123
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition
in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
Selena Vitezović
Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, SRB
selenavitezovic@gmail.com< s.vitezovic@ai.ac.rs
Introduction
Although often considered as being completely de-
termined by environmental constraints and ergo-
nomic factors, technology is actually a social phe-
nomenon closely linked with diverse social, cultural
and economic aspects (cf. Lemonnier 1992; 1993;
see also Killick 2004). According to Pierre Lemon-
nier (1992), the study of technology should not be
limited to its effects on society; technologies must be
considered in a general anthropological perspective
as social productions that are determined by, and
compatible with, other social phenomena. Technolo-
gies must not be seen only as constraints; the social
aspect of material culture must also be taken into
consideration (Lemonnier 1992; 1993; Pfaffenber-
ger 1992).
An important characteristic of all technologies is
their systemic aspect. Every technique has five relat-
ABSTRACT – The earliest Neolithic cultures in Southeast Europe brought significant changes in many
aspects of everyday life, in subsistence, settlement patterns, architecture, and also ritual aspects.
Technological changes are also very important – the introduction of completely new technologies,
such as clay working, or new techniques in existing industries, e.g., lithic, osseous, etc. The osseous
industry is especially informative for questions on innovations and traditions, since it was well
developed in both the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. In Star≠evo culture, certain Mesolithic tradi-
tions may be observed, such as techniques for antler manufacture; however, numerous innovations
are also visible, particularly techno-types of Near Eastern origin such as spatula-spoons, the most
characteristic bone techno-type of the Early Neolithic in South-east Europe, as well as diverse deco-
rative items. Furthermore, new raw materials (bones from domestic animals) are introduced, and
new techniques for manufacture and new tools. It is also interesting to observe that, although osseous
materials remain the dominant raw material for personal ornaments, they are no longer used for
artistic expression.
IZVLE∞EK – Najstarej∏e neolitske kulture jugovzhodne Evrope so prinesle bistvene spremembe v as-
pektih vsakodnevnega ∫ivljenja, v gospodarstvo, poselitvene vzorce, arhitekturo, pa tudi v ritualne vi-
dike ∫ivljenja. Tehnolo∏ke spremembe so prav tako pomembne – uvajanje povsem novih tehnologij
kot je obdelava gline ali vpeljava novih tehnik v obstoje≠e tehnologije obdelave npr. kamna, kosti itd.
Predvsem obdelava kosti je izpovedna pri vpra∏anjih, ki so vezana na inovacije in tradicije, saj je
dobro razvita tako v mezolitiku kot v neolitiku. V kulturi Star≠evo lahko tako opazujemo nekatere
mezolitske tradicije, kot je obdelava rogovja; kljub temu pa prepoznamo tudi ∏tevilne inovacije, pred-
vsem pri tehnolo∏kih tipih, ki imajo izvor na Bli∫njem vzhodu kot so ∫lice, najbolj zna≠ilen tip v zgod-
njem neolitiku jugovzhodne Evrope, isto pa velja za raznorazne dekorativne izdelke. Zna≠ilna pa je
tudi uporaba novih vrst surovin (kosti doma≠ih ∫ivali) in uporaba novih tehnik obdelave in izdela-
va novih orodij. Zanimivo je, da izdelki iz kosti ne predstavljajo ve≠ umetni∏ko izra∫anje, ≠eprav
ostaja kost poglavitna surovina za izdelavo osebnih izdelkov oz. okraskov.
KEY WORDS – osseous raw materials; technological choices; technological innovations; Star≠evo-
Körös-Cris culture
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.5 
Selena Vitezović
124
ed components: matter, the material on which tech-
nique acts; energy, i.e. the forces which move objects
and transform matter, tools or means of work; ges-
tures, which move the objects involved in a techno-
logical action, and, finally, specific knowledge, which
may be conscious or unconscious. Furthermore, all
these techniques form a system, and, within this sys-
tem, multiple interactions exist between the tools,
the material that is being transformed, the actions
and the knowledge needed to transformation it. All
these elements are interdependent; diverse techni-
ques in a given society can share the same resources,
the same knowledge, the same tools and the same
actors. One technique may use the products of the
others; techniques may share operational sequences
or technical principles. This creates multiple relations
of interdependence among them; variations in any
of the five technical elements causes changes in oth-
ers, and any alteration within one technology influ-
ences modifications in others (cf. Lemonnier 1986;
1992).
In terms of the meaning and importance of some
technology within a given society, we may group
them into practical and prestigious ones (cf. Hayden
1998). Practical technologies are used to solve prac-
tical problems of survival and basic comfort, such
as providing food or shelter, and their most impor-
tant principle is to perform required tasks in an effi-
cient and effective way. However, there are different
kinds of constraints operating in the development of
solutions for each problem, such as functional requi-
rements, material properties, availability, and pro-
duction costs. It is unlikely, therefore, that there will
be a single optimal solution for every problem. The
criteria used in choosing between alternative techno-
logical solutions are how effective and how costly
each solution is, but also the choice of the solution
that is adopted may largely depend on culture tradi-
tion, ideological values, style, etc. (Hayden 1998).
Prestigious technologies, on the other hand, display
power, wealth, prestige, success. Prestigious artefacts
are not created to perform a practical, but a social,
task, and they play a key active role in the acquisi-
tion of status and power. The purpose is to solve a
social problem or to accomplish a social task, such
as attracting allies, or bonding members of social
groups together. Therefore, the logic and strategy
for creating prestige artefacts are fundamentally dif-
ferent from the logic and strategy for creating prac-
tical ones. Prestige technologies employ as much sur-
plus labour as possible to create objects that will at-
tract and draw attention, status and prestige to the
owner (Hayden 1998). Analysing the appearance
and development of prestigious technologies among
hunter-gatherer communities, Brian Hayden (1998.
17–18) also argued that many, perhaps even all, of
the technological achievements were initially devel-
oped as prestige technologies and only later evolved
into more practical applications such as pottery, me-
talworking, domestication of plants and animals, etc.
Not only are technological choices influenced, even
directed, by cultural and social phenomena, but spe-
cific technological traits may be cultural and chrono-
logical markers, and the technology itself may be
used to display identity, status and/or prestige, to
emphasise group identity, for example (e.g., Wake
1999). Even a skill itself may be valued (cf. Sinclair
1995; 1998), and it may have been used to display
or increase the prestigious status of the artisan who
produced certain skill-demanding items.
