Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade
Abstract: Vinča culture ground stone tools with cutting edge have quite distinctive ap-pearance which owe to raw material of which they were made. Rocks which were used as raw material for their production have as a common feature conchoidal fracture which is not as clearly deined as it is on siliceous type of stone, but which allowed proper chipping. Numerous roughouts found at Neolithic sites in Serbia help in the reconstruc-tion of process of manufacturing Vinča culture axes and adzes. Unfortunately complete workshops for their production haven’t been discovered in Serbia until now. However, places for chipping of rocks which were mostly used as raw material for Vinča culture axes and adzes were detected at several Neolithic settlements. Judging from the appear-ance of Vinča axes and adzes and their mass production, it is that the manufacturing of ground stone tools was undoubtly well developed and quite deined craft.
Key words: ground stone tools, manufacturing technique, Neolithic, Eneolithic, Serbia
Apstrakt: Oruđe sa sečicom u vinčanskoj kulturi ima potpuno prepoznatvljiv izgled koji duguje sirovini od koje je bilo napravljeno. Stene koje su bile upotrebljene kao si-rovina za njihovu izradu imaju kao zajedničku karakteristiku školjkast prelom, koji nije tako jasno deinisan kao kod silicijskih vrsta kamena, ali koji je dozvoljavao dobro okresivanje. Brojni polufabrikati otkriveni na neolitskim lokalitetima u Srbiji pomažu u rekonstrukciji procesa izrade vinčasnkih sekira i tesli. Nažalost, do sada nije otkrivena u Srbiji nijedna cela radionica. Ipak, mesta gde se vršilo okresivanje stena koje su najviše korišćene kao sirovina za vinčanske sekire i tesle, otkrivena su u nekoliko neolitskih na-selja. Sudeći na osnovu izgleda vinčanskih sekira i tesli i njehove masovne proizvodnje, nema sumnje da je proizvodnja oruđa od glačanog kamena bila dobro razvijen i jasno odvojen zanat.
Ključne reči: oruđe od glačanog kamena, tehnika izrade, neolit, eneolit, Srbija
Ground stone tools represented the peak in the production of pre-historic stone tools. They were direct precursors of metal tools. Forms of some stone tools which existed in the Late Neolithic can be recognized in their metal precursors. Most likely that stone axes, adzes and hammers were used as models and perhaps even as molds in production of the irst metal tools. Some of these forms are still living in modern tool. Ground stone axes and adzes, beside pottery and domesticated plants and animals, are considered as one of the main features of the Neolithic and sedentary lifestyle.1
According to number of inds in archaeological layers it is most likely that ground stone axes and adzes were widely used in daily life of the Vinča culture inhabitants. However to researching of the manufacturing of these tools has never been given special attention. The reason for that perhaps lies in the fact that complete workshops for making axes and adzes have never been discovered at Vinča culture sites in Serbia.
The manufacturing technique for production of stone axes and adzes is speciic for each culture itself. From the long axes made of lint in Northern and Eastern Europe (Klimsch 2011, 368–372), through the luxurious and beautiful adzes of jadeite from the territory of France and neighboring countries (Petrequin et al. 2012), to short and stubby tools of Bulgarian and Greek Neolithic (Todorova 1993, 179; Perles 2004, 235), axes and adzes relect technological tradition and in some way represent the hallmark of the culture to which they belong. Their shape depended di-rectly on raw material of which they were made. Long and huge tools were made of pieces of stone extracted from primary deposit (quarry), and short and small tools indicate that the raw material probably came from second-ary deposits - riverbeds and water courses. Also, each type of raw material required a special type of manufacturing technique. Chipping was applied in processing of cherts, and pecking in manufacturing of granite, amphibo-lite and other rocks with of granular structure. Raw materials and process-ing techniques directly inluenced to tool shape.
Vinča culture ground stone tools with cutting edge have quite dis-tinctive appearance which owe to raw material of which they were made.
In Early Vinča culture these were ine grain gray, grayish-green and green rocks of similar technical and physical characteristics, but of different ori-gin: ine-grained metamorphosed sandstones, crystalline shists, hornfels
1Stone axes and adzes are very often considered as agricultural tools used like hoes and parts of primitive plows. Traces of use show that ground edge stone tools were mostly used in wood processing (Антоновић 1992, 20–21).
etc. (Antonović 2003, 16–20; Antonović et al. 2006, 55–56). During Late Vinča culture phase tools of “light white stone” (magnesite, tuff, diatomite etc.) became intensively produced. All these rocks have similar technical characteristics and one very distinctive common feature - conchoidal frac-ture - which is not as clearly deined as in the siliceous type of stone (chert, jasper, chalcedony, etc.), but which allow proper chipping (ig. 6–7) and production of axes and adzes on macrolakes (ig. 2).
