See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323760529

Fishing and hunting gear from osseous raw materials in the Early Neolithic
from Serbia

Article  in  Quaternary International · March 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2018.01.021

CITATIONS READS

0 72

1 author:

Selena Vitezović
Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia
104 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Methodology of studying prehistoric bone industries View project

Pokretni arheološki materijal sa lokaliteta Pločnik iz zbirke Narodnog muzeja Toplice / Portable archaeological material from the site of Pločnik from the National
museum of Toplica View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Selena Vitezović on 06 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Fishing and hunting gear from osseous raw materials in the Early
Neolithic from Serbia
Selena Vitezovi

c
Institute of Archaeology, Kneza Mihaila 35/IV, Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The methods of fishing and hunting in prehistory are a complex subject that needs to be analysed from
Received 22 September 2017 different perspectives. Comprehensive analysis may enable reconstruction not only of subsistence and
Received in revised form economy, but also of technology, social organization and cultural attitude towards the environment. Such
12 January 2018
studies must include various perspectives and also combine diverse data available from the archaeo-
Accepted 21 January 2018
logical record. The identification of fishing and hunting gear is not always easy or straightforward; some
Available online 2 March 2018
artefacts may have had another function, some parts may have been made from perishable materials.
Among the Neolithic communities in South-East Europe, hunting and fishing preserved a certain role in
Keywords:
Early Neolithic
the economy after the introduction of domesticated plants and animals. However, findings of hunting
Star
cevo culture and fishing gear are not particularly rich, thus raising questions on the raw materials used and adequate
Osseous raw materials identification of these items. In this paper, an overview will be offered of osseous artefacts identified as
Projectile points hunting and fishing gear recovered from Star cevo culture sites in Serbia; their techno-typological traits
Fish hooks will be discussed, as well as their general place within the osseous industry and in the wider context of
these communities.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction function of some artefacts may not be straightforward, and many

Wild animals represent one of the vital resources for hunter-
gatherer groups and they kept their economic and socio-cultural
role among numerous agro-pastoralist communities. Hunted ani-
mals can be dangerous and aggressive, or timid, very fast and/or
well hidden; therefore, to catch them without putting themselves
in danger or before they escape, human groups had to invent
diverse techniques and weapons which enabled them to mortally
wound animals from a safe distance (cf. Julien, 2016).
Hunting and fishing techniques in prehistoric societies repre-
sent a complex subject of study, which may enable reconstruction
not only of subsistence and economy, but also of technological
level, social organization and cultural attitude towards the envi-
ronment. Such studies must include various perspectives and also
combine diverse data available from the archaeological record.
Analyses are, however, connected with numerous obstacles, such as
insufficient preservation of fish remains, inadequate recovery of
small bones, many of the structures used in hunting and fishing
were made from perishable materials, identification of exact
E-mail address: s.vitezovic@ai.ac.rs.
more.
Hunting and fishing equipment is an important evidence not
only for the presence of these activities, but also for their role
within given communities. Weapons are often an important part of
the material culture (cf. Knecht, 1997a,b; Pe
tillon, 2006; inter al.).
Beside their main, purely utilitarian role, they may also serve as
symbols of status, identity, belonging to a group (cf. Wiessner, 1983;
Sinclair, 1995).
There is a long history of research of projectile technology and
hunting techniques in general (e.g., Knecht ed., 1997; Pe
tillon et al.,
2009; Pe
tillon et al., 2011; Iovita and Sano eds., 2016; inter al.),
especially when it concerns the Palaeolithic period. Studies of lithic
projectiles have longer tradition, but analyses regarding those
made from osseous raw materials are increasing in past few de-

tillon, 2006; Langley ed., 2016).
cades (e.g., Delporte, et al., 1988; Pe
The introduction of agriculture affected the place that hunting
and fishing had in both subsistence and in the social life. The
change of animals’ role in economy is tightly linked to the change of
perception of animals and their role in social and cultural life; the
two are mutually dependent (cf. Seetah, 2005, pp. 6).
The role of hunting and fishing among the agricultural societies
in the South-Eastern Europe were previously discussed from the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.01.021
1040-6182/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48
viewpoint of the faunal remains (e.g., Bartosiewicz and Bonsall,
2004; references therein; Dinu, 2010; Galik et al., 2015; inter al.).
Studies focused especially on the hunting and fishing gear are not
particularly numerous (e.g., Stratouli, 1996; Cristiani et al., 2016),
and comprehensive studies have yet to ensue (with some notable
exceptions, e.g., Benecke et al., 2013).
When it concerns the Star cevo culture, studies on hunting and
fishing are relatively scarce. The Starcevo material culture includes
rich and diverse tool assemblages from lithic and osseous raw
materials (cf. Antonovi


