Skopje Before 8 Millenia - 1: The Earliest Bulders From Cerje-Govrlevo - Museum of The City of Skopje

8 _1
SKOPJE BEFORE 8 MILLENIA_1

THE EARLIEST BUILDERS FROM CERJE-
GOVRLEVO
Publisher
Museum of the City of Skopje
For the Publisher

Tomislav Mikuli
Curator of the exhibition and editor of the publication

Ljubo Fidanoski
. . Translation in English language on the papers of A. Toma and Lj.

Fidanoski was made by the authors
. , . Translation in English language on the papers of I. Tolevski, G.

. Naumov and N. ausidis
Dragan Serafimovski
Macedonian proofreading
Zdravko orveziroski
Photograph on the cover

Stanimir Nedelkovski
: Computer realization and print

, Datapons, Skopje
2017 2017
Realization of the Neolithic house model

Bojan Taneski
Technical realization
, , , Nikola Kekenovski, Zoran Mladenovski, Duko Nikolovski,
, Desanka akovska, Verolina Icovska and Margarita Krstevska
The exhibition and the publication were supported by

the City of Skopje
/ CONTENTS

ALENKA TOMA
PROLOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

LJUBO FIDANOSKI
LAYERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IGOR TOLEVSKI
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEOLITHIC HOUSES FROM THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
CERJE NEAR THE VILLAGE GOVRLEVO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

NIKOS AUSIDIS
THE HOUSE AS A SYMBOL AND AS A SIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

: , J

GOCE NAUMOV
FROM CAVES TO FORTRESSES: PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE BETWEEN HUNTING, AGRICULTURE
AND METALLURGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
SKOPJE BEFORE 8 MILLENIA_1 THE EARLIEST BUILDERS FROM CERJE-GOVRLEVO
PROLOGUE
- The archaeological site at Cerje-Govrlevo has been my focal
. destination for many years in the last decade. It has been focus
, , of my interest, archaeologically, as well as place where I spent
2004 . many autumns from 2004 onwards.
. - I first got acquainted with the site Cerje-Govrlevo, when M.

, , Bilbija, curator at the Museum of the city of Skopje, presented an
, , , interesting presentation, entitled Man, bread and pottery at the
( - 8thNeolithic seminar (The Neolithization of Eurasia - Perspectives
) , , 2001 - from Pottery) in Ljubljana in November 2001 (fig. 1, fig. 2). For
(. 1, . 2). , , a student, interested in the Neolithic period, dealing mainly
, - with archaeological records in Slovenia, his presentation was
something out of my knowledge at that time. At the Seminar
. , . , M. Bilbija presented results from the archaeological excavations,
conducted at Cerje-Govrlevo between 1982 and 1985 within
19821985 - the project Systematic Archaeological Research into the
Neolithic and Metal Period cultures in the Skopje Valley. This
. first excavation campaigns at the site were illustrative in many
, . ways. They showed that Cerje-Govrlevo is a multi-layered site
with habitation remains from different periods (from Neolithic
( , and Chalcolithic periods, till Bronze and Iron Age). These first
archaeological campaigns also exhibited
that there are several Neolithic habitation
layers at Cerje-Govrlevo, deposited in
a very complex stratigraphy, showing
remains of three different buildings
built one above the other almost in the
same place. Excellent preservation of the
discovered architectural remains as well as
small finds and the complex stratigraphy
demonstrated that Cerje-Govrlevo has to
be taken into consideration as one of the
key-sites in Macedonia. Still now I have a
vivid recollection of the slides, showing clay
structure of Neolithic house no. 2 rising 50
or 60 centimetres above the ground, large
oval querns, placed in front of it as well as
in other parts of the house and also many
whole ceramic vessels placed in situ (fig. 2).
To someone young with little experience,
5
8 _1
./Fig. 2
). , those pictures triggered archaeological imagination in various

- ways. Of course I had no idea back then that in three years I will
, become a part of the team excavating Cerje-Govrlevo.
,
, . - The Neolithic site CerjeGovrlevo is located in an outstanding
, natural surroundings on the southern slopes of mountain Vodno,
15 kilometres southwest of Skopje and few kilometres southeast
of the village Govrlevo, 500 m above the sea level. The site itself is
. , , - located on a vast flattened terrace called Cerje covering the area
of 15 hectares in a small valley surrounded by numerous hills.
. 2, 50 60 -
6
, - In 2000 M. Bilbija and the team from Museum of the city of

, , , - Skopje started a new archaeological campaign at Cerje-
, in situ (. Govrlevo. In the vicinity of trench I from the eighties campaign,
2). , - a new trench (II) has been started. Archaeological excavations
. , in trench II were conducted in from 2000 till 2010 with some
hiatuses. In these archaeological campaigns (years 2000-2002,
. 2004, 2008-2010) particularly from 2003 onwards the project
Cerje-Govrlevo became partnership project between
- Museum of the city of Skopje and Univerza
, , na Primorskem University of Primorska. Beside M. Bilbija, M.
15 - Gutin, L. Fidanoski and myself many other have been a part
, 500 . - of the excavation team, among them G. Naumov, A. Fidanoska
(formerly Ivkovska), I. Tolevski, A. Ogorelec, M. Zorko, B. Kavur,
, 15 , A. Spirova, A. Stevanoska, C.Vukovska, M.Mitovski, N. Hadzhi-
. Nikolov, Z. Hincak, V. ali, R. Mihajlovska and M. utari.
2000 , . The size of trench II, which has been excavated from 2000
. onwards, covered an area of 8 x 12 meters in the beginning;
I however its dimensions became outsized during 10 years
, (II). - of archaeological campaign and at the end measured 9 x 13
II 2000 meters. In 2004, when the team from University of Primorska
2010 . first arrived at the site, upper layers as well as architectural
(20002002, 2004, 20082010 ), 2003 remains of two houses have already been removed. Thus we
, continued with the excavation of the layers, connected with
. . the construction of house no. 3 and layers connected with
, . , . , the use of spaces within and outside this house. Underneath
, : . , . house no. 3, which proved to be the earliest, remains a system
( ), . , . , . , . , . of circular pits as well as a deep ditch, enclosing the area has
, . , . , . , . - been uncovered. All in all we can state that the stratigraphy of
, . , . , . . . the site is very complex and depends on the geomorphologic
configuration of the location itself as well as deposition
II, 2000 due to the long lasting successive use of the settlement.
, 8 12 Thickness and position of different layers varies considerably
, in a very small area. In the northwest corner of the trench
- sterile geological basis was exposed only 0.4 meter under the
9 12 . 2004 , - present day surface, while in the opposite corner (southeast) it
, was detected in a depth of more than 4.5 metres. In this small
distance it can be seen, that in this part of the site the slope
. , - was pretty steep, accordingly the remains of the houses testify
. 3 that they have been constructed on the slope. Altogether, the
- excavated area of the site, including trench I and II, covered
. . 3, , a relatively small section of the entire Neolithic settlement at
, Cerje-Govrlevo, however it has been revealed that in this small
7
8 _1
. , area architectural remains of six houses have been preserved

(three in trench I and three in trench II, built one above the
, - other). According to the acquired archaeological data from
, . both campaigns, houses were constructed on very compact
- soil, they had clay floor built on wooden beams, the walls
. had wooden frame coated with clay and they had probably
, 0,4 - gable roof. Discovered houses - inventories always included
, () oven, grindstones, ceramic vessels, weights, and sometimes
4,5 . also ceramic items of visual art and different tools. In trench II
, - ovens were discovered also outside the area of house no. 3. It is
, , assumed, that workshop existed in this area of the settlement.
. Due to the several rows of postholes in the vicinity of calotte-
oven we assume, that this area was covered with a light
, wooden construction. In addition to the architectural remains
I II, of the houses in trench II numerous holes were found in their
, , immediate vicinity, which were probably used for different
activities and purposes associated with life in these houses.
( I II, ). - Among all six uncovered house remains from both campaigns
, (trench I and II), only house no. 3 from trench II proved to be
, somehow different from the others in terms of the mobile
, - inventory, uncovered within the house (fig. 3).
-
. , , Even though we investigated a relatively small proportion of
, , , , the Neolithic settlement at Cerje-Govrlevo, archaeological
, data acquired during both campaigns represent one of the
. II, best insights into construction and the organisation of space
. 3. - within and outside of the houses in the early 6th Millennium BC
. in the territory of Macedonia.

, - In the past decades an advanced field of study has grown in
. - archaeology and anthropology that focuses on social and
II, symbolic aspect of the built environment and the household
, or simply the house. One may be reluctant to the term house,
since it presupposes culturally constructed sets of ideas about
. , - what house mean in our contemporary social contexts.
( I II), . 3 II, However, the term itself can facilitates at least the way in which
, this topic is discussed and not be biased with culturally sets of
(. 3). norms that are imbedded with the term nowadays.
The study of Neolithic houses in Southeast Europe has

, been quite dynamic in last several decades. Authors have
approached this phenomenon from different perspectives;
from architectural and technological aspects of houses
8
./Fig. 3
VI ... - construction and morphology, as well as from sociological

. and anthropological point of view. A bit different situation is
in the Balkans and in Macedonia. The collection of uncovered
remains of Neolithic houses on the territory of Macedonia is
, actually quite large; however in depth studies on Neolithic
- architecture are still rare. In literature only very fragmented
. insight into the actual archaeological data concerning house
, remains at individual sites can be found, also they are rather
- general narrations about house morphology and construction.
. , , Other information relating to Neolithic houses in Republic of
Macedonia are concealed within the immense corpus of so
called house models, displaying different posibilities of their
. interpretation. However, the situation is constantly improving
9
8 _1
and projects like this are contributing immensely to the

general knowledge about the house-builders of the Neolithic
- as well as to general awareness of how important our common
. past is.

; Architectural remains found in different archaeological
environments are often very fragile and sometimes difficult to
read also for archaeological experts, but for general public they
, are something very difficult to picture. Archaeologically visible
remains of built houses usually encompass different dug in
. - structures, post-holes, perhaps some elements of fragmented
- clay walls, etc. Only rarely remains of architecture are
. preserved as good as at Cerje-Govrlevo and can be introduced
to general public as a visual element of interpretation. The
exhibition potential of architectural remains from Cerje-
, , , - Govrlevo has been recognised by Milo Bilbija already in
. the eighties (fig. 4). In 1985 he organised an outstanding
exhibition, displaying construction as well as organisation of
, the space of the house no. 2 (trench I) from Cerje-Govrlevo in
the hall of the Museum of the city of Skopje (fig. 5). Because
. of the outstanding preservation of the architectural remains
, - of house no. 2, illustration of the houses interior has been
, - remarkable and outstanding. The exhibition has been very
. , well accepted by archaeological society as well as by general
- public. For the first time, something as intangible as living in a
, house in one distant Neolithic community has been presented
. in a way that also non-experts could understand the meaning

,
. -
,
, ,
, .
-

. -
.
(. 4). 1985 -
, -
. 2 (
I) , 1,
10
SKOPJE
./Fig. 6BEFORE 8 MILLENIA_1 ./Fig. 7 THE EARLIEST BUILDERS FROM CERJE-GOVRLEVO
(. 5). - of the past as well as quality of living in a such Neolithic built

. 2, - environment. From those first efforts onwards much has been
. , done to illustrate Neolithic way of life in Macedonia. There are
. - some instructive miniature models of prehistoric settlements,
, , displayed at various museums in Macedonia, as well as
there are some archaeological parks, illustrating life in one
, - Neolithic community, however exhibitions, displaying primary
. , - archaeological data, upgraded with their interpretation and
visualization are something that professional as well as general
. audience still awaits (fig. 6, fig. 7). Archaeology as such is a
profession that works in the sphere of public. We are bound to
, - do research, to publish results and to enhance the knowledge
, , , about our distant past, however we are obliged also to work for
, - the people and for audience that is interested in our work. That
, is way these kinds of projects are of the utmost importance.
(. 6,
. 7). - ALENKA TOMA
. , - UNIVERSITY OF PRIMORSKA (SLOVENIA)
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
, , - INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE

. .

()

11
8 _1
CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
. 1. . (2009 ). Fig. 1. M. Bilbija at the site Cerje-Govrlevo (in 2009).

. 2. . 2 I. Fig. 2. Remains of house no. 2 from trench I.
. 3. . 3 II. Fig. 3. Remains of house no. 3 from trench II.
. 4. Fig. 4. Poster of the exhibition Neolithic houses from Zelenikovo
1985/86 . and Govrlevo at the Museum of the city of Skopje in 1985/86.
. 5. . Fig. 5. The exhibition Neolithic houses from Zelenikovo and
. 6 . 7. Govrlevo.
( . ). Fig. 6. and Fig. 7. Model of a Neolithic house from Cerje-Govrlevo
(made by B. Taneski).
/ USED LITERATURE
, . 2000. . , .
, . 2011. , (70005000 . ..). 19492011. . : 3133.
, , . 1984. . IX (1982): 3848. .
Latin
Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheoloki pregled 26 (1985). Ljubljana: 3536.
Bilbija, . 2001. Man, bread and pottery. 8 Neolithic seminar. 811 November, Oddelek za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Ljubljana.
Bilbija, M. 2007. Neolitsko naselje Govrlevo. International Symposium The Problems of Neolithic and Development of Early Neolithic Cultures in
the Balkans Area 1417 November 2007. Museum of East Bosnia. Tuzla.
Fidanoski, Lj. 2012. Cerje-Govrlevo and Milo Bilbija. Skopje: Museum of the city of Skopje.
Fidanoski, Lj. and Toma, A., 2010, Under the Field of Wheat: Archaeological Research at the Neolithic site Cerje- Govrlevo. Macedonian
Heritage, Hommage to Milosh Bilbija, Homage to Milosh Bilbija, Year XIVth, No. 3637. Skopje: 6172.
Naumov, G. 2013. Embodied Houses: the Social and Symbolic Agency of Neolithic House in the Republic of Macedonia. In Hofmann, D. and
Smyth, J. (eds.) Tracking the Neolithic House in Europe. One World Archaeology. Springer Verlag.
Tolevski, I. 2009. Architecture. In Naumov, G.; Fidanoski, Lj.; Tolevski, I. and Ivkovska, A. Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia.
Skopje: 3744. Dante.
Toma, A. 2009. Govrlevo, Makedonija. Strokovno sreanje Slovenskega arheolokega drutva Arheologija v letu 2008. Muzej in galerije mesta
Ljubljane, 9. in 10. marec 2009. Ljubljana.
12
LAYERS
, - Standing in front of the village of Govrlevo which is situated at
, one of the south-west slopes of Vodno facing the western side
, of Kitka, many thoughts emerge and in the same time various,
, - often divergent emotions engage tranquility, excitement,
, , , , , . happiness, sadness, anxiety, etc. Some time ago this village
, was filled with life, from the houses scent of fresh baked bread
, , enriched the air, stew made just now, fresh salad collected
, - from the gardens nearby, and the childrens clatter which one
can hear from the yards was louder than the sound of the wind
, swirling through the trees branches often mixing with the
, noisy villagers chatter between the village houses, and almost
. always meddling with the sound of the abundant sheep and
, - goat bells. Today this village is almost empty, in the past few
, decades its inhabitants gradually abandoned it, leaving it on
. the mercy of nature and to the very few elder villagers.
Witnesses of the rich history of Govrlevo are the houses

- made in the traditional Macedonian manner with Neolithic
, - reminiscences - wooden construction covered with mud,
. which testify the life continuity here. Almost in none of them
, , living is possible, at some of them the roofs are collapsed, at
, some of them through the thick mud walls strengthen with
, wooden beams and covered with yellow clay through large
, cracks and holes of their interior can be seen, some houses
, - does not have their wooden stairs for the upper stories, nor
, - their wooden floors, and of some of them the only trace are
. the foundation remains or some walls ruin.
, , The village of Govrlevo is situated on the sunny south-west

, - slopes of Vodno, typical with their flattened hilltops suitable
(. 1). , - for pastures and cultivation lands. Here, going back in time in
, , - the Precambrian and Cambrian period, long time ago since
emergence of man and his ancestors, calcite marbles and
, , cipolines sediments deposited, while the geological image
( later in the Neogene period (in its end mens ancestors appear)
) , is acknowledged with presence of sandstones, clays (petrified
( ), , - clays) and marlstones, covered with the latest geological layers
. , of Diluvial deposits. The mountains of Jakupica, Karadica and
, Vodno are unbreakable and fundamental part of the relief
, scenery in this micro-region situated in close vicinity of Skopje
. city. The mountains with dark green deep forests and the large
, - number of small valleys between them and their slopes, the
13
8 _1
, - slight plains and downhills, as well as, the rich hydrological

, - network is the natural scenery which here enchants.
.
According to the elder residents tales about the past of
Govrlevo one can be astonished that long time ago the village
, was not situated where is today, but on one flattened terrace a
, , - few hundred meters towards south-east at the very foothill of
, Vodno (fig. 1). This flattened terrace in the area called Cerje is
(. 1). - outspread in a smaller valley surrounded by low hills, covering
, - about 15 ha. The northern side of the terrace ends in the slopes
, 15 . of Vodno, the western and the eastern sides are closed by
, lower hills, while the south side is almost completely open. To
, the east and west of the terrace there used to be two smaller
. rivers in the past - iflika and Cereka. This gives the name of
the micro-region Cerje meaning between rivers.
.
. Today in this place rests large amount of cultivation lands
rich with various agricultural cultures which almost always
, , give prosperous harvest. This, at first sight, usual image
- about typical Macedonian agricultural micro-region under
. the surface of the cultivated land contains many records of
, the past. In this place, one long period, after the epoch of
Neogene, but before the first settling of Skopje, before around
. , , eight millennia vigorous presence of men was discovered.
, , A few meters below the cultivation lands surface, where
according to the elder residents tales the village of Govrlevo
. , was situated in the past, a Neolithic settlement sometime ago
, known as Cerje-Govrlevo was documented.
, ,
. Knowledge about early man and his actions in the past are
common in different forms, especially by tales, legends, written
- sources and records, etc. However, sometimes in absence
, : - of some of these forms, often, by chance as the discovery of
./Fig. 1
14
, , , . , Cerje-Govrlevo, the evidences about early man are hidden

, , underground. Acquiring these evidences or traces can be done
, - solely by studying the earth and its layers (which in science is
. known as stratigraphy or a discipline of geology which explores
, , - layers). Unlike geological layers which naturally deposit on
( - the ground, there are cultural layers which are result of mans
a activity on a specific place. In Cerje-Govrlevo through the
). archaeological explorations many layers with different colours
, filled with various structures and occurrences and especially
. rich with archaeological material have been found. In some
, - cases, particularly in the older archaeological explorations, so-
, , - called horizons of living or settlement horizons were defined,
, - consisting archaeological occurrences related with different
. , - objects (often houses and their complementary elements).
, - Frequently, within stratigraphy analysis in specific horizons
of living several cultural layers (and occurrences) showing
some similarity or belonging to one or another horizon have
( ). , been incorporated. Hypothetically, a site with more complex
- stratigraphy could have fifty cultural layers which belong to
( ) four horizons of living, and vice versa, another site could have
four horizons consisted of six cultural layers. The situation in
. , Cerje-Govrlevo is similar with the first example, and therefore
that multilayered sequence is clear in the complexity of the
, stratigraphy, is evidence of mans presence here, as well as, the
- consequences of his activity.
.
, , The history of exploration on this site is relatively short in
, comparison with other prehistoric sites in Macedonia and in
, . the Balkans, but it is comprised with extraordinary finds. As
often happens in archaeology, Cerje-Govrlevo was discovered
- by chance, right in the moments of hiking in this beautiful
, region when Z. Georiev in 1975, when during a well excavation,
, in the profile noticed unusual ceramic artifacts. According to
. , the preliminary data from this pioneer period of the history
, of explorations it was confirmed that it was probably a
. . Neolithic site. Few years later, in 1981, the abovementioned
1975 , , author together with M. Bilbija performed a field survey of
, - the terrain, whereupon they determine the boundaries and
. the characteristics of the site, as circumstances allowed them.
- The name M. Bilbija is elemental within any mention of Cerje-
. - Govrlevo because he is fundamental part in the history of this
, 1981 , place as its explorer and promoter.
. ,
- In the cadastre plot No. 1455, in geographic coordinates 4155
, . . and 2121 and at an altitude of 500 m above sea level in the
, period from 1982 to 1985 (the first phase of explorations),
15
8 _1
1455, -
4155 2121
500 , 1982 1985 ( -
) 5
4 4 80
I (. 2).

