GROUND AND ABRASIVE STONE TOOLS FROM VINICA FORTRESS

ARHEOTEHNOLOGIJA: proučavanje tehnologije od praistorije do srednjeg veka Urednici: Selena Vitezović Dragana Antonović Beograd, 2014 ARCHAEOTECHNOLOGY: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Editors: Selena Vitezović Dragana Antonović Belgrade, 2014 Published by / Izdavač Srpsko arheološko društvo Beograd, Čika-Ljubina 18-20 For the publisher / Za izdavača Dragana Antonović Editors / Urednici Selena Vitezović Dragana Antonović Reviewed by / Recenzenti Markó András (Hungary), Dragana Antonović, Krum Bacvarov (Bulgaria), Jacqueline Balen (Hrvatska), Marija Buzov (Hrvatska), Heidi Luik (Estonia), Ina Miloglav (Hrvatska), Dubravka Nikolić, Ben Roberts (United Kingdom), Perica Špehar Translation and proofreading / Prevod i lektura Ivan Bugarski, Jelena Vitezović, Selena Vitezović and individual authors Graphic layout / Graička oprema Kristijan Relić Cover / Korica Mihajlo Vitezović Printed by / Štampa DC Graički centar Savski nasip 7, 11070 Novi Beograd Print run / Tiraž 100 This book is published with the inancial support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. CONTENTS SADRŽAJ Archaeotechnology: Studying Technology from Prehistory to the Middle Ages (S. Vitezović, D. Antonović) .................................................................. 7 D. Antonović: Examination Methodology for Ground Stone Artefacts ........ 13 M. Lopičić: Wasted Skill: The Chunk Phenomenon ...................................... 29 V. Dimitrovska: Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale ......... 57 D. Antonović: Manufacturing of Stone Axes and Adzes in Vinča Culture ... 77 D. Rajković, T. Hršak, H. Posilović, K. Kos: A Case Analysis of the Operational Sequence for the Production of Polished Stone Tools at the Selci Đakovački – Kaznica–Rutak Site .......................................................... 89 C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, I. A. Bărbat: Bone and Antler Artefacts Dated from Starčevo-Criş Culture from Transylvania, Romania: Recent Discoveries and Microscopic Analyses ................................................................................ 113 D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, C. Ilie: Starčevo-Criş Osseous Materials Industry from Southern Moldova, Romania. The Negrileşti Site, Galaţi County ............................................................................................................. 135 S. Vitezović: Antler as Raw Material in the Starčevo Culture ....................... 151 J. Vuković: Archaeological Evidence of Pottery Forming Sequence: Traces of Manufacture in Late Neolithic Vinča Assemblage ................................... 177 I. Atanasova: Early Eneolithic Figurines from the Site of St. Atanas near V. Spančevo – Kočani: A Study of the Manufacturing Technology .............. 199 V. Bikić: The Study of Pottery Technology in Serbia: First Experiences ...... 221 M. Radivojević, T. Rehren, J. Kuzmanović-Cvetković, M. Jovanović: Why Are There Tin Bronzes in the 5th Millenium BC Balkans? ........................... 235 A. Đuričić: The Construction and Usage of the Neolithic Oven: Experimental Archaeology ............................................................................. 257 G. Jeremić: The Technology of Making Floor Mosaic Substructures in Late Antiquity in Provinces of Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis .............. 277 T. Mihailović: Plana Water Supply – Medieval Technical Enterprise ........... 295 List of Contributors ........................................................................................ 315 ARCHAEOTECHNOLOGY: STUDYING TECHNOLOGY FROM PREHISTORY TO THE MIDDLE AGES Technology is a fascinating material expression of human culture, commonly regarded as an evidence of human triumph over nature. The human past was seen as a constant progress from “primitive” to “technologically advanced”, and even classiied after what is thought to be a dominating technique in a given period (e. g. Childe 1944, see also Greene 2006). Technological innovations were considered the main, if not the only driving forces that shape societies and cultures (cf. Pfaffenberger 1988). Technology, as a conceptual approach to material culture studies, derived from the Greek word τέχνη, meaning skill, implies all human actions upon a matter (Inizan et al. 1995: 13). Everything is technological around us, and this includes not only artefacts, but all structures, buildings, and even nature modiied by human hand (cf. Lemonnier 1992b, Greene 2006). The term technology includes a full range of topics from those related to individual level (body gestures, embodied knowledge in crafting) to social and cultural settings of production. Archaeological studies are indistinguishable from studies of technology; material remains constitute the core of archaeological evidence, regardless of the period, region, methodological approaches or theoretical frameworks, and even studies in beliefs, religion, etc., rely on analyses of diverse artefacts. Artefacts represent our source for “reading” past lives – by studying them, we can make conclusion about people who made them and used them, what their meaning and value were, how they were used, reused and discarded. They may have both functional and symbolic roles, and a special meaning for the society or individuals within it, that may change and/or became more complex over time. During its lifetime, an object can be used in many different contexts and have diverse, even contradictory meanings and values. Objects can also be rare and luxury, or occasional, craft-produced objects, or common, functional, mass-produced industrial objects; furthermore, one class of artefacts may have examples of rare, crafted and mass-produced specimens (cf. Caple 2006, Miller 2007). Ideas from social anthropology had an important inluence on the theoretical advances in studies of technology. The work of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, for example, showed that a complex social structure was invariably relected within objects (cf. Caple 2006). Theories of a French anthropologist Marcel Mauss, who was interested in how culture (as opposed to nature) inluences and shapes human behaviour, are particularly important as well. His starting point was that something generally per- 7–12. Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages ceived as natural (for example, body posture, way of walking, etc.), was in fact cultural. The way a person eats, walks, sleeps, even holds and uses tools, differs, depends on their culture, age and sex. The accent of these studies is on the impact of a group on individuals, their relationships, as well as the questioning of the cultural and the natural in human behaviour (Deliège 2012 [2006]: 82-84, Lévi-Strauss 1982 [1973]: 13-15, cf. also Inizan et al. 1995: 14). A wider concept of technology, which goes beyond artefact analyses, which regards technology as a practice, as ways of doing or making something, which also includes social and cultural components into the studies, is more and more accepted by many researchers. Henry Hodges (1976) distinguished technology from the study of stylistic details of artefacts, implying that technology was about the process of production rather than the endpoint (objects). Ursula Franklin (1992) understood technology as ways of doing something rather than simply ways of making (creating) something (an object), so that there are technologies of prayer and of storytelling as well as of pottery production and weaving, while for Robert Merrill (1977: vi) technology is “the culture surrounding the actions or activities involved in making or doing things”. For M.-A. Dobres and C. Hoffman (1999) technology is “an ever unfolding process”, and their view of technology “stresses the dynamic, ongoing and socially constituted nature of sociotechnical activities” (Dobres & Hoffman 1999: 3). Heather Miller, in her book dealing with archaeological approaches to technology, deined it as a “set of actions and relationships: from production itself, to the organization of the production process, to the entire cultural system of processes and practices associated with production and consumption” (Miller 2007: 4). Furthermore, she deines the production as “the actual process of fabrication or creation, including both the material objects and the techniques and gestures used”, organization of production as “the organizational arrangement within which production takes place”, and the technological system as an active system of interconnections between people and objects during the creation of an object, its distribution, and to some extent its use and disposal. In other words, technology or technological systems can be roughly described as processes and practices associated with production and consumption, from design to discard (Miller 2007: 5). Diverse concepts have been developed, and probably the most important contribution to the study of technology was the work of André Leroi-Gourhan (1964, 1965, 1971), who created the concept of chaîne opéra- 8 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages toire (see also Lemonnier 1992a). This is an analytical tool for studying the mode of creating, using and discarding an artefact, starting with raw material acquisition, mode of manufacture, inal form, use (including caching, breaking and repairing) up to inal discarding, with the main goal of reconstructing the organization of a technological system and of describing and understanding all cultural transformations that a speciic raw material had had to go through. It is a chronological segmentation of actions and mental processes required in the manufacture of an artefact and its maintenance in the technical system of a prehistoric group (Inizan et al. 1995: 14, cf. also Sellet 1993). The concept is not only about reconstructing the algorithmic sequence of operations in creating one object, but it is a complex analysis of operational chain within one society, which includes the analysis of technological choices. The analyses of technologies today include a variety of different approaches, most of them putting the emphasis on cultural and social aspects of technology. Methodology also went through signiicant changes, especially in the ield of interdisciplinary and experimental work. Studies of diverse artefacts, such as stone, lint or metal, cannot be imagined without careful identiication and detailed analyses of raw material origin. Interdisciplinary researches became particularly emphasized by the processual archaeology since the 1960s, and today they constitute an integral part of almost every archaeological research, regardless of the chronological period. They are irreplaceable for the determination of raw material origins and can also contribute to identifying diverse transformative processes certain raw material had undergone. Experimental and ethnoarchaeological studies also constitute a very important segment of technological studies. Although present in archaeological research since its early days (e.g., Martin 1910), they are more diverse, more common and more scientiically based since the mid-20th century. Again, processual archaeology and its demands for scientiic rigor contributed greatly in developing new methods, but the work of soviet archaeologist Sergei A. Semenov has the most prominent place in the history of experimental archaeology, due to the diversity of research questions he dealt with and the wide range of chronological periods and materials he covered (Семенов 1957, 1968, Semenov 1976; cf. Korobkova 2008 for an overview, also Skakun & Longo eds. 2008 for an overview of current research in this ield). Most archaeological technology studies focus on an individual technology – lint knapping, metallurgy, etc. Archaeologists usually classify technologies into “crafts” or “industries” based on material or end-product 9 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages type: clay (pottery) production, metal working, basket making, stone object (lithics) production, woodworking, textile manufacture. Such material groupings are very useful from both the theoretical as well as a practical perspective, however, they may be counterproductive sometimes (cf. Miller 2007), or better put, the study should not end with analyses of a single technology only. Although this is necessary for a deeper understanding of particular technologies, given the complexity of the topics, a wider approach is needed, namely a multiple technologies perspective (Lemonnier 1992b, 1993, see also Inizan et al. 1995). All techniques in a given society refer to one another – they can share the same resources, same knowledge, same tools, same actors. Moreover, some techniques use the products of others, as well as the existence of operational sequences or technical principles in common, creating multiple relations of interdependence, which gives them a systemic character. All technologies have systemic aspects, and we can talk about technological systems