THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu
Invest in people! • PROJECT FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND ID project: 7606 • Title of the project: “The increase of the PhD studies role and of PhD candidates competitiveness in an United Europe” • “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu 10, Victoriei Avenue Sibiu
THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH, YOUTH AND SPORTS “LUCIAN BLAGA” UNIVERSITY OF SIBIU “NICOLAE LUPU” FACULTY OF HISTORY AND PATRIMONY Domain: HISTORY
THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE
PhD Thesis
SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR: Professor SABIN ADRIAN LUCA, PhD.
PhD CANDIDATE: DIANA-MARIA SZTANCS
SIBIU 2011
1 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Universitatea Lucian Blaga Sibiu
Invest in people! • PROJECT FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND ID project: 7606 • The title of the project: “The increase of the PhD studies role and of PhD candidates competitiveness in an Unite Europe” • “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu 10, Victoriei Avenue Sibiu
THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH, YOUTH AND SPORTS “LUCIAN BLAGA” UNIVERSITY OF SIBIU “NICOLAE LUPU” FACULTY OF HISTORY AND PATRIMONY Domain: HISTORY
PhD COMMISSION: Appointed by the Rector of “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu Order No. 94/27th of September 2011
∗
PRESIDENT:
Assistant Professor SORIN RADU, PhD.
∗
SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR:
Professor SABIN ADRIAN LUCA, PhD.
∗
REVIEWERS:
Professor GHEORGHE LAZAROVICI, PhD. Professor MARIN CÂRCIUMARU, PhD. Professor NICOLAE URSULESCU, PhD.
2 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
CONTENTS
Introduction 8
1st Chapter. The Natural environment of Transylvania 13
1. Mountains and Depressions 15 1.1. The Ciuc Mountains 15 1.2. The Ciuc Depression 15 1.3. The Baraolt Depression 15 1.4. The Baraolt Mountains 16 1.5. The Southern Carpathians 16 1.6. The Retezat Mountains 16 1.7. The Godeanu and Ţarcu Mountains 17 1.8. The Parâng Mountains 17 1.9. The Şureanu (or Sebeş) Mountains 17 1.10. The Sibiu Mountains 17 1.11. The Făgăraş Mountains 18 1.12. The Western Romanian Carpathians 18 1.13. The Apuseni Mountains 19 1.14. The Bihor – Vlădeasa Mountains 19 1.15. The Gilău – Muntele Mare Mountains 20 1.16. The Metaliferi Mountains 20 1.17. The Mureş (Zarand, Metaliferi, Trascău) Mountains 20 1.18. The Poiana Ruscă Mountains 21 1.19. The Petroşani and Haţeg Depressions 21 2. Plateaus and Hills 21 2.1. Transylvanian Plateau 21 2.2. Transylvanian Subcarpathian Hills 22 2.3. Western Romanian Hills 22 2.4. Mureş Corridor 23 3. Plains 23 3.1. Transylvanian Plain 23 3.2. Western Romanian Plain 23 4. Climate 24 5. Hydrographical network 24 5.1. Rivers 25 5.2. Lakes 25 6. Soils 26
3 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
7. Vegetation 27 8. Fauna 30 9. Natural resources 31 10. Data regarding the Transylvanian palaeoenvironment in the Holocene period 32 10.1. Plants in Neo-Aeneolithic 36
2nd Chapter. The Neo-Aeneolithic chronology in Transylvania 38
1. The Neolithic 39 1.1. The Early Neolithic 40 Starčevo-Criş Culture 40 1.2. The Developed Neolithic 43 Vinča Culture (A and B phases) 43 Linear Pottery Culture. 44 Cluj – Cheile Turzii – Lumea Nouă – Iclod Cultural Complex 45 2. The Aeneolithic 45 2.1. The Early Aeneolithic 45 Turdaş Culture 45 Foeni-Mintia Cultural Group 46 Petreşti Culture 47 Iclod Cultural Group 47 Tiszapolgár Culture 48 2.2. The Developed Aeneolithic 48 Decea Mureş Cultural Group 48 Bodrogkeresztúr Culture 48 Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Tripolie Cultural Complex 49 2.3. The Final Aeneolithic 50 Baden Culture 50 Coţofeni Culture 51 3. Hypothesis regarding the end of Aeneolithic in Transylvania 55
3rd Chapter. Osseous animal materials 57
1. Bone 59 2. Antler 62 3. Teeth 65 4. Shells 68
4 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
4th Chapter. Considerations regarding the Neo-Aeneolithic animal husbandry and hunting/fishing/gathering in Transylvania 70
1. The Early Neolithic 72 2. The Developed Neolithic 76 3. The Early Aeneolithic 77 4. The Developed Aeneolithic 80 5. The Final Aeneolithic 80
5th Chapter. The History of the research regarding the Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry from Transylvania 82
1. The Early period 83 2. The period of the first archaeological synthesis 87 3. The period of the great archaeological synthesis 89 4. The period of interdisciplinary research 93
6th Chapter. Methodological considerations regarding the osseous materials industry 100
1. Objectives of the study 100 2. Manufacture of the osseous materials artefacts 108 3. Stages of the study 112 3.1. Defining the extremities 112 3.2. Analytical fiche 112 3.3. Typological classification 117 3.4. Technical study. Raw materials identification 118 3.5. Manufacturing chain 120 3.6. Use-wear traces 122 3.7. Graphic representation 125
7th Chapter. Repertory 127
Alba County 128 1. Aiud – „Cetăţuia” 130 2. Alba Iulia – „Lumea Nouă” 132 3. Căpud – „Măgura Căpudului” 136 4. Câlnic – „În Vii” 138 5. Câlnic – „Dealul Mare” 140 6. Daia Română – „Părăuţ” 146
5 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
7. Decea Mureşului – „Nord de localitate” 147 8. Limba – „Bordane” 156 9. Limba – „În Coastă” 169 10. Mihalţ – „Măticuţa” 170 11. Pianu de Jos – „Podei” 171 12. Răhău – „Dealul Şipotelor” 178 13. Sebeş – „Râpa Roşie” . 180 14. Şeuşa – „Gorgan” 181 15. Şeuşa – „La Cărarea Morii” 216 16. Tărtăria – „Gura Luncii” 227 17. Zlatna – „Colţul lui Blaj” 246 Arad County 248 1. Arad – Str. Voievod Moga 250 2. Pecica – „Forgaci” 255 3. Sântana – „Holumb” 257 Bihor County 259 1. Sighiştel – „Peştera nr. 1 din Dâmbul Colibii” 261 2. Valea lui Mihai – „Grădina nr. 942” 262 Cluj County 267 1. Cluj-Napoca – Gura Baciului 269 Covasna County 292 1. Ariuşd – „Dealul Tyiszk” 294 2. Leţ – „Várhegy” 345 3. Malnaş-Băi – „Füvenyestető” 353 4. Olteni –„În Dosul Cetăţii” 356 5. Sfântu Gheorghe – „Bédeháza” 369 Harghita County 370 Păuleni Ciuc – „Dâmbul Cetăţii” 372 Hunedoara County 408 1. Boholt – „Ciuta” 410 2. Cerişor – „Peştera Cauce” 410 3. Deva – „Ciangăi” 444 4. Ohaba Ponor – „Peştera din Bordul Mare” 444 5. Romos – „La Făgădău” 447 6. Silvaşu de Jos 449 7. Turdaş – „Luncă” 449 Sălaj County 459 1. Zăuan – „Dâlma Cimitirului” 461 Sibiu County 465
6 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
1. Boarta – „Cetate” 467 2. Miercurea Sibiului – „Petriş” 469 3. Ocna Sibiului – „Faţa Vacilor” 520 4. Ocna Sibiului – „Triguri” 525 5. Păuca – „Homm” 541
8th Chapter. Database of Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry 545
1. Consideration regarding the database. Archaeology and Informatics 546 2. Structure of the database of the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry. Queries 552
9th Chapter. Typology of the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry 564
1. Typological categories 565 1.1. I. Tools Typological category 565 1.2. II. Weapons Typological category 566 1.3. III. Adornments Typological category 567 1.4. IV. Hafts Typological category 567 1.5. V. Varia Typological category 568 2. Typological structure and cultural distribution 568 2.1. Starčevo-Criş Culture 568 2.2. Vinča Culture 571 2.3. Turdaş Culture 573 2.4. Foeni Cultural Group 574 2.5. Petreşti Culture 574 2.6. Ariuşd-Cucuteni Culture 578 2.7. Tiszapolgár Culture 582 2.8. Decea Mureşului Culture 583 2.9. Coţofeni Culture 584 3. The Typological List of osseous materials industry of Romania. Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic types 587 4. Elements of absolute chronology in the context of Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry 600 5. Analogies for Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic types 609