, -
.
1982
,
-
, . ,
, ,
-
, - five Latin-enumerated squares with dimensions 4 4 m were
- open, with 80 sq. m in total area and whose space was given
. a working title trench I (fig. 2). The exploration methodology
of the site in this period is in accordance with the existent
1983 , rulebooks on archaeological exploration, thus applying the
chronologic-stratigraphic research method.
. -
(. 1 I) - The first archaeological exploration campaign of 1982
, - provides preliminary insight of the site, whereupon it was
. established that is represents a Neolithic settlement with
cultural manifestations from the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, the
, - Bronze and the Iron Age. Namely, under the humus layer and
, in the first, most shallow cultural layers the presence of ceramic
III, . . material from all of the abovementioned periods was noticed
which, most probably, was owing to the penetration from
1984 - latter prehistoric periods and the contemporary agricultural
activities in the Neolithic settlement horizons.
, ,
(. 2 I) In the following 1983 remnants of destroyed orange hued
, . wattle and daub house fragments and a small area of a house
, floor were discovered. The exploration has verified that these
() - were remnants of a Neolithic house (no. 1 of trench I), probably
II, . with a square or slightly trapeze basis. According to the
uncovered movable material in its ruins and the surroundings,
- this settlement horizon belongs to the latter phase of the
, 1985 , Middle Neolithic in Macedonia, i.e. in the Amzabegovo III
(. 3 I) , - phase, according to the chronology of . Gimbutas.
16
, The archaeological exploration campaign of 1984 is probably

- the most important one about our knowledge concerning
. Cerje-Govrlevo because then, among other numerous finds,
one of the best preserved Neolithic houses (no. 2 of trench I) in
I, . , - Macedonia was discovered. The discovered movable material
I in it and the corresponding layers confirmed one more
3 . (earlier) Middle Neolithic settlement horizon corresponding to
Amzabegovo II, according to the abovementioned chronology.
I, , -
-
./Fig. 3
17
8 _1
, (. 3). In the course of the last exploration campaign, i.e. in 1985, the
II IV remnant of another house (no. 3 of trench I) were discovered,
whose basis was not established, but due to the remnants of the
. 1 - walls and part of the floor it can be assumed that it had rectangle
, , basis. This settlement horizon was determined as Early Neolithic
( - and corresponds to the Early Neolithic phase Amzabegovo I,
, 2, - under the chronology used above. With this research the squares
), 0 0,2 . 2 of trench I were completely exhausted of cultural layers and at a
, , depth of approximately 3 m the subsoil was documented.
, ,
0,2 0,5 ( Cultural layers in trench I are, more or less, horizontally deposited
I, one on other and their contents is different in character, span
. 1 I). 3 and depth (fig. 3). Within squares II and IV the occurrences and
, differences in cultural layers and horizons of living are good
, , example for the stratigraphical image within this trench. Layer 1
, 0,5 1 . has a light brown color and in it a large number of artifacts from
4 - Neolithic and later Prehistoric periods were found (due to deep
, , - plowing this layer and the following one - layer 2 were partially
1 1,6 ( - destroyed), and its depth is between 0 to 0.2 m. Layer 2 has a
II, . 2 I). yellowish color and consists stones, ceramic, stone and bone
5 , artifacts, as well as, fragments of wattle and daub house remnants,
and its depth is between 0.2 to 0.5 m (these two layers consists the
, first horizon of living - I, where house no. 1 of trench I belongs).
1,6 2 . 6 Layer 3 is represented by denser soil with reddish-yellow color,
, , a larger number of ceramic, stone and bone artifacts, as well as,
, - fragments of wattle and daub remnants and larger stones, and its
2 2,8 ( - depth is between 0.5 to 1 m. Layer 4 has a grayish-brown color
III, and also consists a large number of ceramic, stone and bone
. 3 I). artifacts, as well as, fragments of wattle and daub house remnants
and stones, and its depth is between 1 to 1.6 m (these two layers -
- 3 and 4 consists the second horizon of living - II, where house no. 2
I, . - of trench I belongs). Layer 5 is represented by denser soil with dark
: I grayish-brown color, a large number of ceramic, stone and bone
I, - artifacts, as well as, fragments of wattle and daub house remnants
IIIV and stones, and its depth is between 1.6 to 2 m. The earliest layer,
IIV, V 6, also has a denser soil with light brown color and consists a small
I/II, VI number of ceramic, stone and bone artifacts, as well as, fragments
I, . . of wattle and daub house remnants and stones, and its depth is
, between 2 to 2.8 m (these two layers - 5 and 6 consists the third
horizon of living - III, where house no. 3 of trench I belongs).
, .
, , According to the archaeological explorations of the settlement
in the eighties in trench I, M. Bilbija, foresaw six continued
, , . horizons of living: Govrlevo I would chronologically correspond
to Amzabegovo-Vrnik I, the horizons Govrlevo II-IV would
correspond to Middle Neolithic phases from the Amzabegovo-
18
./Fig. 4
15 , , Vrnik II-V culture, the horizon Govrlevo V corresponds to

. the Vina-Tordo I/II culture, and Govrlevo VI to the Bubanj-
2000 Hum I culture, according to the chronology by M. Garaanin.
. , 1452, - Nevertheless, with the completion of the research it was realized
6 4 4 that, in this space, the settlement has three successive horizons
, II ( of living, one from the Early and two from the Middle Neolithic.
, . 4). 2002 In the most upper layers, though without clear archaeological
, 8 12 - context, the presence of Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age
96 . , 2004 , and Iron Age material has been documented.
(-
), After pause of 15 years, The Museum of the City of Skopje,
VII VIII ( 1,5 4 ) - again under the guidance of M. Bilbija, in 2000 re-establishes
9,5 13 , the archaeological exploration of Cerje-Govrlevo. In the
124 . neighbouring cadastre lot, 1452, six Latin-enumerated squares
, with dimensions 4 4 m were opened and the researched area
20082010 , , was called trench II (second phase of research, fig. 4). This space
, was explored till 2002, whereas the dimensions of the trench are
8 12 m with total area of 96 sq. m. After pause of one year, in
135 , 10 13,5 2004, and now with cooperation with The University of Primorska
. in Koper (Slovenia) the trench has been widened on the eastern
( IX side by opening of squares VII and VIII (with dimensions 1.5 4
XX). m), thus enlarging to approximately 9.5 13 m (with total area
19
8 _1
, 20002002 , of around 124 sq. m). With a relatively short pause of four years,
2004 , - archaeological explorations on the site were carried between
() - 2008 and 2010, and due to weathering, especially on ruining of
- the trench sections in the latter years; the trench was widened
. to a total area of 135 sq. m, whereas its dimensions are 10 x
( 2004 ), 13.5 m. For proper documentation of the widened space of the
. , - trench additionally were enumerated new squares (from IX to
(2004, 20082010 ) - XX). Concerning methodology used within the archaeological
, explorations, in the period 2000-2002 it remains as in trench I,
. and from 2004 the archaeological excavations were improved
through the implementation of stratigraphic units (loci) which
provided much more precise data about the site stratigraphy.
20002002 , - The new methodological approaches were used to perform a
( II), - control of the older explorations (until 2004), whereupon certain
- deviations in the stratigraphy were detected. Therefore, in all
( 19821985 subsequent explorations (2004, 2008-2010) comparison was
, . 2). made between the occurrences documented in the different
(. 1 II) 0,4 0,9 spaces, i.e. in both trenches.
, .

. -
, -

-

-
III, -
. . -
,
-

-
.
2004 , -
-
,

-
-
, -
,
.
,
20
, , The archaeological explorations on the site in the period

(. 2 II). between 2000 and 2002 are characterized by the research
on the newly opened area of the site (trench II), particularly
, II, - bearing in mind the vicinity of trench no. I, from the first phase
. , - of explorations (1982-1985, fig. 2). Within these explorations the
, remnants of a house (no. 1 of trench II) at depth between 0.4 and
, (. 3 0.9 m were discovered, probably with a square or rectangular
II) . form. Its basis and dimensions have not been established due
, to the heavy destruction. According to the stratigraphy and the
4 , - movable material inside it and the corresponding layers it was
(. 5). established that this was a house from the late Middle Neolithic
phase corresponding to Amzabegovo III, under the chronology
, of M. Gimbutas. With this research, in the northern section of
. - the trench a Metal Age intrusion in the form of a massive Iron
2000 , Age grave pit was discovered.
0,3 , -
, - During 2004 thanks to the new methodology of explorations
, large number of cultural layers and archaeological occurrences
, - with different contents, depth and span, and great number of
. - pits in the layers have been documented. This research, in the
0,7 . south section, also revealed a small part, i.e. the northern edge
( 1,3 ), , of a Middle Neolithic house (no. 2 of trench II). Stratigraphically,
2001 2002 , this house is a bit older and belongs to the earlier phase of the
, - Middle Neolithic, in other words to Amzabegovo II, according
. , VII to the abovementioned chronology. Researching the space of
VIII, , this trench, a part of a house floor, for which, on the basis of
( stratigraphy, it was presumed that it belonged to a house (no.
) 0,7 1 . 3 of trench II) which is of earlier date compared to the previous
two was found. In its immediate vicinity a utilitarian area was
I, II, VII VIII discovered, made up of a complex with 4 ovens, provisionally
- called workshop (fig. 5).
, -
. , The layers documented on the space of this trench speak
2004 well about the complexity of the stratigraphy. Based on the
, , explorations since 2000 and onwards, under the topsoil layer
with depth from the surface of 0.3 m, depending on the space,
0,4 (. 6). - two relatively homogenous cultural layers with brown colour
, filled with smaller stones, pottery and animal bones, at places
, heavily destructed by later pits and agricultural activities on
. - the field were confirmed. These layers depending on the space
2002 - reach depth of up to 0.7 m. Under them, a thick settlement
V, horizon follows (in depth up to 1.3 m), not equally present
. in the squares, in which within the explorations in 2001 and
2002, as it was already said, small part of a Middle Neolithic
, V, house was registered and explored. In the same settlement
. , horizon, in squares VII and VIII an oven was found probably
21
8 _1
./Fig. 6
, - situated outside the house (due to destructions of the house

it was not possible to determine if the oven was in the houses
- interior) at depth between 0.7 and 1 m.
1,3 ,
. , Within the explorations in squares I, II, VII and VIII it was
, established that the stratigraphy of the terrain is very complex
IIV VI and dependant of the geomorphologic formations of the site,
as well as, mans influence. Namely, during excavations in 2004
, it became clear that thickness and position of different layers
(. 7). varies considerably in a very small area, and so at the north-
, western corner of the trench the subsoil was documented at
, depth of only 0.4 m (fig. 6). Besides the decline of layers in
- northwest-southeast direction, proof of the field denivelation
. was obtained by the layer of house ruins, as well as, the
archaeological occurrences in the following explorations.
, 1,3 1,8 , According to the data from 2002 explorations it was confirmed
II VII, () that all cultural layers in square V were explored and removed,
, so that part of the trench was almost finished.
( . 2 -
II), - The explorations in the squares, except square V, provide much
(. 3 II). important information about the site. Namely, within the
2002 , - boundaries of these squares with more intense work, by which
IIII, VII VIII, the primary data about the earliest layers of the settlement and
0,1 0,6 in which few more cultural layers with different thickness and
1,8 . 2004 depth up to 1.3 m were documented, considerable complexity
, of the deposits was registered. Correspondingly, several thinner
22
(. 3 II). layers with different contents and spread were documented,

thus the work into squares I-IV and VI in which large number
2004 , - of round and irregular round pits with different dimensions
, , and depth, and also with uneven amount of archaeological
. material continued (fig. 7). Especially interesting are one row
deep and large pits, with irregular round form, positioned in
./Fig. 7 23
8 _1
north-south direction, and according to their size consisted of

insignificant amount of archaeological material.
In the course of the explorations, at depth between 1.3 and 1.8

m, in the southern section of squares II and VII, the end (edge)
of the northern wall comprised of yellow, compact wattle and
daub fragments of another Middle Neolithic house (registered
as house no. 2 of trench II) was found; discovered in later
settlement horizon and few meters southern of the earlier
house (no. 3 of trench II). According to the data from the earlier
exploration campaign, the one from 2002, in squares I-III, and
later in squares VII and VIII, under the thick gray-brown layer
with thickness between 0.1 and 0.6 m and at depth above
1.8 m another house was expected. In 2004 an insignificant
amount of the abovementioned layer was removed, thus
the northwestern corner of the house (no. 3 of trench II) was
found. On the basis of stratigraphical and exploration data at
this area in 2004, this house belongs to a earlier settlement
horizon, probably from the Early Neolithic.
I VI, ,
1,5 , In squares I and VI, at the southern side of the trench, at
, depth above 1.5 m, very thick dark grey layer consisted of
. - large quantities of pottery, stones and animal bones was
I VI, unearthed. The layer covers the entire area of squares I and
, VI, and during explorations it was obvious that its thickness
( ) (. 6). increases towards south, which, once again proved that a
VI, - large decline of the terrain (and the layers) is attested towards
, southeast (fig. 6). In square VI in the same layer a large deposit
. , of different material, particularly with large amount of animal
, - bones was documented. At this area, in close vicinity of the
deposit and in the same layer, a partial human burial consisted
(. 8). - of mandible altogether with two fragmented ceramic vessels
and stone axe was discovered (fig. 8). This occurrence is maybe
, - a ritual deposition of partial human remnants in shallow pit,
. which is a rare case in Balkans Neolithic sites.
- With the removal of the same dark grey layer deposit and right
, VI below the abovementioned occurrences, in square VI and in
I, 2 2,5 - the bordering area with Square I, at depth between 2 to 2.5
(. 5). , m a complex of four ovens was unearthed (fig. 5). At relatively
, , , uneven terrain, in hard, dense, clayish and brown layer
, deposit with no artifacts in it, three ovens made with different
. , - construction techniques and with different dimensions and
, 2 , , forms were found. Namely, in the clayish layer deposit, at the
, beginning of the removal, at depth of around 2 m the smallest
. ellipse oven was found. It was built over several tamped layers
24
,
( -
0,150,3 ), -
,

-
.

-
,

.
-
,
,
, 0,6
, -

-
,

. -
consisted of small stones
and enclosed with slightly
larger stones. At almost same
depth, right to the first oven
(at around 0.15 to 0.3 m) to
its northern side another
oven with unclear form due
to large destruction caused
by a later pit was found. In the
course of the exploration, here,
another oven founded on
the basis, following the same
deposition and construction
technique of the former one
was unearthed. These ovens
were positioned on the edge
of the clayish layer, and below
them, at their whole western
side/line; at depth of 0.6 below
their level, a larger dig with
irregular square form widened
and slightly curved at its
eastern side was documented.
During the explorations, at
25
8 _1
(- its western side (or the square form of the dig) another oven
) . was excavated. Unlike the former ovens, this one was not
, founded on the clayish layer - it was directly dug inside the
, , dig, thus forming its square form part. This oven is a typical
. calotte oven, with minor variation - it was built directly on
, the bottom of the dig, in the same time using its western,
, - northern and eastern side as a backing for the calotte. On
, - the basis of the discovered oven walls the unique technique
. - of construction was confirmed. The ovens bottom and walls
. , were made of several moist clay layers smeared directly
, - on the dig - a method which provided long term use of the
. oven. This context suggests that the oven complex belonged
to some kind of a workshop in which specialized resources
- preparations were made. This suggests that the use of the
. same clayish layer for construction, as well as, their grouping
, - in small area especially adapted for the ovens. After the ovens
complex removal, within latest exploration campaigns, in the
. layer beneath them, it was confirmed that the entire area (2 x
4 m) was covered and/or fenced by wooden construction (fig.
, , (2 9; fig. 10).
4 ) /
(. 9; . 10). After pause of few years, between 2008 and 2010, the exploration
on the site continues with the same intensity, focusing on the
./Fig. 11
26
./Fig. 12
, 2008 2010 area of house no. 3 (of trench II) and its close vicinity. On the
, northern and north-eastern side of the house, in squares III,
, IV and VIII, several pits with different forms and dimensions,
. 3 ( II) . - dug into the so-called proto-sterile layer, characterized by dark
, - brown colour and absence of archaeological material besides
III, IV VIII, small amount of fossil snails were discovered. Its thickness
, , varies and increases towards northwest to southeast within 0.1
- and 1.2 m, which almost certainly is a result of the substantial
, . decline of the relief in that direction, achieving 4.5 m depth of
, - the trench at its southeastern side. On the basis of its clayish
0,1 1,2 , structure, the absence of archaeological material and its
, 4,5 ideal horizontal spread only in the eastern side of the trench
(. 11). - it might be assumed that this is proto-sterile layer, probably
, - geologically created of some kind of water deposit. After the
removal of this layer, in squares III, IV and VIII, the sterile layer
characterized by pale yellowish-brown, clayish soil flecked
, with white limestone sediments was documented (fig. 6).
. ,
III, IV VIII, The explorations on the western side of the abovementioned
- house, in square I, where focused on the area between the
(. 6). remnants of the house and the ovens complex. At depth
between 2 and 2.5 m a thick, grey, clayish layer was documented
27
8 _1
with amorphous spread in direction west-east, filled with pottery

, I, - fragments, stones and large quantities of animal bones was
. 2 2,5 registered. Probably this occurrence represents some kind of
, , dump bearing in mind the large quantities of ceramic fragments
, , and animal bones scattered around. After documenting and
. - removal of this layer a black, thin ashy layer with thickness
of around few centimeters, also with amorphous spread in
, . direction west-east was discovered. Unlike the previous one,
, - this layer has scant archaeological material. Within completion
, , of the documentation of the layers in this area it was established
. that probably there is no evidence of direct connection between
, the house and ovens complex. On the other hand, from aspect
. - of chronology, about the relation of the layers in this part of
the trench, especially about these two important unmovable
. , - objects, some interpretations were made. Accordingly, on the
basis of these layers properties it can be concluded that the
, ovens complex, since earlier explorations entitled as workshop
. , - probably belongs to an earlier phase than the house (fig. 12).
,
, Explorations in 2009 are focused on house no. 3 (of trench II),
(. 12). its properties and inventory, as well as, the layers on its western
side, i.e. the entire southern side of the trench (squares I, II, VI
2009 . 3 and VII). According to the movable material in the house, it was
( II), , - concluded that it belongs to the Early Neolithic synchronous to
, Amzabegovo I phase, according to the already used chronology.
( I, II, VI VII). , During house interior research, at depth of 2 m, the upper dark
- brown humus-like layer with small amount of archaeological
I, - material, as: ceramic fragments, stones and animal bones was
. , removed. With the complete removal of the layer, here also was
2 , confirmed the substantial denivelation of the relief, whereas
, : , at the entire southern side of square I it reaches 3 m depth. In
. other words, the northwestern corner of the house has a depth
, of 2 m, and the southeastern corner reaches depth of around 3
I, m. After the removal of the dark brown layer a mass presence
3 . , of destructed house wattle and daub fragments with yellow
2 , colour, which probably belongs to the walls, was documented.
3 . -
- At the boundary of squares II, III, VII and VIII, after the
, . documentation and removal of the house remnants and its
foundation, under its northeastern corner, at depth between
II, III, VII VIII, 2.3 and 2.8 m, in a layer consisted of light brown homogenous
, soil, a skeletal grave of young male was discovered (fig. 13).
, 2,3 2,8 Unfortunately, when making the foundation of the house, the
, - individual in large proportions was destroyed, situation well
, (. 13). , documented thanks to the wooden beams imprints which
cut the burial. On the basis of the preserved remains, the skull,
28
./Fig. 13 29
8 _1
./Fig. 14
, the upper part of the thorax and part of the upper limbs, it
. was concluded that this fetal positioned burial was placed in
, , northeast-southwest direction. Under the houses foundation
, and under the burial, in square II and at depth of 3 m, in the
, - abovementioned protosterile, dark brown, clayish layer,
. - excavated in 2008, six large and few small pits were discovered.
, II, 3 , - The large pits had a diameter of about 1 m, and about same
, , , depth, while their disposition was in two rows in northwest-
2008 , . southeast direction. As within smaller pits, whose dimensions
1 are significantly smaller, in every one insignificant amount of
, archaeological material was found.
, .
30
, - In 2010 with the removal of all remained layers, the

. exploration of trench II in Cerje-Govrlevo was finished. Within
2010 , the exploration of this final year it should be stressed that
, several pits and one relatively deep ditch were discovered.
. The latter occurrence was found under the remnants of the
- earliest house (no. 3 of trench II), the burial and under the
, (. 3 ovens complex at depth below 2.8 m. The ditch in section had
II) , 2,8 . appearance of the Latin letter V and it spread in west-east
V direction (with a slight swerve towards southeast) in length of
( ) more than 10 m (the entire length of trench II), with its average
10 ( II), depth of around 1 m and width between 1.5 and 2 m (fig. 5; fig.
1 1,5 2 (. 6). This rare archaeological occurrence in Neolithic sites follows
5; . 6). - the stratigraphy of Cerje-Govrlevo, thus once again proving
./Fig. 15
31
8 _1
, the decline of almost all layers in northwest-southeast (in this

- case west-southeast fig. 13; fig. 15) direction. Regarding this
( , . 14; . archaeological occurrence the shallow circular pits (probably
15). imprints of beams) discovered only on the northern side of the
( ) ditch, and following its spread, intrigues.
, .
With the removal of the earliest layers of the site the entire
- stratigraphy of this area was established. Namely, in this
. , trench a much more complex stratigraphical image, from
, both geological and cultural aspect, unlike the one from
, - trench I, was documented. In this regard a massive decline
I. of the natural relief (sterile ground) was noted, in northwest-
() , southeast direction, whereas at the northwestern corner of
the trench the sterile ground was found at 0.4 m depth, while
0,4 , , - at the southeastern corner of the trench, due to the decline
, - of the relief and the many Neolithic layer deposits, the sterile
4,5 (. 15). ground was found at 4.5 m depth (fig. 15).
*** ***
- The traces of the earliest civilizations in the world are

, , , constantly analyzed, thoroughly elaborating, sometimes
, , revised, often are interpreted in diverse ways, but always they
- stand as material evidence about the activity of early mankind.
. , , In this part of the Balkan, in Skopje region, one of the places
where traces of existence of early man is in Cerje-Govrlevo.
. , - In this Neolithic settlement in a number of archaeological
( ), exploration campaigns and in two phases (in two trenches)
( ): remains of six houses (three in every trench) have been
( I), discovered: two from the Early Neolithic phase (synchronous
( with Amzabegovo I), two from the early sub-phase of Middle
II) (- Neolithic (Amzabegovo II) and two from the later Middle
III). , - Neolithic sub-phase (Amzabegovo III). Unfortunately, due
, to the multilayered stratigraphy of the site, or owing to the
, . secondary destructions in the layers and occurrences small
( 2 I 3 II) - parts from the houses were well preserved. Only within two
, . - houses (house no. 2 of trench I and house no. 3 of trench II) the
: - basis was completely preserved, i.e. the floor and the interior. As
, uniqueness of the site these occurrences stand out: the partial
(. 3 II), - burial of human mandible in a pit; the human burial destroyed
( - by house (no. 3 of trench II); the relatively well preserved
), complex comprised of four ovens (named workshop); the
(II), - ditch spreading throughout the entire length of the trench
( ), , , (II), the large number of pits with different disposition (often
, . , in rows), with different depth, dimensions, forms and material
, - quantity, etc. For the abovementioned occurrences from
32
I - chronologic-stratigraphic aspect it was established that in

( trench I the houses were documented in several layers and
), II, interpreted in three settlement horizons (and synchronized
, with the corresponding Neolithic phases), whereas in trench
: , II due to the complexity of the stratigraphy, occurrences were
, - interpreted in the following order: the earliest occurrence is
, ( ) the ditch; onto which the ovens complex was built; sometime
. 3, - later the skeletal burial was deployed; which partially was
destroyed (or followed by) the house no. 3; and in close time
. - interval or maybe corresponding with it, the partial human
, mandible burial was executed. Among the mentioned
, , occurrences in this trench, a large amount of cultural layers
. with diverse contents, spread and thickness, and the same can
be said also about the pits, for which in other occasion will be
, II - discussed.
14
( 1 - At the very end, some contexts from trench II the gathered
58935728 14C dates places the site in the transitional period between
. ..., 2 the Early and Middle Neolithic (sample 1 corresponds to the
58145714 . ... 3 Early Neolithic and belongs to the time interval 5893-5728 BC,
57145228 sample 2 corresponds to the Middle Neolithic and belongs to
. ...), , the interval 5814-5714 BC, while sample 3 corresponds to the
- end of the Middle Neolithic and belongs to the interval 5714-
. , , , , 5228 BC); although it should be noted that these samples were
( - gathered from cultural layers later than the abovementioned
) occurrences. All of the houses, ovens, burials, pits, the ditch,
, and other archaeological occurrences (from which samples for
, , absolute dating were gathered) are actually the traces of the
. Neolithic man from Cerje-Govrlevo, they are vacuumed into
the cultural layers of the site whose story does not end here,
on the contrary, here it begins.

