Management of Osseous Materials for Processing Artifacts in the Eneolithic Boian Settlement of...

Archaeologia BulgaricaXVIII, 3 (2014), 1-34

Management of Osseous Materials for Processing Artifacts in the Eneolithic Boian Settlement of Radovanu – La Muscalu (Romania)

Monica MĂRGĂRIT / Cristian Eduard ȘTEFAN / Valentin DUMITRAȘCU

Abstract: The goal of the present paper is to make known an extremely interesting archaeological assemblage, coming from the archaeological research carried out by Eugen Comşa (1960-1990) at the settlement of Radovanu, belonging to the Boian cul-ture (5000-4450 cal BC), already published in a truncated form. The methodology we have used aimed not just to identify the operational schemes used for the manufacture of different typological categories, but also to look at the ways in which the Eneolithic communities exploited the animal environment in order to obtain artifacts belong-ing to hard animal material industry, and at the way in which these objects are re-integrated in the cycle of use – this time as a means of exploitation of the environment. The study is all the more important as the information on the hard animal material industry in the Boian culture on Romanian territory is quasi-absent. Discussion of this material could make a decisive contribution to our understanding of an exploita-tion model for the animal resources in the respective period.

Key words: Boian Culture, archaeological context, raw materials, operational schemes, functional stigmata.

Site and Chronology

The Boian Culture generally developed in the first half of the Vth millennium B.C. and comprises four phases: Bolintineanu, Giulești, Vidra and Spanțov (Comșa 1974). Some authors consider (Pandrea 2000) the Bolintineanu cultural phase to be an independent culture. Geographically, it covered the region formed by the greater part of Wallachia, partially Dobrudja and South-East Transylvania. The pot-tery from the four phases is represented by a variety of forms (pots, bowl / basins, cups – Steckdose, shells etc.). Their ornamentation is also quite diverse and includes incision, excision and incrustation with white paste, painting in red and painting with graphite. Specialists from both sides of the Danube synchronized the phase Vidra of the Boian culture with Poljanica I-III, and the Spanţov phase with Poljanica IV (Todorova 1978, table 33).

The settlements were located in a variety of places such as islands, terrace edges or hills mouths. There are some tells-dwellings. Among the most famous settlements are those from Glina, Tangâru, Aldeni, Boian A, Vidra and Radovanu. Some of them have one or more en-closure ditches. Dwelling types in the settlements comprise pit houses and houses constructed on the surface, information derived from ar-chaeological research and complemented by studying the models of clay dwellings discovered at the settlements (Comșa 1974).

The most important funerary discoveries were made at Cernica (with over 350 graves), Glina, Andolina, Boian A, Vidra, Izvoarele, Radovanu-La Muscalu (Comșa 1974), Popești-Vasilați, Sultana-Valea Orbului (Lazăr / Opriș 2012). Some of these graves contain rich inven-tories such as Spondylus objects, stone axes, objects made of copper, flint or other stones brought from great distances, while others have no trace of any sort of burial inventory (it is possible they contained perishable grave goods). These observations raise the issue of the ex-istence of some kind of social stratification during the Boian Culture in the Lower Danube. Are the richer grave assemblages proof that the deceased had a higher social status compared to the deceased in graves where there were few, if any, grave goods?

Eugen Comșa researched the site of Radovanu-La Muscalu for three decades (1960-1990). The settlement is situated South-East of Romaniei, 1.5 km West from Radovanu village, in Călăraşi County (fig. 1/a).We must also add the fact that, outside the settlement, on a terrace edge surrounded with a ditch, another opened settlement existed on the hill slope in an area where a weaving workshop and the necropolis of the settlement were discovered (Comşa 1990) (fig. 1/b). The main settlement includes four evolving stages of the Spanțov phase of the Boian Culture. The dwellings are constructed in wattle-and-daub with floors glued on split trunks, and they contain hearths, clay benches on the north side and special areas for grinding grains. The settlement contains rich archaeological material comprising ceramics, models of dwellings, flint, bone and antler tools; jewellery; bones of animals etc. At the same time, the flint objects, Spondylus artifacts and numerous pottery fragments from other cultural environments demonstrate the close connections between the community living at the Radovanu – La Muscalu settlement and the surrounding ones (Comșa 1990).

Regarding hard animal materials industry discovered during ar-chaeological excavations in this site, several comments are required. Starting from the fact that the Boian settlement was researched over three decades, we might have expected the discovery of hundreds of objects of bone and antler. However only 204 objects are available for study, of which 68% are finished objects (see further on). There may be two reasons that the numbers are lower than expected. The first is taphonomic. Many of the objects we studied present a strong surface degradation, generated by multiple post-depositional processes. This however, does not completely explain the picture presented by this industry (the lower percentage of sub-products in the operational se-quence). Most likely, these low numbers are the result of old excavations techniques, which led to the elimination of debitage waste, extremely useful for specialists in prehistoric technology. It thus raises an impor-tant problem: is the reevaluation of old collections useful? In this case, the virtual absence of any studies concerning hard animal material in-dustry from Boian Culture means that, even with the bias introduced by the excavation methods employed during these old excavations, the material still contributes to the delineation of a model for the way ani-mal resources where exploited in this industry in this period.

MethodologyThe limited space available does not allow us to present details of the methodology employed in the research; however, we would like to

2 MONICA MĂRGĂRIT / CRISTIAN EDUARD ȘTEFAN / VALENTIN DUMITRAȘCU

present the method of observing the objects that led to the interpreta-tions presented in this study. In the first stage, an analysis chart was drawn for each artifact, with observations on raw material (raw mate-rial type, species, skeletal element etc.), the type of object (waste, blank, preform, finished object), and morphology; then followed investiga-tions into the manufacturing technique (two main operations: debitage and shaping) and, finally, proposing a hypothetical function, resulting from identified use wear. In the next stage, in order to correlate the data offered by each artifact, the analysis was largely dependent on specific raw materials (such as bone, antler, bivalve shell and tooth), because, as we will observe in this study, the different mechanical characteristics of raw materials limited the manufacturing techniques used.

Within the main categories of raw materials, the artifacts were subdivided following their degree of finishing, resulting in four cat-egories; the presence of all the constitutive elements of an operational sequence offered clues regarding the in situ or exterior processing of the necessary toolkit for the community. The definition of typological categories in which the finished objects were included was based upon the Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique (e.g. Camp-Fabrer 1990; 1998; Patou-Mathis 2002), starting from the active side

a

b

Fig. 1: a Location of the Radovanu – La Muscalu settlement; b The settlemet of Radovanu – La Muscalu (after Comșa 1990, modified)

MANAGEMENT OF OSSEOUS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING... 3

morphology, which, subsequent to this study, proved not to represent a criterion for function determination.

When the degree of preservation permitted, the objects were ex-amined with a digital microscope VHX-600, between 30x and 150x magnification; the pictures were focused with the aid of a camera incorporated within the microscope. Analytical criteria for the tech-nological and functional interpretation of micro-stigmata were es-tablished based upon the comparison with recent publications on the osseous industries in prehistory (Buc 2011; Gates St-Pierre 2010; van Gijn 2007; Legrand 2007; Legrand / Sidera 2007; Maigrot 2003; Sidera / Legrand 2006). The decipherment of different technological and functional marks was also based on our own experimental studies which have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the origins of the traces present on artifacts and the development of use wear, depending on the contact material and gestures employed.