The archaeological background
The Early Holocene in the central Balkan area is
marked by a specific Mesolithic culture, labelled
after the eponymous sites Lepenski Vir or Lepenski
Vir-Schela Cladovei culture. All the sites were disco-
vered in the Iron Gates region, part of the Danube
valley and present-day border between Serbia and
Romania: Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Padina, Hajdu≠ka Vo-
denica and Kula on the Serbian side of the Danube,
and on the Romanian side sites at Alibeg, Cuina Tur-
cului, Icoana, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Corbului,
Răzvrata, Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Mare, etc. (Bon-
sall 2008; Bori≤ 2002; Boroneant 1970; 2000; Ra-
dovanovi≤ 1996). Absolute dates for the Lepenski
Vir site show that the earliest Mesolithic occupation
began around 9400 cal BC, while the trapezoidal
houses had been abandoned by around 5900 cal BC
(Bori≤, Dimitrijevi≤ 2007; for more dates see also
Bonsall 2008 and references therein).
Whether these communities were mobile or seden-
tary is still a subject of research; a certain level of
sedentarism, however, may be observed. These com-
munities practiced hunting of the game abundant in
the forests in the area, and also fishing, in particu-
lar fishing for large migratory fish (Bökönyi 1978;
Bartosiewicz et al. 2008; Clason 1982; Dimitrije-
vi≤ 2008; Dinu 2010).
A very peculiar material culture is the hallmark for
the Iron Gates Mesolithic, with spectacular non-util-
itarian items, which included ornamented stones
discovered at several sites, and even sculptures
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
125
placed within trapezoidal structures at the Lepen-
ski Vir site. Also, rich and diverse lithic and bone in-
dustries were uncovered (cf. Antonovi≤ 2006; Ba≠-
kalov 1979; Beldiman 2007; Radovanovi≤ 1981;
1996; Vitezovi≤ 2011b).
The Early Neolithic introduced numerous innova-
tions – not only farming and animal husbandry, new
plant and animal species, but also changes in ways
of life and worldviews (cf. Hodder 1990; Cauvin
1997). The earliest Neolithic communities in the cen-
tral Balkan region were part of the Star≠evo-Körös-
Cris cultural complex (for absolute dates, cf. Whittle
et al. 2002). The Neolithic settlers were a new pop-
ulation in the region; however, the nature of their
relations with the Mesolithic communities is still not
entirely clear (cf. Bonsall 2008.267–278).
Star≠evo communities were agricultural; they prac-
tised farming and animal herding, although hunting
and gathering also played a certain role in subsis-
tence (cf. Filipovi≤, Obradovi≤ 2013; Clason 1982;
Greenfield 2008). Settlements consisted of semi-
dugout pit-dwellings and huts above ground made
from wattle and daub. Their material culture brought
in numerous innovations, the most important and
most conspicuous being the introduction of clay
technology: ceramics were used for daily and stor-
age pots, everyday artefacts such as weights, but
also figurines and other cult objects (so-called altars,
etc.) (e.g., Vukovi≤ 2013).
Changes in other technologies may be observed as
well; lithic and osseous tools are now adapting to
new materials and new tasks connected with agri-
cultural activities, life in villages, etc. We can as-
sume that perishable technologies changed as well
(leather, textile, wood working). In the lithic indus-
try we may note in particular the introduction and
more widespread use of polished stone artefacts
(axes, adzes, chisels, etc.) and ground stone artefacts
(whetstones, grindstones, etc.) (Antonovi≤ 2003).
Bone technology in Star≠evo culture
Osseous tools had an important role in craft pro-
duction and daily activities, and also other utensils
and personal ornaments were made from these raw
materials. The bone industry shows certain traits
that can be characterised as Mesolithic traditions,
but also numerous innovations, including Near-East-
ern influences. The bone industry from the follow-
ing sites was included in the ana-
lysis: Donja Branjevina, Star≠e-
vo-Grad, Golokut-Vizi≤, Obre∫-Ba∏-
tine, Luda∏-Bud∫ak, Divostin, Gri-
vac, Te≠i≤, Drenovac, U∏≤e Kame-
ni≠kog Potoka, Knjepi∏te, Veles-
nica, Bubanj, Pavlovac-Kova≠ke
Njive (Vitezovi≤ 2011a; 2011c;
2012a; 2013a; 2014) (Map 1).
Some of these sites were exca-
vated in the first half of the 20th
century and not all of the faunal
remains were carefully collected,
so the data are not of equal qual-
ity, but these assemblages still
yielded important information on
the osseous industries.
Choice of raw material
Osseous raw materials used for
craft production may be acquired
directly, obtained either from ani-
mals killed for food, or collected
(for example, shed antlers or mol-
lusc shells), or indirectly, acquired
through trade and exchange (for
example, mollusc shells from dis-
tant regions). In all prehistoric
Map 1. Star≠evo culture sites mentioned in the text: 1 Luda∏-Bud∫ak,
2 Donja Branjevina, 3 Golokut-Vizi≤, 4 Obre∫-Ba∏tine, 5 Star≠evo-Grad,
6 Grivac, 7 Divostin, 8 Velesnica (U∏≤e Kameni≠kog Potoka and Knje-
pi∏te are located near-by) and 9 Pavlovac-Kova≠ke Njive.
Selena Vitezović
126
communities, locally and directly acquired raw mate-
rials comprise the majority within osseous industries.
However, this does not imply that all the available
skeletal elements were unselectively used, but cer-
tain choices among available raw materials were
made, directed by their physical and mechanical
traits as well as by cultural preferences (cf. Choyke
2013 and references therein).
The Mesolithic bone industry in the Iron Gates re-
gion is marked by the predominant use of red deer
antlers (chiefly from killed animals, although shed
antlers were present as well) and also diverse bones
from hunted animals (auroch, red deer, roe deer),
especially large long bones from large mammals
used for diverse cutting and burnishing tools, fol-
lowed by boar tusks and the occasional use of im-
ported mollusc shells (cf. Ba≠kalov 1979; Beldiman
2005; 2007; Cristiani, Bori≤ 2012; Vitezovi≤ 2011b;
precise numerical data are not available for all the
sites; see Table 1 for the data from the sites at Kula
and Vlasac, after Vitezovi≤ 2022b and Radovanovi≤
1996.253).
In Star≠evo culture, the situation is somewhat dif-
ferent, as the antler ratio decreases and bones are
predominant, particularly those of domestic animals
prevail (for the antler and bone ratio, see Table 2).
