Another facet of man – Red deer relationship in prehistory: Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic...

8/9/2019 Another facet of man Red deer relationship in prehistory: Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic settlement at Hrso

1/20

397

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)

Another facet of man Red deer relationship in prehistory>Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic settlementat Hrsova-tell (Constanta County, Romania)

Monica Margarit 1, Dragomir Nicolae Popovici 2

1 Universitatea Valahia din Trgoviste, Facultatea de S tiinte Umaniste, Trgoviste, RO

[email protected]

2 Muzeul National de Istorie a Romniei, Bucuresti, RO< [email protected]

Introduction

The tell at Hrsova (Constan

ta County) in south-east Romania is located within the present bound-

aries of the city; it is c. 13m high, with an area ofc. 200 x 150m, while the thickness of the anthrop-ic sedimentation reaches c. 11.20m. Regarding thelevels of Prehistoric occupation, the oldest remainsare of the Boian and Hamangia cultures (dated tothe first half of the 5th millennium BC), continuingwith the Gumelnita (dated to the second half of the5th millennium BC) and Cernavoda I (dated to thebeginning of the 4th millennium BC) cultures.

The first archaeological research was conducted in1961 (Galbenu 1962), but in new excavations from1993 onwards the excavation strategy changed fun-

damentally (Popovici et al. 19982000; Randoin etal. 19982000). The informational level of the var-ious types of stratigraphic units (SUs) discoveredduring research was tested in these excavations toallow an elaboration of a sampling strategy appro-priate for the purposes of the investigation. Giventhat the research is being carried out on a tell, thusa multilayered settlement, with an extremely com-plicated stratigraphy, the principle aim was to eval-uate the content of the different SUs, which consis-ted of either indoor (rarely) or outdoor occupatio-nal remains. The screening of sediments from other

contexts was performed only in exceptional cases(occupational SUs inside dwellings, remains result-ing from combustion structures etc.). In this sense,

ABSTRACT The significant quantity of antlers identified in the Gumelnita A2 level in different sta-ges of processing, from finished objects to consumed debitage waste, motivated us to try to recon-struct the management of the modalities of this raw material, of the processing techniques used andactivities developed with the help of antler tools. In other words, the series of antler-made tools pre-sents an important evidence of the activity of the Hrsova-tell community. The mentioned series re-unites all the conditions for achieving such a study: the numerical importance of the remains, thegood conservation stage which allows for the identification of technological and functional traces the variety of types of pieces etc.

IZVLEEK V plasti Gumelnita A2 prepoznana veja koliina rogovja v razlinih stopnjah obdelaveod konnih izdelkov do odpada nas je usmerila v poskus rekonstrukcije nadzora nad modaliteto te

surovine, uporabljenih tehnik obdelave in razvoja dejavnosti, ki ga omogoajo roena orodja. Pove-dano drugae, serija orodij, izdelanih iz rogovja, predstavlja pomemben dokaz dejavnosti skupno-sti naselbine tipa tell Hrsova. Omenjena serija ima vse pogoje za izvedbo takne tudije: kvantifi-kacijski pomen ostankov in dobra ohranjenost najdb kar omogoa prepoznavanje tehnolokih inuporabnih sledi, tipoloka raznolikost itn.

KEY WORDS Eneolithic; antler; Cervus elaphus; antler-made tools; processing techniques

DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.28


2/20

Monica Margarit, Dragomir Nicolae Popovici

398

the samples were primarily water sieved in screencolumns in order to obtain significant data. The re-search methodology allowed a very fine analysis ofthe evolution of occupation, unique until now in the

history of archaeological research in Romania. Therewere individualised specific deposits that characte-rised certain human behaviours, of which some spe-cial areas had a housekeeping nature (a type of com-plex defined for the first time during the archaeolo-gical research at this site), that appeared to be verywell defined spatial complexes. Moreover, the chro-nology of the stratigraphic succession of this type ofcomplex has been determined, with significant re-sults for the acquisition of data.

The significant quantity of antlers identified in the

level Gumelnita A2, in different stages of processing,from finished objects, to consumed debitage waste,motivated us to attempt a reconstruction of the waysof managing this raw material, of the processingtechniques employed and of activities developedwith the aid of antler tools, in other words the pro-ductive economy of the Hrsova-tell community. Ot-herwise, the stratigraphic series reunites all the con-ditions achieving such a study: the numerical im-portance of the finds, a good state of conservation allowing the identification of technological andfunctional traces the variety of the type of pieces

etc. We must add that due to the relatively reducedsurface only a very small number out of c. 400m2 ofcomplexes could be studied completely, a fact thatobviously limits our interpretation. Also, only c. 58%of the pieces of antlers included in the present studycome from excavations after 1992, for which thestratigraphic data are much more precise.

Cultural context

The archaeological remains from hard animal ma-

terials contain significant potential data, makingthem essential in interpreting archaeological assem-blages and, globally, reflecting on prehistoric life.Thus, starting from the study of these artefacts, onthe one hand, we can reconstruct the methods ofexploiting the animal environment for non-alimen-tary purposes, and by identifying the processingtechniques of the tools and manner of their use wecan reconstruct an image of their users world. Mo-reover, in the study of the evolution of human be-haviour, tools made from hard animal materialswere considered a definitive characteristic of an im-

provement in modern humans cognitive capacities(Henshilwood et al.2001).

A review of the local bibliography reveals a certainlack of technological and functional analysis of hardanimal material industry for Gumelnitean assem-blage. Generally, the excavation reports, even re-

cent ones, offer as unique information an almoststandard phrase: the inventory is completed bytools made of silex, bone and antleror, in the bestof cases, an enumeration of the main typologicalcategories, with no consideration of a functional ortechnological nature. In this context, some older ex-cavation reports become significant, such as those ofVladimir Dumitrescu on the settlements at Gumel-nita and Cascioarele (Dumitrescu 1924; 1965; 1966),in which the hard animal material industry is givenspecial status, the illustrations also being eloquent.In special studies, we will mention those of Eugen

Comsa (1985; 1986) concerning harpoons; those ofRadian Andreescu (1995; 1997; 2002) on bone sta-tuettes; Valentina Voineas study (1997) of hard ani-mal material from the settlement at Bordusani-Popi-na, or that of Valentin Parnic and Andreea Paun(2004) on the industry at Mariuta settlement (Ca-larasi County). If the analysis of other types of arte-fact have a precedent, and we refer mostly to the ce-ramics, the working hypothesis established for thestudy on hard animal material from the Eneolithicin the Romania is in its beginnings and must be cor-related with complementary analyses on other ar-

chaeological material and archaeo-zoological studies.

Raw material

Antler, already exploited by Neanderthals in theMiddle Paleolithic (dErrico, Laroulandie 2000; Vil-la, dErrico 2001), gradually becomes important inprehistoric communities due to its technical and cog-nitive qualities, being used for the production of awide range of objects: weapons (projectile points,harpoons); tools necessary for the processing of

wood, ceramics, and stone tools (chisels, mattocks,hammers etc.), and even for ritual objects with noapparent utilitarian function, which accounts for itspresence in most activities in these communities.

Antler is an excrescence of the frontal bone specificto all species of Cervidae (Christensen 2004), beingthe exclusive privilege of the male in the Cervuselaphus species. It is composed of compact and can-cellous tissue, the proportion between the two vary-ing according to the species and irrigation duringgrowing (MacGrgo 1985). The proportion and tex-

ture of the cancellous tissue depend on position inthe antler branch (Averbouh 2000). According tospecialists, of all the osseous matter, the antlers are


3/20

Another facet of man Red deer relationship in prehistory> Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic settlement ...

399

the hardest and most elastic bones, and accordingto this they are best adapted for the manufacture ofvarious tools specific to prehistoric periods (Billam-boz 1977; Michels, Zurbruchen 1991; Averbouh

2000; Riedel et al.2004; Vercoutre et al.2007). Itabsorbs shock and impact, due to the important pro-portion of organic matter in its structure (MacGr-gor 1985). Russell Dale Guthrie (1983.279), whomade reinforcements from three types of raw mate-rial (bone, antler, lithic), concluded that the antlerwas the best material because it is easily worked,shaped or straightened when wet, resistant to break-age, easily sharpened, and in most cases readily avai-lable.