Management of the raw materialsThe osseous industry from Radovanu obtained its raw materials from both domestic and wild animal species as well as from imported shells. An extremely diverse range of bone (skeletal element) was exploited (see table 1), although there was much lower variability in the spe-cies selection. We identified a constant in the selection of the species, which are predominantly domestic: Bos taurus comprises 40% of the total processed bones, along with Ovis/Capra at 14%, followed far be-hind by bones from other species. These percentages correspond to the archaeozoological results, which identified over 90% domestic species among the faunal remains (Bălăşescu et al. 2005, fig. 78), in which the faunal assemblage Bos taurus holds first place (between 42.11% and 59.20%) (Comşa 1990). However the second most common species in the faunal assemblage was domestic pig followed by the bones of Ovis aries/Capra hircus. As for the high proportion of artifacts made from antler: since in Boian communities hunting is thought to have had a secondary role in the paleo-economy compared to animal breeding, the high number of Cervus elaphus antlers – representing more than half of all the artifacts (both products and sub-products of the opera-tional sequence) – may be explained primarily by collecting activities. In most cases, we cannot tell for sure whether an object was made from fallen antler, since the outer burr was eliminated during manu-facturing. In any case, at Radovanu, Cervus elaphus comes first among the hunted species (Bălășescu / Radu 2001; Bălășescu et al. 2005, fig. 85), so the antler may have come from this source as well, at least in part. This type of economy seems to have been different from that of Boian settlements to the south of the Danube, where the contribu-tion of hunting was extremely important, accounting for up to 48% of bone remains at the settlement of Ovčarovo (Vasiliev 1975, quoted by Bălăşescu et al. 2005).

Table 1 identifies a serious contradiction between the acquisition mode of wild and domestic species. In the former case, the raw mate-rial remains are not by-products that result from an animal killing, but, instead, are predominantly acquired as a result of some organized expeditions. In the latter case, we may conclude that the osseous mate-rial exploitation suggests animal raising and killing activities, and is reflected in the domestic character of the set composition, including


the repurposing of food waste as artifacts to be used in domestic ac-tivities (skin processing, vegetable, even ceramic, etc.).

According to the experts, the fallen antler is more suitable for processing, since it is completely developed and the cross-section (the area used for processing) has a compact tissue. For the prehistoric populations it was essential to know the specific features of each ma-terial, as well as its morphology and anatomy, in order to select the best materials and to exploit the most suitable areas for technological processing. As for the Cervus elaphus species, the antlers reach their maximum development in September and fall in February-March;

Table 1. Numerical distribution of the differents types of raw materials and their se-lection by species and skeletal elements at the settlement of Radovanu – La Muscalu

SKEL

ETO

N E

LEM

ENTS

Bos t

auru

s

Ovi

s ari

es/C

apra

hir

cus

Sus s

p.

Cer

vus e

laph

us

Cap

reol

us ca

preo

lus

Can

is sp

.

Lepu

s eur

opae

us

Inde

term

inat

e sp

.

Spon

dylu

s sp.

Shell 1Antler 102 2Canine 1Astragalus 2 2Mandible 1Rib 2Radius 3 1Humerus 1 2Ulna 5Metacarpus 3Metapodialus 10 1Femur 1 1Tibia 6 4 1 1Metatarsus 3 4 3

Long bone diaphysis 4 1 1 35

TOTAL 39 14 3 106 2 2 2 35 1


therefore, we can assume the existence of a seasonal acquisition cy-cle towards the beginning of spring. Experiments have already proved the particular resistance of weapons and tools made of antler, and the presence of a possible “stock” of blanks suggests that the resources were renewed.

The object made of Spondylus sp. shell – though singular – high-lights possible connections with the Mediterranean area or a trans-fer from one group to another, like in the kula type of exchanges (Malinovski 1989). Some authors have suggested that the Spondylus valves may have been gathered from fossil deposits, and might not derive from exchanges with the Mediterranean areas. However, a se-ries of studies, based on isotopic analyses, like those of Shakelton and Elderfield (1990), or, more recently, of Bajnóczi et al. (2012), for the Neolithic site of Aszód-Papi (Hungary) seem to confirm the use of fresh valves. Moreover, Miller (2003), introducing another argument in favor of the use of fresh valves of Spondylus, shows that those gath-ered from the beach are more fragile during processing, and tend to break, unlike those gathered while alive.

Maybe more than other types of raw materials, those of animal origin necessitate the selection for the processing of a certain type of artifact by their anatomical form. Apart from the properties of the raw materials (Margaris 2012) – well known in the Prehistoric com-munities – their cultural significance within the group seems to have been equally important in the selection process. The two determina-tives (efficient technology and cultural traditions) seem to comple-ment one another in that the knowledge concerning which parts of the animal skeleton may be used were recorded in the community’s myths (Choyke / Daróczi-Szabó 2010); thus, changes in the selection of raw materials were consistent over long periods of time, although there were fluctuations of species availability (Choyke et al. 2004; Luik 2009; 2011).

The animal material industry from the Radovanu settlement to-tals 204 objects, which can be assigned to the four product and sub- product categories mentioned above. Their distribution is uneven, fa-voring the finished products, which total 138 (68% of total products), whereas the objects under processing are 26 (13%) and the blanks and wastes amount to 15 items (7%). We have also added the impor-tant category of “undetermined”, which includes 25 artifacts (12%). Nevertheless, we have to mention that such a substantial category of preforms is rare in sites’ inventories; it points to in situ manufacture and to an interest for achieving a manufacture stock. Thus, the result is a reserve for the immediate replacement of fractured objects and a strict management of the raw materials.

Concerning the finished objects’ numerical distribution, linked to raw material, the picture stands thus (table 2):

Technology managementBoneBevelled objects (N = 36). At least 32 objects feature bevelling on flat blank, for which the chosen bone types were Bos taurus tibia (6), ra-dius (3), metapodial bone (2), and long bone diaphysis (3), Canis sp. humerus (1), Ovis/Capra humerus (1) and long bone diaphysis of in-determinable species (16). To obtain the blank, percussion was applied


to produce a longitudinal bipartition of the bone (26 cases) (fig. 2/a), then the fracture plan was shaped by longitudinal scraping (9 objects) (fig. 2/c) or abrasion (14 cases). One object (fig. 2/d), shows a shaping of the fracture sides by diffused percussion, a procedure seldom en-countered at Eneolithic settlements. Another procedure of bone bipar-tition was double grooving (fig. 2/e, f), applied on a single object. In five cases, we were not able to identify the bipartition procedure, either due to the burning process through which the objects went, or due to their fractures and surface deposits. The active front development, in the case of the chisels, was carried out either by bi-facial abrasion (26 objects) (fig. 2/b, g), or by scraping (2 items), while in the case of four objects we were not able to identify the active front development procedure.

The Bos taurus ulna (fig. 2/h) was selected for the manufacture of four chisels, and the blank was preserved in its anatomic volume. Unfortunately, the objects are either fractured, or they exhibit consid-erable surface deposits, which makes the stigmata identification dif-ficult. It seems that the epiphysis was removed by percussion, and the

Table 2. Numerical distribution of finished objects

No. Typological categories Bone Antler Shell Tooth1. Adornment - 1 1 12. Harpoon - 1 - -3. Handle - 1 - -4. Point 39 3 - -5. Object with circular extremity - 5 - -6. Bevelled object 36 35 - -7. Needle 2 - - -8. Processed astragalus 4 - - -9. Burin 2 - - -

10. Scraped bone 2 - - -11. Ring 1 - - -12. Hammer 1 - - -13. Spatula 2 - - -14. Undetermined object 6 - -


fracture plan remained unfinished. For the active front development, a new percussion was applied, and then the fracture plan was shaped either by bi-facial abrasion or by longitudinal scraping (fig. 2/i).

Points (N = 39). This typological category was created by putting into practice several types of operational schemes of different com-plexity. Thus, fourteen objects were processed on flat blank. This was obtained from Bos taurus metapodial (3) and long bone diaphysis (1), Ovis/Capra tibia (1), femur (1) and long bone diaphysis (1), Sus sp. tibia (1), and long bone diaphysis of an indeterminate species (6).

The method of debitage was bipartition1 (6 objects) (fig. 3/a) or successive partition until one quarter of the original diameter was reached (1 object) (fig. 4/a), by the percussion procedure. The debit-age procedure is indeterminable in seven cases, either due to a very thorough abrasion of the surface (1 object), or due to the fact that the surface was damaged (6 objects). The active front development was carried out either by longitudinal scraping (fig. 3/b, e) applied on the fracture sides in order to create a sharp morphology of the point (5 objects), by abrasion (fig. 3/f, fig. 4/b) applied on the active front level (5), or, in one case, by the combination of the two techniques. For

Fig. 2: a, d, e, h bevelled objects made of bone; b, g shaping by abrasion; c, i longitudinal scraping; f grooving

1 We have used the terminology pro-posed by Aline Averbouh (2000).


three over-burned objects, the development procedures of the func-tional side are not known.

