Chmielewski 2009 Libre

ASOCIAŢIA ROMÂNĂ DE ARHEOLOGIE

S T U D I I D E P R E I S T O R I E

6/2009

ASOCIAŢIA ROMÂNĂ DE ARHEOLOGIE

S T U D I I D E P R E I S T O R I E

6/2009

Editura Renaissance Bucureşti

2009

A S O C I A X I A R O M Â N ; D E A R H E O L O G I E

STUDII DE PREISTORIE 6

COLEGIUL DE REDACXIE

Redactor şef: Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu

Membri: Douglass W. Bailey, Adrian Bălăşescu, Constantin Haită, Marcel Otte, Valentin Radu,

Anne Tresset.

Coperta: Vas ceramic aparţinând civilizaţiei Vădastra

Colegiul de redacţie nu răspunde de opiniile exprimate de autori.

Manuscrisele, cărţile şi revistele pentru schimb, orice corespondenţă se vor trimite Colegiului de redacţie, pe adresa Şos. Pantelimon 352, sc. C, ap. 85, sector 2, Bucureşti sau prin email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

Marinescu-Bîlcu Silvia

Studii de Preistorie nr. 6 / Marinescu-Bîlcu Silvia

Douglass W. Bailey, Adrian Bălăşescu, Constantin Haită, Marcel Otte, Valentin Radu, Anne Tresset

Bucureşti, Editura Renaissance, 2009.

ISSN 2065 - 2526

SUMAR Douglass W. BAILEY Interview with Victor Buchli......................................................................................................7 Adina BORONEANX, Vasile BORONEANX Schela Cladovei 1965-1968. După 40 de ani ............................................................................15 Piotr JACOBSSON Strata of Practice: Habitus and issues in the early Cypriot Neolithic ...........................................35 Alexandra ION, Andrei-Dorian SOFICARU, Nicolae MIRIXOIU Dismembered human remains from the "Neolithic" Cârcea site (Romania) .................................47 Valentina VOINEA Practici funerare în cultura Hamangia - sacrificii de animale .....................................................81 Alexandru DRAGOMAN Note on Vădastra excised pots .................................................................................................... 95 Georgeta EL SUSI New data on livestock and hunting in the precucutenian settlement at Costişa -„Cetăţuie” (Neamţ County) ........................................................................................................................ 113 Radian-Romus ANDREESCU, Laurenţiu GRIGORAŞ, Eugen PAVELEX, Katia MOLDOVEANU New discoveries in the Eneolithic settlement from Coţatcu “Cetăţuia”, Buzău County ................. 135 Cristian Eduard ŞTEFAN A few remarks concerning the clay stamp-seals from the Gumelniţa culture .............................. 149 Cătălin LAZ;R, Radian ANDREESCU, Theodor IGNAT, Monica M;RG;RIT, Mihai FLOREA, Adrian B;L;ŞESCU New Data on the Eneolithic Cemetery from Sultana-Malu Roşu (Călăraşi county, Romania) ........ 165 Hortensia DUMITRESCU£ (cu o adnotare de / with an annotation of Silvia MARINESCU-BÎLCU) Piscul Cornişorului (Sălcuţa 1945)............................................................................................... 201 Tomasz Jacek CHMIELEWSKI Let’s twist again… or on the Eneolithic methods of yarn production ........................................... 223 Cătălin DOBRINESCU Observaţii asupra originii şi circulaţiei obiectelor de bronz în aria culturii Coslogeni .................... 237

5

6

GÂNDURI DESPRE CEI CE NE-AU P;R;SIT Alexandru DRAGOMAN Şaptezeci de ani de la moartea lui Vasile Christescu ................................................................... 241 PREZENT;RI DE CARTE Jan Vanmoerkeke, Joëlle Burnouf (coordonatori ştiinţifici), Cent mille ans sous le rails. Archéologie de la ligne a grande vitesse est européenne, Somogy édition d’art, Inrap, Paris 2006, ISBN 2-7572-000-6-2, 136 p., 30 € (Pavel MIREA) ........................................................... 243 ABREVIERI................................................................................................................................. 245

Let’s tw ist again… or on the Eneolithic methods of y arn production

Tomasz Jacek CHMIELEWSKI∗

Abstract: This paper is addressed to the questions of Carpatho-Balkan Eneolithic technosphere. It is commonly accepted that Eneolithic high civilizations developing in the second half of the 5th millenia before Christ in the Balkan Peninsula played a role of leading inventive environment of the time. On the basis of previous research it has been also suggested that these Chalcolithic patterns reached the Lublin-Volhynian Culture developing during the Middle Eneolithic in the northernmost periphery of this world. Analyses of two unique pots connected with fibre processing confirm both the opinions.

