Mihailovic 2009 Middle Palaeolithic Settlement at Petrovaradin Fortress

8/8/2019 Mihailovic 2009 Middle Palaeolithic Settlement at Petrovaradin Fortress

1/179


2/179

MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT AT PETROVARADIN FORTRESS

2009 Novi Sad


3/179

Publisher

The City Museum of Novi Sad

For Publisher Vesna Nedeljkovi Angelovska

Editor

Radovan Bunardi

Rewieved by

Nikola Tasi Robert Whallon

Ivana Radovanovi

Translation Mirjana Vukmanovi

Proof-reading Milena Bogdanovi

Illustrations

The City Museum of Novi Sad

Photos Vladimir ervenka Aleksandar Mikov

Design vojislav lipovi

Cover design, Multidesign, Novi Sad

Printed by, Triton, Vrac

Printed in500

.The project of investigation of the Petrovaradin fortress and the Petrovaradin edition have been nanced bythe City of Novi Sad.

, (. . 147041).This book is the result of the Project of Ministry of Science and Technological Development, Archaeological

ndings - basis for studying cultural continuity in Prehistory and Antiquity on the territory of Republic of Serbia (no. 147041).

ISBN 978-86-7637-041-2


4/179

, II Petrovaradin edition, volume II

Duan Mihailovi

MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT ATPETROVARADIN FORTRESS

K I II

( 2003. 2004. )

CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY FROM SECTORS I AND II(EXCAVATIONS IN 2003 AND 2004)

2009 Novi Sad


5/179

.................................................................................................................................. 9

....................................................... 13 I (2003. ) ......................................................................... 15 II (2004. ) ........................................................................ 23 ............................................................................................. 24

....................................................................... 29 .................................................................................................................... 29 I ( III) ................................ 32

II ( ) ........... 48

.................................... 64

............................................................................................................................... 69

........................................................................................................ 81

................................................................................................................................. 88

O ........................................................................................ 97 ............................................................................................................ 97

.................................................................................................. 99 .......................................................................................................... 103

.......................................................... 105

................................................................................ 111 ..................................................... 112

........................................................ 117

.......................................................................................................................... 127

............................................................................................................... 133

........................................................................................................................... 139

............................................................................................................................. 143


6/179

CONTENTS

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9

Method of Excavation and Site Stratigraphy.................................................... 13Excavations in Sector I (in 2003) ............................................................................. 16Excavations in Sector II (in 2004) ........................................................................... 24Factors of the deposition of nds ............................................................................ 25

Analysis of Chipped Stone Industry.................................................................... 29Methodology ............................................................................................................... 29Analysis of chipped stone artifacts from Sector I (tract III) ............................... 33Analysis of the chipped stone artifacts from Sector II (locality Parking) ......... 49Artifacts found outside reliable stratigraphic context ......................................... 64

Tables........................................................................................................................... 69

Spatial Analysis........................................................................................................ 81

Maps ............................................................................................................................. 88

General Characteristics of the Middle Palaeolithic Industryfrom the Petrovaradin Fortress ............................................................................ 97Procurement of raw materials .................................................................................. 97

Knapping technology ................................................................................................. 99Retouched tools .......................................................................................................... 103Results obtained by using Bordes method ............................................................ 105

Middle Palaeolithic in the Area of the Petrovaradin Fortresswithin Broader Regional Context ........................................................................ 111Middle Palaeolithic in the neighboring regions ..................................................... 112Factors of technological and cultural variability ................................................... 117

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 127

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 133

Index ........................................................................................................................... 139

Catalogue .................................................................................................................... 143


7/179


8/179

- , , -

, , - - , - . , -, , , , 188 ,

1820. . , - . , -

, - , .

- , , .

Word of the Editor

With regards to comprehensive restorationand revitalization of the Petrovaradin fortressthe systematic archaeological, historical andarchitectural investigations have been under-

taken and they are still in progress. Also theCity Museum of Novi Sad started the editionabout the history of Petrovaradin intending tocollect in one place all actual interdisciplinaryknowledge about the Fortress. First volume ofIstorija Srema i Petrovardina (History of Srem

and Petrovaradin) work of our respected fellowcitizen Franz Schams, apothecary, naturalistand enologist was published in translationprecisely 188 years after its rst publication in

German in Budapest in 1820. Second volumeof the Petrovaradin edition is the result of therecent archaeological investigations at Gornjatvrdjava (Upper Fortress) where rst tracesof human habitations at the mighty Petrova-radin rock above the right Danube bank havebeen discovered. Dr. Duan Mihailovi, thescientic counselor in the project presentedin the monograph Middle Paleolithic Settle-ment at Petrovaradin Fortress the results ofthese investigations corroborated by substan-tial archaeological material that will as wehope be actual for many years to come.

All the activities and investigations at thePetrovaradin fortress as well as the publish-ing of the edition are realized with the nan-cial support of the city of Novi Sad.

Radovan Bunardi


9/179


10/179


11/179

Duan Mihailovi | MiDDlE PalaEoliThiC SETTlEMEnT aT PETRovaRaDin FoRTRESS

10

. , - . , -

, .

, M, - . - . -

- , M. - - - . (- 2006; Mihailovi 2008; ihailovisous presse), a , - .

2003. . - 19. (Milleker 1937), -,

1984. (Radovanovi 1986a), . 1954. 1978. -, - (Brodar 1955; 1992), , - 13. ( 1984). , -

, . -

around twenty centimeters under the top loesslevel and when we encountered rst transver-sal sidescrapers and Levallois akes it had be-come clear that these nds date from the Mid-dle Palaeolithic period. The closing stages of

excavations have been marked by the nd ofmassive bifacially aked backed sidescraper.This artifact unusual for the Middle Palaeoli-thic of the south Pannonia indicated, at leastindirectly, the connections between this regionand the northern part of the Carpathian basinin the early phase of Upper Pleistocene.

In the following year we explored an areaaround ten meters far from the museum build-ing and in the immediate vicinity of the rst

explored trench. These investigations madepossible better distinguishing of the boundar-ies and the stratigraphy of the site. It turnedout that cultural remains were registeredover a very large area and that the center ofthe settlement was in the central zone of theplateau on the present day location of the mu-seum building. It was possible to distinguishclearly the components of the material sug-gesting preliminary conclusions about culturalprovenance of the industry and its position inthe Middle Palaeolithic of the Carpathian ba-sin. The rst results have been published inthe few texts ( 2006; Mihailovi2008, Mihailovi, sous presse) and the exhibi-tion was organized in the City Museum of NoviSad while the material was incorporated in thepermanent museum display.

Investigations of the Pleistocene layers inthe area of the Petrovaradin fortress conductedin 2003 marked the beginning of systematic ex-

cavations of the Palaeolithic sites in Vojvodina.Despite the fact that rst artifacts were discov-ered in the vicinity of Vrac already in the endof the 19th century (Milleker 1937) all the ar-tifacts known so far, except those gathered in1984 in the course of testtrenching of the siteAt (Radovanovi 1986a) have been acquiredeither by purchase or random collecting. Forexample, few thousands of the Aurignacian ar-tifacts have been gathered between 1954 and

1978 only from the site Crvenka and At (Brodar1955; 1992), while large quantityof nds from different Palaeolithic phases has


12/179

|

11

(Medovi 1970), (Radovanovi1984) 13. ( 1984).

-

- , 2003. - (- ). - , .

-

. , , - - . , -. , , : (-, 2006) - (Mihailovi 2008;Mihailovi, sous press). , , .

been also gathered from the Danube bank atthe site 13th May in Zemun ( 1984). Incontrast to the Upper Palaeolithic, the MiddlePalaeolithic in Vojvodina was almost unknownbefore the investigations at the Petrovaradin

fortress. Some isolated nds from this periodhave been recorded only at the sites CiganIrig(Medovi 1970), Kozluk (Radovanovi 1984)and 13th May ( 1984).

In order to comprehend the natural en- vironment of the site and the factors, whichcould have inuenced the spatial and strati-graphic distribution of the nds the expertsfrom the Center for the Quaternary Investiga-tions in Novi Sad (Slobodan Markovi with as-

sociates) have been included in the investiga-tion team. The analysis of macrobotanical re-mains was entrusted to Aleksandar Medovi,archeobotanist from Novi Sad.