Numerous unprocessed pieces of raw material and roughouts found at Neolithic sites in Serbia allow reconstruc-tion of process of making axes and adzes in Vinča culture.The process of production of ground edge tools began with bringing of stone into the settlement.
The raw material was already pre-formed in smaller blocks or pieces of irregular form so-mewhere outside the settle-ment, probably at the source where it was extracted (ig. 1).
Those places where raw mate-rial was collected haven’t been found yet although geological formations from which stone was taken are well known. It is most likely that pieces of ine-grained grayish-green rock (me taalevrolit, hornels, crystalli-ne schist etc.) were equally extracted from primary depos-its (quarries) and collected in secondary deposits (riverbeds, streams, etc.). Dimensions of tools point out to this conclusion. The usual length of axes and adzes in Vinča culture is from 7 to 10 cm, but there are also much longer objects with the length about 20 cm. The remains of the cortex on numerous ground edge tools also indicate that they had been made from a stone col-lected at the secondary deposit.
Fig. 1 Blocks of pre–formed raw material for production of ground-edge stone tools:
1. Bataševo (Mladenovac), 2–3. Vinča, Belo Brdo (Beograd), Jaričište, Mali Borak
(Kolubara colliery)
Sl. 1 Komadi pripremljene sirovine za izradu alatki sa sečicom od glačanog kamena:
1. Bataševo (Mladenovac), 2–3. Vinča, Belo Brdo (Beograd), 4. Jaričište, Mali Borak
(ugljenokop Kolubara)
From already prepared block of stone were deduced large lakes (macrolakes) afterwards used for the production of axes and adzes (ig.
2). The lake was cut into the shorter pieces whose side edges turned into distal and proximal ends of the future axe and adze, and the edges of frac-ture of macrolake became lateral sides of the fufrac-ture tool (ig. 3). Usually ventral side of the macrolake was minimally shaped by laking in purpose to remove bulb of fracture. Axes and adzes of ine-grained grayish-green rock (metaalevrolit, hornels, crystalline schist etc.) and light white stone (magnesite, tuff etc.) were manufactured at the same way.
Fig. 2 Macrolakes – the irst phase in production of roughouts of the Vinča culture axes and adzes: 1–2. Jaričište, Mali Borak (Kolubara colliery), 3. Bataševo, Mladenovac
(Beograd), 4–5. Crkvine, Mali Borak (Kolubara colliery)
Sl. 2 Makroodbici – prva faza u izradi polufabrikata vinčanskih sekira i tesli:
1-2. Jaričište, Mali Borak (ugljenokop Kolubara), 3. Bataševo, Mladenovac (Beograd), 4–5. Crkvine, Mali Borak (ugljenokop Kolubara)
Tools with cutting edge were inally shaped by grinding on massive grinding stones made of sandstone (ig. 4). During Starčevo and Early Vinča culture grinding was done very thoroughly and the surface of tool was al-most perfectly polished. During the Late Vinča culture phases (the Gradac and especially Pločnik phase) devaluation in the manufacture of tools with cutting edge took place, which is relected in the choice of raw material, as well in processing of tools (ig. 5).
