x-ray computed tomography investigations of cucuteni ceramic statuettes

323

Documenta Praehistorica XL (2013)

X-ray computed tomography investigationsof Cucuteni ceramic statuettes

Carmen Pavel 1, Cosmin Suciu 2, Florin Constantin 1 and Roxana Bugoi 1

1 ‘Horia Hulubei’ National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Magurele, [email protected]< [email protected]< [email protected]

2 ‘Lucian Blaga’ University of Sibiu, Sibiu, [email protected]

Introduction

Computed tomography (CT) is a technique that inrecent years has been used with increasing frequen-cy in archaeological and cultural heritage research(Ghysels 2003; Applbaum, Applbaum 2005; Casali2006; Morigi et al. 2007; De Witte et al. 2008; Vander Linden et al. 2010; Haneca et al. 2012; Harviget al. 2012; Lehmann et al. 2010; Tuniz et al. 2012).

CT provides information on the structure of objectsthat otherwise cannot be accessed in any way exceptthrough destructive investigations or sampling. CTexaminations can be also useful for restoration andconservation procedures.

The X-ray tomographic machine used for the studyreported in this paper was specially designed for ar-chaeometric research, being the only one of its kindin Romania. The CT device and the software imple-

menting the reconstruction algorithm were develo-ped in the Department for Applied Nuclear Physicsat the ‘Horia Hulubei’ National Institute for NuclearPhysics and Engineering, Magurele, Romania (Con-stantin et al. 2010) (Fig. 1). In the last two years, alarge number of cultural heritage artefacts made ofceramics have been examined with this CT apparatusin the course of an on-going post-doctoral project.

In this paper, the results of the tomographic exami-nation of two clay statuettes belonging to the AradMuseum Complex and Moldova National MuseumComplex in Iasi are presented. The objects were di-scovered in Romania, at the Ghelaiesti-Nedeia settle-ment in Neamt County and the Ruginoasa-Dealul Dra-ghici settlement in Iasi County (Fig. 2), and are attri-buted to the Cucuteni culture.

ABSTRACT – Deciphering the internal structure of prehistoric artefacts can provide spectacular in-sights that might help us understand the people who made them. In order to preserve the integrityof these relics of past civilisations, it is desirable to make such investigations using non-destructivetechniques. Recent decades have witnessed a growth in the X-ray computed tomography (CT) applica-tions in the study of cultural heritage objects. This paper presents and discusses tomographic investi-gations of two Cucuteni ceramic statuettes discovered in Romania. The study was made with a CTdevice specially designed for archaeometric applications.

IZVLE∞EK – Prepoznavanje notranje sestave prazgodovinskih artefaktov nudi osupljive vpoglede, kinam pomagajo pri razumevanju ljudi, ki so te predmete izdelali. Za∫eleno pa je, da so tak∏ne anali-ze opravljene z ne-destruktivnimi metodami, da bi obdr∫ali integriteto teh ostalin preteklih civiliza-cij. V zadnjih desetletjih smo pri≠a vzponu uporabe rentgenske ra≠unalni∏ke tomografije (CT) prianalizi predmetov kulturne dedi∏≠ine. V ≠lanku predstavljamo in razpravljamo o tomografskih ana-lizah dveh kerami≠nih figur kulture Cucuteni, ki sta bili odkriti v Romuniji. Analiza je bila opravlje-na z napravo CT, ki je bila posebej oblikovana za uporabo v arheometriji.

KEY WORDS – ceramics; Cucuteni; statuettes; X-ray Computed Tomography

DOI> 10.4312\dp.40.26

Carmen Pavel, Cosmin Suciu, Florin Constantin and Roxana Bugoi

324

The first object presented here was found at Ne-deia, a settlement located on a hill, 2km north-eastof the village Ghelaiesti. This site was first recordedby M. Cojocaru in 1933. However, systematic archa-eological research started in 1969, being performedby Stefan Cucos, Dan Monah and A. Nitu. Two occu-pation levels belonging to the Cucuteni A and Cucu-teni B1 periods respectively were identified at Ne-deia (Monah, Cucos 1985.97).

The second statuette described here was found atRuginoasa – Draghici Hill. The first systematic archa-eological study of this location was performed by H.Dumitrescu in 1926; excavations were resumed in2001 and the team was led by Magda-Cornelia Laza-rovici. Draghici Hill is located approximately 250mfrom the village and 1.5km west of the railway sta-tion in Ruginoasa; it is on the north-western side ofa hilly promontory. The Ruginoasa – Draghici Hillsite was attributed to the Cucuteni A period (Laza-rovici, Lazarovici 2012.13, 21–26).