The aim of this publication is not to pro- vide an insight in all aspects of study of theMiddle Palaeolithic settlement at Petrovara-din fortress. Our intention is, in the rst place,to present in detail the context of the nds andcomplete material acquired during rst two years of investigations. In addition, we triedto suggest possible explanations of the Mid-dle Palaeolithic within the broader regionalcontext. The point is that besides the Petro- varadin fortress another two sites from thisperiod, Hadi Prodanova peina near Ivanjica(M, 2006) and cavecomplex Balanica in Sievo (Mihailovi 2008,Mihailovi, sous presse) have been recentlyinvestigated in Serbia. These investigationsprovided the opportunity to understand the

evolution of the culture and the way of life ofthe Middle Palaeolithic communities in Serbiaat least in the most general outlines.


13/179

. 1.

Fig. 1 Geographical position of the site


14/179

|

13

, - ,

The Petrovaradin fortress is situated onthe eastern slopes of the Fruka Gora nearNovi Sad on the dominant elevation above the

Methodof excavatIon

and SIte StratIgraphy

. 2. 18.

Fig. 2 Petrovaradin fortress on the 18th century map


15/179


14

(. 16). . -

. 20. - . - -, . - 2002. , ,

. 2003. -

right Danube bank (Figs. 16). From the hill-top it is possible to see most of the south Bakaregion. It is still not possible to reconstruct indetail the appearance of the plateau in thetime of settling the site or the stratigraphy of

cultural and geological layers. The reason forthat is in the fact that intensive building ac-tivity had been carried out in this area untilthe beginning of the 20th century. Already theresults of test trenching suggested the zonesof the Petrovaradin fortress where the ndsfrom the prehistory, antiquity and the MiddleAges could be expected. Therefore, the rescueexcavations (considering the method and ac-companying documentation) were modied to

enable the investigation of the remains from

. 3. (1:5000)

Fig. 3 Location of Petrovaradin fortress (1:5000)


16/179

|

15

, - . - , .

2003. 2004.

, 1 m2 0,25 m2. - in situ 5 cm . - 5 cm, - . - . , , -

the later periods. When we started excavat-ing the layers with Palaeolithic nds in 2003it became essential to coordinate the systemof excavation of the Pleistocene layers withthe existing system of documentation. Themethodology of investigation was partiallyalso inuenced by the fact that archaeologi-cal excavations had to follow the dynamics of

construction of communal infrastructure.The excavations in 2003 and 2004 wereorganized using the square grid with basicunit being the one square meter quadrantdivided into 0.25 square meter quadrants.All the nds discovered in situ and the rockfragments over 5 cm in size were recorded bythe Total Station and mapped on the generalsite plan. The geological layers were removedin many arbitrary layers not exceeding 5 cmexcept when the archaeologically sterile hori-zons were in question. We attempted from thebeginning of excavations to follow the natural

. 4.

Fig. 4 Aerial photo of Petrovaradin fortress


17/179


16

. , 4 mm, - (2 mm) - .

- , .. , 13 m, - -. , 2002. - (. 7). - . 2002. , - III, ( I), - ( II).

I(2003. ) -

I ( III)

sloping of the layers. Also the samples for dat-ing as well as for molluscan, macrobotanicaland pollen analyses have been collected. Thesediment was water sieved using 4 mm sieves

as ner sieves (2 mm) were unsuitable for thesoaked loess.The rescue excavations at the fortress

have been carried out in the socalled tracts.The tracts are actually elongated trenches, 1to 3 meters wide, and oriented depending onthe planned direction of the infrastructuralobjects. Many tracts have been explored with-in the fortress since 2002 and they covered

. 5.

Fig. 5 View of Petrovaradin fortress from the north

. 6.

Fig. 6 View from Petrovaradin fortress towards the west


18/179

|

17

2003. , . - 38 m2, . - , (-

0,5 m) B, bi c. - , 5, , 27, (. 8, 9). , , 3 m (. 10, 11). (. 12).1) , -

2, ,

the area along the western rampart and thewalls of Jednostavna kasarna and Duga kasar-na (Fig. 7). In the central zone of the plateauthe tracts were laid along all four walls of theCity Museum building. The Palaeolithic arti-facts were discovered in 2002 in the excavat-ed tracts laid along the western and southern

museum walls while systematic excavations ofthe Palaeolithic have been carried out in tractIII, along the northern wall (sector I) and inthe area of the site Parking (sector II).

ExcavatIonsIn sEctorI (In 2003)

Investigations of the Palaeolithic ho-rizons in sector I (tract III) have started in

the late autumn of 2003 when the top layerof the Pleistocene horizon had already been

. 7. ,

Fig. 7 Detailed plan of Petrovaradin fortress with excavated sectors


19/179


18

. , . , -

, , - (. 12, 13). -. -, , , - 2. , -,

removed. Prior to the excavations the gridlayout was established covering an area of 38square meters and two lines of squares paral-

lel to the north museum wall were laid. Northline was marked as line A and south line (0.5m wide) as line B, including quadrants b and c.Looking in the westeast direction the squareswere marked by numbers starting with num-ber 5 at the very entrance to the museum andnishing with number 27 at the north cornerof the building (Figs. 8, 9). The excavations inthe west section of the tract were abandonedvery soon because a virgin rock appeared al-most at the ground level while in the east sec-tion a depth of almost 3 m was reached (Figs.10, 11). Two geological layers have been distin-guished (Fig. 12).1) Upper layer (subsequently marked as geo-

logical layer 2a) is characterized by somewhat darker loess sediment, which is sig-nicantly disturbed in the upper zone.Thickness of the remaining portion of thelayer varies depending on the terrain level-ing. Level with rock fragments that could

be followed in the northern prole as a rowof fragments arranged at regular intervals was encountered in the lower portion ofthe layer in the west section of excavationtrench (Figs. 12, 13). It seemed at rst mo-ment that this row perhaps indicates theexistence of a structure of anthropogenicorigin. However, the very fact that we alsodiscovered rock fragments in the neighbor-ing squares suggests that it was a natural

formation, which stratigraphically sepa-rates upper and lower horizon within a geo-logical layer 2a. Yet, it remains unclear how

. 8. I:

. 9. I

Fig. 9 Preliminary works in sector I


20/179

|

19

. - ,

-.

2) , 2b, je , - . , :

these fragments reached that surface (iftheir deposition was the result of land ero-sion) considering that it is situated almost

on the top of the Petrovaradin plateau. Wemay possibly get the answer to this ques-tion after conducting excavations under themuseum building that are planned for thenear future.

2) Lower layer (marked as geological layer 2b)is of somewhat lighter, yellowish color and

Fig. 8 Sector I: nal ground plan

. 10. I

Fig. 10 Excavated area in the western section of sector I


21/179


22/179

|

21

. , , .

- . , . , (2627), . , -

.

2, ,

2b. 2b, . ( - ), , . 2025,

. - B18,

ters) while in squares AB/15 it is over 1.5meters thick. The layer 2b is overlaid bythe horizon of disturbance from the upperlevel. The disturbance was ascertained inthe course of excavations when it was no-

ticed that strips of sediment from upperlayer penetrate deep into the lower layer,in the western section of the trench evento the virgin rock. The character of the dis-turbance has not been established so far assedimentologic analyses are not completed.The virgin rock marks the bottom line ofthe layer and at the contact point the layercontains larger amount of clay. In squares(A26A27) where the greatest thickness

was encountered it was also noticed thatthere is a thin horizon with reddish sedi-ment in the middle of the layer. This hori-zon was hardly distinguishable in prolewhile at the bottom of the trench it couldbe recognized as discontinuously scatteredmarks.

Even though there are archaeologicalnds also in the upper section of the geologi-cal layer 2a, most of the artifacts were en-countered in its lower section almost at thelevel of disturbance separating this layer fromthe layer 2b. Similar situation is also in thegeological layer 2b where considerably smallerquantity of nds was discovered. The major-ity of artifacts come from the upper section of

. 13. I

Fig. 13 Section of the north prole in sector I

. 14. I

Fig. 14 Horizon with rock fragments in thenorth prole of sector I


23/179


22

the layer (in the western squares on the rockitself) although they appear sporadically alsoat greater depth as deep as the horizon withreddish sediment. The largest amount of arti-facts was found in squares AB2025 althoughsmaller quantity of nds was registered overthe entire surface of the trench.