c, 2003; Sari c, 2014; Vitezovi
c, 2011a),
however, very few artefacts can be linked with certainty with
fishing and hunting activities.
It is very interesting that chipped stone artefacts that may have
been used in hunting are almost non-existing; only three arrows
were identified within Star 

cevo culture sites (Sari c, 2005, pp.
13e14). As for other lithic artefacts, possible hunting and fishing
gear includes artefacts interpreted as weights and bullet slings, all
found in small quantities and at selected sites only (Antonovi
c,
2003, pp. 63e64).
Ceramic artefacts that may be linked with hunting and fishing
activities may be somewhat more numerous, although there is a
problem with the identification of the exact function. Clay weights
are relatively abundant at most of the Star cevo culture sites and
display wide range of shapes, dimension and weight (e.g.,
Bogdanovi
c, 2004; Vukovi
c et al., 2016, and references therein). They
may have served as net or loom weights; however, they were mainly
analysed from typological and stylistical viewpoint and clear criteria
for function identification have not been established so far. Also,
occasional finds of artefacts that can be interpreted as bullet slings
are reported only briefly and even for these there are several hy-
potheses on their function (see Vukovi
c et al., 2016, pp. 192).
This paper will be limited to the study of hunting and fishing
equipment made from osseous raw materials from Star cevo culture
sites, as a contribution to a wider study, which will ensue, of the
role of hunting and fishing and its economic and social aspects in
general among the Early Neolithic communities. Osseous hunting
and fishing weapons are important not only as indirect evidence for
these activities, but also display some interesting technological
traits, important for studies of Neolithisation processes (cf.
Vitezovi
c, 2016a).
2. Archaeological background
The Early/Middle Neolithic Star cevo culture is a part of the
Starcevo-Ko€ ro
€ s-Criş cultural complex, widespread in present-day
Serbia and adjacent areas (AranCelovi
c Garasanin, 1954;
Garasanin, 1979; for AMS dates, cf. Whittle et al., 2002).
Star
cevo culture communities were agricultural; they cultivated
different plant resources (Filipovi
c and Obradovi
c, 2013, and ref-
erences therein) and practiced animal herding. Hunting and fishing
were also practised, but their importance differs from region to
region and over time. The analyses of faunal records from Starcevo
culture sites were not systematic and differ in quality; sample bias
is present at all sites, since the material is rarely sieved and, at some
sites, probably selectively collected during excavations. However,
some general trends may be noted. Faunal analyses of sites in
Vojvodina region (southern parts of the Pannonian plain) show the
predominance of domestic animals. At the eponymous site of
Starcevo-Grad, situated on the banks of the Danube (Fig. 1), do-
mestic animals constituted about 65% of the fauna. The most
numerous species is cattle (Bos taurus) (cca 66%), followed by
caprinae (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) (30%), domestic pig (Sus scrofa
domestica) and dog (Canis familiaris). Large wild animals comprised
approximately 33% of the fauna: wild pig (Sus scrofa) 26%, red deer
(Cervus elaphus) 28%, and aurochs (Bos primigenius) 10%. Also, Equus
39
przewalski, badger, otter, small carnivores, rodents, as well as fish
and birds were present (Clason, 1982). Material studied from the
site of Donja Branjevina also showed approx. 66% of domestic an-
imals. Caprinae were predominant, almost 50% of the total fauna,
followed by cattle (15%), and with small percentages of pig and dog.
Among wild species, most numerous were aurochs, followed by red
and roe deer. Fish, birds and turtles were also noted in considerable
quantities (Bla zi

