margarit et al

8/20/2019 Margarit Et Al

1/34

A BXVIII, 3 (2014), 1-34

Management of Osseous Materialsfor Processing Artifacts in theEneolithic Boian Settlement

of Radovanu –La Muscalu

(Romania)

Monica MĂRGĂRIT / Cristian Eduard ȘTEFAN /Valentin DUMITRAȘCU

Abstract: The goal of the present paper is to make known an extremely interestingarchaeological assemblage, coming from the archaeological research carried out by

Eugen Comşa (1960-1990) at the settlement of Radovanu, belonging to the Boian cul-ture (5000-4450 cal BC), already published in a truncated form. The methodology wehave used aimed not just to identify the operational schemes used for the manufactureof different typological categories, but also to look at the ways in which the Eneolithiccommunities exploited the animal environment in order to obtain artifacts belong-ing to hard animal material industry, and at the way in which these objects are re-integrated in the cycle of use – this time as a means of exploitation of the environment.The study is all the more important as the information on the hard animal materialindustry in the Boian culture on Romanian territory is quasi-absent. Discussion ofthis material could make a decisive contribution to our understanding of an exploita-tion model for the animal resources in the respective period.

Key words: Boian Culture, archaeological context, raw materials, operational

schemes, functional stigmata.

S C

The Boian Culture generally developed in the first half of the Vth millennium B.C. and comprises four phases: Bolintineanu, Giulești,Vidra and Spanțov (Comșa 1974). Some authors consider (Pandrea2000) the Bolintineanu cultural phase to be an independent culture.Geographically, it covered the region formed by the greater part ofWallachia, partially Dobrudja and South-East Transylvania. The pot-tery from the four phases is represented by a variety of forms (pots,

bowl / basins, cups – Steckdose, shells etc.). Their ornamentation isalso quite diverse and includes incision, excision and incrustation withwhite paste, painting in red and painting with graphite. Specialists fromboth sides of the Danube synchronized the phase Vidra of the Boianculture with Poljanica I-III, and the Spanţov phase with Poljanica IV(Todorova 1978, table 33).

The settlements were located in a variety of places such as islands,terrace edges or hills mouths. There are some tells-dwellings. Amongthe most famous settlements are those from Glina, Tangâru, Aldeni,Boian A, Vidra and Radovanu. Some of them have one or more en-closure ditches. Dwelling types in the settlements comprise pit houses

and houses constructed on the surface, information derived from ar-chaeological research and complemented by studying the models ofclay dwellings discovered at the settlements (Comșa 1974).


2/34

The most important funerary discoveries were made at Cernica(with over 350 graves), Glina, Andolina, Boian A, Vidra, Izvoarele,Radovanu-La Muscalu (Comșa 1974), Popești-Vasilați, Sultana-ValeaOrbului (Lazăr / Opriș 2012). Some of these graves contain rich inven-tories such as Spondylus objects, stone axes, objects made of copper,flint or other stones brought from great distances, while others haveno trace of any sort of burial inventory (it is possible they containedperishable grave goods). These observations raise the issue of the ex-istence of some kind of social stratification during the Boian Culturein the Lower Danube. Are the richer grave assemblages proof that thedeceased had a higher social status compared to the deceased in graveswhere there were few, if any, grave goods?

Eugen Comșa researched the site of Radovanu-La Muscalu forthree decades (1960-1990). The settlement is situated South-East ofRomaniei, 1.5 km West from Radovanu village, in Călăraşi County (fig.1/a).We must also add the fact that, outside the settlement, on a terraceedge surrounded with a ditch, another opened settlement existed on

the hill slope in an area where a weaving workshop and the necropolisof the settlement were discovered (Comşa 1990) (fig. 1/b). The mainsettlement includes four evolving stages of the Spanțov phase of theBoian Culture. The dwellings are constructed in wattle-and-daub withfloors glued on split trunks, and they contain hearths, clay benches onthe north side and special areas for grinding grains. The settlementcontains rich archaeological material comprising ceramics, models ofdwellings, flint, bone and antler tools; jewellery; bones of animals etc.At the same time, the flint objects, Spondylus artifacts and numerouspottery fragments from other cultural environments demonstrate theclose connections between the community living at the Radovanu – La

Muscalu settlement and the surrounding ones (Comșa 1990).Regarding hard animal materials industry discovered during ar-chaeological excavations in this site, several comments are required.Starting from the fact that the Boian settlement was researched overthree decades, we might have expected the discovery of hundreds ofobjects of bone and antler. However only 204 objects are available forstudy, of which 68% are finished objects (see further on). There maybe two reasons that the numbers are lower than expected. The first istaphonomic. Many of the objects we studied present a strong surfacedegradation, generated by multiple post-depositional processes. Thishowever, does not completely explain the picture presented by this

industry (the lower percentage of sub-products in the operational se-quence). Most likely, these low numbers are the result of old excavationstechniques, which led to the elimination of debitage waste, extremelyuseful for specialists in prehistoric technology. It thus raises an impor-tant problem: is the reevaluation of old collections useful? In this case,the virtual absence of any studies concerning hard animal material in-dustry from Boian Culture means that, even with the bias introducedby the excavation methods employed during these old excavations, thematerial still contributes to the delineation of a model for the way ani-mal resources where exploited in this industry in this period.

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

2 MONICA MĂRGĂRIT / CRISTIAN EDUARD ȘTEFAN / VALENTIN DUMITRAȘCU


3/34

present the method of observing the objects that led to the interpreta-tions presented in this study. In the first stage, an analysis chart wasdrawn for each artifact, with observations on raw material (raw mate-rial type, species, skeletal element etc.), the type of object (waste, blank,preform, finished object), and morphology; then followed investiga-tions into the manufacturing technique (two main operations: debitage

and shaping) and, finally, proposing a hypothetical function, resultingfrom identified use wear. In the next stage, in order to correlate the dataoffered by each artifact, the analysis was largely dependent on specificraw materials (such as bone, antler, bivalve shell and tooth), because, aswe will observe in this study, the different mechanical characteristics ofraw materials limited the manufacturing techniques used.