We may also observe a strict selection of both ske-
letal elements and species. Ovicaprine bones (espe-
cially metapodia and tibiae) were best represented,
followed by cattle metapodia and other ungulate
long bones and ribs, mainly from domestic cattle
and occasionally aurochs, red deer and roe deer
(however, for ribs and some long bone segments, it
is not possible to determine the species with certain-
ty, so the percentages cannot be calculated accurate-
ly) (Vitezovi≤ 2011a; 2011c; 2013a). Antlers were
mainly from red deer, with the occasional use of roe
deer antlers, in most cases shed, probably collected
in the relative vicinity of the settlement. There are
certain differences between the Star≠evo sites in the
antler ratio; for example, they are abundant at some
of sites, while almost completely absent at others,
probably reflecting regional differences in economic
aspects (cf. Vitezovi≤ 2011a; 2013a; 2014). Boar
tusks (of wild and domestic pig) were used for tools
and decorations, and also diverse teeth of other spe-
cies, mainly wild (such as red deer canines), served
as decorative items (Vitezovi≤ 2012a; 2014). Denta-
lium, Spondylus and Glycymeris mollusc shells were
present; Dentalium beads were found only at Star-
≠evo, while Spondylus and Glycymeris bracelets and
other ornaments were found at the sites of Star≠e-
vo, Divostin and Drenovac (Vitezovi≤ 2012a).
It is interesting to note that the domestic animal
bones were the most prevalent raw material at all
Star≠evo culture sites (however, as mentioned above,
exact ratios cannot be determined), although there
is a difference between the sites in the wild/domes-
tic animal ratio. At Golokut, for example, wild ani-
mals were predominant, but exploited raw materials
do not differ significantly from, for example, Donja
Branjevina, where domestic fauna were dominant
(cf. Bla∫i≤ 1984–1985 and Bla∫i≤ 2005.74–76 res-
pectively). At Star≠evo site, the ratio of wild pigs is
notable (Clason 1982), although boar tusks do not
stand out particularly in quantity in comparison with
other sites.
This prevalence of domestic species in the raw ma-
terial choices certainly points to cultural attitudes to
species. An interesting case study comes from the
southern Levant, where the bone tool assemblages
from several subsequent periods were analysed, with
the focus on the change from gazelle bones to capri-
nae bones (Le Dosseur 2010). During the Natufian
and PPNA, gazelle bones were the predominant raw
material. During the middle PPNB, an increasing
number of caprines is noted in the faunal record,
while the gazelle were still the preferred choice of
raw material, even though goats were much more
Tab. 1. The use of different osseous raw materials
in the Mesolithic. Examples from the sites of Kula
and Vlasac.
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
127
numerous in the faunal assemblage. An important
change occurred during late PPNB; caprine bones
became the main choice of raw material, in particu-
lar those of sheep, which also increased in the fau-
nal assemblage. Although some of this change may
be purely technological (gazelle bones may be longer
and thus more convenient, etc.), such a change also
includes changes in attitude to the newly introduced
animals. This shows that a certain time is needed for
domestic animals to be fully adopted and included
in all segments of life and in diverse aspects of con-
sumption.
Manufacturing techniques
Most of the manufacturing techniques encountered
within the Star≠evo culture have much in common
with techniques practised throughout prehistoric
Europe (cf. Beldiman 2007; Sidéra 2005; Stratouli
1998, inter alii). Some of the débitage techniques
for antler artefacts show certain similarities with Me-
solithic technology, in methods of detaching blanks,
in shaping cutting tools, etc. (cf. Vitezovi≤ 2014).
Several distinct technological features may be ob-
served in the manufacturing process, including some
technical procedures typical of the Early and Mid-
dle Neolithic in Southeast Europe.
The main innovation in Neolithic technology was
the widespread use of abrasion, directly linked with
the introduction and widespread use of abrasive
stone tools (cf. Antonovi≤ 2003). Most of the bone
Tab. 2. The use of different osseous raw materials in the Early Neolithic. Examples from the sites of Gri-
vac, Divostin, Star≠evo, Donja Branjevina, U∏≤e Kameni≠kog Potoka and Velesnica.
Selena Vitezović
128
and antler objects were finished by ab-
rasion; their distal ends are modelled by
grinding and burnishing with diverse,
coarse- and fine-grained stone tools, or
entire surfaces are finely burnished and
polished.
Pointed tools (awls, needles) made from
small ruminant metapodials present a
particularly interesting method of shap-
ing. This tool type was widespread in
Europe throughout the Neolithic period
(e.g., Ba≠kalov 1979; Beldiman 2007;
Makkay 1990; Sidéra 2005; Stratouli
1998). Three distinctive manufacturing
methods were in use: (1) manufacture
using abrasion only; (2) manufacture by
first sawing the metapodia in half and
then abrading it; and/or (3) manufacture
by first abrading and then by sawing (cf.
Murray 1979, Sidéra 2005) (Figs. 1, 2).
All three techniques for shaping were quite well re-
presented in Star≠evo-Körös-Cris culture and the Early
and Middle Neolithic in the region (cf. Beldiman
2007; Beldiman, Sztancs 2011; Makkay 1990; Tóth
2012; Stratouli 1998). In the first and third method,
the metapodial bone is first ground with an abra-
sive stone on both sides (dorsal and ventral) until
it becomes flat. It may then be further shaped by ab-
rasion only, or by a combination of cutting with a
flint tool and abrasion (Figs. 1, 2). This results in
very thin, fine points (Fig. 3). The distal epiphysis,
usually preserved at the base, may be reduced to a
very small, almost flat knob or simply ground from
all sides, thus obtaining a more or less regular square
shape. This method allowed more precise shaping,
but limited the number of artefacts which could have
been fashioned from a single piece of raw material.
The second method may enable a maximum of four
tools from a single bone, while the results were not
so fine, but more resilient, stronger awls. In later pe-
riods, methods that included abrasion as the first
step disappeared, and the second technique became
predominant (cf. Ba≠kalov 1979; Russell 1990; Vi-
tezovi≤ 2007).