Rezumat: Articolul tratează problemele domeniului tehnologic din eneoliticul Carpato-Balcanic. Este acceptat în general faptul că civilizaţiile eneolitice dezvoltate în a doua jumătate a mileniului V înainte de Hristos în Peninsula Balcanică au jucat un rol conducător de mediu inventiv în acea perioadă de timp. Pe baza cercetărilor anterioare, a fost sugerat, de asemenea, faptul că aceste caracteristici din chalcolitic au ajuns până în zona culturii Lublin-Volânia, dezvoltată în timpul eneoliticului mijlociu în periferia nordică a acestei lumi. Analiza a două vase unicat, asociată cu prelucrarea fibrelor confirmă ambele opinii.

Keywords: Balkan Peninsula, South-Eastern Poland, Eneolithic, Lublin-Volhynian culture, Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI culture, Krivodol-Sălcuţa-Bubanj Hum culture, Krasne Kolonia, Złota, technology, textiles, yarn production.

Cuvinte cheie: Peninsula Balcanică, South-Eastern Poland, Eneolitic, cultura Lublin-Volânia, cultura Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI, cultura Krivodol-Sălcuţa-Bubanj Hum, Krasne Kolonia, Złota, technologie, textile, producere firelor.

The Lublin-Volhynian Culture (sometimes called also the Lublin-Volhynian Culture of White

Painted Ceramics or the Zimne-Złota Culture etc.) belongs to formations, which are closely connected with the Carpatho-Balkan Eneolithic cultural milieu (see e.g. J. Kamieńska, J.K. Kozłowski 1990; S. Kadrow, A. ZakoWcielna 2000) through all the time of its development (i.e. ca 4100-3650 BC, T. Chmielewski 2008). Obviously the easiest way to follow the high responsiveness of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture to the rhythms of changes in the South is to study stylistic changes in ceramics (see for instance J. Kamieńska, J.K. Kozłowski 1990, p. 58-59, 61-62; S. Kadrow, A. ZakoWcielna 2000, p. 208-235; T. Chmielewski 2008). However, it is now certain that the bearers of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture permanently and fully participated in the Eneolithic technosphere. One proof for this can be, for instance, by the fully developed Eneolithic (macrolithic) flint industry and barter of the highest quality flints to the South (A. ZakoWcielna 1996, p. 85-89) as well as the high frequency of imported copper products together with the transmission of copper metallurgy (see S. Kadrow, A. ZakoWcielna 2000, p. 221, 223-230). This constant and mutual flow of goods and ideas was stimulated and stimulated, structured and was structured by a network of tightly interwoven social relations and practices constituting social tissue of the Eneolithic community (see, for instance, A. ZakoWcielna 2008). This paper addresses the problem of these transcarpathian relations by contributing to the reconstruction of textile industry, another subsystem of the Carpatho-Balkan Eneolithic technosphere in which people of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture took part.

Spinning bowls Find The impulse for undertaking the subject came from a possibility getting versed with grave

inventories of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture from the site 16 at Krasne Kolonia (district of Chełm; fig. 1)1. The artefact in question is an unusual bowl found in the cluster 10. It is 190 mm high, the diameter at the rim is 234 mm, the diameter at the greatest protrusion of the body – at the height of 148 mm – is 264 mm, the diameter of the bottom is 85 mm. Generally speaking, the shape of the pot from Krasne Kolonia is similar to flowerpot forms commonly used by the people of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture (see, for instance, S. Kadrow, A. ZakoWcielna 2000, p. 213-214, figs. 18/a-b, 19/b, 20/a) with presumably the best analogy in the vessel from the grave 7 in Nieledew (distr. Hrubieszów; J. Kamieńska, J.K. Kozłowski 1990, p. 58, pl. 30/1). It has, however, four handles located at the greatest protrusion of the body. Each of them having four somewhat oblique apertures running

∗ Ph.D. student of the Institute for the Study and Valorification of the Transilvanian Patrimony in European Context, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, B-dul Victoriei 5-7, 550024 Sibiu, Romania; [email protected] 1 I should like to express my gratitude to the author of the excavations, Andrzej Bronicki, who kindly allowed me to publish this intriguing pot.

Studii de Preistorie 6, 2009, p. 223-236.