Within the main categories of raw materials, the artifacts weresubdivided following their degree of finishing, resulting in four cat-egories; the presence of all the constitutive elements of an operationalsequence offered clues regarding the in situ or exterior processing ofthe necessary toolkit for the community. The definition of typological

categories in which the finished objects were included was based uponthe Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique (e.g. Camp-Fabrer 1990; 1998; Patou-Mathis 2002), starting from the active side

a

b

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

MANAGEMENT OF OSSEOUS MATERIALS FOR PROCESSING... 3


4/34

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

When the degree of preservation permitted, the objects were ex-amined with a digital microscope VHX-600, between 30x and 150xmagnification; the pictures were focused with the aid of a cameraincorporated within the microscope. Analytical criteria for the tech-nological and functional interpretation of micro-stigmata were es-tablished based upon the comparison with recent publications onthe osseous industries in prehistory (Buc 2011; Gates St-Pierre 2010;

van Gijn 2007; Legrand 2007; Legrand / Sidera 2007; Maigrot 2003;Sidera / Legrand 2006). The decipherment of different technologicaland functional marks was also based on our own experimental studieswhich have made a significant contribution to the understanding ofthe origins of the traces present on artifacts and the development ofuse wear, depending on the contact material and gestures employed.

M

The osseous industry from Radovanu obtained its raw materials fromboth domestic and wild animal species as well as from imported shells.An extremely diverse range of bone (skeletal element) was exploited(see table 1), although there was much lower variability in the spe-cies selection. We identified a constant in the selection of the species,which are predominantly domestic: Bos taurus comprises 40% of thetotal processed bones, along with Ovis/Capra at 14%, followed far be-hind by bones from other species. These percentages correspond to thearchaeozoological results, which identified over 90% domestic speciesamong the faunal remains (Bălăşescu et al. 2005, fig. 78), in which thefaunal assemblage Bos taurus holds first place (between 42.11% and

59.20%) (Comşa 1990). However the second most common species inthe faunal assemblage was domestic pig followed by the bones of Ovisaries/Capra hircus. As for the high proportion of artifacts made fromantler: since in Boian communities hunting is thought to have had asecondary role in the paleo-economy compared to animal breeding,the high number of Cervus elaphus antlers – representing more thanhalf of all the artifacts (both products and sub-products of the opera-tional sequence) – may be explained primarily by collecting activities.In most cases, we cannot tell for sure whether an object was madefrom fallen antler, since the outer burr was eliminated during manu-facturing. In any case, at Radovanu, Cervus elaphus comes first among

the hunted species (Bălășescu / Radu 2001; Bălășescu et al. 2005, fig.85), so the antler may have come from this source as well, at least inpart. This type of economy seems to have been different from that ofBoian settlements to the south of the Danube, where the contribu-tion of hunting was extremely important, accounting for up to 48% ofbone remains at the settlement of Ovčarovo (Vasiliev 1975, quoted byBălăşescu et al. 2005).

Table 1 identifies a serious contradiction between the acquisitionmode of wild and domestic species. In the former case, the raw mate-rial remains are not by-products that result from an animal killing ,but, instead, are predominantly acquired as a result of some organized

expeditions. In the latter case, we may conclude that the osseous mate-rial exploitation suggests animal raising and killing activities, and isreflected in the domestic character of the set composition, including



5/34

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

According to the experts, the fallen antler is more suitable forprocessing, since it is completely developed and the cross-section (thearea used for processing) has a compact tissue. For the prehistoricpopulations it was essential to know the specific features of each ma-terial, as well as its morphology and anatomy, in order to select the

best materials and to exploit the most suitable areas for technologicalprocessing. As for the Cervus elaphus species, the antlers reach theirmaximum development in September and fall in February-March;

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

S K E L E T O

N E L E M E N T S

B o s t a u r u s

O v i s a r i e s

/ C a p r a h i r c u s

S

u s s p .

C e r v u

s e l a p h u s

C a p r e o l

u s c a p r e o l u s

C a

n i s s p .

L e p u s

e u r o p a e u s

I n d e t e r m i n a t e s p .

S p o n

d y l u s s p .

Shell 1

Antler 102 2

Canine 1

Astragalus 2 2

Mandible 1

Rib 2

Radius 3 1

Humerus 1 2

Ulna 5

Metacarpus 3

Metapodialus 10 1

Femur 1 1

Tibia 6 4 1 1

Metatarsus 3 4 3

Long bonediaphysis

4 11

35

TOTAL 39 14 3 106 2 2 2 35 1



6/34

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

The object made of Spondylus sp. shell – though singular – high-lights possible connections with the Mediterranean area or a trans-fer from one group to another, like in the kula type of exchanges(Malinovski 1989). Some authors have suggested that the Spondylus

valves may have been gathered from fossil deposits, and might notderive from exchanges with the Mediterranean areas. However, a se-ries of studies, based on isotopic analyses, like those of Shakelton andElderfield (1990), or, more recently, of Bajnóczi et al. (2012), for theNeolithic site of Aszód-Papi (Hungary) seem to confirm the use offresh valves. Moreover, Miller (2003), introducing another argumentin favor of the use of fresh valves of Spondylus, shows that those gath-ered from the beach are more fragile during processing, and tend to

break, unlike those gathered while alive.Maybe more than other types of raw materials, those of animalorigin necessitate the selection for the processing of a certain type ofartifact by their anatomical form. Apart from the properties of theraw materials (Margaris 2012) – well known in the Prehistoric com-munities – their cultural significance within the group seems to havebeen equally important in the selection process. The two determina-tives (efficient technology and cultural traditions) seem to comple-ment one another in that the knowledge concerning which parts ofthe animal skeleton may be used were recorded in the community’smyths (Choyke / Daróczi-Szabó 2010); thus, changes in the selection

of raw materials were consistent over long periods of time, althoughthere were fluctuations of species availability (Choyke et al. 2004; Luik2009; 2011).

The animal material industry from the Radovanu settlement to-tals 204 objects, which can be assigned to the four product and sub-product categories mentioned above. Their distribution is uneven, fa-

voring the finished products, which total 138 (68% of total products),whereas the objects under processing are 26 (13%) and the blanksand wastes amount to 15 items (7%). We have also added the impor-tant category of “undetermined”, which includes 25 artifacts (12%).Nevertheless, we have to mention that such a substantial category of

preforms is rare in sites’ inventories; it points to in situ manufactureand to an interest for achieving a manufacture stock. Thus, the resultis a reserve for the immediate replacement of fractured objects and astrict management of the raw materials.

