelationsthrough deposition ()f matching parts. The exception to the mutual Buildinl';s()rcnarC:ls-l';rid":Iu'He' 4311!BI- V)S1\11 irn:nch, 1 (B21;41144LS if..:1;1(}IS( :(J S3,1SIB211.:4MlS\11 () Der(HS()rcn areas/l!:nd(,-4 (D2, 22') IS22(D2)P) SII-,SOH(D 1)241 -Table6.X joinsbehJlfflldepotJand opmarmJ ()pen arcas/I-,'1'idsljuare()pen areas/grid square ro, ;, 21(,::; OU S211CS212Tollleinformation fur eithn rill'left'lr therightside,It \\'asthediqriburion of these P:lrts that pw\'ed i" fx \'('n' similar - ,111""of left pansand2- clduminanceofneutral parts'neither left,n,')rrighr':;ll1da similar distributionof left:lndrtghtparts'.coIl1)'JreFig,(d \\'ith (l,:;). \11catn!;ories - kft, rit.:htand nelltral- were present in Glchgroup -buildings Jnd open The clll1lbilution of left and thc right parts was dominant inboth the midclens and inthe opcn arG1S,withrelatiyeh simil.lrfrcyucncics(Fig,(l.(landFig,different p:lttern ohscf"et!inthehuilding>,\\'hcre_the c0111binatil1nof kft :lIlt!right parts hardh- exceeded -")11", ;111dthere\\'as:1slightd011111unceof kft 1 )\Trrightparts (FiL:, brL:l'stnumber ofneutralP:lrts\\'asfound111thc huildings-'- morethan411""Ptallncutnl P,lrts,\\"hichat the ,:111;('time \\,;ISrhe dO[llilunt sidedness categonof ;111 figurinesdq,ositcJinthebuildings\h,L;'(dltI fleftand 124 CL OR r'J;-.; .C 1(.".6.) /)istri/m/ioll01It/i.dlld p/JaJfC PartsandIr:bo/es:Fm/!.!JJentationillPrehistoricConto:! )0 .1 ....,'(l 6.7'n;'l/rilm/ioN0/le/i,ri,f!,hlalld !lmtral parts,opmareas 4" " I: 4" o iI Ii Cl. OR IZ);-.; ,12"" Cl. OR 12h .C nf!..6.6/)istri/m/irJ/Jof kji (/ .).ri'.!,bt(R)and Ilflltra/ (\j parl.r and (()llIpltkrC),llliddl'llJ right parts are consicit:n:d then the neutral parts were themost numerous category; the\' prevailedineach context- middens,buildings,openareas,withaclear dominance inthe buildings, while inthe middens andthe openareasthe\formedapproximateh'1/3ofall depositedfigurines(Figs.(1.6and6."7). The distribution of left, right and neutral parts ineach of the middenswasproportionaltothetotalnumber of figurinesin01,D2,D.)and04.Thepatternof depositionshowed a prevalence of right parts in01and 02 andleftpartsinD.)andD4,resultinginanoverall balanced distribution of left and right parts inthe mid dens (Fig.6.6). The preferencefordepositionof neutralpartsinthe builtarea(Fig.6.8)wasmoreo}wiousinthedetailed distribution of body parts inthe buildings (Fig. 6.9), where 44("0 .C hf!.'6.X/Jis/rilmliollof11'/1,ri,l!,bt"lid IIm/ral P"rts,15weredominatedbyneutralparts.Thepatternof deposition wasvery complex, similarities occurring asan exception (ex B4 and IP: Fig.6.9). i\one of the buildings contained only leftpartsor only left andright parts. During phase C,23of the buildings inwhich figurines werefoundwerestillinuse,showing the samecomplex patternof distribution.None ofthebuildingshadonl\' leftoronh'rightpartsoronh- leftandrightpartsand morethanhalfbuildings(n=14)weredominatedby neutralbody parts. The()\'erallpatternofdistributioninthebuiltarea suggeststhattheleft/right opposition wasnot themain depositionalprinciple there or,more precisely,sidedness wasalliedto other depositionalprinciples('.,1;.,contrasts between upper and lower parts Of gender) to produce this complexpattern(seebelm\!,pp.128-129). 77JfBiol.raphica/ Approach - hred C1a.rDolnoslal' lS 14 !< 1.,I-Z 12 =r: 11 111 l) -H I- .-- -- ----;:::-- .-------=r: (, .'" 4 ;:;: , Z2 -- --11 I2J'\ lTTR.\ L OR1C1IT eLl FT 125 6.9fJisf1i/JU/ioll le/i.n.z/!/alld !lw/rll; par!.;illtach/Jlfiidill2.. :\Ithough com-enient for anah'ses of either left or right, thecategoryI/{'u/ralpartshinderstherange'of combinationsofwholeness,leftnessandrightness. Then:fon:, the assemblage wasre-c1assitied into eight new categoriesinattempttograspthewholeyarienof representations.Inthis c1assitication, '.Ystands to: ambiguous,'L'for1000.;,leftside(f.glefttorsoand Iettleg,Fig.6.10),'R' for100"/0right side(Fig.6.11),,\\., ..... :'!. 4 ."";!' :,i :2

',' " It 1I

