Archaeotechnology - Studying Technology From Prehistory to the Middle Ages

5/19/2018 Archaeotechnology - Studying Technology From Prehistory to the Middle Ages

1/320


2/320


3/320

ARHEOTEHNOLOGIJA:prouavanje tehnologije od praistorije

do srednjeg veka

Urednici:Selena Vitezovi

Dragana Antonovi


4/320

ARCHAEOTECHNOLOGY:studying technology from prehistory

to the Middle Ages

Editors:

Selena Vitezovi

Dragana Antonovi


5/320

Published by / IzdavaSrpsko arheoloko drutvoBeograd, ika-Ljubina 18-20

For the publisher / Za izdavaaDragana Antonovi

Editors / UredniciSelena VitezoviDragana Antonovi

Reviewed by / RecenzentiMark Andrs (Hungary), Dragana Antonovi, Krum Bacvarov (Bulgaria),Jacqueline Balen (Hrvatska), Marija Buzov (Hrvatska), Heidi Luik (Estonia),Ina Miloglav (Hrvatska), Dubravka Nikoli, Ben Roberts (United Kingdom),Perica pehar

Translation and proofreading / Prevod i lekturaIvan Bugarski, Jelena Vitezovi, Selena Vitezovi and individual authors

Graphic layout / Graka opremaKristijan Reli

Cover / KoricaMihajlo Vitezovi

Printed by / tampaDC Graki centarSavski nasip 7, 11070 Novi Beograd

Print run / Tira100


6/320

CONTENTSSADRAJ

Archaeotechnology: Studying Technology from Prehistory to the MiddleAges (S. Vitezovi, D. Antonovi) .................................................................. 7

D. Antonovi: Examination Methodology for Ground Stone Artefacts ........ 13

M. Lopii: Wasted Skill: The Chunk Phenomenon ...................................... 29

V. Dimitrovska: Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viniko Kale ......... 57

D. Antonovi: Manufacturing of Stone Axes and Adzes in Vina Culture ... 77

D. Rajkovi, T. Hrak, H. Posilovi, K. Kos: A Case Analysis of the

Operational Sequence for the Production of Polished Stone Tools at theSelci akovaki KaznicaRutak Site .......................................................... 89

C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, I. A. Brbat: Bone and Antler Artefacts Datedfrom Starevo-Cri Culture from Transylvania, Romania: Recent Discoveriesand Microscopic Analyses................................................................................ 113

D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, C. Ilie: Starevo-CriOsseous MaterialsIndustry from Southern Moldova, Romania. The Negrileti Site, GalaiCounty............................................................................................................. 135

S. Vitezovi: Antler as Raw Material in the Starevo Culture ....................... 151

J. Vukovi: Archaeological Evidence of Pottery Forming Sequence: Tracesof Manufacture in Late Neolithic Vina Assemblage ................................... 177

I. Atanasova: Early Eneolithic Figurines from the Site of St. Atanas nearV. Spanevo Koani: A Study of the Manufacturing Technology .............. 199

V. Biki: The Study of Pottery Technology in Serbia: First Experiences ...... 221


7/320

M. Radivojevi, T. Rehren, J. Kuzmanovi-Cvetkovi, M. Jovanovi: WhyAre There Tin Bronzes in the 5th Millenium BC Balkans? ........................... 235

A. urii: The Construction and Usage of the Neolithic Oven:Experimental Archaeology ............................................................................. 257

G. Jeremi: The Technology of Making Floor Mosaic Substructures in LateAntiquity in Provinces of Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis .............. 277

T. Mihailovi: Plana Water Supply Medieval Technical Enterprise ........... 295

List of Contributors........................................................................................ 315


8/320

ARCHAEOTECHNOLOGY: STUDYING TECHNOLOGYFROM PREHISTORY TO THE MIDDLE AGES

Technology is a fascinating material expression of human culture,commonly regarded as an evidence of human triumph over nature. The hu-man past was seen as a constant progress from primitive to technologi-cally advanced, and even classied after what is thought to be a dominat-ing technique in a given period (e. g. Childe 1944, see also Greene 2006).Technological innovations were considered the main, if not the only drivingforces that shape societies and cultures (cf. Pfaffenberger 1988).

Technology, as a conceptual approach to material culture studies,

derived from the Greek word ,meaning skill, implies all human ac-tions upon a matter (Inizan et al. 1995: 13). Everything is technologicalaround us, and this includes not only artefacts, but all structures, buildings,and even nature modied by human hand (cf. Lemonnier 1992b, Greene2006). The term technology includes a full range of topics from those re-lated to individual level (body gestures, embodied knowledge in crafting) tosocial and cultural settings of production.

Archaeological studies are indistinguishable from studies of tech-nology; material remains constitute the core of archaeological evidence,

regardless of the period, region, methodological approaches or theoreti-cal frameworks, and even studies in beliefs, religion, etc., rely on analy-ses of diverse artefacts. Artefacts represent our source for reading pastlives by studying them, we can make conclusion about people who madethem and used them, what their meaning and value were, how they wereused, reused and discarded. They may have both functional and symbolicroles, and a special meaning for the society or individuals within it, thatmay change and/or became more complex over time. During its lifetime,an object can be used in many different contexts and have diverse, evencontradictory meanings and values. Objects can also be rare and luxury, oroccasional, craft-produced objects, or common, functional, mass-producedindustrial objects; furthermore, one class of artefacts may have examplesof rare, crafted and mass-produced specimens (cf. Caple 2006, Miller 2007).

Ideas from social anthropology had an important inuence on thetheoretical advances in studies of technology. The work of Malinowski andRadcliffe-Brown, for example, showed that a complex social structure wasinvariably reected within objects (cf. Caple 2006). Theories of a French

anthropologist Marcel Mauss, who was interested in how culture (as op-posed to nature) inuences and shapes human behaviour, are particularlyi t t ll Hi t ti i t th t thi ll


9/320

important as well His starting point was that something generally per

Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages

ceived as natural (for example, body posture, way of walking, etc.), wasin fact cultural. The way a person eats, walks, sleeps, even holds and uses

tools, differs, depends on their culture, age and sex. The accent of thesestudies is on the impact of a group on individuals, their relationships, aswell as the questioning of the culturaland the naturalin human behaviour(Delige 2012 [2006]: 82-84, Lvi-Strauss 1982 [1973]: 13-15, cf. also Ini-zan et al.1995: 14).

A wider concept of technology, which goes beyond artefact analy-ses, which regards technology as a practice, as ways of doing or makingsomething, which also includes social and cultural components into thestudies, is more and more accepted by many researchers. Henry Hodges

(1976) distinguished technology from the study of stylistic details of arte-facts, implying that technology was about theprocess of production ratherthan the endpoint (objects).

Ursula Franklin (1992) understood technology as ways of doingsomething rather than simply ways of making (creating) something (anobject), so that there are technologies of prayer and of storytelling as wellas of pottery production and weaving, while for Robert Merrill (1977: vi)technology is the culture surrounding the actions or activities involved inmaking or doing things. For M.-A. Dobres and C. Hoffman (1999) technol-

ogy is an ever unfolding process, and their view of technology stressesthe dynamic, ongoing and socially constituted nature of sociotechnical ac-tivities (Dobres & Hoffman 1999: 3).

Heather Miller, in her book dealing with archaeological approachesto technology, dened it as a set of actions and relationships: from pro-duction itself, to the organization of the production process, to the entirecultural system of processes and practices associated with production andconsumption (Miller 2007: 4). Furthermore, she denes the production asthe actual process of fabrication or creation, including both the materialobjects and the techniques and gestures used, organization of productionas the organizational arrangement within which production takes place,and the technological system as an active system of interconnections be-tween people and objects during the creation of an object, its distribution,and to some extent its use and disposal. In other words, technology or tech-nological systems can be roughly described as processes and practices as-sociated with production and consumption, from design to discard (Miller2007: 5).

Diverse concepts have been developed, and probably the most im-portant contribution to the study of technology was the work of Andr Le-roi Gourh n (1964 1965 1971) ho cre ted the concept of chane opra


10/320

roi Gourhan (1964 1965 1971) who created the concept of chane opra


toire (see also Lemonnier 1992a). This is an analytical tool for studying themode of creating, using and discarding an artefact, starting with raw mate-

rial acquisition, mode of manufacture, nal form, use (including caching,breaking and repairing) up to nal discarding, with the main goal of recon-structing the organization of a technological system and of describing andunderstanding all cultural transformations that a specic raw material hadhad to go through. It is a chronological segmentation of actions and mentalprocesses required in the manufacture of an artefact and its maintenancein the technical system of a prehistoric group (Inizan et al.1995: 14, cf. alsoSellet 1993). The concept is not only about reconstructing the algorithmicsequence of operations in creating one object, but it is a complex analysis

of operational chain within one society, which includes the analysis of tech-nological choices. The analyses of technologies today include a variety ofdifferent approaches, most of them putting the emphasis on cultural andsocial aspects of technology.

Methodology also went through signicant changes, especially inthe eld of interdisciplinary and experimental work. Studies of diverse ar-tefacts, such as stone, int or metal, cannot be imagined without carefulidentication and detailed analyses of raw material origin. Interdiscipli-nary researches became particularly emphasized by the processual archae-

ology since the 1960s, and today they constitute an integral part of almostevery archaeological research, regardless of the chronological period. Theyare irreplaceable for the determination of raw material origins and can alsocontribute to identifying diverse transformative processes certain raw ma-terial had undergone.

Experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies also constitute avery important segment of technological studies. Although present in ar-chaeological research since its early days (e.g., Martin 1910), they are morediverse, more common and more scientically based since the mid-20thcentury. Again, processual archaeology and its demands for scientic rigorcontributed greatly in developing new methods, but the work of soviet ar-chaeologist Sergei A. Semenov has the most prominent place in the historyof experimental archaeology, due to the diversity of research questions hedealt with and the wide range of chronological periods and materials hecovered ( 1957, 1968, Semenov 1976; cf. Korobkova 2008 for anoverview, also Skakun & Longo eds. 2008 for an overview of current re-search in this eld).

Most archaeological technology studies focus on an individual tech-nology int knapping, metallurgy, etc. Archaeologists usually classifytechnolo ies into cr fts or industries b sed on m teri l or end product


11/320

technologies into crafts or industries based on material or end product


type: clay (pottery) production, metal working, basket making, stone ob-ject (lithics) production, woodworking, textile manufacture. Such material

groupings are very useful from both the theoretical as well as a practicalperspective, however, they may be counterproductive sometimes (cf. Miller2007), or better put, the study should not end with analyses of a single tech-nology only. Although this is necessary for a deeper understanding of par-ticular technologies, given the complexity of the topics, a wider approachis needed, namely a multiple technologies perspective (Lemonnier 1992b,1993, see also Inizan et al. 1995).

All techniques in a given society refer to one another they canshare the same resources, same knowledge, same tools, same actors. More-

over, some techniques use the products of others, as well as the existence ofoperational sequences or technical principles in common, creating multiplerelations of interdependence, which gives them a systemic character. Alltechnologies have systemic aspects, and we can talk about technologicalsystems in the same way as, for example, ethnologists talk about kinshipsystems. Technological systems can be analysed on three levels. Firstly, wecan discuss how these ve components interact with each other to form atechnology. Secondly, if we consider all the technologies of a given society,

we can analyse how they are interrelated. And nally, the third level of dis-

cussion is the relation between technologies and other social phenomena.Analyses of multiple technologies, therefore, can expand the range of stud-ied cultural phenomena and at the same time provide a better understand-ing of a given culture and society (Lemonnier 1992b, 1993).

* * *

This book is a result of a session organized at the XXXVI Annualmeeting of the Serbian Archaeological Society, held in Novi Sad, from 30thMay to 1stJune 2013. The aim of the session was to promote the technologi-cal perspective on different aspects of material culture and to encouragemultiple technology studies. Papers include studies on artefacts from stone(M. Lopii, D. Antonovi, D. Rajkovi et al., V. Dimitrovska), bone (C. Beld-iman et al., D.-M. Sztancs et al., S. Vitezovi), clay (I. Atanasova, J. Vukovi,V. Biki) and metal (M. Radivojevi et al.), but also include more complextechnologies, such as constructions of thermic structures (A. urii), the

making of mosaic substructures (G. Jeremi) and water supply systems (T.Mihailovi). Also, studies cover a large time span, from Late Palaeolithic/M lithi t th Middl A


12/320

Mesolithic to the Middle Ages


We would like to thank all the participants of the session and theaudience as well, the contributors of the book, reviewers, and, last but not

least, to Jelena Vitezovi and Ivan Bugarski for their help with Englishtranslations and proofreading.Selena Vitezovi,

Dragana Antonovi

References

Childe, G. 1944.Archaeological ages as technological stages. The Journal of the

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland74, 1/2: 724.Delige, R.,006.Une histoire de lanthropologie. coles, auteurs, thories. ditions deSeuil, Paris. (Serbian translation: Istorija antropologije. kole, pisci, teorije. XX vek,Beograd)Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C. R. 1999.Introduction. In: Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman,C. R. (Eds.): The Social dynamics of Technology: practice, politics and world views.Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press: 1-19.Franklin, U., 1992.The real world of technology. Canadian Broadcasting Corpora-tion (CBC) Massey Lecture Series. Originally published in 1990 by CBC Enterpris-es. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press Ltd.

Greene, K., 2006.Archaeology and technology. In: Bintliff, J. (ed.):A Companionto archeology.Blackwell Publishing, Oxford : 155173.Inizan, M-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1995.Technologie dela pierre taille.CNRS et Universit de Paris, Paris.Korobkova, G., 2008.S. A. Semenov and new perspectives on the experimental-traceological method. In: Longo, L., Skakun, N. (eds.): Prehistoric technology 40years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy.Archaeopress, Oxford: 38.Lemonnier, P., 1992a. Leroi-Gourhan, ethnologue des techniques. Les NouvellesdArchologie,48/49: 13 17.Lemonnier, P., 1992b. Elements for and anthropology of technology. Ann Arbor,Michigan.Lemonnier, P., 1993. Introduction. In: P. Lemonier (Ed.): Technological choices:transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. Routdledge, London: 135.Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964.Le geste et la parole.ditions Albin Michel, Paris.Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965.volution et techniques 1: Lhomme et la matire. ditionsAlbin Michel, Paris.Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1971.volution et techniques 2: Milieu et techniques.ditionsAlbin Michel, Paris.Longo, L., Skakun, N. (Eds.), 2008. Prehistoric technology 40 years later: Func-

tional studies and the Russian legacy.Archaeopress, Oxford.Mauss, M. 1973.Sociologie et anthropologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Par-i (S bi t l ti S i l ij i t l ij I P t B d)


13/320

is (Serbian translation: Sociologija i antropologija I Prosveta Beograd)


Merill, R. S. 1977.Preface. In: Lechtman, H., Merrill, R. S. (eds.):Material culture:styles, organization and dynamics of technology. Proceedings of the American Ethno-logical Society, West Publishing Co., St. Paul: vvii.Miller, H. M.-L., 2007.Archaeological approaches to technology. Academic Press,Elsevier, Oxford.Pfaffenberger, B., 1988.Festishized objects and humanized nature: toward an an-thropology of technology.Man 23: 23652.Pfaffenberger, B., 1992.Social anthropology of technology. Annual review of an-thropology, 21: 491 516.Sellet, F., 1993.Chane opratoire: the concept and its applications. Lithic techno-logy18, 12: 106112., . A., 1957.. -

, . 54, , , ., . A., 1968. ., .Semenov, S. A., 1976. Prehistoric technology. An experimental study of the oldest toolsand artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Barnes and Noble, Wiltshire.


14/320

EXAMINATION METHODOLOGY FORGROUND STONE ARTEFACTS

Dragana AntonoviInstitute of Archaeology, Belgrade

Abstract:The basis for studying ground stone industry was given by the material fromnumerous sites in Serbia, but most prominently by that from Vina. The material can besubjected to a petrologic, typological and trassological analysis. Only through such anexamination can we establish the development level of the ground stone industry, pos-sible trading contacts between settlements and culture groups, and even point out cer-tain processes taking place within a culture, not registered by other material remnants.

Through a statistical analysis we can reach very interesting data on the ground stoneindustry from one site, but also from the territory of an entire culture. This processingmethod is certainly convenient for large series of systematically excavated sites and incases when we can be certain that we are dealing with mass production of stone tools.The analysis of ground stone industry performed according to the system practised inSerbia can yield useful results about existence of standards for making ground stonetools, type of raw material (pebble or a block of rockstaken from a primary ore deposit),whether there was an organized system for obtaining raw material etc. Ground stonetools had a large scale of application in prehistory, so by studying them, we help recon-

struct the lives of people who lived at those times, which is, essentially, the nal goal ofarchaeology.

Key words:ground stone tools, analysis, methodology, Neolithic, Eneolithic.

Apstrakt:Osnovu za prouavanje industrije glaanog kamena pruio je materijal samnogih lokaliteta iz Srbije, ali ponajpre onaj iz Vine. Materijal se analizira petroloki,tipoloki i trasoloki. Samo ovakvim nainom ispitivanja moe da se ustanovi stepenrazvijenosti industrije glaanog kamena, mogui trgovaki kontakti izmeu naselja ikulturnih grupa, pa i da se ukae na procese koji se odvijaju u okviru neke kulture, a

koje ostali materijalni ostaci ne registruju. Statistikom analizom mogue je doi doveoma zanimljivih podataka o industriji glaanog kamena sa jednog lokaliteta, ali istotako i sa teritorije cele kulture. Takav nain obrade svakako je pogodan kada se radi ovelikim serijama sa sistematski iskopavanih lokaliteta i kada smo sigurni da je re omasovnoj proizvodnji kamenog orua. Analiza industrije glaanog kamena po sistemukoji se praktikuje u Srbiji moe dati korisne rezultate o postojanju standarda u izradiorua od glaanog kamena, tipu sirovine (oblutak ili komad stene uzete iz primarnogleita), o tome da li je postojao organizovan system dobavljanja sirovine itd. Orue odglaanog kamena je imalo iroku primenu u praistoriji, pa njegovo prouavanje pomaerekonstrukciji ivota ljudi tog vremena, to i jeste krajnji cilj arheologije.