Also, the method of transver-
sal division into segments was
new; this was done by mak-
ing a groove along the circum-
ference of the bone and then
the final millimetre or so of
the bone was simply snapped
or broken off. A groove could have been made with
a flint tool, or by abrasive fibre, or a combination of
the two (Fig. 4). The transversal cutting of bones, es-
pecially large and thick long bones of large mammals
was quite difficult, but this method produced blanks
of regular shape, which was not possible by breaking
or chopping. This technique was not noted in the Me-
solithic and seems to be disappearing with the Late
Neolithic period in the region (cf. Ba≠kalov 1979;
Russell 1990; Vitezovi≤ 2007).
Another specific technique is the method for mak-
ing large perforations. Besides the widespread me-
thod of making perforations by drilling with a flint
borer (with sand added) to obtain smaller holes (5–
8mm in diameter), there was another method for
making larger holes (1–1.5cm in diameter) with a
tubular, hollow tool instead (perhaps some sort of
reed tube or something similar), with an abrasive
substance added (e.g., sand) (Fig. 11; Vitezovi≤
2013b). These large perforations leave distinctive
debris in the form of small circles, as discovered at
several sites of the Star≠evo-Körös-Cris cultural com-
Fig. 1. Reconstruction of methods of making pointed tools from
metapodial bones (after Sidéra 2005).
Fig. 2. Ovicaprine metapodial bone, completely ground – blank for pro-
ducing pointed tools from Star≠evo-Grad.
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
129
plex (cf. Beldiman, Sztancs 2011; Makkay 1990;
Tóth 2012; see also Vitezovi≤ 2013b and references
therein).
Techno-types
Numerous tools have simple, widespread shapes
that are not culturally or chronologically characte-
ristic such as awls from longitudinally split long
bones, scrapers from ribs, etc. The morphological
traits of most antler tools do not differ significantly
from their Mesolithic counterparts such as chisels,
wedges, axes, adzes, hammers, small punching tools
(cf. Vitezovi≤ 2014). In particular, retouching tools
may be considered as result of much longer tradi-
tions. Also, some other tools have the same or mini-
mally modified morphology, such as boar tusk scra-
pers, spatulae and other burnishing tools, etc.
Several new techno-types are introduced with the
Star≠evo culture. According to Isabelle Sidéra (1998),
Anatolian influences, present in the osseous indus-
tries in Southeast Europe, included the presence of
some or all of the following techno-types: pointed
tools and tools with a cutting edge made from small
ruminant tibiae, antler sickles, elaborated fishhooks,
needles with perforation made by incision, buckles,
crude axes, beads from bird bones, and spoons (cf.
also Dekker 2014; Marinelli 1995; Russell 2006;
2012).
The presence and quantity of these techno-types
varies at different Star≠evo culture sites; for exam-
ple, at some, none were identified, while they were
relatively numerous at the others (see Table 3 for
details).
From Star≠evo culture, only one antler sickle has
been discovered, a fragmented piece from Luda∏-
Bud∫ak (Vitezovi≤ 2014.168). Needles with perfora-
tions made by incision are virtually unknown, with
only one being found at Pavlovac-Kova≠ke Njive (Vu-
kovi≤ et al. 2016), while crude axes and beads from
bird bones have not been encountered. Elaborated
fishhooks are also rare; only a few were discovered
at Donja Branjevina (Vitezovi≤ 2011a; 2011c) (Fig. 5).
Spatulae-chisels from ovicaprine tibiae were discov-
ered at Grivac, Divostin, Rudnik near Srbica and Pav-
lovac-Kova≠ke Njive (Vitezovi≤ 2011a; Vukovi≤ et al.
2016) (Fig. 6). The largest number was noted at Di-
vostin; however, they are not numerous and, in ge-
neral, not as important as, for example, in Bulgarian
Karanovo I–II culture (cf. Lang 2004).
The most important techno-types of Anatolian ori-
gin among the Star≠evo bone artefacts are spatulae-
spoons and several decorative items. Spatulae-spoons
were widespread in the Near East (cf. Dekker 2014),
and are abundant throughout the entire Star≠evo-Kö-
rös-Cris cultural complex (cf. Beldiman 2007; Beldi-
man, Sztancs 2011; Makkay 1990; Nandris 1972;
Tóth 2012; Vitezovi≤ 2011a; 2011c; 2013a) as well
Fig. 3. Fine awls obtained only
by abrasion from Donja Bra-
njevina.
Fig. 4. Manufacture debris with traces of unfin-
ished transversal cutting, from Star≠evo-Grad.
Selena Vitezović
130
as within Karanovo I–II culture (cf. Lang 2004; Zi-
darov 2014).
Spatulae-spoons were made exclusively from large
ungulate metapodial bones, probably all from Bos.
Although it was suggested by John Nandris (1972)
that only bones of the wild species Bos primigenius
were in use, it seems that Star≠evo examples were
probably all from Bos taurus. Spatulae-spoons have
elongated handles with cylindrical or oval cross-sec-
tions, straight or gently curved, and a bowl at the dis-
tal end, usually completely flat or slightly concave.
Bowl shapes vary: they may be elongated, leaf-shap-
ed, shorter, triangular, or, rarely, oval (Figs. 7, 8).
Zoomorphic handles, known from Anatolian sites,
have not been discovered; however, it should be
noted that one projectile-shaped artefact from Donja
Branjevina, probably a re-worked spoon, had a zoo-
morphic base (Vitezovi≤ 2011c.31). Also from Donja
Branjevina, one fragmented piece has a peculiar
base, decorated with two rows of incisions (Vitezo-
vi≤ 2011c.Fig. 18/2), and from Te≠i≤ may be men-
tioned one example with incisions on both sides on
basal part of the bowl (Fig. 8). No other decorations
were discovered (for example, notches, known from
Anatolian sites, cf. Dekker 2014).
Spatula-spoons were produced through several stages
of cutting, scraping, burnishing, polishing, etc. (cf.