For 20 objects, the blank was obtained by grooving (fig. 3/d). The necessary time for the manufacture of this kind of point is different from the time required for the manufacture of the previous category but we cannot tell whether this technological difference also led to

Table 3. Numerical distribution of the different types of artifacts and their selection by species

SKELETON ELEMENTS

Bos t

auru

s

Ovi

s ari

es/

Cap

ra h

ircu

s

Sus s

p.

Cer

vus e

laph

us

Can

is sp

.

Lepu

s eur

opae

us

Inde

term

inat

e sp

.

Bevelled objectsRadius 3Humerus 1 1Ulna 4Metapodialus 2Tibia 6Long bone diaphysis 3 16PointsRadiusHumerus 1Ulna 1Metacarpus 1Metapodialus 7Femur 1Tibia 2 1 1Metatarsus 2 2 3Long bone diaphysis 1 1 1 14NeedlesMetapodialus 1Metatarsus 1Processed astragalusAstragalus 2 4SpatulasRib 2BurinsLong bone diaphysis 2Scraped bonesMetacarpus 2RingTibia 1HammerFemur 1PreformMandible 1Blanks and wastesLong bone diaphysis 2Undetermined objectsRadiusMetapodialus 1Metatarsus 1 1Long bone diaphysis 3


different uses. The selected matrix was Bos taurus metacarpus (1), metapodial (4), and metatarsus (2), Cervus elaphus metatarsus (3), Ovis/Capra metatarsus (2), and diaphysis of an undeterminable spe-cies (8). In ten cases, the blank was obtained by longitudinal biparti-tion, by means of a double grooving procedure. In the case of other ob-jects, however, the blank represents approx. ¼ of the matrix diameter, so we may deduce a successive bipartition method, either by double grooving (7 objects) (fig. 3/c) or by a combination of grooving and percussion procedure (3 objects) (fig. 4/d). Only for seven points was the bone epiphysis preserved, with no modification of the anatomic morphology.

Out of blank in volume (fig. 3/g), five points were processed, and the selected matrix consisted of Lepus europaeus tibia (1) and diaphy-sis bone (1), Ovis/Capra tibia (1), Canis familiaris humerus (1) and Bos taurus ulna (1). In two cases, the bone epiphysis is preserved with no technological intervention. For the active front development, percus-sion was used, and then, in the case of four objects, a longitudinal scrap-ing (fig. 3/h) was applied on the fracture sides (4 objects). For five items, a bi-facial abrasion was applied only on the level of its extremity.

Fig. 3: a, c, g points made of bone; b, e, h longitudinal scraping; d grooving; f abrasion


Needles (N = 2). To this category belong two objects with perfo-ration on the proximal side and pointed morphology on the distal side. The first object was processed out of a Bos taurus metapodial, through longitudinal bipartition, with no possibility of identifying the procedure, as the whole object surface was developed by longitudinal scraping that was more intensive on distal level (for providing the side convergence), followed by a rather rough abrasion. The perforation was realized by bifacial rotation. The active extremity is fractured and the proximal one is smooth, suggesting that it may have been used in indirect percussion. The second needle (fig. 5/a) was obtained out of an Ovis/Capra metatarsus, using the bipartition method, by dou-ble grooving (fig. 5/b). The perforation was realized by bifacial rota-tion (fig. 5/c) and the active front by longitudinal scraping (fig. 5/d). Unfortunately, the active extremity was fractured.

Processed astragalus (N= 4). This category includes four objects, two Ovis/Capra and two Bos taurus. For the sheep/goat astragals, one modification by abrasion is evident on one side, while the second ob-ject (fig. 5/e) preserves a perforation made from the lateral towards the

Fig. 4: a, d points made of bone; b abrasion; e longitudinal scraping; c, f details of the active extremity


medial face by unifacial rotation (fig. 5/g), after which both the medial and the lateral faces were intensively processed by abrasion (fig. 5/f) until the object disappeared (it was no longer possible to hold it). The two Bos taurus astragals (fig. 5/h) do not show specific abrasion stig-mata, except for a perforation, made through rotation.

Spatulas (N = 2). The first object (fig. 6/a) was processed on a longitudinally bipartitioned rib, with no possibility of identifying the procedure, as the fracture sides and lower face were very thoroughly processed by abrasion (fig. 6/b), and the cancellous tissue was elimi-nated. This resulted in an active rectilinear extremity spatula. On its upper face, the active front consists exclusively of wear. On the proxi-mal level, as much as the extremity is available, we can identify a per-foration made through bifacial rotation (fig. 6/c), very worn, since the sides are rounded and the rotation traces cannot be seen anymore. The second object, having a convex active part, is very much degraded on its surface, which has made it impossible for us to identify the shaping or functional stigmata. The rib bipartition was realized by percussion, with no development of the fracture sides.

Burins (N = 2). In this category are two objects (fig. 6/d) processed on a long bone diaphysis of a large mammal. A flat blank was used, ob-

Fig. 5: a needle; b grooving; c perforation by rotation; d longitudinal scraping; e, h processed astragalus; f area with abrasion; g perforation; i ring; j, k stigmata of sawing


tained in the first case by grooving (fig. 6/e), followed by detachment through indirect percussion, and, in the second case, by percussion. Abrasion was used in making the active front, extended on variable surfaces. An oblique active front resulted and the object wear does not extend on its faces but on its sides (fig. 6/f), hence the assumption that the object was laterally used, in an action similar to that of a burin.

Scraped bones (N = 2). Two objects of Bos taurus metacarpus (fig. 6/g) raise problems concerning their functionality. The technologi-cal information is quite clear: on three faces, a persistent longitudinal scraping (fig. 6/h) was applied, which caused the generation of a concave area, and the thinning of the bone at the medial level, which also resulted in its fracture. Over that scraping, a macroscopic polish is present, which is hard to interpret. Furthermore, on one of objects, at the basis of the scraping area, there can be seen stigmata resulted from the impact with a material (stone?) (fig. 6/i).

Ring (N = 1). An Ovis/Capra tibia (fig. 5/i) was segmented by saw-ing (fig. 5/j, k), at its both extremities. No shaping occurred.

Hammer (N = 1). A Bos taurus distal femur (fig. 7/a) was shaped in order to be transformed into a hammer. At its proximal level, it was

Fig. 6: a spatula; b abrasion; c perforation; d burin; e grooving; f extremity with traces of wear; g scraped bone; h area with scratches of scraping; i impact traces


endowed with a perfectly cylindrical perforation, made by rotation. At its distal level, the object seems to have had a bevelled – type devel-opment (on blank in volume), but the longitudinal fracture does not allow us to identify the development procedure. Its active extremity is damaged, showing important material losses. We therefore think it was used in a percussion action.

Preform (N = 1). We identified one single preform processed out of bone, a Sus domesticus mandible fragment (fig. 12/a), which preserves the stigmata coming from an incipient perforation, made by rotation, but not finished.

Blanks and wastes (N = 2). A diaphysis of small vertebrata – Aves/Rodentia – was segmented (fig. 14/a) on both of its extremities by saw-ing along the median of the bone diameter, followed by the detach-ment of the epiphyses by bending (fig. 14/b). This could have been a blank from which tubular pearls might have been obtained.

One blank – preserving the diaphysis anatomic volume (fig. 14/c) – illustrates the ring obtaining procedure: the segmentation by sawing (fig. 14/d) around the entire circumference.

Fig. 7: a hammer made of bone; b undetermined object; c abrasion; d perforation; e bevelled object made of antler; f longitudinal scraping; g transversal abrasion


Undetermined objects (N = 6). One object from this category is proc-essed on flat blank (fig. 7/b), proximally fractured on the level of a circu-lar perforation (fig. 7/d), made by bifacial rotation. We do not have any information about the procedures used for its detachment because its whole surface has been thoroughly processed by abrasion (fig. 7/c).