Methods and materials

CT machine and experimental proceduresThe CT device used in this study was specially de-signed to study cultural heritage artefacts made fromlow – Z (low atomic number) materials – e.g., clay,bone, wood.

It comprises a compact X-ray source made by Spel-lman High Voltage Electronics Corporation (160kVmaximum X-ray tube voltage, 3mA maximum cur-rent intensity), a home-made positioning system ca-pable of rotation and translation movements and aVarian PaxScan® flat panel detector with large di-

mensions (40 x 30cm2). The detector is amorphoussilicon (127mm pixel pitch) engineered for high-speed radiographic imaging. The maximum spatialresolution of this CT machine is approx. 300µm. Itcan be used to study small objects with a maximumvolume of 20 x 20 x 20cm3 (Constantin et al. 2010).

For image reconstruction, home-made software ba-sed on a modified Filtered Back Projection algorithmwas written using Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 (Con-stantin et al. 2010).

The working procedure consists of two main steps:● Adjusting the position of the object with respect

to the incoming X-ray beam;● The actual CT scan of the object using the parame-

ters previously optimised for the tomographic exa-mination of ceramic objects (70kV X-ray tube vol-tage; 700µA X-ray tube current).

The entire volume of the object isscanned in 120 steps, entailing a360° rotation of the object aroundits central axis. The partial imagesare summed up to obtain the finalprojection.

The acquisition time for a full tomo-graphic scan is roughly five minutes,while image reconstruction takesless than four minutes. These relati-vely short times needed allowed thescreening of a large number of cera-mic objects from various Romanianmuseums. Thus, over one hundredceramics artefacts were scanned in2012 alone.

Fig. 1. The X-ray computed tomography devicefrom ‘Horia Hulubei’ National Institute for Nuc-lear Physics and Engineering, Magurele, Romania.

Fig. 2. Map of the northern part of Romania showing the locationsmentioned in the text: 1 Ghelaiessti; 2 Ruginoasa; 3 Iassi; 4 PiatraNeamtt; 5 Arad.

X-ray computed tomography investigations of Cucuteni ceramic statuettes

325

Description of the artefacts and context oftheir discoveryThe first object approached in this study is a clay sta-tuette belonging to the Arad Museum Complex (inv.no. 4463). This artefact is one of a larger group ofCucutenian ceramic statuettes that were investigatedusing CT, but the only one that yielded interestingscan results.

There is no precise information about how these Cu-cutenian clay objects were added to the inventory ofthe Arad Museum Complex. Taking into account thelack of notes and/or any other documents, one canonly hypothesise about how these clay objects foundtheir way into the collection of a museum located450km away from the Cucuteni area. The most plau-sible explanation is that they were brought to Aradin an exchange of artefacts with other Romanian mu-seums (in this case, the most likely candidate is Pia-tra Neamt Museum) sometime during the 1990s.

The labels of these objects still bear some old identi-fication details. Thus, the statuette with inv. no. 4662has another number on its tag (probably the old inv.no.), namely 174. The statuette with inv. no. 1473was found in Costesti.

The subject of our study (inv. no. 4463) has the fol-lowing inscription on its ancient label: “GEL ÇEA;1969; L2; INV 172”. This can be interpreted as fol-lows: the object was found at a site whose name be-gins with ‘Gel’, zone EA, dwelling no. 2, in 1969 (Fig.3). It seems that the statuettes numbered 4662 and4463 were discovered in the same place. Our further

investigations identified this unknown site as Ghe-laiesti in Neamt County.

To support the attribution to the Ghelaiesti Cucute-nian site, we note the following facts: there is no ot-her Cucuteni settlement with a name beginning with‘Gel’; this site was excavated in 1969 (Nitu et al.1971; Monah, Cucos 1985.207); the objects with inv.nos. 4662 and 4463 have several similarities to otherobjects that were definitely found at Ghelaiesti (4662– Monah 1997.Fig. 132/1–4, Fig. 190/1, Fig. 149/9;4463 – Monah 1997.Fig. 160/7, 10, 11, Fig. 165/9).Moreover, the statuette with inv. no. 4663 is identi-cal to one that was published by Anton Nitu et al.(1971.Fig. 24/4) and Dan Monah (1997.Fig. 165/9).