Nandris 1972; Sidéra 2013), and, according to the
experimental work of Isabelle Sidéra (2013.174),
this manufacturing technique demanded a lot of
time, over 25 hours of work in total, and also a lot
of skill. All these artefacts were used intensively; the
bowls show high polish and shine, and at the same
time, the bone is flattened, worn out and abraded
from use. Edges are sometimes broken or damaged
from use, and on some bowl segments it may be
seen that they continued to be in use even after the
breakage. Also, a high level of polish and shine, as
well as fine striations, often spread over entire sur-
faces, may be noted. Their function is still not clear;
the intensive usewear, especially damage, was inter-
preted as being related to contact with either clay
or stone (cf. Georgiev 1967; Nandris 1972). They
may have been used on special occasions, and their
original purpose may have been related to process-
ing different plants, perhaps ‘special’ plants, such
as medicines or spices. They might have also served
as cosmetic tools (cf. also Dekker 2014; Russell 2006;
2012). In Star≠evo culture, they were used for a long
time and often repaired, so it may be assumed that
their original function was rather important (Vitezo-
vi≤ 2011a). Their final function was probably as
Sites Spatulae-chisels from Spatulae-spoons Buckles in shape of open bracelet
ovicaprine tibiae
Donja Branjevina \ 42 (out of 344 total osseous artefacts ) 2 (out of 6 total decorative items)
Star;evo-Grad \ 41 (out of 250 total osseous artefacts) 5 (out of 21 total decorative items)
Golokut-Vizić \ 1 (out of 39 total osseous artefacts ) 4 (out of 7 total decorative items)
Obre/-Ba[tine \ 3 (out of 27 total osseous artefacts ) 2 (out of 3 total decorative items)
Divostin 17 1 (out of 96 total osseous artefacts ) \
Grivac 1 1 (out of 58 total osseous artefacts ) 2 (out of 6 total decorative items)
Te[ić \ 1 (out of 4 total osseous artefacts ) \
Bubanj \ 1 (out of 16 total osseous artefacts ) \
Velesnica \ 3 (out of 39 total osseous artefacts ) \
U[će Kameni;kog Potoka \ \ (total of 23 osseous artefacts) \
Tab. 3. The presence of different tool types of Near Eastern origin at Star≠evo culture sites.
Fig. 5. Elaborated fishhooks from Donja Branje-
vina.
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
131
some sort of burnisher, as suggested by the presence
of the high level of polish and shine consistent with
prolonged contact with soft organic materials, such
as leather, hide and plant fibres (cf. Peltier 1986;
Maigrot 2003; Legrand 2007; also cf. observations
by Tóth 2012.175).
Projectile points comprise a very interesting group
of artefacts, among which three sub-types may be
outlined: two of these show technological and mor-
phological connections with Mesolithic ones, but the
third subtype is technologically connected with spa-
tulae-spoons; furthermore, some of these are re-
worked broken spoons (Fig. 9) (Vitezovi≤ 2012b).
The new artefact types also include several decora-
tive items. This includes buckles in the form of an
open bracelet, all made from long bones of consi-
derable size, from large ungulates, probably Bos.
Bones were cut transversally by making a groove
with abrasive fibre, and then by cutting the bone
with a flint tool. All these objects have carefully
shaped heads made by cutting with a flint tool, and
all the surfaces were carefully polished with some
fine-grained stone. However, their original shape is
unknown – whether they were in the form of a half-
circle or almost full circle – as they are all broken in
the middle. This breakage is probably due to use;
these peculiar artefacts may have been used as some
sort of belt buckle or clasp for clothing (Fig. 10). Si-
milar to those, probably a morphological variation,
Fig. 6. Spatula-chisel from ovicaprine tibia from
Pavlovac-Kova≠ke Njive.
Fig. 7. Spatula-spoons from Star≠evo-Grad. Fig. 8. Spatula-spoon from Te≠i≤.
Selena Vitezović
132
are buckles in the form of buttons with a rounded
head made from a piece cut out from a long bone,
finely polished.
Among the region- and culture-specific decorative
items rings, disks and rectangular plates with large
holes may also be included, all of similar morphol-
ogy with slight variations, obtained by use of the
above-mentioned specific techniques of transversal
cutting or making large perforations (Fig. 11). They
were made either by transversally cutting large long
bones (ring-shaped pieces) or from diverse flat pieces
of bones, mainly from diaphyses of large long bones,
by cutting, burnishing and polishing and by making
large holes with a hollow tool (discs and rectangular
perforated plates) (Vitezovi≤ 2013b).
There is one more trait that shows Near Eastern in-
fluences – tools with serrated (denticulated or notch-
ed) edges. Different artefact types may have one or
more edges with dents or notches that are either
purely decorative or may have certain function. Two
artefacts from Divostin of unknown function (Fig.
12), as well as several diverse artefacts, spoons,
awls, burnishers, have certain parts with wide U-
shaped notches or dense incisions that create wavy
or denticulated edges. The level of use wear differs
in them and it is difficult to determine their func-
tion. They may have been used for making decora-
tions on other, soft materials (such as textile); how-
ever, no experimental work has been conducted yet.
Similar serrated artefacts are encountered in other
Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic cultures in the Near East
and in Southeast Europe. Several morphologically
similar artefacts were discovered at the site of Tell
Mureybet with traces of use that cover
the range from modest polish up to com-
pletely used dents. Several hypotheses
on use were offered; however, the expe-
rimental work conducted by Rozalia
Christidou was inconclusive (Stordeur,
Christidou 2008.522–528). As for our
examples, a small number of finds and
large variations in form further compli-
cate the interpretation of the function
and must await future new finds and ex-
perimental work.
The most important difference in the
use of osseous raw materials between
the Mesolithic and Star≠evo populations
in the Balkans is in their symbolic use.
In the Mesolithic, decorations may occa-
sionally be found on non-worked skele-
tal elements (such as antler segments, such as a roe
deer antler from Vlasac, Srejovi≤, Letica 1978.T LXX)
or finished and used tools (such as a possible retou-
ching tool from Vlasac, Srejovi≤, Letica 1978.T.
LXXVI, and more examples in Boroneant 1970;
2000; Radovanovi≤ 1996). These were mainly incis-
ed decorations that formed net, zig-zag or wavy mo-
tifs. In Star≠evo culture, decoration has not been dis-
covered on any bone artefacts. However, in both cul-
tures, osseous raw materials were widely used for
decoration (Ba≠kalov 1979; Vitezovi≤ 2012a), as in
Fig. 9. Projectile points manufactured as spatula-
spoons from Star≠evo-Grad.
Fig. 10. Buckles in a shape of an open bracelet from Golokut,
Ba∏tine, and Star≠evo-Grad.
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
133
numerous other prehistoric cultures across Europe
and the Near East (cf. Taborin 2004).
Discussion and conclusion
The bone industry in the Star≠evo culture was a well-
developed and important craft, and osseous raw ma-
terials were important for producing diverse items,
everyday tools and decorative objects. The osseous
industry was also closely connected with other tech-
nological aspects of Star≠evo crafts, displaying inno-
vations connected with the introduction of the Neo-
lithic way of life.