Five objects showing fractures on variable surfaces were also in-cluded in this category. The first two, processed out of a Bos taurus metatarsus and a Cervus elaphus metapodial, preserve only the meso-proximal side. They were processed on a flat blank, obtained by the longitudinal bipartition of the bone, the procedure (grooving) being identifiable in just one case. A thorough abrasion of the fracture sides and of the proximal extremities followed.

The third object, on blank in volume, was developed along an Ovis/Capra radius by oblique percussion, which led to the appearance of the active front. One of the fracture sides was processed by abrasion, for providing the side convergence. Unfortunately, the active extremity is missing; if it had been present, we would have been able to include it in one of the typological categories.

The last two are hardly fractured. The first may be a fragment of a point and the second preserves a small surface of a perforation.

Red deer antlerBevelled objects (N = 35) represent the most important typologi-cal category for objects made of Red deer antler. In order to present them, we have grouped them according to their features but the com-mon element is given by the development of a bevelled-type extrem-ity. In the first category we included 20 objects, 17 of which had been processed on the tine, two along the beam, and one undetermined (due to its fracture), which preserves the blank in anatomic volume and has a perforation intended for holding at its proximal level. The proximal extremity is preserved in only four objects, two cases illustrating a seg-mentation procedure by percussion around the entire circumference, and two cases are indeterminable. The remaining objects are fractured in dents de scie (fig. 8/d), at the level of a perforation having a circular morphology, realized by bifacial rotation. For the latter, we identified two main procedure types, meant to develop the active front: a bifa-cial development by longitudinal scraping (fig. 8/a-b), which provides convergence of two sides, and a unifacial development by percussion, sometimes followed by abrasion (fig. 8/f), leading to the creation of an active part, oblique by comparison to the object axis. In that group, a bevelled object processed along the beam is very particular (fig. 9/a). It is in a complete accordance with the above description (a fracture on the level of a circular perforation, active part developed by percussion followed by abrasion), but on the upper face, ornamentation consist-ing of two series of five semicircular points was achieved by the rota-tion of lithic equipment. The same design can be found on the lower face, as well-namely, six points developed in a semicircle.

Finally, a third procedure (fig. 9/d) involving an active front de-velopment, is identified only in the case of one object. This consisted of the application of debitage by percussion, through breaking, which caused an oblique fracture. Then an abrasion towards extremity was applied on the lower face (fig. 9/e). Moreover, the proximal part is very smooth (fig. 9/h), up to the disappearance of the extremity and


the generation of an area of macroscopic wear. We wonder whether at this level the object was used (becoming therefore a double tool) in an action that resulted in wear on its extremity.

A second group refers to six objects processed in volume, of which five on the tine and one along the beam, which seems to confirm a recycling procedure, and proves a strict management of such objects. All objects were fractured on the level of their circular perforation, because of their use (fig. 7/e, fig. 8/e). Above the fractured area, a second perforation was developed, by the same bifacial rotation proce-dure, which remained unfinished in the case of two objects (fig. 8/h). The active front development experienced the same two main types of shaping procedures: percussion, followed by abrasion (fig. 8/f, g), or, in two cases, scraping (fig. 7/f), followed by abrasion (fig. 7/g).

Only five bevelled objects were processed on flat blank (fig. 9/b), two along the beam and three on tine. Because of the multiple frac-tures present, we were able to identify only one case of segmentation procedure by percussion, which allowed the detachment from the branch. In the second stage, the bipartition method was applied for the manufacture of the needed blank through percussion, followed, in the

Fig. 8: a, e bevelled objects made of antler; b longitudinal scraping; c active extremity; d, h perforation by rotation; f, g abrasion


areas where we were able to identify the stigmata, either by abrasion (2 objects) or by scraping (1 object). The active front was realized either by bifacial abrasion (2 objects) (fig. 9/c) or by bifacial percussion (1 item). An intensively burnt black object is particularly interesting: its technological stigmata are illegible because of the burning the object has gone through, but on its proximal extremity we can see a small area of perforation. This makes us wonder whether originally it was an object on blank in volume, then it got fractured and was recycled to become an object on a flattened blank.

Points (N = 3) are represented by three objects, processed on tine, having the anatomic volume preserved. In just one case, the proximal extremity is present (fig. 10/a). The segmentation out of branch was realized by direct percussion around the entire circumference (fig. 10/c). In the proximal area, a circular perforation with conic mor-phology was developed through unifacial rotation (fig. 10/e). The tine extremity was not technologically processed. On both faces of the object, at the perforation level, the surface was initially processed by percussion (fig. 10/b), in order to create two flat surfaces. This action clearly occurred after the perforation. Could the object redevelopment

Fig. 9: a, b, d bevelled objects made of antler; c, e abrasion; g smooth extremity; f perforation; h proximal extremity


have been used to obtain the morphology of a chisel? The other two points present a proximal fracture, at the level of their perforation with a cylindrical morphology. First, the active front was developed at the distal level only, on a single face, by the application of longitudinal scraping for flattening the surface; second, the anatomic morphology of the tine was preserved. In all cases, the point is smooth, showing a macroscopic polish (fig. 10/d), but it is difficult to decide whether it was functional or it occurred during the animal’s lifetime.

Objects with circular extremity (N = 5). This category includes five objects – on blank in volume – which were endowed with a perfora-tion and one extremity with a hammer’s morphology (fig. 10/f). Four of them were processed along the beam and one on its tine. The first common element is the presence of a perforation with a cylindrical morphology, obtained by rotation and fractured through use. The sec-ond element is the development of a circular active front, through the rigorous abrasion of the active front (fig. 10/g).

Handle (N = 1) was processed out of outer burr and the basic zone of a fallen antler, preserving the blank in anatomic volume (fig. 10/h). We have no data on the branch segmentation procedures, but on the

Fig. 10: a point made of antler; b shaping by percussion; c proximal extremity; d distal extremity; e perforation by rotation; f object with circular extremity; g scratches of abrasion; h handle

g


segmentation plan level, the cancellous tissue was eliminated, creating a receiving element.

Harpoon (N = 1), the single object in this typological category (fig. 11/a), features barbs in a unilateral development, and convex mor-phology. Unfortunately, the object is much too intensively damaged in surface, so that it is only possible to identify the procedure of putting into form of the barbs by bifacial sawing.

Pendant (N = 1). This object was processed on a flat rectangular blank, obtained through longitudinal debitage of an antler (fig. 11/b). The initial procedures applied were impossible to identify, because of further interventions. The shaping at the distal level was realized by sawing (fig. 11/d) and the perforation by bifacial rotation (fig. 11/c). Then, the entire surface of the object was very thoroughly processed by abrasion, which destroyed the stigmata of further actions and re-moved the whole cancellous tissue. It is certain that the object was suspended at the perforation level for a long time, as all the traces of the rotation action have disappeared and the perforation edges are in-tensively rounded.

Fig. 11: a harpoon; b pendant; c perforation by rotation; d detaching the shape by sawing; e pendant made of valve of Spondylus; f perforation; g pendant made of Sus sp. canine; h perforation; i scraping


Preforms (N = 25). The most important preforms category includes bevelled objects in processing (11 objects). The situation demonstrates the particular importance of these tools within the economy of the Radovanu community. Apart from the fact that they are the most nu-merous antler finished objects, there was also a stock of rough pre-forms, only a few steps away from finishing for replacing fractured objects.

The first type of preform shows active front development by ob-lique percussion, only extended on the upper face at distal level (fig. 12/b, c). In some cases, the development of a perforation was initiated on proximal level by bifacial percussion (fig. 12/b) or rotation. On that level, the object is usually fractured, and that fracture must have been the reason for which they were abandoned during the preform stage. One item illustrating a mending procedure after the fracture is particularly interesting (fig. 13/a). On proximal level, the object was endowed with a perforation made by unifacial rotation (fig. 13/c). The object got fractured and the re-shaping began, through the incomplete removal of the fractured zone by percussion (fig. 13/b). Moreover, processing by bifacial percussion was initiated on the active part. In this case, we cannot exclude the possibility that it is a finished object,

Fig. 12. Preforms processed in bone (a) and antler (b-h), with detail of segmentation (f)


in case of which recycling and transformation into another object were attempted after the perforation fracture. An alternative (fig. 13/d) for the active front development consists in bifacial percussion (fig. 13/e), applied at distal level, in order to create the convergence of the edges and the active front specific to chisels. A third preform alternative im-plies that the active front development through longitudinal scraping gradually deepened (fig. 12/d). On the proximal level, a perforation by bifacial rotation is preserved.