Tomasz Jacek CHMIELEWSKI

through the wall of the pot, approx. 3 mm in diameter. Inside the pot, at its bottom, there is a small ‘handle’ with ca 3 mm wide whole running parallel to the bottom (fig. 2/1) 2.

Analogies The closest analogy is a bowl from Dyakowo, district of Kyustendil in western Bulgaria. It is

214 mm high; the diameter at the rim is 232 mm and at the bottom - 60 mm. The vessel has six horizontally perforated handles at the greatest protrusion of the body. On the bottom, inside the pot, there is a horizontally perforated ‘handle’, with a 9 mm wide hole (A. Чохаджиев, 2003, p. 17; fig. 2/2). The vessel was found in the remains of the house from the first settlement phase. The inventory found on the floor level was recognized as homogenous already by its explorer (A. Čochadžiev 1984, p. 72). It was confirmed by a later analysis (R. Krauß 2001, p. 142, 144). A thorough chronological analysis by Raiko Krauß (2001) allows to locate it, with certainty, at the turn of the Early to Late Chalcolithic, between the Dikili-Taş/Slatino Horizon and the Krivodol-Sălcuţa-Bubanj Hum I Complex, that is, about 4500 BC.

Other forms, being low bowls, differ typologically from the previously described specimens. Of course the Eneolithic analogies of the latter will be of the greatest interest for us. The vessel from Tell Hotnica, district of Veliko Tarnovo is a conical bowl with a cylindrical neck. It has rather distinctly accented tectonics. At the greatest protrusion of the body there are four small symmetrically located small bosses. It is 50 mm high; the diameter at the rim is 135 mm and the maximal - 165 mm. At the bottom there is a ‘handle’, currently (?) broken, with a hole of about 18 mm in diameter (fig. 3/1). The vessel belongs to the first (upper) horizon of the tell and it is connected with the Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI Complex. However, it should be generally referred to the end of the Chalkolithic, since there is no closer information about the context of the discovery (A. Чохаджиев 2003, p. 17).

The vessel from Chardako (Slatino), district of Kyustendil, is a low cylindrical form. It is only 35 mm high and 250 mm wide. Like in the previous case, the interior ‘handle’ is broken. It is possible that, having a conjectural diameter up to 55 mm, it slightly sticked out above the edge of the pot (fig. 3/2). The artefact was found in a house in the third settlement horizon, which bounds it to the Dikili-Taş-Slatino and thereby enables to date it to the Early Chalcolithic (A. Чохаджиев 2003, p. 17-18).

Further analogies, in larger series, are derived from circum-Mediterrenian civilizations of the Bronze and the Iron Age. The oldest pieces from Palestine are known from Tell el’Ajjul from the layer dated back to 14th-13th century BC. Furthermore there are bowls from Beth-Shean from the 9th level (1st half of the 14th century BC) and from 8th level (14/13th century BC). Tell Jerishe yielded four specimens, one of which (fig. 4/8) may be dated from the IInd period of the Late Bronze Age. However, the majority of the Palestinian vessels were found in Iron Age contexts: Beth-Shean, level 6th (dated back to the times of Ramzes III - 1158-1153 BC3; figs. 4/3, 4, 12), Megiddo, level 7th A (ca 1175/63-1120 BC; fig. 4/9), Tell Quasile, levels 12-7th (1175-733/2 BC; fig. 5/1-4), Tell Jerishe (1050-985 BC; fig. 4/5), Beth Shamesh, level 2nd A (ca 1000-950 BC), Tell Jemmeh (7th century BC; fig. 4/7; T Dothan 1963, p. 97-101).

In Egypt the oldest bowls are the ones dated from the 12th dynasty (1991-1785 BC) from Abu Ghalib (fig. 6/1) and Kahum. The biggest set of bowls from this region was found at Tell el-Amarna and dates back to the times of Echnaton (1364-1347 BC; figs. 6/2-4, 6). Subsequent vessels were found at Deir el-Medinah (figs. 6/5, 7, 8). Their chronology, similarly to the bowl made of gypsum from Lisht, is delimited by the reign of 20th dynasty (1186-1070 BC; T. Dothan 1963, p. 101-103).

Crete yielded bowls as old as the one from Myrtos, dated to the third millennium BC (Bronze Age II) from Myrtos. Further examples, dated back to the 2nd Period of Cretean Bronze Age, come from sites in Drakones, Palaikastro, Kommos and Arkhanes (E.J.W. Barber 1991, p. 73-76). At the same time there is only single specimen from the continental part of Greece that can be attributed to this long time span. It was found at Nichoria and most probably should be referred to the Middle Hellenic Period II A (J. Carington-Smith 1992, p. 687, pl. 11-34).