Artefact composition: products and sub-pro-

ducts

Finished objects made on whole blanksHammers.We attribute to this category a singlepiece, fractured both proximally and longitudinally(Figs. 1.1, 1.2). It might have had two active areas,but only one, positioned laterally, can be identifiedwith certainty, its outline being oval and in profileconvex-concave. The piece was obtained from thebasal part of a shed antler, the active part being ac-tually the burr, the edges of which were removed;the technique employed cannot be identified due

to subsequent alterations. The utilisation of the ba-sal part was not random: it provides a blank with aform and dimensions already similar to the tool. Itwas produced by the removal of the antlers exter-nal structure; the surface was strongly shaped toobtain a regular shape. The shaping followed thecreation of the active part, the convexity, but wecannot identify the technique, as thetraces were removed by deteriora-tion of the active part. At the proxi-mal level, a rectangular perforation

can be seen, which was made by pro-gressively deeper cuts (Fig. 1.4, 20xmagnification). The inside of the per-foration is lisse, and well-polished,resulting from wear by the handler.

The active part has numerous de-pressions oriented approximatelytransversally to the antlers verticalaxis. At the same time, we identifieda series of cuts (Fig. 1.3, 75x magni-fication) with a microscope that are

possibly the result of the contactwith hard lithic material, which isprobable due to the periodic change

of the form by shaping, in order to retain the con-vexity. Specialists have shown that the use-life ofthis kind of hammer was quite long, a fact that canjustify its rarity among archaeological remains (Aver-

bouh, Bodu 2002).

Wedges. In this category we include four items,made from a tine and exploiting the natural formof the antler. The items have different fractures atthe proximal level (Figs. 2.1, 2.2), so we can iden-tify the removal technique from the shed antler inonly one sample, which was sawn around the en-tire circumference by rotating the piece. At the can-cellous tissue level, in order to detach it from theshed antler, percussion seems to have been used,due to the regular plan of the removal surface. The

arrangement of the active part in bevelled techni-que was made by two methods: removal by directpercussion, in oblique plan, superposed by scraping(Fig. 2.3, Fig. 2.4, 30x magnification) or directly bydeep longitudinal scraping. In all the samples, thedistal end is very blunt, with various ramming andfractures. The proximal end, so much as survived,appears to have been rammed and chipped, and onthe rest of the surface at the medial level there areperipheral removals, longitudinally developed, evi-dence of a powerful shock. We consider these arte-facts as intermediate tools due to fractures that are

present at both ends.

Projectile points.We refer to two items processedfrom a secondary tine (Fig. 3.1). Both are fracturedat the proximal level, one by saw teeth fracture (Fig.3.2, 20x magnification), and the other en languette.The entire surface of the items show hand deep, lon-

Fig. 1. Hammer made from the basal part of a shed antler.


4/20


400

gitudinal grooves (Fig. 3.3, 100x magnification).Macroscopically, the distal end is strongly emousswith usage polishing, with the entire removal ofscraping traces, while the microscope reveals a se-

ries of longitudinal, possibly functional, scratches(Fig. 3.4., 100x magnification). The original lengthof the pieces cannot be established, but both itemshave an average diameter of 1.6cm. We do not as-sert that they were used for working the land (as aplanter), which is the usual interpretation in thespecialised literature, because the usage area is notextended in surface. It seems more probable thatthey were used as projectile points, but we cannotidentify the hafting system, because of a proximalfracture.

Mattocks.We attribute two pieces to this category.The artefacts are made from a beam, and have bothlongitudinal and transversal fractures, preventingfull reconstruction of their morphology. In the firstsample, the active part has convergent convex edges,a convex-concave section, and sharp bifacial end(Fig. 4.1). The technique of removal from the antlercannot be determined due to the fracture. There isa perforation at the medial point with rectangularmorphology, made with successive cuts (Fig. 4.3,20x magnification). The inside of the perforation isperfectly lisse, a fact that proves a long period of

usage. The active part was formed by longitudinalcutting, in order to create a bevelled end, seeminglyby percussion (as seen in one side that was not en-tirely shaped), then the two percussion sides wereshaped, the active part emerging from their intersec-tion. They present an emouss, rounded aspect (Fig.4.2, 50x magnification), with visible functional scra-tches on both sides developed parallel to the axis(Fig. 4.4, 150x magnification). The seconditem (Fig. 4.5), although fractured, wasincluded in the same category as its active

part has a slightly sharpened morphologyand the manner of use is quite similar tothat of the previous item (Fig. 4.6, 100xmagnification; Fig. 4.7, 150x magnifica-tion). The distal end is a sub-rectangular in-tersection, with convex-concave edges, anda biconvex end in profile. The fracture pre-vents the identification of the processingtechniques, but we can still assume that thearrangement of the active part resemblesthe first sample. The shaping covered onlythe distal end, extending only toward one

of the fracture edges. It actually constitutedthe active part, which was developed late-rally, towards the inner side.

Bevelled objects chisels. Chisels are represen-ted by six finds, all ending with a bevelled morpho-logy. They were made from a main beam (4), tine(1) and basal area of antlers of game animal, using

both the pedicle and the burr. The last item has tra-ces of burning that contributed to surface exfolia-tion, destroying the fine marks. The basal area wasremoved from the antler by percussion. At this le-vel, the detachment surface remained in a raw state,but has small detachments and ramming. We do notknow how the find was detached from the skull,but percussion was used to form the active front. Itis the only item with an intact proximal end. In theother three samples, only fragments of perforationremain; two were made by percussion (Fig. 5.1) andone by sawing, which ensured transversal hafting,

while the last two samples are distal fragments.

Technological and functional traces on the activeparts vary, probably in accordance with use. For in-stance, in one of the samples, the end is extremelyblunt, becoming concave, with an extended polishon the superior side (unmodified) and quite limitedon the surface. The conclusion is that it was workedin a longitudinal movement in an opened angle. Onanother piece (Fig. 5.1), the regularisation of thefracture edges was made only towards the distalpart through abrasion to create the bevelled shape

(Fig. 5.2, 30x magnification), which is still present inthe peripheral area, but the abrasion was removedby a long period of use. The technological marks aresuperposed by strong polish, which is visible ma-croscopically and characterised by few functionaltraces (Fig. 5.3, 200x magnification). In another case(Fig. 5.4), the arrangement of the active side was ac-complished only from the inferior side and the po-

Fig. 2. Intermediate tools.


5/20


401

lish from the superior side was exclusively functio-nal. A couple of cuts remain in the peripheral areaof the bevelled edge (Fig. 5.5, 30x magnification).The inferior side was subsequently shapedby abrasion. The active part is blunt, witha high polish, and very extensive on thesurface, especially on the inferior side,which covered the traces of previous work.

Functional traces can be observed at an an-gle to the axis of the item on the superiorside (Fig. 5.6, 150x magnification).

Handles. The first item in this category wasmade from a main beam, retaining the eyetine (the length is 36cm) (Fig. 6.1). The cut-ting was accomplished by direct percus-sion at the extremities and without regu-larisation of the cutting area. The shape ofthe item allowed for an easy grip by means

of the tine. The cancellous tissue was en-tirely excavated, ensuring the hafting. Thesecond artefact also includes a fragmentfrom a main beam and a tine (Fig. 6.3). Un-like the previous find, a longer fragmentfrom a beam was sectioned, which allowedthe creation of two extremities for hafting(double handle). The segmentation wasmade by direct percussion around the cir-cumference at both extremities.

Next we have three handles made on an eye

tine, with lengths between 20 and 33.5cm.The removal from the antler was made bydirect percussion around the entire circum-

ference in two of the find; in the third artefact mo-dern fractures made the diagnosis impossible. In-side, the cancellous tissue was completely hollowedout in order to create a gloving opening. One of the

samples has a longitudinal fracture that may havebeen caused by utilisation after a shock (Fig. 6.2).

Four other artefacts made from a tine that had frac-tures, sometimes at both extremities, were attribu-ted to this category. Only two samples preservemarks made by direct percussion, when they wereremoved from the antler. It is certain that they havehollows that seem intentional, ensuring hafting bylongitudinal insertion.

Indeterminate function. In this category we in-

clude a series of 14 finds, unfortunately heavily frac-tured, in order to establish a diagnosis of their func-tion; each has the whole blank and the presence ofa perforation. In only three of the pieces we wereable to identify a circular perforation. The first (Fig.7.1) is a tine detached from an antler by direct per-cussion with still visible cuts (Fig. 7.3, 20x magnifi-

Fig. 3. Projectile point made fromantler tine.