10th Chapter. Technical study of Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry 620
1. General considerations 620
7 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
2. Raw materials 622 3. Raw materials distribution in Neo-Aeneolithic cultures 628 3.1. Starčevo-Criş Culture 628 3.2. Vinča Culture 630 3.3. Turdaş Culture 630 3.4. Ariuşd-Cucuteni Culture 631 3.5. Coţofeni Culture 634 4. Débitage. Shaping. Use-wear traces 635 5. Technological parameters for osseous materials industry in Neo-Aeneolithic cultures from Transylvania 638 5.1. Analysis of technological parameters for the Starčevo-Criş culture 638 5.2. Analysis of technological parameters for the Vinča culture 641 5.3. Analysis of technological parameters for the Turdaş culture 642 5.4. Analysis of technological parameters for the Petreşti culture 644 5.5. Analysis of technological parameters for the Ariuşd-Cucuteni culture 645 5.6. Analysis of technological parameters for the Tiszapolgár culture 649 5.7. Analysis of technological parameters for Coţofeni culture 649
Conclusions. Data regarding the palaeoeconomy. Progress and desideratum 652
1. Methodological aspects 652 2. Repertory. Database 653 3. Contributions regarding the development of the Romanian Prehistoric Typological List 657 4. Paleotechnological aspects 659 5. Data regarding the palaeoeconomy 660 6. Osseous materials industry – Images 662 7. First synthetic, regional approach of Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry from Romania 663 8. Epilogue. Progress and desideratum 664
Literature 665 List of abbreviations 706 List of tables 710 List of drawings 714 List of figures 719 Figures 733
8 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE
PhD Thesis
Abstract
PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Romanian research of the Neo-Aeneolithic period, the osseous materials industry Inwas, until recently, a secondary domain. This was very often neglected by the Romanian archaeologists and the osseous materials artefacts were considered “small finds”. The thesis, “Osseous materials industry in Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic”, is the first regional approach of the Neo-Aeneolithic skeletal artefacts from intra-Carpathic area. Besides ceramics and the other Prehistoric industries, this type of artefacts brings important contributions regarding the environmental exploitation in the studied period. The thesis has 913 pages and its structure includes the introduction, ten chapters, the conclusions, the literature, various lists, tables, charts, figures, and plates.
The natural environment
The analysed materials were recovered from the Romanian Carpathian Basin which includes three historical regions: Ardeal, Crişana and Maramureş. The area is placed in the central and western part of Romania, being bordered by the Eastern and Southern Romanian Carpathians; in the north and west there are conventional borders represented by Romania’s frontiers with Ukraine and Hungary. Despite of the geomorphologic diversity (reflected in the aspect of territory), the Transylvanian natural landscape has a unitary character. From a palaeoenvironmental point of view, the Neo-Aeneolithic appears and develops during Atlantic (Neolithic) and Subboreal period (Aeneolithic). In the Neolithic period there was the first climate optimum in the Atlantic period (CÂRCIUMARU 1999, 142). The temperatures registered then were higher than in the Preboreal period, with wet nuances. However, during the Aeneolithic, in the Subboreal period, a dryer and less warm climate appeared installed. The evolution of the palaeoenvironment determined specific economic activities, like: agriculture, the emergence of specific species adapted at a certain type of climate, the husbandry of certain species etc.
9 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Chronology of the Neo-Aeneolithic
On this occasion we chose to use the terms “Neolithic” and “Aeneolithic” or “Neo- Aeneolithic” in order to define the period between 7100 – 4000 BP. Starčevo-Criş and Coţofeni cultures are the bounds that delimit the analysed period. The recent approaches of the Copper Age/Aeneolithic determined us to include the Coţofeni culture in the Transylvanian Final Aeneolithic as a necessity of rally to the Central European chronology. The radiocarbon data obtained for the Transylvanian Coţofeni communities sustain the contemporary with the Late Copper Age communities from the Carpathian Basin. Regarding the period between the 3rd phase of Vinča culture (Vinča C) and the cultural groups specific to the Transylvanian Early Bronze Age (Livezile, Şoimuş, Iernut, Copăceni), in the Romanian archaeological literature, the following terms have been used: Aeneolithic, Chalcolithic, Transition period at the Bronze Age, and more recently, The Copper Age. We consider that “Aeneolithic” and “Copper Age” are the most suitable terms in order to name the above mentioned period (CIUGUDEAN 2000; HORVÁTH, VIRÁG 2003, 127; LAZAROVICI, LAZAROVICI 2006; LUCA 2006d; DIACONESCU 2009, 25; LUCA 2009a; URSULESCU, TENCARIU 2009) in which, as it was recently stated, some changes occurred in the Tisza River Basin. These changes allowed the human communities “to abandon the tell type settlements, to start the intensive animal keeping, to separate settlements from necropolises, to stop decorating the pottery by painting and now we assist at the floruit period for the massive copper axes” (DIACONESCU 2009, 26 – 27). We consider that the phrase “the transition period” is more relevant for the history of the archaeological research than for a modern, present approach of the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic chronology. As for the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic, more chronological systems elaborated in the attempt of emphasising the existence of the two important periods: the Neolithic and the Aeneolithic/the Copper Age. It was postulated that there was a late phase of the Neolithic (LAZAROVICI, LAZAROVICI 2006, 1 – 10; SUCIU 2009, 25 – 26). This coincides with the penetration of Vinča C communities in intra-Carpathian space. The new southern wave comes with a series of changes at the level of the local communities. This fact determined the researchers to state that together with these changes we are dealing with the Aeneolithic/Copper Age period in Transylvania (LAZAROVICI 2006a).
Osseous/skeletal animal materials
The term that we use in this context was first used by the archaeozoologist François Poplin who made the distinction between “soft animal tissues” (skin, muscles, organs etc.) and “osseous/skeletal animal tissues” (bone, antler, horn, teeth, shells etc.). According to morphological and functional anatomy, the hard tissues/osseous materials can be divided into three main categories: skeletal elements that are used for feeding (teeth, mandibles, birds’ beak etc.), skeletal elements used for locomotion (limb bones, hip bones and vertebral column) and skeletal elements used for protection (skull, antler, horns, shells etc.). The bone, the teeth, the shells and the antler were identified in our assemblages as raw materials used for obtaining artefacts. This is the reason for which they are presented in a detailed manner in the chapter named “Osseous animal materials”. Teeth occupy an important place in our statistics regarding the raw materials, being attested elements of dentition coming from more species (carnivores, red-deer residual canines, boar tusks, fish pharyngeal teeth).