Two chisel preforms are the biggest, and are processed along the basic beam. One of them comes from a fallen antler. The first chisel (fig. 12/c) was detached at the proximal level by percussion, ap-plied around the entire extremity. Its basic tines were eliminated by percussion. The active front development was made by percussion, throughout the object length. It remained in that stage, but it is ex-tremely interesting since it illustrates the operational sequence steps. In the second case, the outer burr was eliminated by percussion. On one of the faces, the surface was shaped by percussion, thus devel-oping the active front, too. Also, at the proximal level, the develop-

Fig. 13: a, d, f preforms processed in antler; b debitage by percussion; c perforation by rotation; e bifacial percussion; g longitudinal scraping


ment of a perforation by percussion started. On the opposite face it can be seen that one of the basic tines was eliminated by percussion and, on the distal extremity, the stigmata of direct percussion are preserved, which, in our opinion, come from a transversal segmen-tation. However, it facilitates the bifacial development of the active extremity.

One single chisel preform was processed on a flat blank (fig. 13/f). The bipartition of the antler looks like it was made by percussion. The processing of the active part followed, initiated by percussion, after which the shaping of the active part by longitudinal scraping began (fig. 13/g).

A part of the preforms, even if they do not hold an active front development, preserved perforations in various finishing stages. The identified manufacture procedures are bifacial rotation and percus-sion. The remaining object was either kept in raw state, or it was sub-jected to shaping by scraping.

In the same category of preforms in volume, we include an antler tine (fig. 12/e), on which shallow grooves in direct alternate percus-sion occurred around its circumference (fig. 12/f). We cannot define the object. Was the object intended for the segmentation of small rings or was there a pattern created on the object?

The number of preforms processed on flat blank is lower but the category includes some special specimens. One extremity of a beam fragment illustrates segmentation by direct percussion, followed by longitudinal debitage through percussion (fig. 12/g). Also, the form was created by percussion.

A tine point was segmented by direct percussion, followed by lon-gitudinal bipartition, also through percussion. On the upper face, the surface was shaped by longitudinal scraping, hence the conclusion that it was a preform – perhaps an arrow point – considering its small size. Finally, a last object showed a circular morphology (fig. 12/h), like that of a spindle whorl; there was no possibility of identifying the cutting method, since the whole surface was processed by abrasion. A bifacial perforation by rotation was initiated, yet this operation re-mained unfinished.

Blanks and wastes (N = 13). The number of blanks is not very high, we can enumerate 7 objects – preserving the antler’s anatomic volume – that resulted from the detachment by direct percussion ap-plied on variable surfaces of the circumference, followed by bending (fig. 14/e, f). Another blank type is represented by a fragment of a tine and beam, coming from the antler’s branching zone. On two extremi-ties, the stigmata of direct percussion for segmentation have been pre-served. The other two extremities are post-depositionally fractured. As a result of longitudinal debitage (fig. 14/g), three blanks resulted, coming from the antler’s beam. Also, we identified a point made out of a tine, segmented by percussion, and it may be assigned in the cat-egory of waste, considering its small size.

Also, we have to mention two Capreolus capreolus branches, de-tached from skull by percussion, with no other technological inter-vention.

Undetermined objects (N = 19). We created this undetermined cat-egory because the lot of Radovanu contains 19 antler objects in dif-ferent fracture stages, which makes it impossible to give a diagnosis


Fig. 14. Bone (a, c) and antler (e-g) blanks and wastes, with details of segmentation by sawing (b, d)

regarding their functionality. No less than 15 items have a perforation, where the fracture usually occurred. Nine were processed along the tine, and the perforation development was realized either by bifacial rotation procedure (8 objects), or bifacial percussion (1 object). One of them preserves the proximal side. We cannot tell what the procedure of segmentation out of branch was like, because that extremity was thoroughly shaped. At the other end, a perforation was developed by bifacial percussion. At that level, the object was thicker and the shape looks like having been manufactured by percussion, followed by shap-ing. The object presents an intensive macroscopic wear, but, unfor-tunately, we cannot tell which the morphology of its active part was. Another object that caught our attention was processed on blank in volume, segmented from branch by sawing around the entire circum-ference (in contrast to most of the objects made out of antler, which were segmented by percussion). At its medial level, we could identify a first cylindrical morphology perforation, produced by bifacial rota-tion, functionally fractured and below this – a second one, having the same technological data. We cannot tell which the morphology of the active part was.


Eight objects were processed along the beam, and the perforation procedures consisted in bi-facial rotation (5 objects), in one case, with the prior development of the perforation zone, by percussion, bi-facial percussion (1 object), percussion, followed by rotation (in the case of a basic part of a fallen antler), and undetermined, due to the massive deposits on the object’s surfaces (1 object).

Another three objects are fractured, only small surfaces being pre-served, where stigmata of branch segmentation can be identified. We cannot include those objects in any product or sub-product category that resulted from the operational sequence, and this is why we have chosen the name of “undetermined”.

ShellThis raw material is represented by only one extremely interesting object, since it illustrates a recycling (curation) procedure (fig. 11/e). Initially, it was a bracelet, processed out of a Spondylus valve, rectangu-lar in section. The object surface was finely processed by abrasion, so that we can no longer identify the stigmata of the debitage operation. The object was broken and – in order not to lose it – a perforation was produced by bifacial rotation (fig. 11/f), allowing the object to be used as a pendant. The same recycling procedure is also confirmed in the settlement of Isaccea, also belonging to the Boian culture (Micu 2004).

ToothA Sus scrofa canine tusk was turned into an adornment element (fig. 11/g). For that purpose, a longitudinal bipartition method was used, which provided a flat blank. It has been impossible to identify the pro-cedure, given the supplementary interventions on the item. The lower face was shaped by longitudinal scraping (fig. 11/i), followed by the abrasion of the fracture sides. The object has four perforations, made by rotation (fig. 11/h). Towards the object extremities, the rotation marks are removed because of the development of a macroscopic wear area, which may suggest an area used for suspension.

DiscussionExperts agree that technology depends on cultural traditions (Lemonnier 1993; Dobres 2010; Luik / Maldre 2007; Choyke 2009; Luik 2011). Under these circumstances, the re-grouping of all the ele-ments resulted from an operational sequence, and the identification of some repetitive operational schemes in the raw material processing can offer the key for the identification of some cultural indicators. As Buc and Loponte highlighted (2009, 152), “tool design must be under-stood as constrained by these technological choices and technological costs (manufacture and procurement costs) should be considered in the light of its efficiency”.

Starting from the inventory composition, within the lot of Radovanu we identified four types of products and sub-products based on the application of different operational schemes:

- waste – coming from the processing of the blank which cannot be re-used;

- blanks – non-shaped products, derived from debitage, able to be turned into finished objects later;


- preforms – objects in different processing stages, which are im-portant because they carry numerous stigmata of the operational se-quence, particularly of the shaping stage;

- finished objects – used for different activities.The integration of artifacts in one of the above-mentioned catego-

ries is not, as some might initially believe, very simple: since many objects create problems, either due to fractures, or because they may have been compatible with two intentions (for example, an item might be classified first as waste, when a blank was detached from it for the manufacture of an object, it might then be considered as a blank, pre-form, or finished object, if its size still allowed processing and trans-formation into a finished object, etc.). Another problem is the differ-entiation between technological/functional stigmata and those that occurred “during the animal’s lifetime”, especially in the case of antler. Since deer use their antlers as tools, and this triggers fractures, percus-sion, smooth areas, we should avoid speculative diagnosis.