in the same way as, for example, ethnologists talk about kinship systems. Technological systems can be analysed on three levels. Firstly, we can discuss how these ive components interact with each other to form a technology. Secondly, if we consider all the technologies of a given society, we can analyse how they are interrelated. And inally, the third level of discussion is the relation between technologies and other social phenomena. Analyses of multiple technologies, therefore, can expand the range of studied cultural phenomena and at the same time provide a better understanding of a given culture and society (Lemonnier 1992b, 1993). *** This book is a result of a session organized at the XXXVI Annual meeting of the Serbian Archaeological Society, held in Novi Sad, from 30th May to 1st June 2013. The aim of the session was to promote the technological perspective on different aspects of material culture and to encourage multiple technology studies. Papers include studies on artefacts from stone (M. Lopičić, D. Antonović, D. Rajković et al., V. Dimitrovska), bone (C. Beldiman et al., D.-M. Sztancs et al., S. Vitezović), clay (I. Atanasova, J. Vuković, V. Bikić) and metal (M. Radivojević et al.), but also include more complex technologies, such as constructions of thermic structures (A. Đuričić), the making of mosaic substructures (G. Jeremić) and water supply systems (T. Mihailović). Also, studies cover a large time span, from Late Palaeolithic/ Mesolithic to the Middle Ages. 10 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages We would like to thank all the participants of the session and the audience as well, the contributors of the book, reviewers, and, last but not least, to Jelena Vitezović and Ivan Bugarski for their help with English translations and proofreading. Selena Vitezović, Dragana Antonović References Childe, G. 1944. Archaeological ages as technological stages. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 74, 1/2: 7–24. Deliège, R.,006. Une histoire de l’anthropologie. Écoles, auteurs, théories. Éditions de Seuil, Paris. (Serbian translation: Istorija antropologije. Škole, pisci, teorije. XX vek, Beograd) Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C. R. 1999. Introduction. In: Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C. R. (Eds.): The Social dynamics of Technology: practice, politics and world views. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press: 1-19. Franklin, U., 1992. The real world of technology. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Massey Lecture Series. Originally published in 1990 by CBC Enterprises. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press Ltd. Greene, K., 2006. Archaeology and technology. In: Bintliff, J. (ed.): A Companion to archeology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford : 155–173. Inizan, M-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1995. Technologie de la pierre taillée. CNRS et Université de Paris, Paris. Korobkova, G., 2008. S. A. Semenov and new perspectives on the experimentaltraceological method. In: Longo, L., Skakun, N. (eds.): ‘Prehistoric technology’ 40 years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy. Archaeopress, Oxford: 3–8. Lemonnier, P., 1992a. Leroi-Gourhan, ethnologue des techniques. Les Nouvelles d’Archéologie, 48/49: 13 –17. Lemonnier, P., 1992b. Elements for and anthropology of technology. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Lemonnier, P., 1993. Introduction. In: P. Lemonier (Ed.): Technological choices: transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. Routdledge, London: 1–35. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964. Le geste et la parole. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Évolution et techniques 1: L’homme et la matière. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1971. Évolution et techniques 2: Milieu et techniques. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris. Longo, L., Skakun, N. (Eds.), 2008. ‘Prehistoric technology’ 40 years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy. Archaeopress, Oxford. Mauss, M. 1973. Sociologie et anthropologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. (Serbian translation: Sociologija i antropologija I. Prosveta, Beograd) 11 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Merill, R. S. 1977. Preface. In: Lechtman, H., Merrill, R. S. (eds.): Material culture: styles, organization and dynamics of technology. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, West Publishing Co., St. Paul: v–vii. Miller, H. M.-L., 2007. Archaeological approaches to technology. Academic Press, Elsevier, Oxford. Pfaffenberger, B., 1988. Festishized objects and humanized nature: toward an anthropology of technology. Man 23: 236–52. Pfaffenberger, B., 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annual review of anthropology, 21: 491 –516. Sellet, F., 1993. Chaîne opératoire: the concept and its applications. Lithic technology 18, 1–2: 106–112. Семенов, С. A., 1957. Первобитная техника. Материалы и исследования по археологии СССР, Но. 54, Издательство АН СССР, Москва, Ленинград. Семенов, С. A., 1968. Развитие техники в каменом веке. Наука, Лениград. Semenov, S. A., 1976. Prehistoric technology. An experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. Barnes and Noble, Wiltshire. 12 GROUND AND ABRASIVE STONE TOOLS FROM VINIČKO KALE Vasilka Dimitrovska Haemus – Center for scientiic research, Skopje, MK Abstract: In this paper will be presented the results of analyses of the stone tools collected from Eneolithic layers from Viničko Kale (Vinica Fortress). Most of these artefacts come from excavations carried out in 2008, but also were included the objects from previous excavations. This is a small collection of tools, however, considering that the number of stone tools coming from Eneolithic period in Macedonica, mainly unpublished or just briely presented, the Viničko Kale collection gave importan, although preliminary data about the petrologic, technologic and typological characteristics of the stone industry in the Eneolithic period. Key words: Eneolithic, Viničko Kale, Macedonia, petrology, technology, typology, ground and abrasive stone tools. Apstrakt: VU ovom radu su predstavljeni rezultati zbirke kamenog oruđa iz eneolitskih slojeva sa lokaliteta Viničko Kale. Radi se o predmetima otkrivenim prilikom iskopavanja 2008. godine, ali su uključeni i ranije otkriveni predmeti, danas smešteni u Gradskom muzeju u Vinici. U pitanju je mala zbirka predmeta, ali, s obzirom na inače mali broj otkrivenih kamenih predmeta iz eneolitskog perioda u Makedoniji, koji su uglavnom nepublikovani ili sumarno predstavljeni, zbirka predmeta sa Viničkog Kalea dala je značajne, mada preliminarne podatke o petrološkim, tehnološkim i tipološkim karakteristikama kamene industrije u eneolitskom periodu. Ključne reči: eneolit, Viničko Kale, Makedonija, petrologija, tehnologija, tipologija, glačano, polirano, abrazivno, oruđe. 