The statuette under discussion (Fig. 4) is in a frag-mentary condition, the head and lower part of thelegs being absent. The height of the statuette is10.3cm; the pelvis is 3.5cm wide, while the widthbetween the armpits is 3.7cm. The vulva is indicatedby a 1.4cm vertical incision. The breast is denotedby two small buttons. The statuette has a flat abdo-men; the buttocks are very slightly contoured; an in-cision demarcates the legs. A line incised around thewaist descends towards the hips in the dorsal region.The statuette is orange, the clay very fine. When firstpublished, the Ghelaiesti statuette was attributed toCucuteni AB1 or B1 stages, being connected to “thedivine and magical practice of fecundity and ferti-lity” (Nitu et al. 1971.57).

The second object discussed in this paper belongs tothe Moldova National Museum Complex in Iasi (inv.

no. 21109). It was excavated fromzone E2 of the Ruginoasa site, hovelno. 5, at 1.6m depth below groundlevel (Fig. 5). Hovel no. 5 is 3.8 x3.4m2 in area, including the porch.The eastern, southern and westernwalls were probably made of wooderected on stone foundations. Theother objects found at the site are:six antropomorphous statuettes (ofwhich only one represented a male),four zoomorphic statuettes, two co-nical idols, one bead, one altar andone shell. The whole settlement wasattributed to the Cucuteni A3 period(Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2012).

The Ruginoasa statuette (Fig. 6) hasno special decoration whatsoever. Ifthe navel is clearly visible, the breast

Fig. 3. The layout of the 1969 archaeological excavations at Ghe-laiessti. 1 adobe surfaces; 2 the limits of dwelling floors; 3 intacthearths; 4 damaged hearths; 5 Cucuteni A pits; 6 vessel buriedunder the dwelling; 7 stones; L1 – dwelling 1; L2 – dwelling 2, L3 –dwelling 3 (Nitu et al. 1971. Fig. 2).


326

is not marked in any way. The proportions of thedifferent body parts are well-balanced. The head isstylised, executed in ‘bec d’oiseau’ technique. A wideincision divides the buttocks (Lazarovici, Lazarovi-ci 2012). The statuette has striking steatopygic fea-tures, the frontal side being almost flat, with no de-tail apart from traces of careless finishing. The ob-ject is 91.1mm high; the length between the shoul-ders is 26.6mm, while the pelvis is 33.5mm wide.The stern circumference is 10.9mm, and the abdomi-nal 20.7mm. The head is 12.7mm long (neck inclu-ding) and 9.1mm in diameter. This object was as ca-refully finished as many other Cucuteni clay statu-ettes.

Results and first interpretations

ResultsThe tomographic study of the Ghelaiesti statuette(Fig. 7) revealed the existence of a piece of clay thatwas initially modelled precisely in the way a rope istwisted. The upper part was twisted clockwise, whilethe lower part was twisted counter-clockwise. Thislower part is actually the region surrounding thewomb, exactly under the incised line representingthe vulva. It can be concluded that it was delibera-tely modelled to indicate the existence of a pregnan-cy. The whole statuette was formed around this ini-tial piece of clay. On the other hand, the statuettehas no external marking to indicate pregnancy.

The tomographic examination indicates the existenceof two stages in the shaping of this statuette. Thus,each of these two pieces – the upper and lower – wasmodelled separately, a fact also shown by the diffe-rent consistency of the clay pieces, clearly resultingfrom two different moments of execution and drying.

The tomographic investigations of Ruginoasa statu-ette (Fig. 8) indicates that the object was made fromtwo pieces – the left and the right – which were tiedtogether later. The head was modelled after thesetwo halves had been combined, a detail that cannotbe seen with the naked eye.

The clay from which the object was modelled wascarefully selected, being very compact. Using the CTimages, a small stone was found on the left side ofthe statuette in the central zone of the thoracic re-gion (precisely at heart level), next to the contactzone of these two halves. The CT examinations sup-port the idea that this pebble was added deliberatelyin this precise spot.

This conclusion was reached by also taking into ac-count the results obtained from the tomographic exa-mination of some 108 other Neolithic and Eneolithicstatuettes from Romanian museums – measurementsthat were taken with the same CT device – which in-dicated that ancient craftsmen paid special attentionto the selection of clay; moreover, not a single bigstone/pebble was ever noticed in the ceramic pasteof other similar Neolithic statuettes. This small stonein the heart region was visible in the area wherethese two parts were joined together, supporting theidea of an intentional addition.