LJUBO FIDANOSKI
MUSEUM OF THE CITY OF SKOPJE - SKOPJE
33
8 _1
: Nota bene: within some illustrations of the catalogue the source

can be found in some of the formerly published papers by the
. author of this chapter where the publications from which the
illustrations were referenced.
. 1. ,
, , . Fig. 1. Panorama photograph of the micro-region, left - the
. 2. . modern village of Govrlevo, in the centre, the site.
. 3. I. Fig. 2. Position of the archaeological trenches.
. 4. II. Fig. 3. Sections and plans of trench I.
. 5. I VI II. Fig. 4. The archaeological contents in trench II.
. 6. II. Fig. 5. The ovens complex in squares I and VI in trench II.
. 7. ( ), Fig. 6. The western section of trench II.
() ( ), Fig. 7. Remnants of the ovens complex (bottom right), pits rows
, II. (centre) and two houses in plan and in section (upper right),
. 8. photographed from west, trench II.
VI II. Fig. 8. Ritual burial of human mandible in square VI in trench II.
. 9. Fig. 9. Remnants of the ovens complex plan and partially
preserved imprints of the wooden construction around the ovens
II. complex in trench II.
. 10. Fig. 10. Remnants of the ovens complex plan after the cleaning
and partially preserved imprints of the wooden construction
II. around the ovens complex in trench II.
. 11. II. Fig. 11. The eastern section of trench II.
. 12. II Fig. 12. Plan of trench II with the remnants of the ovens complex
. 3. and house no. 3.
. 13. . 3 II. Fig. 13. The burial under the house no. 3 in trench II.
. 14. II Fig. 14. The southern section of trench II after the removal the
. cultural layers and the discovered ditch.
. 15. II , Fig. 15. Trench II after the removal of the cultural layers and the
. discovered ditch, photographed from northeast.
/ USED LITERATURE
, . 2000. . , .
, . 2009. . 1, . : 369. ,
.
, . 2011. , (70005000 . ..). 19492011. : 3133.

.
34
, . 2010. ( ). Macedoniae acta archaeologica 19: 431445.

.
, , . 1984. . IX (1982): 3848. .
, . 2009. . , .; , .; , . , .
. : 169260. .
, . 2011. 2004 . Macedoniae acta

archaeologica 20: 5376. .
, . 2013. .
XXXVIII (2012): 719. .
, . , . 2010. : .
Homage to Milosh Bilbija . XIV, . 3637: 6172. .
, . , . 2004. . Annales Mediterranea. Koper. Univerza na Primorskem,

.
Latin
Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheoloki pregled 26 (1985): 3536. Ljubljana.
Gimbutas, M. 1976. Chronology. In Gimbutas, M. (ed.) Anza, Neolithic Macedonia, As reflected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia.
Los Angeles: 2977. The Regents of the University of California.
Fidanoski, Lj. 2012a. Cerje-Govrlevo and Milo Bilbija. Skopje: Museum of the city of Skopje.
Fidanoski Lj. 2012b. Govrlevo - Exceptional Neolithic Site in Macedonia. In Catalogue: Adam from Govrlevo in Ljubljana. Ljubljana -
Skopje: 1215. Museum of the city of Skopje.
Fidanoski Lj. 2015. Home Sweet Home: Neolithic Architectural Remnants from Cerje-Govrlevo, Republic of Macedonia. Analele
Banatului XXIII: 1144. Timioara.
35
8 _1
36
ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE NEOLITHIC HOUSES FROM
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CERJE
NEAR THE VILLAGE GOVRLEVO
- One of the few basic and revolutionary conceptions in
the Neolithic period on the territory of the whole Eastern
, , - Mediterranean is the building of a house intended for a longer
. , - accommodation, living and worshiping. The inner living space,
, , - with its own micro space in itself, at first was the cave, then
, the pit-house or semisubterranean pit-house, and last in the
. , , row came the house. In order for this level of development to
- be achieved, there had to be a series of important geological
. changes on the whole planet Earth. In the transition period from
, the Old Stone Age to the new period, a number of changes had
( ), - occurred that resulted in gradual temperature differences (from
- cold to warm) and by the end of the ice age and the retreat
of the glaciers from Central Europe and Asia up to the north,
- conditions were created for the emergence of new cultural
( , ) stems in the Fertile Crescent region (Levant-Southwest Asia,
( ). Asia Minor) and Northeast Africa (the Nile Valley in Egypt).
, 14000 14.000 years ago in the Balkans region and Macedonia, the
presence of glaciers in the most developed phase of the
15001740 - Wrm glaciation reached 1500-1740 m above sea level, and
, 1000 the highest forest boundary reached 1000 meters above sea
. - level. With the analyses carried out on the fossil remains of flora
discovered in the limestone layers of the surroundings of Skopje
, - region, in the river Treska canyon or more precisely in Matka and
, , Kisela Voda, three layers were identified, the third (upper layer)
( ) ( belonged to the postglacial (Boreal and Sub-Boreal, 10.000-
, 100008000 . ...) - 8.000 BC) where deciduous trees were spread, the so-called -
, - mixed oak forests. In these forests, the dominant plant species
. were: Juniper tree (Juniperus excelsa), oaks (Quercus cf. cerris,
(Juniperus excelsa), (Quercus cf. cerris, Q. cf. Q. cf. frainetto, Q. cf. robur and others), birch (Betula pendula),
frainetto, Q. cf. robur ), (Betula pendula), maple (Acer pseudoplatanus, A. platanoides, A. tataricum), willow
(Acer pseudoplatanus, A. platanoides, A. tataricum), (Salic cf. (Salic cf. caprea, S. cf. cinerea, Clematis cf. flammula, Euonimus
caprea, S. cf. cinerea, Clematis cf. flammula, Euonimus cf. europeus), - cf. europeus), ash tree (Fraxinus sp.), Ivy (Hedera helix), walnut
(Fraxinus sp.), (Hedera helix), (Juglans regia), (Juglans regia), platanus (Platanus orientalis) and linden tree
(Platanus orientalis) (Tilia sp.). - (Tilia sp.). Through these data, information was obtained about
the presence of a warmer and drier climate in which flora with
. southern Balkan type and Macedonian subtype existed.
37
8 _1
The newly created climatic and natural conditions during the

, (80005000 . ...), next climatic leap, the Atlantic (8.000-5.000 BC), enabled the
, development of a large number of Neolithic cultures in the
, Balkans and in its centre - Macedonia, which had the same or
, similar benefits and traditions passed through the generations.
.
The beginning of Neolithic in Macedonia is related to the
- period from the end of the early Neolithic period of the Balkan-
Anatolian cultural complex, i.e. with the material occurrences
, - of the characteristically painted ceramics (white on a red base)
( ) and the rough ceramics. These material examples are present
. in the early Neolithic cultures of Ohrid, Pelagonija, Tetovo, Ove
- Pole and Skopje area. The Neolithic continues in its following
, , , . stages, developing new manifestations known as Middle and
, Late Neolithic.
-
. Archaeological excavations have discovered a large number
of data that enabled an easier understanding of the rules
- and principles of the first Neolithic builders. But, of course,
there are still a number of unfamiliar aspects of the everyday
. , problems that the builders of the settlements and the houses
were facing. Some of these problems, probably over time and
- experience will be revealed, but with this pace of Neolithic
, . , research, that will probably remain a task for the future
, - generations of archaeologists prehistorians.
,
- The archaeological site Cerje is located east of the village of
. Govrlevo and belongs to the group of Neolithic sites that are
within the Skopje Neolithic areal. It is also a representative of
the group of four Neolithic settlements in the valley where
- archaeological excavations took place. Excavations in Govrlevo
. , took place over a longer period of time, with systematic
- approach and state-of-the-art methodological techniques
. applied. Two basic trenches were opened on the ground
, - (trench I and trench II), which were positioned few hundred
. meters north of the still fully active spring of clean drinking
( I II), water. Within the two trenches, the remains of 6 Neolithic
houses, a large number of pits around the houses, external
. hearths and furnaces, as well as certain architectural units with
6 , obscure contexts and a small section of a ditch that probably
, , belonged to the primary Neolithic settlement in Govrlevo,
were found.
-
.
38
Early Neolithic settlement Govrlevo
- According to the gathered data from the systematic

- archaeological excavations at the site Cerje near the village of
, - Govrlevo, there can be identified two phases of development
. in the Early Neolithic settlement. The first element that
points to the primary stage is the presence of a section of a
(. 1; . 2). ditch that was dug in the clay subsoil itself (fig. 1; fig. 2). The
II, ditch is located next to the southern section of trench II. It is
1314 , 1 1,52 followed in the west-east direction in the length of 13-14 m,
. the depth is 1m and the width is 1.5-2 m. The ditch is slightly
./Fig. 1 39
8 _1
./Fig. 2
, , , - curved and probably represents an arch. The preserved pits for

wooden stakes on the north side of the trench suggest that
the settlement may have been covered by a wooden fence.
. So far, these ditches that were surrounding the Neolithic
, settlements have not been in the sphere of interest, until they
. were discovered during the archaeological researches and
- excavations. These ditches, which were probably surrounding
the original Neolithic settlements, were established and
, discovered through the most advanced geophysical
measurements and also through archaeological excavations
- that were carried out at the sites Golema Tumba near the
. Dobromiri village in Pelagonija and Tumba near the village of
Brvenica in Polog.
-
, The second phase represents the expansion of the primary
3 I 3 settlement and filling the ditch with earth which enabled the
II. necessary space for the construction of the house no. 3 of
trench I and the house no. 3 of trench II.
K . 3 I
House no. 3 of trench I
, . 3
I Due to the weaker preservation, for the base of house no. 3 of
7 7 (. 3; trench I, it can be said that it was rectangular-trapezoidal with
40
./Fig. 3
41
8 _1
./Fig. 4
. 4). - an east-west extending direction and dimensions 7 x 7 meters

, (fig. 3; fig. 4). Preserved remains of the house floor shows
( - a practice of a special preparation method of the wooden
). substructure (split log timbers along their length). Initially,
, - the space intended for the floor was levelled out and then the
, clay was applied, wooden rounded beams were placed on top
. of the clay which were then also coated with several layers of
, clay. The surface of the preserved part of the floor indicates
- that this house probably suffered from a fire, but it was also
. damaged during the construction of the house belonging to
the upper layer.
. 3 II
House no. 3 of trench II
. 3 II -
5,5 5,5 , The base of house no. 3 of trench II is trapezoidal-rectangular
(. 2; . 5). with preserved dimensions 5.5 x 5.5 m, with a north-south
- extending direction and a slight deviation to the southwest
. (fig. 2; fig. 5). This house is characteristic for its architectural and
42
( ) thermal construction elements. The floor was made of a layer of

, , compacted clay and horizontally placed (split log timbers along
their length) covered with several layers of clay, thus forming a
(. 6; . 7, . 10). - stable and thermally well-grounded floor of the house (fig. 6; fig.
. 7; fig. 10). The second characteristic of this house are the remains
, of the preserved western wall. The wall was built according to
(. the Balkan Neolithic traditions, that is, two rows of wooden
8). sticks were densely put in a shallow ditch next to the floor (fig.
- 8). At the very northwest corner of the house, this wall with its
, , . double row of wooden sticks was integrally connected with a
( 0,350,4 ) larger and bigger in diameter log. This way of forming the wall
./Fig. 5 43
8 _1
./Fig. 6
of the house (width 0.35-0.4 m) allowed better insulation and

. prevented the northern winds from affecting the internal heat
- of the house. It should be noted that among the walls remains
. from this house a fragment on which a decoration in the form
- of finger imprints was preserved. In the southwest part of the
(0,7 0,9 ) , house next to the previously described wall, there are remains
, of a rectangular base (0.7 x 0.9 m) which was part of the oven
(. and served both for preparing food and for warming the interior
5; . 9; . 10). space in the cold months of the year (fig. 5; fig. 9; fig. 10).
- A similar method of construction was also used in the houses

. at the Neolithic settlement at Veluka Tumba in Pelagonija.
44
Middle Neolithic settlement Govrlevo
Without a doubt, the Neolithic settlement near Govrlevo

, reached its highest development in the period of the middle
Neolithic. Naturally, in that period the perimeter of the
. settlement as well as the number of the houses increased. In
: . 2 I, . 2 the Middle Neolithic settlement the houses that were studied
II, . 1 I . 1 II. are: house no. 2 of trench I, house no. 2 of trench II, house no.
1 of trench I and house no. 1 of trench II.
./Fig. 7
45
8 _1
. 2 I House 2 no. of trench I
, This house represents a special architectural unit, composed of

. . many new interior solutions. House no. 2 of trench I was about
2 I 20 sq. m big, the dimensions of the base were 4.5 x 4.5 m and
20 , 4,5 4,5 positioned according to the sides of the world (figs. 11-13).
(. 1113). Judging by the location of the entrance, it can be noted that
, - its orientation was towards the east, that is, towards the side
, of the rising sun. The floor of the house was solidly laid and
. - coated with several layers of clay, and is observed on a larger
area as a massive structure in the house. The most massive
./Fig. 9
./Fig. 8
46
./Fig. 10
47
8 _1
./Fig. 11
48
./Fig. 12
. is around the two architectural elements - the oven and the

, - mill - nokjva. The walls of this house were built in a similar
. way, but this time with a row of wooden stakes positioned
, - vertically and with a smaller width of the wall. The interior
. of the house was divided by a parapet wall in the east-west
direction, forming two separate rooms. The mill was built on
. the massive floor in the west or northwest part of the house,
- and the furnace was next to it (fig. 14; fig. 15). The remains
, (. 14; . 15). of this structure are impressive, that is, this mill - nokjva has
, dimensions 0.5 x 0.9 x 0.5 m. It was built by stones of various
0,5 0,9 0,5 . dimensions, complemented by horizontally placed pieces of
, - broken pottery and coated with a large number of thick and
thin layers of clay. In that way a more versatile form was made
49
8 _1
./Fig. 13
50
./Fig. 14
./Fig. 15
51
8 _1
./Fig. 16
. which served in the process of preparing food. Similar objects

- with characteristic large dimensions were also found in house
. I I of horizon II from the Neolithic settlement Zelenikovo -
II , Skopje region and in Vrbjanska uka near the village Slavej -
, Pelagonija.
.
The oven had a curved upper part (calotte) and was located
, right next to the mill - nokjva. The oven was built on a
(). rectangular base with dimensions 0.85 x 1 x 0.6 m. The core
, - of the structure was composed of stones and broken pieces
0,85 1 0,6 . - of pottery coated with several layers of clay. Characteristic of
this oven is the solution on its front side where carved legs
. connected with arches are depicted. From the north side
() of the base there were noticeable remains of semicircular
calotte, which was built in the same way - a large number
. - of layers of clay, but this time organic materials were used
for reinforcements, that is, interwoven wooden sticks. The
, calotte of this oven from the front (eastern) side had a larger
, semicircular opening for putting in and out the products that
. were being prepared in it. Such furnaces were discovered at
() several sites in the Skopje region (Zelenikovo and Madzhari),
in Veles (aka) and Tetovo (Stene).
52
. In the southern smaller room on the southwest corner, there

( ), was a space partially enclosed with stones and plenty of burnt
() (). residues, which probably indicates that there was a domestic
fireplace here.

,

.
./Fig. 17
53
8 _1
./Fig. 18
54
. 2 II House no. 2 of trench II
. 2 Large pieces of wall and floor elements of house no. 2 of trench

II (. II extend into the southeast corner of the trench (fig. 16). In the
16). , 45 - section of the trench, in the length of about 4-5 m east-west,
, the ruins from the walls of the house are visible. The width of
. 0,250,35 the wall is between 0.25-0.35 m. The floor of the house had a
. 0,2 . thickness of 0.2 m. When the walls collapsed, several pieces
- of pottery were simply buried underneath and remained fully
, protected until the time of excavation. Most of the house still
. - remains unexamined.
.
These two houses belong to the earlier phase of the Middle
- Neolithic period, marked as Amzabegovo-Vrnik II, according
, II, to M. Garaanins chronology.
. .
Within the trench II, in the west and northwest of house no.
II, 2 of the same trench a large number of pits dug in the Early
2 - Neolithic layer were discovered. The pits have a circular base
. with a diameter that reaches up to 1 m and a depth of 1 m.
1 1 . They are filled with earth and a small number of fragments of
ceramics and animal bones. The pits are arranged in groups
. , and are linear, forming and following certain directions (north-
() south) that are still unclear.
.
On the west side of trench II there was a rectangular space with
II - several ovens and an open fireplace (fig. 2; fig. 17). One of the
ovens according to its form contains a calotte. Its dimensions
(. 2; . 17). , are 1 x 0.8 x 0.4 m and it is dug in the clay layer. The calotte in
. 1 0,8 0,4 - certain places is well preserved and it can be noticed that it
. was formed, i.e. coated with several layers of clay. In its vicinity,
- on the eastern side, three more small spaces were discovered,
, . most likely ovens, where there had been burning which
, - developed a high temperature. In this complex of ovens there
, , was an open fireplace.
. -
. Most likely this rectangular space was part of some kind of a
production centre within the settlement. This space and the
. e - pits also have a unclear context. If archaeological excavations
. were to continue in the future and in the surrounding fields,
, they would surely provide a clearer picture of these objects
- left by the Neolithic inhabitants of the Govrlevo settlement.
.
55
8 _1
./Fig. 19
. 1 I House no. 1 of trench I
- The remains of this house were discovered in a highly damaged

, , condition, due to the small depth, but also because of the long
(. 18). period of deep cultivation during agricultural work (fig. 18).
, . 1 I As with the previous houses, also in house no. 1 of trench I,
- parts of the floor were discovered that show that the base was
. - rectangular-trapezoidal. From the internal elements that were
, built, only the remains of a calotte oven that was largely ruined
. are mentioned.
56
. 1 II House no. 1 of trench II
In the same layer as the previous house, the remains of house

. 1 II, no. 1 of trench II were discovered, with approximately similar
(. 19). parameters (fig. 19). A large number of lumps from the wall
. elements can be found on the less preserved floor of the house.
- Probably both houses suffered from a large fire that hit the
. settlement. These two houses belong to one of the later phases
, of the Middle Neolithic, that is, they can be connected to the
III, . - Amzabegovo-Vrnik III phase, according to M. Garaanins
. chronology.
Late Neolithic settlement Govrlevo
- From this layer, only a large number of pottery fragments have

. been found which, according to the archaeologist M. Bilbija,
III are analogous to the Late Neolithic phase of Vina-Tordo I-II
II. and the later phase of Vina-Plonik II.
A brief conclusion
- This lapidary survey of the immovable architectural remains of

- the Neolithic site Cerje near the village of Govrlevo provides
a simple way to monitor all the phases through which the
settlement developed and the natural setting in which it was
. located. The Balkan Neolithic tradition can be seen through
the remains of the Neolithic houses that are preserved - over
, -
ground houses built with interlaced vertical and horizontal
sticks coated with thick layers of clay. The exposed elements
. from the floors, pits for the sticks, trenches for the walls of
, , the houses, as well as the interior elements, speak of number
, of developed techniques passed by the older generations.
. - Some house elements are simply missing, such as: doorways
, : - and window openings, as well as the house roofs. The only
, . indicators of these specific architectural solutions and the
transferred experience by the older generations are the
, large number of plastically shaped models of Neolithic
, houses through which is possible to penetrate into the visual
perception of the Neolithic inhabitant of Govrlevo.
-
-
IGOR TOLEVSKI
.
FOUNDATION KIRIL TRAJKOVSKI - SKOPJE

57
8 _1
: Nota bene: several illustrations of the catalogue are cited from the
. , works of Lj. Fidanoski, and small part of them was not published
. until now.
. 1. II Fig. 1. Trench II after the removal of the cultural layers and the
, 2010 ., . discovered ditch, 2010, photographed from east.
. 2. . 3, II. Fig. 2. Plan of house no. 3, ovens complex and the ditch in trench II.
. 3. . 3 I. Fig. 3. Plan of house no. 3 of trench I.
. 4. . 3 I, . Fig. 4. Remains of house no. 3 of trench I, photographed from east.
. 5. . 3 II, . Fig. 5. Remains of house no. 3 of trench II, photographed from east.
. 6. , Fig. 6. Remains of the foundation made of split log timbers, covered
. 3 II. with clay of house no. 3 of trench II, photographed from east.
. 7. . 3 II. Fig. 7. Section of the remains of the foundation of house no. 3 of trench II.
. 8. . 3 II. Fig. 8. Double row of wooden sticks of the western wall of house no. 3
. 9. . 3 II, of trench II.
. Fig. 9. Remains of oven in house no. 3 of trench II, photographed from
. 10. . 3 II ( south.
. , * , Fig. 10. Graphic reconstruction of house no. 3 of trench II (drawing by
Lj. Fidanoski, *due to better visibility of the reconstruction the oven
). and the pits are moved from their original position in the house).
. 12. . 2 I, . Fig. 12. Remains of house no. 2 of trench I, photographed from east.
. 13. . 2 I ( Fig. 13. Graphic reconstruction of house no. 2 of trench I (drawing by
. ). Lj. Fidanoski).
. 14. . 2 I Fig. 14. Drawing of the oven and the mill of house no. 2 of trench I
( . ). (drawing by N. ausidis).
. 15. . Fig. 15. Graphic reconstruction of the oven and the mill of house no. 2
2 I ( . ). of trench I (drawing by N. ausidis).
. 16. . 2 II. Fig. 16. Remains of house no. 2 in the southeast corner of trench I.
. 17. II. Fig. 17. Remains of the ovens complex of trench II.
. 19. . 1 II, . Fig. 19. Remains of the house no. 1 of trench II, photographed from north.
/ USED LITERATURE
, . , . 1988. I : ,
1981 . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 3141. .
, , . 1984. . IX (1982): 3848. .
, . 1990. . 14/15: 7580. .

58
, . 2005. . . 2: 2530. : .
, . 1983. I . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 13: 3141. .
, .; , . , . 1980. . Macedoniae acta

, . 1990. . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 11: 3550. .
, . 1994. . I: 2325. :
.
, . 2013. (). , .; , . , . (.)