10 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Aspects of animal husbandry. Hunting/fishing/gathering in the Transylvanian Neo- Aeneolithic
The domestic and wild species provided raw materials in order to obtain osseous materials artefacts. These are characterized by a large morphological, typological and functional variety and they illustrate various occupations of the prehistoric communities. The study of the osseous materials artefacts it is not possible without an analysis of the archaeozoological data obtained for the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic assemblages. For the Early Neolithic, this aspect is very important because it reveals the first proofs of animal domestication, the first domesticated species. On the one hand, there are is some evidences that confirm the hypothesis according to which some species could/might have been domesticated in the Carpathian Basin by the exploitation of the local fauna. In this respect, Professor László Bartosiewicz mentions that the cattle and the pig domestication might have taken place in this area. On the other hand, the appearance of some domestic species (like sheep and goats) in Transylvania is the result of the penetration of the Starčevo-Criş communities coming from south, from the Balkan Peninsula. Sheep and goat had not been attested in the north-Danube space before Neolithic period (BARTOSIEWICZ 2003, 60). Their interaction with the Mesolithic communities led to mutual exchanges in the domain of palaeoeconomical strategies. According to archaeozoological data, for Starčevo-Criş culture in Transylvania, two types of communities have been identified: one type with the predominance of sheep and goats (like a reminiscence of the Mediterranean palaeoeconomical pattern) and another type where the cattle were dominant in the livestock (EL SUSI 2010; BINDEA 2008). Sheep, goat, pig and cattle were the animals kept by the Neo-Aeneolithic communities, with different variations for each culture and area. As for the wild species identified in the archaeozoological assemblages, we may mention the following which were also important in the producing of artefacts: aurochs (Bos primigenius), red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa ferus). Fishing and gathering shells are some other occupations attested by the archaeozoological remains and the osseous materials industry. The synthesis takes into account the recent archaeozoological studies related to the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic. The aim of this chapter is to present a review of the archaeozoological data in order to identify the main characteristics of the animal husbandry and the main wild species hunted, fished or gathered. The data is presented for each culture.
The history of the research regarding the Neo-Aeneolithic Transylvanian osseous materials industry
The Humanism, the Renaissance and later on the Enlightenment and the Romanticism offered an impetus for Transylvanian archaeological research. This took the aspect of a process of collecting archaeological relics that were stocked and classified. In the case of the osseous materials artefacts, the collectors collaborated with some scholars in Biology in order to identify the materials used for this type of industry. At the end of 19th century and the beginning of 20th, the pioneers of Transylvanian archaeology (Zsófia von Torma, Ferenc László) started archaeological excavations in some important Neo-Aeneolithic sites form the intra-Carpathian area (Turdaş, Ariuşd etc.). With these occasions, a large number of osseous materials artefacts was discovered. They were presented and published in articles at that period, arousing the interest of important European scholars. In the Interwar period researchers like Márton Roska, Ion and Dumitru Berciu excavated Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic sites and published the bone and antler artefacts that were discovered. In this context we have to mention the publication of the well-known “Archaeological repertory of Transylvania” where, besides the ceramics and other finds, the osseous materials artefacts were published and they were dated from the Prehistory to the Middle Ages (ROSKA 1942).
11 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
After the Second World War, the Romanian archaeology passed through a new phase of development. During this time, the Transylvanian researchers concentrated their efforts to excavate, but also to synthesize the data in articles and monographs of the sites and cultures. Here we should mention the excavation led by Kurt Horedt at Boarta settlement, Nicolae Vlassa’s excavations from Cheile Turzii, Tărtăria or Gura Baciului, research that has been restarted by the Professor Gheorghe Lazarovici, Professor Sabin Adrian Luca or PhD Zoia Maxim. All these exactions offered the possibility of some syntheses regarding the important Neo-Aeneolithical sites from Transylvania. More than that, the research from this period offered the background for the Transylvanian chronological system for in the Neo-Aeneolithic. The skeletal materials artefacts were also presented or mentioned in their monographs and studies. The period that followed the year 1989 has been marked by the assimilation and the application of the international patterns of archaeological research. More than that, the analysis and valorisation of the artefacts that have been discovered during older excavations were re- evaluated. In this context, the interdisciplinary research occupies a central place. There are research centres which promote these models and the recent archaeological monographs contain interdisciplinary studies done by the specialists from different domains. Here we should mention the archaeological databases started in ’70. In this domain the team led by Professor Gheorghe Lazarovici had an important role in terms of defining and applying the mathematical data in archaeology. Others interdisciplinary models take into account the study of palaeobotany, archaeozoology or metal artefacts (copper) or bone and antler industry. The pattern of research proposed for osseous materials industry in Romania is closely connected with the French school of the domain (accepted and applied at international level). In Romania, important contributions belong to PhD. Corneliu Beldiman whom a lot of articles and studies belong to. The publication of the doctoral thesis named “Osseous materials industry in the Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic and Early Neolithic in Romania” by Corneliu Beldiman represents an important moment in the Romanian research area. In this publication, the osseous materials industry has been defined as “All the artefacts produced by applying the same procedures in a certain defined manufacturing chain (débitage and shaping procedures with various stages of complexity which led to the partial or whole morphometrical transformation of the raw materials” (BELDIMAN 2007, 44). The methodology established with this occasion was used in order to study important assemblages of osseous materials industry from Transylvania. These were discovered by Professor Sabin Adrian Luca and his team (like the ones form Cerişor – Peştera Cauce, Turdaş – Luncă, Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş, Tărtăria – Gura luncii) or by younger specialists from Transylvania like PhD. Marius Mihai Ciută (Şeuşa – La cărarea morii, Şeuşa – Gorgan), PhD. Dan Lucian Buzea (Păuleni-Ciuc – Dâmbul Cetăţii). The new tendency in this domain, illustrated by the scientific publications from the latest years, is the insertion of data obtained by the systematic research of the artefacts in the databases that are meant to record in a unitary manner, all the characteristics of the artefacts. The database of the Neolithic and Eneolithic osseous materials industry of Transylvania has been designed with this purpose. This has been used in order to elaborate the conclusions of the present PhD thesis (SZTANCS 2010).
Methodological considerations
The analysis of the presented artefacts has been elaborated using the actual methodology of the domain. This present approach had as objectives: to establish the typology according to the Typological List Beldiman 2007; to identify new typological codes with their variants; to identify the raw materials used in order to obtain the artefacts; to study the macroscopic and microscopic characteristics of the objects’ surfaces in order to define the procedures applied during the manufacturing chain; to identify the specific use-wear traces.
12 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
The morphometrical parameters took into consideration both the animal anatomy and the technological transformations of the osseous materials. All these data were introduced in the database as fields and were analysed using specific queries. The methodology applied in the analysis was offered by the above mentioned publication: Corneliu Beldiman, “The osseous materials industry in the Prehistory of Romania. Natural resources, human communities and technology from Upper Paleolithic to the Early Neolithic” which is a classical approach, using the international methodology at the level of the ’80 and ’90’s. The use of osseous materials in order to obtain artefacts generated a great variety of artefacts, well defined from a typological point of view, which were obtained applying certain technical procedures. Some of these may be specific to each raw material or to each type resulted. Palaeo-technological domain illustrates a large mass of information related to the options that prehistoric people had in terms of subsistence strategies – the occupations, the evolution of the techniques, the progress of the society as a whole during the Neo-Aeneolithic cultures and, by comparison, with the previous and the following epochs (BELDIMAN 2007; SZTANCS 2010).