The acquisition and management of raw materials
changed significantly as the economy changed. Sheep,
goat and cattle bones now prevail, showing
that domestic animals had been fully adopt-
ed and accepted in all aspects of the econ-
omy and consumption, and were not only ac-
ceptable, but preferable raw material for
most daily tools. The predominant acquisi-
tion of shed antlers demonstrates close know-
ledge of the environment, as the red deer
tend to shed their antlers in the same place
every year (cf. Clutton-Brock 1984).
Manufacturing techniques also show innova-
tions connected with modifications in other
technologies. The most important change is
the adoption and widespread use of ground stone
tools for several finishing steps, burnishing and po-
lishing. Furthermore, the application of this new me-
thod created technical procedures that may be con-
sidered as cultural-chronological markers.
Mesolithic traditions are present to a relatively low
extent, and the question of their origin remains
open. Some of Mesolithic traits may be considered
characteristic of several Mesolithic populations, not
only those from the Iron gates region; therefore, the
question of contact with the Mesolithic Iron Gates
population and its nature remains open.
The increased quantity of fine- and medium-sized
pointed tools (needles, awls) (see Tab. 4), including
Fig. 11. Decorative rectangular plates with large holes
from Grivac.
Fig. 12. Artefacts with notches from Divostin.
Tab. 4. The ratio of fine and medium pointed tools
versus other artefacts. Examples from the sites of
Vlasac (Mesolithic) and Star≠evo (Early Neolithic).
South-East European Transect, vol II: Early Neolithic
(Star≠evo-Cris) Sites on the Territory of Romania. Bri-
tish Archaeological Reports IS 2188. Archaeopress. Ox-
ford: 57–70.
Beldiman C. 2005. Paleotechnology of antler working in
the Mesolithic of the Iron Gates, Romania. In H. Luik, A.
Choyke, C. Batey and L. Lõugas (eds.), From Hooves to
Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and
Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Pre-
sent. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked
Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003.
Muinasaja teadus 15. Tallinn: 33–46.
2007. Industria materiilor dure animale în preistoria
României. Resurse naturale, comunită ti umane si
tehnologie din paleoliticul superior până în neoliticul
timpuriu. Asociatia Română de Arheologie. Studii de
Preistorie, Supplementum 2. Editura Pro Universitaria.
Bucuresti.
Selena Vitezović
134
very thin awls obtained through abrasion only, per-
haps point to an increased production of perishable
technologies, i.e. in processing plant fibres, leather,
and hides.
Techno-types of Near-Eastern origin were present in
most of the bone industries in Southeast Europe, but
with significant differences in distribution, impor-
tance and technological modifications. In her analy-
sis of new elements of Near-Eastern origin in Eastern
Balkan bone industries, Sidéra (1998) noted that the
style of production changes rapidly from one site to
another. In the case of the Star≠evo culture bone in-
dustry, we may note that only some of the ‘package’
of Anatolian influences was adopted; furthermore,
some of what was adopted had already been partially
altered (such as the forms and functions of spatulae-
spoons). It is particularly interesting to note that deco-
rative items, probably used to display status and/or
prestige, show important Near-eastern influences, but
again, in a somewhat modified way.
The most interesting examples are the projectile
points, where a symbiosis of tradition and innova-
tion may be observed: subtypes with Mesolithic forms
and the introduction of a new subtype closely con-
nected with the most important Near-Eastern arte-
fact type, the spatula-spoon.
The most important difference between the Mesoli-
thic (and earlier Palaeolithic traditions) is in the cul-
tural attitude to osseous raw materials: they are no
longer used for figural representations or decora-
tions, while the new material, clay, is now preferred
for diverse figural presentations and for objects of
possible cultic function. Osseous raw materials are
now predominantly used for daily tools, but retained
their role for producing personal ornaments (cf. Vi-
tezovi≤ 2012a).
The Star≠evo culture osseous industry shows an in-
teresting mix, preserving some techno-typological
traits connected with Mesolithic tradition while in-
troducing new techno-types, mainly of Near-Eastern
origin, but somewhat altered during the process of
adoption into the new cultural milieu. Technological
traditions and innovations are never straightfor-
ward, or simply transferred from one culture to ano-
ther, but must pass through a process of adoption
and adaptation to the new economic, social and cul-
tural environment.
This paper is the result of work on the projects ‘Ar-
chaeology of Serbia: cultural identity, integrational
factors, technological processes and the role of the
central Balkans in the development of the European
prehistory’, no. OI 177020, and ‘Bioarchaeology of
ancient Europe: humans, animals and plants in the
prehistory of Serbia’, no. III 47001, funded by the
Ministry for Education and Science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Antonovi≤ D. 2003. Neolitska industrija gla≠anog kame-
na u Srbiji. Arheolo∏ki institut. Beograd.
2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir. Arheolo∏ki insti-
tut. Beograd.
Ba≠kalov A. 1979. Predmeti od kosti i roga u predneo-
litu i neolitu Srbije. Savez Arheolo∏kih dru∏tava Jugosla-
vije. Beograd.
Bartosiewicz L., Bonsall C. and Sisu V. 2008. Sturgeon fish-
ing along the Middle and Lower Danube. In C. Bonsall,
V. Boroneant and I. Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron Gates
in Prehistory. New perspectives. British Archaeological
Report IS 1893. Archaeopress. Oxford: 39–54.
Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M. 2011. Technology of skeletal
materials of the Star≠evo-Cris Culture in Romania. In S. A.
Luca, C. Suciu (eds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Central/
References
∴
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
135
Bla∫i≤ S. 1984–5. Prilog poznavanju ostataka faune sa
arheolo∏kog lokaliteta “Golokut”. Rad Vojvo∂anskih mu-
zeja 29: 33–36.
2005. The faunal assemblage. In S. Karmanski, Donja
Branjevina: A Neolithic settlement near Deronje in
the Vojvodina (Serbia). Società per la preistoria e pro-
toistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Quaderno
10. Trieste: 74–76.
Bökönyi S. 1978. The vertebrate fauna of Vlasac. In M.
Gara∏anin (ed.), Vlasac. A Mesolithic Settlement in the
Iron Gates. Volume II. Geology – Biology – Anthropology.
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Belgrade: 35–65.
Bonsall C 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In G.
Bailey, P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge: 238–279.
Bori≤ D. 2002. Seasons, life cycles and memory in the
Danube Gorges, c. 10000–5500 BC. Unpublihed PhD the-
sis. Department of Archaeology. University of Cambridge.