57–76. Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Location, excavation and chronology of the site Viničko Kale Viničko Kale is a late antiquity fortiied settlement located in eastern Macedonia, southwest from the town of Vinica (ig. 1). The site was situated on a hill of irregular shape at the altitude of 400 m (Археолошка карта 1996, 87-88) and was discovered during a ield survey (Грбиќ 1954, 115; Гарашанин, Гарашанин 1959, 69). However, despite its importance, the site did not attract attention of researchers before 1978, when the fragments of terracotta reliefs with iconographic representations, previously unknown in the scientiic world, were discovered (Димитрова 1993; Балабанов 1993). Since 1980, Viničko Kale has been a subject of permanent exploring, excavation and publication (Dimitrova 2012). The archaeological excavations at Viničko Kale revealed relative stratigraphy of the site, where Eneolithic period is followed by Bronze and Iron Ages. Hellenistic and Roman periods are well documented, since the fortiication of the fortress originates from 4th–6th century AD. The archaeological excavations in 2008 conirmed that the earliest cultural layer at Viničko Kale belongs to the Eneolithic period. Portable inds include complete and fragmented pottery, igurines, as well as a small assemblage of ground stone and abrasive tools, previously unpublished, which will be presented in this paper. Fig. 1 Location of Viničko Kale in Republic of Macedonia Sl. 1 Položaj Viničkog Kalea u Republici Makedoniji 58 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Petrological determination of the raw material The raw material of all artefacts from the site of Viničko Kale was macroscopically determined.1 Determination included the following categories: rock or mineral type, varieties, colour, structure, texture, mineral composition and possible origin. Raw material used for making ground and abrasive tools from Viničko Kale includes ten different types of rocks: gabro, andesite, diabase, basalt, sandstone, siliciied sandstone, serpentinite, amphibolite, schist, and chalcedony (ig. 2). The geological material that the stone artefacts from Viničko Kale were made of is very heterogeneous, despite the fact that very few artefacts were found in a very small trench. Raw material Gabro Samples 1 Andesite 1 Diabase 7 Basalt Sandstone 1 1 Silicified sandstone 1 Serpentinite 1 Amphibolite 1 Schist Chalcedony 2 2 Total 18 Colour dark green to grey light brown black black light grey grey to brown dark green grey green light to dark grey Structure fine-grained Texture massive Varieties Origin local Type of tool retoucher porphyritic massive coarsegrained local quern fine-grained massive local fine-grained crystalloclastic fine-grained to amorphous fine-grained massive massive local local axe; miscellaneo us Axe/adze!? whetstone massive local whetstone massive local chisel nematoblast ic lepidoblastic amorphous massive to schistose schistose massive local grindstone local local whetstone whetstone finegrained Fig. 2 Raw materials used for production of ground and abrasive stone tools from Fig. 2. Raw materials used for production of ground and abrasive stone tools Viničko Kale from Vinica Fortress Sl.Sl.2 2. Sirovine zaglačano glačanoi abrazivno i abrazivno kameno oruđe sa Viničkog Sirovineupotrebljene upotrebljene za kameno oruđe sa Viničkog Kalea Kalea Gabro Only one specimen made of gabro with a dark green to grey colour was found at Viničko Kale. The rock is of dark green to grey colour, inegrained structure, massive texture and of local origin. 1 Analysis of the raw materials was performed by prof. Dr. Milorad Jovanovski, Faculty of civil engineering, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. 59 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Andesite One sample of coarse-grained variety of andesite in the Viničko Kale assemblage has light brown colour, massive texture and porphyritic structure. It is of local origin and the area where this raw material occurs in abundance which is closest to Viničko Kale is in the Kratovo–Zletovo region. Diabase Seven artefacts were made of almost black ine-grained diabase and its varieties with albite. Diabase is of local origin and it was the stone raw material used most often by the prehistoric habitants at Viničko Kale. Basalt One fragmented artefact was made of black basalt, of ine-grained structure and massive texture. The raw material is of local origin, from the region of Saint Nicholas (east Macedonia), rich in occurrences of basalt. Sandstone The assemblage of Viničko Kale contains only one specimen of sandstone of light grey colour used for production of abrasive tool. It is a ine-grained variety, particularly suitable for grinding tools, of clastic structure and massive texture. The rock is of local origin. This type of sandstone dominates in the lysch of the Vardar Zone. Siliciied sandstone One artefact was made of siliciied sandstone. It is a rock of grey to brown colour, clastic to amorphous structure and massive multi-layered texture. It is a variety of hydrothermal altered sandstone of local origin. Serpentinite Only one specimen of the dark green serpentinite was found in the assemblage. It is of ine-grained structure, massive texture and of local origin. The nearest area around Viničko Kale where the deposits of this raw material are located is by the river of Bregalnica and its springs. The material can be found on the surface in form of small blocks (Dimitrovska 2012, 357). Sepentinite deposits also exist on Mount Bogoslovec, where this rock was used by Neolithic communities at Rug Bair (Dimitrovska, Boev 2011, 39) and Amzabegovo (Smoor 1976, 178–184). 