Fig. 4. Mattocks made from antler.


6/20


402

cation), with a circular perforationwith similar diameters at each end(Fig. 7.2, 20x magnification), afterwhich the entire surface of the piece

was thoroughly shaped, includingthe area of the removal from thebranch, probably by cutting and fol-lowed by very fine polishing. Thepiece has a saw tooth fracture at theperforation that is possibly functio-nal and caused by shock. Unfortuna-tely the morphology of the functio-nal end remains unknown due to thefracture.

The second fragment has interesting

traces as well (Fig. 7.4). First of all,there is an obvious perforation madeby cutting from both sides. But theitem is fractured around the perforation (which pre-vents us from identifying the method of removalfrom the branch); the piece was hafted longitudi-nally and the cancellous tissue was entirely remo-ved. The end was used in an abrasive action, forsmoothing, since the area is highly polished and theend blunted to the cancellous tissue, which makesit non-functional.

The last piece seems to have been made from anantler base (probably at burr level); it is fracturedboth longitudinally and transversally (Fig. 7.5). Theperforation is circular, made with an unidentifiabletechnique; the inside is highly polished, which is anevidence of its use. One of the extremities is bevel-led, with numerous deep removals, superposed byvery high polishing that blunted the surface. Still,we cannot say for sure if it was an active part.

An additional set of eleven pieces which are heavily

fractured, that contain no fragments of active parts,but only indications of perforation was included inthis category. In all these examples, the method wasthe same sawing, which resulted in a rectangularperforation.

Finished objects made on flattened blanksChisels. The first artefact (Fig. 8.1), made on mainbeam, is actually a distal fragment. The antler wascut longitudinally, but the technique is unknown, be-cause the inferior side was submitted to an extre-mely thorough abrasion (Fig. 8.2, 20x magnifica-

tion), until the surface became flat. The active partwas developed also on the superior side of the tool,but it the result of utilization. It is very blunt with

loss of matter and macroscopic polish. At the micro-scopic level deep multidirectional traces appear onboth sides (Fig. 8.3, 150x magnification).

The second chisel (Fig. 8.4) has multiple fractureswith a convex-concave section, a concave end andan unifacial arrangement. The artefact was workedin the main beam by longitudinal cutting. We werenot able to identify the technique, because the en-

tire inferior face was regularized by abrasion andthe oblique scratches are still visible at peripherallevel (Fig. 8.5, 20x magnification). The distal end isvery blunt, giving it a concave morphology, with astrong polish that also extended on the superiorside of the tool (Fig. 8.6, 150x magnification). Theactive part on the surface is not extended, whichprobably means that it was worked under openedangle. The functional traces are parallel with thetools axis that was developed on both sides.

Projectile points. This typological category inclu-des a distal fragment (Fig. 9.1), that was possiblyused as an arrowhead, but was unfortunately bur-ned and fractured. The distal part of the tool pre-sents convergent rectilinear edges, a triangular sec-tion and a sharp end. We dont exactly know Thetechnique of the detachment from the antler is un-known, because of the subsequent marks made onthe tool, but we can assume that a splint was extrac-ted from the block of raw material both by longitu-dinal and transversal debitage. It has an active, sharppart, made by longitudinal scraping (Fig. 9.2, 50x

magnification), that was applied on three sides, cre-ating the triangular section and the very regular as-pect of the surface. The projectile point is blunted

Fig. 5. Chisels made on whole blanks.


7/20


403

with loss of matter that transposes in depressionsand is microscopically visible (Fig. 9.3, 150x magni-fication).

Harpoons. In the settlement from Hrsova weidentified 19 harpoons made from Cervus elaphusantlers, out of which 6 complete samples, 9 proxi-mal fragments, 2 distal fragments, 1 medial frag-ment, a harpoon that misses a fragment at mediallevel were discovered, and an additional artefact

that is still being analysed. The pieces were dividedinto two categories, in accordance with the barbsunilateral and bilateral character,and the subcategories are dividedaccording to the barbs morphology:unilateral harpoons, with convexbarbs (3 artefacts); bilateral harpoonswith convex barbs (8 artefacts); bila-teral harpoons with sharp barbs (4artefacts); and the morphology ofthe remaining 4 artefacts could not

be identified, because the barb wasentirely fractured (Marga rit, Popo-vici 2011).

For the manufacturing of the antlera blank was extracted out of thebranch by transversal and longitudi-nal debitage, but the techniquescould not be identified due to thesubsequent technological interven-tions. The manufacturing of the baseimplies three stages: the regulariza-

tion of the surface after the extrac-tion of the blank, the pre-forming ofthe tool and the forming of the spe-

cific elements (barbs). The tools arenot always made in this process be-cause sometimes the barb was cutfirst and was only later formed and

shaped. In the same time, some arte-facts still retain the external struc-ture that is specific for the antler,while in other examples the firstoperation may represent regulariza-tion and a sharpening of the supe-rior and the inferior side of the fu-ture harpoon. In the clearing ofbarbs, an operation which consistsof progressively deepened incisions,alternatively, on both sides (Fig.10.4, 50x magnification), the direc-

tion of the incisions determines themorphology of the future barbs. For

the barbs that are positioned far from the shaft, thepurpose was to create a space between barbs, by re-moving an approximately rectangular shape rem-nant. Thus sawing is applied starting from three le-vels: the proximal edge of the first barb, the spacebetween barbs and the distal edge of the next barb.The second procedure, which seems more adequatefor convex-concave barbs, is to create two incisionsby sawing, representing the distal edge of a barband the proximal of the other one, both gradually

deepened so that they reunite. In the end, the pro-jectile point is thinned by scraping (Fig. 10.2, 100x

Fig. 6. Different types of handle madefrom the antlers of Cervus elaphus.

Fig. 7. Pieces of indeterminate function, endowed with a perfora-tion.


8/20


404

magnification; Fig. 10.3, 30x magni-fication), that may be peripheral,thus obtaining a conical or bifacialend, in order to get a circular shape;

points are cleared after barbs, espe-cially those which are set in contin-uation of the distal edge of the lastbarb.

The proximal part has two types ofhafting. The first and the most rep-resentative refers to the extremitiesprovided with protrusions, whichare made using the same techniqueas that of barbs (Fig. 10.5, 50x mag-nification); and the second has a pro-

ximal part in the continuation of theshaft that was shaped through scra-ping. Ethnographical examples show that these dif-ferent morphologies of the proximal part do not ne-cessarily depend on a fix or mobile hafting (McClel-lan 1975).

Indeterminate. In this category we included 6 ar-tefacts, all of them made on flattened blanks, whichcould not be included in a typological category, eitherbecause their function is unknown, or because theyare too fragmented; but they represent finished tools

since they had typical marks.

The first artefact is proximally fractured in saw teethstyle, being formed from a rod and a branched dis-tal part (Fig. 11.1). The rod has a circular sectionwith approximately rectilinear parallel edges. Thedistal part presents a triangular end, a biconvex sec-tion and two teeth oriented toward the middle part,with biconvex section, convex-concave edges and aslightly rounded end. A fragment from the mainbeam was used for shaping this tool, because only

this area of the branch offers wide blanks, in thiscase the width of the preform is over 4cm. The en-tire surface of the tool was thoroughly polished onboth sides and that created a circular and biconvexsection, and this destroyed all traces of previous ac-tions. The marks of the cutting therefore are no lon-

ger preserved. The antler was cut longitudinally andtransversally, obtaining a rectangular chip. The com-posing elements were chipped out by sawing, andonly a few traces remains of this technique (Fig. 11.2,50x magnification), that were not entirely removedby polishing (Fig. 11.3, 30x magnification). We as-sume that this was a prestige object, since the toolswas thoroughly and finely made. In addition, the ob-ject was excavated in an occupational level.

The second artefact (Fig. 11.4) presents a normalside with convex-concave morphology, while the op-posite side is endowed with three characteristicswith different morphologies, but detached with thesame technique as that of the barbs. The normal sidewas shaped by scraping and later finished by poli-shing.

The next two examples have an approximately rec-tangular form (Fig. 11.6). The characteristic elementis a perforation (fractured in both cases), that was

made by rotation from both sides. One of the arte-facts has two unfractured sides, which illustratesthat a regulated shaping was used.

