_UDK 903'I(450.36+497.4)''633/634'':330.342_
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIV (2007)
'Sheep are your mother': rhyta and the interspecies politics
in the Neolithic of the eastern Adriatic
Dimitrij Mleku/
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI
dimitrij.mlekuz@guest.arnes.si
ABSTRACT - This paper explores the relations between humans and animals through material cul-
ture, or more specifically, four-footed vessels also called rhyta (sing. rhyton). I want to suggest that
rhyta are not merely artistic representations of something or some kind of cult paraphernalia, but
that they embody effective social agency. I place them in the context of human-animal or interspe-
cies politics in the Neolithic of the eastern Adriatic.
IZVLEČEK - V članku raziskujem odnose med ljudmi in živalmi skozi materialno kulturo, preko sti-
rinogih posod, imenovanih tudi ritoni. Ritoni niso le umetniške upodobitve nečesa ali nekaki kultni
pripomočki, temveč utelešajo močno delovanje. Njihovo delovanje raziskujem v kontekstu politike
odnosov med ljudmi in živalmi v neolitiku vzhodnega Jadrana.
KEY WORDS - rhyton; animals; archaeology; art; cult; Neolithic; east Adriatic
Introduction
The four-legged 'cult' vessel or rhyton is a vessel of
specific and distinctive shape, found in middle and
late Neolithic contexts of the western Balkans. Its cu-
rious shape and decoration has puzzled many resear-
ches; most of them agree that their distinctive shape
had a specific purpose.
Recent theories have suggested that artefacts are
much more than just objects: they are active subjects
in a web of relationships between persons and things
(Gell 1998; Latour 2005). I develop the argument
that 'persons' in the Neolithic of east Adriatic inclu-
ded not only humans, but also animals. Thus rela-
tionships between animals and humans must be un-
derstood as social relations. Animals also had the
power to 'act back' and influence human lives, there-
fore making relations between species political.
I explore the role of rhyta in the politics of human-
animal relations in the Neolithic of the western Bal-
kans. The main issues I tackle are: what makes rhyta
agents, and how they can transform and modify so-
cial relations between people and animals?
Traditional studies of rhyta
The origins of rhyta are blurred, and it is not my in-
tention in this paper to make them any clearer (for
more recent detailed discussion of the chronology
and origins of rhyta see Biagi 2003; Marijanovič
2007).
Rhyta are probably connected with the zoomorphic
vessels and altars which are a common feature of
the early Neolithic contexts of the southern and cen-
tral Balkans, together with monochrome or painted
pottery, figurines, zoomorphic amulets, clay tripods
and stamp seals (Nea Nikomedeia in Greece Macedo-
nia, Rakitovo in Bulgaria and Donja Branjevina in
Serbia). This particular form of zoomorphic vessel,
the rhyton, seems to appear after 6000 calBC some-
where in the southern or western Balkans.
Copyright by Department of Archaeology, Faculty of arts, University of Ljubljana.
267
Possibly the earliest dated frag-
ment comes from Achileion, mid-
dle Neolithic phase IIIb, dated to
around 6000 calBC (Gimbutas
et. al 1989.Fig. 7.69). A few frag-
ments of rhyta were found in
eastern Albanian early Neolithic
sites such as Vashtemi (Korkuti
1982.145; Korkuti 1995.Taf. 15)
and Barg (Lera 1993.31). Alba-
nian rhyta are often found in con-
texts with Impressed Ware (sug-
gesting Mediterranean influen-
ces) on the one hand, and painted
pottery, clay tripods or cult tab-
les, anthropomorphic and zoo-
morphic figurines, split-leg figuri-
nes, clay pins and stamp seals (as-
semblages common in the central
and eastern Balkans; see for ex-
ample Budja 2003) on the other.
Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of rhyta.
Some recent finds of rhyta from early Neolithic Im-
pressed Ware contexts from Dalmatia (Crno Vrilo;
Marijanovic 2007) and Italian Apulia (Caverna Elia,
Le Macchie; Biagi 2003) are keeping the discussion
of their origins alive.
In a few hundred years after 6000 calBC the rhyta
became a characteristic element of the Middle Neoli-
thic cultures of the western Balkans, such as Danilo
and Kakanj on the eastern Adriatic coast and Bosnia,
and Cakran, Dunavec and Topoljan in Albania. After
5600 calBC they can be found at a wide range of
sites from the Peleponnese in the south to the Tries-
tine Karst in the north, from Kosovo and central
Bosnia in the east and the Italian mainland and the
Lipari Islands to the west (Fig. 1).
Their curious shape has provoked many interpreta-
tions of their function. Almost every commentator
on these vessels agrees that they have some specific
purpose. They have been called scoops (Ihde 1995),
salt-pots (Chapman 1989) or coal-scuttle vases
(Weinberg 1965). However, most authors have gran-
ted them cult status, therefore calling them 'cult'
rhyta or four-footed vessels.
Most authors put them in the context of fertility cults.
Josip Korošec (1958.55-59; 1964.73-74) saw them
as vessels used in libation-like rituals used in the
worship of water, and later see them as stylized re-
presentation of the (human) female lower torso, and
as female pendants to a male phallus cult. Širne Ba-
tović interpreted them as lamps used in the worship
of ancestors. In his later works he points to the zoo-
morphic qualities of rhyta and connects them with
pastoralists and animal fertility (Batovic 1958; 1979.
560). Alojz Benac (1964.65-66; 1973.38; 1979.403-
405) saw them as symbols of life and fertility of ani-
mals and fields. He interprets ring handles as rep-
resentations of curved animal horns. In the same
way, Borivoj Čović (1976.22-24) explained them as
instruments used in a cult of fertility of women, ani-
mals and land. The oval receptacle, often painted
red, represents the uterus, where the legs stand for
the teats of the udder. He believes that they are part
of 'Near Eastern' mother goddess worship.