The study of the above-mentioned categories (see table 4) led to the identification of the following detachment procedures: a transver-sal debitage, to which a transformation scheme by segmentation corre-sponds, and a longitudinal debitage, to which transformation schemes by bipartition and successive partitions are subordinated. To the above mentioned procedures, one can add a transformation scheme by di-rect shaping, identified in the case of the processed astragals and of the bones with scraping stigmata. As for the techniques used during the debitage stage, we did some statistics on raw material types, as we could clearly highlight a different treatment for bone and antler. For bone, the debitage resulted in two blanks types: in volume and flat. Considering the percentage, we may state a preference for the use of flattened blanks (longitudinal debitage – 73 objects), followed by those that preserved their anatomic volume (20 objects). The transversal debitage was realized by direct percussion (9 objects) and sawing (3 objects). Longitudinally, for the bipartition procedures, the techniques used were percussion (34 objects), double grooving (11 objects) and a groove and splinter combination (1 object), while for the successive partition, the double grooving (8 objects), groove and percussion (3) or only percussion (1 object) were used.

Within the surface modification procedures (see table 5), abrasion was the most used technique, closely followed by longitudinal scrap-ing, which was used both for shaping of the fracture plane and for the development of the active front. These techniques may have been used in combination on different objects, for the final shaping of the object. The main technique used for volume modification procedure was per-foration, having a single manufacture alternative, namely rotation.

For antler (see table 4), the case is completely different, given the predominance of the blanks in volume (67 objects) compared to the flat ones (16 objects). In the case of transversal debitage, the technique used was direct percussion, except in one case where segmentation by sawing was observed. The technique used for longitudinal debit-age procedures is percussion, as the grooving technique – so often in appearance on bones – was not identified. Direct percussion and scraping were used in surface modification (see table 5), followed by abrasion in some cases. The volume modification was particularly re-alized by perforation, rotation (56 objects), or percussion (3 objects).


Tabl

e 4.

Dist

ribut

ion

of th

e de

bita

ge p

roce

dure

s and

tech

niqu

es, i

dent

ified

by

the

type

s of r

aw m

ater

ials

and

typo

logi

cal c

ateg

orie

s, in

the

settl

emen

t of R

adov

anu

Typo

logi

cal c

ateg

orie

s

Deb

itage

pro

cedu

res

Deb

itage

by

bipa

rtiti

on(lo

ngitu

dina

l deb

itage

)D

ebita

ge b

y su

cces

sive

par

titio

ns

(long

itudi

nal d

ebita

ge)

Deb

itage

by

segm

enta

tion

(tra

nsve

rsal

deb

itage

)

Perc

ussi

onD

oubl

e

groo

ving

Gro

ove

and

splin

ter

Perc

ussi

onD

oubl

e gr

oovi

ngG

roov

e an

d sp

linte

rPe

rcus

sion

Saw

ing

Bone

Beve

lled

obje

cts

++

--

--

+-

Poin

ts+

++

++

+-

-N

eedl

es-

+-

--

--

-Pr

oces

sed

astr

agal

us-

--

--

--

-Sp

atul

as+

--

--

--

-Bu

rins

+-

+-

--

--

Scra

ped

bone

s-

--

--

--

-Ri

ng-

--

--

--

+H

amm

er-

--

--

-?

-Pr

efor

ms

--

--

--

--

Blan

ks a

nd w

aste

s-

--

--

--

+U

ndet

erm

ined

obj

ects

+-

+-

--

--

Ant

ler

Beve

lled

obje

cts

+-

--

--

+-

Poin

ts-

--

--

-+

-O

bjec

ts w

ith ci

rcul

ar

extr

emity

--

--

--

?-

Han

dle

--

--

--

?-

Har

poon

?-

--

--

?-

Pend

ant

?-

--

--

?-

Pref

orm

s+

--

--

-+

-Bl

anks

and

was

tes

+-

--

--

+-

Und

eter

min

ed o

bjec

ts-

--

--

-+

+


Another volume modification technique was sawing, used for detach-ment of harpoon barbs or for decoration of the pendant.

The general picture shows that techniques and procedures vary rather little, especially in the case of antler, where percussion is om-nipresent, but they are well adapted to different raw material types, illustrating a good knowledge in the field. Besides, a great part of the tools (points, chisels) illustrate a simplistic development – bipartition by percussion, with a scarce processing of the active front by abrasion; they may have been selected out of the splinters already obtained while extracting the bone marrow. This development may have been gener-ated by an ad-hoc use, namely an opportune recovery of the blanks from the faunal waste, and then the tools may have been abandoned, after the action for which they had been selected was over. Those tools were obviously not created by specialists, as the job was at everybody’s hand, but the repeated elements of the operational sequence – which are found within the set – illustrate skill or knowledge that is transmit-ted from one generation to the next.

Within the studied set, the most numerous typological category is that of chisels (bevelled objects). In literature, numerous tool types

Table 5. Distribution of the shaping procedures and techniques, identified by the types of raw materials and typological categories, in the settlement of Radovanu

Typological categories

Shaping procedures

Surface modification procedures Volume modification procedure

Percussion Abrasion ScrapingPerforation

by rotation

Perforation by

percutionSawing

BoneBevelled objects + + + - - -Points - + + - - -Needles - + + + - -Processed astragalus - + - + - -Spatulas - + - + - -Burins - + - - - -Scraped bones - - + - - -Ring - - - - - -Hammer ? ? ? + - -Preforms - - - + - -Blanks and wastes - - - - - -Undetermined objects - + - - - -AntlerBevelled objects + + + + - -Points + + - + - -Objects with circular extremity - + - + - -Handle - - - - - -Harpoon - - - - - +Pendant - + - + - +Preforms + - + + + -Blanks and wastes - - - - - -Undetermined objects - + - + + -


carry the generic name of chisels, as their common element is the de-velopment of their active part through the intersection of two conver-gent sides. The main question we asked ourselves was whether those tools had had an identical function since – as we could see from the study that we carried out on the present set – they prove a different wear evolution. For example, in the case of three objects, their extrem-ity shows small fractures on the extremity level, but at 200x magnifi-cation, one can see a polished area, with scratches perpendicular on the extremity (fig. 15/a, b). They may have been intermediate tools, according to the fracture type, such as splitting wedge for wood or for tree bark removal. For most objects made both of bone and antler (fig. 15/c, d), the active side shows an intense macroscopic polish, with fine marks perpendicular on the extremity being increasingly more extended on one face. As a result, we may consider that they belong to the transformation tool category, destined for processing soft materi-als (skin – Christidou / Legrand 2005; Raskova Zelinkova 2010; skin or wood – Maigrot 2000).

Most points, including needles, seem to have been related to do-mestic activities like skin perforation or textile fiber knitting (Campana 1989; LeMoine1991); projectile points, which could certainly be in-cluded here, are not present. We think that the different hardness of the processed materials is also reflected in the different appearances of the

Fig. 15. Examples of active extremities with traces of wear


active extremity wear: the rounded points in the case of the process-ing of the soft materials (fig. 15/e; fig. 16/a, b), and those which had suffered significant loss of material in surface, for the harder materials (fig. 15/f; fig. 16/d). In the case of perforating thick skin, these points may have also been used in indirect percussion (as it seems to be the case of one needle) (fig. 16/c) – as already stated by other specialists (Christidou / Legrand 2005).

By their extended and fine usage polish (fine chipping or depres-sions are lacking) (fig. 16/e, f), spatulas seem to correspond to a func-tionality characterized by a prolonged movement on soft materials, such as skins (Averbouh / Buisson 2003; Raskova Zelinkova 2010). Actually, it was suggested that their manufacturing out of, primarily, longitudinally cut ribs had the purpose of assuring the flexibility of the equipment (Tartar 2009). However, other studies suggest the use of those objects in clay pots processing (Struckmeyer 2011). Our own experiments on ceramics illustrated, especially for the spatulas with convex extremity, that they are very useful in homogenization of the pots surface and in order to remove the excess clay.