1: 83266. : .
, . 2011. : . Macedonia
acta archaeologica 20: 1134. .
, .; , .; , .; , .; , .; , . , . 2014. ,
. 12: 1744. .
, . 1988. , : 1981 .
Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 930. .
, . , . 1975. ( 1971 1972 .).

Macedonia acta archaeologica 1: 2588. .
, . 1968. . , . (.) : 77106. :

.
, . 2008. , . Macedonia acta archaeologica 18: 3552. .
, . 2011. . Macedonia acta archaeologica 20: 6574. .
, . , . 1993. . : .
, . 2006. : . ( ).
, . 2007. . 30: 6978. .
, . 2009. . , .; , .; , . , . ( .)
: 5372. : .
, . 2014. ,
. 34/2014: 5663. .
, . 2011. 2004 . Macedonia acta archaeologica

20: 5375. .
, . 2012. . : .
59
8 _1
Latin
Abazi, Lj. and Tolevski, I. 2017. The Neolithic Along the Upper Course of Vardar River. In StojanovaKanzurova, E. (ed.) Dragia Zdravkovski In
Memoriam. Skopje: Archaeological Museum of Macedonia (in print).
Bilbija, M. 1986, Cerje neolitsko naselje. Arheoloki pregled 26 (1985): 3536. Ljubljana.
Fidanoski Lj. 2015. Home Sweet Home: Neolithic Architectural Remnants from Cerje-Govrlevo, Republic of Macedonia. Analele Banatului
XXIII: 1144. Timioara.
60
THE HOUSE AS A SYMBOL AND AS

,
A SIGN
, -
. The house, together with the wheel and the tools, and of course
- the techniques to produce a fire are one of the key inventions that
.. , have moved the cultural progress of mankind. Saying this phrase,
- most people today take into account the utilitarian, i.e. the
, practical functions of the house, aimed at protecting man and
, his goods from the harsh climatic conditions, animal predators
and hostile people, as well as providing optimal conditions
. , - for his safe existence and stable cultural development. It does
, not take into account that, through the creation of the house,
man created a new symbol - a new spatial template that would
, allow the articulation of his experiences and knowledge of the
. space itself, whether is bigger or smaller than the house. The
. , - traces of this benefit have been preserved and are present
in the language even in nowadays. For example, in the
, Slavic languages, the meaning of the term kukja, (house) is
( ) contained in words that denote some indoor space that does
( - not have to be used for living, such as kutija, (box) (an object
). for storing items) and kukjite, (housing) (a protective casing
.. (., . ) - surrounding the mechanism of a modern device). The same
( root is present in the words kat, (floor) and kate, (nook) (in
). Serbian and Croatian - kutak) that function as spatial terms
with more general or more specific meaning - some defined
, - space or site in nature.
, ,
The symbolization implies the relation, comparison, or

identification between two things that, ultimately, results in
, the dematerialization of both, and the appearance of the very
. - concept behind them and its abstract meaning, freed from
.. - the concrete aspects. Man reveals the symbolism, that is, the
, essence of the house, by comparing it with two other things, on
, .. one hand with his own body, understood as a microcosm, and
. - on the other - with the nature and the world as a macrocosm.
This comparison is not only aimed at establishing relationships
. between the things themselves but also between the spaces
they occupy. From these relations, the symbolic meanings
, of the house as a whole and the meaning of the individual
elements that make it, are emerging. We will take them as a
.
basis in this presentation of the semiotics and the symbolism
. of the house.

61
8 _1
HOUSE - MAN
THE BODY AS A HOUSE IN WHICH THE HUMAN SOUL LIVES
, - Living daily in his house, the archaic man must have imposed
- upon himself the following logical connection that will have
profound religious and philosophical implications: I live in
: ,
a house, it belongs to me, but nevertheless, I am not a house. I
, . , live in a body, it belongs to me, but nevertheless, I am not a body.
, . Acceptance of this relationship means that the house is one
( of the components (perhaps the key one) that will stimulate
) the differentiation of man as a being in two separate spheres
- of existence - the sphere of the material and sphere of the
. spiritual. As I reside in my house as its essence, so resides my
, , - soul, myself, in my body as its essence. My body is the house
, . of my soul. From this relation comes the idea of posthumous
. - existence: When my house is destroyed, I move to another house.
: , When my body is destroyed, I (my soul) will move to another body.
. ,
This archetypal relation can be placed at the base of various
( ) .
phenomena from the funeral sphere, related to the meaning of
the grave as a new space in which, after death, the deceased is
staying, i.e. his soul as his essential and lasting part. Although a
, - paradigm of the relationship grave = the house of the deceased,
, , .. one can take the real habitat, and should not forget the material
. body that is seen as a house, a casing, a box, a package of his
= , soul. In some Balkan, Mediterranean and Eastern religions
, - (Orphism, Hinduism, Manichaeism etc.), it was believed in
, , metempsychosis - posthumous moving of the soul from one
, . , - body to another, these traumatic reincarnations were being
treated as its unnecessary torture. In this context, the body
(, , ...)
was considered a prison for the soul, (the house - a dungeon)
.. that should be avoided through the enlightenment of the soul
, realized through gnosis (knowledge) and application of other
. religious practices.
( )
The identification of the human body with the house also
() . occurs in the contemporary western science. In psychology it
is used to metaphorically represent the psychological structure
of a man: the ground floor is the conscious part of our psyche,
. visible, accessible and available to the mind. The basement is the
: - unconscious, which is animalistic, dark and inaccessible to our
, , - consciousness, but also close to the creative forces of the earth
from which we are frightened and fascinated by. The attic is the
. , ,
supernatural, also unavailable to the consciousness, but in the
, opposite direction from the animalistic, it is directed upwards,
, - towards the sky, the divine and the spiritual (compare fig. 1: a).
. , ,
62
./Fig. 1
, THE HOUSE AS A WOMAN AND AS A MOTHER

, ( . 1: ).
The woman, the mother, is our first home. At the beginning, it
.. is her uterus, in which we live (we form and grow) during the
first 9 months after conception, then the vulva through which
we are coming into this world and on - her lap and her embrace
.. . -
in which we spend much of our childhood (fig.. 2: a; fig. 3: a).
, ( ) At first glance, it seems that for the first stages of our stay in
9 , the uterus we do not have any memories. However, it turns
- out that they are in us, but stored not verbally and visually, but
(. 2: ; . 3: ). on a tactile, spatial and auditory level, as latent and passive
memories. They are manifested as our inexplicable pleasures
. , and affinities in relation to some similar everyday experiences:
, , - calming babies when they are firmly wrapped - (squeezing the
, .. uterus), affinity of children to stay in small enclosed spaces, the
. mens need to go in corners or into a fetal position when in
: stress conditions, or to get in bed and wrap himself with the
63
8 _1
./Fig. 2
(= blanket. In the end, it is the ordinary embrace in which we

); actually enter the body of the other, as it circles us and tightens
; , , - us from all sides.

, . , Therefore, the creation of the house should not be treated
only as a rational act through which the man, consciously

and intentionally, satisfies his pragmatic, i.e. material needs.
. In doing so, one should not forget the previously mentioned
prenatal memories of the child in us and its affinities towards
, an enclosed space. Recognizing these phenomena in relation
, to the behaviour of animals, it is quite probable that the
, animal drives survived as atavisms in the set of instinctively
.. . motivated human behaviours. Here we mean of the parents
64
urge (in mammals more manifested in females, especially in

. the gestation period), which encourages the construction
, of a lair i.e. nest intended for the protection and raising the
- offspring. In this context, the cave or the hole in the ground,
- whether it is natural or deliberately excavated, indicates not
only a paradigm of the house, but obtains also an meaning as
.
a second uterus (fig. 2).
(
, ), - The best visual and material manifestation of these
.. - psychological and semiotic phenomena (even in the world) are
. - the Neolithic anthropomorphized ceramic models of houses,
, , for the time being specific for the territory of Macedonia (fig.
2: ; fig. 4; fig. 10: -; fig. 11: , , fig.. 15; fig. 16). They are
(. 2). composed of a bottom part, formed as a hollow cubus, i.e. a
./Fig. 3
65
8 _1
./Fig. 4

66
./Fig. 5

67
8 _1
- box that shows a house in a more realistic or stylized form, and

( ) an upper part in the form of a hollow cylinder, shaped like a
, human head and neck, or a human figure represented from
(. 2: the belt upwards. In the second case, the female features of
; . 4; . 10: ; . 11: , ; . 15; . 16). the figure are clearly defig.ted. In the first variant there are also
, .. - clues that indicate of female gender, represented thru delicate
hairstyles and jewellery (earrings, necklaces and pectorals).
,
There are also aniconic cylinders present, deprived of any
, additional figurative elements (fig. 4: ). Depending on the
, . period and the regional origin, the cube can be represented as
- a house with a relatively flat, pitched or calotted roof, with a flat
, , bottom, and four usually vertical walls with openings. Despite
(, - the unusual shape it is considered that these openings display
). , - the doors and windows of the house. In all models, there is a
(. 4: ). circular aperture on the cylinders head, while in some it is at
, the bottom of the cube.
,
, , - The same concept of identification occurs in the next epochs,
but in this case the house will more often be identified with
.
the legs of the woman, spread in a childbirth position, while
- the interior of the house receives the meaning of the space
. , covered by the angle (Slavic kut) of her hips (= roof ) and lower
, . legs (walls) covered with a skirt (fig. 3: a). Surprisingly well-
preserved examples of this symbolic relation are found on the
- folk embroidery from Eastern Europe (fig. 3: , ), and also on
, medieval tombstones from Bosnia and Herzegovina (fig. 3: ,
, , a similar Neolithic example - ). This concept of identifying
the woman-mother with the house will manifest itself even
(. ) (= ) (- in Christianity, through the identification of Virgin Mary with
) (. 3: ). the Christian temple and with the church as an institution,
and by treating them both as Gods house where believers

are gathered, as the mother gathers the children in her arms.
(. 3: , ), - In doing so, the descent into the temple of the Holy Spirit will
be identified with the immaculate conception of Christ in the
(. 3: , ). - womb of Virgin Mary (fig. 5). The exceptional importance,
durability and power of the symbol woman/mother - house
, is best seen even in todays contemporary art and culture
- (examples: fig. 12).
,
,
.

(. 5). ,
/ -

(: . 12).
68
THE HOUSE AS A COSMOS
- In todays dynamic and less sacralized world it is hard to

. - recognize the identification of the house with the cosmos. In
, fact, this relation is no longer relevant in the era of modern
scientific theories, that the universe represents a spherical
-
structure that spreads after the big bang, or is an endless
, set of parallel cosmoses. But, if we look back to ancient
. , representations of the world that had been present in the
Western civilization until two centuries ago, and in some
, cultures still lives to this day, we will see the real value of this
, identification. According to the archaic representations, the
. world is composed of a flat earth plate with four sides - four
.. edges from where the heavenly arch rises (fig. 6: a, ). Modern
(. 6: , ). - scientific knowledge shows the complete inaccuracy of these
representations because neither the earth is a flat plate with
, four sides at its end, nor the sky is an arch (in fact, it does not
exist as a compact material object at all).
, (,
). Then we must ask ourselves, what led man to this wrong
projection?

? Again, we think its the house. Building it and living in it for
millennia and hundreds of generations, man unconsciously
. accepted it as a model and a matrix of cognition of the
, , surrounding world. So, in fact, the macrocosm in the thoughts
./Fig. 6

69
8 _1
.. of the archaic man turned into another one of his houses,

. , , much larger than the real one. Its floor is the earth plate,
, the basement represents the deep cavities in the ground
. , (underground world), the roof is the heaven, and the four walls
( ), , - or corners - four sides of the world (fig. 6: compare with a and
(. 6: - ). This identification is based on the similarity between the
representations of the world and the shape of the houses in
).
the archaic cultures. It is precisely because of this relation that
- the main house pillar will be found in the cosmos, regardless
. , that its not actually there. It will be in the form of some Cosmic
, . Tree where, according to myths, heavens rests - a Cosmic Pillar
( which holds the whole universe and marks her centre (fig. 6: a).
) , , ,
(. 6: ). In this cosmic model, the prenatal human affinities will again
manifest themselves in closing and defining the surrounding
world, which with its uncertainty, endlessness and constant
, - changing obviously created insecurity, tension and fear (fig. 2:
, - a; fig. 3: a; fig. 6: ).

-
THE ELEMENTS OF THE HOUSE AND THEIR MEANING
, (. 2: ; . 3: ; . 6: ).
The human and the cosmic symbolism of the house and
other constructions that according to their form and structure
represent its derivative, manifest itself through various specific
, phenomena of the traditional culture which can be seen in the
visual, verbal and ritual medium. Although a significant part of
, - them refers to the house as a whole, still, its individual parts are
, - much more detailed and prevalent. Therefore, we organized
. - the following contents of this display according to these
, specific elements of the house, again within the two main
aspects of its symbolism - microcosmic and macrocosmic.

. , FLOOR

In the relation of the house - cosmos floor, according to its
. position (down) and according to the material that was most
often made out of (clay, i.e. earth), it is identified with the
lower zones of the universe as the earth plate or the body of
the Mother-Earth (fig. 6, fig. 3: a). Hence, everything that is on
, the floor, especially in it and under it, receives the meaning
() - of the earthly, the underground, i.e. chthonic, identified or
( .. ), in close relation to the womb of the heavenly divine Mother-
Earth. A good illustration of this relationship is the belief that
.. (.
a person who lies on his dead bed for a long time, will easier
6; . 3: ). , , let go of his soul if he lies on the floor. In the context of the
, , .. - chthonic character of the floor, the burials performed under
, ..
70
./Fig. 7

. - the floor of the house, which are tyfig.al for the Balkan and
Middle Eastern Neolithic cultures, can also be viewed. From
. todays point of view, this unusual location of the graves can
- have several reasons. According to some, it would not be a
matter of burials but sacrifices, while according to others,
the practice would have been the result of the impossibility
. ,
in winter conditions for inhumation outside of the house,
due to frozen soil and the absence of better tools for digging.
. , But, within the identification of the house floor with the body
, of the house that in the same time represents the heavenly
divine mother, these burials can be understood as an act of
, placing and returning of the deceased in the womb of the
. , Mother-House (the proto-mother and the caretaker of the
- family that lives in her) in order to reborn them as newborn
, members of the same family (fig. 2, fig. 3). Traces of the same
.. - beliefs about the deceased ancestors that are resting in the
( floor of the house can be identified in the still living custom,
71
8 _1
) when drinking alcoholic beverages, part of it to be poured on

(. 2; . 3). the floor - for the dead. This includes the beliefs once widely
present in the Balkans, that the grass snake that lives in the
, foundations of the house and in the cavities underneath the
, floor is an incarnation of the souls of the deceased ancestors
(if killed, the owner of the house would die).
. , -

, FIREPLACE

( , ). The fireplace in the most archaic houses is actually a hole in
the ground floor in which the fire burns. Seen thru the concept
of house - woman identification, it acquires the meaning
of the vulva or the entry into the Mother-Earths womb. The
best visual confirmation of this identification is found in the
. Neolithic structures of Lepenski Vir (Serbia), which with their
, elongated ellipse form coincides with the shape of the open
. vulva (fig. 7: ). In addition, the embedded stones portray
a very realistic representation of the vulva (fig. 7: a). In the

Balkans, but also wider in the Mediterranean and the Middle
() East, these identifications will be preserved in the ancient
- period. The best example of this is the Greek goddess of the
(. 7: ). hearth - Hestia, whose name is a combination of the words
- hearth (hestia) and uterus (hystera). We encounter the similar
(. 7: ). , situation in Roman mythology where Vesta was the virgin
, - goddess of the fireplace and also Tabitha in Persian mythology.
. The exceptional religious significance of this element reflects
- in the fact that in ancient Greece the main religious ceremonies
(hestia) (hystera). were commencing with a sacrifice offered exactly to the altars
. of Hestia, at three levels: the level of the home, the level of the
city and the level of the whole ethnicity. The high status of the

goddess Vesta is reflected in the inviolability of her priestesses
- (vestals) and her temple (and fireplace) where the main relics
of the Romans were kept. In this case the relation of the hearth
: , . - vulva also reflects the mandatory virginity of the vestals. One
- example from Macedonia very clearly illustrates the survival of
() ( the meaning of the fireplace up to modern folk traditions. To
) . be specific, in the vicinity of Gevgelija was noted that if during
- some house festivity a man took a knife out of his belt and
. - sticked it into the fireplace, the host would consider this as a
humiliation and an attack on the honour of the women from
. , - that house (knife = a phallus, a fireplace = vulva).

When interpreting the meaning of the fireplace, it is often
, , mistaken with the eminently masculine symbolism of the fire.
- Things are very clear - the fireplace does not represent the fire
( = , = ). itself, but the defined and enclosed empty space in which it
72
burns. Accordingly, the connection of both elements gets the

meaning of coitus, i.e. a holy matrimony between the cosmic
. - elements where the fire is an advocate of the heavens and
the male principle, and the hearth - an advocate of the earth
. , and the female principle. In this combination, the fireplace
.. (woman) provides the control, cultivation and the productivity
of the fire (man) who would otherwise gone wild, i.e. it would
, -
raged into a fire with a destructive effect.
.
() , ROOF
() , ..
. Within the basic identification of the house with the macro
cosmos, its roof receives the meaning of the sky, which, rising
above the ground, overlaps it and protects it. The shape of the
roof, especially the one in a form of arch and calotte coincides
- with the analogous representations of the shape of the sky (fig.
, - 6). The curved roof of the hut is exactly one of the key factors
that inspired such representations for the sky. But also, here is
, , .
the semicircular path of the sun, which, according to the logic
, of the mythical reasoning, is based on such arch and calotte
shape of the sky, which in itself, is invisible to man (fig. 8: a, ).
(. 6). - The relations between the solar trajectory and the arch of the
sky, although indirectly, are also reflected in the pitched roof,
. , - where the three key points, i.e. the angles of the triangular
, gable - end of the house coincides with the key phases of the
, (, , ) daylight trajectory of the sun (sunrise, noon, and sunset) (fig. 8:
, , (. 8: , ). - , ). The elements of this conception can be seen on the gable
, - ends and roofs of the houses and other types of buildings
, throughout the planet. The heavenly character of these
elements is encoded through various additional ornamental
..
motifs (geometric, zoomorphic, anthropomorphic) that
(- directly or indirectly represents the phases of the movement
, ) (. 8: , ). of the sun and other celestial bodies, as well as the mythical
characters associated with these processes (fig. 8: -).
.
ATTIC
(, , -
) - Heavenly context also applies to the unusual inner space
, that forms between the roof of the house and the ceiling of
(. 8: ). its ground floor rooms. According to its basic character, it is
similar to the basement, regardless of the fact that it is located
.. on the opposite - upper end of the house. This similarity
comes from the fact that both spaces in the mind of the
archaic man categorize into the spheres of the other world
that is in opposition to the ground floor which is the basic
space of the house intended for everyday life (this world).
. -
73

./Fig.
8 8 _1

74
, Like the basement, the attic is also a mysterious and mystical

. - place, inhabited by supernatural (demonic) creatures, but at
- the same time is also a productive space. Not long ago, in
traditional communities, women had the practice to distance
( ). themselves from the house and the family during their
menstrual cycle, and separate in huts located on the edge of
, , , , -
the settlements. In some cases, the attics of the houses were
() , used for these purposes. There are indications that such a (attic
. , like) room existed in Neolithic settlements and according to
, , - some assumptions, had an accentuated sacral character (fig.
, .. - 9). The main plot of many stories and traditions refers to a
. - young girl who, for various reasons (the true, apparently
. tabooed), resides in a modest room located on the top of some
, hard-to-reach fortress or tower that is neither in the sky nor
, (. 9). on the ground . In this last phrase is the very essence of the
attic: it is a transitional border place located between the sky
, (, and the earth, between this and the other world, the entire
mysticism and fatality that are prescribed to the attic derives
), -
from these notions.

. -
: ..
,
.
./Fig. 9

75
8 _1
THE CENTRAL HOUSE PILLAR AND THE CHIMNEY
- In the symbolism of the house, the central pillar on which

. - the roof is built gets a particularly important place. Due to
, , - its important function, crucial for the statics of the house,
, - as well as its central position, this construction element
receives a various mythical and ritual traditions. Besides its
.
essential and sacral centre point and axis of the house, it
, , is also represented as a mythical ancestor of the family to
, .. - whom the pleas and gifts are offered. In some cases, the
. , main house pillar is equated with the phallus - the part that
- is responsible for continuing of the family line (the male line).
( ). , As we already have said, in the representations of the shape
and functioning of the cosmos, it is taken as a paradigm of
- the Cosmic Pillar on which the sky is leaning and resting, as
, - well as a Cosmic Axis around which the cyclical processes in
(. 6: ). the universe take place (fig. 6: a).
After the appearance of the chimney, as a relatively new

, -
building element on the house, some of these functions
, will be transferred to it, especially as a factor of vertical
communication of the interior of the house with the
, mysterious attic, with the sky and the supernatural powers
. - that are present there. It will function as a vertical tunnel or
, a lift through which, at crucial moments, the grace sent by
, the heavenly gods will descend into the house. The traces of
. , these traditions are still alive, even in contemporary urban
. - culture. It is thought that the mythical character Christmas
( , and its other equivalents (Christmas Bata, Santa Claus)
) , go down into the house through the chimney, thats why
next to the hearth of the fireplace there are hanging sacks
( , )
or socks in which he will leave the gifts intended for the
- tenants. The remnant from these traditions is the belief that
. the chimneysweeper brings luck, because while staying in or
, , - near the chimney, he becomes the epiphany of the previously
mentioned mythical characters - carriers of happiness and
. prosperity.