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

T

B

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



7/34

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

The Bos taurus ulna (fig. 2/h) was selected for the manufactureof four chisels, and the blank was preserved in its anatomic volume.Unfortunately, the objects are either fractured, or they exhibit consid-erable surface deposits, which makes the stigmata identification dif-

ficult. It seems that the epiphysis was removed by percussion, and the

Table 2. Numerical distribution of finished objects

No. Typological categories Bone Antler Shell Tooth

1. Adornment - 1 1 1

2. Harpoon - 1 - -

3. Handle - 1 - -

4. Point 39 3 - -

5. Object with circular extremity - 5 - -

6. Bevelled object 36 35 - -

7. Needle 2 - - -8. Processed astragalus 4 - - -

9. Burin 2 - - -

10. Scraped bone 2 - - -

11. Ring 1 - - -

12. Hammer 1 - - -

13. Spatula 2 - - -

14. Undetermined object 6 - -



8/34

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

Points (N = 39). This typological category was created by puttinginto practice several types of operational schemes of different com-

plexity. Thus, fourteen objects were processed on flat blank. This wasobtained from Bos taurus metapodial (3) and long bone diaphysis (1),Ovis/Capra tibia (1), femur (1) and long bone diaphysis (1), Sus sp.tibia (1), and long bone diaphysis of an indeterminate species (6).

The method of debitage was bipartition1 (6 objects) (fig. 3/a) orsuccessive partition until one quarter of the original diameter wasreached (1 object) (fig. 4/a), by the percussion procedure. The debit-age procedure is indeterminable in seven cases, either due to a verythorough abrasion of the surface (1 object), or due to the fact that thesurface was damaged (6 objects). The active front development wascarried out either by longitudinal scraping (fig. 3/b, e) applied on the

fracture sides in order to create a sharp morphology of the point (5objects), by abrasion (fig. 3/f, fig. 4/b) applied on the active front level(5), or, in one case, by the combination of the two techniques. For

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

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



9/34

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

For 20 objects, the blank was obtained by grooving (fig. 3/d). The

necessary time for the manufacture of this kind of point is differentfrom the time required for the manufacture of the previous categorybut we cannot tell whether this technological difference also led to

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

SKELETON ELEMENTS

B o s t a u r u s

O v i s a r i e s /

C a p r a h i r c u s

S u s s p .

C

e r v u s e l a p h u s

C a n i s s p .

L

e p u s e u r o p a e u s

I n

d e t e r m i n a t e s p .

Bevelled objects

Radius 3

Humerus 1 1Ulna 4

Metapodialus 2

Tibia 6

Long bone diaphysis 3 16

Points

Radius

Humerus 1

Ulna 1

Metacarpus 1

Metapodialus 7

Femur 1

Tibia 2 1 1

Metatarsus 2 2 3

Long bone diaphysis 1 1 1 14

Needles

Metapodialus 1

Metatarsus 1

Processed astragalus

Astragalus 2 4

SpatulasRib 2

Burins

Long bone diaphysis 2

Scraped bones

Metacarpus 2

Ring

Tibia 1

Hammer

Femur 1

Preform

Mandible 1

Blanks and wastes


Undetermined objects

Radius

Metapodialus 1

Metatarsus 1 1




10/34

different uses. The selected matrix was Bos taurus metacarpus (1),metapodial (4), and metatarsus (2), Cervus elaphus metatarsus (3),Ovis/Capra metatarsus (2), and diaphysis of an undeterminable spe-cies (8). In ten cases, the blank was obtained by longitudinal biparti-tion, by means of a double grooving procedure. In the case of other ob-

jects, however, the blank represents approx. ¼ of the matrix diameter,so we may deduce a successive bipartition method, either by doublegrooving (7 objects) (fig. 3/c) or by a combination of grooving andpercussion procedure (3 objects) (fig. 4/d). Only for seven points wasthe bone epiphysis preserved, with no modification of the anatomicmorphology.

Out of blank in volume (fig. 3/g ), five points were processed, andthe selected matrix consisted of Lepus europaeus tibia (1) and diaphy-sis bone (1), Ovis/Capra tibia (1), Canis familiaris humerus (1) and Bostaurus ulna (1). In two cases, the bone epiphysis is preserved with notechnological intervention. For the active front development, percus-

sion was used, and then, in the case of four objects, a longitudinal scrap-ing (fig. 3/h) was applied on the fracture sides (4 objects). For five items,a bi-facial abrasion was applied only on the level of its extremity.

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



11/34

Needles (N = 2). To this category belong two objects with perfo-ration on the proximal side and pointed morphology on the distalside. The first object was processed out of a Bos taurus metapodial,through longitudinal bipartition, with no possibility of identifying the

procedure, as the whole object surface was developed by longitudinalscraping that was more intensive on distal level (for providing the sideconvergence), followed by a rather rough abrasion. The perforationwas realized by bifacial rotation. The active extremity is fractured andthe proximal one is smooth, suggesting that it may have been usedin indirect percussion. The second needle (fig. 5/a) was obtained outof an Ovis/Capra metatarsus, using the bipartition method, by dou-ble grooving (fig. 5/b). The perforation was realized by bifacial rota-tion (fig. 5/c) and the active front by longitudinal scraping (fig. 5/d).Unfortunately, the active extremity was fractured.

Processed astragalus (N= 4). This category includes four objects,

two Ovis/Capra and two Bos taurus. For the sheep/goat astragals, onemodification by abrasion is evident on one side, while the second ob-

ject (fig. 5/e) preserves a perforation made from the lateral towards the

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



12/34

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

Spatulas (N = 2). The first object (fig. 6/a) was processed on a

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

with no development of the fracture sides.Burins (N = 2). In this category are two objects (fig. 6/d) processed

on a long bone diaphysis of a large mammal. A flat blank was used, ob-

Fig. 5: a needle; b grooving;c perforation by rotation; d longitudinal

scraping; e, h processed astragalus;f area with abrasion; g perforation;i ring; j, k stigmata of sawing



13/34

tained in the first case by grooving (fig. 6/e), followed by detachmentthrough indirect percussion, and, in the second case, by percussion.Abrasion was used in making the active front, extended on variablesurfaces. An oblique active front resulted and the object wear does notextend on its faces but on its sides (fig. 6/f ), hence the assumption that

the object was laterally used, in an action similar to that of a burin.Scraped bones (N = 2). Two objects of Bos taurus metacarpus (fig.