I nterpretation Leaving apart all the hypotheses lingering in the older literature where the pots in question were

described for instance as lids or wick lamps, I will focus my attention only on the one according to which the bowls in question belong to spinning equipment. Even then quite a wide gamut of different, more or less appropriately argued interpretations followed by various names remains. Probably the oldest and 2 The bowl under consideration is stored by the District Museum in Chełm (inv. no. MCH/A/7768). 3 All the chronology of ancient Egyptian Kingdoms after J. Vliwa (2000).

224

Let’s twist again… or on the Eneolithic methods of yarn production

most frequently occurring term is ‘spinning bowl’ (see e.g. G.M. Crowfoot 1931; T. Dothan 1963; A. Chokhadzhiev 2000; Чохаджиев 2003), the name used for the very first time by Eric Peet and Leonard Charles Wooley as early as 1923 in regard to bowls from el-Amarna. It was, however, Trude Dothan (1963) who grounded relevance of the considered bowls to spinning. While analyzing the abovementioned large series of vessels from Palestine and Egypt, she noted evident wear traces in form of abrasion under the internal handles (see figs. 4-6). Owing to the interpretation in question their primary use was above all to keep a hang(s) of yarn/rove inside a bowl and to prevent it/them from getting dirty. According to Elizabeth Barber (1991, p. 78), there is no good reason for excluding such an usage completely albeit in this case they would be used only for twisting of previously spun thin threads or hang(s) of rove. If bundles of combed/hackled (so-called distaff-) fibres were used instead, they would block a hole in the handle, for they are to ‘fluffy’. Moreover, the latter would tear out the processed yarn (it is even more probable in the case of bowls from Krasne Kolonia and Dyakovo, where diameters of perforations are very small). Besides, when it was necessary to protect a hang, there were other methods, equally effective, not requiring any special accessory of the kind yet (similar effect can be achieved by putting it in a bowl filled with beans or even an empty one – B. Matusek 1966, p. 105). Does it mean that the ‘spinning hypothesis’ should be refused? Absolutely not.

Everything seems to indicate that yarns were prepared by splicing (E.J.W. Barber 1991, p. 44-46) or roving (A. Chokhadzhiev 2000, p. 118) strands of combed fibres in hand or on thigh. Here, it must be recalled that Egyptian yarns differ from the European ones. Whereas in Europe, as far as we know Eneolithic textiles, fibres draft out during spinning overlap everywhere (drafted spinning), in Egypt they were not drawn out continuously (drafted yarns), but twisted together – end-to-end – using preformed ‘strings’ of the length of tens of centimetres as it can be observed on the oldest textiles from this region from Fayum (E.J.W. Barber 1991, pp. 46-48, fig. 2/8; fig. 7). This preliminary process is illustrated in Egyptian paintings from the tomb of Daga at Thebes dated back to the 11th

dynasty (fig. 8/1) and from the tomb of Baqt at Beni Hassan (fig. 8/2) dated to the 12th dynasty. Regardless of technique that might have been actually applied in the European Eneolithic, the fibres must have been somehow prepared the term ‘spinning bowl’ in its narrow meaning seems to be quite inappropriate and for that E. Barber suggested that it would be more adequate to refer to them as to ‘twisting/plying bowls’. Moreover, the bowls in question still do not appear as an improvement. For what reasons was their use advantageous then?

An ethnographical analogy quoted by E.J.W. Barber (1991, p. 73, fig. 2/39) seems to be of crucial importance here. In Japan one uses a small, cylindrical bowl with inner ‘handle’ at bottom filled with water to moisten fibres of Boehmeria nipponivea (a plant from the nettle family) passing through a hole during spinning. Vegetable fibres are easier to control during spinning when moist. They are less fragile and more tractable and supple under fingers then. For the same reason European spinning-wheel had a container with water used for wetting fingers by the spinner during drawing out of rove (E.J.W. Barber 1991, p. 72). Bearing in mind such a deep-rooted functional grounds, she suggested the term ‘fiber wetting bowl’. However, one should pay attention to the fact, that this aspect of the vessels usage could be also resolved otherwise. Technographical works dealing with spinning mention, for instance, usage of saliva in order to moist fibres. It is a worldwide used practice to moisten fibres with saliva using fingers or just a tongue. Spinners usually suck plum-stones, crust or desiccated apples to have continuous inlet of saliva. This process gives the additional advantage – enzymes are partly converting cellulose into a gluey substances, which join fibres together resulting in more compact yarn (see e.g. E.J.W. Barber 1991 and B. Matusek 1966). In this context, the usage of bowls just as pots for moistening of fibres can also be taken as an arbitrary solution from the technological point of view.