OSL 27( 2), B18 (2) B9/C9 (2b). - , - , L1L2,

. 15. O II

. 16. II

Fig. 16 Position of sector II


24/179

|

23

, 4(OIS 4) (Markovi et al. 2004).

II (2004. )

II (), , 2004. . 18 x 3 m ,

I (. 1517). o , (118,B1B18, C1C18).

(2) II I - . -, , . . 2, (. 18), 2b I, (. 19, 20). , I, -. -

, 18, .

The samples for sedimentological and mal-acological analyses were taken from square

B18 and samples for dating by OSL methodfrom squares A27 (geological layer 2a), B18(2a) and B9/C9 (2b). On the basis of prelimi-nary examination of the site stratigraphy, theupper layer is interpreted as palaeosoil in theinitial phase of formation while the lower lay-er is related to the phase L1L2 after Chinesestratigraphic system, i.e. to the OIS 4 (OIS 4)(Markovi et al. 2004).

Fig. 15 Ground plan after the removal of surface layer in sector II

. 17. II

Fig. 17 Ground plan in sector II


25/179


24

. 2. - . -

, .

I II - -

. ,,

- .

ExcavatIonsIn sEctorII (In 2004)

Excavations in Sector II (site Parking) werecarried out in the summer of 2004 around tenmeters to the north of rst trench. The trench

(18 x 3 m) was laid in the eastwest directionalmost parallel to Sector I (Figs. 1517). Threerows of squares were marked by letters fromnorth to south and by numbers from west toeast (118, B1B18, C1C18).

It turned out in the course of excavationsthat upper layer (2a) in Sector II is consider-ably thinner than in Sector I and that it wassignicantly more disturbed not only becauseof the leveling of the terrain but also because

of many diggings from the upper horizon. Inthe central zone of excavation and at small

depth was encountered a water collector fromrather recent times. Because of that excava-tions were extended to include row of squares

. 18. II

Fig. 18 Horizon with rock fragments in the western section of sector II


26/179

|

25

2 (T. Gaudenyi, - ),

., -. - , . -

. 2a 2b , - . , - , . ,

A. Horizon with rock fragments also appearednear the bottom of geological layer 2 in thewestern part of the sector (Fig. 18) while theborder with layer 2b could be observed in thesame way as in Sector I - like strips deeply

penetrating into the lower layer (Figs. 19,20). On the other hand, the lower layer wasmostly thicker than in Sector I but only oneartifact has been found within that layer. Ho-rizon with spots of reddish sediment in thecentral part of layer 2b (particularly in squareA18) was also encountered in this trench.The rock at the bottom of the trench slopesin the northsouth and westeast direction.The largest amount of nds was discovered in

the lower section of layer 2a. The samples forthe sedimentological and pollen analyses havebeen collected during the entire excavationprocess. The otation of sediments in orderto obtain macrobotanical remains was carriedout on the spot but without any results.

factorSofthedepoSItIonoffIndS

Investigations in Sectors I and IIrevealed that Pleistocene deposits onthe top of the Petrovaradin plateauare characterized by relatively uni-form stratigraphy. It is still, however,not apparent under what circum-stances the sediments were depositedand what factors had a decisive im-pact on horizontal and vertical stra-tigraphy of the nds.

Considering that large quantity ofmollusk shells from the Holocene pe-riod has been found in geological lay-er 2a (T. Gaudenyi, personal commu-nication), the question arises whetherformation of the layer is a result ofnatural causes or it is the redepositedsediment. At the moment there are,however, no indications, which ad-ditionally suggest that upper layer of

loess was completely redeposited. Ithas been noticed even during the ex-cavations that concentration of nds

. 19. II ( 16. 18. )

Fig. 19 Section of the north prole in sector II(from the 16th to the 18th meter)


27/179


26

increases in the lower sections of the layer andthat would have been rather improbable if thesediments were redeposited. The continuousdeposition could be also indicated by the ab-solute dates if it turns out that the age of de-

posits increases with the depth from which thesamples have been taken.

Particular problem is lying in the fact thatbasically similar industry was encountered inlayers 2a and 2b while for these layers havebeen assumed different date. Whether theseare two cultural horizons or just one strati-graphically disturbed horizon it is still to beestablished. Besides, the question arises howmuch the horizontal distribution of nds was

inuenced by natural factors and how muchby human activities. The rescue excavationsrevealed that artifacts appear over large area(e.g. in tracts 1A and 3) but also that there isconcentration of the artifacts on the plateauto the north of the museum building.

In order to deal with all these questions we are going to analyze separately the ndsfrom both sectors and all stratigraphic enti-ties. We hope that similarities and differencesof the material will show whether the artifactsoriginate from one or many phases of settling.It is also expected that results of the spatialanalysis could make possible better compre-hension of the factors inuencing horizontaldistribution of nds.

- ,

. ( 1 3, ), - .

- -.

- ., .

. 20. II

Fig. 20 Section of the east prole in sector II


28/179


29/179


30/179

|

29

- , - - -

. , , - . - . :) ; ) , ) - .

, - : - , -

, . -

Methodology

Before starting to analyze the chippedstone industry from the Petrovaradin for-tress it is necessary to consider in short themethodology of investigation of the Middle

Palaeolithic material. Namely, the detailedanalyses of the chipped stone industries fromthe Middle Palaeolithic have not been carriedout in Serbia so far. The problem is also thefact that criteria for studying this material aregenerally less standardized than the criteriaused in the analysis of the artifacts from theUpper Palaeolithic and later periods. Thereare several reasons for this situation: a) mate-rial from the Middle Palaeolithic is specic inmany ways; b) there are differences in the re-gional tradition of investigations; c) the objec-tives of analysis and interpretations of MiddlePalaeolithic material have always been con-nected with the attempts to explain the wayof life of the Neanderthal men and their socialorganization.

In the ideal circumstances the analysesof raw materials should include mineralogi-

cal identication, locating of deposits, es-tablishing the methods of exploitation andidentifying the way of transport. It is possible

Analysis of Chipped

Stone Industry


31/179


32/179

|

31

. - , , . - , , - . , , , - . - , .

, - , -. - , - ,

, - - -, . , - (clats Levallois prfrentiels de deuximeordre), . - - (llars 1996).

, ,

- , (

narrow platform because such akes couldresult from knapping discoid, asymmetricaland singleplatform cores. It is well-knownthat difference between Levallois and discoidcores is in the volumetric characteristics ofthe cores. The Levallois technology is char-acterized by cores with differentiated ak-ing surface of planoconvex section and often with visible traces of preparation. For thesame reason, i.e. for preparation and not forexploitation the lateral sides of core were alsoknapped. Because of that the Levallois coresdiffer from discoid and asymmetrical cores(of biconvex or polygonal cross-section) char-

acterized by many aking surfaces.It is difcult to distinguish in practice the

akes struck from the Levallois cores fromthose struck from discoid, asymmetrical andsingle-platform cores (including also the cores with changed orientation). The volumetriccharacter of cores could not be recognized onakes while the preferential character of theaking surface usually could be recognizedonly when the orientation of scars (along with

some other attributes like for instance type ofplatform) reects to a certain degree the Le-valloisian concept and when the width of akeindicates that most of the aking surface, i.e.the core face was used in the aking process.It is therefore clear that identication of theLevallois technology is easier for the akesstruck from linear cores and it particularlyconcerns the preferential akes of secondorder (clats Levallois prfrentiels de deux-ime ordre) while for other types of akes itis much more difcult to reach a conclusion.Therefore, it is understandable why the num-ber of reliably identied Levallois akes isalways much smaller than the total numberof artifacts produced using this technology(Mellars 1996).

The reconstruction of technological pro-cedure does not end, however, in basic dis-

tinction between Levallois and non-Levalloistechnology neither it is possible to distinguishprecisely these two technologies in practice


33/179


32

) . : ) , ;) , - (Binford 1979; Geneste1985; Gamble 1999, 217220); ) , ) - . - ( , ),

j -. , -, ( ) , , - .

