Bull to Rule> on Bovine Iconography Among Late Neolithic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012) Cattle to settle – bull to rule> on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic Vin;a culture communities Milo[ Spasic´ Belgrade City Museum, Belgrade, RS [email protected] ABSTRACT – Bovine iconography is one of the most important components for understanding social identities among Neolithic Vin≠a culture communities. It is believed that both wild and domestica- ted cattle were introduced into Vin≠a culture symbolic practice as one of the most powerful and pro- found metaphors of human perception of the world. I argue that the use of bovine iconography was socially structured, as was the maintenance of animals, and that the vast corpus of bovine iconogra- phy should be considered in terms of actual human-animal relationships. IZVLE∞EK – Ikonografija goveda je ena izmed najpomembnej∏ih komponent za razumevanje dru∫- bene identitete med skupnostmi neolitske kulture Vin≠a. Na splo∏no velja prepri≠anje, da je bilo tako divje kot doma≠e govedo vklju≠eno v simboli≠no prakso kulture Vin≠a kot ena najmo≠nej∏ih in te- meljnih metafor ≠love∏kega dojemanja sveta. Trdim, da je bila uporaba ikonografije goveda dru∫be- no strukturirana, kar velja tudi za oskrbo ∫ivali, in da je potrebno obse∫en korpus ikonografije go- veda razumeti v kontekstu dejanskih odnosov med ljudmi in ∫ivalmi. KEY WORDS – bovine iconography; Vin≠a culture; bucrania; figurines; human-animal relationship; symbols Introduction: human and nonhuman animals in Late Neolithic Vin≠a culture Tim Ingold (2000.61–77) brilliantly described the In the lucid language of Douglas Bailey and others, history of human-animal relationship as a long-term the term Vin≠a culture refers to an archaeological process from trust to domination. Still, the relation- overgeneralisation widely used to simplify the com- ship between humans and animals differs signifi- plexities of people, behaviour and material culture cantly from place to place and from time to time, de- focusing on Serbia, western Bulgaria and southwest- pending on various cultural, environmental and eco- ern Romania (Bailey et al. 2010.161). Indeed, this nomic issues. Animal imagery in human material statement is true; humans are expert classifiers and culture1 actually grew out of those relationships, as categorisers (as cited in Parker-Pearson, Richard well as from the numerous ways in which people 1997.9; Humphrey 1984.143–145); prehistoric ar- understand and comprehend nature and their envi- chaeologists succeeded in their classifying quest, and ronment. In this paper, I argue that the main impe- as a result different communities that share similar tus for the creation of bovine iconography in Late material culture were labelled with the term Vin≠a Neolithic Vin≠a culture also grew out of the physical- culture and were neatly catalogued in the Late Neo- visceral relationships people had with cattle and lithic folder (Fig. 1). In reality, the similarities in the from the constant reinterpretation of humans’ and physical manifestation of the material culture are animals’ place in the world. merely imaginative, while their social, cultural and 1 It is now indisputable that certain animal species also create material culture (Ingold 1983; 2000.363–364). DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.22 295 Milo[ Spasic´ ideological (sensual also) attributes differ greatly from site to site, and from period to period.2 There are some general patterns in settlement, economy and material culture, but still there are considerable divergen- ces which do not allow for broad ge- neralisations. Some Vin≠a culture com- munities lived on river banks or hill- tops, others at tell sites, even in caves. Some built elaborate two-story houses, others dwelt in pit-houses; some were skilled flint knappers, other speciali- sed in copper metallurgy. Some made shiny black vessels, some matte red. At the risk of making just another re- dundant statement, I will again under- line that the structuring and shaping of material culture occurred via a my- riad of various social agents and cul- tural constructs. Likewise, human-animal relationships, as well as the use of animals in the economy and in symbolic activities differed significantly. We know that Fig. 1. Late Neolithic Vin≠a culture sites mentioned in the text. the everyday lives of Vin≠a communi- ties were marked by numerous encounters with mal Pantheon, that it is better not to discuss it. In- animals, both physically and symbolically. Domesti- stead, a whole range of studies dealing with other cates were carefully nurtured, wild species were aspects of animal symbolism in the Neolithic have hunted, and both were the subject of vivid symbo- proved to be very fruitful (cf. Peri≤ 1996; Russell lic structuring. The list of wild and domestic animal 1998; Whittle 2003.79–106; Bori≤ 2005; Maran- species in Late Neolithic Vin≠a culture is long, and gou, Grammenos 2005; Mleku∫ 2007; Nanoglou their