Usage of such bowls during fibre processing has got one more advantage, which is indicated in literature by yet another name given to them, i.e. ‘tension pot’ (e.g. F.E. Petzel 1987, p. 142). Even the researchers who do not use the term seem to be concordant with that (G.M. Crowfoot 1931, p. 27; E.J.W. Barber 1991, p. 70; A. Chokhadzhiev 2000, p. 118; A. Чохаджиев 2003, p. 16). Increasing tension of a thread/twine resulting from drag of a ‘handle’ makes it possible to obtain the greater amount of twists per length of roved fibres, and therefore thinner and stronger yarn. Alexander Chokhadzhiev (2000) stresses the fact, that in the case of relatively small perforation of handle in the bowl from Dyakovo, drag and the tension resulting from it were high. Recall, that the dimension of inner handle of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture’s bowl from Krasne Kolonia is only 3 mm. Smaller holes of handles of the vases under consideration must have had one more advantage then, viz. rove passing through them was pressed and thereby made compact.

225


To shed some more light on the possible advantages the vessels in questions I will focus on some peculiar traits of the bowl from Krasne Kolonia. First of all, it differs in form from the most of analogies. Generally its more slender proportions would not be of any special interest, because it is possible to indicate transitory forms between such a vessels and low bowls. However, it has got an extraordinary detail – perforated knobs located on the greatest protrusion of the body. The problem of theirs function may be resolved in context of the artifact from Dyakovo. Handles present at the Bulgarian vessel might be of analogous function to the one from Poland. Chokhadzhiev (2000, p. 118) basing on the proportions of the pot from Dyakovo proposed some convincing explanation. Proportion of the mouth diameter to the bottom diameter is 4:1, and the height to the diameter of the mouth – 3.5:1. Therefore the centre of gravity is localized very high, what makes the vessel very unstable. The vessel must have worked in suspension then (fig. 9). I would extend this observation also to the bowl from the cemetery at Krasne Kolonia, for which the related proportions are 2.2:1 and 2.7:1. This makes the two studied objects distinct from the rest of presented artefacts, since the latter stood on the ground while working as it is illustrated in Egyptian paintings (see fig. 8).

Another peculiarity of the bowls in question might be connected with the way a hang was working inside these pot. Since it was probably just a bit smaller in diameter than the bowls’ mouth, then, considering gradual narrowing of the vessels towards the bottom, there was some empty space left above the inner handle. It might have protected a rove from tearing and a hole from being blocked (ibid.).

One more difference between the Egyptian and Near Eastern vessels on the one hand and European bowls on the other, consists in number of inner handles. In contrast to Mediterranean two or even four-handled bowls, the European specimens have always single one. The fact can be easily explained by the number of persons engaged in fibre processing and – on a more general level – different organization of yarn production. The Egyptian paintings referred clearly show specialized workshops where at least two persons were roving flax for one spinner. At the same time the latter often used two spindles simultaneously. Prehistoric spinners in Europe seemingly processed yarns in a smaller scale, working with just one hang and single spindle within their own households.

Vessels with spouts Find This time I would like to bring the reader’s attention to the vessel with spouts (Germ.

Tüllengefäß) from the Lublin-Volhynian Culture settlement at the site of ‘Grodzisko I’ in Złota, district of Sandomierz (A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979, fig. 74)4. The pot has a spherical belly and slightly accented low neck. It is about 88 mm high. The greatest diameter of the body is about 100 mm, the diameter at the rim is 55 mm and at the bottom – 52 mm. The shape and the dimensions of the body make it very close to so-called goblets, one of the most typical pots of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture (see, e.g. S. Kadrow, A ZakoWcielna 2000, p. 213, figs. 18/e, 19/h, 21/a,d,h, 22/b, 25/b; J. Kamieńska, J.K. Kozłowski 1990, p. 58, pl. 28/1-4, 6-7; 29/4; 30/3, 6-7). At the greatest protrusion of the body there are four symmetrically located spouts. The pot was not decorated (fig. 10/2).

Analogies The oldest analogical finding comes from Tell Sava, district of Varna (H. Todorova 1981, Kat.

216). It is a biconical vessel with four symmetrically located spouts on the shoulder. It is 140 mm high. Incrustated triangles and vertically carved lines decorate the artefact. There are also remains of graphite painting at the neck. It is dated back to the Late Eneolithic Varna Culture.