First interpretationsAt first glance, the Ghelaiesti statuette seems quiteunremarkable: it is not painted and the external fi-nishing is far from perfect. Similar conclusions canbe also reached from a visual examination of the Ru-ginoasa statuette, which also has a rough finish. Bothobjects were found in archaeological contexts whichhad no obvious ritual significance, at least in the cur-

rent meaning of the term.The statuettes present noapparent sign indicatingtheir use for cultic or ri-tual purposes. However,the way in which theseobjects were manufactur-ed, their structure and thedetails revealed throughtomographic investiga-tion, suggest that theywere used in connectionwith religious or magicalpractices.

Consequently, despitetheir apparent simplicity

Fig. 4. Ghelaiessti statuette (inv. no. 4463): a, b – photos 2011; c – drawingfrom Nitu et al. 1971. Fig 22; Monah 1997.Fig. 165/9.

a b c


327

and lack of any special finishing, we fa-vour an interpretation of the statuettesas objects used in religious rituals. Inthe following discussion, we make fur-ther arguments to support this interpre-tation – in spite of the strong doubtsraised by post-processualist archaeology,whereby the importance of religion inthe everyday life of prehistoric commu-nities is not so easily accepted. This maybe related to an inability of the modernworld, over-technologised and seculari-sed, that so often fails to understand thesignificance and importance of faith. Thefollowing quotation illustrates this verywell:

“But to return to post-processual ap-proaches and religion, perhaps then,many western archaeologists are fromthe pool of what Eliade (1978.12) hasdefined as “the agnostic and atheistic masses ofscientifically educated Europeans”. We need to re-cognise the potentially embedded nature of reli-gion as a key building block, if not sometimes thekey building block of identity. For as has been stres-sed, such an approach allows religion to be seenas part of a holistic package possibly structuringall aspects of life, with “religious” material culturebeing seen as a very ambiguous category which isvery difficult to define” (Insoll 2004.5)

Discussion

It is beyond the scope of this article to review all thehypotheses that have been advanced to interpretNeolithic and Eneolithic clay statuettes. Detailedand critical analyses ofthese different interpre-tations, also related tothe roles that such ob-jects played in prehisto-ric communities, wererecently made by Dou-glass Bailey (2005) andDan Monah (2012),with the authors rea-ching different conclu-sions.

Many examples of foun-dation rituals, homesanctuaries, communi-tarian sanctuaries, and

small-scale sanctuaries have been found in the Cucu-teni-Trypolie area (Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2007.158–236), e.g., finds that suggest that the Cucute-nain people enjoyed a complex religious life. In theCucuteni area, figurines with an external representa-tion of pregnancy are encountered relatively rarely(Mateescu, Voinescu 1982).

We cannot proceed with this discussion withoutmentioning an exceptional statuette from Podurile –Dealul Ghindaru (Fig. 9), also attributed to the Cucu-teni culture; its swollen abdomen can easily be inter-preted as a sign of pregnancy. This steatopygic statu-ette turned out to contain 25 small balls of clay (Mo-nah et al. 2003.192). Unfortunately, the manner inwhich these clay balls were separated from the sta-

Fig. 5. Ruginoasa-Dealul Draghici – the layout of hovel no. 5(reproduced from Lazarovici, Lazarovici 2012.Fig. IV.50 a).

Fig. 6. Ruginoasa statuette (inv. no. 21109): a, b – photos 2011; c – drawing fromLazarovici, Lazarovici 2011.Fig. VII. 5.

a b c


328

tuette’s body is not stated – namely, whether thestatuette had been cut or broken, or if the internalcavity had a hole or crack through which the smallobjects could be easily removed by its modern disco-verers. In any case, this spectacular find can be con-nected to complex religious manifestations.

A recent study of Cucuteni statuettes claims that thesmall number representing pregnant women can beexplained in correlation with female and natural fer-tility (Monah 2012.236). The tomographic data re-ported in this paper show that these representationscould be much more numerous than has hithertobeen believed. Thus, the identification of a hiddenpregnancy in a statuette, as in the case of the Ghe-laiesti artefact which was tomographically (and non-destructively) investigated, is absolutely remarkable.

We now review some facts about the circumstancesin which the two statuettes were discovered, whichcan provide some insights for our subsequent inter-pretation of the tomography results.

A protome shaped like a bird’s head and a minia-ture throne (of an older tradition) were found indwelling no. 1 at Ghelaiesti (Nitu et al. 1971.58–59). A painted cult vessel shaped like a crater (Cucu-teni AB stage) containing two other smaller paintedvessels was also discovered in the same dwelling.The archaeologists who excavated the site (Nitu etal. 1971. 58–59) believed that the adobe remainsactually came from an altar that was used for ritualpurposes and then broken after being burnt ritual-istically, together with smaller vessels subsequentlyplaced in the larger one. All these objects were bu-ried before the construction of the dwelling began.