For the astragal category processed by abrasion, we may posit, as a first functional hypothesis, a domestic use; the result of intense fric-

Fig. 16. Examples of active extremities with traces of wear


tion against another resistant abrasive body could be aimed, for ex-ample, at finishing ceramics (e.g. Meier 2013). Another hypothesis is trying to prove the use of those astragals in different games, as there are testimonies in this sense throughout the time and in the faraway parts of the world (Neolithic, Bronze Age, Rome, modern Iran and Mongolia or aboriginals in Australia) (Elster 2003; Korzakova 2010); moreover, we cannot ignore the possibility that they may have been used in different rituals, for example in divination (Zidarov 2005).

The processed antler objects with a circular active extremity ex-hibit the morphology of hammers for stone processing; however, the functional scratches development seems to correspond to a completely different operation mode. The active surface preserves fine sub-par-allel scratches, identifiable only at magnifications of 100x – 150x (fig. 10/g). This is why we consider that they were used in an action of breaking and friction for an abrasive material. The wear area is quite well delimited, in some cases having a concave morphology.

There have been continual discussions on the functionality of the bones like the two objects featuring scraping stigmata (Alexandrescu 1961; Semenov 1964); no final solutions have been reached so far. Traditionally, the literature called them polishers, as they were used for the smoothing of ceramics (Semenov 1964). Another hypothesis speaks about skin processing, but recent experiments have proved that they were rather inefficient for this operation (http://www.palaeo-technik.de/knochenwerkzeug.html). Having no intention of rejecting these hypotheses, we would like to insist on the details we were able to identify. The fact is that some of concave faces resulted from a longi-tudinally applied scraping procedure using equipment made of stone. The scraping area is well-defined; the stigmata are very well preserved and are not removed by the wear which occurred as a result of a pol-ishing process (fig. 6/h). However, we may not ignore the possibility of the periodic reshaping when the wear was too obvious. This practice is often confirmed in some prehistoric artifact categories. Furthermore, we may talk about the possibility of multiple functions, as the impact stigmata on one of the objects correspond to those that are specific to the pressure flaker for stone objects (fig. 6/i).

Rings, like that from Radovanu, much too small for an adornment, may be associated with the procedures related to manufacturing of vegetal fiber baskets (Sidera 2000).

Traditionally, the literature made a connection between harpoons and fishing. For the primitive communities, the harpoon was used for fishing (Amerindians, Eskimos), catching water birds and animals crossing the water (Eskimos), seals (Patagonia) (Scheinsohn 2010) or arboreal animals, including monkeys (Agta) (Bion Griffin 1997). In the settlement of Radovanu, even if fishing was absolutely second-ary, some fish bones were recovered, like those of a nine year-old carp or those of some 7-14 year-old catfish (Necrasov 1973), which might explain the harpoon presence in the settlement. Finally, the object shown in figure 7/b might be interpreted as an element of a composite trap, such was the case for similar objects used in southern Romania (Comșa 1983).

The present study provides data that may be helpful in the recon-struction of daily activities that took place in the site. We were able to underline a systematic exploitation of the environment, with the


aid of tools made of hard animal materials, by their implication in ac-tion of wood cutting, splitting wedge, bark processing or vegetal fibers processing. In conclusion, we could take a look at the ways in which the Eneolithic communities exploited the animal environment in or-der to obtain their hard animal material industry artifacts, and at the way in which these objects are re-integrated in the cycle of use – this time as a means for exploitation of the environment. Unfortunately, it brings a timely result since it cannot offer a complete picture of the hard animal material industry specific to the Boian culture. The only comparable study we can mention is the one on the Boian settlement from Isaccea, “Suhat” point (Micu 2004), which highlighted an archae-ological set rather different from the one shown in the present study. The usual types of bone points may be found in both settlements, but, for example, in the Isaccea settlement there are not many chisels made of bone and antler, other than their preforms, which suggests another type of economy. In any case, the technical and cultural traditions spe-cific to the Boian culture cannot be individualized based just on two archaeological sets. Comparative studies relating these finds to other contemporary or successive sets would be needed in order to identify the cultural innovation and continuity processes in time and space.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0133.

Bibliography

Alexandrescu, A. D. 1961. Şlefuitoare de os neolitice. ‒ Studii și cercetări de isto-rie veche și arheologie 2, 339-341.

Averbouh, A. 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L’exemple des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidés chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Thèse de doctorat. Université Paris I.

Averbouh, A. / Buisson, D. 2003. Les lissoires. In: Clottes, J. / Delporte, H. (dirs.). La Grotte de la Vache (Ariège). I Les occupations du Magdalénien. Paris. 309-324.

Bajnóczi, B. / Schöll-Barna, G. / Kalicz, N. / Siklósi, Z. / Hourmouziadis, G. H. / Ifantidis, F. / Kyparissi-Apostolika, A. / Pappa, M. / Veropoulidou, R. / Ziota, Ch. 2013. Tracing the source of Late Neolithic Spondylus shell ornaments by stable isotope geochemistry and cathodoluminescence microscopy. ‒ Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 874-882.

Bălășescu, A. / Radu, V. 2001. Culesul, pescuitul și vânãtoarea în cultura Boian pe teritoriul României. ‒ Studii de Preistorie 1, 73-94.

Bălăşescu, A. / Radu, V. / Moise, D. 2005. Omul şi mediul animal între mileniile VII-IV î.e.n. la Dunărea de Jos. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgovişte.

Bion-Griffin, P. 1997. Technology and Variation in Arrow Design among the Agta of Northeastern Luzon. In: Knecht, H. (ed.). Projectile Technology. New York. 267-286.

Buc, N. 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. ‒ Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3, 546-557.

Buc, N. / Loponte, D. 2007. Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America. In: Gates St-Pierre, Ch. / Walker, R. B. (eds.). Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. BAR International Series 1622. 143-157.

Campana, D. 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR International Series 494. Oxford.

Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed.). 1998. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VIII: Biseaux et tranchants. Treignes.

Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed.). 1990. Fiches ty-pologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhis-torique. Cahier III: Poinçons, pointes, poignards, aiguilles. Aix-en-Provence.

Choyke, A. M. 2009. Grandmother’s Awl: Individual and Collective Memory Through Material Culture. In: Barbiera, I. / Choyke, A. M. / Rasson, J. A. (eds.). Materializing Memory: Archaeological Material Culture and the Semantics of the Past. BAR International Series1977. Oxford. 21-40.

Choyke, A. M. / Daroczi-Szabo, M. 2010. The Complete and Usable Tool: Some Life Histories of Prehistoric Bone Tools in Hungary. In: Legrand, A. /


Sidera, I. (eds.). Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature. BAR International Series 2136. Oxford. 235-248.

Choyke, A. M. / Vretemark, M. / Sten, S. 2004. Levels of social identity ex-pressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary. In: Jones, S. / Day, O. / van Neer, W. / Ervynck, A. (eds.). Behavior Behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity. Proceedings of the ICAZ 9th Conference, Durham, August 2002. Oxford. 177-189.

Christidou, R. / Legrand, A. 2005. Hide working and bone tools: Experimentation design and applica-tions. In: Luik, H. (dir.). From hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. 4th Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group. Tallinn. 2003. Muinasaja teadus. 385-396.

Comşa, E. 1990. Complexul neolitic de la Radovanu. ‒ Cultură şi Civilizaţie la Dunărea de Jos 8, 1-124.

Comșa, E. 1983. La chasse en Oltenie à l’epoque neolithique. ‒ Dacia N.S XXVII, 1-2, 185-192.

Comșa, E. 1974. Istoria comunităților culturii Boian. București.

Dobres, M.-A. 2010. Archaeologies of technology. ‒ Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 103-114.

Elster, E. S. 2003. Bone Tools and Other Artifacts, Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. In: Elster, E. L. / Renfrew, C. (eds.). The Final Report. Monumenta Archaeologica 20. vol. 2. University of California. 31-79

Gates St Pierre, Ch. 2010. Iroquoian Bone Artifacts: Characteristics and Problems. In: Legrand-Pineau, A. / Sidéra, I. / Buc, N. / David, E. / Scheinsohn, V. (eds.). Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, Technological and

Functional Signature. BAR International Series 2136. Oxford. 71-85.