6/g ) raise problems concerning their functionality. The technologi-cal information is quite clear: on three faces, a persistent longitudinalscraping (fig. 6/h) was applied, which caused the generation of a concavearea, and the thinning of the bone at the medial level, which also resultedin its fracture. Over that scraping, a macroscopic polish is present, whichis hard to interpret. Furthermore, on one of objects, at the basis of thescraping area, there can be seen stigmata resulted from the impact witha material (stone?) (fig. 6/i).

Ring (N = 1). An Ovis/Capra tibia (fig. 5/i) was segmented by saw-

ing (fig. 5/j, k ), at its both extremities. No shaping occurred.Hammer (N = 1). A Bos taurus distal femur (fig. 7/a) was shaped

in order to be transformed into a hammer. At its proximal level, it was

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



14/34

endowed with a perfectly cylindrical perforation, made by rotation. Atits distal level, the object seems to have had a bevelled – type devel-opment (on blank in volume), but the longitudinal fracture does notallow us to identify the development procedure. Its active extremity

is damaged, showing important material losses. We therefore think itwas used in a percussion action.

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

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

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

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



15/34

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

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

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

in one of the typological categories.The last two are hardly fractured. The first may be a fragment of apoint and the second preserves a small surface of a perforation.

R

Bevelled objects (N = 35) represent the most important typologi-cal category for objects made of Red deer antler. In order to presentthem, we have grouped them according to their features but the com-mon element is given by the development of a bevelled-type extrem-ity. In the first category we included 20 objects, 17 of which had beenprocessed on the tine, two along the beam, and one undetermined (due

to its fracture), which preserves the blank in anatomic volume and hasa perforation intended for holding at its proximal level. The proximalextremity is preserved in only four objects, two cases illustrating a seg-mentation procedure by percussion around the entire circumference,and two cases are indeterminable. The remaining objects are fracturedin dents de scie (fig. 8/d), at the level of a perforation having a circularmorphology, realized by bifacial rotation. For the latter, we identifiedtwo main procedure types, meant to develop the active front: a bifa-cial development by longitudinal scraping (fig. 8/a-b), which providesconvergence of two sides, and a unifacial development by percussion,sometimes followed by abrasion (fig. 8/f ), leading to the creation of an

active part, oblique by comparison to the object axis. In that group, abevelled object processed along the beam is very particular (fig. 9/a).It is in a complete accordance with the above description (a fracture onthe level of a circular perforation, active part developed by percussionfollowed by abrasion), but on the upper face, ornamentation consist-ing of two series of five semicircular points was achieved by the rota-tion of lithic equipment. The same design can be found on the lowerface, as well-namely, six points developed in a semicircle.

Finally, a third procedure (fig. 9/d) involving an active front development, is identified only in the case of one object. This consistedof the application of debitage by percussion, through breaking , which

caused an oblique fracture. Then an abrasion towards extremity wasapplied on the lower face (fig. 9/e). Moreover, the proximal part is

very smooth (fig. 9/h), up to the disappearance of the extremity and



16/34

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

A second group refers to six objects processed in volume, of whichfive on the tine and one along the beam, which seems to confirm a

recycling procedure, and proves a strict management of such objects.All objects were fractured on the level of their circular perforation,because of their use (fig. 7/e, fig. 8/e). Above the fractured area, asecond perforation was developed, by the same bifacial rotation proce-dure, which remained unfinished in the case of two objects (fig. 8/h).The active front development experienced the same two main types ofshaping procedures: percussion, followed by abrasion (fig. 8/f, g ), or,in two cases, scraping (fig. 7/f ), followed by abrasion (fig. 7/g ).

Only five bevelled objects were processed on flat blank (fig. 9/b),two along the beam and three on tine. Because of the multiple frac-tures present, we were able to identify only one case of segmentation

procedure by percussion, which allowed the detachment from thebranch. In the second stage, the bipartition method was applied for themanufacture of the needed blank through percussion, followed, in the

Fig. 8: a, e bevelled objects madeof antler; b longitudinal scraping;c active extremity; d, h perforationby rotation; f, g abrasion



17/34

areas where we were able to identify the stigmata, either by abrasion (2objects) or by scraping (1 object). The active front was realized eitherby bifacial abrasion (2 objects) (fig. 9/c) or by bifacial percussion (1item). An intensively burnt black object is particularly interesting: itstechnological stigmata are illegible because of the burning the object

has gone through, but on its proximal extremity we can see a smallarea of perforation. This makes us wonder whether originally it wasan object on blank in volume, then it got fractured and was recycled tobecome an object on a flattened blank.

Points (N = 3) are represented by three objects, processed on tine,having the anatomic volume preserved. In just one case, the proximalextremity is present (fig. 10/a). The segmentation out of branch wasrealized by direct percussion around the entire circumference (fig.10/c). In the proximal area, a circular perforation with conic mor-phology was developed through unifacial rotation (fig. 10/e). Thetine extremity was not technologically processed. On both faces of the

object, at the perforation level, the surface was initially processed bypercussion (fig. 10/b), in order to create two flat surfaces. This actionclearly occurred after the perforation. Could the object redevelopment

Fig. 9: a, b, d bevelled objects madeof antler; c, e abrasion; g smoothextremity; f perforation; h proximalextremity



18/34

have been used to obtain the morphology of a chisel? The other twopoints present a proximal fracture, at the level of their perforation witha cylindrical morphology. First, the active front was developed at thedistal level only, on a single face, by the application of longitudinalscraping for flattening the surface; second, the anatomic morphology

of the tine was preserved. In all cases, the point is smooth, showing amacroscopic polish (fig. 10/d), but it is difficult to decide whether itwas functional or it occurred during the animal’s lifetime.

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

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

Fig. 10: a point made of antler;

b shaping by percussion;

c proximal

extremity; d distal extremity;e perforation by rotation; f objectwith circular extremity; g scratchesof abrasion; h handle

g



19/34

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

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

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

tensively rounded.