- - , -. , , - , - - . (Chase 2006, 136144). -, , -

, . , -

(not only in the analysis but also actually).Our intention is therefore: a) to reconstructthe operational chain as much as possible; b)to suggest which artifacts could have been pro-duced on the spot and which were eventuallybrought from outside (Binford 1979; Geneste1985; Gamble 1999, 217220); c) to discern thedegree of complexity of the technological pro-cess and d) to establish to what degree the rawmaterials were used selectively for productionof distinct categories of artifacts. Somewhatmore detailed analyses have been undertakenonly in the rst and last case (although with-out attempt to join the akes because there

was no technical possibility) while the degreeof complexity was studied more from the con-ceptual than practical aspect. The thing isthat already in the course of preliminary ex-amination it was noticed that low quality ofraw materials, relatively small dimensions ofartifacts (mostly with just a few scars) and infact not so large quantity of nds do not makepossible (nd do not justify) the detailed anal-ysis of all qualitative and metric attributes on

the akes.When the retouched tools are concerned

we tried to describe the variations, which ap-pear within basic classes and types of toolswhile we used Bordes list of types only in thenal study of the cultural character of theindustry. We tried to determine the degreeof standardization of certain tool types thatcould be reected besides in the stylisticcharacteristics of tools also in the selective useof raw materials and certain types of akes intheir production. This question is importantbecause the standardization not only precedesbut also is the prerequisite for the emergenceof style (Chase 2006, 136144) and one of cru-cial questions in the study of the Neanderthalsociety is whether and to what extent the Ne-anderthal men were conscientious about cul-tural and social identity (which could possibly

be symbolized in style) and how much theirmaterial culture was the result of repetitionand functional needs. Within that context we


34/179

|

33

, - , - . - -, - .

I (III)

I : 2, 2 2b, 2b. , - . , - 2 2b

. , , - 2.

2

2, I, 324 . , 1,5cm (47,2%), , , , . (- 1) (73,1%), 3,5%, 18,1%. , 2

. , , -

examined the results of analyses from thefunctional but also the cultural aspect in anattempt to reconstruct the character of set-tling, to perceive the distinctions of chippedstone industry from the Petrovaradin fortressand to identify cultural and social connec-tions between the local communities and theneighboring groups. We tried to explain thesephenomena also in the diachronic perspectivewhen we are discussing cultural and chrono-logical position of the industry.

analySISofchIppedStoneartIfactSfrom sEctorI (tract III)

The material from Sector I come fromthree stratigraphic entities: layer 2a, contactzone between layers 2a and 2b and layer 2b.Although we took great care during excava-tions to single out nds from the contact zonewe nally decided to dene the entire horizonof disturbance as distinct entity. In this way

the artifacts from layers 2a and 2b has beendistinguished from the material from unreli-able stratigraphic context. Nevertheless, onthe basis of the observations at the site it couldbe said that larger amount of material fromthe contact zone almost certainly belongs tothe lower section of layer 2a.

Layer 2a

A total of 324 artifacts have been collectedfrom layer 2a in Sector I. There is a consider-able amount of chips and small fragments up to 1.5 cm long (47.2%) and there were alsocores, blades and akes, larger chunks, re-touched tools and products of secondary toolmodication. The most numerous in the gen-eral structure of artifacts (Table I) are akes

(73.1%), there are 3.5% of cores and 18.1% oftools. According to these characteristics theassemblage from layer 2a does not have dis-


35/179


34

T. I


36/179

|

35

- . - (9,2%) ( 7).

( 72,5%) , ( 2). - 15,2%, 5,3%. ( 2) , -, , .

( ) ( 3). , , , .

,

.1) -

(. I/1). , , , -. , - .

2) , - (T. I/2). . - .

3) (T. I/3). je -

. , .

tinctive workshop character. Although thebones are not preserved it could be assumedthat at the site were encountered the remainsof the camp of general type and not the campwhere specialized activities related to the toolproduction had been taking place. It is alsoconrmed by the fact that relatively high per-centage of scorched and burnt artifacts 9.2%in total was identied in the assemblage fromlayer 2a (Table 7).

The artifacts made of white int of hetero-geneous structure and of relatively poor qual-ity convincingly prevail (as much as 72.5%)among the nds (Table 2). There is 15.2% of

quartz nds and 5.3% of artifacts made of yel-lowish int. There is also very small quantity(under 2%) of the artifacts made of red, black,green, brown matt and gray translucent int.There is no doubt that white int and quartzwere used for production of artifacts withinthe settlement (only cores of these two rawmaterials were found) (Table 3). On the otherhand there are no reliable indications that ar-tifacts made of other raw materials, rst of all

red jasper and yellow int, were produced onthe spot.

Cores

Six cores were found in this layer; ve ofwhite int and only one of quartz.1) Levallois core of preferential type (Pl. I/1).

Its bottom side is damaged by re so it isnot clear whether the core was made on apiece of raw material or on a massive akewhich seems more probable. The platform isfaceted and one broad ake scar and tracesof lateral preparation are discernible on theaking surface.

2) Levallois core of very small size made ona ake (Pl. I/2). The platform was madeon ake truncation and reveals the tracesof preparation. On the frontal side is dis-cernible a scar resulting from striking one

rather large ake.3) Core on a ake (Pl. I/3). The ventral sideof the ake was used as aking surface


37/179


36

4) , (T. I/4). . . -, . - .

5) - , . .

6) .

(45,4%) , ( 8), , , . - , .

,

. : - (5,110 cm), (2,65 cm) - (1,62,5 cm. - /. : (> 3), (2,13), ( 1,62), ( 1,11,5) ( 1).

2 ( 72,9%), - (22,0%), 5 cm 5,1%. - ( 10), - .

25,50 x24,01 x 8,40 mm, - 33,61 mm.

(Kombewa technique) and has two scars.The platform is on truncation and lateralsides of the core do not reveal traces ofpreparation.

4) Core similar to the previous one, made ona piece of raw material (Pl. I/4). The natu-ral surface appears on the bottom side. Theplatform is not prepared. One of the edgesreveals traces of lateral preparation direct-ed towards the bottom side of the core. Thescars of two small akes are discernible onthe aking surface.

5) Fragment of very much exhausted irregularcore made on a at piece of raw material.

The platform is on truncation.6) Fragment of irregular core made of quartz.

Products of knapping

The most numerous among the unre-touched artifacts are complete akes (45.4%)and fragments of akes but there were alsove fragmented blades (Table 8) one of which,judging by its width, was of somewhat largersize. We analyzed the morphometric charac-

teristics of nds as well as the dorsal side andstriking platform.

The blades and akes were classied intoseveral categories according to their dimen-sions and elongation. On the basis of theirlenght they were classied as: blades and akesof medium size (5.110 cm), small blades andakes (2.65 cm) and very small blades andakes (1.6-2.5 cm). The degree of elongationwas determined according to the length/widthindex. So we identied: narrow blades (index> 3), blades of medium length (index 2.13),laminar akes (index 1.62), akes of me-dium length (index 1.11.5) and short akes(index 1).

The most frequent in the assemblagefrom layer 2a are very small akes (as muchas 72.9%) followed by akes of small size(22.0%) while there is only 5.1% of akes over

5 cm long. Considering the individual catego-ries (Table 10) by far the most numerous arevery small short akes and akes of medium


38/179

|

37

- , - . , .

- , : - - (55,6%), -

(15,2%), (8,5%) 50% (10,2%). - clats dbordants 6,8%, - , (12). , 50%, 22,0%.

-. , : - , - (T. II/1), - , - (T. II/2). .

, - - - . , - .

(. II/3), -

elongation. The average dimensions of unre-touched artifacts are 25.50 x 24.01 x 8.40 mmwhile an average length of the retouched onesis 33.61 mm.

While analyzing the dorsal side we faceda dilemma whether to consider the obtainedresults from the aspect of technological pro-cedure or to present the results of analyses intotal, disregarding the technology employed.Taking into account that in many instancestechnology was difcult to identify we decid-ed to consider the results from both aspects.

If we consider only the dorsal side attri-butes the situation is as follows: among the

unretouched akes the most numerous arespecimens with divergent scars (55.6%) andnext most frequent are akes with parallelscars (15.2%), then there is 8.5% of akes withdiagonal and transversal scars and there arealso akes with over 50% of cortex (10.2%).There is 6.8% of rejuvenation akes of theclats dbordants type and there are twospecimens with two ventral sides that couldbe classied as akes of Kombewa type (Table

12). There are also 22.0% of specimens withcortex including also akes with less than50% of cortex.

