5

Prehistoric figurines in Albania: A review

Rudenc Ruka, Institute of Archaeology, Tiran.

Within the context of material culture studies, the representation of

human and animal forms during the Neolithic in Albania has been the
subject of different classifications of terracotta figurines, and analogies
with neighbouring cultures in Albania and abroad. Despite this, there is
limited discussion concerning their function, archaeological and social
context. This article aims to reassess previous studies of figurines
in Albania, an area where Muzafer Korkuti has made considerable
contributions, in the context of the existing theoretical framework, and
to present the international developments in the study of material culture
in general and figurines in particular. By doing this, the intention is to
introduce new perspectives on figurine studies in Albania and offer the
prospect for new directions in this field.
The culture-historical approach and its influence in the study of
material culture in Albania
The study of Albanian prehistory began when the Balkan traveller, Sir
Arthur John Evans, declared in 1886 at a meeting of the Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland that: So far as I am aware, no
implements of prehistoric date have been found either in Epirus or
Albania, though several polished stone axes of diorite and, I believe,
other material have come to light (Evans 1887: 66). The first substantial
research into prehistory was carried out during 1900-1929 by the
pioneering Albanian archaeologist Shtjefn Konstantin Gjeov Kryeziu
(1874-1929) who excavated several Bronze/Iron Age tumuli and created
a large archaeological collection (Gjeovi 1914: 1; 1920a: 109112; 1920b:
27

Prehistoric figurines in Albania: A review

157158; 1920c: 182184; 1920d: 207208; 1920e: 231232; 1925: 12; 2000:
166167; Buda 1979: 113; Kamsi 1985: 106115; Zojzi 1985: 128; Prendi, 1988a:
79; Kamberi 1993: 4; Gae 2000: 3840; Brahaj 2003: 4548). In 1921, another
important contribution was made by the physical anthropologist Eugene Pittard
who discovered a Neolithic site in the vicinities of Prespa Lake. His work in
Albania has remained almost unnoticed (Milaj 2005: 4950; Mustilli 1965: 457;
Valentini 2005: 971). Note should also be taken of the German archaeologist,
Bolko von Richthofen (it should be noted that the name appears in different
spellings such as, B. Richtofen [Korkuti 1983a: 39; 1989: 14], Bolko von
Rithoffen [Kamberi 1993: 6], and B. von Richthofen [Mustilli 1965: 457; Harrold
et al. 1999: 372; Fracis and Gjipali 2005: 199]), and especially of the Italian
prehistorian, Luigi Cardini. The former discovered a Palaeolithic site during the
1930s at the foot of Dajti mountains in the vicinity of Tiran (Mustilli 1965: 457;
Korkuti 1983a: 39; 1989: 14; Kamberi 1993: 6; Harrold et al. 1999: 361; Francis
and Gjipali 2005: 199), while Cardini carried out surveys and excavations during
1930-1939 throughout southwest Albania (Gilkes 2005: 3; Kodhelaj 2002). Both
Richthofens and Cardinis work, nevertheless, had no influence on post-war
studies in prehistory in Albania as Mustilli, Anamali, Prendi and Korkuti have
shown (Mustilli 1965: 458; Anamali 1969: 92; Prendi 1972: 83; 1976: 21; 1982:
189; Korkuti 1983a: 3940; 1984: 5).
The establishment of a stable Communist state in the 1950s led to a growth
in interest in archaeology among political circles, encouraging archaeological
excavations (Prendi 1988a: 910). Archaeological studies were mainly defined
by a culture-historical ideology, which characterised the theory of Albanian
archaeology throughout the communist period. This approach originates in the
19th century when archaeological material was recovered throughout Europe as
a result of economic development, and the concomitant founding of museums
and research institutes. As the archaeological database grew, this encouraged the
classification and comparison of artefacts in a more careful manner (Trigger 1997:
148149). It was for these reasons that during the early 19th century Christian
Jorgensen Thomsen clearly defined the idea of the three age system, which was
adopted worldwide through the work of Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae (Daniel
1981: 5960). In addition, Gustav Oscar Montelius in the 1880s introduced a
typological method, dividing the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages into several
periods, which he regarded as applicable to Europe as a whole. Within each of
these periods he noted regional variation and rejected the idea that all parts of
Europe had reached the same stage of advancement simultaneously (Bibby 1956:
181182).
Although initially archaeology was used primarily as an instrument for the
classification of material culture, there were also attempts to interpret cultural
units in ethnic terms. Due to political, economic and ideological pressures during
this period, European societies were particularly engaged with nationalistic
movements, an association which was equally evident in archaeology practice as
well. In this context archaeology played a major role by encouraging a sense of
ethnic identity amongst many of the European nations (Trigger 1997: 156158).