CORNERS OF THE HOUSE
, The corners of the house, despite their lack of specificity and

determination, have an important place in the symbolism
, .
of the house. In contrast to the present status of the corner
- as an abstract geometric term, in the past, it had a much
, - more specific meaning, which was not only related to the
- connection of the house walls, but also to the inner space it
, .
76
, covered. As we have seen, its significance is also contained

. - in the words without four corners, the house does not
, - exist it means, at least in certain cultures, that the four
, .. - sides of the house were compulsory. The four corners of
. the house in archaic traditions actually determine its entire
space (fig. 10: a). During the performance of some ritual-
(. 10: ).
magic procedures, whose actions were intended towards
, - the whole house and its space, the key act was repeated
.. , four times and was performed at all four corners of the
house (and often in its centre). Upon laying the foundations,
( ). several drops of blood from a sacrificed animal for that
, occasion, were dropped into the four corners, or there were
some other gifts left there. On the first entry into the newly
. built house, appropriate gifts were left in the four corners of
, - the attic. For the protection of the house from diseases and
. other negative factors, the four corners of the house were
( sanctified with burning incense from sacred plants and holy
) . - water. With this meaning of the house corners, the four small
circular openings present in many Neolithic ceramic models
-
of houses in Macedonia can be brought in correlation (fig. 2:
b; fig. 4: a, , ; fig. 10: a, ; fig. 15: ). We hypothesized that
(. 2: ; . 4: , , ; . 10: , ; . 15: ). some items may have been poured through them into the
, hollow cubus symbolizing the wellbeing (for example grains
, and other fruits, flour, breadcrumbs, oil, milk). Backing these
( assumptions are the similar models from Eastern Europe,
, , , , ). where, instead of openings, small cups were found in the
corners (fig. 10: ). In some Macedonian samples, small
, , circular cavities (fig. 10: ) were formed in the same places.
(. 10: ). , They may have been used to hold the lit candles, both as
( . 10: ) protection factors for the entire house and as symbols of life
that shines in its entire space.

- DOOR
.
The door is an opening through which, one enters the house
or leaves it. Consequently, within the anthropomorphic
perception of the house, it can be identified with any of
- the bodys openings. However, the facts point out to the
. , dominance of two of them - the vulva and the mouth. These
, are archetyfig.al identifications that are manifested in various
. , cultures around the world, rarely in an explicit form - in a sense
of image, and more often implicitly - within the ritual activities.
.
-
,
, -
.
77
8 _1
./Fig. 10

78
The door and the female genitalia
, - Despite its modernity, the best example of this relation is

the wedding ritual, which until recently was performed in
. Prilep. At the first official introduction of the bride in the
husbands home, his mother would have stand at the door
, -
of the house with her legs straddled evenly on two chairs,
( ) and the bride together with the groom would have entered
, , - inside under her skirt and passing between her legs (fig. 11:
.. (. 11: ). It is quite evident that the bride, passing between the
). , - legs of her mother in law, evokes her own rebirth through
, her genitals, as an act of adoption, entering into the
.. - husbands family. This is a condition for her to become her
. daughter and to call her mother. Does the door symbolize
. the genitals of the mother-in-law or the personalized house
- in this ritual? (fig. 11: compare with fig. 3) This dilemma is
(. 11: . 3). not contradictory at all if we consider the frequent verbal,
symbolic and functional identification of the mother-in-law
-
and the house within the Balkan folklore.
,
. The essence of this ritual, the identification of the door with
the female genital zone can be identified in the Neolithic
.. - anthropomorphized models of houses, in an element
- that seems to have nothing in common with this relation.
Unusual openings resembling the letter M are found
. on the cubes of a large number of whole or fragmented
- specimens, several of them from Cerje-Govrlevo (fig. 4: ;
fig. 11: , ). Comparisons with other Neolithic, and wider
, - prehistoric objects show that behind this form, completely
non-functional for a door, there is actually an old ideogram
(. 4: ; . 11: , ). ,
that later, in the context of several European ancient letters,
, will turn into a letter (fig. 11: , , ). As an argument in
, , - favour of the preservation of its ancient significance, one
, can take the fact that in most Indo-European languages,
, (. 11: , , ). the letter M appears as the initial letter of various words,
- directly or indirectly related to the word - mother, a key
- term in which the above-mentioned categories are focused
(woman, fertility and birth). The shape of this ideogram is
, - based on the silhouette of the womans legs in the posture
- of birth or coitus (widespread and curved in the knees) (fig.
(, ). 11: a). Therefore, even in the prehistoric periods, distancing
from its original concept, it will retain the stated meaning

and will continue to be used as identifier of various notions
( ) (. 11: ). - from the same sphere. It displayed on the pottery (fig. 11: ,
, , , ) and on the sacrifice altars, where it stretched between
, the legs, with a central representation of a triangle or a

79
8 _1
./Fig. 11
80
. (. 11: , ) stomach (= vulva, pregnancy) (fig. 11: , , ). Particularly

, - indicative are the stone pendants shaped like a lower part
(= ), - of a woman, shown in the same pose, where between the
(= , ) (. widespread and strongly styled legs there is an opening
11: , , ). - with a M contour, identical to the models of houses (fig.
11; , compare with , and fig. 4: ).
, ,
The same notion reflects in another procedure within the
(. wedding rituals, this time, the door is identified with the
11; , , . 4: ). brides genitals. It is a ritual which today, in its more modern
form, is spread across various parts of the world. When the
groom, along with his best man, comes to take the bride
, , from her home, her relatives hold the door and dont let
. , them inside. They open the door after receiving a certain
, amount of money, which, perceived at the most vulgar
. , , level, means paying for entry into the bride (defloration),
, - and the door receives the meaning as her hymen. There
. - is a possibility (for the time being only theoretical) for
the identification of this symbolic relationship within
, -
the Neolithic anthropomorphized models of houses.
, Assumptions are that the double ellipse openings on some
() samples (fig. 4: ) may have this form in relation to the shape
. ( ) of one of the hymen types which is distinguished by a pair
- of elliptical perforations (Hymen bifenestratus).
.
, (. There are numerous other indicators for the symbolic
4: ), - identifying of the door and the vulva. In various parts of the
Slavic world, and probably more widely, there was a custom
(Hymen bifenestratus). to open all the doors of the house in which the woman was
giving birth, especially in heavy and risky births. In some
cases, even the entire entrance door was pulled out, along
-
with the door - frame, and the priest was asked to open the
. doors of the local church. When a woman became pregnant
, , , and wanted it to be her last pregnancy, after giving birth,
, she had to close the door of her house by pushing the door
. - with the feet of the newborn. One of the few famous artistic
, , - manifestations of this relationship is the ancient Egyptian
. relief from the temple of Hathor in Dendera, which shows a
, woman kneeling and giving birth at the doorway (fig. 1: ).
- It is very indicative that the identification of the door with a
. vulva also occurs in contemporary art (fig. 12: a, ).

-
(. 1: ). -

(. 12: , ).
81
8 _1
./Fig. 12
82
The door and the mouth
This identification seems marginal from a symbolic aspect

due to the seemingly banal semiotics of the mouth and
(, , , the dominance of her negative functions (eating, stuffing,
destruction, death). But, nevertheless, identifying the door
). , ,
with the mouth occurs in many constructions, from different
, , periods and regions, including numerous examples from
modern times that do not belong to the traditional but to the
(. 13: ). contemporary mass culture (fig. 13: -).
- One of the most striking traditional examples in which this

( relationship is implicitly present are the stories of Baba Roga
) (or witch) that takes children into her zoomorphized forest hut
(. 13: ). - in order to cook them and eat them (fig. 13: a). In the archaic
- variants of this type of story there are clues to identify the hut
, with Baba Roga itself, and identify the door with her beastly
mouth. According to one interpretation, this hut is treated
. ,
as a ritual structure intended for the initiation of children,

that is, their ritual introduction into the world of adults. It is
.. - considered the epiphany of Baba Roga itself, once a very
. , important mythical figure, a goddess. The entry of the children
.. , into the hut signifies their demise - they are eaten by her.
. This act should signify the symbolic dying of the children as a
necessary precondition for their rebirth (by the same goddess-
( house), but this time as an adults. Examples of such huts that
), . eats her visitors - initiates are known in many archaic cultures
around the world.
.
Theoretically it is possible that Neolithic ceramic models of
houses displayed some real constructions that, among other
-
functions, served as houses for initiation. It is not excluded
, , - that they functioned as some kind of death homes in the
. funeral rituals that were supposed to symbolically destroy
(exterminate) the body of the deceased which was left in them
() (perhaps as houses for excarnation - separation of the flesh from
( .. the bones). So far there are no clues or any connection of such
). - models from Macedonia that refers to death, because there is
no presence of human bones in them or in their immediate
- vicinity. But in other areas (such as Israel, Etruria), such use of
. , ( similar, somewhat later, ceramic models of houses is known
, ) , - (among others, zoomorphized and anthropomorphized), as
urns containing the ash of the cremated person or ossuaries
, ( -
- where the bones were kept (fig. 14). Still, on the Macedonian
) models it is possible to identify the matched side openings of
() () the cube (probably doors) with a wide open mouth with teeth
(. 14). ,
83
8 _1
./Fig. 13

84
./Fig. 14

( - (fig. 15: -), and even with a pair of canines (fig. 15: a). This still
) (. 15: ), hypothetical interpretation becomes much more convincing
(. 15: ). if you add a pair of eyes over the mouth of the models. At first
, - glance, the pointed toothed door - mouth does not fit into
. the anthropomorphism of the models, represented by the
cylinder, because the place of the mouth is where the face of
,
the personalized house is. The presence of the mouth within
, - the cubus would rather coincide with the genital zone the
. triangle (symbol of the pubis i.e. the vulva) carved on that
part of the model from Suvodol (fig. 16: ). It points to some
, , ( - kind of unification of the two meanings of the door - vulva
.. ) (. 16: ). and a mouth. This introduces the interpretation of the symbol
, vagina dentata (toothed vagina) as an opponent of the real,
, - one which is not in charge of the birth but the killing, that
vagina dentata ( ) is, the return of a man into the other world, as an inevitable
, , phase of the life cycles in space.
, -
.
85
8 _1
./Fig. 15
86
DOORSTEP
- The doorstep is actually a door reduced from three-

. dimensional to a two-dimensional level. It is a line between
.. (, the outside and inside, a border that divides the interior of the
, ) (, , house (culture, safe, clean) from the outside world (nature,
dangerous, unclean). Hence, the doorstep itself does not
). ,
belong to either one, but has the status of inter-space, or
, rather non-space. From this comes its negative notion of a
. critical place where one shouldnt spend a long time (standing,
- sitting, talking or doing something). The bride at the first entry
( , , ). into her husbands house is not supposed to step on it since
she herself is the personification of the passage (neither here
- nor there), that is, she no longer belongs to the home of her
( ) parents, and is not yet received (admissioned) in the husbands
, () home. Because of these components, the doorstep is also seen
. as a chthonic space under which the souls of the dead from
that house are staying. Perhaps thats why, on some occasions,
a qurban is slaughtered on the doorstep, for the blood of the
. ,
sacrificed animal to fall in the mouths that are thirsty for life.
, , -
. WINDOW
Seen in the context of a house-man, windows correspond

with the eyes for purely functional reasons. They, like the eyes,
serve to see outside the house but also through them to peek
inside the house. Therefore, the eyes are said to be windows
. , , of the soul. In this identification, we may find the reason
, why we are melancholic when looking at the rain thru the
. , window. It seems that the rain drops that crawl on the glass we
experience as tears, an image of a crying house forms in us.
.
The aspect window - eye, left traces in the language too. In the
Slavic languages, the words for the window and the eye have
. the same basis: Russ. okno - window, okoshko - small window,
, it is in relation with the South Slavic word oko - eye. The Latin
. equivalent is oculus - meaning an eye and a circular window. This
. - relation is well manifested in the anthropomorphic Neolithic
models of houses, through the presence of paired openings
: . (), () shaped exactly in the form of eyes (fig. 16), somewhere even
. . oculus two pairs on one wall (fig. 4: a), perhaps to show that the house
. - is guarding its tenants by holding the four eyes open.

Entering or exiting the house from the window is considered

an illegal procedure, i.e. an act that violates the established
(. 16), rules and laws. Therefore, the one who practices such an act is
(. 4: ), seen as transgressor i.e. thief, thug or adulterer.
.
87
8 _1
./Fig. 16

88
./Fig. 17

- At macrocosmic level, the window is equated with the sun,
.. - because from the inside, it provides the light in the home.
. , For these reasons, on the prehistoric models of houses the
windows are often circular, especially those on the gable
.. , . end, which as we have already seen, itself marks the sky.
89
8 _1
- In Macedonian Neolithic examples it is found both on the

, , anthropomorphic models and on the ones that are raised on
. , legs (fig. 9, fig. 11: ). In the examples from Cucuteni-Tripolye
, (Eastern Europe), some of the circular windows are lined with
, , - a radiant bordure which even more explicitly expresses their
solar meaning (fig. 17: a, ).
.
, On one model of a house from Slavej (Prilep area), there was
(. 9; . 11: ). - a perforation in the form of a young moon on all the upper
( ) corners of the walls (fig. 17: ). Although these openings could
not be called windows in the true sense of the word, it is quite
(. 17: , ). possible that they could have served to illuminate the interior
of the real structure, perhaps not for practical but for symbolic
(), reasons, referring to the mystical connection between the
moonlight and the menstrual cycles of the woman. On the
(. 17: ). concrete object, the indicated lunar windows also resembles
, on eyes, especially if they are perceived together with the
centrally placed doors which leave an impression of open
-
mouths (fig. 15: , fig. 17: ). Multiple moons are also present
, - on the models of houses from the culture Cucuteni-Tripolye,
, this time painted on the walls. Together with the wave-like
. - bordures in the lower part (water), the hinged triangles
, (mountains) and the previously mentioned toothed motif
, - around the circular windows (sun with rays), they obviously
(. encode the macrocosmic aspects of the house (fig. 17: a-).
15: ; . 17: ).
, - NIKOS AUSIDIS
. UNIVERSITY SS. CYRIL AND METHODIUS - SKOPJE
(), () FACULTY OF PHILSOPHY
( INSTITUTE FOR HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY
)
(.17: ).
90
: Nota bene: within some illustrations of the catalogue the source can
be found in some of the formerly published papers by the author
. of this chapter where the publications from which the illustrations
were referenced.
. 1. ) , 18 (Jung 1987, 78);
) , , e, Fig. 1. a) Illustration from encyclopedia, 18th century (Jung 1987, 78);
<http://www.positivebirthstories.com/2009/10/01/a-squatting- b) relief, Ancient Egyptian culture, Dendera temple, Egypt <http://
woman-giving-birth-assisted-by-two-goddesses-hathor-and-taweret- www.positivebirthstories.com/2009/10/01/a-squatting-woman-
from-the-temple-of-hathor-at-dendera/> (21.06.2017). giving-birth-assisted-by-two-goddesses-hathor-and-taweret-from-
. 2. ) (: . the-temple-of-hathor-at-dendera/> (21.06.2017).
); ) , , , Fig. 2. a) The woman and the womb as archetypes of the house
( 2011, T.VII: 11). (scheme: N. ausidis); b) anthropomorphized house model,
. 3. ) Neolithic, Govrlevo, Skopje ( 2011, T.VII: 11).
(: . ); , ) , Fig. 3. a) Spread womans legs as archetype of house (scheme:
(1920 ), ( 2011, T.VIII: 2, 3); N. ausidis); b, v) art motives made in textile, folklore (1920th
) , century), Russia ( 2011, T.VIII: 2, 3); g) relief
, , , ( 2011, T.VIII: 10); ) motives of stone mortuary monument, Late Middle Century, Cista,
, , , , Sinj, Dalmatia ( 2011, T.VIII: 10); d) relief motive
( 2011, T.VIII: 9). in pottery, Neolithic, Donja Branjevina, Deronje, Vojvodina (
. 4. , , 2011, T.VIII: 9).
: ) , ( 2011, T.VI: 8); ) Fig. 4. a) Ceramic anthropomorphized house models, Neolithic,
, (Zdravkovski 2006, 107 Fig. 9); ) , Macedonia: a) Madzhari, Skopje ( 2011, T.VI: 8);
( 2011, T.III: 8); ) , ( ) Stene, Tetovo (Zdravkovski 2006, 107 Fig. 9); ) Porodin, Bitola
2011, T.VII: 10). ( 2011, T.III: 8); ) Madzhari, Skopje (
. 5. 2011, T.VII: 10).
( 2011, T.XI): , ) , Fig. 5. Christian manifestations of the symbolic relationship woman
, 15 , ; ) , house ( 2011, T.XI): a, ) statue of painted
. (), 16. , wood Vierge Ouvrante, 15th century, France; ) Hieronymus
; ) , , 15 , Bosch, The Temptation of St Anthony (detail), beginning of 16th
; ) , . century, Prado Museum; ) Pierro della Francesca Madonna della
. 6. (: . misericordia 15th century, Italy; ) medieval manuscript, Italy.
); ) Fig. 6. Cubic-semispherical model of the universe (scheme: N.
( 1996, 38 . 1); ) ausidis); ) house as a archetype for determination of the universe
, form ( 1996, 38 . 1); ) idealized three-dimensional
( 1978, . 86 ). model of the universe, according to the Cosmas Indicopleustes
. 7. , , , : ) texts ( 1978, . 86 ).
; ) Fig. 7. Elements of fireplaces, Neolithic, Lepenski Vir, Serbia: a)
(Srejovi i Babovi, 123, 179). engraved boulder next to fireplace; ) walled fireplace dug into
. 8. house floor (Srejovi i Babovi, 123, 179).
, (: 1996, 41 Fig. 8. Identification of the sky and of the Suns trajectory of the
. 2, 46 . 5). dome, the arch and the gable type roof (schemes: N. ausidis 1996,
. 9. , , , ( 41 . 2, 46 . 5).
2005, 40).
91
8 _1
. 10. a, , Fig. 9. Ceramic house models, Neolithic, Porodin, Bitola (
: ) , ( 2008, T.II 3); , ) , 2005, 40).
( 2011, T.XIX:1, T.XVIII: 2); ) Fig. 10. Ceramic anthropomorphized house models, Neolithic,
, , , ( 2004, Macedonia: a) Slavej, Prilep ( 2008, T.II 3); , ) Govrlevo,
344). Skopje ( 2011, T.XIX:1, T.XVIII: 2); g) ceramic oven
. 11. , model, Chalcolithic, Berezivka, Ukraine ( 2004, 344).
: ) , 6 .., , Fig. 11. M letter shaped motive on ceramic vessels, Prehistory: a)
( 2009, T.III: 11); ) , ; ) Tisza, ( bronze relief, 6th century BC, Perugia, Italy ( 2009, T.III:
2009, T.III: 3, 4). , : ) , 11); ) Corinth, Greece; ) Tisza, Hungary ( 2009, T.III: 3, 4).
( 2005, 26); ) , ( Ceramic house models, Neolithic: ) Porodin, Bitola ( 2005,
2011, T.XVIII: 7). , : , ) , 26); ) Govrlevo, Skopje ( 2011, T.XVIII: 7). Stone
( 2009, T.II: 8, 9). ) pendants, Neolithic: , ) Ruse and Porovec, Bulgaria ( 2009,
(: . ). , : T.II: 8, 9). Wedding ritual ) Prilep (scheme: N. ausidis). Ceramic
) , ( 2009, T.II: 12); , ) , altar-tables, Neolithic: ) Sapareva Banja, Bulgaria ( 2009,
( 2009, T.II: 3, 4). T.II: 12); , ) Kovaevo, Bulgaria ( 2009, T.II: 3, 4).
. 12. , , Fig. 12. Alan Aldgridge, poster for the movie Chelsea Girls, 1966
1966 . (Lucie-Smith 1973, 260); ) , , (Lucie-Smith 1973, 260); ) Niki de Saint Phalle, Jean Tinguely, Per
, , 1966 <http://bessora.fr/ Olov Ultvedt, Hon-en-Katedral/She-Cathedral, 1966 <http://
she-a-cathedral/#lightbox/0/> (21.06.2017); ) , bessora.fr/she-a-cathedral/#lightbox/0/> (21.06.2017); ) Louise
,19461947 . Bourgeois, Femme Maison, 194647 .
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_Maison#/media/File:Femme_ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_Maison#/media/
Maison.jpg> (20.06.2017). File:Femme_Maison.jpg> (20.06.2017).
. 13. ) , <http:// Fig.13.)Baba-Yagaandherhut,modernillustration<http://vasily-sergeev.
vasily-sergeev.livejournal.com/2441485.html?thread=28828941> livejournal.com/2441485.html?thread=28828941> (23.06.2017); )
(23.06.2017); ) , , entrance in the Tiger Cave, Udayagiri Hill, India (Neumann 1963, 150
(Neumann 1963, 150 Fig. 31); ) , Fig. 31); ) main entrance in the Hochob, Mayan culture, Yucatan, Mexico
, , <https://www.pinterest.com/pin/293015519485035276/> (23.06.2017);
<https://www.pinterest.com/pin/293015519485035276/ > ) entrance in Palazzo Zuccari, 17th century, Rome <https://it.pinterest.
(23.06.2017); ) , 17. , <https:// com/pin/11751648998131081/> (23.06.2017).
it.pinterest.com/pin/11751648998131081/> (23.06.2017). Fig. 14. a) Cermic urn, Etruscan culture, 6th century BC, Veio, Italy
. 14. ) , , 6. . .., , ( 2011, T.XI: 6); ) ceramic ossuarium (typical
( 2011, T.XI: 6); ) for the region of Azor, Israel), Chalcolithic, Palace of the Legion of
( , ), , Honor, Lincoln Park, San Francisco
, , <https://www.flickr. <https://www.flickr.com/photos/whsieh78/15786288882/in/
com/photos/whsieh78/15786288882/in/photostream/> (23.06.2017). photostream/> (23.06.2017).
. 15. , , Fig. 15. Ceramic anthropomorphized house models, Neolithic,
(: . ): ) , ; ) , Macedonia (retouche: N. ausidis): a) Dobromiri, Bitola, ) air,
; ) , ; ) , , (ausidis 2009, T. VI). Skopje; ) Slavej, Prilep; ) Porodin, Bitola (ausidis 2009, T. VI).
. 16. , , Fig. 16. Ceramic anthropomorphized house models, Neolithic,
: , ) , (ausidis 2009, T. VI: 7; T.I: 1); , , ) Macedonia: , ) Suvodol, Bitola (ausidis 2009, T. VI: 7; T.I: 1); , , )
, ( 2011, T.XX: 4, 5, 7). Govrlevo, Skopje ( 2011, T.XX: 4, 5, 7).
. 17. , , ) , , Fig. 17. , , ) Ceramic anthropomorpic house models, Chalcolithic,
, ( 2004, 384); ) Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, Platar collection ( 2004,
, , , (Zdravkovski 2008, 384); ) ceramic house model, Neolithic, Slavej, Prilep. (Zdravkovski 2008,
225 No. 71). 225 - No. 71).
92
/ USED LITERATURE
, . . 1983. . : .
, . 2005. . : .. .
, . . , . . 2004. . , . .; , . .; , . . , . . (.)
( ) 3: 534539. : .
, . . , . . 1999. . , . .; , . .; , . . , . . (.)
( ) 2: 2529. : .
, . . , . . 2004. (.) 2. ii: ;