Slavisa Perić (1996), in his detailed interpretation of
rhyta, follows the same line of thought. He sees them
as a representation of the womb, udder and teats of
different species of animals, especially sheep and
goats, pigs and cattle. He uses the shape of the legs
(which he interprets as teats) to differentiate the ani-
mals which were represented by the rhyta, such as
cows (common in Kakanj culture) or sows (in Thes-
saly).
We might argue that the fact that researches have
seen many things in them testify that they are not
simple representation, but ambiguous depictions in-
volving powerful imagery composed of elements
composed of attributes animal/female/fertility/nur-
ture attributes. But can this abundance of female/ani-
mal-fertility imagery condensed in rhyta be under-
stood in simplistic terms of fertility rites and mother
goddess worship? Their ambiguity suggests that are
polyvalent and multi-referential; they mean not one
thing, but can condense a whole range of different
meanings (see Thomas 2005).
Researchers have sought to create trans-regional cul-
tural connections based on the similarities of rhyta
from a wide area. Their wide distribution is often
seen as an effect of the seasonal or nomadic migra-
tions of pastoralists (for example Perič 1996; Mon-
tagnari Kokelj 2003), an idea deriving from rich
ethnographic data from the Balkans (such as Vlachs
or Sarakatsani).
However, we might question the assumption that re-
semblance over a wide area necessarily means that
they were used in the same way. Modern ethnogra-
phically documented pastoral practices, used to ex-
plain the distribution of rhyta, are not remnants from
the deep past, or timeless adaptations to the Mediter-
ranean landscape. Modern pastoralism is a complex
result of adaptations to different natural and histori-
cal rhythms, economic conjectures, political processes
and events, and above all, the emergence of capita-
lism. The projection of modern pastoral practices into
the past to explain Neolithic social processes is there-
fore utter anachronism (see Mlekuž 2003; 2005).
East Adriatic Neolithic communities
Rhyta can be found in a variety of contexts along
the eastern Adriatic coast. The Neolithic on the east-
ern Adriatic coast is not a homogenous and totali-
zing entity. It has different forms, the results of diffe-
rent historical processes which accompanied and
modulated the adoption of novel resources and life-
styles. A useful heuristic device for distinguishing
different historical processes along the east Adriatic
coast is the division of sites into two groups: camps
and villages (Mlekuž 2005).
Cave sites are located in mountainous hinterland,
away from lowlands suitable for cultivation. They
are marked by low densities of pottery and animal
bone, the majority of which are ovicaprine. Cave
sites are usually 'deep', with long occupational histo-
ries, often extending back into the Paleolithic. Caves
can be interpreted as seasonal hunting or herding
camps. Archaeological, geoarchaeological and archa-
eozoological data suggest that they were used as
sheep pens and shelters for small, autarchic and
very mobile (nomadic) groups, which relied heavily
on large flocks of ovicaprines (Mlekuž 2005).
This archaeological record is in striking contrast to
the lowland settlements located near water sources
and land suitable for agriculture (Müller 1994).
These sites usually yield evidence of architecture,
large quantities of pottery, and domesticated plants
and animals. They can be identified as villages, prac-
ticing a mixed farming subsistence economy. Low-
lands are settled by predominately small-scale, dis-
persed settlement units, often abandoned or reloca-
ted {Chapman et al. 1996.335-343). Most Neolithic
stock keeping in villages seems to have been small
scale, involving localized movements around settle-
ments, predominately in the lowlands. Although
some faunal assemblages are dominated by small-
stock, most display a mixture of livestock species
more reminiscent of small-scale mixed farmers.
Interspecies politics
In contemporary western societies, the functions of
raising, slaughtering, and consuming is usually sub-
ject to a division of labour, where the consumer of
meat does not meet the slaughterer or the raiser of
the livestock. But among Neolithic societies every
person was a herder, sacrificer, slaughterer and con-
sumer of the animal at the same time:
"Neolithic lives and worlds were undoubtedly dif-
ferent from our own. Their relations with animals
were closer, part of everyday life, a substantial part
of economic/social relations. Relations with ani-
mals may have been mediated through relations
with other persons (and vice versa), but the con-
nections between one person and another, one
person and their domestic animals or prey, may
have been extremely important for the identity of
that person (e.g. through food taboos, or through
shared aspects of identity between people and cer-
tain animals). Neolithic personal experience may
have been greatly shaped by the animals they bred,
exchanged, hunted with, hunted, ate (Fowler 2001.
160).
Our relations with animals are specific to our histo-
rical context, and rooted in Western ontological as-
sumptions which distinguish between people (agents,
subjects), animals (non-intentional, prey, predators,
pets), and objects (non-sentient things) (Nadasdy
2007.26).
Human and non-human persons
Irving Hallowell observed that the Ojibwe, with
whom he worked, thought of animals (not to men-
tion inanimate objects) as sentient and intelligent
persons. For the Ojibwe (and other circumpolar peo-
ples) the concept of the person transcends human
beings:
"All animate beings of the person class are unified
conceptually in Ojibwa thinking because they have
a similar structure - an inner vital part that is en-
during and an outward form (e.g. human, animal,
stone, etc.) which can change. Vital personal attri-
butes such as sentience, volition, memory, speech
are not dependent on outward appearance, but
upon the inner vital essence of being (Hallowell
1960.21, my emphasis).
Hunting in these societies is a long-term relation-
ship of reciprocal exchange between animals and
humans. Hunter-gatherers believe that they can only
catch animals when the animal gives itself to them
voluntary. Hunting is understood as a rite of regene-
ration: consumption follows the killing of an animal,
just as birth follows intercourse, and both acts are
integral to the reproductive cycles of animals and
humans. However, animals can be offended. They
will not return to a hunter who has treated them
badly in the past, and they can be offended if their
meat is not properly shared among all those in the
community who need it.
Regeneration of lifeworld depends upon a mainte-
nance of balance in the reciprocal give-and-take of
vital forces. Animals give life to humans, but humans
should receive only what is offered, rather than seek
to extract vitality by force (Ingold 2000.123).