The use of Levallois technology is con-spicuous not only on cores but also on akes.Seven Levallois akes were found of whichonly two are typical: the specimen with me-dial scar, the traces of lateral preparationand broad dihedral platform (Pl. II/1) and theake of irregular shape with traces of prepa-ration following the striking of central ake(Pl. II/2). In both instances these are the pref-erential akes of the second order.

Atypical akes are not so characteris-tic but they could still be connected with theLevallois technology taking into account thatdiscoid cores have not been ascertained at thePetrovaradin fortress. On both discoveredspecimens the ake axis does not agree with

striking direction and this conrms the cen-tripetal striking of the aking surface. Onespecimen has medial scar on a dorsal side and


39/179


38

T. II


40/179

|

39

, , - (. II/4). (3 ) , - , - - , .

(clats dbordants) . , -

, (. II/5,6). - , 90 , - - (T. II/7).

: - - ,

, , , - . , , - (T. II/8).

- - (65,8%, 73,2%), 4,9% (9,8% ). - 2,4% - ( 14). - ( -) , . (3 ) .

( 16) -

(19,3%),

it has broad faceted platform (Pl. II/3) whileother ake of somewhat larger size has convergent scars and narrow platform (Pl. II/4).There were also found the akes with broad,plain or dihedral platform and parallel scars(3 specimens) that might have resulted in theprocess of knapping the Levallois cores but itcould not be ruled out that they belong to theadvanced phase of knapping some other typesof cores.

The rejuvenation akes with laterallyoriented traces of preparation (clats dbor-dants) are not so numerous. These are mostlyvery small akes with edge showing traces of

rejuvenation convergent to the platform (Pl.II/5, 6). In one instance the edge is obviouslypart of former platform as the scars partiallycovering the dorsal side start from it at the90 angle (Pl. II/7).

There were also found two very smallakes of Kombewa type: one with broad dihe-dral platform and diagonally oriented wavesconspicuous on former ventral side of the ake(now on dorsal side) and the other completely

burnt specimen with transversal waves. In ad-dition there was also one Kombewa ake ofthe second order with the scars covering for-mer ventral side only partially (Pl. II/8).

The analysis of unretouched artifactsreveals that plain platform signicantly pre- vails (65.8% and with linear and punctiformplatforms as much as 73.2%) while the facetedplatform is present on 4.9% of akes (9.8% in-cluding dihedral ones). The cortical platformwas encountered on only 2.4% of nds (Table14). On the four out of eight specimens withprepared (dihedral and faceted) platform thevery end of proximal ake part is also its wid-est part. In most cases (3 specimens) these aretypical and atypical Levallois akes.

Retouched tools

In the structure of tools (Table 16) side-

scrapers are the most frequent type (19.3%)although notched and denticulated tools reachin total even 32.3% of implements. Well repre-


41/179


40

T. III


42/179

|

41

32,3%. (-, ), 16,1%, ( 3,2%).

- ( 3). - ; , ( 8 9), - - ( 11). -, -

: - 5 cm 27,8%, 2,6 cm 5 cm 50%. 2,5 cm - -, . -, , , ( ) ( -

) . - , .

, -, - - . : - , (T. III/1), - (T.III/3), , (T.III/2), - djet (T. III/4), ( , , -, )

(T. III/5, 6). , -

sented (16.1%) are also endscrapers (atypical,on akes). One burin and one retouched trun-cation (3.2% each) have been also found.

The structure of raw materials used fortool production does not differ substantiallyfrom the average of the assemblage (Table 3).Similar is the case with fragmentariness ofnds; tools are somewhat less preserved whichis logical (Tables 8 and 9) but the morphomet-ric structure differs considerably (Table 11).Although it is not possible to process this sam-ple statistically because of small number ofspecimens it is obvious that tools were madeon somewhat larger akes: there is 27.8% of

tools on akes over 5 cm in size and over 50%of tools on akes between 2.6 cm and 5 cmlong. The akes up to 2.5 cm long were usedfor production of retouched akes, notchedand denticulated tools. The sidescrapers, which are anyway of somewhat larger size,are best preserved while notched tools (prob-ably because of their function) and endscrap-ers (because they were usually made on akefragments) are mostly broken. Selectivity in

relation to the type of ake was not registeredat least when it concerns the characteristics ofdorsal side and striking platform.

The sidescrapers, almost all made of whiteint, represent the only fairly well standard-ized and typologically differentiated tool cat-egory. There were found one slightly convexsidescraper on blade with semiabrupt mar-ginal retouch on the other edge (Pl. III/1), onepartially retouched convex sidescraper (Pl.III/3), one massive convex sidescraper made ofquartz on the piece of raw material (Pl. III/2),one typical laterotransversal sidescraper ofdjet type (Pl. III/4) and two sidescrapers(one lateral straight and one transversal slightly concave) with inverse surface retouchon the opposite edge (Pl. III/5, 6).

The endscrapers, in contrast to the side-scrapers, make entirely heterogeneous cate-

gory of tools. There were found one specimenon massive quartz ake (Pl. IV/1) and twospecimens on small akes (Pl. IV/2, 3). In all


43/179


42

. - (. IV/1), (. IV/2,3). . -: , (. IV/4), , - (. IV/5).

, - , - (. IV/612). , - () ,

, - , .

O , - : (. IV/13) (-) - (. IV/14).

, - (. IV/15).

2 2

2 2b - 106 , 53 - . , - . -, , .

, - 2 ( 116). -

- ,

three cases the working edge is almost abso-lutely straight. There were also recorded twonosed endscrapers: one is typical, made on apiece of raw material (Pl. IV/4) and the otheris atypical, made on a broad ake (Pl. IV/5).

There is no need to describe in detaildenticulated and notched tools and retouchedakes (Pl. IV/612). These are mostly smallor very small akes partially retouched bysimple (shallowsemiabrupt) or denticulat-ed retouch or the akes with shallow semiabruptly retouched notches, and sometimesthe retouch also covers the greater part oftool edge.

In addition to endscrapers two more toolsof the Upper Palaeolithic type were identiedin the assemblage: one lateral burin on trun-cation of lager ake (Pl. IV/13) and one akewith asymmetrical (shoulder) retouched trun-cation that is trimmed by alternating semiabrupt retouch (Pl. IV/14). Three fragments oftools with semiabrupt retouch as well as oneake resulting from rejuvenation of tool edgeor from accidental break from the ventral side

direction have been also found in this layer(Pl. IV/15).

Contact zone of geological layers 2a and 2b

A total of 106 artifacts of which 53 aresmall fragments and chips have been gatheredfrom the zone of contact between the geologi-cal layers 2a and 2b. As it is not consideredto be a genuine geological layer we are notgetting into detailed analysis of the material.However, we are going to mention the phe-nomena, which could enable better compre-hension of the industry in general.

The structure of assemblage collectedfrom the contact zone corresponds in almostall elements with the structure of nds fromlayer 2a (Tables 116). General structure of

main categories of the artifacts in both layersis almost identical and it is the same with theattributes of dorsal side and striking platform.


44/179

|

43

T. IV


45/179


44

. . , . - - , 2, 2 - . , , .

. , - . -; , (. V/1). , - ,

(. V/2). - (. V/3). , .

- -, , (. V/4, 5). , , - (. V/6). , (.V/7).

, 2. -

There are, however, differences in the typesof raw material and in morphometric struc-ture. It has been ascertained that quantity of white int is smaller and quantity of yellowint larger. The concentration of the artifactsmade of yellow int in the contact zone (actu-ally in the lower section of layer 2a) indicatesthat layer 2a is not redeposited and that stillanother habitation horizon exists near its bot-tom. On the other hand, the absence of akesof medium size among the unretouched akesis understandable if we bear in mind the quan-tity of sample.

Cores and unretouched akesThree cores of quartz have been found

in the contact zone. The aking surface ofall specimens is on the wider side either oncores made on massive akes or on pieces ofraw material. First core is made on at pieceof raw material; the platform from whichone broad ake was struck is on truncation(Pl. V/1). From the second core two smallerakes were struck from the truncation and

one of lateral sides was prepared from above(Pl. V/2). Third specimen resembles carinatedendscraper as one ake was struck from theprepared platform (Pl. V/3). Considering theconcept of striking the last two specimens arevery close to the Levallois cores.