Repertory. Database
The latest archaeological excavations delivered important assemblages of osseous materials artefacts. In this way, a large mass of various data has been accumulated. In the same time, important opinions related to the cultural specific, relative and absolute chronology have been stated. In these conditions, the correlation of the data regarding the osseous materials industry with other data was possible. The repertory of the thesis includes 2853 pieces discovered in 47 Neo-Aeneolithic sites from Transylvania. For both objective and subjective reasons, a part of these artefacts have not been accessible for the direct study during the documentation period. In this case, we analysed them using the published data (images, literature etc.). These have been included in the repertory as information. In the thesis half of the data is related to published artefacts (summary, published in detail or just mentioned), but also some unpublished ones which were offered for study by the authors of the archaeological research (the other half). The artefacts discovered at Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş (2009 – 2010 campaigns) and Tărtăria – Gura luncii (2010 campaign) were studied in July 2011 and all were offered for study by Professor Sabin Adrian Luca. The present approach is based on the repertory of the analysed discoveries. The conclusions are conditioned by it. This is the reason for which the repertory was included in the central part of the thesis (not at the end as an appendix). The modern, interdisciplinary study of osseous materials industry is not an inventory of artefacts having mentioned all the stages, but also a statistical approach of the combined data. This analysis is made with specialized IT software that allows the database design and input of data. The design of the database took into account the data that has been introduced. The database is made of three tables (NEOLITIC IMDA, DICTIONARY and TYPOLOGY) which were used for applying different types of queries. The structure of the database is determined by the results that are meant to be analysed; this is the only way of manipulating the large quantity of data resulted by the study of this type of artefacts. Statistical approach using Microsoft Access database is another important part of thesis that determined our conclusions regarding the specific of the studied bone and antler industry in Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic. This allowed us to establish the important aspects of a culture or of a cultural phase. We also tried to distinguish the main characteristics and “chrono-cultural markers”, to observe the diffusion of influences (SZTANCS 2010, 11).
13 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
County / Site No. sites No. pieces Alba County 17 2071 1 Aiud – „Cetăţuia” 6 2 Alba Iulia – „Lumea Nouă” 61 3 Câlnic – „În Vii” 3 4 Câlnic – „Dealul Mare” 9 5 Căpud – „Măgura Căpudului” 7 6 Daia Română – „Părăuţ” 2 7 Decea Mureşului – „Nord de localitate” 1817 8 Limba – „Bordane” 31 9 Limba – „În Coastă” 1 10 Mihalţ – „Măticuţa” 3 11 Pianu de Jos – „Podei” 15 12 Răhău – „Dealul Şipotelor” 3 13 Sebeş – „Râpa Roşie” 4 14 Şeuşa – „Gorgan” 48 15 Şeuşa – „La cărarea morii” 15 16 Tărtăria – „Gura luncii” 34 17 Zlatna – „Colţul lui Blaj” 12 Total 17 2071 Arad County 3 15 1 Arad – Str. Voievod Moga 9 2 Pecica – „Forgaci” 5 3 Sântana – „Holumb” 1 Total 3 15 Bihor County 2 10 1. Sighiştel – „Peştera nr. 1 din Dâmbul Colibii” 1 2. Valea lui Mihai – „Grădina nr. 942” 9 Total 2 10 Cluj County 1 43 1 Cluj-Napoca – Gura Baciului 43 Total 1 43 Covasna County 5 424 1 Ariuşd – „Dealul Tyiszk” 384 2 Leţ – „Várhegy” 14 3 Malnaş-Băi – „Füvenyestető” 4 4 Olteni –„În Dosul Cetăţii” 21 5 Sfântu Gheorghe – „Bédeháza” 1 Total 5 424 Harghita County 1 6 Păuleni Ciuc – „Dâmbul Cetăţii” 6 Total 1 6 Hunedoara County 7 89 1 Boholt – „Ciuta” 4 2 Cerişor – „Peştera Cauce” 65 3 Deva – „Ciangăi” 8 4 Ohaba Ponor – „Peştera din Bordul Mare” 2 5 Romos – „La Făgădău” 1 6 Turdaş – „Luncă” 8 7 Silvaşu de Jos 1
14 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Total 7 89 Sălaj County 1 6 1 Zăuan – „Dâlma Cimitirului” 6 Total 6 Sibiu County 5 192 1 Boarta – „Cetate” 26 2 Miercurea Sibiului – „Petriş” 128 3 Ocna Sibiului – „Faţa Vacilor” 10 4 Ocna Sibiului – „Triguri” 23 5 Păuca – „Homm” 5 Total 5 192 Total 47 2853
The regional distribution of the analysed artefacts.
Coţofeni 127
Bodrogkeresztur 12
Decea Mureşului 1820
Tiszapolgár 23
Cucuteni-Ariuşd 468
Petreşti 96
Foeni 40
Turdaş 28
Lumea Nouă 7 99 Vinča
Starčevo-Criş 165
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Cultural distribution of the analysed artefacts.
Contributions regarding the typology of Romanian Prehistoric osseous materials industry
Establishing the typology of the osseous materials artefacts is an important objective of our approach. In this respect, we used Beldiman 2007 Typological List (BELDIMAN 2007). This supposes the classification according to the typological categories, groups, subgroups, variants and sub-variants. The presumed functional role of the artefacts was also a criterion in establishing the specific typological code. This fact has been impossible without using of the studies of experimental archaeology, use-wear traces analysis, the identification of the main morphological analogies, data regarding ethno-archaeological studies etc. With this occasion we had the opportunity to successfully verify the reliability of the above-mentioned typology, but what is very important is that we had the chance of completing the list with new types (most of them specific for Aeneolithic). Some of them are presented bellow:
15 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
I B12 Scraper made of cattle metapodium a. proximal b. distal I B13 Scraper made of flat bone I B14 Scapula scraper a. sheep/goat; b. cattle I B15 Bone tool for decorating ceramics I B16 Mandible scraper I I2 Beamer made of tibia I I3 Beamer made of scapula I I4 Beamer made of mandible III A5 Perforated pharyngeal teeth III B12 Pendant made of astragalus III E4 Perforated Unio shell discs III J1 Perforated shell plates a. Spondylus; b. Unio III J2 Plate made of boar tusk fragment III K1 Anthropomorphic idol with perforation(s) made of a. bone; b. antler; c. shell IV C2 Antler handle IV C3 Perforated sleeve
New types identified in the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials artefacts assemblages – added to Beldiman 2007 Typological List for Romania.