Trust and domination
Robert Brightman (1993) argues that there exists a
tension between two distinct and mutually contra-
dictory principles governing human-animal relations
among the Rock Cree. These are the principles of
'reciprocity' on one hand, and 'domination' on the
other. He argues that although Cree hunters do sub-
scribe to the notion that animals surrender themsel-
ves to hunters, at other times these same hunters
think of themselves as locked in an advisory relation-
ship with animals, who are conceived as powerful
beings that must be overcome and dominated if the
hunters are to survive (Nadasdy 2007.27).
Tim Ingold (2000.61-76) developed this idea in the
mutually exclusive principles of 'trust' and 'domina-
tion'.
On the other hand, Paul Nadsady (2007.26-28) ar-
gues that there is no theoretical need to make such
as distinction; moreover, to do so is to artificially se-
parate aspects which form a coherent whole: they
must be understood within a general theory of gift
and exchange (for example Mauss 1954; Godelier
1999).
The notion that the principle of domination is some-
how opposed to the principle of reciprocity is incon-
sistent with anthropological understandings of ex-
change. Altruistic giving is rare: gifts are neither spon-
taneous, nor freely given. There are many examples
of reciprocal exchange systems that embroil their
participants in unequal, competitive, and even adver-
sary relations:
"There is a tension, but it is a tension inherent in
the gift relationship itself, rather than arising from
a contradiction between two distinct principles of
'trust' and 'domination'. ... animals must be viewed
as powerful and dangerous trading partners" (Na-
dasdy 2007.28).
Pastoralism
When hunters became pastoralists they began to re-
late to animals, and to one another, in different
ways. The incorporation of tame animals in a hu-
man household, where animals gain the status of
quasi-persons, is the first pre-condition for pastora-
lism. Tame animals are ubiquitous in hunter-gathe-
rer societies, where they have the role of hunting as-
sistants, transport animals, or decoys (Ingold 1980.
95-112). Pastoral property relations become expli-
cit when the status of animals changes from agents
of production to sources of food. It is also a change
in the animals' status from quasi-persons to resour-
ces. Animals in the pastoral mode of production be-
come means of reproducing the social relations of
pastoral production. Reproduction and the multipli-
cation of domestic animals make possible the accu-
mulation of wealth (Ingold 1980.144). The slaugh-
ter of domestic animals frees people from the obli-
gations of sharing that apply in the case of hunted
animals. Social fragmentation into autonomous, self-
sufficient domestic units is therefore not the cause,
but the effect of drawing on domestic herds for sub-
sistence.
Tim Ingold describes the new relations between hu-
mans and animals in pastoralism as 'domination':
"It is the herdsman who takes life-or-death deci-
sions concerning what are now his' animals, and
who controls every other aspect of their welfare,
acting as he does as both protector, guardian and
executioneer. He sacrifies them; they do not sac-
rifice themselves to him" (Ingold 2000.72).
But pastoral animals are not only good to eat or
think, they are also - to follow Donna Harraway
(2003) - good to live with. The social relations be-
tween domestic animals and people are different,
but also much closer and intimate than relations with
wild animals. Animals are not only socialized in hu-
man societies, but they also socialize people in their
herds. This sociability affects both species, human
and non-human, and new social forms emerge, with
animal and human peoples' societies acting upon
each other and creating new social relations.
Thus in the upland caves of the eastern Adriatic hin-
terland, humans and sheep shared living spaces,
smells and sounds, and herds dictated the movement
from cave to cave in search of pasture. However, live
animals were probably less involved in the exchange
and social relations between isolated and autarkic
households.
This sociability might have been different in perma-
nent lowland settlements, where animals were pro-
bably physically separated from humans, but more
involved in relations between families through gifts
or bridewealth.
Pastoralists, when asked about their animals, talk
about them in the same way as hunters do. Navajo
use the metaphor of mother, generalized reciprocity,
when they speak about their sheep: "those called
sheep are your mother, sheep are life" (Wither-
spoon 1973.1442). And even if we accept that there
are elements of domination in human-animal rela-
tions under pastoralism, they are not prevalent. Ani-
mals and people are involved in tight social rela-
tions, and in order to maintain long term relation-
ships, politics of reciprocity between humans and
animals must be maintained.
Pastoralists depend on herds, their growth and accu-
mulation. They live in constant fear of epidemics and
natural disasters that might exterminate the herd
(see Ingold 1980.163-176). To protect against future
catastrophes and to maintain the reproduction and
growth of herds, humans must rely on maintaining
a balance in the reciprocal give-and-take of life-force
(see Witherspoon 1973). Animals (or their spiritual
masters) can be offended and they will not return
herders who have treated them badly or wasted the
life-force. This means that animals have the power
to 'act back' and alter human life. Relations between
animals and humans are therefore political. The po-
litics between animals and humans is not based on
human 'domination', but rather on balanced recipro-
cal relations derived from an animistic ontology of
life-force flow.
The slaughter of an animal incurs a spiritual debt
that must be repaid through the observance of a
whole series of different ritual attitudes and practi-
ces. Thus among pastoralist, animals are never slau-
ghtered, but sacrificed. Sacrifice, like hunting, is con-
nected with many taboos and must be performed in
the proper way, otherwise it might disrupt relations
between humans and animals (see Evans-Pritchard
1956.196-230; Abbink 2003).
Animals are therefore simultaneously sacrificial vic-
tims (as cooked meat, consumed by the humans)
and, among the sacrificial recipients, as the 'life-force'
or 'inner vital essence of being' of sacrificed animal
is returned to animals. This reciprocity often inclu-
des 'middle persons', such as the spirits and spiri-
tual owners of animals; however, the principle of ex-
change of life-force is the same as in hunting.
This might have very deep implications for our un-
derstanding of Neolithic herd management strate-
gies, as derived from faunal records and kill-off cur-
ves. Neolithic herd management might not have
been aimed at 'optimizing' the production of meat
or milk. Instead, it might have been based on the
principle of the reciprocal flow of the 'life-force' and
the idea that more (proper) slaughtering (e.g. sacri-
fice) produces more animals.