Cambridge.
Bori≤ D., Dimitrijevi≤ V. 2007. Apsolutna hronologija i
stratigrafija Lepenskog Vira (Absolute chronology and
stratigraphy of Lepenski Vir). Starinar LVII: 9–55.
Boroneant V. 1970. La période épipaléolithique sur la rive
roumaine des Portes de Fer du Danube. Prähistorische
Zeitschrift 45(1): 1–25.
2000. Paléolithique supérieur et épipaléolithique dans
la zone des Portes de Fer. Editura Silex. Bucuresti.
Cauvin J. 1997. Naissance des divinités, naissance de
l’agriculture. Le Centre National de la Recherche Scien-
tifique. Paris.
Choyke A. 2013. Hidden agendas: ancient raw material
choice for worked osseous objects in central Europe and
beyond. In A. Choyke, S. O’Connor (eds.), From These
Bare Bones: Raw Materials and the Study of Worked Os-
seous Objects. Oxbow. Oxford: 1–11.
Clason A. 1982. Padina and Star≠evo: Game, Fish and
Cattle. Palaeohistoria XXII: 141–173.
Clutton-Brock J. 1984. Excavations at Grimes Graves,
Norfolk, 1972–1976. Fascicule 1: Neolithic antler picks
from Grimes Graves, Norfolk, and Durrington Walls,
Wiltshire: a biometrical analysis. British Museum Press.
London.
Cristiani E., Bori≤ D. 2012. 8500-Year-old Late Mesolithic
garment embroidery from Vlasac (Serbia): Technological,
use-wear and residue analyses. Journal of Archaeological
Science 39: 3450–3469.
Dekker K. 2014. What tools can tell The Bone Tools of
Barcın Höyük. Unpublished MA thesis. Free University of
Amsterdam. Amsterdam.
Dimitrijevi≤ V. 2008. Lepenski Vir animal bones: what
was left in the houses? In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant and I.
Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory. New
perspectives. British Archaeological Reports IS 1893. Ar-
chaeopress. Oxford: 117–130.
Dinu A. 2010 Mesolithic fish and fishermen of the lower
Danube (Iron Gates). Documenta Praehistorica 37: 299–
310.
Filipovi≤ D., Obradovi≤ ∑. 2013. Archaeobotany at Neoli-
thic sites in Serbia: a critical overview of the methods and
results. In N. Miladinovi≤-Radmilovi≤, S. Vitezovi≤ (eds.),
Bioarheologija na Balkanu. Bilans i perspektive. Radovi
bioarheolo∏ke sekcije Srpskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva. Srp-
sko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo and Blago Sirmiuma. Beograd,
Sremska Mitrovica: 25–55.
Georgiev G. 1967. Beiträge zur Erfoschung des Neolithi-
kums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien. Archaeologia
Austriaca 42: 90–144.
Greenfield H. 2008 Faunal assemblages from the Early
Neolithic of the central Balkans: methodological issues in
the reconstruction of subsistence and land us. In C. Bon-
sall, V. Boroneant and I. Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron
Gates in Prehistory. New perspectives. British Archaeolo-
gical Reports IS 1893. Archaeopress. Oxford: 205–226.
Hayden B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: The
evolution of material systems. Journal of archaeological
method and theory 5(1): 1–55.
Hodder I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Basil Black-
well. Oxford.
Killick D. 2004. Social Constructionist Approaches to the
Study of Technology. World Archaeology 36(4): 571–578.
Lang F. 2004. Chronologisch sensible Knochengerättypen
am Beispiel Tell Karanovo. In V. Nikolov, K. Ba≠varov and
P. Kalchev (eds.), Prehistoric Thrace. Institute of Archaeo-
logy with Museum – BAS and Regional Museum of History
Stara Zagora. Sofia – Stara Zagora: 359–369.
Le Dosseur G. 2010. The Neolithisation in Southern Le-
vant: Impact of animal herding on the exploitation of
bone materials, from retinence to adoption of domestic
herds. In A. Legrand-Pineau, I. Sidéra, N. Buc, E. David
and V. Scheinsohn (eds.), Ancient and Modern Bone Ar-
tefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological
and functional signature. British Archaeological Reports
IS 2136. Archaeopress. Oxford: 17–30.
Selena Vitezović
136
Legrand A. 2007. Fabrication et utilisation de l’outillage
en matières osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre: Khiro-
kitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Lemonnier P. 1986. The study of material culture today:
toward an anthropology of technical systems. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 5: 147–186.
1992. Elements for and anthropology of technology.
Anthropological Papers. University of Michigan – Mu-
seum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor.
1993. Introduction. In P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technologi-
cal choices: transformation in material cultures since
the Neolithic. Routdledge. London: 1–35.
Maigrot Y. 2003. Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de
l’outillage en matières dures animales La station 4 de
Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Unpublished
PhD thesis. Université de Paris I. Paris.
Makkay J. 1990. Knochen, Geweih und Eberzahngegen-
stände. Communicationes Archaeologiae Hungaricae
38: 23–58.
Marinelli M. 1995. The bone artifacts of Ilipinar. In J. Ro-
odenberg (ed.), The Ilipinar Excavation I. Five Seasons
of Fieldwork in Nothwestern Anatolia, 1987–91. Neder-
lands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Lei-
den: 121–142.
Murray C. 1979. Les techniques de débitage de métapodes
de petits ruminants à Auvernier–Port. In H. Camps-Fab-
rer (ed.), Industrie de l’os et bois de cervidé durant le
néolithique et âge des métaux. Première réunion du
groupe de travail no. 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistori-
que. Le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Pa-
ris: 27–35.
Nandris J. 1972. Bos primigenius and the bone spoon.
Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 10: 63–82.
Peltier A. 1986. Étude expérimentale des surfaces osseu-
ses façonnées et utilisées. Bulletin de la Société Préhisto-
rique Française 83(1): 5–7.
Pfaffenberger B. 1992. Social anthropology of technology.
Annual review of anthropology 21: 491–516.
Radovanovi≤ I. 1981. Ranoholocenska kremena industri-
ja sa lokaliteta Padina u ∑erdapu. Arheolo∏ki institute.
Beograd.
1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Mono-
graphs in Prehistory. Ann Arbor.
Russell N. 1990. The Bone Tools. In R. Tringham, D. Krsti≤
(eds.), Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia. Monu-
menta Archaeologica. University of California, Los Ange-
les. Los Angeles: 521–548.