28

Rudenc Ruka

These concerns with historical and ethnic problems focussed the attention of
archaeologists on the geographical distribution of distinct types of artefacts and
artefact assemblages in an effort to relate them to historical groups. This practice
dominated European archaeology until the end of the 1960s (Kohl and Fawcett
1995: 320).
With regard to Albania, the main concern of archaeologists during the
communist era (1945-1992) was to prove that the Albanians had inhabited
their country since prehistory to the present day (Hodges et al. 2004: 11).
As a consequence of border conflicts, nationalist ideas had also influenced
archaeological studies (Kurti 2004: 10). Material culture studies were focussed
in constructing typologies, cultural groups and in proving their autochthonous
development (Kurti 2004: 12). While discussing the development from the Middle
Neolithic to the Eneolithic, Muzafer Korkuti writes: The autochthonous origin
of the Eneolithc culture was shaped by the revival of the autochthonous elements
of Middle Neolithic (Korkuti 1974a: 387). Aiming for a complete chronological
sequence of prehistory, archaeologists built up a strong tradition of typological
studies and sequences, making cultural and cross-cultural comparisons based
mainly upon pottery. This theoretical context characterised Albanian archaeology
until the end of the 1980s (Miraj and Zeqo 1993: 123125) when, together with
political changes, western schools of archaeology and advanced theories were
first introduced.
The study of prehistoric figurines in Albania: a literary review
As with other elements of material culture, the study of figurines deals with
general classification into categories, and also involves identifying parallels from
other sites within or outside Albania. On the other hand, no clear interpretations
were formed and limited interest was taken in their specific archaeological and
social context. In this context no classification or interpretation was attempted
when the first Neolithic anthropomorphic figurines were discovered in 1962 at
during excavations beside the river Dunavec (Fig. 1) (Prendi and Andrea 1971:
1).
Slightly later some attempt was made to devise categorisations (Prendi 1966:
260) of the first prehistoric figurines deriving from an archaeological excavation
discovered during 1963 (Rebani 1964: 243) in an Eneolithic context of the
multi-period site of Maliq (Korkuti 1987: 7). The figurines were first divided into
two categories - anthropomorphic and zoomorphic; then they were categorized
according to the production method such as hand made or mould made; and
finally, groups were defined with distinctive types and subtypes. However, no
detailed description was made for individual figurines or any association with
any of the categories mentioned above. In addition, only a few figurines were
illustrated (Prendi 1966: 260, Tab. X).
A change occurred in the early 1970s, when nine fragmented anthropomorphic
figurines of the Middle Neolithic from the settlement of Cakran (Korkuti
and Andrea 1972: 154) were included within the category of cult objects, a

29

Prehistoric figurines in Albania: A review

Figure 1. Neolithic terracotta figurine from Dunavec discovered in 1962: a. Drawing

(Korkuti 1995: tab. 48), b. Front view (Prendi 1988b: 179).

30

Rudenc Ruka

classification which was used in all later studies. Some analogies were also made
with Neolithic cultures of the Aegean and a few of the figurines were described
and illustrated (Korkuti and Andrea 1972: 154155, 172).
Preliminary categorisations were made during this time taking account
of their function and production, as is the case with figurines from the Late
Neolithic site of Kamnik. These were regarded as objects with magical and
religious properties and were classified on the basis of being decorated either
before or after firing (Prendi and Aliu 1971: 25). However, none of these
interpretations was correlated to particular cases or figurines and no analysis was
made to support this typology.
The same methodology was applied in the study of the figurines from
Dunavec when these were first published in 1971. In addition, Korkuti states:
figurines are important indicators that express ethno-cultural relations between
Dunavec, Cakran and the Neolithic sites of Greece (Patisia, Amorgos, Sparta and
Naxos) (Korkuti 1971: 1415). In two different articles published in 1974, in the
context of analysing the ceramic differences that define Dunavecs Phase I and
II, Korkuti notes similar changes also in the appearance of the anthropomorphic
figurines, but the observation was not supported with any specific evidence
(Korkuti 1974a: 387; 1974b: 5, 7).
During the 1980s there was increased interest in figurines leading to debates
about their meaning as well as more detailed descriptions. Nevertheless, the
figurines from the Early Neolithic settlement of Vashtmi were still included
within the category of cult objects and were defined as either anthropomorphic
or zoomorphic. Special emphasis was given to the quantity of each of the
categories found at the site. Eight out of 15 figurines are described in detail and
shown in illustrations. Even though the posture, production method, measures,
clay description, and shapes of the figurines are emphasised, this categorisation
is not systematic as not all of the figurines were considered. The zoomorphic
figurines were described in detail, illustrated and some interpretations are offered
on the basis of their function, type of animal and production (Korkuti 1982: 91,
108111, 116, Tab. XVI).
Further attempts were made to understand meaning, by considering the
figurines as creations of Neolithic art through which the makers expressed their
world view. In this context the concept of the cult of Toks-nn (Mother Earth)
was introduced, considered by Korkuti as obvious because of the prominent
representation on the figurines of female traits. The cult, so the argument went,
was related to reproduction and fertility, and was paralleled in other Balkan and
Anatolian cultures of the Early Neolithic (Korkuti 1982: 91, 108111). Analogies
were made with figurines from Macedonia, Thessaly, the western coast of Asia
Minor, the Aegean, and Anatolia, and interpreted as belonging to a common
conceptualisation in the iconographic representation of the figurines and in
the existence of the cult of Toks-nn (Mother Earth). In this context the
figurines were considered as representing, to a certain degree, the common origin
of these cultures.
A further attempt was made to categorize the figurines from Middle