. . .
; .
, . 1986. (Eliade, M. Le Sacre et le Profane). : .
, . 2008. : .
/Macedonian Heritage 32: 2351. .
, . 2011. : . Macedoniae
acta archaeologica 20: 1134. .
, . , . 2011. : 2135. : .
, . 2002. . :
.
Prop, V. J. 1990. Historijski korijeni bajke ( . . ). Sarajevo: Svjetlost.
Srejovi, D. i Babovi, Lj. 1983. Umetnost Lepenskog Vira. Beograd: Jugoslavija.
, . . 2000. ( , 6). , . .; ,
. . , . . (.) : 924. : .
, . 1978. (, , ). :
, .
, . 1994. . : .
, . 1996. /The house and its symbolic meanings. /Macedonian

Heritage 2: 3752. .
93
8 _1
, . 2007. . , . (.) :
: 45101. : .
, . 2008. - ( ). Macedoniae acta

, . 2009. . . (.)
XIII: 5372. : .
, . 2009. :
. , . .; , . .; , . . , . . (.) 10 .
. : 97105. : .
, . 2009. . , .
(.) : : 202233. : ; ; .
, . 2011. . , . , .,
: 1119. : .
, . , . 2011. . , . , .,
: 2135. : .
Latin
ausidis, N. 2009. Prozori-oi i vrata-usta na neolitskim rtvenicima tipa Mati-Kua s podruja Republike Makedonije. Histria antiqua
18/1: 113128. Pula.
ausidis, N. 2010. Neolithic Ceramic Figurines in the Shape of a Woman House from the Republic of Macedonia. In Gheorghiu D. and
Cyphers A. (eds.) Anthropomorphic and Zoomorphic Miniature Figures in Eurasia, Africa and Meso-America. Morphology, materiality, technology,
function and context: 2535. Oxford: BAR International Series (2138).
Jung, C. G. 1987. Pristup nesvjesnom. In C. G. Jung (i dr.), ovjek i njegovi simboli: 18103. Zagreb: Mladost.
Lucie-Smith, E. 1973. Erotizam u umetnosti zapada (Eroticism in the Western Art). Beograd: Jugoslavija.
Naumov, G. 2007. Housing the Dead: Burials inside houses and vessels from Neolithic Balkans. In Malone, C. and Barowclough, D. (eds.) Cult
in Context: 255265. Oxford: Oxbow books.
Neumann, E. 1963. The Great Mother an analysis of the archetype. Princeton University Press.
Zdravkovski, D. 2006. New aspects of the AnzabegovoVrnik cultural group In Tasi, N. and Grozdanov, C (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garaanin:
99110. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Art.
Zdravkovski, D. 2008. Neolitska umetnost na obmoju Republike Makedonije = Neolithic art in the region of the Republic of Macedonia. Ljubljana:
Narodni muzej Slovenije.
94
: FROM CAVES TO FORTRESSES:

PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
, J BETWEEN HUNTING, AGRICULTURE
AND METALLURGY
Architectural constructions have always caused the greatest
. - interest in studying people from the past. They are the most
- monumental structures and a best preserved form of cultural
, heritage from the past epoch. They also portray the most
consistent illustration of the character and achievements of the
. , communities that built them. However, their features are most
, often studied through the aspect of technology, where the
, main accent was mostly on the structure and the construction
materials and less on the motives that led to their design
. and use. Although such research has greatly contributed to
- a thorough understanding of architectonic forms and their
, functions, they nevertheless ignore the process and social
. , context in which they were created. Of course, there are
papers that focus precisely on what motivated communities
, - to build and use certain settlements, commercial structures
, and sanctuaries, but they are rare and not much used in
. , archaeology. And even then, they are concentrated only on
- the architecture of a certain prehistoric period without making
- a diachronic cross-section that follows the social changes
- and innovations that were subsequently incorporated into
. the structures meant for living and in those of public and
economic character.
, -
, From those reasons, this paper will make an overview of the
prehistoric architecture with a particular focus on the Neolithic,
i.e. the period in which the real revolution was made in terms
. of technical innovations and diversity of construction forms.
- This review, in addition to emphasizing the technical features
, - of natural and artificial structures used by humans, will also
consider the social characteristics that have contributed to
. the design of certain constructions. It is quite certain that
- the reasons for constructing specific building designs should
. - be searched in the economic and spiritual spheres of every
society. They are the main generator of the architectonic
- space that is put into function of specific social norms related
. to economy and religion.
95
8 _1
- If a chronological structure of the main prehistoric periods is

, , made, such as the Palaeolithic, the Neolithic and the metal
, - epochs, one can see that each of them is associated with
. , - some economic and spiritual category. So, in the Palaeolithic
, the primary economy occupation was hunting, while in the
, .. spiritual sphere, the emphasis was placed on the homeopathic
. - i.e. imitative magic and rituals. In the Neolithic, economy
, is based on agriculture and stock breeding, so the spiritual
. , culture was focused on accumulation and productivity. By
- contrast, the Eneolithic, Bronze and Iron Age are concentrated
, on metallurgy, so it is not a coincidence that religion and rituals
. often manifested social stratification and transformation.
All these economic and spiritual spheres had their own
, - equivalents in the architecture and were put into its function,
so, the parallel social processes that interacted in the material
. culture and the constructions can easily be followed. This social,
, - symbolic and architectonic components characteristic of the
, - Palaeolithic, Neolithic, and metal epochs will be examined
through a number of selected examples from Europe and the
, - Middle East, emphasizing the links between the economy and
. religion manifested on the habitats and the public buildings.
HUNTING AND PALAEOLITHIC ARCHITECTURE
- When speaking of the Palaeolithic, the first picture that comes

- in mind is haired people tearing meat or sitting by the fire in
. , . caves. However, the real picture is somewhat different. One
should take in consideration that Palaeolithic communities
were primarily mobile groups which, due to the following
, of the herds, have often moved and formed short-lived
. - settlements out in the open, that is, close to the animals.
, Of course, life in caves was present, however, it was more
- prevalent during the harsher climatic seasons and at times
. , , when meat resources were increased. Caves are also locations
that can be far more easily registered by the archaeologists
, - than the settlements in the open, thats why a non-objective
- picture of the primary Palaeolithic architecture was formed.
. , On the other hand, caves played a major role in the spiritual
- spheres, and especially those related to rituals and memories.
. , Therefore, it is necessary to revise the architectural forms of
the Palaeolithic and connect them with the corresponding
. economic and spiritual processes.
- Hunting was the central point around which all social and
- symbolic processes were formed, which at the same time
. included architecture. Although collecting fruits, nuts and
96
, vegetables was an important economic branch, it did not have

. - a key role in the formation of social and religious ideologies.
, Given the uncertainty of the outcome and the difficulty of its
- realization, hunting was the primary benchmark for the success
. - and existence of a tribal community in the Palaeolithic. Hunting
, was also present in other prehistoric eras and much later, but
(), - as never again in hunting (pre)history, it played a key role in the
- definition of social norms and ideology. More importantly, it
. - should be noted that not only small animals were hunted, but
, also massive big animals that were dangerous and difficult to
. , , catch. Therefore, the hunting of mammoths, bison, cave lions,
, , , , / leopards, rhinos, cattle, deer/reindeer and bears was a feat
that did not fulfill only the food resources, but it also received
, a heroic dimension which reflected in the social structure and
. religion.
At the same time, much of the tools were made for hunting or
, - for processing of the meat, bones, and the fur from the caught
, animals, so almost all aspects of the material culture could
. be considered hunting-related. These primary activities also
. influenced the character of the settlements. The caught animals
, , were to be slaughtered, skinned and cooked, so alongside the
.. , hunting grounds there were so-called camps, which could also
. easily follow the movement of animals. In winter days when
, , - mobility and temperatures were lower, the small Palaeolithic
( ) communities (named as companies or groups) stayed in the
.1 caves and under rock shelters.1 These shelters were also used
, to make a symbolic connection with the animals, so in their
- depths there were painted drawings that most often showed
. , the animals that were hardest to catch. Therefore, we can
( ) say that all architectural forms (natural and artificial) have
- been linked to hunting and its reduction in certain seasons.
. Although there are many types of architectonic forms in the
, , , , - Palaeolithic, such as camps, stations, caves, cavities, cemeteries
, , and ritual spaces, in this occasion, only the camps, caves and
, ritual spaces as main categories in Palaeolithic architecture
. will be reviewed.
Camps
, For many years, with rare exceptions, the camps as settlement

. - forms have been neglected in archaeology. The massive and
- easy task of locating the caves created a scientific fascination
- that inadvertently neglected the camps that were set in
1
(. rock shelter; . abri), the plains and hills. Even the term camp itself still functions
. 20 , 1
Rock shelters (French abri) are short caves in which the sunlight directly
50 . enlightens the space. Their length is usually 20 m, rarely up to 50 m.
97
8 _1
. - undefined and is not very well known and applied in

, archaeological literature, especially in the Balkans. However, in
. , recent decades, these sites have become more important and
gave a much more objective picture of life in the Palaeolithic.
. , - They, seen through the prism of economy, were far more
, important in securing the existence of the community than
. - the caves. These were small mobile settlements that fully
- corresponded to the nomadic life of Palaeolithic groups and
( companies (a term commonly used for small communities
). consisting of several individuals to a dozen members).
They were placed close to the hunting grounds of the larger

. , animals and followed their movement in the pastures.
, Therefore, the constructions and their longevity were not the
, - primary focus, but rather their fast mounting, disassembling
. and easy transportation. The camps were usually composed of
, 2 . - a small number of tents and huts, very similar to the Indian
tepees2 and wigwams. The tents had a similar construction
, . as their modern equivalents, only they were made of organic
materials. The armature was composed of massive and long
, wooden branches or thin logs, placed in a circle and connected
. - in the upper part in one central point. They were covered with
, , animal skin, and if the weather was colder, with fur, branches,
. , - leaves or dry grass. In contrast, the huts had a hemispherical
, roof formed of slender branches, also covered with leather, fur
, . - or dry grass. The wall construction of the huts was once made
, of mammoth bones, rocks or soil. Those that were partially dug
, - in the ground, in the archaeological terminology are called pit
. huts.
, The interior of the tents and huts, that is, the tepees and the
, , wigwams, was similar. The fireplace was placed in the central
part and the space for cooking, making tools, sleeping, etc was
, , . around it. They were commonly used for everyday activities, but
, in some, there were remains of deliberately broken figurines,
- burials and mammoth bones painted with red ochre. It shows
, - that these habitats, in addition to their utilitarian function,
. were also used for symbolic and ritual purposes. Such sites are
, Dolni Vstonice, Pedmosti (Czech), Kostenki (Russia), Mezirich
, - (fig. 1; Ukraine), Etoil (France) and Bilancino (Italy) and they are
. , , - mostly discovered in the Late Palaeolithic (40000-10000 BC)
(), (), (. 1; ), - when the first major forms of human art appeared in Europe.
() (), Such settlements were mostly placed in the open and located
(4000010000 . ...), by the rivers or under large rocks. The proximity of the rivers
2
, 2
Teepee is a cone shaped Indian tent used by the tribes from the Great Plains
() - and (partially) by the Indians from other cultural and geographic regions in North
. () . America. The word teepee in Lakota language (siu) means a place for living.
98
./Fig. 1
. allowed constant access to water and good hygiene, while

the places which were under the large rocks were a great
location for sheltering during periods of heavy rains, storms
. - and snow. These were the same locations that the animals
, used for drinking water and protection from the storms, thus,
the camps were erected directly in their vicinity. Thats why,
, . in archaeological literature these sites are named as stations,
, that is, places where they stopped and camped during the
. , following of the herds. Such a Palaeolithic station was recently
discovered in Macedonia, near the village Mustafino (Sveti
, Nikole), which also represents the first Palaeolithic site in
. the country that was discovered in the wide open. Judging
, by the discovered tools and debitage (waste material which
(), occurs while stone tools manufacture), it was most probably
99
8 _1
. active at the time of the Middle Palaeolithic, which is yet to be

( - confirmed with future research. They should also determine
), if there were any structures in that period (tents or huts), or
, they were only stations where resources for flint tools were
. - processed. Such sites in the open are also known elsewhere
( ), in the Balkans, so their presence is not surprising, but rather
- complements the image of the dynamic nomadic life of the
. - Palaeolithic communities.
,
, , , Caves
.
As it was pointed out previously, caves are the most
common association for the Palaeolithic. Almost all films
and exhibitions illustrate Palaeolithic life precisely through
, - these natural forms that hominids and Homo sapiens used
. as their habitats and ritual places. Of course, this is not a
coincidence, the data indicates that most of the Palaeolithic
- sites were discovered precisely in caves. This is primarily due
. , , to the fact that the caves are easily seen and often reveal
- Palaeolithic remains under the geological deposits caused
. by the winds, erosions and water drops from the stalactites.
, An active life took place in the caves as well as in the camps,
- because of their nature they were used as permanent
, habitats in certain seasons or throughout the whole year.
. Therefore, the stratigraphic layers are high, because they
, - formed as a result of continual life in the caves.

. , - The size of the living space in the caves depended on
, their natural characteristics, but the small Palaeolithic
. communities usually stayed in the initial peripheral parts of
these natural formations, while the chambers in the deep
interior were used for painting and modelling animals. The
, - everyday life was in the peripheral space where the fireplace
was located and around which numerous remains of animal
, bones were discovered. In certain parts of the caves were
registered so-called workshops, or areas in which flint tools
. were made, confirmed by the numerous concentrated
, - residuals of debitage. Apart from flint tools, during the
. excavation of the caves, bones were also discovered, most
.. , - often in the form of spears, harpoons and spikes, used for
, - hunting, fishing and sewing. This shows that the habitats
. also functioned as bases from where the hunting was
, starting. The animals that gravitated around these caves
, , were the main hunting target. It is assumed that their skin
, . was used to close the cave entrances during windy and cold
days. The ones that had a larger entrance made the people
100
, go deeper in the caves. Therefore, at some of these sites,

. several locations of human activity have been found.

, Such an organization of the inner space can also suggest a
. , - certain social stratification of the population, i.e. separating
. the community to several smaller groups. Although it is
not possible to speak with great precision about the social
structure of the Palaeolithic societies and groups, still, some
- archaeologists think that there were some clan divisions
, . that led to simultaneous use of multiple parts of the caves
by the elite and other members of the community. In the
, caves, no architectonic interventions have been discovered
on their interior that could suggest social stratification,
but in some of them and in separate parts of the interior,
- there have been registered different types of objects. These
. - objects from the field of aesthetics and semiotics, such as
necklaces, bracelets, figurines, bone and stone plates with
, engravings, could have had a social dimension, that is, they
, - belonged to individuals who were in a different or higher
. position than the others.
, , -
, , , This assumption is also backed by several discovered graves
, - of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons where skeletons with
. pendants, necklaces and bracelets were found, or they were
covered with ochre and flowers. Such burials were found in
the caves of Shanidar (Iraq), Kebara, Skhul, Qafzeh (Israel),
Atapuerca (Spain), Krapina (Croatia) and Combe-Grenal
, , (France), which shows that apart from living they were used
. , also as ceremonial places. In some of them, people slept on
, , , , , - top or near their deceased relatives, which is considered as
an indicator for the appearance of the cult for the ancestors.
. - It is assumed that this cult also manifested itself through
, the production of figurines that were discovered in a
. number of places on several sites in Europe. However, in the
domain of the symbolic spheres, caves are far better known
. - through paintings in their deep and sometimes hardly
, , - accessible parts. The magnificent depictions of mammoths,
- lions, rhinos, bison, horses, cattle, deer and hybrid forms
. , - of people and animals in the caves of Lascaux, Chauvet,
, , , , , Gargas (France) and Altamira (Spain) indicate that these
, , () spaces were not intended only for living, but for complex
(), ritual activities as well.
,
.
-
,
101
8 _1
o (. 2). In Macedonia and the wider Balkan area, such sites with cave
( ), paintings are not found except in Coliboaia in Romania (fig.
, 2). For the Magura Cave in Bulgaria (next to the Romanian
, - border), which is also rich with paintings, it is speculated that
. , they are from the final stages of the Palaeolithic, although most
, . - belong to other prehistoric periods. Neither had ever been
found in Macedonia, either in the burial process, figurines or
, - jewellery, the only exceptions are several engraved lines on
. stone and bones from the cave near Zdunje, which at the
- same time represents the best explored Palaeolithic site in
, 50000 . ..., our country. In addition to numerous flint tools and animal
102 ./Fig. 2
- bones, a fireplace was found, dating back to 50000 BC, which

. according to archaeological chronology is classified in the
, final stages of the Middle Palaeolithic. Its interior was used
( ) - like most Palaeolithic caves, so the space was organized in
. , accordance to the economic activities (hunting and gathering)
, and everyday needs. In the domain of the architectural space,
. a cave in Makarovec was used in a similar way, although there
is much less data and is still not fully studied. Calcined forms
( that resemble sex organs had been found in one of Matkas
), - caves (exhibited in the Museum of the City of Skopje), that
. leads archaeologists to the conclusion that certain rituals were
probably performed in that cave.

Ritual space
,
, , - The Matka example, as well as several others listed above,
- suggests that the living space in the Palaeolithic was not
. only utilitarian, but it also involved ritual activities. Despite
, - the imposing art forms, its still difficult to say that some of
, - the Palaeolithic sites had the functions of sanctuaries, but
. nevertheless, they definitely generated incredible symbolic
, potency. The most distinct illustration of this is the cave
. - painting, characteristic for the sites in France and Spain. These
are big and deep caves whose corridors and chambers are filled
- with massive and impressive images of different animals. These
. caves represented galleries in which art could not be seen
fully but only where it was lit. That is why some archaeologists
. - believe that the continuously connected contours of the
animals were to show their movement, precisely through the
, - flickering of the fire from the torches. In this way, a sensation
. was created, which in the time of the Palaeolithic astonished
those who entered the caves and watched these moving
huge animals.
.
Massive animals that were hard to hunt were most commonly
depicted, so its thought that the caves represented a virtual
, magical space in which mammoths, rhinos, lions, bison, cattle
, and deer were summoned. It was believed that collected in
, , , . - one place, these animals could be more easily captured by
, - applying the imitative (sympathetic or homeopathic) magic.
(- One of the best examples of this are the relief displays of
) . bison and bears in caves in France that are presumed to have
served to imitate hunting and have been associated with
motivating the libido of the young hunters. Many believe
- that these caves were a magical space in which shamans were
. involved, both in performing rituals and in drawing animals
103
8 _1
, - in the galleries. Some of them were painted, such as those in

, . the cave of the Trois-Frres, believed to have been a hybrid
, connection between man and deer, which also depicts the
, shamans transformation. Others point out that through these
, . cave paintings hunters were camouflaged as deer to get closer
- to the flock and have a more successful hunting. In addition
to this, naked female bodies were also often displayed in the
. - Palaeolithic caves, which in turn supports the general idea
, of emphasizing
fertility as a key factor in the existence and
, - continuity of the small Palaeolithic communities.
-
. Also, there are a multitude of miniature figurines made of
clay, stone and ivory. Although this idea is still being treated
as debatable, a large number of Palaeolithic figurines
, . show naked female bodies with broad thighs, protruding
, - stomachs and large breasts. These figurines may also show
- adult female individuals with a higher status, but in any
, . case they emphasize the key features related to the birth
potential or its successful realization. But what is important
, - to emphasize about the figurines and their relation to the
architectural space, is precisely the fact that they were made
. - equally in the caves and the camps. In Doln Vstonice, even
, , a pyrotechnical experiments were performed with the
- figurines, while still freshly made, they were thrown into the
. fire, and then cracked apart. This deliberate fragmentation
, of the figurines includes the process of fragmentation
, - that some archaeologists regard as symbolic activity in
. prehistoric rituals. In that sense, these places (structures)
would be treated as a ritual space that is not separated from
. , the rest by architectural features, but through the context in
() which it was manipulated with some of the objects.
-
, Obviously, the caves, tents and huts in the Palaeolithic
. camps were used to produce and model the figurines,
which at the time represented a magic act. However, these
, , ritual activities were not the only ones that took place in
places primarily intended for living. As it was pointed out
, . - previously, buried individuals were found in numerous
- caves and camps, so a question arises about the spots
. where the deceased were placed. Have they been treated
, - as architecture with a particular symbolic meaning, since in
, most buildings and caves there were no burials? Some of
- these ritual contexts were very specific, such as the burial
, of women with massive deer horns, the sprinkling of the
? dead with hundreds of shells and ivory pearls, the placing
, of numerous animal bones in the graves, or the coverage of
104
, - Neanderthals with ochre and flowers. Such funeral contexts

, indicate that these individuals had a special status within
the community, and probably the places where they were
. buried were in the function of mausoleums.
-
, Even through burials can be seen that animals and hunting
. played an important role in the symbolic world of the
Palaeolithic communities. Animal bones were left as a
contribution in the graves, which may be in relation to
the status of the deceased or symbolized the animal that
. - should accompany the deceased after his death. However,
, - the symbolic use of animal bones was not only for the
- burials. In one of the most characteristic camps in the
. , Palaeolithic - Mezirich and Mezine in Ukraine, the huts were
- made of mammoth bones. Massive bones decorated with
. red ornaments were also found. The bones with geometric
, motives stand out from the other bones, so the question
, arises, what was their function and did the places where
. they were found had a distinct character? The mystery
of the geometric ornaments in Palaeolithic art is still an
, - enigma, although various interpretations are made. They
were engraved on various objects of bone and stone, and
? were painted in caves, so they didnt have a unified purpose,
, nor did the places in which they were found. Many consider
. that the geometric motifs are related to celestial bodies,
, - climate change, hunting, fertility, hallucinations, control,
, , counting and mathematics, so it is difficult to determine
. their particular meaning without studying the particular
, - context.
, , , , ,
, In the domain of architecture, the geometric signs were in
. relation to the abstract expression and defined the space
as a symbolic whole, in which activities other than those
, - in the profane constructions were realized. Use of abstract
symbols and the connection of certain forms with specific
, phenomena or concepts were particularly intensified in
. - the Palaeolithic, that is, in the period when the process
of religious definition of the world began. Therefore, it
- should not come as a surprise that the Palaeolithic people
, recognized certain figures in nature and incorporated
. , - such symbols into symbolic meanings. These aspects
of pareidolia (perceiving of nonexistent humans and
. animals in natural formations) exists today also, so, people
( - constantly tend to identify monumental rocks with certain
) , characters and displays. One can only imagine how much
- such identifications were significant in the Palaeolithic and
105
8 _1
. - what was the importance of these places. Its also very likely
that these locations had a ritual character and were visited
, . at certain times of the year by Palaeolithic individuals or
groups. In the further review of prehistoric architecture,
, - we will actually see how this process did not stop at all, but
, - on the contrary, it intensified and defined itself within the
. framework of religion and beliefs.
,
. AGRICULTURE AND NEOLITHIC ARCHITECTURE
Agriculture is an economic branch that did not exist in the

Palaeolithic. Although some scientists believe that wild
- forms of some crops have been harvested and used in the
. Epipaleolithic and the Mesolithic in the Middle East, the true
cultivation of grains and the whole subsequent process begin
, in the tenth millennium BC. It appears in the so-called Fertile
Crescent, in the land between the rivers Tigris and Nile, but
... .. - spreads differently across Asia and Europe and in some regions
, , this commercial branch didnt appear until the beginning of
, - the metal ages. In Europe the earliest occurrence is around
- the middle of the seventh millennium BC, although there are
. claims that some grains were cultivated even before being
..., imported from Anatolia. Exactly this import shows that
. - agriculture was a long and complex process that included not
only the cultivation of grains but also many other economic,
- social and religious elements. Therefore, some archaeologists
, call this process a Neolithic package or Neolithic Revolution,
. , - but this term should be understood figuratively and can not
, have the same meaning for all the regions in Europe.