Two Levallois akes have been recordedamong the unretouched artifacts; one withconvergent and the other with parallel scars(Pl. V/4, 5). We also encountered one rejuve-nation ake also of Levallois type with fac-eted platform and transversal scars startingfrom both edges (Pl. V.6). Besides these ndsthere is in the assemblage also one pseudoLevallois point of asymmetrical triangularshape (Pl. V/7).

Retouched tools

Ten retouched tools have been found

and their repertoire differs to a certain ex-tent from the structure of tools from the 2ahorizon. As much as four sidescrapers have


46/179

|

45

T. V

: - . - , - . (. VI/1),

been found: two transversal and two lateralspecimens. Transversal sidescrapers do nothave the retouch of Quina type but they are offan shape and of standardized form. One wasmade on somewhat larger ake and is char-acterized by slightly denticulated workingedge (Pl. VI/1) while the other was made on


47/179


48/179

|

47

, (. VI/2). . (. VI/3), (. VI/5). . - (. VI/4) .

, :

(.VI/6), - (. VI/7), - (. VI/8) (. VI/9). (. VI/10), .

2b

2b 27, 13 . - . , 2. , , , , - .

, - , 2b 2 . ,

-, . .

a piece of green int with traces of aking onthe proximal end (Pl. VI/2). Lateral sidescrap-ers are not typical. One was made on thickquartz ake and has sinusoidal working edgeand somewhat more abrupt retouch (Pl. VI/3)while the other specimen is in fact a proximalfragment of convex sidescraper (Pl. VI/5). Thetools on somewhat larger akes also occur atthis level. We have found one broad and mas-sive ake (Pl. VI/4) with partial semiabruptmarginal retouch on a distal end.

In addition to these nds, there were alsofound one endscraper on the rejuvenationake (Pl. VI/6), one transversal burin on the

quartz ake (Pl. VI/7) one retouched trunca-tion on laminar ake (Pl. VI/8 and one atypicallateral borer on the ake fragment (Pl. VI/9).One small ake resulting from rejuvenation(or breaking) of the tool edge (Pl. VI/10) wasalso found at this level and one tool fragmentwith raised retouch was also recorded.

Layer 2b

Only 27 artifacts were encountered in lay-er 2b and as much as 13 of them are chips andsmall fragments. All the nds were recordedin the reliable stratigraphic context. context.Most of the artifacts were found in upper sec-tions of the layer but there were some nds al-most one meter below the boundary of layer 2a.Therefore, it is certain that this layer containsthe nds but the question is how intact it is, i.e.whether the artifacts were found in a positionwhere they had been originally deposited.

The assemblage from layer 2b does notdiffer substantially from the assemblage fromlayer 2a and the material from the contactzone regarding the raw materials, knappingproducts and tool types. Somewhat more fre-quent in this assemblage as in the assemblagefrom the contact zone are the artifacts made

of yellow int and red jasper. Most of the arti-facts are wellpreserved. Slightly larger akeswere used for tool production.


49/179


48

T. VII

, , . , - . (. VII/1). - , - (. VII/2). .

. , - (. VII/3).

Cores and unretouched akes

Only one specimen has been found thatcould be classied as core but with great res-ervations. It is a small pebble of black intthat was obviously brought to the settlementfrom the outside. Traces of knapping could benoticed on one end. (Pl. VII/1). One specimenwith broad plain platform that has one akescar and natural surface on a dorsal side wasalso recorded among the akes (Pl. VII/2). Theorientation of scar deviates slightly in relationto the axis of striking the ake.

Retouched tools

Only three tools have been encountered inthe assemblage. One is an atypical sidescraper with partial bifacial retouch (Pl. VII/3). Theretouch angle suggests the assumption that it


50/179

|

49

, . - , (. VII/4).

- - 6, 2b, . , - , - (. VIII/1). - , . , -

. . - - , , -. , , .

, , - . - , - -. , .

II ( )

2004. ; , -

. . ,

is a tool and not a core. The other artifact isan atypical endscraper on ake with partialretouch on one of the edges (Pl. VII/4).

Special attention should be paid to the ar-tifact found in the north prole of square A6in upper section of layer 2b and about twentycentimeters above the virgin rock. It is mas-sive bifacially aked sidescraper of whiteint with considerably rounded surface (Pl.VIII/1). Although the scars are barely visibleit is possible to discern its main attributes.The back of the tool is smooth and does notreveal traces of breaking while the scars ondorsal side are oriented in different direction.

The retouch is bifacial and restricted only tothe narrow zone along the edge on both sidesof the tool. It seems at rst glance that it wasretouched by alternate striking of the artifactedge and that platform of each new strike (inthe retouching process) was at the contactpoint of two retouch scars. But, if the edgeis examined more carefully than it is obviousthat it is only partly the case. In the uppersection of a tool the platform for retouching

on the dorsal side consists at two points ofone large scar on ventral side. The situationis opposite in the lower tool section as fromone scar on dorsal side start two scars vis-ible on ventral side. On the basis of shape andtechnique of manufacture this tool could beascribed to the category of bifacially akedbacked sidescrapers.

analySISofthechIppedStoneartIfactS

from sEctorII (localIty ParkIng)

The excavations in 2004 lasted for fortydays; situation has already been partiallyknown, so the circumstances for the detailedinvestigations were more favorable than ionthe previous year. We tried from the very be-

ginning to distinguish accurately the ndsfrom upper and lower layer. Nevertheless,here was also inevitable to ascribe certain


51/179


50

T. VIII


52/179

|

51

-, , , (). 2, . - II I.

2

2 II - I, . I - 518 , 266 - (51,3%). -

I (4,0%, 22,6%), (3,2%, 68,6%). - - ( 1).

- ( ) - I - I. 2 , I ( ), II ; , 2, . ,

2 II - I.

amount of nds to the contact zone while inthe lower layer despite meticulous excava-tions we discovered just one very small ake(chip). Although there were elements for moreprecise stratigraphic distinguishing withinlayer 2a in the west section of excavated area,the rocks separating upper and lower horizonof this layer were recorded within the area ofjust few squares. Therefore, we are presentingthe material from Sector II in the same man-ner as the nds from Sector I.

Layer 2a

Raw materials and general structure

General structure of the assemblage fromlayer 2a in Sector II is almost identical to thestructure of the assemblage from Sector I andthe situation is also similar considering othertechnological parameters. In comparison withSector I larger amount of nds was collected 518 artifacts in total and 266 of them are smallakes and chips (51.3%). The unretouched

blades and retouched tools are slightly betterrepresented than in sector I (4.0% and 22.6%)while participation of cores and akes is some-what smaller (3.2% and 68.6%). Similar dataare obtained if we compare the total amount ofmaterial from both sectors (Table 1).

When the raw materials are concerned thequantity of certain kinds (yellow int and red jasper) is somewhat different in comparisonwith Sector I and correspond better with val-ues obtained for the contact zone in Sector I.This does not necessarily mean that there arefundamental differences in the structure ofnds from layer 2a between these two sectors,but it is most probably the case that materialfrom the lower section of the layer in Sector Iwas provisionally distinguished (as the contactzone) while in Sector II material was more pre-cisely distinguished but among the nds from

the unreliable context were included also arti-facts from the lower section of layer 2a, whichwas impossible to distinguish stratigraphically.


53/179


54/179

|

53

T. IX


55/179


54

22,94 mm, 28,66 mm.

( 12) - - (55,3%), (24,7%) - (11,8%). - I, 3,5%, (16,5% 22% I). 3,5%, - 4,7%.

( 14), 60,2% - ( 62,6%), 9,8% ( 21,1%), 4,9% . , I.

- (.

X/1, 2), - . - 20 mm, a 12 mm - (. X/3, 4). , , .

- , , - . , , - (. X/5, 6). - , -

(mthode Levallois rcurrente) (1 ; .X/3), -. -

x 8.85 mm, while the average length of unre-touched akes is 22.94 mm and of retouchedtools is 28.66 mm.

The dorsal side analysis (Table 12) revealedthat most frequent also in this assemblage arethe akes with multidirectional scars (55.3%).Parallel scars were identied on 24.7% of akesand diagonally and transversally oriented scarson 11.8% of akes. There is 3.5% of corticalakes that is considerably less than in Sector Ieven if we take into account all specimens withcortex 16.5% (in comparison with 22% in Sec-tor I). There is only 3.5% of the rejuvenationakes and 4.7% of the Kombewa type akes.