role in the economy of different communities 2008a; 2009; Twiss, Russell 2009). has been thoroughly elaborated (cf. Greenfield 1986; Bökönyi 1988; Clason 1979; Dimitrijevi≤ Animal iconography 2006; Orton 2008). If heuristic theses that place ani- mal representations in the sphere of cult and reli- Animal representations in the Late Neolithic Vin≠a gion are not to be taken seriously (cf. Gimbutas culture have been a subject of archaeological inquiry 1982) being merely anecdotal (sensu Bailey 2005. for more than a century. The history of the theore- 12–15), the social and symbolic aspects of human- tical frameworks employed followed the progres- animal relationship were of far less interest (cf. Rus- sion of interpretations of anthropomorphic imagery, sell 1998; 1999; 2012.80; Orton 2008.292–318). Al- at least in the case of clay figurines. Thus, interpre- though the lives of Vin≠a communities were prob- tations focused mainly on various questions of func- ably profoundly influenced by complicated systems tion and use, with these objects being seen prima- of beliefs and religion, considering the current state rily as cult instruments. This approach has not chan- of evidence, I see no reasonable line of inquiry which ged: Balkan archaeologists have not posed new que- could be followed in order to comprehend animal’s stions concerning animal representations in Vin≠a place in supposed Vin≠a culture cosmology. Cer- culture. We just became more careful in our analy- tainly, some animal species (cattle, birds, deer, dogs, sis, and as a result there is a strong decline from po- etc.) were introduced into the belief systems, but we sing any interpretative questions concerning either are so far away from delineating some sort of ani- human or animal imagery. There are some advan- 2 Late Neolithic Vin≠a culture is dated to the period 5300–4600 BC (Bori≤ 2009). 296 Cattle to settle – bull to rule> on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic Vin;a culture communities ces, in that more attention is paid to contextual gals were used as loom weights, and clay bull figu- data; but since this has not offered any progress in rines were modelled for various purposes (deities, functional interpretation, the finds continue to be toys, ceremonial and religious items etc.). I argue published with no inquiry that addresses some ot- that the employment of bovine iconography was her aspects of human and animal representations.3 socially structured, as was the maintenance of ani- We will see that in order to move away from heuri- mals themselves. It is generally believed that bull stic and anecdotal explanations, we need to cast off symbolism in the Neolithic had strong male associa- the functional burden and change the direction of our tions (power, strength, fertility, prestige etc.). A com- analysis in order to respod to answerable questions. parable setting was observed among contemporary indigenous societies (Evans-Pritchard 1940.16–51) When dealing with animal iconography in Vin≠a cul- and the same stands for Neolithic Vin≠a culture also. ture, the first obstacle is the identification and recog- However, new evidence suggests that bull iconogra- nition of the species represented. Taken as whole, phy was clearly associated with both female and the interpretation of both human and animal Vin≠a male activities. Finally, cattle iconography appears iconography is in the deep shadow of ambiguity and to be equally of private and public concern, and it vagueness. Sometimes it is even hard to determine was probably related to both genders and all ages. I whether it is an animal or human that is represen- argue that the vast corpus of Bos iconography should ted. We know that there are many examples of hyb- be considered in terms of actual human-animal rela- ridism and absurdness in depicting humans and ani- tionships, and it is only in this way that all structu- mals in Vin≠a culture, such that any effort to identi- ral oppositions (male/female, wild/domestic, private/ fy the exact species, gender or age is doomed to fai- communal, inside/outside) that have been observed lure. It is almost as we are dealing with some sort of can be understood. cultural bestiary, with representations of liminoid half-human-bird-like creatures, human-bear hybrids, Iconographic representation of cattle in Vin≠a cul- cat-awls, centauries, sphinxes, etc. Therefore, al- ture can be divided approximately into four arbitrary though the topic of hybridism and ambiguity in Vin- categories: (i) bucrania; (ii) clay figurines; (iii) ce- ≠a iconography is very challenging, for the purposes ramic vessels; (iv) miscellaneous – this category in- of the present paper, I deal only with securely defi- cludes loom weights, so-called Y amulets etc. As a ned bovine representations. Even in this category, we clarification, it is notable that among the many types will see that what we see is not what we think we of animal representation, only cattle imagery has see, and that what they thought is not what we see.