The fifth artefact (Fig. 11.5) is an antler rod, fractu-red at distal level and with a subrectangular mor-

phology. The antler was fracturedtransversally and longitudinally,seemingly by percussion, proved bysmall removals that remained onone of the detaching sides. At distallevel a perforation was made by ro-

tating the tool from both sides, butit is unfortunately fractured. The en-tire surface of the artefact, including

Fig. 8. Chisels made on longitudinally cut antler.

Fig. 9. Projectile point made on flattened blank.


9/20


405

the fracture edges, was thoroughly shaped, until thepearling was removed.

The last artefact from this category has very interest-ing marks (Fig. 11.7), that raises a series of ques-tions concerning its framing (and due to its power-ful fracture). It presents convex-concave morphology,one of the sides is of convex shape and the otherhas two protuberances. The antler was fractured lon-gitudinally, from the main beam, if we consider thewidth of the piece, but the exact technique is un-

known due to subsequent modifications. The longi-tudinally fractured side still retains an area of the di-stal part, that is obliquely arranged bevelled style,with a strong usage polishing. Because of this shapethe artefact was probably a finished tool. But whenwe observe the opposite side, two protuberancesare, that were removed by two different methods;the rest of the protuberances are unfortunately frac-tured. When we observe the artefact from the proxi-mal part, the first protuberance is distinguished fromthe superior side by successively deeper and deeper

removals, whose marks are still marginally visible.A new longitudinal sawing is applied on the protu-berance, starting from the inferior side that is dif-ferent from the second protuberance. But the areaappears coarse since it has not finishing or usagemarks. We may assume that the tool was fracturedand later recycled and transformed into another typeof tool. This action wasnt completed and in thiscase we may speak about a preform.

Preforms made on whole blanksWe included three tine points, out of which two eye

tines and a bez tine, to this category of preforms.The removal from the branch was made by directpercussion (in 2 artefacts) and by indirect percus-

sion (1 artefact). In the first sample,the arrangement of the active partbegun with direct percussion as themain method of surface modification,

but the action was not finished. Inthe second sample, at distal level thebrands of shaping by longitudinalscraping are visible, under a fracturethat seems natural, and this suggeststhat the artefact was a preform. Fi-nally, the third sample, a bevelled(Fig. 12.1) part was created at distallevel by percussion in an obliqueplan (the marks of the percussionare still visible at the periphery ofthe bevelled piece), but the tool was

not finished.

A second category is represented by two eye tines,where the arrangement of the perforation suggeststhat a volume modification was intended. The tinewas removed from the branch by direct percussion

Fig. 10. Harpoon made from antler of Cervus elaphus.

Fig. 11. Functionally indeterminate artefacts.


10/20


406

along the entire circumference. The perforation wasmade with successive percussion technique, thatdeepened the cavity to perforation, but the opera-tion was not finished. The distal end was recently

fractured in both samples.

Preforms made on flattened blanksFor the manufacturing of one of the artefacts an inter-section area between two bez tines was used at therim, thus attaining a triangular morphology (Fig. 12.2).The traces of cutting by percussion are still visible inthe intersection. Then a longitudinal and deep scra-ping was applied, that is visible in the marginal areas,which removed the pearling, and is superposed byan oblique and deep abrasion, probably for the regu-larization of the area. The artefact has no usage tra-

ces, which probably means that it was a preform.

The second artefact could also be a preform accor-ding to the arrangement of a polisher. It has tracesof burning that destroyed a series of marks due tothe altering and chipping of the surface. The sectionof the artefact is plan-convex, with convex conver-gent edges and fractured ends. The antler was longi-tudinally fractured and the fracture edges and thelower part of the tool were flattened due to abrasion.The artefact probably had the end arranged in abevelled form, but it is unfortunately fractured.

A beam fragment with subrectangular morphology,a convex-concave section and concave edges is alsopresent. The technique of transversal debitage is un-known, because both ends were fractured. The ant-ler was longitudinally cut off by percussion (bipar-titioning). At one of the ends the decortications of thepearling by percussion can be seen despite the frac-ture, which is superposed by a longitudinal scraping.

Finally, a tine point was included into the category,

which had no identifiable detachment techniquefrom the antler, because the end was not preserved(Fig. 12.3). A blank was extracted out of the base,probably by percussion as proven by some periph-eral marks that could also derive from a delineat-ing action. Then the fracture edges were regulatedon their entire length by fine cuts that formed thesurface and may be assigned to the taille au caniftechnique (Provenzano 2001) (Fig. 12.4, 30x magni-fication). The same fracture marks appear on the ot-her three tine fragments that also belong to preforms.

Preforms made on intermediary blanksThree artefacts could be assigned to this categoryand they have a longitudinal extraction as a spe-

cific element, not for the formation of a blank, butfor another preformed tool to process the originalmatrix. This is a method of volume modification.The first artefact is made on tine and fractured at

one of the ends. The branch was removed by directpercussion around the entire circumference, follo-wed by final regular removal percussion. Towardsthe other end an extraction method can be identi-fied, that was made by a direct transversal and alongitudinal percussion, maybe for the creation ofa ditch, given its narrow size, a fact that would havenot allowed the extraction of a splint with optimumdimensions, but other conclusions are difficult tomake due to the fracturing of the tool.

The second artefact is an eye tine (Fig. 13.4) that

had the pearling removed with the decorticationtechnique at the proximal and middle part on theconcave side. In a second stage, a ditch was made atproximal side by successive splintering (Fig. 13.5,30x magnification).

The third example (Fig. 13.1) was removed from thebranch by direct percussion around the entire cir-cumference, followed by bending. In longitudinalsense, a percussion ditch was created with superpo-sed splintering alternating on both sides of the ditch(Fig. 13.2, 20x magnification). On the distal side the

pearling was partly removed and sharpened, prob-ably in order to arrange the active side of the tool(Fig. 13.3, 20x magnification). With the percussiontechnique several etching sides were created. Unfor-tunately, the distal extremity is fractured and we donot know its morphology.

Whole blanksWe identified three blanks (two on tine and one onbeam), that were obtained by the transversal debi-tage of the antler by indirect percussion around the

entire circumference until the cancellous tissue wastouched, and in two samples, followed by the remo-val by percussion (Fig. 14.3; Fig. 14.4, 30x magni-fication) or, in one sample, bending. The direct per-cussion (Fig. 14.5, 30x magnification; Fig. 14.6) wasused to obtain seven blanks on beam and elevenblanks on tine, cut at both ends with a debitage me-thod by sectioning.

Flattened blanksThey arent numerous, but are dominate over thewhole blanks. We identified two artefacts deriving

from the beam at the intersection part of the tine(probably the rim), transversally cut at all the endsby percussion, where the specific cuts are still visi-


11/20


407

ble. The same technique seems to have been usedalso for the longitudinal debitage of the antlers. Ano-

ther type of blank was made on the point of the tineand transversally cut by direct percussion in two ar-tefacts. Then a process of bipartition or longitudinalcutting was initiated by direct percussion that wasquite irregular.

Finally, we will mention three blanks made on beamwith a rectangular (Fig. 14.2) and triangular (Fig.14.1) morphology and a convex-concave section. Thesectioning method was the transversal removal fromthe antler, made by direct percussion in 2 artefactsand by indirect percussion in one artefact. The lon-

gitudinal debitage was made by indirect percussioneither parallel (in 1 sample) or convergent (in 2 sam-ples). According to their dimensions the blanks couldhave been used for the forming of harpoons.

Wastes made on whole blanks.We identifiedtwo possible debris or tine points. The first artefactwas removed from the branch by direct percussionthat was applied around the entire circumference.The marks are obvious at the peripheral part of theetching area under the form of some cuts. The nega-

tives are in scale and with an irregular form. A ben-ding was probably applied at thepart of the cancellous tissue, sincethe saw teeth fracture of the deta-ching plan was the irregular. The se-cond artefact was removed by directpercussion, made on 2/3 of the ant-ler circumference, after which thebending was applied.

Another type of waste is represent-ed by two tine points, where the re-

moval was made by indirect percus-sion, which created removal negati-ves, with a regular surface and quite

wide. The percussion was madearound the entire circumference.Percussion was applied in the endin the first artefact, creating a regu-

lar removal plan, and bending (sawteeth fracture) in the second arte-fact. The segment of a point, whosesectioning was made by direct per-cussion at both ends, was identifiedin the third sample.

Finally, we identified a tine pointthat could not be attributed to thiscategory without problems (Fig.