Considering the types of striking platform (Ta-ble 14), the plain platform is present on 60.2%(62.6% including edge platform), the facetedplatform on 9.8% (21.1% including dihedral)and cortical on 4.9% of specimens. As it couldbe concluded the faceted platform occurs insomewhat higher proportion than in Sector I.

When the blades are concerned only twoproximal fragments of rather broad bladescould have possibly been related to the knap-

ping of the Levallois cores (Pl. X/1, 2), but itis not certain as such blades could have beenstruck from some other type of core. In otherinstances the blade width is smaller than 20mm and at least four specimens less than 12mm wide could be classied as bladelet (Pl.X/3, 4). All in all, the length and morphologyof blades vary considerably and also diversetypes of their dorsal side have been recorded.

The specimens of medium elongationwith multidirectional scars prevail among theakes and it is impossible to determine fromwhat core type they come from. Five akes ofthe Levallois type were found and only two ofthem have broad medial scar, which could in-dicate aking of preferential cores (Pl. X/5, 6).Other specimens have either narrower scarscharacteristic of the method of knapping nar-row akes (mthode Levallois rcurrente) (1

specimen, Pl. X/3) or their scars are radiallyoriented. Radial scars could perhaps resultfrom the preparation of aking surface on a


56/179

|

55

T. X


57/179


56

- (. X/4). , (. X/6, 9). , - .

- K. , (. X/1012).

clats dbordants II. . - (. X/13), . - , - (. X/14, 15). -

(clat outrepass) (T. X/16).

I II (- 16). II - (8,8% 5,3%), - - (10,5% 17,5%). , , I, (22,8%).

- ( 4) - .

50% , - (

core or from centripetal knapping of cores in-tended for striking narrower akes (Pl. X/4).In two instances, medial scar appears togetherwith traces of lateral preparation (Pl. X/6, 9).The platform is broad on all akes and facetsare conrmed on two specimens.

The artifacts indicating the Kombewatechnique are conrmed in four instances.Traces of aking on dorsal side are orienteddiagonally to the aking axis on two akesand on two specimens they are transversallyoriented (Pl. X/1012).

It is conspicuous that there were just fewrejuvenation akes of type clats dbordants

in the assemblage from Sector II. Only twotypical specimens were recorded. On one arti-fact the edge of former platform appears alongthe entire edge (Pl. X/13) while on the other itis restricted only to a distal end of the ake.Also, on two very small akes the edge fromwhich rejuvenation was performed appears inthe middle of the ake and makes crest (Pl.X/14, 15).One ake with preserved old plat-form on distal end (clat outrepass) indicates

that on the quartz cores changing of akingorientation had been practiced (Pl. X/16).

Retouched tools

Differences between Sector I and II areperhaps best perceived when the structure oftools is considered (Table 16). The endscrapersand denticulated tools are present in consider-ably smaller quantity (8.8% and 5.3%) in theassemblage from Sector II, while burins occurin much larger quantity (10.5% nd 17.5%).The sidescrapers are also here the most nu-merous tools but as in Sector I their quantityis smaller than the total percentage of denticu-lated and notched tools (22.8%).

Comparing of raw materials and basic toolcategories (Table 4) reveals that tools of whiteint and quartz were produced on the spot.When yellow int is considered the tools par-

ticipate with over 50% in the total amount ofartifacts of this raw material while the toolsof red jasper are even more frequent than the


58/179

|

57

T. XI


59/179


58

). - . - ( -) . , , I.

II , - -,

. - , - .) -

(2 ). - (. XI/1) ( ) - (. XI/2).

) (4 ), (. XI/3), (. XI/4,5) - (. XI/6).

) (4 ), (. XI/7, 8), (. XI/9, 10). - .

) -: , - (. XI/11) (. XI/12), - - .

I, II - , -,

tools (cores are missing). The same conclusioncould be also drawn when a small number oftools of black and green int are considered.Certain selection was also encountered whenmorphometric characteristics of the ndsare concerned as the small akes (in relationto very small) are more frequent among re-touched than unretouched artifacts. All thesephenomena have been recorded in greater orsmaller degree also in Sector I.

The sidescrapers in Sector II also repre-sent the most diversied tools although fromthe aspect of variability conrmed in manyother Middle Palaeolithic industries their rep-

ertoire is rather modest. The lateral sidescrap-ers are absolutely prevailing and among themfew variants could be distinguished.a) Lateral sidescrapers on blades and laminar

akes (2 specimens). There is one bladepartially retouched by the raised retouch(Pl. XI/1) and one distal fragment of thicklaminar ake (or blade) with slightly den-ticulated working edge (Pl. XI/2).

b) Simple convex lateral sidescrapers (4 speci-

mens) including one sidescraper on quartzake (Pl. XI/3), two fragmented sidescrap-ers on small akes (Pl. XI/4) and one side-scraper on rejuvenation ake (Pl. XI/6).

c) Lateral sidescrapers with pointed tip (4specimens). Two larger specimens are frag-mented (Pl. XI/7, 8) and two smaller onesare completely preserved (Pl. XI/9, 10). Oneof the larger sidescrapers was retouched byan inverse retouch.

d) There were also found two transversal side-scrapers: one sidescraper with slightly den-ticulated partially retouched working edge(Pl. XI/11) and one sidescraper on very smallthick ake (Pl. XI/2). In the latter case theretouch was on ake truncation and coversonly the section of working edge.

In Sector II likewise in Sector I was dis-

covered one massive backed tool, which couldbe typologically classied (because the tip isnot prominent enough) rather as a sidescraper


60/179

|

59

T. XII


61/179


60

, (. XII/1). , - . - . C4, , 2. . , . , - , ,

, - . , a . - .

-: / . - -

, - (. XIII/1), , , - (. XIII/2).

. - , - (. XIII/3). - , (. XIII/4). , 60 (.XIII/5). -, , rabot.

, , - - (Brzillon 1971, 345346).

than as a point (Pl. XII/1). This is a bifacial-ly aked pointed sidescraper made on broadake. The tool tip is laterally oriented. Thistool was found in square C4 at the level withrock fragments that is near the very bottomof geological layer 2a. The broad faceted plat-form of a ake makes the back of a tool. Theake comes from the initial phase of knappingand there is a natural surface (i.e. cortex)ondorsal side The bifacial retouch is limited onlyto the medial part of the tool while the remain-ing segment of the edge on the top and bottompart of the tool was alternately retouched us-ing invasive almost facial retouch. The tip is

retouched by an inverse, shallow and invasiveretouch while the bulbus is also reduced by re-touching. The tool base is of convex shape andretouched by direct and raised retouch.

The endscrapers could be classied intotwo groups: the nosed/pointed and carinatedspecimens. When the nosed endscrapers areconcerned one specimen was made on lami-nar ake and was only partially retouched, i.e.the tip is not covered with retouch (Pl. XIII/1).

Another specimen with nondifferentiatedtip was made on proximal end of a broad ake(Pl. XIII/2).

Carinated arched endscrapers occur onthick akes and pieces of raw material. Oneendscraper made on a piece of raw material haslaterally oriented working edge (Pl. XIII/3).Other specimen is typical carinated archedendscraper made on quartz ake (Pl. XIII/4)while the third is a ake with traces of akingon truncation at an angle of 60 to the plat-form (Pl. XIII/5). The scars on this specimenare too small to determine the piece as corebut as it could not be identied as splinteredpiece or the retouched truncation it could beascribed to the tools of the rabot type. Thespecimens resembling carinated endscrapersare also frequently present among those tools, which resemble the cores (Brzillon 1971,

345346).Denticulated tools and notched pieces as well as the retouched akes are in total the


62/179

|

61

T. XIII

, - . , - (. XIII/6)

most numerous group of tools.The denticulat-ed tools are represented by three akes, one with continuous direct (Pl. XIII/6) and twowith alternating ( Pl. XIII/7) denticulated re-touch. The notched tools (Pl. XIII/810) and


63/179


62

(.XIII/7). (. XIII/810) . , - 2,5 cm. - (. XIV/1, 2).

. , , -

. II

. : (. XIV/1), , (. XIV/3, 4), - , (.XIV/6, 8), .