60 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Amphibolite There is only one sample in the assemblage made of grey amphibolite of nematoblastic structure and massive to schistose texture. It is of local origin. Schist Two artefacts were made of green schist. These rocks show schistose texture and lepidoblastic structure. According to its composition two varieties are deined: albite-epidot-chlorite schist and albite-chlorite schist. Both varieties are of local origin. Chalcedony There are two pieces made of light to dark grey chalcedony in the assemblage from Viničko Kale. The stone is semi-transparent, cryptocrystalline to amorphous in structure. Chalcedony is one of the most widely used raw materials by the prehistoric inhabitants of Republic of Macedonia. Chalcedony from Viničko Kale is of local origin deriving from few regions in the eastern part of Macedonia. In the vicinity of the modern mine “Opalite”, where opal, agate, chalcedony and opalised wood are exploited, there are deposits of these minerals known since prehistory (Dimitrovska 2012, 355). The same case is with Kratovo region, where chalcedony abounds around prehistoric sites (Димитровска 2010, 35–36). Viničko Kale stone assemblage The subject of this article is 18 stone tools from the Eneolithic period. They were subdivided in two groups: ground and abrasive stone tools. The basic criteria for the classiication of ground stone tools was technique used in their production (grinding) and for classiication of abrasive tools it was the raw material they were made of (abrasive stone).2 Typological-technological analysis of ground tools from Viničko Kale focuses on all three types of ground-edge tools – axes, adzes and chisels, and four types of abrasive tools – manual grindstones/polishers, whetstones, a big static massive quern and retoucher which could also be used as an upper part of the quern (ig. 3). 2 To synchronize the typology of the artefacts from the Republic of Macedonia with the terminology of surrounding Balkan countries, the works of Antonović 2003 (for ground stone tools) and Antonović 2008 (for abrasive tools) were used. 61 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Type of tool Axe Adze Chisel Proximal part of a ground edge tool Grinding stones Specimens 2 1 1 Complete tools 2 1 1 2 2 Whetstones 5 5 Quern Retoucher Miscellaneous Total 1 1 4 18 1 1 3 16 1 Raw material Diabase Diabase Serpentinite Basalt Amphibolite, sandstone Schist, sandstone, silicified sandstone, chalcedony Andesite Gabro Diabase Fig. 3 Tool types and raw material of ground and abrasive stone artefacts from Fig. 3. Tool types and raw material of Viničko groundKale and abrasive stone artefacts from Vinica Sl. 3 Tipovi oruđa i sirovina za glačano i abrazivno kameno oruđe sa Viničkog Kalea Fortress Sl. 3. Tipovi oruđa i sirovina za glačano i abrazivno kameno oruđe sa Viničkog Kalea Typological-technological analysis of the ground tools from Viničko Kale Adze Only one symmetrically modelled adze (56x35x9mm) with slanting cutting edge, made of black diabase (ig. 4), was determined in the stone assemblage from Viničko Kale. The tool was roughly trimmed, with visible traces of chipping on the dorsal side and polished afterwards. The traces of use at the distal side of the cutting edge point to the usage of the tool as adze. Later during use, one groove for modelling awls and pins was created on the ventral side of the tool (ig.11, 4). This is the only artefact in the collection with clearly deined form which was used in two entirely different operations in the same time, as an adze and grinding stone. Axe Two artefacts at Viničko Kale stone assemblage are determined as axes. One specimen is a symmetrically modelled massive axe of diabase (94х50х32mm) with slightly slanting cutting edge. Complete tool was trimmed by chipping and inished by grinding and polishing (ig.11, 1). Blunted cutting edge has traces of use typical for splintering wood. Accord- 62 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Fig. 4 Adze made of diabase: a. ventral side, b. groove for modeling awls (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 4 Tesla izrađena od diajabaza: a. ventralna strana, b. žleb za oblikovanje šila (snimila V. Dimitrovska) ing to the use-wear analyses (ig. 5a), the tool was used in the process of woodworking as a wedge. The second axe (81x49x24mm) is also made of black diabase (ig.11, 3). It is a inal product, completely polished. This very heavy and massive tool has symmetrically modelled transversal sides and slanted cutting edge. The axe has a deined edge in the distal part with use-wear traces which conirm that the tool was used in the process of woodworking (ig.5b). Fig. 5 Axes made of diabase (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 5 Sekire izrađene od dijabaza (snimila V. Dimitrovska) 63 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Chisel There is only one chisel (44x19x10mm) in Viničko Kale assemblage, made of dark green serpentinite, inely manufactured (ig.11, 2). It is symmetrically modelled, completely polished, without visible traces of previous chipping (ig.6a). Cutting edge bears notable traces of use in the process of woodworking (ig.6b). Fig. 6 Chisel and use-were traces on its the cutting edge (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 6 Dleto i tragovi upotrebe na njegovoj sečici (snimila V. Dimitrovska) Fragment of undeined tool One proximal part of a tool with cutting edge, made of black basalt, does not bear enough information for deining the tool type, i.e. whether it was an axe, adze or chisel. Typological-technological analysis of the abrasive tools from Viničko Kale There are nine abrasive tools in this collection: one manual polisher for pottery, a manual grindstone for bone awls and pins, and ive whetstones, probably also used in production of bone tools. The artefacts are made of raw material of different geological origin. Manual polisher for pottery A small object (66x33x18mm) of triangular shape made of amphibolite can be added to the group of manual polishers used for pottery (ig.7a). The ventral and dorsal sides are well polished as a result of use and some parts are abraded due to the overuse. It is possible that the tool was used for smoothing walls of pottery vessels. 