Hunting and pastoralism must be understood as a
set of social relations not only among humans, but
also between human and animal persons (Nadasdy
2007.29). These relations have profound political di-
mensions. In the following chapters I am going to
develop the argument that rhyta were intertwined
in this network of relations between people and ani-
mals, held it in place and modified it through their
own agency.
Iconicity of rhyta
Main point of departure of this paper is to treat rhyta
not as mere representations. They might have some
- often ambigous - iconic resemblance to animals,
humans, or body parts, but this resemblance is not
in the function of representing them, but rather in
revealing the hidden properties of animals and hu-
mans and their relations.
Depictions of animals
Tim Ingold, in his essay 'Totemism, Animism and the
Depiction of Animals' (Ingold 2000.111-131) shows
that depictions of animals by hunter-gatherers from
Australia and the circumpolar North explain and can
be explained by their respective totemic and animi-
stic ontologies.
In the Australian totemic ontology, the life force is
concentrated in the land, set down in the era of the
'Dreaming' by powerful ancestral beings who moved
across landscape and deposited their life-force in the
processes of creation and transformation of places.
The land embodies the creative powers of the ance-
stors, and humans and animals relate primarily to
the land.
By contrast, Ingold argues, the 'vital force' in animi-
stic ontology is distributed among beings that inha-
bit the world. These beings are mutually engaged
with one another, creating a complex network of re-
ciprocal interdependence based on the exchange of
substances and 'vital force'. The life of one being is
predicated on the mortality of another, making the
transformation and becoming essential for the main-
tenance of the flow of life.
The difference is also expressed in ceremonial prac-
tices and depictions of animals. In Australia, animals
are portrayed as static and associated with the mor-
phology of the landscape, "a world which is already
made, not in the making' (Ingold 2000.120). Songs,
dances and storytelling re-enact ancestral activity,
stressing their co-substantiality with the ancestors.
Fig. 2. Some examples of rhyta: 1, 2 - Obre I (Benac 1979 Tab. LVIII) 3, 4 - Smil-
cić (Batovic 1979.Tab. LXXXV).
In the circumpolar north, carved wooden mask re-
veal the agencies of animals. They are not realistic
representations of animals, but use distorted human
features to capture the underlying character of the
animal (Ingold 2000.124). Masks have the power to
invoke the spirits of animals during rituals.
Rhyta as depictions
Rhyta are not aniconic. Rhyta imagery is composed
of attributes and features of animal and human bo-
dies. There is obviously a high degree of ambiguity
present. Some rhyta are explicitly anthropomorphic.
Most have zoomorphic qualities. Some are human-
animal hybrids, and some resemble animals from
one viewpoint, but can also be like part of an animal,
perhaps the udder, from another (Fig. 2).
The most distinctive and recognizable features are
the four legs which support the torso and ring han-
dle. Legs can appear in many shapes, from thin and
long to short and swollen. Some even have elabora-
ted tips, shaped as animal hoofs or (rarely) as human
feet. Wide voluminous legs are often pointed, ambi-
guously suggesting that they can also represent full
teats.
There is a class of rhyta which is obviously anthro-
pomorphic (Fig. 3). They represent part of the hu-
man torso in a kneeling or crouching position, with
legs widely apart. An enormous rounded belly rests
on thighs. The abdomen is opened. There is no up-
per torso; instead, a large ring is fixed on the back
of the rhyta.
When a rhyton is positioned on a level surface in
front of us, the legs are hidden from view, and only
two features become prominent: the large ring and
the empty volume of the
interior of the abdomen.
They clearly show what
rhyta primarily display:
the interior of the body
or abdomen.
Alfred Gell (1998.141-
142) states that 'idols'
or sculptural works in-
tended for cult use ra-
ther than mere repre-
sentations are often me-
rely hollow envelopes,
possessing 'significant
interiors'. He cites the
examples of hollow mauri stones, hollow sorcery-
images, or a class of medieval sculptures called vie-
rges ouvrantes, an image of the Virgin which can
be opened to reveal a representation of the Trinity
in her abdomen.
Also appropriate examples are the masks of circum-
polar peoples (Ingold 2000.111-131, see above),
with hinged doors that open to reveal a face, effect-
ing a transformation which reveals the true face of
the animal. Other masks achieve the same effect by
exploiting ambiguous imagery using figure-ground
reversal illusions. A mask may look realistic from
one angle, but from another can show entirely diffe-
rent features and a different face (Ingold 2000.124).
Again, it is the interior of the idol which hides the
true face and the mask is merely a surface which
keeps it contained until the dramatic event of trans-
formation: t]he metamorphosis is not covering
up, but an opening up, of the person to the world
(Ingold 2000.94)"
Artefacts that resemble the body have the particular
power to be attributed with agency. They achieve
their effectiveness in invoking a projection of the
mind through an iconicity of internality/externality.
Rhyta can be seen as containers, skins around 'signi-
ficant interiors'. Their agency is attributed through
the invocation of an interior beyond the beyond the
surface of the artefact. This correspond to the animi-
stic view of personhood, where vital personal attri-
butes such as sentience, volition, memory and speech
are not dependent on outward appearances, but
upon the inner vital essence of being.
The most important modes to communicate the pro-
perty internal to the artefact are orifices and enclo-
sures. Especially agentive are artefacts with eyes, a
particularly effective icon of mind. Rhyta do not have
eyes. Instead, they have a large ring, a circular ope-
ning that might resemble a vagina or wound, espe-
cially as the ring is often covered with red pigment
(see below). Rings thus communicate an internal
property of rhyta which can be connected to the in-
ner vital essence of being.
However, containment is of little value if substan-
ces contained inside the container can not pass to
the outside and vice versa. This opening might have
a temporal dimension, as an act of opening, perhaps
through the deliberate breaking of a rhyton. It can
also be communicated through the iconicity of a rhy-
ton. Anthropomorphic rhyta which depict women gi-
ving birth in a kneeling or crouching position there-
Fig. 3. Anthropomorphic rhyton from Smilcic (Ba-
tovic 1979.Tab. XCIIJ.
fore communicate the process of transformation or
flow of life-force contained in a rhyton (Fig. 3).