15.1). It was assigned to the category of wastes sincea blank for a possible tool was extracted from it. The

debitage method implied the first stage of formingof the future blank by direct percussion while trac-ing a line that functioned as a bande darrt(Fig.15.2, 20x magnification). The extraction itself seemsto have been made by indirect percussion in the lon-gitudinal direction. The remained piece was not fini-shed and could have been used as a blank for ano-ther tool. Moreover, it was excavated in an occupa-tional level, which means it was not abandoned aswaste.

Wastes made on flattened blanks. On artefacts

is a beam fragment with three concave ends froma transversal debitage and a plan-convex sectionfrom a longitudinal debitage (Fig. 15.3). The trans-versal debitage was made by direct percussionaround the entire circumference, followed by remo-val percussion. On one of the parts a longitudinaldebitage was applied by percussion, which produ-ced a 11,3cm long, 5,3cm wide and only c. 0,8cmthick blank.

Another is an antler fragment, possibly a beam due

to its pronounced pearling, with a subrectangular

Fig. 12. Different types of preforms.

Fig. 13. Preforms made on intermediary blank.


12/20


408

form. The removal marks can be seen at one of theends, which is transversal debitage made by directpercussion. That was followed by a longitudinal de-bitage made by percussion. At the opposite part a tri-

angular end was created by small successive remo-vals, which presents the rest of a projectile point de-bitage (Fig. 15.4).

One sample is a fragment that was made from theintersection between two tines. A splint was extrac-ted by longitudinal convergent debitage out of thebranch using the indirect percussion technique.

Conclusions

The exploitation system of the animal resources by

a human community is based on a series of techni-cal sub-systems (Arbogastet al.2006), that alwaysfollows the same stages: acquisition, transformationand consummation. They refer to a series of modifi-cations made to the raw material, and later to theproducts obtained from it. The regrouping of all theelements results after an operational sequence wa-stes and finished objects, their analysis concerningthe acquisition of raw materials, the technologicalprocesses from which they resulted and their use,do not constitute only an archaeological study me-thod, but also play a crucial role in the understan-

ding of the material conditions of the human life(social production) (Risch 2008) in prehistory.

Acquisition

The antler can be obtained from two possible sour-ces: hunting for sub-products and collecting. Thus,if it derives from a hunted animal, the acquisition ofthe antler is secondary in nature, since the main ob-jective is nutrition. If we are talking about a shed

antler, the acquisition was made for a purely tech-nical purpose without any nutritional reason in or-der to gather sufficient quantity from an optimummaterial. According to specialists, the shed antler is

suitable for processing, because the surface of thesections with compact tissue (the area used for pro-cessing) is more extended since it is at its develop-mental maximum. Knowing the specific propertiesof each material and their morphology and anato-my was essential for the prehistoric populations inorder to select the best materials and to exploit theoptimum areas for technological processes. And, in-deed, the study of these artefacts allowed us to con-clude that the majority of the fragments belongedto shed antlers. Nevertheless, we must underline thatinside the material from the Hrsova-tell the num-

ber of basal fragments is reduced and, in most of thecases, their quality is not that of debitage waste, butof finished tools. This is problematic if, in certain si-tuations, the branch wasnt partially cut outside thesite and introduced under the form of blanks. In thespecialty literature it is often mentioned that the ant-lers were soaked before further processing: shrou-ded in leather and permanently humidified with wa-ter (Chech 1974); immersed in boiled water (Zu-rowski 1973; Check 1974); macerated in solutionof plants (Ulbricht 1978); or impregnated (Mller1983). Our experimental studies demonstrated that

the mere immersion in water at ambient tempera-ture for a couple of days softens the superficial lay-ers of the antler, which facilitates further processing.Additionally, there are studies that demonstratedthat the processing is more efficient, especially inthe longitudinal debitage by indirect percussion, ifthe antler is dry (Tejero et al.2012), because it canabsorb the impact in the case of impregnation withwater.

Fig. 14. Different types of blanks.


13/20


409

In the Gumelnita tell from Hrsova,the provision with antler is local,since numerous bones of Cervuselaphuswere discovered at the set-

tlement. Furthermore, the Cervuselaphuswas the second most hunt-ed animal at the site, only precededby wild boar (Balasescu et al.2005).The antlers grow from april to july,when they reach maximum calcifica-tion, and they fall off at the end ofthe winter, i.e., in march for the adultspecimens (Provenzano 2001). Theantler can then be attacked by ro-dents, carnivores, invertebrates, evenby the stag shortly after its fall (Aver-

bouh 2000; 2005; van Gijn 2007)and the community from Hrsovaneeded it in a good shape. In theseconditions, the collection could bemade only in the period when theantlers fell off. So we can assume theexistence of a seasonal cycle of acquisition, towardsthe beginning of spring. The experimental studiesalready showed a special resistance of weapons andtools made of antler, so the renewal of the objectswas made after a certain amount of time. On theother hand, a surplus of raw material in the form

of untransformed blanks was maintained at thetell, therefore the expeditions for antlers were nottoo frequent and at no times there appeared to bea problem or a crisis of raw materials despite theseasonal availability of the antler. These blanks illu-strate a pretty big standardization in dimensions, afact that may suggest a preferential gathering. More-over, we identified that there was a selection of thehunted animals, since male animals were preferred,because they provided a bigger quantity of raw ma-terials (Balasescu et al.2005.146). In conclusion, we

can talk about an attentive management of the rawmaterial, which ensured a permanent availability ofthe antlers in order to replace the damaged tools.

The collection of antlers has no archaeological evi-dences, but we can argue that the ethnographicexamples, in which a certain economic activity is ri-tualized (Choyke, Darockzi-Szabo 2010; Boguszew-ski, Lozny 2011), are numerous and the social con-text seems to prevail over the technical nature forwhat the social value of a certain kind of artefact re-presents (Ptrequin et al.2006). In the same time,

studies show that the production is strongly dividedby gender (Wood, Eagly 2002; Waguespack 2005),meaning that it is executed only by a single gender,

following some strict stages that are impossible toignore. For instance, in the population on the riverSepik in New Guinea, women make most of the pot-tery, but ceremonial vessels like the big cups or thebig jars are only modelled by women, and later de-corated by men with a complex decoration, because

only they have the power to manhandle the dange-rous signs of the world of spirits (Ptrequin, Ptre-quin 2006).

Transformation

Most specialists agree to the statement that techno-logy depends on social attitudes in the first place(David 2007; Dobres 1995; 2010; LeMoine 1997;Stone 2011 etc.). In these conditions the regroupingof all the elements resulted after a technical trans-

formation sequence and the identification of the re-petitive operation sequence in raw material proces-sing can offer the key for the identification of somecultural traditions. The technical transformation se-quence of the antler is quite long, from a branch ob-taining several tools, and implies numerous techni-ques, strongly influenced along the mentioned cul-tural limitations by the raw material restrictions (di-mensions, mechanical properties, form etc.). Theseare more obvious in the case of antler in contrast toother materials (e.g., lithics), because they are prede-termined by the anatomical form of the material.

Since we excavated all the constitutive parts of ant-ler at the Hrsova-tell, we would ideally be able to

Fig. 15. Debitage wastes.


14/20


410

reconstruct assemblages like they are made for thelithic industry. But the specific techniques for antlerindustry like percussion, sawing, grooving, andscraping remove some small-sized splints from the

raw material and these cannot be recovered and thecomponents of one branch of antler cannot be con-nected. Nevertheless, we identified four types of ant-ler products in our inventory:

debitage wastes wastes deriving from the ex-traction of the blank or processing of the antlerthat can no longer be reused;

blanks unshaped products with debitage marksthat can be later transformed into finished objects;

preforms pieces in different processing stages,important because they keep the marks of the ope-

rational sequence especially of the shaping stage; finished objects, that were used for different acti-

vities.

The attribution of artefacts to one of these catego-ries is not simple, since a lot of the samples are pro-blematic either due to their fractures or to the factthat they were processed with different objectives(e.g., the object was debitage waste in the first stage,when a blank was detached from the antlers base;and later it became a finished object in the secondstage, because the debitage piece was still big enough

to be transformed into a tool). Another problem isto differentiate between marks made by the techno-logical process and those of function when the ant-lers were still in use by the animal considering thatthe stag used its antlers as a tool or weapon, whichthen led to fractures, chiselling, polished areas etc.(Jin, Shipman 2010), and therefore we should becautious when interpreting artefacts made from ant-ler.