64 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Fig. 7 Abrasive tools: a. polisher for pottery and b. grinding stone (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 7 Abrazivno oruđe: a. glačalica za keramiku i b. glačalica (snimila V. Dimitrovska) Grindstone for bone awls and pins The artefact is made of ine-grained sandstone. The analysis of use-wear traces at the working surface of the artefact shows that the tool was primary used for ine inishing of bone tools, mostly needles and awls (ig.7b). The artefact is classiied primarily as a grindstone, on the basis of its function. The rectangular shape in the form of small tablet (134x54x16 mm) as well as the lat working surface suggest that it could be used as a whetstone (ig. 11, 6). Whetstones There are ive whetstones in the assemblage of Viničko Kale (ig. 7b, 8a; ig. 11, 6–10). They were probably used for ine inishing of bone tools. All three artefacts have a perforation at one end of the tool, suggesting that they were hung probably on the belt. They remind of modern whetstones used by reapers for the sharpening of scythes. One whetstone (ig.11, 8; ig. 8a, 2), made of siliciied sandstone, has elongated square shape (91x15x16mm) and use-were traces all over its working surface. The other two artefacts are made of chalcedony. One (ig.11, 10; ig.8a, 1) is a typical whetstone in the form of small rectangular tablets with thin cross section (108x21x11mm) and lat working surface 65 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages with visible use-were traces. The other (ig.11, 7; ig. 8a, 3) is elongated with rounded cross section (109x18x14mm). Due to the form, it reminds of an amulet, although use-were traces of grinding are visible all over the working surface (ig.9). Two specimens in the collection are made of green schist (ig.11, 9; ig. 8b). These artefacts (130x28x16mm; 146x36x23mm) have interesting and nice elongated shape resembling to retoucher, but both artefacts have traces of use on the surface typical for grinders and whetstones. Fig. 8 Whetstones: a. with perforation, made of chalcedony (1, 3) and siliciied sandstone (2); b. whetstones made of schist (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 8 Brusevi: a. sa perforacijom, izrađeni od kalcedona (1, 3) i siliikovanog peščara (2); b. brusevi izrađeni od škriljca (snimila V. Dimitrovska) Quern There is only one massive quern made of andesite in the Viničko Kale assemblage (440x130x60 mm). The artefact is manufactured irstly by chipping and then by chiselling. In the middle of the quern there is a slightly concave working surface resulting from use (ig.10a). It is supposed that it was used for milling grains because traces of pigments and ceramics were not found at the working surface. Retoucher Only one stone specimen from Viničko Kale was attributed to this group, mostly on the basis of traces of use (ig. 11, 5). It is originally a lat 66 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Fig. 9 Use-wear traces on whetstones (photo by V. Dimitrovska): a whetstone of siliciied sandstone (ig. 8a, 2; ig. 11, ig.11, 8), b. whetstone of chalcedony (ig. 8a, 1; ig. 11, ig. 11, 10), c. whetstone of schist (ig. 8b; ig. 11, 9), d. whetstone of sandstone (ig. 7b, ig. 11, 6) Sl. 9 Tragovi upotrebe na brusevima (snimila V. Dimitirovska): a. brus od siliikovanog peščara (sl. 8a, 2; sl. 11, 8), b. brus od kalcedona (sl. 8a, 1; sl. 11, 10), c. brus od škriljca (sl. 8b; sl. 11, 9), d. brus od peščara (sl. 7b; sl. 11, 6) pebble of black gabro of natural shape (63x83x27mm) with a lateral side used as a retoucher (ig. 10b). It its perfectly in the hand. Use-were traces characteristic for retoucher are visible in the upper part of a transversal side as well. Miscellaneous The miscellaneous category contains specimens that can’t be deined on the basis of morphological features. It includes several elongated pebbles of diabase that resemble in form to retoucher, but without traces of use on its surfaces. Hence their use by the inhabitants of the Eneolithic settlement at Viničko Kale remains unknown. We have to take in consideration the fact that prehistoric men probably possessed many new unused things, i.e. had a lot of spare tools. Probably these pieces of raw material were collected and brought to settlement to be formed in a tool, but they had never been used. 67 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Fig. 10 Quern (left) and retoucher (right), which could be used as an upper part of the quern (photo by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 10 Žrvanj (levo) i retušer (desno), koji je mogao biti upotrebljen kao gornji deo žrvnja (snimila V. Dimitrovska) Chronology Some of the researchers of the prehistoric site at Viničko Kale suggested the possibility of the presence of a Neolithic horizon, however, so far such a hypothesis was not conirmed beyond any doubt by archaeological inds from the site.3 Without doubt, axes and adzes found during excavations in 2008 campaign are dated to Eneolithic, although they have a form typical for Neolithic tools. Most of the stone artefacts in this assemblage derive from the Eneolithic layer of the site in Viničko Kale.4 Finding circumstances of the chisel are unclear, but we can assume the prehistoric provenance of the tool, possible Eneolithic or maybe Bronze Age, considering the typology and technology of the artefact. Grinding stones have the same appearance from the Neolithic onwards and they were used almost without changes until Roman times. But one specimen in the collection made of siliciied sandstone was not used, and the lack of ield notes without archaeological context could date this tool between Bronze, i.e. Iron Age and Roman period of the settlement. The massive quern is very similar to those represented at the Egyptian wall paintings of the Late Dynastic period, not only by its shape, but also by modelling technique. The form of the quern is related to Late Eneolithic, suggesting its metal ages provenance. Since the archaeological context of previous excavations is uncertain because of the lack of ield docu3 Information from Magdalena Manaskova, custodian in Municipal Museum of Vinica. 4 All stone artefacts analysed in this paper come from the Eneolithic layer. For those discovered in excavations before 2007, i.e. before the founding of the Municipal museum in Vinica, ind circumstances are unknown because of the lack of documentation. However, after the types of tools and raw material, it was assumed that they are all of Eneolithic provenance. 