Skins and envelopes
Rhyta can be therefore understood as 'skins' or en-
veleopes around 'significant interiors'. Some of them
have bare skin, with smooth, polished surfaces. How-
ever, large numbers of rhyta are ornamented with
incised decoration covering the whole surface (skin)
of the vessel (Figs 4, 5). Some parts are omitted: in-
side parts of the legs, the interior of the receptacle,
the interior part of the handle. The repertoire of mo-
tifs is shared with contemporary pottery, such as
hatched triangles, spirals, chess-boards, zigzags, and
running spirals etc. However, they are used in a dif-
ferent way than on pots, as they cover the whole sur-
face and not only the perimeter of the pot. The ring
receives special attention; it is emphasized with diffe-
rent decoration from the rest of the rhyta (Fig. 4).
According to Gell (1996;1998.73-94), ornamental
art is much more than a function of aesthetic plea-
sure. Objects decorated with skilfully executed geo-
metrical and decorative patterns appear animated in
a 'non-representational way', as parts of the pattern
relate to neighbouring motifs, thus testifying to the
agency of the pattern and object as a whole. This
'dance' of complex patterns, their multiplicity and
the difficulty we have in grasping the logic of inter-
play between them, draws our attention and catches
Fig. 4. Geometric patterns on the rhyton fragments from Danilo
(Korošec 1964.Tab 9, 10, 11).
it in the 'unfinished business' of de-
ciphering its logic.
However, this 'unfinished business'
of unravelling the geometric pattern
causes us to relate to an artefact in a
special way. The inexhaustible pat-
tern, always in a state of being deci-
phered, creates a long-term, biogra-
phical relation between the decora-
ted artefact and the person looking at
it, in the same way as watching and
contemplating animals create bond
of domestication and close social re-
lations. Evans Pritchard describes
how the bond between the Nuer and
their cattle is created and maintained
through acts of looking:
"The men wake about dawn at camp in the midst
of their cattle and sit contentedly watching them
till milking is finished. Then they ... take them to
pasture and spend the day watching them graze...
When the cattle return in the evening they tether
each beast... and sit in the windscreens to contem-
plate them and watch them being milked' (Evans-
Pritchard 1940.36-37, cited in Ingold 1980.181).
Complex geometric patterns can serve as 'mind-traps'
and can be used in a apotropeic role as 'demon-traps'
(Gell 1996; 1998.86-90).
Colour
The color of rhyta - made of fired clay - ranges from
buff through brown to grey or almost black. How-
ever, it looks as if most, if not all, rhyta were painted
with red pigment. In some cases the whole fragment
(or perhaps the whole vessel) was painted. However,
in most cases, only parts of the vessels were colou-
red. These include mainly the ring (or more preci-
sely, the interior part of the ring), the receptacle, and
the interior part of the legs (Fig. 5).
Again, colours are more than mere representation
or decoration. They are agentive; capable of trans-
forming things. Victor Turner, in his highly influen-
tial essay on red, white and black (1967) proposed
that, based on a universal human organic experi-
ence, red has a universal significance related to blood.
The association of red with blood has been much dis-
cussed in the literature. There are many examples
which do not support Turner's universalist theory
(see Young 2006). For example, red may also be as-
sociated with ambiguity, magical powers and trans-
formation.
Instead of seeing colour as a static propriety of the
vessel, we may try to consider its temporal aspects.
Rhyta were covered with pigment after firing, as pig-
ment rubs off easily. Painting the vessel may have
been a part of its lifecycle and associated with special
limnic events such as use in rituals or end of life -
deliberate breaking.
A colour change might also be thought as transfor-
mation in itself, not only symbolically. Colour, or its
material form, pigment, has an agency, transforming
objects. Anthony Forge wrote of the yam cult, where
all magical substances are classed as paint, and paint
is a ceremonial medium through which initiates are
turned into men (Forge 1962).
Fig. 5. Traces of
red pigment on
the rhyton leg
from Smilcic (Ar-
chaeological Mu-
seum Zadar).
By the act of applying the dye to the surface and in-
side of the rhyton, it entered into a process of trans-
formation. Here, the agency of red can create a
whole network of analogies which place the rhyton
in a web of relations between people and animals:
"Killing, hunting, eating, and menstruation, sex,
conception and birth are the constituents of a fun-
damental metaphor likening the provisioning of
society to its reproduction. The explicit sex (wo-
men) and hunting (animals) likeness in dreams
and verbal polysemy are the potent expression of
this metaphor. Menstrual blood possesses multiple
values in this scheme. A symbol of female fertility,
because coextensive with it in the life cycle, men-
strual blood is simultaneously the material cause
of fertility as the substance out of which foetal flesh
is formed. Some Cree men say that menstruating
women are especially likely to conceive. Women
biologically reproduce the human community,
their ability to do so evidenced by the flow of blood
that, however, in the event of conception, they be-
gin to retain within their bodies. Human life is also
visibly reproduced by killing and eating animals.
Hunting and trapping are paradigmatically male
occupations through which men enact a reproduc-
tive role complementing that of women. The ani-
mal blood spilled at kill sites and trap sets corre-
sponds to menstrual blood, which is a precondition
of female fertility." (Brightman 1993.128-129)
Red can serve as a marker and agent of transforma-
tion of a rhyton, but it can also have an apotropeic
role. Red pigment can act as an additional layer of
protection of vital body parts in the process of trans-
formation; thus the interior of the recipient, 'the
meaningful emptiness', the opening of the ring and
interior part of the legs, and area around the geni-
talia. Boric (2002.28) cites many examples of the use
of red in folk costumes associated with fertility and
protection.
Thus red dye contains a powerful agency transfor-
ming the rhyta. It is a marker, agent and protector
of transformation of the rhyta.
Fractal depictions
There are a few rhyta from lowland villages which
are decorated with small animal heads, added to the
body or ring of the rhyta. Those animal heads look
like small animals sprouting from the rhyton's sur-
face (Fig. 6).