Kljune rei:orue od glaanog kamena, analiza, metodologija, neolit, eneolit.


15/320

j g g , , g j , ,


Introduction

Ground stone tools are designated by many authors as one of themain characteristics of the Neolithic, considering them to be the oldestagricultural tools, a notion which the research performed in Serbia, inthe last two decades, did not conrm. Ground stone tools analysis is per-formed according to the methodology established for the material fromVina ( 1992). Until that time, ground stone tools in Serbia

were usually classied as special nds (C-nds) and were not included instatistical processing. Up to today, material of ground stone industry was

analysed from many a site: Belovode, Crkvine at Mali Borak, Crkvine inStubline, Divostin, Donja Branjevina, Grivac, Hajduka Vodenica, Kaleni,Lepenski Vir, Ilia Brdo near uug, Padina at the Iron Gates, Selevac,Supska, Velesnica, Vina, material from the Regional Museum Parain( 1992; 1997a; 2000; 2002; 2003a; Antonovi 2003b; Antonovi 2004a; Antonovi 2004b;Antonovi 2005; Antonovi 2006; 2011; Antonovi, Resimi-ari, Cvetkovi 2006; , 2011; , 2013; oki1998; Perii 1984; Prinz 1988; Spears 1990; Voytek 1990; 2010).

There is also a signicantly larger group of material that has been analysed,without having the results of those analyses published as yet: Blagotin,Crnokalaka Bara, Drenovac,1Gradac near Zlokuane, Lipovac, Mali Borak(sites of Crkvine, Masinske njive and Jariite), Naprelje near Novi Pazar,Pavlovac, Petnica, Tei. Those are more than 30.000 specimens of groundstone industry from the territory of Serbia2.

The basis for studying ground stone industry was given by the mate-rial from all the aforementioned sites in Serbia, but most prominently bythat from Vina ( 1992). The material can be subjected to a pet-rologic, typological and trassological analysis. Only through such an exami-nation can we establish the development level of the ground stone industry,possible trading contacts between settlements and culture groups, and evenpoint out certain processes taking place within a culture, not registered by

1As for the sites of Crnokalaka Bara, Drenovac and Pavlovac, only the material kept at theNational Museum of Belgrade was used, courtesy of Duko ljivar, curator at the NationalMuseum.

2The author of this paper had the opportunity of examining a sample of over 23.000 piecesof ground stone industry. For the material from Divostin and Selevac, results of other au-h d h l d l f 9 000 bj (P i 1988 S 1990


16/320

th d h l d l f 9 000 bj t (P i 1988 S 1990

D. Antonovi Examination Methodology for Ground Stone Artefacts

other material remnants.3

Analysis of ground stone tools

Many years of studying ground stone industry led to the creation ofa chart (database) used today for working on this sort of material. It wasmade in such a way that a printed, paper version of it can be used to insertdata manually (g. 1), in cases when it is not possible to use computer onthe eld to process data, or it can be used as a pattern for creating a data-base in a computer program t for data classication (Excel, Access). Atthe time when computer processing of data was not a common practice in

Serbian archaeology, a collective chart was used, in which the data on proc-essed objects were inserted in the form of numerical codes, so as to enablean easier manipulation with the information obtained ( 1991).This method is no longer used today.

The data is classied in three categories: general data, data on basiccharacteristics of the artefacts and data on special characteristics of theartefacts.

General data

Those are the ordinal numbers under which an artefact is cata-logued, name of the site, research data, stratigraphic unit from which theartefact originates (trench, excavation layer, unit, square, coordinates etc.),inventory number, storage place, chronology of stratigraphic unit or theentire site, as well as all other data concerning the artefact in question. Allthese data are individual for each specic site, so this part of the chart, i.e.database, changes according to the site in question.

Basic characteristics of the artefacts

After several years of practice in the research of ground stone in-dustry (and the already mentioned slight ramble in those rsts steps; 1991), it became clear which parameters should be taken intoconsideration when analyzing this type of artefacts. The following series ofdescriptions of different characteristics of ground stone tools was used dur-

3As an example we can give the occurrence of light white stone tools, which indicated thatthe inhabitants of the central Balkans in late Neolithic were already familiar with tools

d f l hi h h i d i i i b ki hi l (A i


17/320

d f t l hi h th t i d t i it t i b ki hit t t l (A t i

16

BrojNo

Inventarni br.Inventory No.

LokalitetSite

Sonda/KvadraTrench/Squar

OuvanostPreservation

Stepen obrade

Processing degreeTip alatkeTyp of tool

Prepravljanje

Remanufacturi

DimenzijeDimensions

Dimenzije seiceDimensions of cutting edge

Prenik otvoraP e r f o r a t idiameter

Deo alatkePart of tool

FunkcijaFunction

ObradaManufacturing

CrteSketch

Distalni deoDistal partProksimalni deoProximal part

IviceEdgesDorsalna stranaDorsal sideVentralna stranaVentral sideRadna povrinaWorking surfaceOtvorza draljuPerforation

SmetajStorage place

DatovanjeChronology

NapomenaRemark

Fig. 1Form used in analysis of ground stone tools from Vina: general data, basic cspecial characteristics of the artefact.Sl. 1Obrazac korien u analizi orua od glaanog kamena iz Vine: opti podaci, oposebne karakteristike artefakta.


18/320


ing the examination of ground stone industry for the Kolubara and Vinaprojects.4

Preservation. Data inserted are those concerning the portion of theobject that has been preserved and, when dealing with fragments, whichpart has been preserved (cutting edge,parietal part, middle part of the tool,

working surface of an abrasive tool etc). Noting these data helps us form aconclusion on the fragmentation degree of the tool, which indicates indi-rectly how long it was used and the quality of raw material used.

Dimensions. Dimensions of the object represent a sort of an iden-tity card for the nd, but they are also important for reaching conclusionson the type and availability of different raw material used (boulders, rock

fragments from a quarry) and whether there was a standard for tool manu-facturing. For example, while examining the material from Vina, it wasnoticed that there was a standard in the making of adzes, whose cuttingedgeswere made with the angle of 6050. Following measurements aretaken down: length, width, height (thickness), perforation diameter (if aperforation is present on a tool) and cutting edge dimensions (its length inmillimetres and angle in degrees). Precise measuring values are noted, but,depending on the requirements of the database used, groups of measuring

values can be made for certain spans (for example, length 50100 mm etc.).

Shape of the tool. In the tool shape section, data inserted arethose regarding the species of the object and the type within that species.Tools are sorted into basic groups according to their shape. A classicationaccording to their function is made only for certain abrasive tools: for ex-ample, whetstonesdiffer from grindstonesmost prominently according tothe use wear traces and the type of stone used to make them.

There are two basic objects species. The rst one consists of ar-tefacts that were shaped by grinding, which comprises ground-edge tools(axes,adzes,chisels), perforated tools (axes, adzes,hammers, picks,maces)and tools that had a hitting function (hammers, picks, mallets). The secondspecies are abrasive tools, whose ground surfaces were obtained throughuse (grindstones,whetstones,pounders,querns). Those tools were shapedthrough knapping and ne chipping, and only exceptionally by grinding( 2008). On the territory of Serbia, during the Neolithic andEneolithic, following tools were used: I axes, II perforated axes, III adzes,IV perforated adzes, V chisels, VI hammers, VII perforated hammers, VIII

4Excavation at Vina, project of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Belgrade; rescueexcavation at open coal mine Kolubar, project of the Republic Institute for Cultural Herit-

P ti i B l d


19/320

age Preservation in Belgrade


picks, IX perforated picks, X maces, XI grindstones, XII whetstones, XIIIpounders, XIV querns andmortars. Within each category there are several

types, determined according to their shape, and subtypes, that differ ac-cording to their cross section.5Aside from these basic ones, the followingwere also found: pebble axes(blunt axes), mallets,weights,heavy pointsand implanting tools, leather scrapers, working plates, spearheads, mallets-sceptres, sling balls andprojectile balls.

Special characteristics of the artefacts

Special characteristics of the tools are those referring to their man-

ufacturing and their function. This type of analysis is rarely done in a mac-roscopic way, and more often with the use of a binocular microscope withseveral enlargement scales, up to 100x. Larger enhancement values do not

yield good results for processing and use wear traces for ground stone toolsindustry, except in rare cases of grinding caused by the tool being used forleather burnishingor ornaments creation on ceramics. Unfortunately, thistype of analysis is still performed on a small scale in Serbia, especially whenit comes to use wear traces examination.6

Processing degree. This category refers to whether it is a nal prod-

uct, half-nished product or raw material an unprocessed piece of stone.Remanufacturing. A very common nding, especially in late Vina

layers, are new tools made from a fragment of a larger one, or made byrepairing a damaged tool. Adzes and chisels were most often made fromproximal and middle parts of larger artefacts of the same kind. Sharpen-ing of a cutting edgeis also considered remanufacturing. This manner ofrenewing a tool was common for tools made of light white stone. Fragmentsof larger abrasive tools were used as new grindstones andwhetstones, andpieces of querns as pounders, i.e. mobile upper parts of querns.