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



20/34

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

The first type of preform shows active front development by ob-lique percussion, only extended on the upper face at distal level (fig.12/b, c). In some cases, the development of a perforation was initiatedon proximal level by bifacial percussion (fig. 12/b) or rotation. Onthat level, the object is usually fractured, and that fracture must havebeen the reason for which they were abandoned during the preformstage. One item illustrating a mending procedure after the fracture isparticularly interesting (fig. 13/a). On proximal level, the object wasendowed with a perforation made by unifacial rotation (fig. 13/c). Theobject got fractured and the re-shaping began, through the incomplete

removal of the fractured zone by percussion (fig. 13/b). Moreover,processing by bifacial percussion was initiated on the active part. Inthis case, we cannot exclude the possibility that it is a finished object,

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



21/34

in case of which recycling and transformation into another object wereattempted after the perforation fracture. An alternative (fig. 13/d) forthe active front development consists in bifacial percussion (fig. 13/e),applied at distal level, in order to create the convergence of the edges

and the active front specific to chisels. A third preform alternative im-plies that the active front development through longitudinal scrapinggradually deepened (fig. 12/d). On the proximal level, a perforation bybifacial rotation is preserved.

Two chisel preforms are the biggest, and are processed along thebasic beam. One of them comes from a fallen antler. The first chisel(fig. 12/c) was detached at the proximal level by percussion, ap-plied around the entire extremity. Its basic tines were eliminated bypercussion. The active front development was made by percussion,throughout the object length. It remained in that stage, but it is ex-tremely interesting since it illustrates the operational sequence steps.

In the second case, the outer burr was eliminated by percussion. Onone of the faces, the surface was shaped by percussion, thus devel-oping the active front, too. Also, at the proximal level, the develop-

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



22/34

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

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

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

jected to shaping by scraping.In the same category of preforms in volume, we include an antler

tine (fig. 12/e), on which shallow grooves in direct alternate percus-sion occurred around its circumference (fig. 12/f ). We cannot definethe object. Was the object intended for the segmentation of small ringsor was there a pattern created on the object?

The number of preforms processed on flat blank is lower but thecategory includes some special specimens. One extremity of a beamfragment illustrates segmentation by direct percussion, followed bylongitudinal debitage through percussion (fig. 12/g ). Also, the formwas created by percussion.

A tine point was segmented by direct percussion, followed by lon-gitudinal bipartition, also through percussion. On the upper face, the

surface was shaped by longitudinal scraping, hence the conclusionthat it was a preform – perhaps an arrow point – considering its smallsize. Finally, a last object showed a circular morphology (fig. 12/h),like that of a spindle whorl; there was no possibility of identifying thecutting method, since the whole surface was processed by abrasion.A bifacial perforation by rotation was initiated, yet this operation re-mained unfinished.

Blanks and wastes (N = 13). The number of blanks is not veryhigh, we can enumerate 7 objects – preserving the antler’s anatomic

volume – that resulted from the detachment by direct percussion ap-plied on variable surfaces of the circumference, followed by bending

(fig. 14/e, f ). Another blank type is represented by a fragment of a tineand beam, coming from the antler’s branching zone. On two extremi-ties, the stigmata of direct percussion for segmentation have been pre-served. The other two extremities are post-depositionally fractured.As a result of longitudinal debitage (fig. 14/g ), three blanks resulted,coming from the antler’s beam. Also, we identified a point made outof a tine, segmented by percussion, and it may be assigned in the cat-egory of waste, considering its small size.

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

vention.Undetermined objects (N = 19). We created this undetermined cat-

egory because the lot of Radovanu contains 19 antler objects in dif-ferent fracture stages, which makes it impossible to give a diagnosis



23/34

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

regarding their functionality. No less than 15 items have a perforation,where the fracture usually occurred. Nine were processed along thetine, and the perforation development was realized either by bifacialrotation procedure (8 objects), or bifacial percussion (1 object). One ofthem preserves the proximal side. We cannot tell what the procedure

of segmentation out of branch was like, because that extremity wasthoroughly shaped. At the other end, a perforation was developed bybifacial percussion. At that level, the object was thicker and the shapelooks like having been manufactured by percussion, followed by shap-ing. The object presents an intensive macroscopic wear, but, unfor-tunately, we cannot tell which the morphology of its active part was.Another object that caught our attention was processed on blank in

volume, segmented from branch by sawing around the entire circum-ference (in contrast to most of the objects made out of antler, whichwere segmented by percussion). At its medial level, we could identifya first cylindrical morphology perforation, produced by bifacial rota-

tion, functionally fractured and below this – a second one, having thesame technological data. We cannot tell which the morphology of theactive part was.



24/34

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

Another three objects are fractured, only small surfaces being pre-served, where stigmata of branch segmentation can be identified. Wecannot include those objects in any product or sub-product categorythat resulted from the operational sequence, and this is why we havechosen the name of “undetermined”.

S

This raw material is represented by only one extremely interestingobject, since it illustrates a recycling (curation) procedure (fig. 11/e).Initially, it was a bracelet, processed out of a Spondylus valve, rectangu-lar in section. The object surface was finely processed by abrasion, so

that we can no longer identify the stigmata of the debitage operation.The object was broken and – in order not to lose it – a perforationwas produced by bifacial rotation (fig. 11/f ), allowing the object to beused as a pendant. The same recycling procedure is also confirmed inthe settlement of Isaccea, also belonging to the Boian culture (Micu2004).

T

A Sus scrofa canine tusk was turned into an adornment element (fig.11/g ). For that purpose, a longitudinal bipartition method was used,which provided a flat blank. It has been impossible to identify the pro-

cedure, given the supplementary interventions on the item. The lowerface was shaped by longitudinal scraping (fig. 11/i), followed by theabrasion of the fracture sides. The object has four perforations, madeby rotation (fig. 11/h). Towards the object extremities, the rotationmarks are removed because of the development of a macroscopic weararea, which may suggest an area used for suspension.

D

Experts agree that technology depends on cultural traditions(Lemonnier 1993; Dobres 2010; Luik / Maldre 2007; Choyke 2009;Luik 2011). Under these circumstances, the re-grouping of all the ele-

ments resulted from an operational sequence, and the identificationof some repetitive operational schemes in the raw material processingcan offer the key for the identification of some cultural indicators. AsBuc and Loponte highlighted (2009, 152), “tool design must be under-stood as constrained by these technological choices and technologicalcosts (manufacture and procurement costs) should be considered inthe light of its efficiency”.