In dwelling no. 2 at Ghelaiesti, a bowl fragment wasfound, with painted decoration, from which a sheepor goat protome protrudes (Nitu et al. 1971.58–59).Later, two cultic complexes constructed from sanctu-ary models were discovered (Fig. 10) Thus, in dwel-ling no. 5/1970, a first complex composed of six ves-sels of different shapes and sizes arranged in a circlewas identified. In the centre of this ensemble, a largeordinary vessel had been placed upside down to pro-tect a pear-shaped vessel, which, in turn was paintedand covered with a lid in the form of a Swedish hel-met. The pear-shaped vessel was buried up to the de-coration limit. In this last vessel, four anthropomor-phic figurines – three intact, one heavily corroded –were found. These figurines were leaning on the ves-sel walls, being placed in a vertical position, and ori-ented to the cardinal points (Cucos 1973.207).

A recent interpretation of this find has confirmedthat the statuettes were arranged in the form of across, but showed that the items were possibly notdisposed in relation to the cardinal points, simplybecause the archaeologist who made the discoveryhad not used a compass when the complex wasfound. Moreover, it was claimed that the statuetteswere deposited on a bed of straw – the straw wasnot being used for its usual function of protectinggrain, but also had the power to partially transmitits sacred power to items deposited on them (Monah2012.59). In the same dwelling (no. 5/1970), a largevessel containing 497 pig and sheep astragals wasfound, supporting the archaeologist’s claim that thiswas a ritual complex (Cucos 1973.207, note 1).

Fig. 7. Images obtained through the CT examina-tion of the Ghelaiessti statuette (inv. no. 4463): left:projection; right: reconstructed slice image – slicecoordinates: ρρ = 7; θθ = 137°; ϕϕ = 192°.

Fig. 8. Images obtained through the CT examina-tion of the Ruginoasa statuette (inv. no. 21109):left – projection; right – reconstructed slice image,slice coordinates: ρρ = 32, θθ = 189°, ϕϕ = 202°.


329

Stefan Cucos (1973.212–213) assumed that such de-positions were connected to some magical or reli-gious practices, and that this dwelling had been usedsolely as a sanctuary. The reasons for this hypothesisare that there were no common ceramic finds in thislocation, nor any implements or clay weights, whilethe dwelling had no floor or platform, and the hearthshowed no signs of serious fire damage. The very si-ting of this dwelling within the inhabited area alsosupports this interpretation.

Two models of the painted sanctuaries in which an-thropomorphic statuettes were placed were found indwelling 33/1983 (Fig. 11). Dwelling 33/1983 atGhelaiesti was also centrally placed in a group ofother dwellings, also suggesting its use as a sanctu-ary. Supporting evidence for such a function is theabsence from the inventory of dwelling 33/1983 ofany object similar to those discovered in every otherhouse. The structure does not have a platform ofwooden beams – unlike all the surrounding dwel-lings – suggesting that it was used seasonally (Cucos1993.59–60, 65–68).

Homo religious belief in gods involves unconditionalfaith and a religious object that is alive and chargedwith divinity. Religion is manifested through sym-bols, myths being just another facet of the commu-nitarian spirit.

“From this basic fact of the sensuous realism ofthe image, in the presence of the autonomy of thesense impression, springs the belief in spirits, andnot from any need of explanation on the part ofthe savage, which is merely a European imputa-tion. For the primitive, thought is visionary andauditory, hence it also has the character of revela-tion. Thus the magician, i.e. the visionary, is alwaysthe thinker of the tribe who brings to pass the ma-nifestation of spirits or gods. This is the source ofthe magical effect of thought; it is as good as ac-tion, just because it is real. In the same way, theword, the outer covering of thought, has ‘real’ ef-fect, because the word calls up ‘real’ memory ima-ges. Primitive superstition surprises us only beca-use we have very largely succeeded in de-sensua-lizing the psychic image, i.e. we have learnt tothink ‘abstractly’, always, of course, with the above-mentioned limitations.” (Jung 1953.43).