c, 2005, pp. 74e75). At the site of Ludas-Bud zak,
domestic animals comprised about 80%: mainly caprinae (68%),
followed by cattle (10%), and pig, dog, red deer, aurochs, roe deer
were discovered in small percentage, as well as fish and birds
(Bo€ ko€nyi, 1974, pp. 436).
Domestic fauna was also predominant at the site of Divostin, in
the Pomoravlje region (over 90%): Bos taurus was the most common
species (47%), followed by caprinae (41%). Also, smaller quantities
of bones from domestic and wild pig, red deer, aurochs and dog
were discovered (Bo € ko
€ nyi, 1988).
The Iron Gates region showed a somewhat different picture. S.
Bo€ ko€nyi's preliminary analysis of the faunal remains from the site of
Us
ce Kamenickog Potoka, revealed the predominance of the wild
fauna, mainly wild pig and red deer; goat, cattle, fish and birds were
also present (Stankovi
c, 1986a). In the faunal record from Hajducka
Vodenica, red deer (over 50% of NISP) was predominant, followed by
domestic pig and cattle (Greenfield, 2008). Only the site of Knjepiste
had higher ratio of domestic vs. wild fauna; among wild fauna, red
deer was predominant, followed by aurochs, and also small carni-
vores, turtles and diversity of fish were found (Bo € ko
€nyi, 1992).
The percentage of different animals varied due to different
environmental conditions, diverse economy and perhaps even local
preferences; however, we may note the presence of wild fauna at
all the sites: red deer, aurochs and wild pig, with occasional pres-
ence of roe deer, small carnivores, etc. Fishing and fowling are thus
far confirmed on the sites of Star cevo and Donja Branjevina, located
lowlands on the river Danube banks, probably in a marshy envi-
ronment, and Us
ce Kameni ckog Potoka and Knjepiste, also located
on the banks of the river Danube, only in a different, more elevated
environment. Keeping in mind that the presence and relative per-
centages of fish and bird remains are largely dependent on recovery
methods, we may assume that fishing and fowling were not rarely
practised activities, although their importance was probably mainly
linked with environmental conditions.
3. Material and methods
Material from approximately 20 Star cevo culture sites with
preserved osseous assemblages was analysed by author from
technological and typological viewpoint, while manufacture and
usewear traces were observed at low magnification (up to 20
)
(Vitezovi
c, 2011a).1 Some of the assemblages were collected during
excavations in the early or mid-20th century and sample bias may
be present, therefore, the absence of some types at some of the sites
must not be considered definite. Artefacts interpreted as projectile
points and fish hooks, analysed here (Table 1) were discovered at
the sites of Star
cevo-Grad, Donja Branjevina, Ludas Bud zak, Golo-
kut-Vizi

c, Obre z-Bastine, Grivac, Divostin, Zmajevac, MeCure c,
Drenovac, Velesnica, Knjepiste, Bubanj and Pavlovac (Fig. 1).
Analytical criteria for the technological and functional interpre-
tation of manufacture and usewear traces were established based
upon the work of numerous authors (Newcomer, 1974; Semenov,
1976; Peltier, 1986; Campana, 1989; Christidou, 1999; Maigrot,
1
Analyses at higher magnification were not possible for technical reasons, as the
material was inspected within the premises of the museums where the material is
stored.
40 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48

Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text: 1. Ludas-Budzak, 2. Donja Branjevina, 3. Golokut-Vizi
c, 4. Obrez-Bastine, 5. Starcevo-Grad, 6. Grivac, 7. Divostin, 8. Velesnica, 9. Us
ce Kamenickog
Potoka and Knjepiste, 10. MeCurec, 11. Drenovac, 12. Bubanj, 13. Pavlovac.

2003; Legrand and Side
ra, 2006; Legrand, 2007), and in particular and features, made from perishable materials, such as nets or
were consulted works related to projectile points: breakage pat- baskets, as demonstrated from the sites with exceptionally good
terns, traces of utilisation and other (Buc, 2011; Bradfield and preservation of the organic material (e.g., Lozovski, 1999; cf. also
Lombars, 2011; Bradfield and Brand, 2015; Pe
tillon and Ritchie, 2010; Galili et al., 2013, and references therein) or from
Letourneux, 2003; Pe
tillon, 2005, 2006; Pe

tillon et al., 2011, 2016). ethnographic records (e.g, Bosi
c, 1981; cf. also Cleyet Merle, 1990,
and references therein). Weapons used in catching prey include
4. Fishing and hunting equipment from the Star
cevo culture harpoons, tips for spears or arrows, gorges, hooks, etc. (cf. Torke,
sites 1993; Ritchie, 2010; Galili et al., 2013, and references therein).
Pointed weapons are among the oldest identified man-made
Fishing and hunting techniques may include diverse structures hunting equipment (cf. Thieme, 1997; Shea, 2006) and elaborated
 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48 41