We have to underline that after the regional analysis of the Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry, we have the confirmation for Corneliu Beldiman’s hypothesis: “The typology proposed for the osseous materials industry is characterised by a large area of application (which tends to exhaustiveness) and flexibility that allows both the adaptation at the great morpho-technological diversity of the studied objects and the possibility of completing and development according to the future studies of other assemblages of artefacts that were only mentioned here or which will be discovered when the access at the museums’ collections will be possible or which will be discovered by the extending of the archaeological excavations” (BELDIMAN 2000 – presented PhD thesis; BELDIMAN 2007, 21 – published PhD thesis). The analysed assemblages are very complex; they include various categories of artefacts, starting from simple ones (which are frequent in all Prehistoric cultures both in Romania and other European countries) to rare, complex pieces, some of them unique, with a high degree of technical elaboration. Among these we can mention: • the bone spoons which are specific for Starčevo-Criş culture (the one from Cerişor –Cauce Cave, Hunedoara County presents well-preserved traces of manufacturing and of conservation). • the antler adornments belonging to the same culture (the hook pendant discovered at Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş, Sibiu County). • Aeneolithic deposits containing prestige goods, such as the one discovered at Ariuşd, Covasna County – now it has been studied for the first time in a complete, interdisciplinary, exhaustive manner. It contains some adornments which are considered rare for the above mentioned period – the fish/carp perforated pharyngeal teeth. Another Aeneolithic deposit was discovered at Câlnic, Alba County (first published by Kurt Horedt in ‘40s, PhD. Dragoş Diaconescu studied it very recently and dated it from Petreşti culture – data regarding the osseous materials artefacts were offered by PhD. Dragoş Diaconescu, July 2011). • The big bone spoons (ladles) dated from Ariuşd culture; • the necklace made of perforated Unio shell discs discovered in a ritual complex at Ariuşd, dated from the same period. A large quantity of the same type of discs was discovered in the necropolis from Decea Mureşului, but in this case they were used as parts in belts, necklaces and bracelets. • En violon idol made of antler, discovered at Păuleni-Ciuc represents another unique situation at the actual level of the research. • The first identification of an anthropomorphic idol made of a whole Spondylus shell in the intra-Carpathian area. • The presence of the hide beamers dated from the Vinča and Petreşti cultures. The analysed industry reveals the following statistical situation: there is a preponderance of the typological category I. Tools 48.84%, followed by the category III. Adornments 37.56%. The categories II. Weapons and IV. Hafts are represented by 0.75% and 0.65% in the assemblages. The
16 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs typological category V. Varia represents 12.21%. This is a very important category because it offers us important clues regarding the raw materials used and the technical procedures applied during the stages of manufacturing chain. The chapter regarding the typology contains also the statistical analysis for each culture, elements of chronology which dated the osseous materials artefacts and some analogies that have been identified while reading the literature and which gave an international dimension to our approach.
Considerations regarding the palaeo-technology
The technical procedures applied during the manufacturing chain of the osseous materials artefacts are essential in order to reconstruct the osteotechnological behaviour of a certain community, at a certain chronological level, in a well-defined economic and cultural environment. In this way, the stages of the manufacturing chain of production and the ones related to the usage chain have been studied in an exhaustive manner, taking into consideration not only the finite objects, but also the pieces included in the 5th typological category (Varia – technical pieces, raw materials). The technological aspects analyse the context in which the artefacts were produced, the structure with which they were associated and that were revealed during the archaeological excavations. This approach allows us to formulate some conclusions regarding the context of manufacturing the osseous materials artefacts. For example, the geographical environment, the technological progress at a certain chronological level influenced the technological options of the Neo-Aeneolithic communities. Our study represents a multidisciplinary approach that has as finality the illustration of the general technological background of the studied communities. The chapter related to the palaeotechnology has considerations related both to the palaeotechnological environment for each culture that has been analysed and to general palaeotechnology of the Neo-Aeneolithic of Transylvania. The technological analysis take into account both the hard osseous materials used and the technical procedures applied during the manufacturing chain and use-wear traces. The characteristics of the raw material determined the procedures applied. The statistics for all the assemblages studied revealed the fact that direct and indirect percussion was used in most of the cases. This procedure was applied in combination with splitting techniques, chopping and fracture. The transversal cutting and axial scrapping were used only in few cases, the percentages being quite equal for each analysed culture. Indirect percussion was used as the main technique for shaping (especially for shells). The abrasion with its variants (multi-directed, oblique, axial and transversal) was also used in order to shape the artefacts. The perforations represent a special result of the shaping stage. The perforation process implies the adaptation of the techniques to each type of raw material. The main perforating modalities defined with this occasion are: • indirect percussion done with a flint point (applied on shells); • direct percussion followed by chopping, carving, rotation (technical scheme applied for antler tools, weapons and adornments); • bilateral grooving (applied for teeth); • alternative or continuous circular rotation with a sharp lithic point (used for adornments – perforated teeth, pendants – or for the perforations of some points used for knitting or sewing). The technological study was realised by direct observation of the surfaces using low and high magnifier optical instruments. In this way the traces that define the technological gestures were identified. For describing the procedures were adopted and used the notions proposed by the International Commission of Naming the Prehistoric Bone Industry (CAMPS-FABRER 1979, 21). In this context we have to underline one more time the importance of distinguishing between the pseudo-tools and real tools (even if we discuss of well-defined tools, with certain manufacturing characteristics or if we discuss of ad-hoc tools) - CHOYKE 1997, 66.
17 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Data regarding the palaeoeconomy
Besides the systematic study of use-wear traces, in some cases the context of discovery revealed the functional role of the artefacts made of osseous materials. Even more, the context of discovery offers important clues regarding the activities from the site at different chronological levels, both intra and extra site. Among these activities we may mention: the hunting and fishing that have been attested by the presence of the artefacts included in the typological category II. weapons and by the presence of the raw materials coming from wild species (deer, wild-boar), fish, river molluscs; the cultivation of plants is attested by the presence of farming tools; animal keeping (the presence of raw materials coming from domestic species); the trade – the presence of Mediterranean shells; the débitage of lithic tools – the presence of the punching tools (chasse-lame); the wood working – the presence of the specific antler tools; the large number of points attests the working of vegetal and animal fibres. There are artefacts that until now had vague and erroneous functionality. In this respect, the analysis of the palaeotechnological aspects offered us new clues. This is the situation of the artefacts considered in Romanian archaeological literature as “farming tools” made of antler. Their study – I G points according to our methodology – did not reveal the presence of specific traces that could have allowed us to consider them “farming tools”. It is possible that they might have been used like implements for weapons or tools used for wood working. This hypothesis is confirmed by the experimental studies and by the analogies (wood artefacts with inserted implements) from Central and Occidental Europe and the experimental studies confirm this hypothesis. The osseous materials industry offers us evidences regarding the occupations of the Neo- Aeneolithic communities such as: fishing (harpoons, hooks); débitage of the lithic assemblages (punching tools); sewing; knitting (needles, different points); hide working (hide beamers, scrapers); ceramic production (polishing tools, tools used for decorating pots); eating food based on cereals (bone spoons); adornments etc. The raw materials used in our assemblages illustrate the following occupations: animal keeping (sheep/goat, cattle, pig); hunting (aurochs, deer, wild boar etc.); fishing (carp); gathering (shells and snails). The osseous materials identified in the assemblages are the following: bone (long, short, flat); antler (red-deer, roe-deer); teeth (mammals teeth, pharyngeal teeth); shells (lamellibranchiate, gastropods). The antler coming from Cervus elaphus and Capreolus capreolus is well-represented in our percentages. It comes either from the hunted species mentioned above or from the antler gathered from the forest (after falling). The most part of the teeth is from wild mammals (red-deer residual canines, wild boar, wolf, fox, dog canine) and they were used in order to obtain adornments, but also as raw material for some types of tools. In this context, we should mention the first identification of perforated pharyngeal carp teeth in an Aeneolithic context. The bivalve molluscs, both from the local area (Unio shells) and the Mediterranean (Spondylus shells), provided shells which were used in order to obtain adornments. The trade is also important in this context. It is attested by the Mediterranean species of bivalve shells (Spondylus and Glycymeris) as raw materials or finite objects. In addition to this, the artefacts that illustrate symbolic manifestations (adornments, prestigious pieces, artefacts used in rituals etc.) give us information related to the well understanding of the Prehistoric human being spiritual life.