31

Prehistoric figurines in Albania: A review

Neolithic Kolsh II according to their steatopygia (steatopygia is the accumulation

of large amounts of fat on the buttocks, especially as a normal condition in
the Khoikhoi and other people of arid parts of southern Africa [Pearsall 1999:
1405]) or non-steatopygia (Korkuti 1983b: 4042). In addition, once again these
were all described and illustrated.
In the following years the same methods of research were published in a
sequence of articles (Lera 1987: 32; 1988: 2930; 1993: 1516; Bunguri 1993: 54,
5657; Gjipali 1995: 2931) with few minor additions such as the introduction
of the term Magna-Mater (Big Mother) in Latin, which corresponded to Toksnn (Mother Earth) in Albanian (Korkuti 1985: 46).
A significant publication of 1995 on the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods
(Andrea 1996: 6971; Gjipali 1996: 103105; Kalogirou 1997: 594595)
demonstrated an increased interest toward figurines with detailed descriptions
and illustrations (Korkuti 1995). However, because the publication is in German,
it is difficult for the wider Albanian audience to use it. Therefore, for the purpose
of this article I will use the 1989 original version of the manuscript, which again,
due to the fact that is not been published in Albanian has had a limited influence
on Albanian prehistory.
If Dunavec is taken as an example to illustrate the publication, the
discussion (Korkuti 1989) for the first time contained a detailed description
and illustration of each figurine. The figurines along with other aspects of the
material culture have been divided chronologically into Phase I and Phase II
figurines. In addition, for each Phase there is a categorisation into groups based
on attributes such as cylindrical neck, exaggerated buttocks, beaklike nose. Not
all the figurines are included in this classification though, and the author refers
to the most notable examples and does not follow a clear method considering
all the attributes. Moreover, in some instances the categorisation did not aim
to explain meanings or draw conclusions. In a different case the presence of
good proportions, decoration, and careful modelling have been considered as the
criteria for defining these as true works of Neolithic art (Fig. 2).
The basis of the interpretation was a simple question: what do the
anthropomorphic figurines represent? It was assumed, for example, that the
figurines representing women can be identified with the cult of Magna Mater
and the Goddess of fertility. These cults signify the reproduction of life and the
protection of society. Further assumptions were made that the Neolithic age
was sustained by a matriarchal society, with the woman playing a central role.
It is during this time, so the thesis goes, that humans may have correlated the
similar functions of woman and the earth, the former as being important for the
reproduction of life and the latter for the reproduction of natural produce that
provided subsistence. In addition, the large number of figurines at the settlement
of Dunavec was interpreted as a factor underlining the importance of this cult
among the inhabitants. By drawing upon information on figurines from other
Albanian sites and abroad, Korkuti attempted to establish broad chronological
relationships which in turn might explain the origin of the Dunavec inhabitants.
Regarding the zoomorphic figurines, Korkuti has noted the small number

32

Rudenc Ruka

Fig. 2. Neolithic terracotta figurine from Dunavec showing size reduction: a. drawing
(Korkuti 1995: tab. 42), b. front view, c. side view.