Table 1 metapodial bones are convenient because they possess the

Representation of projectile points and fish hooks from Star
cevo culture sites. required thickness of the diaphysis walls and can be easily divided
Site Projectile points (total artefacts) Fish hooks longitudinally into regular portions along the sulcus (cf. Schibler,
Donja Branjevina 57 (344) 2þ1
2013).
Star
cevo 22 (250) 1 These skeletal elements were used for other artefacts in the
Ludas Budzak 1 (11) / Starcevo culture, although they were not the preferred choice for
Golokut-Vizi
c 2 (39) / the majority of tool types (cf. Vitezovi

c, 2011a for details on raw
Obrez-Bastine 3 (27) /
material selection). Therefore, we may come to conclusion that the
Grivac 2 (58) /
Divostin 4 (96) / choice of species and skeletal elements was by no means random or
Zmajevac 1 (10) / expedient, but rather that the selection of raw material was care-
MeCure c 1 (36) / fully made and planned to meet the technical requirements (and in
Drenovac 4 (136) / accordance with cultural preferences).
Velesnica 3 (39) /
Knjepiste 1 (29) /
Bubanj 1 (16) / 4.1.2. Technological and typological traits of manufacture
Pavlovac 1 (approx. 50) / No manufacture debris that can be related exclusively to pro-
jectile points was noted at any of the sites studied. Therefore, the
first steps of production were reconstructed on the basis of general
pointed weapons are known from numerous Palaeolithic and later information on the bone d
ebitage technological procedure in the

tillon et al., 2006; Langley ed., 2016,
sites (cf. Knecht, 1997a, b; Pe Starcevo culture, obtained by the analyses of the entire assem-
inter al.). They can be made from single raw material, such as blages (Vitezovi
c, 2011a; also cf. Newcomer, 1974; Semenov, 1976;
wooden spears from the site of Scho €ningen, or can be composite e Christidou, 1999; Legrand, 2007).
in latter case, usually only tips of spears or arrows survive in the After initial preparation of the raw material (cf. Osipowicz,
archaeological record. 2007; Schibler, 2001), firstly an elongated bone segment was
Harpoons represent a specific type of weapons. According to extracted. A groove was made along the longitudinal axis of the
some authors, harpoons sensu stricto are those with detachable bone with some chipped stone tool (such as retouched burin) and
head, mobile and connected to a line, although other similar types then the bone segment was extracted by indirect percussion or by
of barbed weapons can be labelled as harpoons (cf. Christensen cutting (cf. also Hahn, 1988; Zhilin, 1988). Epiphyses may have been
et al., 2016, pp. 238). Main feature of the harpoons, beside the previously removed by breaking, by indirect percussion or by cut-
presence of the barbs, is their capacity to prevent the prey from and-break technique.
escaping (cf. Roma
n and Villaverde, 2012). In the next phase, façonnage, the artefact obtained its final form.
Gorges which carry the bait were invented in early prehistory The bone was shaped entirely by scraping or by a combination of
for capturing aquatic animals. A line tied to the gorge enabled scraping and burnishing with some abrasive tool, most likely
retrieving the animal that swallowed such gorge. Gorges evolved sandstone (cf. Newcomer, 1974; Semenov, 1976; Legrand, 2007).
into hooks, also tied to a line, and hooks can be differently com- The tips are formed by scraping and sometimes they are addi-
bined, as single hook-and-line or “long-line” (cf. Galili et al., 2013). tionally polished. Occasionally, traces of sharpening/repair may be
In the Starcevo culture, only projectile points and fish hooks observed.
were identified. Projectile points are massive pointed artefacts Three subtypes can be distinguished (Vitezovi
c, 2011a, pp.
presumably used as part of a composite weapon, most likely as tips 61e68; 2012) (Figs. 2 and 3).
for short spears. Hook-shaped artefacts were presumably used in Subtype A are projectiles made from split long bones (Fig. 2).
fishing. Projectile points were discovered on several sites, repre- They were made generally from large mammal long bones, longi-
sented by diverse number of specimens, while fish hooks are rare tudinally split, and have a more or less concave (semi-circular)
and discovered at two sites only (Table 1). cross-section in the basal part, and a strong, massive point of full,
Harpoons were not confirmed with certainty. One antler solid circular or oval cross-section in the distal part. Morphologi-
harpoon was mentioned from the site of Knjepiste in the Iron Gates cally, this type is similar to the Palaeolithic projectiles with a groove
region by the excavator (Stankovi
c, 1986b, Fig. 5/9), however, its (projectiles rainur
ees, cf. Houmard, 2003). The concavity at the basal
present location is unknown and it was not at disposal for this part may have served to ease fastening, or, in the case of conflict
study. weapons, for adding the poison.
Subtype B are lozenge-shaped projectiles, made from segments
4.1. Projectile points of diaphysis of large long bones (Figs. 2, 3, 6 and 7). They are
massive artefacts, with a full, solid cross-section, in the shape of
Projectile points were discovered in larger quantities at the sites lozenge with a more or less emphasized widening. They have a
of Starcevo and Donja Branjevina (Figs. 2 and 3), while the sites of massive, heavy point at one end, and the basal part ends either with
Ludas Bud zak, Golokut-Vizi
c, Obre z-Bastine, Grivac, Divostin an unused blunt point or a small circular surface. This variant is
(Fig. 4), Zmajevac, MeCurec, Drenovac, Velesnica (Fig. 5), Knjepiste, especially characteristic for the sites of Star cevo and Donja Bran-
Bubanj and Pavlovac (see Table 1) yielded few examples or just jevina (Figs. 3 and 6), in particular few examples from Starcevo have
single finds (Vitezovi
c, 2011a, 2012). very emphasized widening in the basal portion (Fig. 7) (Vitezovi
c,
2012).
4.1.1. Raw materials Morphologically similar projectile points, made from bone or
The projectile points were made mainly from bones, with just antler, can be encountered across Europe, since the early Upper
two exception made from antler tines, one from Zmajevac (prob- Palaeolithic and throughout the Palaeolithic period (Hahn, 1988;
ably roe deer) and one from Drenovac (red deer). The selected bone Beldiman, 2007). They are also known in the Mesolithic period in
segments were extracted from bones with thick walls, resistant and the Iron Gates (Beldiman, 2007; pl. 108A, B). In the Neolithic, be-
of required length. These were predominantly large mammal long sides Starcevo sites, they were present in Ko € ro
€ s sites as well
bones, most likely all from cattle. Ungulate long bones are not only (Makkay, 1990; abb. 8, see also To
th, 2012), and on the Neolithic
strong and resilient, but they also have straight shafts. In particular, sites in Central Europe (e.g. Choyke and Bartosiewicz, 2004;
42 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48