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

- waste – coming from the processing of the blank which cannot

be re-used;- blanks – non-shaped products, derived from debitage, able to be

turned into finished objects later;



25/34

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

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

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

The study of the above-mentioned categories (see table 4) led to

the identification of the following detachment procedures: a transver-sal debitage, to which a transformation scheme by segmentation corre-sponds, and a longitudinal debitage, to which transformation schemesby bipartition and successive partitions are subordinated. To the abovementioned procedures, one can add a transformation scheme by di-rect shaping, identified in the case of the processed astragals and ofthe bones with scraping stigmata. As for the techniques used duringthe debitage stage, we did some statistics on raw material types, as wecould clearly highlight a different treatment for bone and antler. Forbone, the debitage resulted in two blanks types: in volume and flat.Considering the percentage, we may state a preference for the use of

flattened blanks (longitudinal debitage – 73 objects), followed by thosethat preserved their anatomic volume (20 objects). The transversaldebitage was realized by direct percussion (9 objects) and sawing (3objects). Longitudinally, for the bipartition procedures, the techniquesused were percussion (34 objects), double grooving (11 objects) anda groove and splinter combination (1 object), while for the successivepartition, the double grooving (8 objects), groove and percussion (3)or only percussion (1 object) were used.

Within the surface modification procedures (see table 5), abrasionwas the most used technique, closely followed by longitudinal scrap-ing, which was used both for shaping of the fracture plane and for the

development of the active front. These techniques may have been usedin combination on different objects, for the final shaping of the object.The main technique used for volume modification procedure was per-foration, having a single manufacture alternative, namely rotation.

For antler (see table 4), the case is completely different, given thepredominance of the blanks in volume (67 objects) compared to theflat ones (16 objects). In the case of transversal debitage, the techniqueused was direct percussion, except in one case where segmentationby sawing was observed. The technique used for longitudinal debit-age procedures is percussion, as the grooving technique – so oftenin appearance on bones – was not identified. Direct percussion and

scraping were used in surface modification (see table 5), followed byabrasion in some cases. The volume modification was particularly re-alized by perforation, rotation (56 objects), or percussion (3 objects).



26/34

T a b l e 4 . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e d e b i t a

g e p r o c e d u r e s a n d t e c h n i q u e s , i d e n t i f i e d b y t h e t y p e s o f r a w m a t e r i a l s a n d t y p o

l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s , i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f R

a d o v a n u

T y p o l o g

i c a l c a t e g o r i e s

D e b i t a g e p r o c e d u r e s

D e b i

t a g e b y b i p a r t i t i o n

( l o n g

i t u d i n a l d e b i t a g e )

D e b i t a g e b y s u c c e s s i v e p a r t i t i o n s

( l o n g i t u d i n a l d e b i t a g e )

D e b i t a g e b y s e g m e n t a t i o n

( t r a n s v e r

s a l d e b i t a g e )

P e r c u s s i o n

D o u b l e

g r o o v i n g

G r o o v e a n d

s p l i n t e r

P e r c u s s i o n

D o u b l e g r o o v i n g

G r o o v e a n d

s p l i n t e r

P e r c u s s i o n

S a w i n g

B o n e

B e v e l l e d

o b j e c t s

+

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

P o i n t s

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

N e e d l e s

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

P r o c e s s e

d a s t r a g a l u s

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

S p a t u l a s

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

B u r i n s

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

S c r a p e d

b o n e s

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

R i n g

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

H a m m e r

-

-

-

-

-

-

?

-

P r e f o r m s

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

B l a n k s a n d w a s t e s

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

U n d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t s

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

A n t l e r

B e v e l l e d

o b j e c t s

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

P o i n t s

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

O b j e c t s w i t h c i r c u l a r

e x t r e m i t y

-

-

-

-

-

-

?

-

H a n d l e

-

-

-

-

-

-

?

-

H a r p o o n

?

-

-

-

-

-

?

-

P e n d a n t

?

-

-

-

-

-

?

-

P r e f o r m s

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

B l a n k s a n d w a s t e s

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

U n d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t s

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+



27/34

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

The general picture shows that techniques and procedures varyrather little, especially in the case of antler, where percussion is om-nipresent, but they are well adapted to different raw material types,

illustrating a good knowledge in the field. Besides, a great part of thetools (points, chisels) illustrate a simplistic development – bipartitionby percussion, with a scarce processing of the active front by abrasion;they may have been selected out of the splinters already obtained whileextracting the bone marrow. This development may have been gener-ated by an ad-hoc use, namely an opportune recovery of the blanksfrom the faunal waste, and then the tools may have been abandoned,after the action for which they had been selected was over. Those toolswere obviously not created by specialists, as the job was at everybody’shand, but the repeated elements of the operational sequence – whichare found within the set – illustrate skill or knowledge that is transmit-

ted from one generation to the next.Within the studied set, the most numerous typological category

is that of chisels (bevelled objects). In literature, numerous tool types

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

Typological categories

Shaping procedures

Surface modification procedures Volume modification procedure

Percussion Abrasion Scraping Perforation

byrotation

Perforationby

percutionSawing

Bone

Bevelled objects + + + - - -

Points - + + - - -

Needles - + + + - -

Processed astragalus - + - + - -

Spatulas - + - + - -

Burins - + - - - -

Scraped bones - - + - - -

Ring - - - - - -

Hammer ? ? ? + - -

Preforms - - - + - -

Blanks and wastes - - - - - -

Undetermined objects - + - - - -

Antler

Bevelled objects + + + + - -

Points + + - + - -

Objects with circular extremity - + - + - -

Handle - - - - - -

Harpoon - - - - - +

Pendant - + - + - +

Preforms + - + + + -

Blanks and wastes - - - - - -

Undetermined objects - + - + + -



28/34

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

Most points, including needles, seem to have been related to do-mestic activities like skin perforation or textile fiber knitting (Campana1989; LeMoine1991); projectile points, which could certainly be in-cluded here, are not present. We think that the different hardness of theprocessed materials is also reflected in the different appearances of the