Another Eneolithic Tüllengefäß was found in a megalithic grave at Kleinenkneten, district of Oldenburg (H.-G. Steffens 1980, p. 25, Abb. 11/1). It is a small vessel (ca 98 mm in height and 90 mm in the diameter) with a spherical body and cylindrical neck. At a shoulder there are six symmetrically located spouts. The pot does not bear any traits of decoration (fig. 10/1). The inventory of the grave belongs to the Western Group of the Funnel Beaker Culture.

Later one meets Tüllengefäß in the Central and South-Eastern Europe during all prehistory in different forms and cultural contexts. I will not discuss all of them in detail. However it is important to mention that in Mediterrenean Sea basin they appear very rarely and rather late (see e.g. E. Gröhne 1932; E. Ruttkay 1974; K. Raddatz 1988; K. Fischl 1999).

4 The artefact mentioned is stored by the State Archaeological Museum in Warsaw (inv. no. PMA/4/7700).

226


I nterpretation Once again, I will leave aside all the old hypotheses, according to which pots under discussion

would be used as lamps, flower-pots, cultic accessories etc. Even though some might find it incredible there is a good piece of evidence to suggest that in fact they were also textile accessories. Discoveries from Pfakofen, district of Regensburg, and their brilliant interpretation that became a cornerstone of these considerations.

At that site, in a woman’s grave dated back to 6th century AD a vessel with spouts and a high-whorl spindle were found together. The pot in question has rather squat, rounded body. Its short neck is strongly marked. The vase was of quite small dimensions. It was ca 70 mm high, with the maximal diameter of 115 mm at the belly, 75 mm at the mouth and 55 mm at the bottom. Owing to the form as well as the size, this pot closely resembles the Eneolithic artifacts already described. An analysis of the pot’s filling revealed presence of remains of wool and kermes, i.e. insect belonging to the Coccidae family, which used to be used for textiles dying (A. Bartel 1998, p. 139-143). All of that indicates connection of Tüllengefäß with fibres processing.

Antja Bartel (1998) reconstructed a method of obtaining of yarns, according to which bundles of thread were put into some vessels, the ends of threads were put through the spouts and taken out through a central mouth. Then the taken out threads were twisted into a yarn (string; fig. 11). Therefore the pots in question might have been connected with yarn twisting too (or, perhaps, twisting and dying?).

Concluding remarks For a long time the discussion on the historical background of invention of spinning bowls (i.e.

where the idea could come from and the ways it could have spread) as well as use and mechanics of this innovative device has focused on the Mediterranean area which has yielded the most important evidence in this regard. As a result of these studies the following general conclusions have been drawn: the Palestinian bowls turned out to be rather certainly borrowing from Egypt and this transmission has been connected to the well known migration of Jewish tribes. However, today one cannot see Egypt as a definite cradle of the innovation in question either. The oldest specimens known from there date back to 12th dynasty and they are preceded just by the wooden model of workshop showing an usage of a spinning bowls found in a tomb of Meketre (11th dynasty – 2134-1991 BC), whereas the specimen from the Cretean site of Myrtos is dated for the 2nd Minoan Period, which corresponds with the Old Kingdom Period in Egypt (4-6th dynasties, i.e. 2575-2155 BC). Yet, while the bowl from Crete makes us consider spinning bowls if not as a convergent North-African and Cretean invention then as a borrowing from the island to the South, the presented European discoveries are completely revolutionizing. It emerges that the discussed spinning accessory not only might have been invented on the Balkan Peninsula some two thousands years earlier but also the way it was used might have differed slightly. Bearing all that in mind I would propose to distinguish between the two main methods of thread-obtaining and to call them (as well as the related vessels) ‘the Dyakovo-Krasne Kolonia type’ and ‘the Slatino-Hotnica type’, the former being typical probably just for Europe and the latter corresponding with the method as it has been reconstructed on the basis of the Mediterranean discoveries.

In contrast to the discussion on spinning bowls, the majority of the hithero expressed opinions on the origins and spread of vessels with spouts point to Europe as to the cradle of the idea. The discoveries presented do not only confirm this general statement but offer a firm ground to make a step forward and suggest that this particular technical improvement also must have been also developed somewhere within the Balkano-Carpathian Eneolithic technosphere.

Both the discussed technical inventions appear in the dawn of Balkan Eneolithic civilization preceding the Mediterranean world by almost 2000 years. At the same time the presented artifacts of the Lublin-Volhynian Culture prove that the innovations have been quite quickly transmitted to the northernmost periphery of the same Eneolithic milieu as one of the phenomena heralding a new epoch.