The osseous materials industry – illustration
The illustration included in this thesis has been elaborated by the author in collaboration with PhD. Corneliu Beldiman (especially, the photos) or has been selected from international and Romanian referential publications. The large number of images is explained by the complexity of the studied artefacts. The illustration consists of two parts. The first one is placed within the text and it is made of schemas, charts, drawings and photos, totalising 92 figures. The second part (plates) is inserted at the
18 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs end of the thesis like a separate section and it is made of: maps (mapping the discoveries in order to underline the regional distribution of the sites which provided artefacts); drawings and photos (grouped according the themes/categories/groups/types), totalising 179 plates. These refer also to various palaeotechnological aspects (the source of raw materials, the structure and the characteristics for each of them, the manufacturing and the using; experimental studies; some ethnographic analogies etc.). The plates are original (designed using original photographic materials) or taken from Romanian or international publications (some of them rare or rarely used in Romanian literature). The quantitative, morphometrical and technical aspects have been presented in a systematic manner using multiple and complex queries of the database. This was the only way of organising the huge quantity of data and to explore its expressiveness in order to draw up pertinent conclusions, based on the information offered by the artefacts. The approach is focused both on synchronic (characteristics of the certain epochs and cultures) and diachronic data (the progresses registered by the osseous materials industry from typological and technological point of view). These are presented in tables and charts that have been inserted in the text at the section dedicated to tables (no. 1 – 70) and figures. The creation of a repertory with photographs was one of the objectives of this thesis. This took into account the photographical exploitation of all the technological aspects of the artefacts (general views, details, macroscopic and microscopic views – details on surfaces of 10 mm2 and pictures with microscopic aspects). The images are added to Corneliu Beldiman’s collection in order to complete the digital photo archive of the osseous materials industry from Romania. For objective reasons (the large number of photos), the illustration of artefacts in this thesis is not exhaustive. In this situation, the artefacts were presented selectively. The selection includes just the pictures illustrating the main types and variants that show the specific aspects regarding the morphology, typology and palaeotechnology.
The first synthetic regional approach of the Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry from Romania
The present approach is defined as the first synthetic approach of the Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry from Romania. The large quantity of Starčevo-Criş artefacts offered the opportunity of drawing conclusions related to the osseous materials industry at this cultural level and the insertion of data in the general Early Neolithic Romanian context. The presence of Vinča, Petreşti and Coţofeni assemblages allowed the use of a statistical approach in their study and it revealed the way in which the osseous materials were used during these cultures. Turdaş, Tiszapolgár and Decea Mureşului cultures offered the possibility of drawing the first conclusions regarding the technological specific of these communities. Some hypotheses were formulated regarding the exploitation of animal resources in order to obtain specific artefacts. In this respect, we used the cultural analogies which were identified in the literature. The analysis of an important assemblage belonging to the Ariuşd-Cucuteni culture offered us the opportunity to state the first characteristic of palaeoeconomy at this cultural and chronological level for the intra-Carpathian region – the exploitation of raw materials, typology, technology (BELDIMAN 2007; BELDIMAN 2004, BELDIMAN, SZTANCS 2005a, BELDIMAN, SZTANCS 2009a; BELDIMAN, SZTANCS 2011a). The repertory of raw materials took into account the identification of osseous materials used as a support by the Neo-Aeneolithic communities with the purpose of obtaining artefacts. The analysis took into account both the identification at the level of the species and at the level of the skeletal elements (long, short or flat bones, antler, teeth, shells). The base of our comparative documentary is made of important publications from Biology and Archaeozoology. The theoretical approach was doubled by a comparative study using osteological elements from collections. For the artefacts that presented a complex process of shaping, which could not allow the identification of the morphological characteristics, we applied a microscopic analysis.
19 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Regarding the studied artefacts, we have to underline once more the importance of some new, unpublished assemblages coming from recent excavations, such as: Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş, Cerişor – Peştera Cauce, Şeuşa – La cărarea morii, Şeuşa – Gorgan, Păuleni-Ciuc – Dâmbul Cetăţii, Malnaş-Băi etc. In these cases, the chronological and cultural information were correlated with radiocarbon data. In the same time, we have to underline the fact that some special assemblages were analysed. These contain very important artefacts such as those from the Ariuşd deposit of prestige goods and the necklace made of perforated Unio shell discs discovered in the same site, but in a funerary context. Therefore, the artefacts come both from Neo-Aeneolithic archaeological levels and closed complexes as: huts or pit-houses; pits with ritual deposits; deposits of prestige goods; graves etc.
Progress and goals
The study of the Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry from Transylvania is the first regional synthetic approach of this domain in Romania. Data regarding the choice of raw materials, the options taken in the palaeo-technological domain, the occupations attested at the community level round the image regarding the relation between human and animals at the Neo-Aeneolithic cultural level. Secondly, they illustrate the technical procedures applied (with the purpose of obtaining simple or complex artefacts) in order to identify economic activities such as: achieving and processing the vegetal and animal food resources, the manufacture of ceramics or lithic tools, the raw materials processing for manufacture the clothes and various decorations (plaiting etc.). The aspects related to the trades (the presence of Spondylus and Glycymeris shells) or to the symbolic manifestations (adornments, prestige goods, and ritual pieces) are equally important. They provide information regarding the good -understanding of Prehistoric life communities. For the first time in the Romanian Prehistoric studies, the radiocarbon data was correlated with the artefacts made of osseous materials discovered in certain archaeological complexes. This type of correlation revealed the presence of certain types of artefacts at a certain chronological level. This helps us to state the specificity at a chronological and cultural level and it may illustrate elements of evolution, contacts between the communities etc. There is no doubt that the following research of the osseous material industry will bring some more data, new elements meant to stimulate the progress of the knowledge in this domain. This research had multiple advantages, but it also had some limitations. For instance, the impossibility of access at some important assemblages stocked in the museums’ collections was a difficulty registered by our approach (and not only ours). Among the assemblages that could not have been studied directly, we can mention the artefacts from Gura Baciului (old and recent excavations) which are deposited at the National Museum of Transylvanian History from Cluj-Napoca. When we dealt with this type of situations, we chose the alternative of using the information available in publications. In these cases, the protocol of analysis was not entirely applied. The present approach was focused on organising the immense data resulted both from studying the publications and from the study of the artefacts according to the Beldiman 2007 methodology. The aspects regarding a comparative analysis of the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry with the same industry discovered in farther areas was not one of our objectives. Most of the quoted analogies come from the area limitrophe to the studied space (Transylvania). The reduced number of the artefacts dated very precisely in terms of relative chronology, did not allow us to formulate some conclusions regarding the specificity of osseous materials industry at each phase of the each analysed culture. In conclusion, we have to underline once more that the present thesis is meant to be a coherent result of our work, but like any approach it is perfectible. The present systematisation of data regarding the Transylvanian Neo-Aeneolithic osseous materials industry represents the basis of new achievements and superior constructions in a specific domain of research of Prehistoric archaeology.