Raw material shape indicates which tool manufacturing techniquewe are dealing with whether a tool was made from the core or on a macro-ake. Raw material type represents one of the main characteristics of pre-historic cultures. Vina culture, for example, is recognizable by its groundstone tools made of macro akes, of two prevailing types of raw material

5For an easier statistical examination, the basic tool species were marked in roman gures,types within them in Arabic gures, and the subtypes in alphabet. More details on the Neo-

lithic tools typology can be found in Antonovi 2003b.6The material from the Regional Museum Parain is, for the time being, the only one in Ser-bi i h h i d i d il b d hi h l i i f f


20/320

bi ith th t i d i d t il b d hi h l i ti f t f t


ne-grainedgray-green rocks and light white stone.7

Cross section. Cross section is also closely linked to the manufac-

turing of ground-edge tools (axes, adzes and chisels). Semicircular andellipsoidal cross section is characteristical for tools made of stone with aconchoidal fracture (hornfels,metasiltstone,schists,magnesite etc.), ellip-soidal and circular for objects made of stone without it, square cross sectionfor tools made of decidedly schistoserocks. The link between cross sectionand raw material was veried on a sample of several thousand objects ofground stone industry in Serbia.

Cortex. The presence of cortex shows whether the tool was madeout of pebble. Objects made of raw material from a primary ore deposit

also have the cortex sometimes, usually in cases when the stone was takenfrom the ore deposit surface, that was constantly exposed to atmospherechanges.

Processing traces. The manufacturing techniques of tools and theiruse were examined by observing processing and use traces, according to theRussian trassological method (Semenov 1976: 13142).

The making of stone tools was performed by techniques of knap-ping, retouching, ne chipping, sawing, grinding, drilling and carving. A rel-atively large number of semi-fabricated tools from Neolithic settlements in

Serbia allowed us to establish the order in which some of those techniqueswere applied when making a tool. The object would gain its basic shapeby knapping, retouching and ne chipping. Knapping and retouching aretechnique applicable for ne-grained rocks with a conchoidal fracture. Forrocks that do not have this quality, such as magmatic rocks, for example,the technique of ne chipping was applied.

Sawing was noticed on a small number of tools from the Starevoculture period, and it wasnt noted on tools crafted after that period. Grind-ing is a nal working phase, performed by a variety of manual and stati-cal grindstones and water. We may assume that organized workshops werenecessary to apply this technique. Perforations were either two-sided orone-sided. Two-sided perforations (older method) gave biconic perfora-tions. It was applied for the making of spindle whorls, weights, pearls, pen-dants, buttons and other decorative objects. This operation was performedmost often by a perforator made of chipped stone, and it is done from bothsides of the object worked upon until a hole is made (Gurova et al., 2013:

7Author of this paper intentionally uses these two descriptional terms for rock types that

were used the most during the period of Vina culture so as to point out the principles thatVina craftsmen were guided by while choosing raw material for their tools. On the diversity

f h i d k i A i 2003b 37 47 A i R i i


21/320

f th t ti d k t i A t i 2003b 37 47 A t i R i i


210216). This modus operandiis easily recognized by traces made by theperforator and by the presence of a biconic hole ( 1968: . 16/

4, 5, 10, 11, 14; 1992: 26). One-sided perforation, invented inlate Neolithic, yields cylindrical perforations. It was used to create holesfor shafts for perforated tools and it required a somewhat more complex adrilling tool. The drill itself was probably made of a tubular bone, and theperforation was performed with the constant addition of quartz sand. Smallstopples by-products of drilling, as well as tools with unnished perfo-rations, found on many a Neolithic settlement in Serbia, testify that stonetools perforations were performed in the settlement itself.

Statistical analysis of processing traces is important for creating an

image of the amount of labour invested into making stone tools. It is knownthat the early and middle Neolithic ground stone tools were processed withmore care; they were completely polished without visible traces of the pre-

vious knappingprocessing. Processing quality diminished with time, so lateNeolithic and early Eneolithic tools have more noticeable primary knap-ping traces. It is not rare to nd a ground-edge tool made of light whitestone with only its cutting edge being polished. Depending on the complex-ity of the analysis, data on processing of all parts of a tool are taken down(cutting edge,proximal part, edges, perforation, upper, lower and lateral

surfaces).Use wear traces. By studying use traces on the material from sev-

eral Neolithic settlements from Serbia, it was established that groundstone tools were used as axes, adzes,wedges, chisels, mattocks, hammers,retouchers, various grindstones,whetstones, querns, pounders, anvils.Ground-edge tools were, judging by the traces on the proximalpart, em-bedded into shafts. Tools made of higher quality stone had a long lifespan,and they were often multifunctional, so many of them have a different va-riety of use traces from various utilisation phases. Ground-edge tools wereused for woodworking and, after becoming blunt, as mattocks, hammers,retouchers, and even anvils. Abrasivetools were even more multifunction-al, especially the fragmented pieces. That is why they have several worksurfaces that were worn out in different ways. By marking use traces onall surfaces of a tool, we note a surprising fact that prehistoric tools weremostly multifunctional, and that they were used from different sides, not

just the one that was intended for work when the tool was made.Raw material. During the many years of researching ground stone

tools industry from many Neolithic sites in Serbia, it was noted that rawmaterial used to make those tools can be classied into eight basic groups.Those groups were not made according to the origin of stones and minerals


22/320

Those groups were not made according to the origin of stones and minerals


but on the physical-technical characteristics, precisely because that wasthe way Neolithic craftsmen who made stone tools chose the stone suit-

able for making their tools. That is why some of those groups have descrip-tory names such as light white stone and ne-grained metamorphic andsedimentary rocks. Both those terms were given according to the physical-technical characteristics of the stone, based on which the prehistoric crafts-men made their raw material choice.

Stone groups marked with numbers from 1 to 8 are given accordingto the order in which they were represented in Neolithic material in gen-eral: the most numerous ones are stones from the 1stgroup ne-grainedmetamorphic and sedimentary rock, second ones are light white stones (the

2ndgroup), followed by the 3rdsandstones, 4thconglomerate, 5thlimestones,6th magmatic rocks, 7th metamorphic rocks. Magmatic and metamorphicrocks were found in small numbers on prehistoric sites in Serbia, butthey are very varied we have granite, gabbro, diabase, andesite, dacite,syenite, granodiorite, diorite, gabbro-diorite, rhyolite, granite porphyry,aplite, basalt, peridotite, serpentinite, gneiss, gneiss-granite, amphibolite,mica schist, phyllite-mica schist, phyllite, argilloschist, talc-schist, eclog-ite, quartzite, marble, etc. The rarest ones are those from the 8 th group,

which comprehends rocks and minerals rarely found in ground stone mate-

rial (calcite, marble onyx, chalcedony, jasper, jadeite, nephrite, malachite,azurite, galena etc.).

Conclusion

Through a statistical analysis we can reach very interesting data onthe ground stone industry from one site, but also from the territory of anentire culture. This processing method is certainly convenient for large se-ries of systematically excavated sites and in cases when we can be certainthat we are dealing with mass production of stone tools. For smaller seriesof stone tools, this method is still valid, of course, but it is not obligatory touse it, since it is enough to have those scarce stone tools treated as C-nds.

The analysis of ground stone industry performed according to thesystem practised in Serbia can yield useful results.

The frequency of types can point out whether there is an industry inthe true meaning of the word on a site, as it is the case with Vina, Divostin,Selevac or sites in Mali Borak at the colliery of Kolubara. Actually, it is only

for Vina culture that we can talk about the existence of a ground stone in-dustry during the Neolithic, while in Starevo culture period we are dealingwith the production of separate tools only just to satisfy the basic needs of


23/320

with the production of separate tools only just to satisfy the basic needs of


the representatives of that culture. In Vina culture there are standards formaking ground stone tools. That can be perceived from the uniformity in

ground-edge tools length ( 1991: 58, . 4) and angles of cut-ting edges, which are 6050.The processing degree of stone tools made of ground stone is cer-

tainly very indicative for deciding on the attitude towards stone tools.During the earlier phases of Vina culture (Vina-Tordo phase) groundstone tools were very meticulously polished, so that no traces of previousprocessing by knappingcould be noted. In the Vina-Plonik period, stonetools are even more carelessly manufactured. This tendency of neglectfulmanufacturing begins at the end of the Tordo and the beginning of Gradac

phase, to reach its peak in the nal phase of Vina culture (Vina-PlonikII). Ground-edge tools, especially those made of light white stone, are socarelessly worked upon at the end of Vina culture that they can barelybe considered to be products of ground stone industry ( 1997a:277, . I; 2011: 198, 202-203, . 2, 4-5). Namely, in those casesonly a narrow part around the cutting-edge was polished, while the rest ofthe tool was made by knappingand remained at that processing level. hismanufacturing method is quite logical, since only the cutting-edge was the

working part of a ground-edge tool, while the biggest part of the rest of the

tool was hidden in the sleeve, so there was no real need to work meticu-lously on that part as well.

Through a statistical analysis of the length of tools, we can establishwhat type of raw material we are dealing with pebble or a block of rockstaken from a primary deposit, which shows indirectly what type of stonedeposit (primary or secondary) was used to obtain raw material.

Tools made by reworking damaged ones indicate a lack in stone ma-terial, i.e. their scant accessibility. This phenomenon, a sort of prehistoricrecycling, can be easily spotted in the nal phase of Vina culture.