Alfred Gell (1998.137-141) discusses the carving of
the deity A'a by the Rurutu in the Austral Isles, where
the features of the god are represented by small fi-
gures which repeat in miniature the overall form of
the god as a whole. It is a 'fractal image', which dis-
plays self-similarity at different scales. Its body is
depicted as composed of other bodies. A'a is not an
individual in the sense that there is a clear boundary
between it and others. Instead, it is a 'fractal person',
represented as an aggregate of external relations in-
stantiated in the 'inside' persons. There is no border
between internal and external.
This notion of 'fractal person' is based on the an-
thropological analyses of Melanesian societies by
Mary Strathern (1988) and Roy Wagner (1991). Peo-
ple, objects and non-human beings are therefore in-
dexes of relations - they are made up of, or consti-
tuted by, their relations or connections. They are not
so much individuals as 'dividuals': who they are and
what they do is generated by their transactions with
each other, with animals and with artefacts (see Fow-
ler 2001; 2004; Jones 2005).
Animals are involved in social relations between hu-
mans through gifts or bridewealth. Animals circulate
among households. Wealthy owners whose holdings
exceed the maximum manageable size will find it
mutually advantageous to loan or give some animals
to other households. Conversely, if someone is short
of animals, they may seek gifts or loans from the bet-
ter-off {Dahl and Hjort 1976.136-137; Ingold 1980).
Animals produce milk for the household where they
are situated, irrespective of who owns a particular
animal; however, the owner retains control over the
slaughter of an animal and over its offspring. Alter-
natively, complementary types of animals allow po-
orer households to exploit the high reproductive po-
tential of small stock to build their herds and then
exchange them for larger stock (Dahl and Hjort
1976.230-234). Households spread their interests by
distributing animals as gifts and loans to a range of
stock-associates. Such herds typically consist of ani-
mals from a number of separate owners under the
management of a single household. This establishes
a network of social relations between households,
which are reflected in herds. (Ingold 1980.17; Evans-
Pritchard 1940.66-67, 153-154).
Thus someone's personhood is separable into rela-
tions with other persons, humans and animals. These
are constitutive of people and animals, who are there-
fore composed of the sum of the relations between
them. But it is not only the flow of animals and hu-
mans between households which
constitutes personhood.
When an animal is sacrificed at a
wedding, the meat is distributed on
the same pattern as a bridewealth
herd. Like the bridewealth herd, the
sacrificial victim is the focus of mul-
tiple claims which derive from the cu-
mulative history of prior transactions
spanning generations of both hu-
mans and animals (Evans-Pritchard
1951.66-67, 153-154). Humans and
animals are therefore mutually enga-
ged with one another, creating a
complex network of reciprocal inter-
dependence based on the exchange
of substances and 'vital force'. Thus
when an animal is sacrificed, the ob-
ject of sacrifice is not the 'individual'
animal, but a fractal person who
'stands for' the whole network of
animals and humans.
Fig. 6. 'Fractal' rhyta. 1 - Smilčić (Batovic 1979.Tab. LXXXV) and
2 - Danilo (Korošec 1964.Tab 5.7, 6.3).
Rhyta are persons, too just like animals and humans
- not individuals, but 'fractal persons' composed
through many relations between people and ani-
mals, or mediated through animals.
Paradoxically, I have described rhyta as if they were
whole, although no unbroken rhyta has been found
yet. Only fragments, parts of rhyta are found in ar-
chaeological contexts. One can only agree with John
Chapman's statement (2000.67) that the process of
fragmentation is vital to their understanding.
Transformation, breaking and deposition
John Chapman's innovative study (2000) focused on
the practices of fragmentation and accumulation in
the Neolithic of Balkans as processes which link peo-
ple to object through production, exchange and con-
sumption.
Chapman has pointed out that rhyta are highly frag-
mented. He states that only about 8 % of published
rhyta are complete. But even this is an overestimate,
as most published 'whole' rhyta are reconstructions
based on a few fragments. It is safe to state that most,
if not all, rhyta are broken.
Open-air sites have yielded much higher number of
rhyta; for example, in Smilčić, around 200 fragments
of rhyta were excavated, while in the Caput Adriae
caves only 22 fragments were found (Montagnari
Kokelj and Crismani 1993).
Chapman explains the absence of whole rthyta and
their low number in peripheral areas of rhyta distri-
bution such as the Caput Adriae caves and Lipari, as
a result of the down-the-line movement of fragments
creating 'enchained relations' between people along
the path.
However, the fragmentation analysis of rhyta from
Smilčić and Caput Adriae caves shows that they are
comparable (Fig. 7). Rhyta from the Caput Adriae
caves are not more fragmented than those from
open-air settlements at Smilčić. There are pieces that
can be fitted together, and most fragments are bro-
ken at the 'weak point' at the junction of the body
and leg. While in Smilčić there are more legs which
were broken below the weak point, indicating that
they were broken at least twice or took more effort
to break.
Two provenance studies from Triestine karst caves
(Edera; Spataro 1999 and Mala Triglavca; Žibrat
Gasparič 2004) have clearly demonstrated that
rhyta were produced locally in the Karst plateau
and not traded or brought from elsewhere, not even
from coastal villages only a few kilometres away. On
the other hand, based on one typological criteria,
one fragment of a ring handle from the Bosnian site
Obre I was identified as an "import from the Adria-
tic coast' (Benac 1973.84, Fig. 16).
The deliberate breaking of rhyta is an efective ritual,
where it is transformed into something else. In the
process of breaking, the 'significant interior', the 'vi-
tal force' of a rhyton, is revealed and released, while
the rhyton is fragmented into parts. The resulting
fragments may now have different quality as a whole
rhyton, and may be circulated among the partici-
pants, perhaps in the same pattern as meat or a bri-
dewealth herd. Births, marriages, deaths and epide-
mics may have formed the context for the deliberate
breaking of rhyta.