20 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
LITERATURE
BARTOSIEWICZ 1984 Bartosiewicz L., An attempted distinction between the parts of the Neolithic site at Csabdi-Télizőldes, în Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 36, 43 – 52. BARTOSIEWICZ 2001 Bartosiewicz L., Archaeozoology or zooarchaeology?: a problem from the last century, în Archaeologia Polona, 39, 2001, 75 – 86. BARTOSIEWICZ 2003 Bartosiewicz L., The archaeology of domestic animals, în Visy, Nagy 2003, 60 – 64. BARTOSIEWICZ 2005 Bartosiewicz L., Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas, în Bailey et alii 2005, 51 – 63. BELDIMAN 2004a Beldiman C., Cerişor, com. Lelese, County Hunedoara. Industria materiilor dure animale, în Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România, Bucureşti, 85 – 94, 469 – 475. BELDIMAN 2004b Beldiman C., Descrierea materialului arheologic, în Luca et alii 2004, 75 – 79. BELDIMAN 2007 Beldiman C., Industria materiilor dure animale în preistoria României. Resurse naturale, comunităţi umane şi tehnologie din paleoliticul superior până în neoliticul timpuriu, Asociaţia Română de Arheologie, Studii de Preistorie, Supplementum 2, Bucureşti. BELDIMAN, SZTANCS Beldiman C., Sztancs, D.-M., Şeuşa-„La cărarea morii”. IMDA în 2009 aşezarea neolitică timpurie, în Marius-Mihai Ciută, Cercetări arheologice la Şeuşa-“La cărarea morii” (sat Şeuşa, com. Ciugud, County Alba). I. Locuirile preistorice. Bibliotheca Brukenthal XLIII, Alba Iulia-Sibiu, 49 – 63, 105 – 106, 160 – 167, pl. V-XII. BELDIMAN, CIUTĂ, Beldiman C., Ciută M.-M., Sztancs D.-M., Industria materiilor dure SZTANCS 2005a animale în preistoria Transilvaniei: descoperirile aparţinând culturilor Decea Mureşului şi Coţofeni din aşezarea de la Şeuşa-„Gorgan”, com. Ciugud, County Alba, Apulum, 42, 27 – 52. BELDIMAN, CIUTĂ, Beldiman C., Ciută M.-M., Sztancs D.-M., Contribuţii la cunoaşterea SZTANCS 2005b patrimoniului arheologic mobil apulens: podoabe din materii dure animale descoperite în aşezarea aparţinând culturii Coţofeni de la Şeuşa- „Gorgan”, în Patrimonium Apulense, 5, 9 – 28. BELDIMAN, SZTANCS Beldiman C., Sztancs D. M., Paléotechnologie et néolithisation dans la 2008 partie sud de la Tranylvanie: l’industrie des matières dures animales de la culture Starčevo-Criş dans le site Miercurea Sibiului – Petriş, dép. de Sibiu, Roumanie, în Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 7, 77 – 90. BELDIMAN, SZTANCS Beldiman C., Sztancs, D.-M., Technology of skeletal material of the 2010 Starčevo-Criş culture in Romania, în Luca, Suciu 2010, 57 – 70. BELDIMAN, SZTANCS Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., Inspired Double Break of Leg. Rare 2011 Eneolithic Point made of Pig Fibula with Trauma from Transylvania, Romania, comunicare susţinută la 8th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, ICAZ, August 29 to September 3, 2011, Salzburg, Austria.
21 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
BINDEA 2008 Bindea D., Arheozoologia Transilvaniei în pre- şi protoistorie, Cluj-Napoca. BŐKŐNYI 1989 Bőkőnyi S., Animal husbandry of the Kőrős-Starčevo complex: its origin and development, în Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, 2, 13 – 16. BONDÁR, RACZKY Bondár M., Raczky P., The Copper Age cementery of Budakalász, 2010 Budapesta. BUZEA, LAZAROVICI Buzea D., Lazarovici Gh., Descoperirile Cucuteni-Ariuşd de la 2005 Păuleni-Ciuc-Ciomortan – „Dâmbul Cetăţii”. Campaniile 2003 – 2005. Raport preliminar, în Angustria, 9, 25 – 88. CAMPS-FABRER 1979 CAMPS-FABRER H. (sub red.), L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l‘Âge des métaux. Première Réunion du Groupe de travail no. 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Paris. CAMPS-FABRER 1993 CAMPS-FABRER H., Compte rendu du Colloque international Industries sur matières dures animales. Evolution technologique et culturelle durant les temps préhistoriques, Treignes, Belgique, 3-8 mai 1993, în Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéene, 2, 201 – 203. CÂRCIUMARU 1996 Cârciumaru M., Paleoetnobotanica. Studii de preistorie şi protoistorie, Iaşi. CÂRCIUMARU 1999 Cârciumaru M., Evoluţia omului în cuaternar, Bucureşti. CÂRCIUMARU 2000 Cârciumaru M., Neolithic Palaeoethnobotany of Romania, în Cercetări Arheologice, 11, II, 1998-2000, 577 – 581. CHOYKE 1997 Choyke A., The Bone Tool manufacturing continuum, în Antropozoologica, no. 25 – 26, 65 – 72. CHOYKE 2007 Choyke A., Chapter 29. Objects for a lifetime – tools for a season: the bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23, în Whittle 2007, 641 – 665. CHOYKE, BARTOSIEWICZ Choyke A., Bartosiewicz L., Crafting bones: Skeletal Technologies 2001 through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapesta. CIUGUDEAN 2000 Ciugudean H., Eneoliticul final în Transilvania şi Banat: cultura Coţofeni, Timişoara. CIUTĂ 1998 Ciută M., O locuinţă de suprafaţă aparţinând neoliticului timpuriu, descoperită la Şeuşa – „La cărarea morii” (com. Ciugud, County Alba), în Apulum, 35, 1 – 15. CIUTĂ 2005 Ciută M., Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spaţiul intracarpatic transilvănean, Alba Iulia. DIACONESCU 2009 Diaconescu D., Cultura Tiszapolgár în România, Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Sibiu. DIACONESCU et alii 2009 Diaconescu D., Luca S. A., El Susi G., Dumitrescu-Chioar F., Groapa G26/2005 de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş şi noi întrebări privind viaţa de dincolo de obiecte a unei comunităţi neolitice timpurii, în Brukenthal. Acta Musei, IV.1, 7 – 20. DIMITRIEVIĆ, RIPKOVIĆ Dimitriević V., Tripković B., Spondylus and Glycymeris Bracelets: 2006 Trade Reflections at Vinča – Belo Brdo, în Documenta Praehistorica, 33, 1 – 16. EL SUSI 2005 El Susi G., Cercetări arheozoologice în Peştera Cauce, în LUCA et alii 2005, 95 – 154.