68 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale mentation, the artefact can be dated, with much reserve, in the span from Metal Ages to Roman times. Fig. 11 Stone tools from Viničko Kale: 1, 3. axes, 2. chisel, 4. adze, 5. retoucher, 6. grindstone, 7–10. whetstones (drawing by V. Dimitrovska) Sl. 11 Kameno oruđe sa Viničkog Kalea: 1, 3. sekire, 2. dleto, 4. tesla, 5. retušer, 6. glačalica, 7–10. brusevi (crtež V. Dimitrovske) 69 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Discussion and conclusion Besides Viničko Kale, several other Eneolithic sites along the Bregalnica River have been explored. Among them are Burilčevo (Nasteva 1989: 49, Sanev 1961), Bogoslov Kamen (Нацев 2009, 5), Grad–Delčevo (Колиштркоска Настева 2006, 38–53), St. Atanas (Атанасова 2010, 9–14. Атанасова 2012) and Cocev Kamen (Димитровска 2010). Stone tools from Eneolithic are also conirmed by ield survey at the sites of Kaleničarka (Kratovo), Baltačko Malo (Vinica) and in Vladimirovo village (Димитровска 2011, 2–3). Ground and abrasive tools from these sites have not been the topic of any scientiic analysis as yet. Macroscopical petrologic analysis conirmed that stone artefacts from Viničko Kale are made of local raw material that could have been collected from primary and secondary deposits near or in the wider surroundings of the site. Viničko Kale is located on the outskirts of Kratovo–Zletovo area. This area is very important for the prehistory of the Republic of Macedonia, since it is a region rich in minerals and rocks (especially those of volcanic origin), suitable for obtaining all kinds of stone tools. Also, these resources for stone tools were available to inhabitants of Eastern Macedonia and beyond during the proto- and historical period. The analysis of material from some Neolithic sites between Kratovo–Zletovo area and the river Bregalnica, conirmed the use of local resources for stone tools. After comparison of Neolithic stone assemblages from Rug Bair (Димитровска 2013; Dimitrovska, Boev 2012, 37–52) and Amzabegovo (Smoor 1976, 178–184; Waide 1976, 279–282), two sites very close to Viničko Kale, it is possible to recognize the use of a similar repertoire of raw material for ground stone and abrasive tools, which is relected both in technology and typology of artefacts from Viničko Kale. The analysis of ground and abrasive stone tools found at Viničko Kale conirmed the existence of a whole range of implements, as well as the raw material. The collection of 18 artefacts consists of four ground stone tools, eight abrasive tools and four miscellaneous pieces without speciic morphology. The selection of raw material was determined by usage of tools: for chisels – serpentinite was used, for axes and adzes local diabase, for grindstones and whetstones sandstone, amphibolite, schist, siliciied sandstone and chalcedony, for retoucher gabro and for the quern andesite. Concerning technology, the complete tools reveal very advanced technology of manufacture. Most of the ground edge tools were chipped and then polished without any traces of previous chipping. Because of its 70 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale abrasive properties and types of material they were made of, the abrasive tools found at the stone assemblages are usually fragmented. This is not the case with the tools from Viničko Kale, where we can ind almost all abrasive tools complete. Regarding the typological and functional analysis of the specimens, the ground stone collection consists of six artefacts: two axes, two adzes, one chisel and a fragmented part of an axe or adze. The abrasive stone collection consists of eight artefacts: one quern, one retoucher, six grindstones and whetstones and four miscellaneous objects. The study of ground and abrasive stone industry in the archaeology of the Republic of Macedonia is a relatively new discipline. The Eneolithic stone industry did not attract the interest of local researchers so far and stone tools have not been analysed in details yet. We expect a more thorough picture regarding the raw material, technical and typological characteristics of stone industry during the Eneolithic period to be gained. Acknowledgements I would like to thank to Selena Vitezović and Dragana Antonović for the invitation to participate in the XXXVI Annual meeting of the Serbian Archaeological Society. Also, I would like to thank the Municipal Museum of Vinica for providing the material from the excavation of the site at Viničko Kale. References Antonović, D. 2003. Neolitska industrija glačanog kamena u Srbiji. Beograd: Arheološki institut. Антоновић, Д. 2008. Абразивно оруђе у неолиту Србије. Гласник Српског археолошког друштва 24: 339–251. Археолошка карта 1996. Археолошка карта на Република Македонија, Том 2., ур. Ц. Грозданов, К. Димче, Скопје: Македонска академија на науките и уметностите. Атанасова, И. 2010. Култната пластика од енеолитското наоѓалиште Св. Атанас – с. Спанчево, Кочанско. Кочани, Библиотека ‘Искра’ – Кочани. Атанасова, И. 2012. Свети Атанас, енеолитско светилиште кај село Спанчево кочанско. Кочани, Библиотека ‘Искра’ – Кочани. Балабанов, К. 1993. Теракотните икони од Виница, Скопје. Грбиќ, М. 1954. Археолошки наоѓалишта во Македонија. Гласник на МузејскоКонзерваторското Друштво на НР Македонија I–9. Скопје: 115. Гарашанин, М., Гарашанин, Д. 1959. Археолошке белешке са рекогносцирања у Источној Македонии, Завод на Штипскиот Народен Музеј I. Штип: 69. Димитрова, Е. 1993. Керамичките релјефи од Виничко Кале. Скопје. 71 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages Димитрова, Е. 2013. Виничката мистерија, Керамичка ризница од доцноантичкото кале. Виница: Музеј „Теракота” Виница. Димитровска, В. 2010. Цоцев камен, нешто повеќе од само обична карпа, Културен живот 1–2: 30–37. Димитровска, В. 2011. Културен сегмент од енеолитскиот период на Источна Македонија, Музеј ‘Теракота’ Виница, Kаталог од изложба: 2–3. Dimitrovska, V. 2012. The system of local supply of stone tools in AmzabegovoVršnik culture from Neolithic Macedonia. Documenta Praehistorica, XXXIX. Ljubljana: 353–360. Димитровска, В. 2013, Камена индустрија са неолитског локалитета Руг Баир, Скопје: ХАЕМУС. Dimitrovska, V., Boev, B. 2012. Petrologic, Morphologic and Functional Analysis of Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Rug Bair, Ovče Pole Valley, Geologica Macedonica Vol. 25. No. 1 (2011): 37–52. Колиштркоска Настева, И. 2006. Енеолитско наоѓалиште во делчевско. Macedoniae Acta archaeologica 17, Скопје: 38–53. Нацев, Т. 2009. Археолошки локалитет Грнчарица, с. Крупиште. ‘Трите Керамитки - резултати од заштитните археолошки истражувања Злетовица 2007–2009’ (каталог). Штип. Nasteva, I. 1989. Pilavo-Burilcevo, eneolitska i helenisticka naselba, Arheološki pregled 28. Ljubljana: 49. Санев, В. 1961. Извештај од археолошките рекогносцирања во Источна Македонија, Зборник на Народниот музеј за штипскиот крај II, Штип. Smoor, J. B., 1976. Polished stone tools, in: M. Gimbutas (ed.) Neolithic Macedonia: As relected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia, Los Angeles, University of California: 178–184. Waide, W. 1976. Source areas of lithic materials, in: M. Gimbutas (ed.) Neolithic Macedonia: As relected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia, Los Angeles, University of California: 279–282. 