'f (I ,.' 129 Theusualpatternofminimalcomparabilitywasnot valid for the upper/lower part distribution on th! 11 hed2 Isole 7;zbk6.1] Rod) par!.' wit/;rrpetitil"f tram o( U'far \:eck break andrightarm andrightarmandback andcar andrightneck andright car :mdface 132 backofheadforlying.Insuchcases,heavywearmay symbolize multiple performances of these activities,and hencethelonglifeandexperienceof thefigurineor person. Secondar:rApart fromthefragmentswithburning on breaks,there were30 body parts withtracesof burning thatmayhave takenplaceeitherbeforeorafterthefra!,'ll1entationor boththe head fragment (No. 2454) burnt on the back of theheadand on theearbreakbut noton thebroken neck).:\lost oftensecondaryburning wasappliedtothe bottom - alone in5 cases andincombination with other bodypartsin5cases(4onlegs,1ontheback).Also frequentwasthesecondaryburning ontorsosandlegs (fable6.13).Thereweretwostar-shapedfigurineswith tracesof fire- one on thetop andbottom, theother on one of the arms.Fivefragmentswere burnt on theback (HD, TO, TOLE and 2 SA), one of them withadditional burning on the bottom break, another the above discussed l"pper right Torso no! specified lef!side lower front PartsandW'iJoles:FragmentationinPrehistoricContext head(No.2454)withcomplextracesof burning. Despite the general uncertainty of the time of burning with regard to the fragmentation practice, there were some figurinesto which secondary burning was applied before or after decoration. In one case, burning preceded incised andincrusteddecoration;inother,itprecededwhite crustingonthetopofastar-shapedfigurine;and,ina third, the burning on the back andthe left sideof an SA figurineprecededincision.Infourcases,burningwas appliedoverdecoration- twocasesofincisedand incrusted,andtwo cases of white crusting. Combined treatment Acombinationoftwomanipulationsregardlessofits sequencevis-a-visfragmentationwastraceableon24 figurines= two complete objects and 22 fragments. Table 6.14isasummaryofthepossiblemicro-stratigraphy, including fra!,'ll1entation at a certain point inthe sequence of events. Lep leftnot speci fiedright fronttoplower left+ bottombottomfoot rightside frontbase frontandrightside alloyer Table6. 13Fragmentsu!ithJecomiar:r ontorsosor legs Surfacetreatmentfollowedb\" Burning followedby Burning followedbv Burning followedby Crusting followedby Breakage followedby Breakage followedby endear sequence burning - 2 wear - 1 crusting - 3 decoration(white washor crusting or incision)- 4 breakage followedbvcrusting- 1 incision+ red &white incrustation, followedby breakage followedby white crusting- 1 burning- 2 wear - 2 fragmentation, withwear either before and/or after breakage andfragmentation- 1 burning (torso break) and crusting (armbreak) - 1 burning and wear - 5 white washand wear - 1 Table6.14Number 0/ ftguri11eSwithcombined treatment TheBiographical Approach - FiredCl'!)'Figurines fromDo/nOS/at! Figurines with holes in the stomach Aspecificvariantonthetwentypre!,'11antSAfigurines was represented by six figurines with a hole in the stomach area(SSAandISE)(Fig.6.21).Allthesefigurineswere femalesandfivewereindifferentstagesofpregnancy. Four werefound in buildingsandtwointheopenareas. All of them were decorated with incision, with one further incrustedwithwhiteandoneadditionallycrustedwith red.Threefigurineshavetracesof additionalmanipula-tions - two formed a join and are discussed further below (pp.138and140-141), whilethethirdsufferedaburnt right bottom and burnt leg.Itislikely that they represent the final stage of the birth cycle - the birth itself. Howewr, there isone fragment whose perforation wasmade from theback,raisingthepossibilitythatsomeofthem symbolizedakindof medicaltreatmentcomparableto trepanation. The lifehistory of a conjoint pair All of the joins provide valuable insights on the treatment offigurinesbeforeandafterfragmentation.One particularlyinterestingexampleofhowfra.L.>mentsare treatedafter thebreak is JoinNo.5.The lifehistoriesof theremaining 24 joinsaredescribedinAppendix4. Join5consistsoftwofragments(Fig.6.22)- ahead witha top knot, upper torso andarms,foulldin building 17; and a left torso and left leg, found in building 19. Both fragments dispalyed gender information - breasts on the upperbodyandanincisedpubictriangleonthelower body.Theheadhadincisedeyes,perforatedearsanda stamped mouth, while the front and the back of the upper 133 torso wereincised withmotif167(Fig.6.23).The lower bodypart wasalsoentirelyincisedwithmotif172(Fig. 6.24). There weretraces of 4 breaks on theupper part-irregular fracturesremm-ing bothcarsandthetipof the right arm and ans'Ular atthe axisof detachment from the lowerpart.Nobreakswereworn,whichsuggeststhat they were subject to minimalphysicalmanipulationafter thefragmentation.The lower part hadthreebreaks - an irre.L.'Ularbreak at the axisof detachment fromthe upper part, a hinge fracture at axis of detachment from the right legandaflakeremm-edfromtheheel.Theonlybreak with no trace of any post-fragmentation inthis zone of the figurine was the break along the upper/lower axis ..\fterthedetachmentoftheflakefromtheheel, some physical activity such asrasping or filing or perhaps pre-depositionalerosion,contributedtothehean' wear oftheheel.Theleft/rightaxisbreakwas burnt, aswasthe bottom. Bothfrat,>mentsweref