The Cervus elaphus antler industry from Hrsova-

tell includes a total of 127 artefacts, which were at-tributed to four categories of products and sub-pro-ducts according to the operational sequence. Nume-rically speaking the finished products predominatethe assemblage (66 artefacts or 52%), followed byblanks (28 artefacts or 22%), debitage waste (9 arte-facts or 7%), preforms (16 artefacts or 13%) and un-determined samples that were too fractured to be at-tributed to the other categories (8 artefacts or 6 %)(Fig. 16).

The numbers and percentage of the finished prod-

ucts are presented in the next table according to thedifferent typological categories of finished products(Fig. 17).

The study of these categories leads to the identifi-cation of two specific technological stages debitageand shaping necessary for the obtaining of a fini-shed product. With the debitage three types of

blanks could be achieved: whole blanks, flattenedand intermediary blanks. Axes or parts from the ba-sal range were used for the flattened supports, be-cause blanks with a significant width were normallypreferred for the clearing of the barbs for harpoons(the most significant category of finished tools pro-duced on flattened blanks). For the whole blanks(especially when we speak about those that remai-ned in this stage) we identified standardization inthe choice of the branch from which the blank de-rived, a fact that illustrates, once more, the selectionof the raw material. When we look at the percenta-

ges, we can see a preference for the utilization of theblanks in anatomical volume (73%), in contrast toflattened blanks by longitudinal debitage (46%). Wecan also speak of strong productivity, since all theparts of a branch were used and no wastes were pro-duced in the technological process, which is mostobvious in the bipartition example where two simi-lar blanks were obtained from the same area.

When we look at debitage blocks (e.g., blanks, waste)and finished tools that still bear these marks, weidentified two blank production methods: a trans-

versal debitage where blanks are produced by sec-tioning (which is the most frequent method at Hr-sova-tell) and a longitudinal debitage where blanksare produced by bipartiotion and extraction. In trans-versal debitage the following techniques are used:removal by direct percussion (identified in 53 sam-ples the number is probably bigger, but many pie-ces are fractured at extremities and therefore diffi-cult to identify), followed by indirect percussion (7samples), then by sawing (1 sample) and scraping (1sample), always associated with a bending or a di-

rect percussion for the final separation each of themleaving specific traces for its identification. In longi-tudinal debitage (fendage) indirect percussion (16samples) was used as the main technique, since thegrooving technique could not be identified for thetechnical transformation sequence by bipatition,while for the blank production by extraction directpercussion was used (3 samples).

For the surface transformation scraping was the mostused technique. It can give the object its final form,since it is in some cases the only stage of shaping

(the case of the points on whole blanks). The nexttechnique, present with these procedures, is remo-val by direct percussion, used mostly for clearing.


15/20


411

These two techniques can be combinedwith abrasion and, rarely, with polishing.For the method of volume modification,the main technique used was perforation

made by the following techniques: by cut-ting sawing (15 samples), percussion (4samples) and by drill rotation (4 samples).Another volume modification techniquewas sawing, used for the detachment of theharpoons barbs and of the different protu-berances (23 samples). We identified an ad-ditional technique, called taille au canif(Provenzano 2001), on several preforms,which was used for the arrangement andregularization of the fracture edges.

Generally, the techniques and methods used arequite varied and the dimensions of the blanks aresuperior to the finished pieces, since the initial sizeof blanks is reduced at different stages of the opera-tional sequence. The result of this operational se-quence is congruence between the blanks and thedebitage waste on one hand, and between blanksand finished objects on the other.

Production

In literature numerous types of tools are united un-

der the generic term of bevelled objects, the com-mon element between them being the arrangementof the active parts by the intersection of two conver-gent sides. The main question for us was whetherthese tools had an identical function. The variationsobserved in the morphology of the distal part, in thedimensions of the pieces, and in the morphology ofthe fractures may indeed correspond to differentfunctions, because the function of the tool dependson its morphological and technological characteris-tics. Still, this hypothesis is hard to prove (one type

of morphology for one type of function), thereforewe analysed micro-traces on each artefact in order

to see what could be identified from the activitiesto which the artefact was submitted. A powerful im-

pediment in the identification of the function ofthese artefacts is the fact that all were fractured ata proximal level except for one. We could attributethe traces at the distal end a strongly emoussend which was rounded with strong polish and fineperpendicular scratches, visible with the naked eye,to the category of transformation tools used for theprocessing of slender materials.

The artefacts that we attributed to the mattock cat-egory are characterized by specific traces of usage,e.g., longitudinal polishing and scratches (appeared

at the contact with the abrasive particles from thesoil) and cutting (from the shock against the grav-el). Moreover, in agricultural areas in Bulgaria reddeer antler tools were used until the end of the 19th

century that were able to penetrate the soil up to68cm deep (Skakun 1992).

We attributed the artefacts to the intermediary cat-egory, when they exhibited specific traces of hardimpact on both extremities. The proximal ends witha rectilinear initial morphology present peripheral

and superposed longitudinal subsidence and cuttingafter use. The distal ends, that present specific bevel-

Fig. 16. The percentage of the debitage products and sub-products.

Typological Num. of Percentage

categories artefacts

Harpoon 19 29%

Hammer 1 1%

Wedge 4 6%

Projectile point 3 5%

Mattock 2 3%

Beveled object 8 12%

Handle 9 14%

Indeterminate 20 30%

Fig. 17. The percentage of the finished pieces made from Cervus elaphusantler.


16/20


412

led ends, also exhibit ramming and cutting dispo-sed onfil du tranchantand an intense polish withlongitudinally developed stripes. All these traces aretypical for chisels, used for wood or for removing

the crust, and the fact that a hard hammer was usedin their production.

Antler points can be assigned to projectile points, ifthey fulfil these conditions: non seulement parfai-tement acumines, mais aussi soigneusement rac-les, voire polies, ogivales pour combiner la foisla facult de pntration et la solidit, et enfin ca-libres (Rigaud 2006.230). Our points are indeedcompatible with these elements and that means theantler points were used as weapons.

The antler hammers that were identified in the as-semblage from the tell show traces that can be asso-ciated with carving, with retouching and with lami-nar debitage according to professional literature onthis subject.

The greatest number of artefacts at the tell can beattributed to harpoons and several are made fromCervidae antler. Traditionally, the harpoons are con-nected to fishing. The studies at Hrsova-tell illustra-ted that fishing, next to hunting and the gatheringof molluscs, represent the main food sources for this

community. Among the species suitable for fishingwith a harpoon are catfish, zander, cyprinids andeven crap, during spawning (Balasescu et al.2005).

Finally, many artefacts were used as handles, whichare useful for hafting tools made from hard animalmatter, lithic or even copper, enabling these tools tobe handheld.

Recycling

We identified two types of fractures in our assem-blage that according to experimental data (Legrand2000; Petillon 2006) seem to be of functional na-ture, belonging to bending fractures, produces afterthe shock caused by utilisation:

The saw teeth fractures in our artefacts they aremostly located at proximal side in the hafting area.But they may also appear at the intermediary partat the distal side, e.g., when they are used as wed-ges for splitting wood.

The en languette fractures in our assemblagethey are mostly located at the distal side and theyseem to be the result of a strength obliquely exert-

ed to the axis of the tool. This forms a fracture oftwo opposite sides, resulting or not to a triangularintermediary fragment (Legrand 2000; Goutas 2004) we could not identify any such fragments in our

assemblage.

When an object is damaged, it may be mended orabandoned if the type of fracture makes the rearran-gement impossible. The recovery may also be madein two ways (Goutas 2008):

By mending, if the tool can be repaired, keepingits original form and function. In this case the iden-tification is quite difficult because it usually impliesthe use of some shaping techniques (abrasion, poli-shing), that can destroy the previous actions of fix-

ing the fractures. The only two samples that can beincluded to this category are a harpoon from the sub-type A2, where the surface of the fractured barbwas mended by scraping, and a harpoon from thesub-type B2 that presents a functional en languettefracture at the distal part, where they tried to fix thepoint by removing the fractured surface, but theoperation was not finished.