227


Bibliography E.J.W. Barber 1991 Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and

Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean. Princeton. A. Bartel 1998 Das Tüllengefäß von Pfankofen, Lkr. Regensburg – einseltener Fund

aus dem frühen Mittelalter, in L. Bender-Jørgensen, Ch. Rinaldo (eds), Textiles in European Archaeology. Report from the 6th NESAT Symposium, 7-11th Mai 1996 in Borås, Göteborg, p. 139-150.

J. Carrington-Smith 1992 Spinning and Weaving Equipment, in W. McDonald, N. Wilkie (eds), Excavations at Nichoria, Southwest Greece, 2. The Bronze Age Occupation, Minneapolis, p. 647-692.

T. Chmielewski 2008 Uwagi o chronologii i periodyzacji wczesnego i Wrodkowego eneolitu na obszarze Polski południowo-wschodniej i zachodniej Ukrainy, Przegląd Archeologiczny, 56, p. 41-100.

A. Chokhadzhiev 2000 An Attempt for an Interpretation of One Peculiar Vessel from Dyakovo (Contribution to the Spinning Process in Prehistory), in L. Nikolova (ed.), Technology, style and society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, BAR (IS), 854, p. 113-119.

St. Chokhadzhiev 1984 Ausgrabungen an der prähistorischen Siedlung beim Dorf Djakovo, Kreis Kjustendil, StudPraeh, 7, p. 64-81.

G.M. Crowfoot 1931 Methods of Hand Spinning in Egypt and the Sudan, Bankfield Museum Notes, 12, Halifax.

T. Dothan 1963 Spinning Bowls, Israel Exploration Journal, 13, p. 97-112. K. Fischl 1999 Szertartási edények a bronzkorból, A Herman Otto Muzeum Évkönyve,

37, p. 129–138. E. Gröhne 1932 Die Koppel-, Ring- und Tüllengefäße, Schriften der Bremer

Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, Reihe D, 6/1-2, p. 94-121. S. Kadrow, A. ZakoWcielna 2000

An Outline of the Evolution of danubian cultures in Małopolska and Western Ukraine, Baltic-Pontic Studies, 9, p. 187-255.

J. Kamieńska, J.K. Kozłowski 1990

Entwicklung und Gliederung der Lengyel- und Polgar-Kulturgruppen in Polen, Warszawa-Kraków.

R. Krauß 2001 Die prähistorische Siedlung beim Dorf Djakovo, Kr. Kjustendil (Bulgarien). Ein Beitrag zum Äneolithikum im Strumatal, PZ, 76, p. 129-178.

A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979

Pierwsze społeczeństwa rolnicze na ziemiach polskich. Kultury kręgu naddunajskiego, in W. Hensel, T. WiWlański (eds), Prahistoria ziem polskich, T. II, Neolit, Wrocław, p. 19-164.

B. Matusek 1966 Tkactwo ludowe województwa lubelskiego od połowy XIX wieku. (manuscript of a Ph.D. thesis, UMCS Lublin).

F.E. Petzel 1987 Textiles of Ancient Mesopotamia, Persia and Egypt. Cornvalis, Oregon. K. Raddatz 1988 Tongefässe eines Frühetruskischen Grabfundes aus Bisenzio, Comune

Capodimonde, Prov. Viterbo, Jahrbuch des Römisch–Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 35/1, p. 187-237.

E. Ruttkay 1974 Ein urgeschichtliches Kultgefäß vom Jennyberg bei Mödling, Niederösterreich, Antike Welt, 5/2, p. 45-50.

J. Vliwa 2000 Egipt I Nubia, w Encyklopedia Historyczna Vwiata, t. II, StarożytnoWć, cz. 1, Kraków, p. 10-43.

H.-G. Steffens 1980 Archäologische Denkmale und Funde im Landkreis Oldenburg, Archäologische Wegweiser, Landkreis Oldenburg.

H. Todorova 1981 Jungsteinzeit in Bulgarien, Braunschweig.

228


A. ZakoWcielna 1996 Krzemieniarstwo kultury lubelsko-wołyńskiej ceramiki białomalowanej, Lublin.

A. ZakoWcielna 2008 Wiórowce-sztylety jako atrybuty pozycji społecznej mężczyzn kultury lubelsko-wołyńskiej, in J. Bednarczyk, J. Czebreszuk, P. Makarowicz, M. Szmyt (eds), Na pograniczu Wwiatów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorza bałtycko-pontyjskiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi KoWko w 60. rocznicę urodzin, Poznań, p. 577-591.