Fragments of rhyta were then moved around the
settlement (or camp) and deposited in the same de-
posits as the body parts of slaughtered animals and
pottery fragments. Rhyta fragments in lowland villa-
ges are often associated with anthropomorphic and
zoomorphic figurines and decorated 'lids' or phallu-
ses (see Batović 1968).
Rhyta fragments from upland caves were most pro-
bably found in contexts which were the result of pe-
riodic cleaning of the cave interior (after or before vi-
sit of a herd), with pottery, animal and human bones
mixed together in the sediment and deposited at the
cave wall.
The metonymic qualities of many deposited objects
(such as parts of rhyta, human and animal bones)
suggest that they were concerned mainly with the
maintenance of the flow of vital force and not with
'practicalities' of living floor maintenance (Brück
1999; Chapman and Gaydarska 2006.71-79). These
deposits are not generalized, de facto refuse, but ra-
ther special, structured deposits, which maintain or
established relations between humans and animal
herds, place and previous occupations.
Conclusions
ted through the effective arrangement of iconic ele-
ments. In the process of being made, a rhyton is trans-
formed from raw materials into an object of power.
But the rhyta are not only powerful by themselves:
their potency is acted out and enhanced through ri-
tual and performance. We have already noted the
role of red pigment, which was applied after the fi-
ring, effectively starting and marking the process of
transformation of rhyta. But the most powerful trans-
formation of rhyta was their deliberate breaking
when their 'vital force', contained in a 'significant
interior' was released, and the resulting fragments
were exchanged and deposited.
Animals in the Neolithic societies of eastern Adriatic
are not just passive 'meat packages', waiting to be
slaughtered and consumed. They are persons, invol-
ved in a complex network of exchange of substances
and 'vital force' with other animals and humans. As
such, they have power to 'act back' and alter human
life. The politics between animals and humans is
therefore not based on human 'domination', but ra-
ther on balanced reciprocal relations derived from
the an animistic ontology of life-force flow. Doing
good politics involves the maintenance of social re-
lations. The making and deliberate breaking of rhyta
might have been a way of reciprocating the flow of
vital force. They invoke the presence of non-human
sources of power, animal spirits, with which humans
must perforce transact in order to keep vitality in
circulation. Births, marriages, deaths, epidemics,
points in the animal reproduction cycle or other
events where the balance of vital force was distur-
bed, may have formed the context for the deliberate
breaking of rhyta. There might be subtle differences
in the context of breaking and deposition of rhyta,
based on different social relations between humans
and animals in the Neolithic communities of the east-
Rhyta are highly ambiguous depic-
tions composed from many attribu-
tes derived from animals and hu-
mans, especially the female body.
However, they are not mere depic-
tions as such, or some kind of ritual
or cult paraphernalia, but also power-
ful agents. They do not represent,
they do, act, and change relations be-
tween persons.
Rhyta have a life history. They are
modelled from clay, incised with de-
coration, fired. Their potency is crea-
Fig. 7. Fragmentation analysis of rhyta from Caput Adriae (data
from Montagnari-Kokelj and Crismani 1993) and Smilčić.
ern Adriatic. Thus rhyta from the lowlands empha-
size the fractal nature of persons, humans and ani-
mals, created through the exchange of animals and
persons, while upland pastoral communities might
be focused more on the flow and exchange of vital
force.
Rhyta are made by humans, and imbued with life
through a variety of iconic properties and external
activities. They embody complex belief about the
connections between animals and humans. Rhyta are
the human/animal politics made durable. They lite-
rally render the social negotiation between humans
and non-humans visible and tangible.
-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
I would like to thank Natalija Čondič, custodian from
the Archaeological Museum Zadar who kindly gave
me access to the rhyta from Smilcic.
REFERENCES
ABBINK J. 2003. Love and Death of Cattle: The Paradox
in Suri Attitudes Towards Livestock. Ethnos 68:341-364.
BATOVIC S. 1958. Neolitske kultne posude iz Smilčića. Ar-
heološki vestnik 9-10(2): 79-93.
1968. Problem kulta phallosa u danilskoj kulturi. Dia-
dora 4: 5-51.
1979. Jadranska zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija ju-
goslovenskih zemalja vol. 2: neolitsko doba. Svetlost.
Sarajevo: 473-635.
BENAC A. 1964. Studije o kamenom i bakrenom dobu
na sjeverozapadnom Balkanu. Veselin Masleša. Sarajevo.
1973. Obre I - Neolitsko naselje starčevačko-impresso
i kakanjske kulture na Raskršću. Glasnik Zemaljskog
muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine XXVII/XXVIII: 1-102.
1979. Prelazna zona. In A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija ju-
goslovenskih zemalja vol. 2: neolitsko doba. Svetlost.
Sarajevo: 363-469.
BIAGI P. 2003. The Rhyton of the Balkan Peninsula: Chro-
nology, Origin, Dispersion and Function of a Neolithic 'Cult'
Vessel. Journal of prehistoric religion XVI-XVII: 16-26.
BORIC D. 2002. Apotropaism and the temporality of co-
lours: colourful Mesolithic-Neolithic seasons in the Danube
Gorges. In A. Jones and G. Macgregor (eds.), Coloring the
Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeoogical Re-
cord. Berg. Oxford: 23-43.
BRIGHTMAN R. 1993. Grateful prey: Rock Cree Human-
Animal Relationships/. University of California Press.
Berkeley.
BRÜCK J. 1999. Ritual and rationality: some problems of
interpretation in European archaeology. European Jour-
nal of Archaeology 2(3): 313-344.
BUDJA M. 2003. Seals, contracts and tokens in the Bal-
kans Early Neolithic: where in the puzzle? In M. Budja
(ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica
30: 115-130.
CHAPMAN J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Rout-
ledge. London, New York.
1989. Ceramic production and Social Differentaiation:
the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Mediterra-
nean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1(2):
2-25.
CHAPMAN J. and GAYDARSKA B. 2006. Parts and Wholes:
Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxbow Books.
Oxford.
CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. and BATOVIC S. 1996. The chang-
ing face of Dalmatia. Leicester University Pres. Leicester.
ČOVIC B. 1976. Od Butmira do Ilira. Veselina Masleša.
Sarajevo.
DAHL G. and HJORT A. 1976. Having herds:pastoral herd
growth and household economy. University of Stock-
holm. Stockholm.
EVANS-PRITCHARD E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description
of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of
a Nilotic People. Claredon Press. Oxford.
1951. Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer. Clare-
don Press. Oxford.
1956. Nuer religion. Claredon Press. Oxford.
FORGE A. 1962. Paint - a magical substance. Palette 9:
9-16.
FOWLER C. 2001. Personhood and Social relations in the
British Neolithic with a Study from Isle of Man. Journal
of Material Culture 6(2): 137-163.
2004. An Archaeology of Personhood: An Anthropo-
logical Approach. Routledge. New York.
GELL A. 1996. Vogel's net. Traps as artwork and artwork
as traps. Journal of Material Culture 1(1): 15-38.
1998. Art and Agency. Claredon Press. Oxford.
GIMBUTAS M., WINN S. and SHIMABUKU D. 1989. Achi-
leion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece. Monu-
menta Archaeologica 14. Insititite of Archaeology. Los An-
geles.
GODELIER M. 1999. The Enigma of Gift. Universiity of
Chichago Press. Chichago.
HALLO WELL I. 1960. Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and
Worldview. In S. Diamond (ed.), Culture in History: Es-
says in Honor of Paul Radin. Columbia University Press.
New York: 19-52.
HARAWAY 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto:
Dogs, People and Significant Otherness. Prickly Para-
digm. Chichago.
IHDE C. 1995. Die Elefantendarstellungen der Hvar-Lisi-
cici Kultur und das Problem ihrer Herleitung. Arheološ-
ki vestnik 46:53-88.
INGOLD T. 1980. Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in
Livelihood, Dweling and Skill. Routledge. New York.
JONES A 2005. Lives in fragments? Personhood and the
European Neolithic. Journal of Social Archaeology 5(2):
193-224.
KORKUTI M. 1982. Vashtemia - nje Vendbanim I Neolitit
te Hershem. Iliria 12(2): 91-146.
1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien.
Philipp von Zbern. Mainz am Rhein.
KOROŠEC J. 1958. Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitnju.
Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Zagreb.
1964. Danilo in danilska kultura. Univerza v Ljublja-
ni, Arheološki oddelek filozofske fakultete. Ljubljana.
LATOUR B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduc-
tion to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.
Oxford.
LERA P. 1993. Vendbanimi I Neolitit te Hershem ne Barg
(Barg I). Iliria 23:5-31.
MARIJANOVIC B. 2007. Kultni riton s Crnog Vrila - prilog
problematici kultnih ritona u neolitiku istočnog Jadrana
(Cult rhyton from Crno vrilo - a contribution to the topic
of cult rhyta of the Neolithic period in the East Adriatic.)
In M. Blečič, M. Črešnar, B. Hansel, A. Hellmuth, E. Kaiser
and C. Metzer-Nebelsick (eds.), Scripta praehistorica in ho-
norem Biba Teržan. Situla: Dissertationes Musei natio-
nalis Sloveniae VII: 57-68.
MAUSS M. 1954. The Gift: Forms and functions of ex-
change in archaic societies. Free Press. Glencoe.
MLEKUŽ D. 2003. Early herders of the Eastern Adriatic. In
M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Prae-
historica 30:139-151.
2005.	The ethnography of the Cyclops: Neolithic pas-
toralists in the eastern Adriatic. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32:15-
51.
2006.	Meat or Milk? Neolithic economies of Caput Ad-
riae. In A. Pessina and P. Visentini (eds.), Presistoria
dell'Italia Settentrionale. Studi in ricordo di Bernar-
dino Bagolini. Comune di Udine, Museo Friulano di
storia naturale. Udine: 453-458.
MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 2003. Why settling a Karstic
Area? Considerations on the Trieste Karst (nort-eastern
Italy) in the Late Prehistory. Histria Antiqua 11: 75-93.
MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. and CRISMANI A. 1993. La pre-
senza di "vasi a quatro gambe" nel neolitico del carso Tri-
estino. Aquileia nostra 64: 9-66.
MÜLLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolitikums.
Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-
raumes. Berlin.
NADASDY P. 2007. The gift in the animals: The onthology
of hunting and human-animal sociality. American Ethno-
logist 43(1): 25-43.
PERIC S. 1996. Kulth-Rhytone der neolitischen Viehzüch-
ter der Balkanhalbinsel. Starinar 47: 21-66.
SPATARO M. 1999. La caverna dell'Edera di Aurisina (Ts):
studio archeometrico delle ceramiche. Atti della Societä
per la Preistoria e la Protoistoria del Friuli-Venezia Giu-
lia 11: 63-89.
STRATHERN M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. University
of California Press. Berkeley.
THOMAS T. 2005. Ambiguous symbols: why there were
no figurines in Neolithic Britain. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 167-
175.
TURNER V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndem-
bu Ritual. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
WAGNER R. 1991. The Fractal Person. In M. Godelier (ed.),
Big Men and Great Men. Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Cambridge: 159-173.
WEINBERG S. 1965. Ceramics and the Supernatural: Cult
and Burial Evidence in the Aegean World. In F. Matson
(ed.), Ceramics and Man. Viking Fund Publications in
Anthropology 41:187-201.
WITHERSPOON G. 1973. Sheep in Navajo Culture and So-
cial Organization. American Anthropologist, New Series
75(5): 1441-47.
YOUNG D. 2006. The Colours of things. In C. Tilley, W.
Keane, S. Kuechler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (eds.),
Handbook of Material Culture. Sage Publications. Lon-
don: 173-185.
ŽIBRAT GASPARIČ A. 2004. Archaeometrical analysis of
Neolithic potery from the Divača region in Slovenia. In M.
Budja (ed.), 11th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-
storica 31: 205-220.