By recycling, if they could not be kept in their ori-ginal form and function. Unfortunately, we couldidentify only few recycled tools in our assemblage,

where the fracture at the perforation was mendedto ensure a transversal hafting and the creation ofan orifice for a longitudinal hafting. Another recy-cling example is that of a piece chisel that, after fra-cturing, was recycled by removing some protuberan-ces, but the tool remained in a preform stage.

Archaeological context

According to the stratigraphic context of the analy-sed artefacts, we cannot discern if specialized struc-

tures such as workshops existed at this site, butwhich could be identified at the site Bordusani-Po-pina, dated to the same period as Hrsova-tell andattested by agglomerations of debitage waste, blanks,preforms and specialized tools (Margaritet al.2010).All types of artefacts were deposited randomly atthe site and are different types of production aremixed. Only the finished objects can be attributedto occupational contexts (dwelling, inhabiting, con-struction), which means that these tools were still inuse, while only one mattock and an intermediarypiece were excavated in the waste area, both are

strongly fractured, which suggests that they wereabandoned. And as was already mentioned, in theHrsova-tell community recycling of antler tools is


17/20


413

not obvious; generally they were abandoned afterlosing their function or after fracturing. Blanks, pre-forms and debitage wastes were mostly excavated infilling pits and occupational layers.

Chisels, which are finished tools, were more fre-quent in the later occupational layers which couldcorrespond to the last period of habitation by theGumelnita community. It is possible that the ab-sence of chisels in earlier layers points to a certainspecialization that, for the moment, is difficult tointerpret. This could be due to the fact that opera-tions that acquired the use of antler chisels weremore common in later occupational periods or couldpoint to a certain specialization in the communitythat is difficult to outline. Additionally, the analysed

artefacts present many whole objects in the youn-ger layers, which may show that antler processingwas more intense in these than compared to the ol-der layers.

Among the other types of tools only the harpoonsprojectile points (19 samples) allow for more suffi-cient observations. Their frequency stands for theactivities in which they were used. Nevertheless, 6of the samples have traces of secondary burning,which means they were probably burned in their fi-nished form. And from these burned projectile points

only three were discovered in the destruction layersof two burned dwellings (SL 50 and 58), the otherswere discovered in the exterior occupational con-texts. The question remains whether these three pro-jectile points were intentionally deposited in thedwellings that were later burned. But if that was thecase, the presence of the remaining three projectilepoints found in the external occupational layers canbe explained only by an accidental burning, a factthat makes this interpretation difficult.

Therefore we could attribute symbolic value to thecontexts in which harpoon projectile points wereintentionally deposited. But if we bear in mind thatother types of harpoon points were discovered indwellings (even if they were only partially resear-

ched), e.g., two undetermined fragments in SL 58and a support, a projectile point and an undetermi-ned fragment in SL 19, we may also confirm thatthese also presented the inventory of these dwel-

lings and that they were kept for various reasons.The same tools were excavated in dwellings no. 26,42 and 54, but were unburned. The discovery ofthese tools inside dwellings, next to other tools thatwere part of the daily inventory (e.g., lithic tools orceramic recipients etc.), may be considered a veryprobable reflection of reality. This situation is notexceptional since it was observed also in other geo-graphic or cultural areas (Stefanovi1997.364; Po-povici 2010. 99).

In this study we tried to present an integrated image

of the different ways of exploitation of animals byEneolithical communities for obtaining tools madeof hard animal material and different ways in whichthese objects were reintegrated in the cycle as a wayto exploit the environment. From a technologicalperspective, the study is not relevant if it is not dis-cussed also in the social context in which these ac-tivities took place or the relations between the res-pective community and its natural resources are ana-lysed. In other words, traces are defined as all phy-sical attributes resulting from the social life of sub-jects as well as objects (Risch 2008.516). We star-

ted our work on this premise, but were unfortuna-tely faced with some methodological limitations,which are interdependent with those of the researchfield, but also contextual, as we already underlined,due to the lack of similar studies for other Gumelni-tean settlements, which could allow for a technical-economic and social description of this culture inthe context of hard animal material industry.

This work was supported by a grant of the RomanianNational Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PNIIRUTE201130133.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


18/20

Andreescu R. R. 1995. Cascioarele-Ostrovel. Plastica deos din nivelul Gumelnita B1. Cultura si Civilizatie la Du-narea de Jos XIIIXIV: 4148.

1997. Cascioarele-Ostrovel. Plastica de os din nivelulGumelnita A2. Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea deJos XV: 219231.

2002. Plastica antropomorfa gumelniteana. Mono-grafii III. Muzeul National de Istorie a Romniei, Bucu-resti.

Arbogast R.-M., Horard-Herbin M.-P., Mniel P. and VigneJ.-D. 2006. Animaux, environnements et societies. Er-rance. Paris.

Averbouh A. 2000. Technologie de la matire osseusetravaille et implication palethnologique; lexemple deschanes dexploitation du bois de cervid chez les mag-dalniens des Pyrnes. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Univer-sit de Paris I Panthon-Sorbonne. Paris.

2005. Collecte du bois de renne et territoire dexploi-tation chez les groupes madgalniens des Pyrnesarigeoises, In D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovsky and M.Patou-Mathis (eds.), Comportements des hommes duPalolithique Moyen et Suprieur en Europe: territoi-

res et milieux. Actes du colloque du G. D. R. 1945 duCNRS, Paris, 810 janvier 2003. Eraul 111, Lige: 5970.

Averbouh A., Bodu P. 2002.Fiche percuteur sur partiebasilaire de bois de Cervids. Cahier X. Retouchoirs,compresseurs, percuteurs ... Editions Socit Prhisto-rique Francais. Paris: 117132.

Balasescu A., Radu V. and Moise D. 2005. Omul si medi-ul animal ntre mileniile VIIIV .e.n. la Dunarea deJos. Cetatea de Scaun. Trgovsite.

Billamboz A. 1977. Lindustrie du bois de cerf en Fran-che-Comte au Neolithique et au debut de lAge du Bronze.Gallia Prehistoire 20: 91176.

Boguszewski A., Lozny L. R. 2011. Antlers in flint mining:technological opportunism and symbolism. In M. Capote,S. Consuegra, P. Daz-del-Ro and X. Terradas (eds.),Pro-ceedings of the 2ndInternational Conference of theUISPP, Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Proto-historic Times (Madrid, 1417 October 2009). BAR IS2260. Archaeopress, Oxford: 129138.

Chech M. 1974.Essai sur les techniques de dbitage desbois de renne au Magdalnien. Mmoire de matrise.Paris X.

Choyke A., Daroczi-Szabo M. 2010. The Complete andUsable Tool: Some Life Histories of Prehistoric Bone Toolsin Hungary. In A. Legrand, I. Sidera (eds.),Ancient andModern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultu-ral, technological and functional signature. BAR IS 2136.Archaeopress, Oxford: 235248.

Christensen M. 2004. Fiche caractres morphologiques,historiques et mcaniques des matires dures dorigineanimale. Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature surlindustrie de los prehistorique. Cahier XI: Matires ettechnique.ditions Socit Prhistorique Franaise, Pa-ris: 1728.

Comsa E. 1985. Pescuitul n epoca neolitican sudul Ro-

mniei. Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos I: 1724.

1986. Date despre harpoanele din epoca neoliticadinMuntenia. Cultura si Civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos II:4350.

David E. 2007. Technology on bone and antler industries:a relevant methodology for characterizing early post-gla-cial societies (9th8th millennium BC). In Ch. Gates St-Pierre, R. B. Walker (eds.),Bones as tools: current me-thods and interpretations in worked bone studies. BARIS 1622. Archaeopress, Oxford: 3550.

Dobres M.-A. 1995. Gender and Prehistoric Technology:on the Social Agency of Technical Strategies. World Ar-chaeology 27(1): 2549.

2010. Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge Jour-nal of Economics 34: 103114.

Dumitrescu V. 1924. Dcouvertes de Gumelnita. DaciaI: 325342.

1965. Principalele rezultate ale primelor douacampa-nii de sapaturi din asezarea neoliticatrzie de la Cas-cioarele.Studii si cercetari de istorie veche 16(2):215237.

1966. Gumelnita. Sondajul stratigrafic din 1960.Stu-dii si cercetari de istorie veche 17(1): 5199.

dErrico F., Laroulandie V. 2000. Bone technology at theMiddle-Upper Palaeolithic transition. The case of the wor-ked bones from Buran-Kaya III level (Crimea, Ukraine). InJ. Orschiedt, G. C. Weniger (eds.),Neanderthals and Mo-dern Humans Discussing the transition: Central andEastern Europe from 5000030000 B.P. Neanderthal

Museum, Mettmann: 227242.