- , , (. XIV/7).

. - (. XIV/9, 10), (. XIV/11,12) - . - , (. XIII/11).

2/2b

2 2b

I, 44, 24 - . ,

retouched akes are much more frequent.Only a few of these tools were made on some-what larger akes while most of them are re-touched by shallowsemiabrupt retouch onakes less than 2.5 cm in size. We encoun-tered also two Levallois akes with laterallyexecuted notch (Pl. XIV/1, 2).

Only two splintered pieces and both atyp-ical have been found. One of the specimenswas very small ake with mutually divergentscars of shallow surface retouch on both edg-es while on one larger ake the surface scarshave been encountered on just one end on aventral side.

Among the tools from Sector II special at-tention should be paid to burins. There werefound one simple lateral burin on irregularblade (Pl. XIV/1), two burins on ake trun-cations of which one is shallow (Pl. XIV/3,4), two burins on retouches one of them ofangular type (Pl. XIV/6, 8) and there is alsoone tool, which could probably be attributedto the composite tools. On one edge is a scarof transversal burin while the other edge is

shaped as convex partially retouched side-scraper (Pl. XIV/7).

There was just couple of specimens of oth-er tool types. There are two slightly obliqueabruptly retouched truncations (Pl. XIV/9, 10),two laterally retouched borers (Pl. XIV/11, 12)and three small fragments of semiabruptlyretouched tools. There was also found onelong lamella resembling the burin spal and which probably comes from rejuvenation ofthe tools edge (Pl. XIII/11).

Layer 2a/2b

Considerably smaller amount of ndsthan in Sector I only 44 (of which 24 chipsand small fragments) have been gatheredfrom the contact zone between layers 2a and

2b. The basic characteristics of artifacts evenin such a small sample do not differ essen-tially from the characteristics of artifacts in


64/179

|

63

T. XIV


65/179


66/179

|

65

T. XV

2 . - , 2 2b: , , . (5), (1 ) (1 ). : - , - , -

scribed in the previous text. The context hasnot been conrmed for just seven nds (wedo not know if they come from layer 2a or2b): two tools, one blade, three akes and onechip. The artifacts were made of white int(5 pieces), quartz (1 piece) and yellow int (1piece). Among them were identied one lami-nar ake of medium size with parallel scars,traces of lateral preparation and cortex (Pl.XVI/1), one ake with diagonally oriented


67/179


66

(. XVI/1), (.XVI/2), (. XVI/3) - - .

III

I, -. - -

(. XVI/4), , . - . - (. XVI/5).

1

1, , -

, - (. XVI/2). . - , .

3

3 II, 60 m. 36. 41. - , - , 2 (. XVI/7). , 55. 63. (. XVII/1).

, , .

scars (Pl. XVI/2), one sidescraper with lat-eral notch (Pl. XVI/3) and a ake partiallyretouched using shallow, surface and invasiveretouch.

Tract III nds from discarded sediment

Six artifacts have been found in discard-ed sediment in the course of excavations inSector I. Among the unretouched akes werefound one Levallois ake with diagonally ori-ented medial scar and broad dihedral platform(Pl. XVI/4) and one broad ake of Kombewatype with diagonally oriented traces of ak-ing on a dorsal side. Both artifacts are made

of white int. There was also registered oneendscraper on a massive quartz ake (Pl.XVI/5).

Tract 1A

One partially retouched sidescraper madeon a fragment of the Levallois core (Pl. XVI/2)was found in tract 1A, to the south of muse-um building. On the core are apparent tracesof lateral preparation and scares of two suc-

cessively struck akes. From the typologicalpoint of view the core could be ascribed to thegroup of preferential cores.

Tract 3

Tract 3 is located to the north of SectorII and it is more than 60 meters long. In thearea between 36th and 41st meter was foundone massive retouched ake (it is in fact analternately retouched sidescraper) made ofmatt int. The use of this int type is char-acteristic of the lower sections of layer 2 (Pl.XVI/7). In addition, one double lateral burinon ake (Pl.XVII/1) was also found in thearea between 55th and 63rd meter.

Tract X

One atypical nosed endscraper made ofyellow int was found in the earth discarded

while digging a manhole in tract X.


68/179

|

67

T. XVI


69/179


70/179

|

69

ISector I

IISector II

Layer

2a 2a/2b 2b Total

2a 2a/2b Total

JCores

63,5%

35,4%

17,1%

104,2%

83,2%

15,0%

93,3%

Blades

5

2,9%23,6%

00,0%

72,9%

104,0%

00,0%

103,7%

Flakes

12573,1%

3869,1%

1071,4%

17372,1%

17368,6%

1470%

18768,7%

Chunks

31,8%

11,8%

00,0%

41,7%

31,2%

00,0%

31,1%

Tools

3118,1%

1018,2%

321,4%

4418,3%

5722,6%

5

25,0%6222,8%

. .Sec.m.

10,6%

11,8%

00,0%

20,8%

10,4

00,0%

10,4%

Total

171100,0%

55

99,9%1499,9%

240100,0%

252100,0%

20100%

272100,0%

+O

Chips

79 37 7 123 168 14 182

+ .Frg.

74 14 6 94 98 10 108

T 1. : je, , , , , , ( 15 mm)Table 1. General structure of the main artifact categories: cores, blades, akes, chunks, tools, products of the secondarytools modication, chips and small undeterminable fragments ( 15 mm)

ISector I

IISector II

Layer

2a 2a/2b 2b 2a 2a/2b

1 12472,5%

3258,2%

642,8%

15059,5%

1050%

2 2615,2%

1120,0%

214,3%

5722,6%

420,0%

3 21,2%

11,8%

17,1%

62,4%

15,0%

4 00,0%

00,0%

00,0%

83,2%

00,0%

5 10,6%

00,0%

17,1%

10,4%

15,0%

6 9

5,3%

8

14,5%

2

14,3%

21

8,3%

2

10,0%7 10,6%

11,8%

00,0%

20,8%

00,0%

8 10,6%

11,8%

00,0%

00,0%

00,0%

9 52,9%

11,8%

17,1%

72,8%

210,0%

10 21,2%

00,0%

17,1%

00,0%

00,0%

Total

171100,1%

55

99,9%1499,8%

252100,0%

20100,0%

T 2. ( 15 mm):

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Table 2. Structure of raw materials used in artifact manufacture (without chips and small fragments 15 mm): 1-

white int, 2 quartz, 3 red int, 4 green int, 5 black int, 6 yellow int, 7 matt gray int, 8 matt brownint, 9 burned int 11 - gray translucent int


71/179


72/179


73/179


72

ISector I

IISector II

Layer

2a 2a/2b 2b Total

2a 2a/2b Total

531 2 0 0 2 1 0 0

532 1 0 0 1 0 0 0533 0 0 0 0 1 0 0534 0 1 0 1 1 0 0541 9 7 2 18 29 3 32542 1 1 0 2 12 1 13545 18 1 1 20 13 1 14

Total31 10 3 44 57 5 59

9. : (531), (532), (533), (534), (541), (542), (545)Table 9. Degree of preservation of retouched tools on blades and akes: whole blades (531), proximal fragments of the

blades (532), medial fragments of the blades (533), distal fragments of the blades (534), whole akes (541), proximalfragments of the akes (542), medial and distal fragments of the akes (545)

ISector I

IISector II

Layer

2a 2a/2b 2b Total

2a 2a/2b Total

3a 0 1 0 1 0 0 03b 2 0 0 2 0 0 03c 1 0 0 1 0 0 02a 4 2 0 6 6 1 72b 4 2 1 7 12 1 132c 5 3 1 9 3 0 31 5 2 1 8 5 0 51b 21 5 1 27 23 0 231c 17 5 2 24 31 3 34

Total

59 20 6 85 80 5 85

10. a : (3),

(3b), (3c), (2a), (2b), (2c), (1a), (1b), (1c)Table 10. Morphometric structure of unretouched artefacts: elongated large akes (3a), non-elongated large akes(3b), broad large akes (3c), elongated small akes (2a), non-elongated small akes (2b), broad small akes (2c),elongated very small akes (1a), non-elongated very small akes (1b), broa

Documents

Mihailovic 2009 Middle Palaeolithic Settlement at Petrovaradin Fortress