2006. Çatalhöyük worked bone. In I. Hodder (ed.), Ça-
talhöyük perspectives: reports from the 1995–99 sea-
sons. British institute at Ankara. McDonald Institute Mo-
nographs. Cambridge: 339–367.
2012. Worked bone from the BACH area. In R. E. Tring-
ham, M. Stevanovi≤ (eds.), BACH Area Reports from
Çatalhöyük. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Los Angeles: 347–359.
Sidéra I. 1998. Nouveaux éléments d’origine Proche–
Orientale dans le Néolithique ancient balkanique: analyse
de l’industrie osseuse. In M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire d’Ana-
tolie. Genèse de deux mondes. Études et recherches ar-
chéologiques de l’Université de Liège. Liège: 215–239.
2005. Technical data, typological data: a comparison. In
H. Luik, A. Choyke, C. Batey and L. Lõugas (eds.), From
Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manu-
facture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric
Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting
of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn,
26th–31st of August 2003. Muinasaja teadus 15. Tallinn:
81–90.
2013. Manufacturing bone tools: The Example of Kova-
≠evo. In N. Miladinovi≤-Radmilovi≤, S. Vitezovi≤ (eds.),
Bioarheologija na Balkanu. Bilans i perspektive. Ra-
dovi bioarheolo∏ke sekcije Srpskog arheolo∏kog dru∏t-
va. Srpsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo and Blago Sirmiuma.
Beograd, Sremska Mitrovica: 173–178.
Sinclair A. 1995. The Technique as a Symbol in Late Gla-
cial Europe. World Archaeology 27(1): 50–62.
1998. The value of tasks in the late Upper Palaeolithic.
In D. Bailey (ed.), Archaeology of value. Essays on Pre-
stige and the Process of Valuation. British Archaeologi-
cal Reports IS 730. Archaeopress. Oxford: 10–16.
Srejovi≤ D., Letica Z. 1978. Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje u
∑erdapu. Tom I, Arheologija (Vlasac. A Mesolithic settle-
ment in the Iron Gates. Vol I, Archaeology). Serbian aca-
demy of sciences and arts, monographies DXII. Beograd.
Stordeur D., Christidou R. 2008. L’industrie de l’os. In J.
J. Ibáñez (ed.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie
du Nord). En hommage à Jacques Cauvin. British Archaeo-
logical Reports IS 1843. Archaeopress. Oxford: 439–538.
Stratouli G. 1998. Knochenartefakte aus dem Neolithi-
kum und Chalkolithikum Nordgriechenlands. Rudolf
Habelt. Bonn.
Taborin Y. 2004. Langage sans parole. La parure aux
temps préhistoriques. La maison des roches. Paris.
Neolithisation of technology> innovation and tradition in the Star;evo culture osseous industry
137
Tóth Zs. 2012. Bone, antler and tusk tools of the Early
Neolithic Körös culture. In A. Anders, Zs. Siklósi (eds.),
Central/South-East European Transect, volume III: The
Körös Culture in Eastern Hungary. British Archaeologi-
cal Reports IS 2334. Archaeopress. Oxford: 171–178.
Vitezovi≤ S. 2007. Ko∏tana industrija u neolitu srednjeg
Pomoravlja. Unpublished MA thesis. Faculty of Philoso-
phy. Beograd University. Beograd.
2011a. Ko∏tana industrija u starijem i srednjem neo-
litu centralnog Balkana. Unpublished PhD thesis. Fa-
culty of Philosophy. Belgrade University. Belgrade.
2011b. The Mesolithic bone industry from Kula, eastern
Serbia. Before Farming 2011(3): 1–21.
2011c. Early and Middle Neolithic bone industry in
northern Serbia. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XLVI:
19–60.
2012a. The White Beauty – Star≠evo culture jewellery.
Documenta Praehistorica 39: 91–203.
2012b. Ko∏tani projektili sa lokalitetaStar≠evo-Grad
(Osseous projectiles from the site Star≠evo-Grad). Glas-
nik Srpskog arheolo∏kog dru∏tva 28: 233–246.
2013a. Bone industry from Star≠evo-Grad. Technology
and typology. In F. Lang (ed.), The Sound of Bones. Pro-
ceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone
Research Group in Salzburg 2011. Archäoplus (Schrif-
ten zur Archäologie und Archäometrie an der Paris Lod-
ron-Universität Salzburg, 5. Salzburg: 263–276.
2013b. Bone manufacturing in the Neolithic: the prob-
lems of reconstructing the chaîne opératoire and iden-
tifying workshops. Archeometriai Műhely/Archaeome-
try Workshop 2013/3: 201–208.
2014. Antlers as raw material in the Star≠evo culture. In
S. Vitezovi≤, D. Antonovi≤ (eds.), Archaeotechnology:
studying technology from prehistory to the Middle
Ages. Srpsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo. Beograd: 151–176.
Vukovi≤ J. 2013. Star≠eva≠ki ∫rtvenici sa lokaliteta Pavlo-
vac-∞ukar: nova pitanja u arheologiji neolita (Star≠evo
altars from the site of Pavlovac-∞ukar: New questions in
Neolithic Archaeology). Glasnik Srpskog arheolo∏kog dru-
∏tva 29: 7–21.
Vukovi≤, J., Vitezovi≤, S. and Milanovi≤ D. 2016. Pavlovac-
Kova≠ke Njive – Neolithic layer. In S. Peri≤, A. Bulatovi≤
(eds.), Archaeological investigations along the route of
highway E-75 (2011–2014). Institute of Archaeology. Bel-
grade: 167–204.
Wake T. 1999. Exploitation of tradition: bone tool pro-
duction and use at Colony Ross, California. In M.-A. Dob-
res, C. R. Hoffman (eds.), The Social Dynamics of Tech-
nology: practice, politics and world views. Smithsonian
Institution Press. Washington – London: 186–208.
Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Bori≤ D., Pettit P. and Richards
M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the
Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary.
Antaeus 25: 63–117.
Zidarov P. 2014. Knochen- und Geweihgeräte: Traditio-
nen und Praktiken im Alltag der Einwohner von Ov≠aro-
vo-Gorata. In R. Krauss (ed.), Ovcarovo-Gorata. Eine früh-
neolithische Siedlung in Nordostbulgarien. Archäologie
in Eurasien 29. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Habelt.
Bonn: 250–270.
.