Fig. 3 Process of production of Vinča culture axes and adzes: from already prepared piece of stone (1) were deduced macrolake (2), whose lateral sides (a and b) after changing of orientation of lake become distal (a) and proximal (b) end. Dorsal side is
rounded (4), and on ventral side (5) bulbus is removed with additional laking Sl. 3 Proces izrade vinčanskih sekira i tesli: okresivanjem se od pripremljenog komada kamena (1) dobija makroodbitak (2), kod koga promenom orijentacije (3) bočne strane (a i b) postaju distalni (a) i proksimalni (b) kraj. Dorsalna strana se dodatnim
okresiva-njem zaobljava (4), a na ventralnoj se minimalnom doradom samo uklanja bulbus (5)
Fig. 4 Masive grindstone for grinding of stone tools: Crkvine, Mali Borak
(Kolubara colliery)
Sl. 4 Masivna glačalica za brušenje kamenog oruđa: Crkvine, Mali Borak
(ugljenokop Kolubara)
Fig. 5 Adze and axe with well grounded surfaces (1–2) and partly grounded wedge of
„ligh white stone“ (3): 1–2. Jaričište, Mali Borak (Kolubara colliery), 3. Crkvine, Mali Borak (Kolubara colliery)
Sl. 5 Tesla i sekira dobro uglačanih površina (1–2) i delimično glačan klin od „lakog belog kamena“ (3): 1–2. Jaričište, Mali Borak (ugljenokop Kolubara), 3. Crkvine, Mali
Borak (ugljenokop Kolubara)
Numerous tools used in manufacturing of stone objects (hammer-stones, anvils, grind(hammer-stones, whetstones and working plates), semi-inished products and lakes as products of chipping roughouts for ground stone tools, all found at the Neolithic and Eneolithic sites throughout the Ser-bia, testify about the developed and active production of stone tools in-side settlements, quite rarely even inin-side houses. In Vinča, in Late Vinča culture layer (Unit 717, layer beneath the oven 01/03) numerous lakes of ine-grained greenish-grey crystalline shist were discovered and all of them derived from the same larger piece of stone (ig. 6.).2 I suppose that it was a part of working place or workshop for manufacturing axes and adzes. Investigation of the rest of the layer below the oven 01/03 hadn’t been undertaken since 2003 so it wasn’t possible to ascertain the size of the workshop which was located there. Places where production of tools of whitish tuff was done were recorded at Crkvine in Mali Borak (Aнтоновић 2011, 209–210). Large amount of lakes – around 1000 pieces which weight only 850 grams – indicate eficient production of roughouts of big and mas-sive tools with cutting edge (ig. 7). Unfortunately, none of semi-inished products was found within the workplace, which, admittedly, had not been completely investigated (Aнтоновић 2011, 208).
2Documentation of the project Researching at site Belo Brdo in Vinča. The author was a partner in the project in the period 1998 – 2008.
Fig. 6 Flakes produced in chipping of stone (cristalyne schist) used for production of ground-edge tools in Vinča : Unit 17, relocation of oven 01/03
Sl. 6 Odbici nastali okresivanjem kamena (kristalasti škriljac) korišćenog za izradu alatki sa sečicom u Vinči: junit 717, izmeštanje peći 01/03
Judging from the appearance of Vinča axes and adzes and their mass production, there is no doubt that the manufacturing of ground stone tools was well developed and quite deined craft performed in special work-shops. It was not domestic production within households. The absence of traces of increased production of ground stone tools in the Vinča culture houses conirms that within households only were performed repairs and sharpening of tools which were used in everyday life. Settlements of the Vinča culture were well-organized places. Presumably, workshops for mak-ing stone tools were located further away from the residential area, in the economic area, which has not been discovered in Serbia yet.
Acknowledgements
The article is the result of the projects “Archaeology of Serbia: cultural identity, integra-tion factors, technological processes and the role of the Central Balkans in the devel-opment of European prehistory” (no 177020) and “Cultural changes and population movements in the early prehistory of the Central Balkans” (no 177023) inanced by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
Fig. 7 Flakes of „light white stone“ (tuff) derived from production of ground-edge stone tools: Crkvine, Mali Borak (Kolubara colliery)
Sl. 7 Odbici od „lakog belog kamena“ (tuf) nastali u proizvodnji alatki sa sečicom:
Crkvine, Mali Borak (ugljenokop Kolubara)
References
Антоновић, Д. 1992. Предмети од глачаног камена из Винче, Београд: Филозоф-ски факултет, Центар за археолошка истраживања.
Antonović, D. 2003. Neolitska industrija glačanog kamena u Srbiji, Beograd:
Arheološki institut.
Antonović, D., Resimić, K., Cvetković V. 2006, Stone raw materials in the Vinča culture: petrographic analysis of assemblage from Vinča and Belovode, Старинар 55/2005: 53 – 66.
Антоновић, Д. 2011. Индустрија глачаног камена на локалитету Црквине: при-мер сонде 5, у: М. Благојевић (ур.) Колубара 5, Београд, Републички завод за заштиту споменика културе: 195–212.
Klimscha, F. 2011. Flint axes, ground stone axes and “battle axes” of the Copper Age in: the Eastern Balkans, V. Davis & M. Edmonds (eds.) Stone Axe Studies III, Oxford, Oxbow: 361–382.
Perlès, C. 2004. The Early Neolithic in Greece: the irst farming communities in Eu-rope, Cambridge: University Press.
Petrequin, P., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Klassen, L., Sheridan, A., Petrequin, A.-M. 2012. Jade. Grandes haches alpines du Néolithique européen, Ve au IVe millénaires av. J.-C., Besançon, Universitaires de Franche-Comté, Collection Les cahiers de la MSHE Ledoux 17, Série Dynamiques territoriales 6.
Тодорова, Х. 1993. Ново-каменната епоха в България, София: Наука и изкуство.
Dragana Antonović
Arheološki institut, Beograd