Gijn van, A. L. 2007. The use of Bone and Antler Tools: Two Examples from the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coastal Zone. In: Gates St-Pierre, C. / Walker, R. (eds.). Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford. 81-92.

http://www.palaeotechnik.de/knochen-werkzeug.html

Korzakova, H. B. 2010. Astragali. In: Kloner, A. / Esher, E. / Korzakova, H. B. / Finkielsztejn, G. (eds.). Maresha Excavations Final Report III. IAA Reports 45. Israel Antiquities Authority. Israel. 155-156.

Lazăr, C. / Opriș, V. 2012. The Index of Funerary Discoveries in Early Eneolithic. In: Lazăr, C. (ed.). The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgoviște. 71-108.

Legrand, A. 2007. Fabrication et utilisa-tion de l’outillage en matières osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre : Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. BAR International Series 1678. Oxford.

Legrand, A. / Sidéra, I. 2007. Methods, Means, and Results When Studying European Bone Industry. Chapitre 5. In: Gate, C. / Walker, R. (eds.). Bones as tools: current methods and interpretations in worked bone studies. BAR International series 1622. Oxford. 291-304.

LeMoine, G. 1991.Experimental Analysis of the Manufacture and Use of Bone and Antler Tools among the Mackenzie Inuit. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Archaeology. University of Calgary.

Lemonnier, P. 1993. Introduction. In: Lemonnier, P. (ed.). Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Material Cultures. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Material Construction of Social Worlds. London / New York. 1-35.

Luik, H. 2011. Material, Technology and Meaning: Antler Artefacts and Antler Working on the Eastern Shore of the Baltic Sea in the Late Bronze Age. ‒ Estonian Journal of Archaeology 15, 1, 32-55.

Luik, H. 2009. Skill, knowledge and me-mory. How to make a bone awl proper-ly? In: Vasks, A. (ed.). Memory, Society and Material Culture. Papers from the Third Theorethical Seminar of the Baltic Archaeologists (BASE). Held at the University of Latvia, October 5.6, 2007 (Interarchaeologia, 3.). Riga. 45-58.

Luik, H. / Maldre, L. 2007. Bronze Age bone artefacts from Narkûnai, Nevieriokë and Kereliai fortified settle-ments. Raw materials and manufactu-ring technology. ‒ Archeologia Lituana 8, 5-39

Maigrot, Y. 2000. Les outils en matières dures animales utilisés pour le travail du bois à Chalain station 4 (Neolithique final, Jura). In: Bodu, P. / Constantin, Cl. (dirs.). Approches fonctionnelles en Préhistoire. XXV-ème Congrès Préhistorique de France. Paris. 67-82.

Maigrot, Y. 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l’outillage en matières dures animales: La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Thèse de Doctorat. Université Paris I.

Malinowski, B. 1989. Les argonautes du Pacifique Occidental. Gallimard. Paris.

Margaris, A. V. 2012. Reconsidering Raw Material Selection Skeletal Technologies and Design for Durability in Subarctic Alaska. ‒ Journal of Archaeological Method, and Theory 19(4).DOI 10.1007/s10816-012-9168-x

Meier, J. 2013. More than Fun and Games? An Experimental Study of Worked Bone Astragali from Two Middle Bronze Age Hungarian Sites. In: Choyke, A. / O’Connor, S. (eds.). From These Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Osseous Objects. Oxbow Books. Oxford. 166-173.

Micu, C. 2004. Observaţii privind indus-tria materiilor dure animale în aşezarea


neolitică de la Isaccea, punctul „Suhat”. In: Cândea, I. / Sârbu, V. / Neagu, M. (eds.). Prinos lui Petre Diaconu la 80 de ani (= Istros). Brăila / Călărași. 41-75.

Miller, M. 2003. Technical Aspects of Ornament Production at Sitagroi. In: Elster, E. S. / Renfrew, C. (eds.). Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2. Los Angeles. 369-382.

Necrasov, O. 1973. Studiul resturilor de faună din așezarea neolitică de la Radovanu, jud. Ilfov. ‒ Materiale 10, 39-40.

Pandrea, S. 2000. Câteva observații referitoare la periodizarea culturii Boian. ‒ Istros 10, 35-70.

Patou-Mathis, M. (sous la dir.). 2002. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier X: Compresseurs, percuteurs, retouchoirs, … Os à impressions et éraillures. Paris.

Raskova Zelinkova, M. 2010. Reconstructing the “Chaîne operatoire” of skin processing in Pavlovian bone ar-tifacts. In: Legrand-Pineau, A. / Sidéra, I. / Buc, N. / David, E. / Scheinsohn, V. (eds.). Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia.

Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature. BAR International Series 2136. Oxford. 191-200

Scheinsohn, V. 2010. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Prehispanic Harpoon Heads from Beagle Channel, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia, Argentina). In: Legrand, A. / Sidera, I. (eds.). Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature. BAR International Series, 2136. Oxford. 295-302.

Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric tech-nology. An experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Bath.

Shakelton, J. / Elderfield, H. 1990. Strontium isotope dating of the source of neolithic european spondylus shell artefacts. ‒ Antiquity 64, 312-331.

Sidera, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg : de l’économie aux symboles, des techniques à la culture. ‒ Gallia Préhistoire 42, 107-194.

Sidéra, I. / Legrand, A. 2006. Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matières osseuses : une méthode. ‒ Bulletin de

la société préhistorique française 103, 2, 291-304.

Struckmeyer, K. 2011. The bone tools from the dwelling mound Feddersen Wierde, Germany, and their functi-ons. In: Baron, J. / Kufel-Diakowska, B. (eds.). Written in Bones. Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains. Uniwersytet Wrocławski. Instytut Archeologii. Wrocław. 187-195.

Tartar, E. 2009. De l’os à l’outil. Caractérisation technique, écono-mique et sociale de l’utilisation de l’os à l’Aurignacien ancien. Étude de trois sites : l’Abri Castanet (secteurs nord et sud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hyènes et Abri Dubalen) et Gatzarria. Thèse de doctora. Université de Paris I.

Todorova, H. 1978. The Eneolithic Period in Bulgaria in the Fifth Millennium B.C. BAR International Series (Supplementary) 49. Oxford.

Vasiliev, V. 1985. Investigation on the fauna from the settlement hill Ovčarovo (abstract in English). – Interdisciplinari izsledvanija 13. 1-199

Zidarov, P. 2005. Bone artefacts. ‒ Acta Archaeologica 76, 1, 124-131.

Използване на костен материал за създаване на артефакти в енеолитно селище на археологическата култура Боян при Радовану – Ла Мускалу (Румъния)

Моника МЪРГЪРИТ / Кристиан Едуард ЩЕФАН / Валентин ДУМИТРАШКУ

Целта на статията е да представи една особено интересна архе-ологическа сбирка, плод на археологическо проучване, ръково-дено от Еуджен Комша през периода 1960-1990. Това праисто-


рическо селище принадлежи на археологическата култура Боян (5000-4450 г. пр. Хр.). Резултатите от разкопките са публикувани досега в съкратен вид.

Тримата съавтори прилагат методика, която не само разпоз-нава техниките за производство на различните типове предмети, но също разкрива как енеолитните общини използвали заоби-калящия ги животински свят, за да създадат костени артефакти, както и показва начина на прилагането на костените предмети в усвояването на околната среда. Настоящето изследване е важно и защото почти липсват данни за производството на костени пред-мети в културата Боян на територията на Румъния. Обсъждането на този материал би допринесло за разбиране на модела, по който древните общества използвали фауната.

Monica Mărgărit PhDValahia University of Târgoviște34-36 Lt. Stancu Ion St. RO-130018 Târgoviș[email protected]

Cristian Eduard Ștefan PhDInstitute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”11 Henri Coandă St.RO-010667 Bucureş[email protected]

Valentin Dumitrașcu PhDInstitute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”11 Henri Coandă St.RO-010667 Bucureş[email protected]


Management of Osseous Materials for Processing Artifacts in the Eneolithic Boian Settlement of...

Documents

Transcript of Management of Osseous Materials for Processing Artifacts in the Eneolithic Boian Settlement of...