According to the representation of certain stone types, we can de-termine whether there was an organized system for obtaining raw material.Thus, during the analysis of stone tools from the site at the Kolubara col-liery, we reached the conclusion that sandstoneswere exploited from thesame geological formation and during a very long period, from Neolithic tolate Eneolithic. The raw material source remained the same regardless ofany culture changes.

By studying use traces and performing a statistical analysis of them,

we can certainly gain very important data on trades practiced at a settle-ment. Unfortunately, this type of analysis is still at its beginnings in Serbiadue to const nt l ck of necess r equipment so the st tistic l n l sis of


24/320

due to a constant lack of necessary equipment so the statistical analysis of


the scarce data on the use of stone tools would be pointless.It is possible to make many other correlations whether there is a

rule in using a specic raw material for a specic tool type, whether thereare differences in the application of tools made of different stone types,etc. Ground stone tools had a large scale of application in prehistory, so bystudying them, we help reconstruct the lives of people who lived at thosetimes, which is, essentially, the nal goal of archaeology.

AcknowledgementsThe article is the result of the projects Archaeology of Serbia: cultural identity, integrationfactors, technological processes and the role of the Central Balkans in the development of

European prehistory (no 177020) and Cultural changes and population movementsin the early prehistory of the Central Balkans (no 177023) nanced by the Ministry ofEducation, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

References

, . 1991. , 7: 5161., . 1992. , , , ., . 1997a. , 13: 275285.Antonovi, D. 1997b.Use of Light White Stone in the Central Balkans Neolithic, 48: 3339., . 2000. , Viminacium11: 2334., . 2002. , 18: 2543.

, . 2003a. , 19: 935.Antonovi, D. 2003b. Neolitska industrija glaanog kamena u Srbiji, Beograd,Arheoloki institut.Antonovi, D. 2004a.Stone objects from Padina and Hajduka Vodenica,Actes deXIVme Congrs UISPP, Universit de Lige, Belgique, 2 - 8 septembre 2001. Section 7:Le Msolithique, BAR International Series 1302,Oxford: 6975.Antonovi, D. 2004b. Predmeti od glaanog kamena, u M. Bogdanovi, Grivac:naselje protostarevake i vinanske kulture, Kragujevac: 439463.Antonovi, D. 2005.The Polished stone assemblage, in: S. Karmanski (ed. by P.

Biagi) Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia),Societa per la preistoria e protostoria della regione FriuliVenezia Giulia, Quaderno


25/320


Antonovi, D. 2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir, Belgrade, Institute of Archaeology., . 2008. , 24, : 339350., . 2011. : 5, : . (.) 5, , : 195212., . 2013. , : . (.) 6, , : 2336Antonovi, D., Resimi-ari, K., Cvetkovi, V. 2005. Stone raw materials inthe Vina culture: petrographic analysis of assemblage from Vina and Belovode,55: 5366.

, ., , . 2011. , 61: 6179.-, . 1992. : , , .Bogosavljevi-Petrovi, V. 2004. Predmeti od okresanog kamena, u: M.Bogdanovi, Grivac: naselja protostarevake i vinanske kulture, Kragujevac, Centarza nauna istraivanja SANU i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu: 379437.oki, J. 1998.Praistorijski kameni alati sa lokaliteta u uugama, Petnike sveske48: 283300.

Gurova, M., Bonsall, C., Bradley, B., Anastassova, E. 2013. Approachingprehistoric skills: experimental drilling in the context of bead manufacturing,Bulgarian e-Journal of archaeology 3.2/2013: 201221.Perii, S. 1984. Predmeti od kosti, roga i kamena, Beograd, Muzej grada Beograda.Prinz, B. 1988. The Ground Stone Industry from Divostin, in: A. McPherron, D.Srejovi (eds.) Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia,Pittsburgh, University ofPittsburgh, Department of Anthropology: 255300., . . 1968. ,, .Semenov, S. A. 1976. Prehistoric Technology, London, Barnes & Noble.Spears, C. 1990. Macrocrystalline Stone Artifacts, in: R. Tringham and D. Krsti(eds.) Selevac: a Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, Los Angeles, Institute of ArchaeologyPress, UCLA: 495520.ari, J. 2002. Stone as material for production of chipped artifacts in Early andMiddle Neolithic of Serbia, 52: 1126.Voytek, B. 1990. The Use of Stone Resources, in R. Tringham and D. Krsti (eds.)Selevac: a Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, Los Angeles, Institute of ArchaeologyPress, UCLA: 437494., . 2010. , , , ,

.


26/320


Dragana AntonoviArheoloki institut, Beograd

METODOLOGIJA ISPITIVANJA ARTEFAKATAOD GLAANOG KAMENA

Orue od glaanog kamena mnogi autori oznaavaju kao jednu ododlika neolita smatrajui ga kao najstariji poljoprivredni alat to prouava-njima u Srbiji, u poslednje dve decenije, nije dokazano. Analiza orua odglaanog kamena vri se po metodologiji koja je ustanovljena na vinan-

skom materijalu. Do tog vremena su u Srbiji alatke od glaanog kamenaobino evidentirane kao posebni nalazi (C-nalazi) i nisu bile predmet stati-stike obrade.

Osnovu za prouavanje industrije glaanog kamena pruio je mate-rijal sa mnogih lokaliteta iz Srbije, ali ponajpre iz Vine ( 1992).Materijal se analizira petroloki, tipoloki i trasoloki. Samo ovakvim nai-nom ispitivanja moe da se ustanovi stepen razvijenosti industrije glaanogkamena, mogui trgovaki kontakti izmeu naselja i kulturnih grupa, pai da ukae na procese koji se odvijaju u okviru neke kulture, a koje ostali

materijalni ostaci ne registruju.Dugogodinje prouavanje industrije glaanog kamena dovelo je do

stvaranja kartona (baze podataka) koji se danas koristi pri obradi materijalaove vrste. Napravljen je tako da moe da se koristi papirna verzija za runounoenje podataka (sl. 1), u sluaju da nije mogue korienje kompjuterana terenu pri obradi materijala, ili da se po uzoru na njega napravi bazapodataka u nekom od programa pogodnom za to (Excel, Access). Podacisu svrstani u tri grupe: opti, podaci o osnovnim karakteristikama artefaktai podaci o posebnim karakteristikama predmeta.

Opti podaci se odnose na redni broj pod kojim se predmet vodi,naziv lokaliteta, datum istraivanja, stratigrafsku celinu iz koje artefaktpotie (sonda, otkopni sloj, unit, kvadrat, koordinate itd.), inventarni broj,smetaj, datovanje stratigrafske jedinice ili celog lokaliteta, kao i sve drugepodatke koji prate nalaz. Ovi podaci su posebni za svaki lokalitet ponaosob,pa se i karton, odnosno baza, u ovom delu menjaju prema nalazitu. Osnov-nim karakteristikama artefakta smatraju se ouvanost predmeta, dimenzijei oblik alatke (I sekire, II perforirane sekire, III tesle, IV perforirane tesle,

V delta, VI ekii, VII perforirani ekii, VIII pijuci, IX perforirani pijuci,X buzdovani, XI glaalice, XII brusevi, XIII rastirai, XIV rvnjevi i stupe,ki bl i ( t ki ) b t i t i b j i i diljk t i


27/320

sekire obluci ( tupe sekire) batovi tegovi probojci i sadiljke strugai za


kou, radne ploe, vrhovi kopalja, batovi-skiptri, kuglice za praku i ku-gle-projektili). Posebne odlike predmeta odnose sa na izradu alatke i njenu

funkciju, a to su: stepen obrade, prepravljanje alatki, oblik sirovine, popre-ni presek alatke, postojanje korteksa, tragovi obrade, tragovi upotrebe i vr-sta sirovine.

Statistikom analizom mogue je doi do veoma zanimljivih poda-taka o industriji glaanog kamena sa jednog lokaliteta, ali isto tako i sa te-ritorije cele kulture. Takav nain obrade svakako je pogodan kada se radi o

velikim serijama sa sistematski iskopavanih lokaliteta i kada smo sigurni daje re o masovnoj proizvodnji kamenog orua. Kod malih serija kamenogorua ovakav nain je svakako dobar, ali nije obavezan poto je sasvim do-

voljno da se malobrojne alatke od glaanog kamena tretiraju kao C-nalazi.Analiza industrije glaanog kamena po sistemu koji se praktikuje u

Srbiji moe dati korisne rezultate.Uestalost tipova moe da ukae da li na nekom lokalitetu posto-

ji industrija u pravom smislu rei kao to je to sluaj na Vini, Divostinu,Selevcu ili lokalitetima u Malom Borku na ugljenokopu Kolubara. Zapravosamo u vinanskoj kulturi moe da se govori o postojanju industrije glaa-nog kamena tokom neolita, dok je ona u periodu starevake kulture bilasamo proizvodnja pojedinanih alatki tek da se zadovolje osnovne potrebe

nosilaca te kulture. U vinanskoj kulturi ve postoje standardi u izradi alataod glaanog kamena. To se ogleda u ujednaenim duinama alatki sa sei-com ( 1991, 58, . 4) i uglovima seica koji iznose 6050.