. The Neolithic package, or revolution, includes several
economic branches that gravitated around agriculture, such as
, , - stockbreeding, pottery, building and craftsmanship focused on
, tools, jewellery and figurative art. They all appear at the same time
, , - with agriculture, that is, as a result of the benefits that it provides.
, . Namely, agriculture enables the accumulation and processing of
- several resources, such as several types of wheat, barley, millet, rye,
, . peas, lentils, peas, vetchling, chickpea etc. These crops are grown
, in specific places, so it was necessary for the communities that
, , , use them to be based on permanent locations, in order to have a
, , , , , . - successful crop and quality food. Unlike Palaeolithic nomadism and
, - the constant following of the animal herds, the Neolithic economy
implied functioning in fixed areas which contained fertile soil and
, . lush pastures. Subsequently this had been consistently reflected
in all other spheres of life such as economics, architecture,
, craftsmanship, religion, and social processes.
106
- As a result of agriculture, the Neolithic communities were able

. to live longer in one place, which led to the construction of
, - permanent and solid houses and villages, the domestication
, , . of animals that were grown in and around the countryside,
the production of organic (rugs and wood) and ceramic pots
for transporting and cooking grain cultures, production of
, - tools for digging and harvesting the fields was more efficient,
, modeling of clay figurines and altars that reflected ideology,
, ( and more frequent burial of the deceased people within the
) settlements that were not abandoned, except in times of
, crisis, droughts, conflicts, etc. This list of Neolithic features
, clearly indicates the gradual transformation from nomadic
, companies into sedentary societies, which did not take
place in an identical way in all parts of the world, neither in
, , , Europe. But in any case, these changes in the old continent
. began successively and followed the previous forms of living.
Scientists largely agree that the concept of domestication
, (which includes plants, animals, land, even humans) came to
, . , Europe from Anatolia through the gradual resettlement of
, - large agricultural communities that promoted the sedentary
. - lifestyle among the indigenous nomadic populations. This
- interaction creates a multitude of modifications and new
( , , , identities that retain or abandon the Anatolian traditions.
), -
The important changes that came with the agriculture also
- reflected in the Neolithic architecture. Although it contains
. some elements of the Palaeolithic tents and huts, it largely
- deviates significantly from the much stronger and long-lasting
. constructions of mud and wood. These constructions also have
their regional characteristics and are in relation with climate
and the primary economic activities of the communities
. that made them. Above all, those were habitats meant for
, family life, but other structures that had a variety of purposes
- were also built. The connection of the livelihoods with the
. agriculture led to the need for more workers and increased the
- population, and many other benefits and privileges that would
- significantly influence the social and ideological structures
. , of Neolithic societies. As a result, the villages became more
. - vibrant, the buildings were more massive, the inhabitants and
the resources increased, and the settlements were sometimes
- protected. In that context, architecture is far different from
, - the Palaeolithic and with plenty of variations in the domain of
settlements organization as well as the appearances of houses
. and the functions of the structures that were not meant for
, , living.
, . -
107
8 _1
, - SETTLEMENTS

, Unlike the Palaeolithic camps and caves, in the Neolithic there
. is a much larger diversity of settlements. Of course, mobile
camps and caves are also used in the Neolithic (for example,
the sites of Franchthi and Alepotrypa in Greece), but the
number of settlements in a wide variety of geographical areas
, is much larger. As in the Palaeolithic, Neolithic villages are
. , mostly near the water (rivers, lakes and swamps), but there
( are also those that are established on the dominant hills,
), especially in the late Neolithic phases, when the economic and
social conditions were changing. The majority of the villages
. , were in the plains, natural river terraces or artificially formed
(, ), mounds. Given the specific character, the mounds below will
, be further elaborated, while the settlements in the plains and
, . river terraces had similar features. They mainly followed the
, - configuration of the terrain formed by the rivers, so in that
. arrangement the houses were also organized. Sometimes
, , - they were freely distributed in the terrain, but often formed a
- defined internal organization with a straight line arrangement
. - or with separate neighbourhoods.
,
. , In the Neolithic beginnings, these settlements were smaller
- due to the newly formed living conditions, but later as the
. agricultural economy and Neolithic societies developed,
they became larger. In the earlier phases the layout of the
houses was less organized but at the end of the Neolithic they
, - even became insularly arranged and protected with ditches.
This comes as a result to the increased control of resources
. and population, as well as the more frequent conflicts over
- their use. Therefore, from small villages with hundreds of
. inhabitants in the early Neolithic, these settlements grew into
, prehistoric metropolises with tens of thousands of people in
. , the late stages. It is no coincidence that they are called mega -
, - sites in archaeology and even cities such as atalhyk (fig. 3)
and Aktopraklik in Turkey or Nebelivka and Taljanki in Ukraine.
. They represent only part of the variety of Neolithic settlements
, , (. 3) that have many regional and chronological differences. In any
. case, most of them have elements of the Neolithic package
that led to different development of the Neolithic villages, and
. - in some cases even to the extent of prehistoric cities.
, -
,
.
108
./Fig. 3
109
8 _1
Mounds
.
, Mounds are one of the most characteristic phenomena in
, the Neolithic and exist until the Bronze Age. They are artificial
elevations, formed gradually over the generations that
. founded and continually inhabited those villages, through
, construction of new houses on top of old demolished ones.
, Depending on the function and the time of their settling,
- the height can be from one to twenty meters, today many of
. , them are damaged and reduced in size as a result of modern
, , agriculture and heavy machinery. They appear for the first
. time in the Middle East Neolithic, and then as a tradition
, , , spread through Anatolia, the Balkans and all the way to Central
, , , , . Europe. Given their presence in a wide geographical area, the
mounds are also known under the names of tel, hujuk, tepe,
, uka, mogila, magura, obrovac, etc.
.
, Depending on their role and importance in certain regions,
- the mounds had different volumes and spatial organization. In
, , this sense, the appearance of the houses differed, since some
. of the mounds were formed in the warm Middle East plains,
others in the humid Balkan valleys, while some in the rainy
, , Central Europe. The Middle East mounds (tells) had a densely
1104
./Fig.
. organized inner space with houses merged one to another,

(), , (), like todays towns and villages in the same region. Several
() . , squares were also present in the neighbourhoods. The most
- characteristic tells in this region are atalhyk (Turkey), Halula,
, - Sabi Abyad (Syria), Carmel (Israel) and others. In contrast, the
, . Balkan mounds contained straight-line or freely distributed
, (), - individual habitats and large open spaces for movement, daily
(), () . - activities or keeping of the animals. The most prominent are
, Sesklo, Nea Nikomedeia (Greece), Karanovo (Bulgaria), Vina
, (), () . (Serbia) and others. Magulas in Central Europe were composed
of long and two storey houses, among them are Polgar, Gorzsa
, - (Hungary), Uivar (Romania) and others.

, , Because of their strategic position and height, the mounds
. were often encircled by a ditch that could serve to protect
, , - against attacks, animals and floods, or to keep the domestic
, - animals from escaping. Such mounds are also found in
() (. 4). Macedonia, in the villages Dobromiri, Borotino and Slavej in
, - Pelagonia. That represents the region with the largest number
, , , , , . - of Neolithic sites (mounds) in Macedonia (fig. 4). Some of the
more characteristic ones are in the villages Trn, Karamani,
, , Mogila, Optiari, Radobor, Topolani, Egri and others. A larger
, , , . concentration of mounds are also documented in the Skopje
111
8 _1
./Fig. 5
region, such as those in the settlements of Madari and air, as

well as in the villages of Stajkovci, Mrevci, Mralino, Raniino
and others.
.
( ) - The mounds represent a specific architectural and social
phenomenon that points to the need for continuous living
, in one place. The question arises what were the motives to
? - hold the long-standing (sometimes and millennium) tradition
. , of living in a specific location and building on already ruined
- houses, when it was very easy for the settlement to move
, . nearby and to build the same habitats? First is the natural
factor. Namely, a large part of the mounds were in the swampy
, plains that presented large fertile areas, but also and frequent
112
. , flooding from the rivers. For this reason, a dry location was
, preferred that was close to the fields with grain, and the
already built and ruined villages were a solid base. In some
. cases, like the example with Vrbjanska uka in Pelagonia, the
- mounds were formed on small natural elevations formed by
- the geological processes of lakes and seas that flowed millions
. of years ago. However, another relevant factor is the socio-
symbolic motive that indicates a deliberate building on top of
- the older houses in order to maintain the connection with the
, . ancestors. As an argument in favour of this idea are exactly the
- models of houses in Pelagonia which were made abundantly as
- in no other place in Macedonia, and even wider in the Balkans.
This symbolical focus on the miniature replicas of buildings
. confirms that exactly in this settlements the houses were
extremely important and probably highlighted the continuity
of families and their connection through architecture.
, - Palafittes (Pile dwellings)

,
. In addition to the mounds, the palafittes or the pile dwellings
, - are also a specific form of settlement from the Neolithic period.
. They are significantly different from all other types of sites,
, primarily because of the location and construction structure.
Palafittes are settlements that are built over or near the water,
. that is, where the ground is constantly or temporarily wet by
, the flow of nearby rivers and the spread of wetlands. Most
, (. 5). often they were located near large areas of calm water, such as
- lakes and swamps, and rarely by rivers (fig. 5). These locations
(, ), ( provided easy and quick access to the wildlife in the water -
). , - fish, crabs and shells, but also to the birds and animals that
were hunting them. In addition, the lake and swamp shores
. were filled with reeds that were intensively used for knitting
, rugs for seating and covering of roofs. Therefore, it can be
- concluded that the communities living in the palafittes were
. not as oriented to agriculture as to fishing and hunting.
- This can also be noticed in the pile dwellings infrastructure

. - itself, as well as the interior of the houses. The houses are
, - mostly built from wood, although some are also covered with
. , mud. They are sometimes independent structures, but there
, are also those placed on wooden platforms, creating a smaller
. , - village on an elevated level. The platforms and the houses
too, were placed on massive wooden pillars that firmly held
. the entire construction above them. Ovens were discovered
in the interior of the houses, where bread was most likely
, - made, but in the domain of tools, bone harpoons and fish
113
8 _1
- hooks were often revealed, indicating that fishing was the

( main occupation and not so much agriculture (confirmed
). thru the small number of flint parts for sickles). The same is
, suggested by the zooarchaeological analysis of the bones
from these settlements which suggests that fish were far more
. consumed than other types of animals. It is quite expected,
, having in mind the primary goal for building palafittes, which
. - is, the proximity of the water. There can be several reasons
. for building pile dwellings by the water. Apart from efficient
, access to fish and birds, protection from animals and enemies
. could also be a motive for their building.
- Palafittes were first discovered in Western and Central Europe,

- where conditions for preservation of the structures from
. - organic materials is much larger. The widespread wetlands and
the large number of lakes have provided protection for the
, , wooden pile dwellings, as well as preservation of numerous
, , . , items made of wood and leather as well as rugs, textiles and
, - food. Therefore, a very detailed study of these sites is possible,
which has given incomparably the best opportunities for
. - the reconstruction of all life in these palafitte societies. The
, best studied sites are located in the Alps areal and in the
. wetlands of Western Europe. Inhabited settlements have
, , been explored in the Balkans, and among the better studied
(), ( ), , are Dispilio, Anargyroi, Limnohori (Greece), Tuzla (Bosnia and
(), , a - Herzegovina), Maliq, Sovjan and Dunavec (Albania), as well
. as Ohridati, Usta na Drim and Crkveni Livadi in Macedonia. It
- is assumed that some of the models of houses found at the
, Pelagonija mound could also display pile dwellings or huts,
(. 6). since they are often placed on legs (fig. 6). Given the large
swamp area around which most mounds were located in this
, valley, it can be considered that pile dwellings were present
./Fig. 6
1 2 3
114
./Fig. 7
115
8 _1
, in the peripheral parts of the mounds, where the water often

. flooded from melting of the winter snow.
Houses
Solid data on the appearance of the Neolithic houses is

. - obtained from the detailed excavations of these dwellings.
Research shows that in the Neolithic, rectangular houses
, - were usually built with walls made of wooden construction
, . and branches, covered with mud, and then lightly burned for
, wall solidification. Such houses were also registered in Cerje-
. Govrlevo, for which a more detailed review was made in the
(. 7) other chapters of this publication. These houses are more
, , characteristic of the Balkans (fig. 7) and central parts of Europe,
, while in Anatolia, because of the high temperatures, adobe
. .. houses were preferred, without openings in the walls and
, . entrance from the roof. In the so-called Pre-ceramic Neolithic
(. 8), in the Middle East, stone houses were also built, often in a
. circular shape. Such buildings were also present in Cyprus
(fig. 8). The use of stone was also present in the foundations
, of the houses in some settlements in Anatolia. The tradition
of building with a base of stone and wattle and daub walls
./Fig. 8
116
./Fig. 9
. continued in the early phases of the Neolithic in the Balkans,
when ties with the populations that integrated the agricultural
- way of life from Anatolia were still strong.
, .
, In addition to these houses, which can be clearly registered
, - through excavations, wooden architectonic constructions were
. , also built. Because of its organic nature, the wood decomposed
, - and unfortunately, there are no data in the research, except
. the pits for the piles. However, ethno-archaeological analogies
, - point to the existence of wooden huts in similar Neolithic
- societies, which could have had a commercial or a ritual
function. Such buildings are highly expected for the Neolithic
, . sites in the Balkans, especially if the models from Pelagonia
are taken in consideration, which suggest huts with legs,
and a hemispherical roof made of branches, like the Indian
, , , . wigwams. In these buildings, stocks of grain could be stored,
or individuals isolated during the rituals associated with the
initiation, weddings, menstruation, punishments etc.
, -
. Excavations confirmed presence of buildings dug into the
ground with walls from piles and branches, sometimes coated
, , with mud and covered with hay. These structures are named
. - pit huts. Although they are found in the Neolithic villages,
117
8 _1
they are more often present in the short-lived camps, mostly

, built for livestock needs. Some archaeologists, based on ethno
. archaeological analogies, believe that some of the pit huts
could have had a ritual character, such as the Native American
. , - (Indian) sweat lodge. It is assumed that there were rituals of
, purification and healing of the sick inside of them. However,
- it is difficult to provide evidence of such use of pit huts in
. the Neolithic, given that some of them have an inventory
characteristic for houses from the agricultural communities.
( -
), - Precisely this kind of inventory and constructions (in the
(. 9). archaeology named as households) are providing key answers
for the social structure of Neolithic habitats (fig. 9). Although
, it is considered that the Neolithic societies had unified forms
. , - of everyday life, not all houses had the same types of items.
Most of them had food vessels but in some habitats detailed
, analyses and statistics showed that some vessels dominated
- more than others, so it is assumed that those families preferred
. certain forms of diet or had a different status. In addition to
, - the food vessels, stone tools were also often found in the
, households, which can indicate the activity of the inhabitants
, or, if they are in large numbers accompanied by debitage, a
, , - workshop concentrated on flint knives, sickles, arrows, axes,
, . - etc. The items from the visual culture (figurines, models, altars
(, , ) and seals) and their quantity and archaeological context,
, point to the symbolic activities that took place in the houses
, - which can also enter the field of rituals and religion. Still, most
. , of these items confirm that the Neolithic households were
concentrated on the agricultural economy and the ideology
- that was associated with these economic activities.
.
The architecture in Cerje-Govrlevo shows that the economy
and ideology were intertwined, both within the material
, - culture and in the way the houses were used. Namely, a lot of
, . - anthropomorphic models of houses were found on this site,
, which is a rarity for many other settlements (fig. 10). Some of
, (. 10). these models were left (along with the inverted mills) in the
(- houses that were abandoned, which represented a specific
) , symbolic act. The mills themselves are often discovered next
. to the furnaces and the associated elements, which points to
, their duality in terms of diet and rituals. The ovens and the
- other economic constructions that were equally included
. in the economy and religion confirm all this in even greater
, . detail.
,
118
./Fig. 10
119
8 _1
- Ovens, barns and salt yards

(. 9). One of the best illustrations of the primacy in the agricultural
economy in the Neolithic households were the mud
, . - constructions built inside the houses (fig. 9). It regards to the
, several types of ovens and barns that were often encountered
, in and out of these buildings. They were mostly made for the
- storage and processing of grain, for the production of flour and
./Fig. 11
120
. preparation of bread, which as a food product first appeared

in the Neolithic and was crucial to the communities. The
. ovens stand out in the interior of the houses in terms of their
, large dimensions and rare presence of other constructions.
, - They can be simple and composed of clay, or as an enclosed
. calotted space where the bread was placed on a plate, or as
large baking dishes. Sometimes the ovens were more complex
- and had another open platform on which the dough was likely
. dried and the bread was cooked. As a confirmation, there are
, numerous stone mills near these structures, found at several
, - sites in Macedonia, as is the example in Cerje-Govrlevo, but
, , also the one found in Zelenikovo, which was even decorated
. with wave like engraved lines.
In addition to these structures, barns were also built inside

, the Neolithic houses, which in some cases had impressive
. dimensions. The one at Vrbjanska uka is one of the more
, - characteristic in the Balkans (fig. 11). It is a complex structure
(. 11). consisting of a massive barn and several smaller crates. In the
, barn, a larger quantity of grain was packed, while in the smaller
cases it was probably processed along with other ingredients,
, as indicated by the numerous grain residues found in the
. surrounding area. This barn is especially distinguished by
, .. its plastic decoration of the walls, which is identical with the
miniature altars often present on the Neolithic sites in the
. Balkans. One such altar was found inside the barn, which
, , - confirms that it also had a symbolic function, that is, what was
, kept in it was protected, in order to ensure the continuous
. nutrition and food for the community.
, - Such barns, but with much simpler construction and

, - without decorations, were found in Slatina-Bulgaria and
, - Kamnik-Albania, while a much more specific barn with
anthropomorphic inscriptions and a multitude of engraved
, . - ornaments on the walls was discovered in Toptepe, a site
located in the Thracian part of Turkey. The barns of Vrbjanska
, uka and Toptepe point out the importance of what was kept
- in them, and it is not by chance that these constructions also
. , received a semiotic dimension related to the protection and
, - the continuous provision of grain. In contrast, the shallow
. , crates are much more common, especially in the Near East
, Neolithic houses. In the mound at Madari - Skopje region,
several such crates were found, which again highlights the
. concentration on the agricultural economy and the processing
, - of grain for food needs.
,
121
8 _1
. For these boxes found at other localities in the Balkans it is

, - assumed that they could have been used as salt crates, that is, as
, . beds in which salted water was evaporated. The significance of
, salt was great in the Neolithic, both in the production of bread, as
, , - well as in the preparation of food for humans and animals. Some
, settlements in the Balkans, such as Gura Baciului and Lunca
Poiana in Romania, Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Provadia
. in Bulgaria and Danilo in Croatia, were so concentrated on salt
, , production that some of them turned into distribution centres
. of this important spice. Given their importance and wealth of
resources, they were a target of interests, so it was not by chance
that some of them had a fortified protection structure.
Sanctuaries
.
, - In archaeological literature, the word sanctuary is often used to
. - denote space with unusual structures or objects. However, recent
, research shows that only a small number of such sanctuaries
, had a really distinctive character. Most of them contain the same
. , elements as most houses in the Neolithic, so the question is
whether they can really be treated as sacred objects. In any case,
- the presence of shrines and buildings with symbolic functions
, should not be ruled out at all since the Neolithic societies had a
. strongly developed visual culture, which suggests that they had
- a very pronounced symbolic perception. It means that they also
, had an idea for a space that could serve for the transformation
, of the profane into sacral, that is, a place in which some of the
, , , . ideas embodied in the painted vessels, figurines, models, seals,
- altars, etc. will be incorporated. A society with an intense focus
, on agriculture and the almost complete dependence from the
, survival of this economic branch surely brought these categories
. into the symbolic spheres, and this was very likely made through
rituals performed in designated objects.