Transubstantiation is especially known from theChristian milieu and is one of the few religious rites

that are practised and are still alive: a large numberof people still believe in such divine transformation.Briefly, transubstantiation1 means the transforma-tion of divine substance in the sense of spiritualisa-tion, being at the same time a sacrifice and sacredmeal offered to a god or gods. This miracle happenscontinuously, because it involves the transformationof some common elements that are known to all –namely, bread and wine. The priest is just an ordi-nary person invested with the power to offer the sa-crifice. The most important moment is when Christ,playing the roles of both the subject and object ofthe sacrifice, speaks through the priest. This instantmarks the point at which Christ is present in bothtime and space. “In so far, then, as the Mass is ananthropomorphic symbol standing for somethingotherworldly and beyond our power to conceive,its symbolism is a legitimate subject for compara-tive psychology and analytical research.” (Jung1958.203–207).

Carl Gustav Jung found this type of analogy in somepre-Christian civilisations, in Aztec populations, inthe cult of Mithra and in alchemy.

“…so [I] must content myself with mentioning theritual slaying of the king to promote the fertility ofthe land and the prosperity of his people, the re-newal and revivification of the gods through hu-man sacrifice, and the totem meal, the purpose ofwhich was to reunite the participants with the lifeof their ancestors. These hints will suffice to show

Fig. 9. Statuette of large dimensions (19cm high)from Poduri – Dealul Ghindaru, Muzeul de IstoriePiatra Neamtt (inv. no. 13214), from Monah et al.2003.192, Fig. 204.

1 We present here C. G. Jung’s opinion on this matter, one of the most objective thoughts on this matter (Jung 1958).


330

how the symbols of the Mass pe-netrate into the deepest layers ofthe psyche and its history.” (Jung1958.222–246).

The transubstantiation ritual ispartially supported by Dan Monah,who mentions the addition of cru-shed cereals and flour in the cera-mic paste from the Tripolie A areaand the human sacrifices practisedby Cucuteni people, but also thepossible existence of ritual anthro-pophagy or tearing bodies to pie-ces (Monah 2012.235–236). Du-mitru Boghian recalls that transub-stantiation and consubstantiationare characteristic features of the Cucutenian statuet-tes (Boghian 2000.222). One can also mention herethe 16000 ceramic objects found at Gravettian andPavlovian sites of Central Europe, dating from theUpper Paleolithic. These include figurines and statu-ettes that were deliberately fragmented, not onlymechanically, but also by thermal shock. Mihael Bu-dja suggests that they were deliberately destroyed,insisting that the first ceramic statuettes used in rit-uals appeared millennia before ceramic vessels andagriculture, implying strong religious motivations.The emergence of agriculture will modify these be-liefs (Budja 2007.41–44).

“Religious creativity was spurred not by the empi-rical phenomenon of agriculture, but by the mys-tery of birth, death and re-birth identified in thevegetal cycles.” (Eliade 1991.50).

The transubstantiation of wet clay into a brittle ob-ject that can be spectacularly broken is a process thatmight induce a very powerful feeling. Transubstan-tiation is a concept that is also widely documented inethnographic research, being associated with chan-ges in the human body (conception, gestation, death)and rites of passage (birth, initiation, marriage andfunerary rites) (Taylor 2009.311). The link betweencereal cultivation, sacred bread and rebirth as a con-tinuation of certain agrarian and funeral rituals neednot be argued further (Naumov 2008; Eliade 1991).It is worth recalling coliva (Kólliva – in Greek) here,a dish made of boiled and sweetened wheat that isoffered at funerals and commemorations (Eliade1991) in the Balkans. Coliva signifies the body ofthe dead while wheat is a human staple. In some re-gions of Romania, coliva is eaten on the first Satur-day of Lent (which has a different date in the Chri-

stian Orthodox calendar). This moment also corre-sponds to the celebration of Saint Teodor Tiron andthe institutionalisation of coliva in the Eastern Chri-stian church. The moment is naturally correlatedwith the rebirth of plants, clearly a pre-Christian cu-stom (Marian 1994.239–243).

The Ghelaiesti statuette can be clearly linked to veryancient agrarian and fertility rites, adopting birthand re-birth, the real conception of the foetus andthe transubstantiation of the divine, which is clearlypresent in this clay statuette. The bread oven can beseen as part of the uterus of the Great Goddess asobserved in some types of anthropomorphic ovenfound in the Balkans (Naumov 2010.232–233, Fig.5). Ethnographic analogies further indicate clear si-milarities between birth and mortuary rituals (Gen-nep 1996.57). The presence of the heart, represent-ed by a round pebble placed in the anatomically cor-rect position, a detail provided by the tomographicinvestigation of the Ruginoasa statuette, is quite ex-traordinary and revealing about the religious imagi-nation of Cucutenian people.