Fig. 15. Examples of active extremitieswith traces of wear



29/34

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

(Christidou / Legrand 2005).By their extended and fine usage polish (fine chipping or depres-

sions are lacking) (fig. 16/e, f ), spatulas seem to correspond to a func-tionality characterized by a prolonged movement on soft materials,such as skins (Averbouh / Buisson 2003; Raskova Zelinkova 2010).Actually, it was suggested that their manufacturing out of, primarily,longitudinally cut ribs had the purpose of assuring the flexibility ofthe equipment (Tartar 2009). However, other studies suggest the useof those objects in clay pots processing (Struckmeyer 2011). Our ownexperiments on ceramics illustrated, especially for the spatulas withconvex extremity, that they are very useful in homogenization of the

pots surface and in order to remove the excess clay.For the astragal category processed by abrasion, we may posit, as

a first functional hypothesis, a domestic use; the result of intense fric-

Fig. 16. Examples of active extremitieswith traces of wear



30/34

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

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

There have been continual discussions on the functionality of the

bones like the two objects featuring scraping stigmata (Alexandrescu1961; Semenov 1964); no final solutions have been reached so far.Traditionally, the literature called them polishers, as they were usedfor the smoothing of ceramics (Semenov 1964). Another hypothesisspeaks about skin processing, but recent experiments have proved thatthey were rather inefficient for this operation (http://www.palaeo-technik.de/knochenwerkzeug.html). Having no intention of rejectingthese hypotheses, we would like to insist on the details we were able toidentify. The fact is that some of concave faces resulted from a longi-tudinally applied scraping procedure using equipment made of stone.The scraping area is well-defined; the stigmata are very well preserved

and are not removed by the wear which occurred as a result of a pol-ishing process (fig. 6/h). However, we may not ignore the possibility ofthe periodic reshaping when the wear was too obvious. This practice isoften confirmed in some prehistoric artifact categories. Furthermore,we may talk about the possibility of multiple functions, as the impactstigmata on one of the objects correspond to those that are specific tothe pressure flaker for stone objects (fig. 6/i).

Rings, like that from Radovanu, much too small for an adornment,may be associated with the procedures related to manufacturing of

vegetal fiber baskets (Sidera 2000).Traditionally, the literature made a connection between harpoons

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

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



31/34

aid of tools made of hard animal materials, by their implication in ac-tion of wood cutting, splitting wedge, bark processing or vegetal fibersprocessing. In conclusion, we could take a look at the ways in whichthe Eneolithic communities exploited the animal environment in or-der to obtain their hard animal material industry artifacts, and at theway in which these objects are re-integrated in the cycle of use – thistime as a means for exploitation of the environment. Unfortunately,it brings a timely result since it cannot offer a complete picture of thehard animal material industry specific to the Boian culture. The onlycomparable study we can mention is the one on the Boian settlementfrom Isaccea, “Suhat” point (Micu 2004), which highlighted an archae-ological set rather different from the one shown in the present study.The usual types of bone points may be found in both settlements, but,for example, in the Isaccea settlement there are not many chisels madeof bone and antler, other than their preforms, which suggests anothertype of economy. In any case, the technical and cultural traditions spe-cific to the Boian culture cannot be individualized based just on two

archaeological sets. Comparative studies relating these finds to othercontemporary or successive sets would be needed in order to identifythe cultural innovation and continuity processes in time and space.

A

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian NationalAuthority for Scientific Research, CNCS – UEFISCDI, project numberPN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0133.

B

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

Averbouh, A. 2000. Technologie de lamatière osseuse travaillée et implicationspalethnologiques. L’exemple des chaînesd’exploitation du bois de cervidés chezles Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Thèse dedoctorat. Université Paris I.

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

Bajnóczi, B. / Schöll-Barna, G. / Kalicz,

N. / Siklósi, Z. / Hourmouziadis, G. H.

/ Ifantidis, F. / Kyparissi-Apostolika, A.

/ Pappa, M. / Veropoulidou, R. / Ziota,

Ch. 2013. Tracing the source of LateNeolithic Spondylus shell ornaments

by stable isotope geochemistry andcathodoluminescence microscopy. ‒Journal of Archaeological Science 40,874-882.

Bălășescu, A. / Radu, V. 2001. Culesul,pescuitul și vânãtoarea în cultura Boianpe teritoriul României. ‒ Studii dePreistorie 1, 73-94.

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

Bion-Griffin, P. 1997. Technology andVariation in Arrow Design among theAgta of Northeastern Luzon. In: Knecht,H. (ed.). Projectile Technology. NewYork. 267-286.

Buc, N. 2011. Experimental series anduse-wear in bone tools. ‒ Journal ofArchaeological Science 38, 3, 546-557.

Buc, N. / Loponte, D. 2007. Bone ToolTypes and Microwear Patterns: SomeExamples from the Pampa Region,South America. In: Gates St-Pierre, Ch./ Walker, R. B. (eds.). Bones as Tools:

Current Methods and Interpretationsin Worked Bone Studies. BARInternational Series 1622.143-157.

Campana, D. 1989. Natufian andProtoneolithic Bone Tools. TheManufacture and Use of Bone Implementsin the Zagros and the Levant. BARInternational Series 494. Oxford.

Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed.). 1998. Fichestypologiques de l’industrie osseusepréhistorique. Cahier VIII: Biseaux ettranchants. Treignes.

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

Choyke, A. M. 2009. Grandmother’sAwl: Individual and Collective MemoryThrough Material Culture. In: Barbiera,I. / Choyke, A. M. / Rasson, J. A. (eds.).Materializing Memory: ArchaeologicalMaterial Culture and the Semantics ofthe Past. BAR International Series1977.Oxford. 21-40.

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



32/34

Sidera, I. (eds.). Ancient and ModernBone Artefacts from America to Russia.Cultural, technological and functionalsignature. BAR International Series2136. Oxford. 235-248.

Choyke, A. M. / Vretemark, M. / Sten,

S. 2004. Levels of social identity ex-pressed in the refuse and workedbone from the Middle Bronze AgeSzázhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture,Hungary. In: Jones, S. / Day, O. / vanNeer, W. / Ervynck, A. (eds.). BehaviorBehind Bones. The Zooarchaeologyof Ritual, Religion, Status andIdentity. Proceedings of the ICAZ 9thConference, Durham, August 2002.Oxford. 177-189.

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

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

Comșa, E. 1983. La chasse en Oltenieà l’epoque neolithique. ‒ Dacia N.SXXVII, 1-2, 185-192.

Comșa, E. 1974. Istoria comunitățilorculturii Boian. București.