- The question is what are the features by which one Neolithic
- sanctuary can be differentiated and whether the Neolithic
XIX XX ? populations in general had an idea of the sanctuaries as we
imagine or compare them today with the archaic cultures of
, - the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? The answer is highly
. , - stimulating and refers to the ideology of the first farmers, that
is, from the earliest stages of the Neolithic. Large number of
. researchers suggests that agriculture could be the initial ideology
- that led to the emergence of the first monumental sanctuaries.
An example of this is the fascinating site Gbekli Tepe in Turkey,
(. 12). which contains massive blocks and circular stone structures (fig.
, 12). It was confirmed that these buildings were not for living, and
122
- the tall massive columns had reliefs with animals and ornaments
. that are considered as part of the mythology from that period.
This complex of circular buildings is located very close to the site
. , - where the oldest samples of cultivated grain were found. Hence, it
is assumed that this was the reason for large groups of people to
come to this sanctuary, which in some way marked the beginnings
. of agriculture and its ideological component. In the vicinity later
( ), appeared other similar sanctuaries (such as those in Nevali ori),
which points to the importance of this region in domestication of
. grain cultures and their spread to Levant and Anatolia.
- With the exception of several impressive buildings within

, - Neolithic sites in the Middle East, no other such sanctuaries
. - have been found. This ideology is thought to have been
, gradually modified and more and more incorporated within the
settlements, so part of the specific buildings in Anatolia and the
. , - Balkans are treated as sanctuaries. These structures are primarily
, distinguished by internal structures and decoration, but there
- are still debates about whether they are sanctuaries, because in
( ), - more recent researches (especially in atalhyk), such objects
. , - are increasingly discovered on one site. However, it should be
, noted that such objects with embedded horns, platforms and
, wall painting were not only simple habitats, but also places
. , where there was a particularly suggestive symbolic setting.
, - Constructions with similar, but smaller installations, platforms
. , - and painting were discovered in Romania and Hungary. They
, are considered to be sanctuaries, although the repertoire of
. food vessels, figurines and tools is mostly similar to the Neolithic
, houses. Similar hypotheses have been proposed for some
, buildings on the Neolithic sites Tumba Madari, Vrbjanska uka
. and Dzuniver in Macedonia, but there are still debates about
defining the true nature of these objects.
,
, According to the findings so far, it is difficult to interpret a
. , - particular building as a sanctuary, except for some that have
, . evident features. But this does not mean that such buildings
, - do not exist or are quite rare in the Neolithic. It is possible that
the sanctuaries did not have a particularly impressive interior,
( and the inventory made of sacred objects was removed before
). - leaving the settlements (as is the case with one of the oldest
, houses in Cerje-Govrlevo). Such sanctuaries are very common
. , among archaic cultures, although archaeology expects
impressive buildings to confirm the ritual activities. In that
, . sense, its still not possible to define what a Neolithic sanctuary
, - actually looks like on the Balkans, although this term is often
used for various buildings and constructions.
123
8 _1
./Fig. 12
. - What is crucial in the domain of the ritual is actually the study

, - of contexts that point to certain symbolic activities. Unusual
. - findings are not an indicator of a ritual, sometimes the specific
assembly of everyday objects can point to a ritual act. This was
, not a rare occurrence in the Neolithic and it did not aim to hide
. what was important, but rather to transform the role of these
objects and to incorporate them with additional meaning. It is
, difficult to say whether such a depositing of particular objects
. points to a sanctuary, but in any case, that space and the objects
- in it, had an important role within the community. The most
striking examples of depositing in the Neolithic are actually
124
. the burials that were often carried out within the houses and
. settlements themselves. One such burial was also found under
, the previously mentioned abandoned house in Cerje-Govrlevo.
. Instead of laying them in the burial ground outside the villages,
some of the deceased residents were buried under the habitats
, - or near them. A selection was performed which one would
. - be buried in the settlement as most of them were buried in
, the burial ground, or were left on platforms. In some Neolithic
villages, most of the buried were children and infants, showing
, that they had a significant role in the community because
. they were retained within the community, unlike many adult
deceased individuals who were buried and laid out outside the
settlement.

. Exactly the burial of children and women illustrates the main
- principles of Neolithic social ideology and the absence of
impressive sanctuaries. Children and women were one of the
. , main factors in maintaining the continuity of the community,
precisely through increasing the population and their further
engagement in the economic activities. Namely, a greater
, - number of children in the community meant their inclusion
. , - in agriculture and livestock breeding, which provided and
- increased resources for existence, and a special status in the
. society. In this way, the children symbolized the potential
for further growth of the community and were not identified
- as crucial in the agricultural ideology by chance. From their
. , development and maturation in adult individuals depended
, the future how one family or the entire society would prosper or
- degrade. Thats why they were often buried in the settlements
. and in some way kept under or close to the houses, to return
- again or even as deceased to act for the benefit of the community.
( Some of them were buried in large vessels, which resembled the
(, ) seeds that were kept also in vessels - seeds separated from the
). ground could not grew, but through transformation (grinding,
moulding and baking) could contribute to the nutrition and
livelihood of the people.
: -
, - It is precisely the transformation that is the key factor that reflects
, , the Neolithic ideology and which is present in all spheres: the
, - taming of the wild animals in domestic, the cultivation of wild
.. . , - plants in fertile products, the transformation of clay into ceramics,
the modification of nomadism into sedentarism, and finally, the
, domestication of the hunter into a farmer. Hence, except in the
, earliest stages of the Neolithic Middle East where agriculture
- began, imposing sanctuaries should not be expected in other
, . parts, because, every place where this transformation was
125
8 _1
, performed functioned as a sanctuary, in almost every habitat.

() , - The final transformation began at the end of the Neolithic,
, - it is the conversion of the stone (ore) into metal, which later
, announced the metal ages, and the ideology concentrated on
. this economic activity, as well as the architecture that would
follow the social changes and be in their function.

METALLURGY AND PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AS A
CONCLUSION
(
), - Although metal associates to metallic eras (as the term itself
, .. . , - suggests), it actually appears at the end of the Neolithic, i.e. in
, the so-called Late Neolithic. With this, the Neolithic definitely
affirms itself as an era of transformations, because in the
following stages of prehistory there were no such key changes
. - in the transformation of a particular material or category
from one form to another. Perhaps it should be reconsidered
, whether Late Neolithic should be treated as the beginning of
, , the metal eras and to be included in them, because in that
period the material culture is sharply changing, especially the
( , - one made of ceramics, and at the same time social relations
). become much more pronounced (manifested through various
- artefacts, and most of all through the jewellery). Although
, the objects from this period are quite modest compared
to those that will later be made in the Bronze and Iron Age,
. nevertheless, it is the beginning of the successful melting of
, (, the copper ore and its conversion to a liquid state. Then, by
, ), - cooling and modelling the copper, small and light objects
, - (pearls, spikes, needles and small knives) were made, which
( indicated more on their status components than their real
). application in everyday life (primarily because the copper
- is not a Solid metal). This shows that the copper was very
important in the twilight of the Neolithic and introduced new
. social norms and trends in the further development of tribal
societies and their architecture.

The hierarchical structure further strengthened and became
. , , more visible with the introduction of bronze and iron in the life
. , of prehistoric communities. Then, in fact, the real changes in
, architecture occurred. Of course, the application of adobe on
, - the houses continued, but in the more important settlements,
monumental buildings were beginning to be built, and at
( - the same time most of them were entrenched and placed on
). , high dominant positions (a tradition that began in the Late
Neolithic). Due to this complex social structure, the architecture
- is witnessed by monumental stone buildings that supported
126
. , , - the elite and their position towards the rest. It is massive and
, centralized, and protected, which points to the risk of being
. in the elite and the high social positions. This was reflected
. - equally in the profane and sacred culture. In the cities of that
- time, the central elite buildings were clearly distinguished by
. , their appearance and position from the rest. In general, most
strategic centers were located at elevated locations (usually
( ), hills), whether they were towns or smaller fortresses. Even
. - though they were located in high places, they still were mostly
, , surrounded by massive walls in order to protect themselves
from those who desired the treasures and life in the elite
. architecture. The same applies to the sanctuaries. Most often
. - they were located high in the rocky hills, and were surrounded
, , by walls, this also had its symbolic background associated with
. heights.
- This brief overview of metallurgy and architecture from the

- final stages of prehistory is far from sufficient to show all forms
. of buildings used at that time. In any case, we can observe
, how the economic novelties were closely related to the
- ideological guidelines which were manifested in the material
- culture and architecture through the social and symbolic
. - spheres. It is sometimes difficult to determine whether
ideology initiates technical novelties or their occurrence is
, - prior, upon which social and religious principles follow. From
. this diachronic examination, from the Palaeolithic to the Iron
, Age, that is, from caves to fortresses, it can be concluded that
, the architecture always evolves as a result of the economy -
- ideology connection. It is in function of the achievements and
. ideas behind hunting, agriculture and metallurgy, and at the
, , same time it has a practical application in their realization.
. , - Basically, architecture remains the most reliable witness for the
, technical, social and ideological processes of one community
and along with the material culture helps archaeologists to
understand and interpret something that was destroyed
thousands of years ago. Its interpretation enables not only a
. consistent reconstruction of the buildings, but also provides
, - a thorough understanding of everything that was going on
, . inside and outside of them. .
GOCE NAUMOV
MUSEUM OF MACEDONIA - SKOPJE
127
8 _1
. 1. (). Fig. 1. Palaeolithic hut made of mammoth bones - Mezirich (Ukraine).

. 2. (). Fig. 2. Detail from the cave art in Coliboaia (Romania).
. 3. (). Fig. 3. Plan of the Neolithic site atalhyk (Turkey).
. 4. (; Fig. 4. The Neolithic site Veluka Tumba - Porodin (Macedonia;
. ). photographed by G. Naumov).
. 5. Fig. 5. Prehistoric palafitte settlement Mikjov Grad Gradite
(). (Macedonia).
. 6. : 1 ; 2, 3 , Fig. 6. Neolithic house models: 1 Veluka Tumba; 2, 3 Porodin,
(). Porodin (Macedonia).
. 7. Fig. 7. Graphic reconstruction of a Neolithic house from Nea
(). Nikomedeia (Greece).
. 8. Fig. 8. Graphic reconstruction of a Neolithic houses from Khirokitia
(). (Cyprus).
9. : ) ; b) (). Fig. 9. Plans of Neolithic houses: a) Porodin; b) Madari (Macedonia).
. 10. (). Fig. 10. Anthropomorphic house model from Govrlevo (Macedonia).
11. (). Fig. 11. Neolithic barn from the site Vrbjanska uka (Macedonia).
. 12. (). Fig. 12. The Neolithic sanctuary in Gbekli Tepe (Turkey).
/ USED LITERATURE
, . 2003. . : .
, . 2005. . : .
, . , . 1988. 1 . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 3141. .
, . , . 1976. . Macedoniae cta rchaeologica 2: 85115. .
, . 1993. . Macedoniae cta rchaeologica 13: 1318.
, . 1995. . , ., , . , . (.).
2. : 1120.
, . 2013. . , ., , . , . (.) :
- : 297430. : .
, . 2005. , . 2: 3346. .
, . 1997. . : .
, . 2013. ja . , ., , . , . (.) :
- : 83266. : .
128
, . 2009. . , ., , ., , . , . 2009.
: 2542. : .
, . , . 2015. . 18: 169183.

.
, ., , ., , ., , ., , ., , . , . 2014. ,
. 12: 345372. .
, ., , ., , ., , ., , ., , ., , ., , . , . 2016.
- 2016. 14: 1342. .
, . 1988. . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 9: 930.

, . 2011. -. Macedoniae cta rchaeologica 20: 3552. .
, . , . 1993. . : .
, . 2009. . , ., , ., , . , .
: 3547. : .
, . 2012. . : .
, , . 2010. : .
3637: 6172. .
, . 1995. . ( e.) . : 1445.
, . 2008. . 2. :
.
, . 2009. . , . (.)
XIII: 5372. .
, . 2016. . :
.
, . 2005. . Macedoniae acta archaeologica 16:

919.
, . 2008. , . 1. : 59.
129
8 _1
Latin
Ammerman, A. J. and Biagi, P. 2003. The Widening Harvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Boston:
Archaeological Institute of America.
Azema, M. and Rivere, F. 2012. Animation in Paleolithic Art: a pre echo of cinema. Antiquity 86: 316324.
Bilbija, M. 1986. Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheoloki pregled 26 (1985): 3536. Ljubljana.
Bori, D. and Stefanovi, S. 2004. Birth and Death: infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 78: 526546.
Bknyi, S. 1974. History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad.
Bknyi, S. 1996. Stock Breeding. In Theocharis, D. (ed.) Neolithic Greece: 165177. National Bank of Greece, Athens.
Cauvin, J. 2002. The Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cavanagh, W. and Mee, C. 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece. Jonsered: Paul strm Frlag.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South-eastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Chapman, J. 2001. Object Fragmentation in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeast Europe. In Biehl, P. F., Bertemes, F. and Meller, H. (eds.),
The Archaeology of Cult and Religion: 89106. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
Chapman, J., Erdogu, B., zbasaran, M. and Erdogu, R. 2003. Prehistoric salt exploitation in Tuz Gl, Central Anatolia: preliminary investigations.
Anatolia Antiqua XI: 1119. Paris.
Curtis, G. 2006.The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the Worlds First Artists. New York: Anchor.
Dennell, R. 1983. European Economic Prehistory. A New Approach. London: Academic Press.
Ghemi, C., Clottes, J., Gely, B. and Prud Homme F. 2011. An Exceptional Archaeological Discovery: the Art Gallery in Colioboaia Cave, Apuseni
Mountains, Romania. Acta archaeologica carpathica 46: 418.
Harding, A. 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harding, A. 2013. Salt in Prehistoric Europe. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Harding, A., Sievers, S and Venclova, N. 2006. Enclosing the Past: Inside and Outside in Prehistory. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications.
Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe Structure and Cognistency in Neolithic Societes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Hodder, I. 2005 Inhabiting atalhyk: reports from the 199599 seasons. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
Hoffecker, J. F. 2011.The early upper Paleolithic of eastern Europe reconsidered. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews20(1): 2439.
130
Hofmann, R.; Moetz, F. K. and Mller, J. 2012. Tells: Social and Environmental Space. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
King, R. J., zcan S. S., Carter, T., Kalfoglu, E., Atasoy, S., Triantaphyllidis, C., Kouvatsi, A., Lin, A. A., Chow, C-E. T., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Michalodimitrakis,
M. and Underhill, P. A. 2008. Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic. Annals of Human Genetics 72:
205214. London.
Kitanoski, B., Simoska, D. and Jovanovi, B. 1990. Der kultplatz auf der fundstatte Vrbjanska Cuka bei Prilep. In Srejovi, D. and Tasi, N. (eds.)
Vina and its World. International Symposium The Danubian Region from 6000-3000 BC: 107112. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Science and
Arts, Centre for Archaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy. Beograd. Bigz.
Kyriakidis, E. 2005. Ritual in the Bronze Age Aegean: The Minoan peak sanctuaries. London: Duckworth.
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1982. The Dawn of European Art: An Introduction to Palaeolithic Cave Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis-Williams, D. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames and Hudson.
Lewis-Williams, D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. London: London: Thames and Hudson.
Malez, M. 1979. Prirodni okviri, rad na istraivanju i nalazita paleolitskog doba u Makedoniji. In Benac, A. (ed.) Praistorija jugoslavenskih
zemalja I, Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba. Sarajevo: Academy of Science and Art of Bosnia and Hercegovina: 407417.
Mellaart, J. 1967 atal Hyk: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Thames and Hudson, London.
Menotti, F. and Korvin-Piotrovskiy, A. G. 2012.The Tripolye culture. Giant-settlements in Ukraine. Formation, development and decline.Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
Menotti, F. and OSullivan, . 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Wetland Archaeology. Oxford University Press.
Naumov, G. 2007. Housing the Dead: Burials inside houses and vessels from Neolithic Balkans. In Malone, C. and Barrowclough, D. (eds.), Cult
in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology: 255265. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Naumov, G. 2011. Visual and conceptual dynamism of the Neolithic altars in the Republic of Macedonia. In Nikolov, V., Bacvarov, K. and Popov,
H. (eds.) Interdisziplinre Forschungen zum Kulturerbe auf der Balkanhalbinsel: 89129. Sofia: Nice.
Naumov, G. 2013. Embodied houses: social and symbolic agency of Neolithic architecture in the Republic of Macedonia. In Hoffman, D. and
Smyth, J (eds.) Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe - sedentism, architecture and practice: 6594. New York: Springer.
Naumov, G. 2015. Early Neolithic Communities in the Republic of Macedonia. Archeologick Rozhledy LXVII (2015/3): 331355. Prague.
Naumov, G. 2016a. Wetlands and Lakeside Settlements in Lake Ohrid (Republic of Macedonia). Plattform 22/23: 1020. Uhlindgen.
Naumov, G. 2016b. Tell Communities and Wetlands in the Neolithic Pelagonia, Republic of Macedonia. Documenta Praehistorica XLIII: 327
342. Ljubljana.
Naumov, G. 2016c. Prehistoric Wetlands and Lakes: bringing forward dendrochronology in archaeology. Skopje: Center for Prehistoric Research.
131
8 _1
Naumov, G. 2016d. Among Wetlands and Lakes: the network of Neolithic communities in Pelagonia and Lake Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia.
In Bacvarov, K. and Gleser, P. (eds.) Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory: essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary: 175
187. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Publishing House.
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
Pinhasi, R. 2003. A new model for the spread of the first farmers in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica XXX: 147. Ljubljana.
Price, D. T. 2000. Europes First Farmers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radivojevi, M. and Rehren, T. 2015. Paint it Black: The Rise of Metallurgy in the Balkans. The Archaeological Journal of Method and Theory 23:
200237.
Rosenstock, E. 2009. Tells in Sdwestasien und Sosteuropa: Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition eines Siedlungsphnomens. Urgeschichtliche
Studien II: Grunbach.
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2003. Early Domestic Animals in Europe: Imported or Locally Domesticated? In Ammerman, A. J. and Biagi, P. (eds.) The
Widening Harvest: The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward: 99117. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.
Schmidt, K. 2010. Gbekli Tepe-The Stone Age Sanctuaries: New Results of Ongoing Excavations with a special focus on Sculptures and High
Reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII: 239256. Ljubljana.
Soffer, O., Adovasio, J., M., Kornietz, N.L., Velichko, A. A., Gribchenko, Y. N., Lenz, B.R. and Suntsov, V. Y. 1997. Cultural stratigraphy at Mezhirich,
an Upper Palaeolithic site in Ukraine with multiple occupations.Antiquity71:4862.
Souvatzi, S. 2008. A Social Archaeology of Households in Neolithic Greece: An Anthropological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stalio, B. 1968. Naselje i stan neolitskog perioda. In Trifunovi, L. (ed.) Neolit Centralnog Balkana: 77106. Beograd: Narodni muzej Beograd.
Svoboda, J. A. 2007.The Gravettian on the Middle Danube.Paleobiology19: 203220.
Tasi, N. N. 2000. Salt Use in the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technology, Style and Society: 3540.
British Archaeological Reports International Series. Oxford. Archaeopress.
Thorpe, I. J. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture. London: Routledge.
Trinkaus, E. and Jelinik, J. 1997.Human remains from the Moravian Gravettian: the Doln Vestonice 3 postcrania.Journal of Human Evolution33:
3382.
Tripkovi, B. 2007. Domainstvo i prostor u kasnom neolitu: vinansko naselje na Banjici. Beograd: Srpsko arheoloko drutvo.
132
Vandiver, B. P., Soffer, O., Klima, B. and Svoboda, J. 1989. The Origin of Ceramic Technology at Dolni Vestonice, Czechoslovakia. Science 246
(4933): 10021008.
Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origins and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe and Nile
Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zvelebil, M. 2001. The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII: 126. Ljubljana.
133
CIP
. ,
903.4(497.712 )634
903.3:316.7(497.711)
8 - 1 : - = Skopje before 8 millenia -1

: the earliest bulders from Cerje - Govrlevo. - : = Skopje : Museum of the city of
Skopje, 2017 ( : = Skopje : Data pons). - 134 . : ilustr. ; 23
. . . - : 128-133
ISBN 978-608-233-069-3
a) , - - -
b) - - o
COBISS.MK-ID 103813898

Skopje Before 8 Millenia - 1: The Earliest Bulders From Cerje-Govrlevo - Museum of The City of Skopje

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Skopje Before 8 Millenia - 1: The Earliest Bulders From Cerje-Govrlevo - Museum of The City of Skopje

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

8 _1

SKOPJE BEFORE 8 MILLENIA_1

For the Publisher

Curator of the exhibition and editor of the publication

. . Translation in English language on the papers of A. Toma and Lj.

. , . Translation in English language on the papers of I. Tolevski, G.

Photograph on the cover

: Computer realization and print

Realization of the Neolithic house model

The exhibition and the publication were supported by

. - I first got acquainted with the site Cerje-Govrlevo, when M.

). , those pictures triggered archaeological imagination in various

, - In 2000 M. Bilbija and the team from Museum of the city of

. , area architectural remains of six houses have been preserved

The study of Neolithic houses in Southeast Europe has

VI ... - construction and morphology, as well as from sociological

and projects like this are contributing immensely to the

(. 5). - of the past as well as quality of living in a such Neolithic built

. 1. . (2009 ). Fig. 1. M. Bilbija at the site Cerje-Govrlevo (in 2009).

, . 2011. , (70005000 . ..). 19492011. . : 3133.

, , . 1984. . IX (1982): 3848. .

Witnesses of the rich history of Govrlevo are the houses

, , The village of Govrlevo is situated on the sunny south-west

, - slight plains and downhills, as well as, the rich hydrological

, , , . , Cerje-Govrlevo, the evidences about early man are hidden

, The archaeological exploration campaign of 1984 is probably

15 , , Vrnik II-V culture, the horizon Govrlevo V corresponds to

, , The archaeological explorations on the site in the period

, - situated outside the house (due to destructions of the house

(. 3 II). layers with different contents and spread were documented,

north-south direction, and according to their size consisted of

In the course of the explorations, at depth between 1.3 and 1.8

with amorphous spread in direction west-east, filled with pottery

, - In 2010 with the removal of all remained layers, the

, the decline of almost all layers in northwest-southeast (in this

- The traces of the earliest civilizations in the world are

I - chronologic-stratigraphic aspect it was established that in

: Nota bene: within some illustrations of the catalogue the source

, . 2011. , (70005000 . ..). 19492011. : 3133.

, . 2010. ( ). Macedoniae acta archaeologica 19: 431445.

, , . 1984. . IX (1982): 3848. .

, . 2011. 2004 . Macedoniae acta

, . , . 2004. . Annales Mediterranea. Koper. Univerza na Primorskem,

The newly created climatic and natural conditions during the

Early Neolithic settlement Govrlevo

- According to the gathered data from the systematic

, , , - curved and probably represents an arch. The preserved pits for

. 4). - an east-west extending direction and dimensions 7 x 7 meters

( ) thermal construction elements. The floor was made of a layer of

of the house (width 0.35-0.4 m) allowed better insulation and

- A similar method of construction was also used in the houses

Middle Neolithic settlement Govrlevo

Without a doubt, the Neolithic settlement near Govrlevo

. 2 I House 2 no. of trench I

, This house represents a special architectural unit, composed of

. is around the two architectural elements - the oven and the

. which served in the process of preparing food. Similar objects

. In the southern smaller room on the southwest corner, there

. 2 II House no. 2 of trench II

. 2 Large pieces of wall and floor elements of house no. 2 of trench

. 1 I House no. 1 of trench I

- The remains of this house were discovered in a highly damaged

. 1 II House no. 1 of trench II