Conclusions

The present study presents the results of a tomogra-phic investigation of two Cucuteni clay statuettes.The analysis of the images obtained, and the inter-nal structures and manufacturing details revealed bythe CT scans support the idea that the sacred was aconcept very much present in prehistoric communi-ties to an extent which might barely be understoodand/or accepted nowadays.

Both statuettes reported in this archaeometric studywere rather carelessly finished, at least compared to

Fig. 10. Ghelaiessti-Nedeia: left – the lay-out of dwelling no. 5/1970showing details of the ritual deposits; right – cross-section throughthe central section of the ritual deposit (from Monah 2012.Fig. 3).


331

other clay statuettes discovered in the Cucuteni areaand/or dating from the same period. It may be rea-dily concluded that in such cases the external appea-rance of the objects was not important, but what washidden inside them and what these figurines repre-

sented in spiritual and/or religious terms. Both sta-tuettes contained deliberately hidden objects thatmay be linked to religious manifestations – the tran-substantiation of divinities in ceremonies related tothe Cucutenian religious universe, birth and fertility.

The results reported in this paper prove that non-de-structive and non-invasive X-ray computed tomogra-phy investigations can be extremely useful for un-derstanding the structure of intact ceramic statuettesand/or rattles.

Fig. 11. Ghelaiessti–Nedeia. 1, 2 Sanctuary modelswith statuettes discovered in dwelling 33 (from Mo-nah 2012.Fig. 12).

Our special thanks go to Dr. Magda Lazarovici (Insti-tute of Archaeology Iasi), Dr. Senica Turcanu (Mol-dova Museum Complex Iasi), Dr. Victor Sava (AradCity Museum) and to Professor Sabin Adrian Luca(Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu) for facilitating ac-cess to the samples for tomographic examination. Weare grateful to Professor Gh. Lazarovici, Dr. Dan Bu-zea and Dr. Magda Lazarovici for the fruitful discus-sions of religion and statuettes, as well the bibliogra-phy they placed at our disposal.This work was performed in the framework of thepost-doctoral project ‘X-ray tomography for Roma-nian cultural heritage’ (PN II RU–PD–2011–3–0100–49), financed by the Romanian Ministry of Educa-tion, Research, Youth and Sport – The ExecutiveAgency for Higher Education, Research, Developmentand Innovation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Applbaum N., Applbaum Y. H. 2005. The Use of MedicalComputed Tomography (CT) imaging in the study of ce-ramic and clay archaeological artifacts from the ancientNear East. In M. Uda, G. Demortier and I. Nakai (eds.), X-rays for Archaeology. Springer. Dordrecht: 231–245.

Bailey D. 2005. Prehistoric figurines, Representationand Corporeality in the Neolithic. Routledge. London.

Boghian D. 2000. La plastique du complexe. Précucuteni-Cucuteni dans le bassin de Bahlui. Studia Antiqua et Ar-chaeologica. VII: 221–245.

Budja M. 2007. The dawn of Ceramics. In M. Ble≠i≤, M.∞re∏nar, B. Hänsel, A. Hellmuth, E. Kaiser and C. Metzner-Nebelsick (eds.), SCRIPTA praehistorica in honorem Bi-ba Ter∫an. Situla 44. Dissertationes Musei Nationalis Slo-veniae. Ljubljana: 41–55.

Casali F. 2006. X-ray Digital Radiography and ComputedTomography for Cultural Heritage. Archaeometriai Mü-hely 1: 24–28.

Constantin F., Pavel C., Bugoi R. and Toderas M. 2010. AnX-ray tomograph based on a flat panel detector. NuclearInstruments and Methods in Physics Research A 621:685–689.

Cucos S. 1973. Un complex ritual cucutenian descoperit laGhelaesti (jud. Neamt). Studii de Istorie Veche si Arheo-logie 24(2): 207–216.

1993. Complexe rituale cucuteniene de la Ghelaesti,jud. Neamt. Studii si cercetari de Istorie Veche si Ar-heologie 44: 59–80.

References

∴∴

De Witte Y., Cnudde V., Pieters K., Masschaele B., DierickM., Vlassenbroeck J., Van Hoorebeke L. and Jacobs P. 2008.X-ray micro-CT applied to natural building materials andart objects. X-Ray Spectrometry 37: 383–387.

Eliade M. 1991. Istoria credintelor si ideilor religioase I.Editura Stiintifica. Bucuresti.