22 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
EL SUSI 2008 El Susi G., The comparative analysis of faunal samples from sites dated in Starčevo-Kőrős-Criş culture phases IB – IIA from Transylvania and Banat, în Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 7, 91 – 106. GIMBUTAS 1976 Gimbutas M., Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by Excavation at Anza, Southeast Jugoslavia, Los Angeles. HORVÁTH, VIRÁG 2003 Horváth L. A., Virág Zs. M., History of the Copper Age (4500/4400– 2600/2500 B.C.), în Visy, Nagy 2003, 125 – 127. LAZAROVICI 2006a Lazarovici M., Absolute chrnonology of the Late Vinča culture in Romania and its role in the development of the Early Copper Age, în Tasić, Grozdanov 2006, 277 – 295. LAZAROVICI 2006b Lazarovici Gh., The Anzabegovo-Gura Baciului Axis and the First Stage of the Neolithisation Process in the Southern-Central Europe and Balkans, în Tasić, Grozdanov 2006, 111 – 158. LAZAROVICI et alii 2001 Lazarovici Gh., Draşoveanu F., Maxim Z., Parţa. Monografie arheologică, Timişoara. LAZAROVICI, LAZAROVICI Lazarovici Gh., Lazarovici M., Arhitectura neoliticului şi epocii 2006 cuprului din România, I. Neoliticul, Iaşi. LAZAROVICI, MAXIM Lazarovici Gh., Maxim Z., Din istoria Transilvaniei (mileniul VI 1995 î.Hr.). Gura Baciului, Cluj-Napoca. LUCA 1997 Luca S. A., Aşezări neolitice pe Valea Mureşului (I). Habitatul turdăşean de la Orăştie – Dealul Pemilor (punctul X2), Alba Iulia. LUCA 1999 Luca S. A., Sfârşitul eneoliticului pe teritoriul intracarpatic al României: cultura Bodrogkeresztúr, Alba Iulia. LUCA 2001 Luca S. A., Aşezări neolitice pe Valea Mureşului (II). Noi cercetări arheologice la Turdaş – Luncă. Campaniile anilor 1992-1995, Bucureşti. LUCA 2006 Luca S. A., Aspects of the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods in Transylvania (II), în Tasić, Grozdanov 2006, 341 – 366. LUCA 2009 Luca S. A., The Danube script: Neo-Eneolithic ‘writing’ in Southeastern Europe, Sibiu. LUCA et alii 2004 Luca S. A., Roman Cr., Diaconescu Dr., Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (I) (sat Cerişor, com. Lelese, County Hunedoara), Sibiu. LUCA et alii 2005 Luca S. A., Roman C., Diaconescu D., Ciugudean H., El Susi G., Beldiman C., Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (II), Sibiu. LUCA et alii 2006 Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., „Săpăturile arheologice de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petris, (County Sibiu). Campaniile anilor 1997-2005. Stratigrafie şi cronologie”, în Brukenthal. Acta Musei, 1.1, Sibiu, 9 – 20. LUCA, SUCIU Luca S. A., Suciu C. (eds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East 2010 European Transect. Volume II. Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş) on the territory of Romania, Cracovia, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. LUIK et alii 2005 Luik H., Choyke A., Batey C. E., Lõugas L. (ed.) From hooves to horns, from mollusc to mammoth. Muinasaja Teadus 15, Tallinn. ROMAN 2008 Roman Cr. C., Habitatul uman în peşterile din sud-vestul Transilvaniei, Bibliotheca Brukenthal XXV, Sibiu.
23 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
ROSKA 1942 Roska M., Erdély Régészeti Repertóriuma. I. Őskor, Cluj-Napoca. SUCIU 2009 Suciu, C., Cultura Vinča în Transilvania, Bibliotheca Brukenthal, Alba Iulia SÜMEGI 2010 Sümegi P., The archaeozoological analysis of the beads and molluscs from the Late Copper Age Baden cementery at Budakalász, în Bondár, Raczky 2010, 409 – 436. SZTANCS 2006 Sztancs, Diana-Maria, Industria materiilor dure animale în cadrul culturii Coţofeni din sudul Transilvanie, lucrare de licenţă, manuscris, Sibiu. SZTANCS 2008 Sztancs, D.-M., Industria materiilor dure animale în Muzeul Naţional Brukentha, disertaţie, manuscris, Sibiu. SZTANCS 2010 Sztancs, D.-M., Baza de date a industriei materiilor dure animale neo- eneolitice din Transilvania. Studiu de caz: Aşezarea de la Miercurea Sibiului – „Petriş”, County Sibiu, în Analele Universităţii Creştine „Dimitrie Cantemir”, Seria Istorie, Serie nouă, 1, 2010, 9 – 29. SZTANCS 2011 Sztancs D.-M., Database of bone and antler industry from Transylvania. Case Study: Păuleni-Ciuc – „Dâmbul Cetăţii”, Romania, comunicare susţinută la a XX-a Conferinţă a Arheozoologilor Maghiari de la Visegrád, 7-8 mai 2011. SZTANCS et alii 2010a Sztancs D.-M., Beldiman C., Buzea D. L., Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse de Roumanie. I. Préhistoire. 1. Idole/pendeloque/amulette anthropomorphe énéolithique en bois de cerf de Păuleni-Ciuc, dép. de Harghita, în Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 9, 121 – 150. SZTANCS et alii 2010b Sztancs D.-M., Luca S. A., Beldiman C., The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” site, în Annales d'Université „Valahia” Târgovişte. Section d'Archéologie et d'Histoire, 12/2, 39 – 55. SZTÁNCSUJ 2009 Sztáncsuj S. J., Interdisciplinary Archaeological Research in South-East Transylvania during the first half of 20th Century, în Cotiugă et alii 2009, 51 – 60. TASIĆ, GROZDANOV Tasić N., Grozdanov C., Homage to Milutin Garašanin, Belgrad. 2006 TOTH 2010 Toth Zs., Raw material preferences in the worked osseous assemblage on the Final Neolithic site of Aszód, central Hungary, poster prezentat la 11th ICAZ Conference, 23-28 August 2010, Paris. URSULESCU 2001 Ursulescu N., Neo-eneoliticul, în Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, Vulpe 2001, 111 – 197. URSULESCU 2006 Ursulescu N., Dimensiunea europeană a civilizaţiei eneolitice est- carpatice, Iaşi. URSULESCU et alii 2006 Ursulescu N., Bejenaru L., Cotiugă V., Prelucrarea caninilor de mistreţ în cultura Precucuteni, în lumina descoperirilor de la Târgu- Frumos, County Iaşi, în Acta Musei Tutovensis, 1, 64 – 81. URSULESCU, TENCARIU Ursulescu N., Tencariu F., Symbolic signs on the ceramics of the Chalcolithic 2009 settlement at Isaiia (Iaşi County, Romania), în Luca 2009a, 87 – 102.
24 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
VISY, NAGY 2003 Visy Zs, Nagy M. (ed.), Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium, Budapesta. VITEZOVIĆ 2010 Vitezović S., Koštana industrija u starijem i srednjem neolitu centralnog Balkana, teză de doctorat, Institutul de Arheologie, Academia de Ştiinţe a Serbiei, Belgrad, manuscris. WHITTLE 2007 Whittle A., The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés, Budapesta.
Translated by Diana-Maria Sztancs. English revision by Andreea-Ioana Tătăruş.
25 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Geographical distribution of the archaeological sites that provided the studied osseous materials industry.
26 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Tărtăria, Alba County, 2010 archaeological excavations. Anthropomorphic idol made of Spondylus shell. Petreşti Culture. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
27 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Tărtăria, Alba County, 2010 archaeological excavations. Anthropomorphic idol made of Spondylus shell. Petreşti Culture. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman..
28 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Ocna Sibiului – Faţa Vacilor, Sibiu County. Point made of domestic pig fibula. Poster presented at the 8th WBRG Conference, ICAZ, Salzburg, 2011 (apud Beldiman, Sztancs 2011).
29 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Păuca – Homm, Sibiu County. Fragment of Spondylus shell bracelet. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
30 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Păuca – Homm, Sibiu County. Fragment of Spondylus shell bracelet. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
31 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Păuca – Homm, Sibiu County. Fragment of Spondylus shell bracelet. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
32 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Câlnic – În Vii, Sibiu County. Perforated red-deer residual canines. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
33 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Ocna Sibiului – Faţa Vacilor, Sibiu County. Bone spatula. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
34 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Petreşti Culture. Ocna Sibiului – Faţa Vacilor, Sibiu County. Bone spatula. Brukenthal National Museum of Sibiu Collections. Photo Corneliu Beldiman.
35 THE NEO-AENEOLITHIC OSSEOUS MATERIALS INDUSTRY OF TRANSYLVANIA. REPERTORY. TYPOLOGY. PALAEOTECHNOLOGICAL STUDY. DATA REGARDING THE PALAEOECONOMY. DATABASE • PhD Thesis • Abstract • PhD Candidate: Diana-Maria Sztancs
Decea Mureşului Cultural Group. Decea Mureşului, Alba County. Artefacts from graves: 2 – 3 perforated shell discs (apud Kovacs 1932, 90, fig. 1).
36