Stepen obrade kamenog orua od glaanog kamena svakako uka-zuje kakav je bio odnos prema kamenom alatu. Tokom starije faze vinan-ske kulture (faza Vina-Tordo) orue od glaanog kamena bilo je vrlo pe-dantno glaano tako da se na alatkama nisu mogli videti tragovi prethodneobrade okresivanjem. U periodu Vina-Plonik orue od glaanog kamenase sve nemarnije obrauju. Ovakva tendencija nemarne obrade zapoinje

ve krajem tordoke i poetkom gradake faze, da bi kulminirala u nalnojvinanskoj kulturi (Vina-Plonik II). Orue sa seicom, naroito ono izra-eno od lakih belih stena, je pred kraj vinanske kulture toliko nemarnoobraeno da se teko moe nazvati produktima industrije glaanog kamena( 1997, 277, . I; 2011, 198, 202-203, . 2, 4-5).Kod njih je zapravo samo uzan pojas oko seice uglaan dok je ostatak tela,izveden okresivanjem, ostao na tom nivou obrade. akav nain obrade je sa-svim logian poto je kod alatki sa seicom samo seica bila radni deo, dok

je vei deo alatke bio sakriven u usadniku i realno nije postojala potreba dase i taj deo pedantno obrauje.St tistikom obr dom duin l tki moe d se ust no i o k k om


28/320

Statistikom obradom duina alatki moe da se ustanovi o kakvom


obliku sirovine se radi o valutku ili stenskom bloku izvaenom iz primar-nog leita, to posredno ukazuje kakva je vrsta leita (primarno ili sekun-

darno) koriena za nabavku sirovina.Alatke nastale prepravljanjem oteenih primeraka ukazuje namanjak kamenih sirovina, odnosno njihovu slabu dostupnost. Ova pojava,svojevrsna praistorijska reciklaa, je vrlo uoljiva u Vini, u zavrnoj fazi

vinanske kulture.Prema zastupljenosti pojedinih vrsta stena moe se zakljuiti da

li je postojalo organizovano nabavljanje sirovina. Tako je prilikom anali-ze kamenog orua sa lokaliteta na ugljenokopa Kolubara zakljueno da supeari eksploatisani iz iste geoloke formacije i to tokom dugog perioda

od neolita do kasnog eneolita. Izvor sirovine je ostajao isti bez obzira nakulturne promene.

Prouavanje tragova upotrebe i njihova statistika obrada svakakomoe da prui veoma vane podatke o zanatima koji su se obavljali u jed-nom naselju. Naalost ova vrste analize u Srbiji je u povoju zbog konstan-tnog nedostatka opreme za nju, pa ni statistika obrada malobrojnih poda-taka o upotrebi kamenog alata ne bi imala nikakvog smisla.

Mogue je praviti i mnoge druge korelacije da li postoji pravilo uupotrebi odreene sirovine za odreenu vrstu alata, ima li razlike u upotre-

bljavanju orua izraenog od razliitih vrsta stena itd. Orue od glaanogkamena je imalo iroku primenu u praistoriji, pa njegovo prouavanje po-mae rekonstrukciji ivota ljudi tog vremena, to i jeste krajnji cilj arheo-logije.


29/320


30/320

WASTED SKILL: THE CHUNK PHENOMENON

Milica LopiiUniversity of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy Department of Archaeology

Abstract:Skill is widely accepted as a factor impacting diversity among assemblagesproduced by knappers of different levels of expertise; however, its identication in ar-chaeological remains is related to specic attributes and detailed analyses, usually des-tined to estimate abilities of pre-modern humans. This paper approaches the skill studywith a broader method, cross-examining the collections to assess its suggested visibilityas a formative agent. Besides skill, the raw material quality and the site function have

already been acknowledged as factors inuencing the lithic assemblage structure. Lackof skill, considered an uncontrolled impact on worked material, is measured by numberof irregular pieces (chunks, shatter) in the assemblage. The skillful activity is thus in-directly assessed by estimating the correlation of the quantity of chunks with variablesrepresenting the site function and the quality of raw materials. This hypothesis has beentested using published data related to the general structure of lithic assemblages andassociated raw materials from the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites on theBalkan Peninsula, which has led to the conclusion that identifying skill from the moregeneral information is possible, but as of yet, still not precise.

Key words:knapping, lithic artifacts, skill, chunk, shatter, Mesolithic, Late Upper Pal-aeolithic, the Balkan Peninsula.

Apstrakt:Rzlike u stepenu vetine osob koje okresuju kmene sirovine mogu se uoitiko jedn od inilc koji utiu n vrijcije meu tko nstlim skupovim rtefkt.Ispitivanje vetine na osnovu arheolokih ostataka vezano je za pojedine atribute i de-taljne analize, veinom sa namerom da se procene i uporede sposobnosti hominina. Ovjrd optijim pristupom ispituje uticj vetine pri stvrnju rheolokih skupov nlz,merei je zstupljenou otpdk (neprvilnih neretuirnih proizvod okresivnj),

koji se smtrju rezulttom nekonstrolisno sprovedene sile udrc. Ranijim istraiva-njima je potvreno da je struktura skupa kamenih artefakata u vezi sa stepenima vetinestvaralaca, kvalitetom sirovina, kao i funkcijom lokaliteta. Ta sznnj su primenjenu rdu kko bi se indirektno sgledo uticaj vete aktivnosti, n koliinu otpdk,ispitivnjem dejstv inilaca (kvaliteta sirovine i funkcije lokaliteta). Testiranje je izvr-eno na objavljenim podacima o generalnim strukturama skupova nalaza i sirovinamakasnog gornjeg paleolita i mezolita sa lokaliteta na Balkanskom poluostrvu. Zakljuenoje da je mogue uoiti vetinu na osnovu optih podataka, ali se ne moe interpretiratisa sigurnou.

Kljune rei:okresivanje, kamene alatke, vetina, otpadak, mezolit, kasni gornji paleo-lit, Balkansko poluostrvo.


31/320

, p


Introduction

Estimating skill of past people is the topic of wide interest in archae-ology, involving judgment of both physical and mental abilities, giving riseto the possibility of resolving a broad series of questions. Research of skillbased on the analysis of lithic artifacts is usually directed towards 1 as-sessing motor and cognitive capabilities of pre-modern humans, 2 isolat-ing individuals and unique sequences of action from palimpsest of remains.

Researchers have identied and described processes and stages inacquisition of skill from the dawn of the knapping technique, which empha-sized the elaborated tools and complexity of technologies of the Lower and

Middle Palaeolithic, and reconstructed behavioural patterns and timing ofcertain evolutionary events (Delagnes, Roche 2005; Stout et al. 2009; Stoutet al. 2011; Darmark 2010; Eren et al. 2011b; Geribs et al. 2010a; Geribset al. 2010b; Harmand 2009; Whiten et al. 2009). Experimental studies havepointed to a number of parameters for distinguishing assemblages madeby knappers of different levels of expertise (Eren et al. 2011a; Fergusson2008; Finlay 2008; Nonaka et al. 2010; Stout 2002), and various studieshave observed the signicance of technologies existing in their social con-texts, extending possibilities for the reconstruction of the past behaviour

(Apel 2008; Hgberg 2008; Hgberg, Larsson 2011; Olausson 2008; Stout2002; Stapert 2007).

Here, I examine the presence of skill as more general variable re-sponsible for variation among archaeological collections. It has been as-certained previously that raw materials used and also site function shapetechno-typological characteristics of lithic assemblage, but the questionremains to what extent we can rely on those factors for explaining the as-semblage structure and if skill can be accounted for as an alternative.

A View to a Skill

Skill is an individual characteristic encompassing knowledge abouta task and the technical ability to fulll that task. Knowledge provides atheoretical framework for actions to accomplish the aim, while technicalknow-how comes from practice and self-teaching (pel 2008; Finlay 2008).In this research, the technical component of skill is considered, assumingthat the shape of nal product is predetermined in knappers mind, and

dependent on the aim for knapping to maximize output (creating a largertool, more practical edges, standardized tools, less waste) from processedt i l


32/320

raw material

M. Lopii Wasted Skill: The Chunk Phenomenon

Studies are mostly designed to recognize and compare two (e.g.novice-expert, Geribs et al. 2010a, and unskilled-skilled, Stout 2002) or

three levels of skill (e.g. novice-apprentice-expert, Darmark 2010, andnave-trained-expert, Stout et al. 2011 ), while some just recognize its stateas being present-absent, or as higher-lower level of performance whencomparing different technologies. Various parameters for differentiatingdegrees of expertise examine and quantify the knapping activity, and prop-erties of knapped products. Knapping activity requires a complex processof preparation, such as choosing the hammer and raw material, and laterbehavioural sequence of individual movements and decisions, mutually de-pendent, and oriented towards creating the desired product. Sequence of

actions ceases with the knappers success or failure to make the desiredproduct. Movements, gestures (manipulating the hammer and workedmaterial, body posture, rate of knapping) and decisions (planning thestrikes, replacing hammer, abandoning worked piece) result from previoustheoretical knowledge and technical dexterity and simultaneously createnew knowledge and know-how. Fine changes in skill cannot be immedi-ately assessed and realized and it usually requires years of training for oneto ascend to the higher levels of expertise. Subsequent actions result insubtle improvements in skill acquisition, although not every action ends

in a successful result, i.e. as a controlled impact of creating the anticipatedoutput; however, there is an overall line of progression perceived as a mid-

value of number of successes and failures during a certain period (g. 1).This understanding of the relationship between the knapping activity, skilland the archaeological material incorporates several viewpoints (c.f. Ingold2000; Wynn, Coolidge 2004; Roux, David 2005; Apel 2008; Tostevin 2011).