Gennep A. 1996. Riturile de trecere. Polirom. Iasi.

Ghysels M. 2003. CT Scans in Art Work Appraisal. Art Tri-bal 4: 116–131.

Haneca K., Deforce K., Boone M. N., Van Loo D., Dierick M.,Van Acker J. and Van Den Bulcke J. 2012. X-Ray sub-mi-cron tomography as a tool for the study of archaeologicalwood preserved through the corrosion of metal objects.Archaeometry 54(5): 893–905.

Harving L., Lynnerup N. and Amsgaard Ebsen J. 2012. Com-puted tomography and computed radiography of LateBronze Age cremation urns from Denmark: an interdisci-plinary attempt to develop methods applied in bioarchaeo-logical cremation research. Archaeometry 54(2): 369–387.

Insoll T. 2004. Chapter 1. Are Archaeologists Afraid ofGods? Some Thoughts on Archaeology and Religion. In T.Insoll (ed.), Belief in the Past. The Proceedings of the2002 Manchester Conference on Archaeology and Reli-gion. BAR S1212. Archaeopress. Oxford: 1–6.

Jung C. G. 1953. Psychological Types or the Psychologyof Individuation. Pantheon Books. New York.

1958. Psychology and Religion: West and East. Bollin-gen Series XX. Pantheon Books. New York.

Lazarovici C. M., Lazarovici G. C. 2012. Ruginoasa, Dea-lul Draghic. Monografie Arheologica. Academia Româna –Filiala Iasi, Institutul De Arheologie, Muzeul Bucovinei Su-ceava. Editura Karl A. Romstorfer. Suceava.

Lehmann E., Deschler-Erb E. and Ford A. 2010. Neutron to-mography as valuable tool for the non-destructive analysisof historical bronze sculptures. Archaeometry 52(2):272–285.

Marian S. F. 1994. Sarbatorile la Români Studiu Etnogra-fic. Colectia Fundamente. Editura Fundatiei Culturale Ro-mâne. Bucuresti.

Mateescu N. C., Voinescu I. 1982. Representation of Preg-nancy on Certain Neolithic Clay Figurines on Lower andMiddle Danube. Dacia N.S. 26: 47–58.

Monah D. 1997. Plastica antropomorfa a Culturii Cucu-teni-Tripolie. Constantin Matasa. Piatra Neamt.

2012. Plastica antropomorfa a Culturii Cucuteni-Tri-polie. Constantin Matasa. Piatra Neamt.

Monah D., Cucos S. 1985. Asezarile culturii Cucuteni dinRomânia. Junimea. Iasi.

Monah D., Dumitroaia G., Monah F., Preoteasa C., Muntea-nu M. and Nicola D. 2003. Poduri – Dealul Ghindaru, OTroie în Subcarpatii Moldovei. Muzeul de Istorie. PiatraNeamt.

Morigi M. P., Casali F., Bettuzzi M., Bianconi D., Brancac-cio R., Cornacchia S., Pasini A., Rossi A., Aldrovandi A. andCauzzi D. 2007. CT investigation of two paintings on woodtables by Gentile da Fabriano. Nuclear Instruments andMethods in Physics Research A 580: 735–738.

Naumov G. 2008. Imprints of Neolithic mind – clay stamsfrom Republic of Macedonia. Documenta Praehistorica35: 185–204.

2010. Neolithic anthropocentrism – the principles ofimagery and symbolic manifestation of corporeality inthe Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica 37: 227–238.

Nitu A., Cucos S. and Monah D. 1971. Ghelaiesti (PiatraNeamt) I, Sapaturile din 1969 în asezarea cucuteniana dela “Nedeia”. Memoria Antiquitatis III: 11–64.

Taylor T. 2009. Materiality. In R. A. Bentley, C. Chippin-dale and H. Maschner (eds.), Handbook of Archaeologi-cal Theories. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham: 927–320.

Tuniz C., Bernardini F., Turk I., Dimkaroski L., Mancini L.and Dreoss D. 2012. Did Neanderthals play music? X-RayComputed Micro-Tomography of The Divje babe ‘Flute’.Archeometry 54(3): 581–590.

Van der Linden V., Van de Casteele E., Thomas M. S., DeVos A., Janssen E. and Janssens K. 2010. Analysis of microcomputed tomography images; a look inside historic ena-melled metal objects. Applied Physics A – Materials Sci-ence and Processing 98: 385–392.


332

x-ray computed tomography investigations of cucuteni ceramic statuettes

Documents