of examples during Phase I. Additionally, he has considered for further analysis

the meaning of only two figurines that represent bulls. These are regarded as
representing the cult of cattle which might have played an important role in the
economy of Dunavec. The influence of this cult is considered to be derived from
Catal Hyk in Anatolia (Korkuti 1989: 179193, 196197, 219224, 226229,
231232), whereas in a later publication Korkuti interprets all the zoomorphic
figurines of this period as related to the cult of the household animals by stressing
their important role in the economy (Korkuti 2002: 29).
International theoretical developments in material culture studies
The theoretical perspective in Albanian archaeology followed the same track as
the rest of the international community until the 1960s. It was after this period
that the international theoretical framework shifted toward a new perspective
on material culture (Gamble 2001: 7). The culture-historical approach largely

33

Prehistoric figurines in Albania: A review

explained change in terms of migrations of people and supposed influences

(Renfrew and Bahn 2000: 38). The dissatisfaction with culture-historical
archaeology led to a turning point in archaeological theory which was developed
through Anglo-American archaeology in the 1960s and early 1970s (Johnson 1999:
20). In 1958, Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips argued for a greater emphasis
on social aspects, a broader processual interpretation or study of the general
processes at work in culture history (Willey and Phillips, 1958). These concepts
were introduced to American archaeologists by Lewis Binford who added new
elements (Trigger 1997: 294). Binford and other authors saw the earlier approach
as using the archaeological data to write a kind of counterfeit history (Binford
1968: 313341). Archaeological evidence was appropriate, so Binford and his
colleagues believed, for reconstructing the social and economic aspects of past
societies (Renfrew and Bahn 2000: 38).
In this context Bartel, through sophisticated quantitative techniques such
as the computerised statistical treatment and patterning of figurines, tried to
make possible the testing of conclusions such as the functional continuity of
the mother goddess from the upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic (Bartel 1981).
Analytical methods of this kind were used to attempt to determine the functional
relationship of cultural traits in social systems by viewing the cultures as adaptive
systems composed of interrelated subsystems which interacted with each other
and the environment in which the system is set (Darvill 2002: 341; Trigger 1997:
298). During the 1980s a number of criticisms were made of processualist
archaeology (Johnson, 1999: 90). A series of new theoretical approaches deployed
in archaeological thinking, which were included under the term post-processual
archaeologies, were introduced for the first time by Ian Hodder in 1985 (Hodder
1985: 126). These theories have little in common, except for being critical of
processual archaeology, although emphasis was now placed upon the role of social
factors in the way human societies operate. Hodder felt that the same pattern or
traces in the archaeological record could be produced by a range of different
simulated processes and that patterns might be explained or interpreted in many
different ways. Meskell has put this cogently: Today, rather than trying to embed
sites and cultures within broader, universal classifications, archaeologists examine
them in their own individual context, so that local variation and character is
stressed. (1998: 47). It is in this context that the new work has a greater level of
sophistication to the figurine analysis by emphasizing the diversity and focusing
on the meanings and uses of the figurines in particular times and places (Lesure
2000: 12). Therefore, the fertility concept underpinning the early interpretations
of figurines has been considered as a significant variable, but its cultural meaning
and social impact can only be determined within the socio-economic frameworks
of particular societies (Mukhopadhyay and Higgings 1988). In other words, any
interpretation of the meaning of a figurine is associated with a much more
significant concept or its social life. In these circumstances Hodder tries to
construct the domus and its significance, the different role of gender in the
activities of the every day in order to recreate the social dimension of a figurine
within each particular local context (Hodder 1990: 4499).

34

Rudenc Ruka

In complete contrast to Hodders thesis, a recent study of prehistoric

figurines by Bailey (2005) advances the hypothesis that there are universal traits
related to figurines such as, size reduction, and miniaturism. His observations
appear to hold true for Albanian figurines as well.
Conclusions
Five points need to be considered for future studies of Neolithic terracotta
figurines in Albania:
1) A detailed catalogue needs to be made of all figurines, based on various
attributes such as clay, morphology and decoration patterns. This will lead to
more reliable classifications, which will contribute to a better understanding of
their function, values and the meaning of the variables presented.
2) The study of clay and production methods applied will give information
on the energy expended for the different types, and as a consequence the values
attached to figurines and the social status of their users.
3) Rigorous excavation methods and multidimensional studies of
archaeological data will contribute to a better insight into the socio-economic
framework, the use of figurines and their archaeological and social context.
4) The combination of the local context and broader phenomena which
lead to the creation of universal traits in the representation of human and animal
forms.
5) The use of contemporaneous social anthropological case studies in
order to generate ideas about the use of figurines.

35