А. Чохаджиев 2003 Халколитни съдове с вътрешна дръжка – аргументи за една хипотеза, Археология, 44/3, p. 16-21.

Fig. 1. Localization of the most important discoveries discussed in the text: 1. Dyakovo, distr. Kyustendil; 2. Hotnica, distr. Veliko Tarnovo; 3. Kleinenkneten, distr. Oldenburg; 4. Krasne Kolonia, distr. Chełm; 5. Tell Sava, distr. Varna; 6. Slatino, distr. Kyustendil; 7. Złota-Grodzisko I, distr. Sandomierz (drawn by T. Chmielewski and M. Juran). Localizarea celor mai importante descoperiri discutate în text: 1. Dyakovo, distr. Kyustendil; 2. Hotnica, distr. Veliko Tarnovo; 3. Kleinenkneten, distr. Oldenburg; 4. Krasne Kolonia, distr. Chełm; 5. Tell Sava, distr. Varna; 6. Slatino, distr. Kyustendil; 7. Złota-Grodzisko I, distr. Sandomierz (desen de T. Chmielewski şi M. Juran).

229


Fig. 2. European spinning bowls: 1. Krasne Kolonia, distr. Chełm (drawn by E. Hander); 2. Dyakovo, distr. Kyustendil (after A. Чохаджиев 2003). Vase de tors europene: 1. Krasne Kolonia, distr. Chełm (desen de E. Hander); 2. Dyakovo, distr. Kyustendil (după A. Чохаджиев 2003).

230


Fig. 3. European spinning bowls: 1. Hotnica; 2. Slatino (after A. Чохаджиев 2003). Vase de tors europene: 1. Hotnica; 2. Slatino (după A. Чохаджиев 2003).

231


Fig. 4. Palestinian spinning bowls: 1. Tell el’Ajjul; 2-4, 12. Beth-Shean; 8, 10-11. Tell Jerishe; 6. Gezer; 7. Tell Jemmeh; 9. Megiddo (after T. Dothan 1963). Vase de tors palestiniene Tell el’Ajjul; 2-4, 12. Beth-Shean; 8, 10-11. Tell Jerishe; 6. Gezer; 7. Tell Jemmeh; 9. Megiddo (după T. Dothan 1963).

232


Fig. 5. Palestinian spinning bowls: Tell Quasile (after T. Dothan 1963).

Vase de tors palestiniene: Tell Quasile (după T. Dothan 1963).

Fig. 6. Egyptian spinning bowls: 1. Abu Ghalib; 2-4, 6. Tell el-Amarna; 5, 7-8. Deir el-Medineh (after T. Dothan 1963). Vase de tors egiptene: 1. Abu Ghalib; 2-4, 6. Tell el-Amarna; 5, 7-8. Deir el-Medineh (după T. Dothan 1963).

233


Fig. 7. Schematic drawing of yarns’ splicing (after E.J.W. Barber 1991). Schiţă a modului de împletire a firelor (după E.J.W. Barber 1991).

Fig. 8. Egyptian paintings showing yarn production: 1. Tomb of Baqt, Beni Hasan; 2. Tomb of Daga, Teby (after E.J.W. Barber 1991). Picturi egiptene care prezintă producerea firelor: 1. Mormântul lui Baqt, Beni Hasan; 2. Mormântul lui Daga, Teby (după E.J.W. Barber 1991).

Fig. 9. Reconstruction of the method threads‘ obtaining with the Dyakovo-Krasne Kolonia type of spinning bowl (after A. Chokhadzhiev 2000). Reconstituirea metodei de obţinere a firelor cu vasul de împletire de tip Dyakovo-Krasne Kolonia (după A. Chokhadzhiev 2000).

234


Fig. 10. The oldest European vessels with spouts: 1. Kleinenkneten (after H.-G. Steffens 1980); 2. Złota-Grodzisko I (after A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979). Cele mai vechi vase europene cu tuburi: 1. Kleinenkneten (după H.-G. Steffens 1980); 2. Złota-Grodzisko I (după A. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1979).

235


236

Fig. 11. Reconstruction of the metod of threads’ obtaining with a vessel with spouts (after E.J.W. Bartel 1998). Reconstituirea metodei de obţinere a firelor cu ajutorul vasului cu tuburi (după E.J.W. Bartel 1998).

Date post:	22-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sasa-zivanovic
View:	15 times
Download:	5 times

Chmielewski 2009 Libre

Documents