Galbenu D. 1962. Asezarea neoliticade la Hrsova.Studiisi cercetari de istorie veche 12(2): 285304.


414

References


19/20


415

Gijn van A. L. 2007. The use of Bone and Antler Tools:Two Examples from the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coa-stal Zone. In St. -P. C. Gates, R. Walker (eds.), Bones astools: Current Methods and Interpretations in WorkedBone Studies. BAR IS 1622. Archaeopress, Oxford: 8192.

Goutas N. 2004. Caractrisation et volution du Gra-vettien en France par lapproche techno-conomiquedes industries en matires dures animales (tude de sixgisements du Sud-Ouest). Unpublished PhD Thesis. Uni-versit de Paris I-Panthon Sorbonne. Paris.

2008. Les pointes dIsturitz sont-elles toutes des armesde chasse? Gallia Prhistoire 50: 45101.

MacGrgor M. 1985.Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: theTechnology of Skeletal Materials since the Romain Pe-

riod. Barnes & Noble. London.

Guthrie R. D. 1983. Osseus Projectile Points: BiologicalConsiderations Affecting Raw Material Selection and De-sign among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples. In J.Clutton-Brock, C. Grigson (eds.),Animals and Archaeo-logy. BAR IS 163. Archaeopress, Oxford: 273294.

Henshilwood C. S., dErrico F., Marean C. W., Milo R. G.and Yates R. 2001. An early bone tool industry from theMiddle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implica-tions for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbo-

lism and language. Journal of Human Evolution 41(6):631678.

Jin J. J. H., Shipman P. 2010. Documenting natural wearon antlers: A first step in identifying use-wear on purpor-ted antler tools.Quaternary International 211: 91102.

Legrand A. 2000. Vers une identification technique etfonctionnelle des outils biseauts en matires osseuses:le site magdalnien de la Garenne Saint-Marcel (Indre).Mmoire de DEA. Universit Paris I. Paris.

Lemoine G. 1997. Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Ant-

ler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR IS 679. Archaeo-press, Oxford.

Margarit M., Popovici D. N. and Vlad F. 2010. Lutilisationdu harpon dans la culture Gumelnita. Etude de cas: lha-bitat de Bordusani-Popina (dep. de Ialomita). CercetariArheologice XVII: 3554.

Margarit M., Popovici D. N. 2011. Production and functionof barbed points from the Gumelnita tell of Hrsova (Con-stanta County).Analele Banatului XIX: 3349.

Michels M., Zurbruchen M. 1991. Experimente mit natur-lichen Materialien Bearbeitung von Geweih und Kno-chen. In M. Fansa (ed.),Experimentelle Archaologie. Bi-

lanz 1991. Archologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwest-deutschland Beiheft 6, Oldenburg: 257265.

McClellan C. 1975.My old people say. An ethnographicsurvey of Southern Yukon territory. National Museumsof Canada. Ottawa.

Mller C. 1983. Das Erweichen von Geweih durch Wasser-aufnahme.Hammaburg 6: 229232.

Parnic V., Paun A. 20032004. Despre un atelier de pre-lucrare a osului si cornului din asezarea eneoliticade laMariuta, jud. Calarasi. Ialomita.Studiisi cerceta ri de ar-heologie, istorie, etnografie si muzeologia IV: 5370.

Petillon J.-M. 2006.Des magdaleniens en armes. Tech-nologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervide

du Magdalenien superieur de la Grotte dIsturitz (Pyre-nees-Atlantiques). Artefacts 10. Editions du Centre dtu-des et de documentation archologique. Treignes.

Ptrequin P., Ptrequin A.-M., Errera M., Cassen S. andCroutsch C. 2006. Complexit technique et valorisationsociale: haches polies de Nouvelle-Guine et du Noli-thique alpin. In L. Astruc, F. Bon, V. La, P.-Y. Milcent andS. Philibert (eds.),Normes techniques et pratiques so-ciales: de la simplicit des outillages pr- et protohisto-riques. Actes des XXVIe rencontres internationales dar-chologie et dhistoire dAntibes. 2022 octobre 2005, An-

tibes: 417431.

Ptrequin A. M., Ptrequin P. 2006. Objets de pouvoir enNouvelle Guine. Muse dArchologie nationale. Le Pe-tit Journal des grandes expositions 394. Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Popovici D. 2010. Copper Age traditions North of the Da-nube River. In D. W. Anthony (ed.), The lost World of OldEurope. The Danube Valley, 50003500 BC. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton and Oxford: 90111.

Popovici D., Randoin B., Rialland Y., Voinea V., Vlad F.,

Bem C. and HaitaG. 19982000. Les recherches archeo-logiques du tell de Hrsova (dep. De Constanta). Cerce-ta ri Arheologice XI(I): 13124.

Provenzano N. 2001.Les industries en bois de Cervidsdes Terramares miliennes. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Universit Aix-Marseille II. Marseille.

Randoin B., Popovici D. and Rialland Y. 19982000. Me-toda de sapaturasi nregistrarea datelor stratigrafice n-tr-un sit pluristratificat: tell-ul neo-eneolitic de la Hrsova.Cercetari Arheologice XI(I): 199234.

Riedel K., Pohlmeyer K. and Von Rautenfeld D. B. 2004.An examination of Stone Age/Bronze Age adzes and axes


20/20


of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) antler from the Leine Val-ley, near Hannover. European Journal of Wildlife Re-search 50: 197206.

Rigaud A. 2006. tude technologique des baguettes demi-rondes de Labastide (Hautes-Pyrnes).Archologie desPyrnes occidentales et des Landes 25: 229246.

Risch R. 2008. From production traces to social organisa-tion. Towards an epistemology of functional analysis. InL. Longo, N. Skakun (eds.), Prehistoric Technology 40Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy.BAR IS 1783. Archaeopress, Oxford: 513521.

Skakun N. 1992. Evolution des techniques agricoles enBulgarie chalcolithique (daprs les analyses tracologi-ques). In P. C. Anderson (ed.),Prhistoire de lAgricultu-

res. Nouvelles aproches experimentales et thnographi-ques. Monographie du CRA no. 6. Editions du CNRS, Paris:289303.

StefanoviM. 1997. The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamicsof House Destruction.Journal of Anthropological Archa-eology 16: 334395.

Stone E. A. 2011. Through the Eye of the Needle: Inves-tigations of Ethnographic, Experimental, and Archaeo-logical Bone Tool Use Wear from Perishable Technolo-gies. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The University of New Me-

xico. New Mexico.Tejero J.-M., Christensen C. and Bodu P. 2012. Red deerantler technology and early modern humans in SoutheastEurope: an experimental study.Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 39: 332346.

Ulbricht I. 1978.Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu.Die Ausgrabung in Haithabu 7. Wachholtz Verlag. Neu-munster.

Vercoutre C., Patou-Mathis M. and Giacobini G. 2007.The importance of the palaeontological and taphonomicalanalyses for the study of bone industries. In Ch. Gates St-Pierre, R. B. Walker (eds.),Bones as tools current me-thods and interpretations in worked bone studies. BARIS 1622. Archaeopress, Oxford: 2334.

Villa P., dErrico F. 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lo-wer and Middle Paleolithic of Europe.Journal of HumanEvolution 41: 69112.

Voinea V. 1997. Artifacts made from hard raw material ofanimal origin. Archaeological researches at Bordusani- Po-

pina (Ialomita country) preliminary report 19931994.Cercetari Arheologice X: 7284.

Waguespack N. M. 2005. The Organization of Male and Fe-male Labor in Foraging Societies: Implications for EarlyPaleoindian Archaeology.American Anthropologist 107(4): 666676.

Wood W., Eagly A. H. 2002. A cross-cultural analysis of thebehavior of women and man: Implications for the originsof sex differences.Psychological Bulletin 128(5): 699727.

Zurowski K. 1973. Methoden zum Weichmachen vonGeweih und Knochen in fruhslawischen Werkstatten.Bericht uber den II. Internationalen Kongre fur slawischeArchaologie, Band 3. Herder Institute, Berlin: 483490.

Another facet of man – Red deer relationship in prehistory: Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic...

Documents

Transcript of Another facet of man – Red deer relationship in prehistory: Antler exploitation at the Eneolithic...