Dobres, M.-A. 2010. Archaeologies oftechnology. ‒ Cambridge Journal ofEconomics 34, 103-114.

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

Gates St Pierre, Ch. 2010. IroquoianBone Artifacts: Characteristics andProblems. In: Legrand-Pineau, A.

/ Sidéra, I. / Buc, N. / David, E. /Scheinsohn, V. (eds.). Ancient andModern Bone Artefacts from Americato Russia. Cultural, Technological and

Functional Signature. BAR InternationalSeries 2136. Oxford. 71-85.

Gijn van, A. L. 2007. The use ofBone and Antler Tools: Two Examplesfrom the Late Mesolithic in the DutchCoastal Zone. In: Gates St-Pierre, C.

/ Walker, R. (eds.). Bones as Tools:Current Methods and Interpretationsin Worked Bone Studies. BARInternational Series 1622. Oxford. 81-92.

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

Korzakova, H. B. 2010. Astragali. In:Kloner, A. / Esher, E. / Korzakova, H.B. / Finkielsztejn, G. (eds.). MareshaExcavations Final Report III. IAA

Reports 45. Israel Antiquities Authority.Israel. 155-156.

Lazăr, C. / Opriș, V. 2012. The Indexof Funerary Discoveries in EarlyEneolithic. In: Lazăr, C. (ed.). TheCatalogue of the Neolithic andEneolithic Funerary Findings fromRomania. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgoviște.71-108.

Legrand, A. 2007. Fabrication et utilisa-

tion de l’outillage en matières osseusesdu Néolithique de Chypre : Khirokitiaet Cap Andreas-Kastros. BARInternational Series 1678. Oxford.

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

LeMoine, G. 1991.ExperimentalAnalysis of the Manufacture and Useof Bone and Antler Tools among theMackenzie Inuit. Ph.D. Dissertation.Department of Archaeology. Universityof Calgary.

Lemonnier, P. 1993. Introduction. In:Lemonnier, P. (ed.). TechnologicalChoices. Transformation in Material

Cultures since the Neolithic. MaterialCultures. Interdisciplinary Studies in theMaterial Construction of Social Worlds.London / New York. 1-35.

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

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

Luik, H. / Maldre, L. 2007. BronzeAge bone artefacts from Narkûnai,Nevieriokë and Kereliai fortified settle-

ments. Raw materials and manufactu-ring technology. ‒ Archeologia Lituana8, 5-39

Maigrot, Y. 2000. Les outils en matièresdures animales utilisés pour le travaildu bois à Chalain station 4 (Neolithiquefinal, Jura). In: Bodu, P. / Constantin,Cl. (dirs.). Approches fonctionnellesen Préhistoire. XXV-ème CongrèsPréhistorique de France. Paris. 67-82.

Maigrot, Y. 2003. Etude technologique etfonctionnelle de l’outillage en matièresdures animales: La station 4 de Chalain(Néolithique final, Jura, France). Thèsede Doctorat. Université Paris I.

Malinowski, B. 1989. Les argonautes duPacifique Occidental. Gallimard. Paris.

Margaris, A. V. 2012. ReconsideringRaw Material Selection SkeletalTechnologies and Design for Durabilityin Subarctic Alaska. ‒ Journal ofArchaeological Method, and Theory19(4).DOI 10.1007/s10816-012-9168-x

Meier, J. 2013. More than Fun andGames? An Experimental Study ofWorked Bone Astragali from TwoMiddle Bronze Age Hungarian Sites. In:Choyke, A. / O’Connor, S. (eds.). FromThese Bare Bones: Raw Materials andthe Study of Worked Osseous Objects.

Oxbow Books. Oxford. 166-173.

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



33/34

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

Miller, M. 2003. Technical Aspectsof Ornament Production at Sitagroi.

In: Elster, E. S. / Renfrew, C. (eds.).Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations inNortheast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2.Los Angeles. 369-382.

Necrasov, O. 1973. Studiul resturilorde faună din așezarea neolitică de laRadovanu, jud. Ilfov. ‒ Materiale 10,39-40.

Pandrea, S. 2000. Câteva observațiireferitoare la periodizarea culturii

Boian. ‒ Istros 10, 35-70.

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

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

Cultural, Technological and FunctionalSignature. BAR International Series2136. Oxford. 191-200

Scheinsohn, V. 2010. The Good, the Badand the Ugly: Prehispanic HarpoonHeads from Beagle Channel, Isla

Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia,Argentina). In: Legrand, A. / Sidera,I. (eds.). Ancient and Modern BoneArtefacts from America to Russia.Cultural, technological and functionalsignature. BAR International Series,2136. Oxford. 295-302.

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

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

Sidera, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques,bêtes sauvages et objets en matièresanimales du Rubané au Michelsberg : del’économie aux symboles, des techniques àla culture. ‒ Gallia Préhistoire 42, 107-194.

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

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

Struckmeyer, K. 2011. The bone toolsfrom the dwelling mound FeddersenWierde, Germany, and their functi-ons. In: Baron, J. / Kufel-Diakowska,

B. (eds.). Written in Bones. Studies ontechnological and social contexts of pastfaunal skeletal remains. UniwersytetWrocławski. Instytut Archeologii.Wrocław. 187-195.

Tartar, E. 2009. De l’os à l’outil.Caractérisation technique, écono-mique et sociale de l’utilisation de l’osà l’Aurignacien ancien. Étude de troissites : l’Abri Castanet (secteurs nord etsud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hyènes

et Abri Dubalen) et Gatzarria. Thèse dedoctora. Université de Paris I.

Todorova, H. 1978. The EneolithicPeriod in Bulgaria in the FifthMillennium B.C. BAR InternationalSeries (Supplementary) 49. Oxford.

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

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

Използване на костен материалза създаване на артефакти

в енеолитно селище наархеологическата култура Боян приРадовану – Ла Мускалу (Румъния)

Моника МЪРГЪРИТ / Кристиан Едуард ЩЕФАН /Валентин ДУМИТРАШКУ

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



34/34

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

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

Monica Mărgărit PhDValahia University of Târgoviște34-36 Lt. Stancu Ion St.

RO-130018 Târgoviș[email protected]

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

Valentin Dumitrașcu PhDInstitute of Archaeology “Vasile Pârvan”

11 Henri Coandă St.RO-010667 Bucureşti [email protected]


margarit et al

Documents