Fig 1 Knapping skill acq isition


33/320

Fig 1 Knapping skill acquisition


Experimental studies have assessed variables and aspects of be-haviour which distinguish different skill levels. An experts movements are

more even, using smaller velocities during percussion, and they have betterunderstanding of functional parameters of knapping, such as kinetic en-ergy, exterior angle, angle of blow and point of percussion (Bril et al. 2010;Geribs et al. 2010a; Rein et al. 2013). Variation of parameters in artifactcharacteristics and assemblage as a whole also conrms the skill level ofknappers, which have been ascertained by experimental studies, and testedin archaeological assemblages, like degree of symmetry of biface (Darmark2010), successfully detaching the primary Levallois ake (Eren et al. 2011;Lycet, Eren 2013), less chunks, less variation in artifact dimensions, making

longer tools (La Torre 2004; pel 2008; Bleed 2008). Additionally, ethno-archaeological studies are very important for estimating and comprehend-ing complex behavioural and decision-making patterns as well as contextsand the ways of transmitting knowledge (Roux et al. 1995; Stout 2002). Inthe analysis of archaeological remains, retting is invaluable and irreplace-able at this point (until 3D artifact scanning and computer ret becomes astandard, widely used procedure) for discovering single knapping sequenceenabling us to follow ones actions step by step (see Stapert 2007; Delagnes,Roche 2005; Foulds 2010).

Despite numerous studies of archaeological material and experi-mental knapping sequences which have been conducted, there is no agree-ment on a standardized set of parameters for evaluating skill level or itspresence. Studies are designed to propose new methods, usually applicableto a narrow range of material, and results obtained in that way are rarelycomparable to other studies results, except in a descriptive way.

Knap-knap-knapping: on Masters Floor

The aim of this research was to try to detect the skill comparinggeneral structures among assemblages. Chunks are the most suitable arti-fact category for quantifying the skillful activity. They are the unintendedby-products of knapping, and as such, may be regarded as the products ofuncontrolled impact, resulting from inexperienced performance of a knap-per (Stout et al. 2009, 247). Additionally, previous experimental studies hadasserted the connection between levels of expertise of an individual knap-per and the amount of chunks produced (Finlay 2008; Stout et al. 2009).

However, lithic assemblages discovered by archaeologists are not aproduct of one, but palimpsest of knapping and other activities, also includ-in non hum n The qu ntit of chunks durin the cti e li in ph se of


34/320

ing non human The quantity of chunks during the active living phase of


the site depends not only on an individuals characteristics and behaviourduring knapping sequence, but also on variety of activities which also oc-

cur at the site, and the quality of the raw material used. Statistical tests areapplied to reveal those relationships; and to question the possibility of skillidentication.

Chunks not Dead

Chunk and shatter are sometimes considered and used as synonyms(Ahler et al. 2002; Stout et al. 2009), which is also true in the case of thispaper. Even if denitions of those terms may differ, researchers agree that

amorphous, irregular pieces are unintentional by-products of knapping.Chunk is recognized as a piece lacking platform and a ventral side (Wick-ham-Jones 2004, 69), or the same as a shatter piece lacking orientable frac-ture propagation features (Ahler 2002, C.1). Andrefsky (2005, 84) uses theterm non-ake debitageor angular shatter, for all pieces lacking recognizabledorsal and ventral sides, comprising large, blocky chunks and tiny pieces oflithic material. The term ake shatter is also used, which includes all akedebitage with no recognizable striking platform (Williams, Andrefsky 2011,867). Authors mostly report only one category for the general structure of

the assemblage, without describing its exact meaning, while all fragmentedpieces are sometimes considered shatter.

Previous research demonstrated that successful strike and knap-ping behaviour, together with morphologic, metric and stylistic artifactattributes and also assemblage structure, depended on knapping skill. In-appropriate strike leads to uncontrolled distribution of force, resulting inknapping errors, such as rough termination of ake (stepped, hinged andplunging, i.e. overshot; Andrefsky 2005, 20) and in waste, or debris (chunk,angular shatter, ake shatter)1. The analysis of types of distal endings andalso negatives of endings on dorsal sides of akes can also be employed forestimating the skill level, but the aim of this research is to use the generaldata and less detailed analysis of artifact assemblage.

It is said that chunk is a by-product and as such the result of sin-gle action and specic circumstances of particular moment, but actionsalso constitute some behavioural patterns. They can be approached via abroader set of data, in this case the quantity of chunks among diverse as-

1

Not all of the chunks are waste material, some might be used, reworked, but in this pa-per chunk is considered as waste material. Moreover, authors use diversely terms debitage,

t d b i ti I d bit t f t ll d t h d i th t


35/320

waste debris sometimes as synonyms I use debitage to refer to all detached pieces that are


semblages. Underlying assumptions are that experienced knappers have inmind clear form of desired product, knowledge of actions needed to make

it and technical dexterity to successfully perform those actions and accom-plish the desired task, and that the aim of knapping is to use raw materialsto their maximum extent (i.e. minimizing the amount of waste, or makingthe biggest tool). Chunks in the assemblages, however, do not readily implythat this degree had not been fullled in the past, because other causes forchunk occurrence have not yet been investigated in more detail so far.

Shatter in Time

Archaeological assemblages do not represent past activities realisti-cally, there are numerous cultural and natural, both formative and trans-formative variables, which also affect it. Lithic remains at a site depend onquality and availability of raw materials, on the activities which take placeat the site, duration of settlement and frequency of visits, the structureof the residents and their personal characteristics, social relationships andcultural setting, un-intentional accidents, instantly made decisions underspecic circumstances, non-human activities, natural settings and envi-ronmental conditions Every factor is detectable in archaeological assem-

blage, but only if appropriate analyses are applied and while they are not allestimated here, their assessment is still required (g. 2).

Human actors contributing directly to the quantity of chunks are

knappers and their characteristics, personalities, virtues, here expressed bytheir levels of skill. It is believed that low-quality raw materials producemore chunks th n hi h qu lit (Ko o ski et l 1994 22 Ad m 1997 485)

Fig. 2Factors inuencing the formation of the archaeological assemblageand later interpretation of the past

Sl. 2inioci koji utiu na stvaranje arheolokih zbirki nalazai kasniju interpretaciju prolosti


36/320

more chunks than high quality (Kozowski et al 1994 22; Adam 1997 485)


Good quality rock combines and is both distinct as well as recognizable byattributes such as elasticity, brittlenes, hardness and homogeneity, whether

or not fractures are conchoidal, and possibly controlled by a knapper apply-ing adjusted, appropriate impact. Low quality raw materials break in un-predictable ways, usually through uncontrollable split-fractures, creatingirregular pieces. It should be noted that rock used for knapping may have in-ternal cleavage planes, aws, ssures, vugs or other inclusions which knap-per cannot predict. They inhibit the free passage of energy, thus a skillfullimpact, even on high-quality rock, can produce pieces which lack commonmorphological features (Andrefsky 2005, 2430; Eren et al. 2011b, 2731;Roubet 1997, 130). Activities which took place at a site are closely related to

the availability of raw-materials, whether a temporary camp or more per-manent form of settlement. Workshops and sites with workshop elementsare usually sited near outcrops of raw-materials. It is thought that morechunks are to be present in assemblages considered workshops, displayingthe evidence on knapping activity then in assemblages more closely relatedto daily activities and further from raw-material outcrops.

Factors which inuenced the variance in quantity of chunks duringthe living phase at the site that were not taken into account are non-inten-tional human activities (such as trampling that modify lithic remains after

its formation), non-human activities (animal or environmental agencies),and the duration of the occupation of a site. The diachronic approach ofassessing the complex, mutual inuence of various factors on their trac-es in archaeological material is important, but beyond the scope of thisstudy. Some possible changes over time would result in different quantityof chunks, people may achieve higher skill levels, thus making less irregu-lar pieces, outcrops could have even been over-exploited and exhausted,

which would inuence the activities, and activities can change due to othercauses.

Post-depositional processes also inuence the assemblage structureand they might also affect the quantity of chunks. While this is incorpo-rated, detailed evaluation of their impact is beyond the scope of this study.Additionally, animal and human activity, natural processes, may result inthe dislocation of remains or else the mixing and disturbance of archaeo-logical layers. Archaeological research, excavations as well as later analy-ses, also shapes the assemblage structure. Furthermore, eldwork variablesthat create the assemblage are the size of excavation surface (or volume of

excavated deposits), methodology of excavations, and the experience andindividual characteristics of those participating (e.g. some may not recog-ni e chunk s kn ppin product nd keep it s nd) The er n l sis of the


37/320

nize chunk as knapping product and keep it as nd) The very analysis of the


techno-morphological structure of lithic assemblage affects data collectingand reporting, so too the denition and description of artifact groups and

the classication of artifacts depend on the school of analysis, traditionand the individual skill and characteristics of the lithic analyst.To summarize, the quantity of chunks at the site during pre-deposi-

tional phase is considered to be product of 1 level of the skill of knappers,2 use of low-quality raw materials, 3 activities taking place at site (g. 3).In order to investigate the possibility of assessing the impact of the skill,statistical tests were applied to reveal the inuences of the site functionand quality of knapped raw materials.