72 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Vasilka Dimitrovska HAEMUS - Centar za naučno istražuvanje i promocija na kultura, Skopje, MK GLAČANE KAMENE ALATKE I ABRAZIVNO ORUĐE SA LOKALITETA VINIČKO KALE Viničko Kale je ranoantičko utvrđeno naselje u istočnoj Makedoniji, jugozapadno od grada Vinica, smešteno na uzvišenju nepravilnog oblika, na 400 m nadmorske visine. I pored toga što je još prilikom rekognosciranja ustanovljeno da je reč o značajnom lokalitetu, istražuje se tek od 1978. godine. Od 1980. godine do sada ovaj lokalitet je predmet sistematskih istraživanja, iskopavanja i publikovanja. Na samom početku arheoloških iskopavanja nađeni su fragmenti reljefa od terakote sa ikonografskim prikazima do tada nepoznatim u nauci, po čemu je ovaj lokalitet postao poznat u svetskim razmerama. Arheološkim iskopavanjima utvrđena je relativna stratigraija naselja na Viničkom Kaleu koje nastaje u eneolitu, a na ovaj najstariji sloj sukcesivno se nadovezuju slojevi bronzanog i gvozdenog doba. Helenistički i rimski period su isto tako dobro dokmentovani, dok sama tvrđava potiče iz kasnoantičkog perioda (IV – VI vek). Tokom arheoloških iskopavanja 2008. godine eneolit je potvrđen kao najraniji horizont življenja. U sloju je nađen veliki broj celih i fragmentovanih keramičkih sudova, kao i igurine i kamene alatke. Zato je zbirka glačanog i abrazivnog oruđa, ukupno osamnaest primeraka pronađenih u eneolitskom sloju, koja do sada nije naučno publikovana, glavna tema ovog rada. Analizom kamenog materijala određene su petrološke, tehnološke i tipološke karakteristike kamene industrije. Rezultati su preliminarni, s obzirom na to da je istražen samo mali deo lokaliteta na kome je otkriveno eneolitsko naselje. U radu su prikazane i one kamene alatke sa Viničkog Kalea za koje ne postoji potrebna terenska dokumentacija, ali se pretpostavlja da potiču iz praistorijskih slojeva. Petrografska analiza sirovinskog materijala upotrebljenog za pravljenje alatki od glačanog i abrazivnog kamenog oruđa pokazala je upotrebu deset različitih vrsta kamena: gabro, andezit, dijabaz, bazalt, peščar, siliikovani peščar, serpentinit, amibolit, škriljac i kalcedon. Makroskopskom odredbom od strane geologa deinisani su tip stene ili minerala, varijetet, boja, struktura, tekstura, mineralni sastav i moguće poreklo. Geološki ma- 73 Archaeotechnology: studying technology from prehistory to the Middle Ages terijal od koga su napravljene kamene alatke sa Viničkog Kalea je prilično raznovrstan, ali je svakako i ograničen malim obimom do sada arheološki istražene površine. Rezultati pokazuju da je poreklo sirovina lokalno. One su bile prikupljane iz primarnih i sekundarnih ležišta u okolini Vinice, tačnije u kratovsko-zletovskoj oblasti. Ovaj region je poznat po izobilju minerala i stena, posebno onih vulkanskog porekla koje su pogodne za pravljenje kamenih alatki. Izbor sirovina za eneolitsko oruđe sa ovog lokaliteta je bio povezan sa njihovom upotrebom: za dleto je bio upotrebljen serpentinit, a za tesle i sekire dijabaz. Peščar, škriljac, amibolit i siliikovani peščar su bili korišćeni za pravljenje glačalica i bruseva, gabro za retušer, a za žrvnjeve andezit. Kameni artefakati obrađeni u ovom radu su podeljeni u dve grupe: glačano i abrazivno oruđe. Osnovni kriterijum za ovu podelu bili su tehnika izrade za predmete od glačanog kamena (glačanje), nasuprot sirovini po kojoj je izvršena klasiikacija abrazivnog oruđa (kamen s abrazivnim svojstvom). Tipološko-tehnološka analiza potvrdila je raznovrsnost oruđa koja se ogleda u pet alatki od glačanog kamena i osam primeraka abrazivnog oruđa. U zbirci se nalaze i četiri kamena predmeta koji nisu bili opredeljeni ni u jednu kategoriju zbog odsustva morfoloških i tehnoloških karakteristika, kao i nedostatka tragova upotrebe. U alatke od glačanog kamena svrstane su dve sekire, tesla i dleto, kao i jedan proksimalni deo artefakta sa sečicom. Abrazivno oruđe čine ručne glačalice/polišeri, brusevi, retušer i masivni žrvanj. Obrada kamenog oruđa svedoči o visokom tehnološkom nivou. Najveći broj alatki je prvo bio okresan, a potom su svoj oblik dobili dodatnim iskucavanjem i poliranjem tako da se na njihovim površinima više ne prepoznaju tragovi pretodnih obrada. Zbog svojih abrazivnih svojstava i načina upotrebe, uobičajeno je da se abrazivno oruđe u zbirkama najčešće nalazi fragmentovano. Ovo nije slučaj sa zbirkom sa Vinčkog Kalea gde je ovaj tip alatki najčešće očuvan u celini. Pored Viničkog Kalea, uz korito reke Bregalnice u istočnoj Makedoniji, arheološkim istraživanjima je potvrđeno prisustvo kamenih artefakata na lokalitetima iz eneolitskog perioda kao što su Burilčevo, Bogoslov Kamen, Grad–Delčevo, Sv. Atanas–Spančevo i Cocev kamen. Rekognosciranjem su, isto tako, potvrđene kamene alatke iz eneolita na lokalitetima Kaleničarka (Kratovo), Baltačko Maalo (Vinica) i lokalitet u selu Vladimirovo. Ove alatke od glačanog kamena i abrazivno oruđe iz eneolita do sada nisu bili predmet detaljne naučne analize, ali na osnovu sirovinskog materijala, tehnici izrade i tipologiji, primećuje se velika sličnost sa zbirkom kamenih predmeta iz eneolitskog sloja na Viničkom Kaleu. 74 V. Dimitrovska Ground and Abrasive Stone Tools from Viničko Kale Kamene alatke iz eneolitskog perioda u Republici Makedoniji do sada nisu detaljno analizirane, a proučavanje glačanog i abrazivnog kamenog oruđa je relativno nova disciplina u makedonskoj arheologiji. Nadamo se da će se u budućnosti dobiti konkretniji rezultati koji se odnose na njihovu petrološku, tehnološku i tipološku kategorizaciju, što bi omogućilo povlačenje paralele i komparacije sa istovremenim zbirkama kamenih nalaza u Makedoniji, na Balkanu i šire. 75 CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 903/904:005.745(4-12)(082) 902.3(4-12)(082) ARCHAEOTECHNOLOGY: Studying Technology from Prehistory to the Middle Ages / urednici Selena Vitezović, Dragana Antonović; [prevod, translation Ivan Bugarski, Jelena Vitezović, Selena Vitezović]. Beograd : Srpsko arheološko društvo, 2014 (Beograd : DC graički centar). - 316 str. : ilustr. ; 25 cm Na spor. nasl. str.: Arheotehnologija. Tiraž 100. - Bibliograija uz svaki rad. ISBN 978-86-913229-7-7 1. Витезовић, Селена [уредник] 2. Антоновић, Драгана [уредник] a) Археолошка истраживања - Методологија - Југоисточна Европа - Зборници b) Археолошки налази - Оруђа - Југоисточна Европа - Зборници COBISS.SR-ID 209433356