Materials and methods

Published data on the lithic collections originating from the LateUpper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites on the Balkan Peninsula was sub-

jected to testing, dated from c. 18 000 B.C. until 7thmillennium B.C. whenNeolithic spread across the region. The chosen area exhibits technologicaland cultural uniformity during the Final Pleistocene characterized by Epi-

gravettian. Later, during the Early Holocene, Mesolithic /Epi-Palaeolithiccultures arose in the studied territory, bearing strong Epigravettian tradi-tions in the south and east parts of Balkan Peninsula (Kozowski 2005)

Fig. 3Factors inuencing the quantity of chunks in the assemblageSl. 3inioci koji utiu na koliinu otpadaka u skupu nalaza


38/320

tions in the south and east parts of Balkan Peninsula (Kozowski 2005)


Results of lithic analyses have been reported in diverse publica-tions. Only assemblages larger than 100 artifacts and for which the amount

of chunks is clearly stated were considered. There are 63 assemblages as-cribed to Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic industries originating from19 sites having met these criteria (g. 6).

... Every Piece You Flake.. Every Step You Make, Ill be Watching YouQuantifying Data

Quantity of chunks is expressed as proportion of the chunks in thegeneral structure of assemblage, by counting the number of artifacts (arti-

facts less than 1cm in length are excepted from the analysis, and all furthercalculations, because it has been shown that their number depend largelyon excavation technique (c.f. Bertran et al. 2012). It is also possible to ex-press the percentage of chunk material by weight, but that is suitable forresearch of skill levels as better usage of raw material processed. Countingthe pieces corresponds to the measurement of skill levels as number of im-pacts that drive force with lack of control.

Site function is assessed through technological and typologicalanalyses of stone artifacts. Diverse activities taking places at the site are

related to knapping behaviour which is determined by the availability ofraw materials and procurement strategies. Initial sequences of knappingactivity are closely related to extraction sites where raw material is testedand prepared as cores for later aking. Consequently, more chunks are pre-dicted to be at the sites closer to raw-material deposits. Data on the studiedassemblages were grouped into established ordinal categories, according toproposed ve functional types of the assemblages for LUP and Mesolithicperiods (Kozowski 1980). Those types involve the aspects of the past ac-tivities and the proximity of raw materials and are determined by the char-acter of the general structure given in indices (proportions of cores, toolsand debitage). Tools are poorly represented (14%) and debitage productsstrongly dominate (9198%) at the sites qualied as workshops (types 1and 2: workshops at extraction sites and other workshops). Higher numberof tools (418%) and less of the debitage (7892%) is to be found at the liv-ing sites with workshop elements or those in the areas of raw material de-posits (types 3 and 4, successively). The proportion of cores remains similarfor these site types (15% for types 1 and 2, and 14% for types 3 and 4).

Type 5 (1842% of tools, 18% of cores and 5072% of debitage) presentsthe living sites outside areas containing raw material deposits. The samestandards were applied to sampled assemblages


39/320

standards were applied to sampled assemblages


Quality of raw materials cannot be assessed easily, due to the factthat data regarding detailed internal and knapping properties of raw mate-

rials are rarely reported, and are ambiguous sometimes. We had to rely onobservation on quality of raw materials made by researchers and thus cre-ated two groups, of higher and of lower quality rocks and calculated theirquantity. For the purpose of statistical testing, the index of the quality ofraw material (I

qrm) is calculated as the ratio dividing the number of artifacts

of higher-quality by the number of artifacts of lower-quality raw materials.

Tests and expectations

To investigate the relationship between site function and quanti-ty of chunks in the assemblage, Kruskall-Wallis test was used to examine

whether quantities of chunks (dependent variable) were diverse amonggroups (independent variable) dened as functional types of assemblages.Since groups are ordinal categories and the distance between each of themnot precise, post-hoc Mann-Whitney tests were run to examine the differ-ences in quantity of chunks between adjacent groups as well as between themost distant ones. Following criteria proposed by Kozowski (1980) and al-lowing that one of artifact categories in the assemblage (cores, tools or deb-

itage) omits the suggested ranges by up to 1%, it was possible to determinefunctional types for twenty eight assemblages: one collection matched type1, two matched type 2, twelve matched type 3, eight matched type 4 andve matched type 5. However, groups 1 and 2 were omitted from furthertesting due to the small number of cases (g. 4; Appendix 1).

Fig. 4 Correlation between the

quantity of chunks and the indexof the quality of raw materialsSl 4 Odnos koliine otpadaka i


40/320

Sl 4 Odnos koliine otpadaka i


The relationship between the quantity of chunks and the quality ofknapped raw materials was examined by Spearmans rank correlation test,

using Iqrm and the quantity of chunks. Raw materials were reported for qual-ity and quantied by number of pieces only for 13 assemblages originatingfrom two sites, Crvena stijena and Medena stijena. (g. 5; Appendix 1). Ad-ditionally, we investigated whether more chunks is made of lower qualityraw materials than of higher quality, employing Fishers exact test to revealrelationship between artifact categories, grouped as chunk and not-chunk,and quality of raw materials, classied as higher and lower quality, all quan-tied by number of pieces. Only 8 assemblages from a single site (Crvenastijena) had all the data needed and were subjected to testing (Appendix 2).

In order to reveal skillful activity as formative factor of archaeologi-cal assemblages, there should be no statistically signicant differences inthe quantity of chunks among groups of functional types, and there shouldbe no signicant correlations between raw materials used and the quantityof chunks, so as between used raw materials and artifact categories.

All statistical tests were made using SPSS 18.02. The alpha value fora signicant effect was set at 0,05.

Fig. 5Range of the quantity of chunks in different types of assemblagesSl. 5Obim koliine otpadaka prema funkcionalnim tipovima skupova nalaza


41/320


Results

Just like a Skill

Size of the assemblage is excluded as factor affecting the quantityof chunks, since Pearson coefcient revealed no correlation between themr2= ,216, p > ,05.

(1) There was statistically signicant difference in the quantity ofchunks among groups of diverse functional types of sites H(2)=9,563,p,1, r= -,11).(2) Spearmans rank correlation coefcient did not show statisti-

cally signicant correlation between Iqrm

and the quantity of chunks =- ,228, p >,1, (g. 5).

(3) Fishers exact tests showed signicant association between the

quality of raw materials and the artifact categories for 6 examined assem-blages, p,1, indicating that chunk incidence is not related to the qualityof knapped stone.

Discussion and conclusions

Results of statistical tests showed that quantity of chunks at thesite can be explained by functional type of the assemblage, however withk ff t (1) W id killf l f f ti f t


42/320

weak effect (1) We can consider skillful performance as formative factor


for higher proportion of chunks at the sites that evidence more knappingactivities and closer to the raw material deposits, following Apel (2008)

who related the degree of theoretical knowledge and practical know-how ofpast individuals with higher proportions of knapping errors at sites that areclose to the extraction areas. On the other hand, it is possible that function-al types employed in this study arent distinctive enough to reveal greaterstatistical diversity.

There were ambiguous results regarding the correlation betweenthe quality of raw materials and the quantity of chunks (2,3), howeverFishers exact tests run for every assemblage separately are more reliable,using the most detailed data. Greater incidence of chunks in assemblages

from Medena stijena together with higher proportions of better quality rawmaterials might imply less skillful activity taking place (g. 5), but not nec-essarily; it could evidence that raw materials were readily available, eas-ily accessible and thus expediently used and knapped with less care. Wecannot make conclusions with more certainty so far, because we do notknow whether chunks are made of high quality raw materials at that site.Assemblages from Crvena stijena provided the most convincing evidenceof skill of past people (3). Results revealing correlation between the rawmaterials quality and artifact categories are congruent with previous stud-

ies (e.g. Miller 1997). However, assemblages from layers IVa and VII showthat chunk occurrence is not related to the properties of knapped material.Unskillful execution is plausible explanation, relying also on recent experi-mental research that has shown that properties of knapped artifacts do notdepend on raw materials as much as on the knappers expertise (Eren etal. 2011b). Harmand (2009, 94) came to similar conclusion studying lithicartifacts from two Late Pliocene sites of Lokalalei, demonstrating that thechoice of raw materials does not explain the variation among artifact col-lections, and suggests diversity to be a consequence of hominine activitiesor differences in skill levels. Another evidence which indicates that knap-ping products are not purely related to the raw material used is representedby the Lower Palaeolithic collection of Korolevo site. It exhibits the specialreduction technology with numerous chunk-cores and chunk-akes, whichis absent in younger collections even though the same raw material is used:poor quality andesite (Koulakovska et al. 2010),

Even if the presence of un-skillful activity is considered credible,t

Archaeotechnology - Studying Technology From Prehistory to the Middle Ages

Documents

manufacturing technology

study of pottery technology

middle ageseditors

starevo culture

site of

ground stone artefacts

jelena vitezovi

vina culture