Fig. 2. Projectile points from Starcevo-Grad: a. Subtype A, b. Subtype B, c. Subtype C.

Fig. 3. Diverse projectile points from Donja Branjevina.

Deschler-Erb et al., 2002, 295e296).
Subtype C are projectiles made from large ungulate meta-
podials, most likely all from bovine metapodials (Figs. 2 and 8).
More precisely, they were made from exactly the same raw material
and by using the very same manufacturing technique as spatula-
spoons, specific techno-type for the Star cevo culture and other
Early Neolithic cultures in the region (cf. Vitezovi
c, 2016b and ref-
erences therein). Furthermore, some broken spoon handles were
turned into these projectiles. This subtype is an exclusive trait of the
Star
cevo-Ko€ ro
€ s-Criş culture (for finds from Ko
€ro€s sites cf. Makkay,
1990; for Criş, Beldiman, 2007). Here, one peculiar projectile-
shaped artefact should be mentioned from Donja Branjevina,
with zoomorphic head (Fig. 9). This artefact is most likely a modi-
fied spatula-spoon, judging from polish from manipulation at its
mesial part, and also it is not certain whether it was used at all as a
projectile point (the tip is broken).
4.1.3. Identification and use
The identification of projectile points and distinguishing them
from other pointed artefacts (such as awls used in processing
 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48
Fig. 4. Fragmented projectile point from Divostin.
organic materials) is based on the morphological criteria and use-
wear. Projectile points are massive pointed tools; the average
weight of examples from Donja Branjevina is about 15e20 gr (in
comparison, awls made from split caprinae metapodials are usually
up to 3 g). Their cross-section is solid, full, circular or oval, in their
entire length or, rarely, in the mesial and distal portion, unlike awls
or needles, who usually have semi-circular cross-section. Also un-
like awls or needles, who have slender tips, sometimes even quite
gracile and fine, tips on artefacts interpreted as projectile points are
massive and strong. The usewear traces such as polish, shine,
striations, lines, etc., common on awls or other tools used in pro-
cessing organic materials (cf. Semenov, 1976; Peltier, 1986; Legrand,
2007), are completely missing on projectile points. Instead,
manufacturing traces, such as traces of scraping and polishing (cf.
Newcomer, 1974; Semenov, 1976; Legrand, 2007) are clearly visible.
The only traces of use are breakage of the artefact and smaller
damages from impact on the tip, which can be described as chipping
or crushing (cf. Pe
tillon et al., 2016).
In cases when projectile points were made from broken or
modified tools (see below), we may observe the polish from use on
the proximal and mesial portions and clear traces of scraping or
burnishing in the distal portion, results of the sharpening of the tip.
The precise mode of use of these projectile points is difficult to
reconstruct. Judging from their dimensions and weight, we may
assume that they were used as tips for smaller spears, either used
for throwing or for stabbing from closer distances. Not only we do
not have any evidence on bows in this period, but their dimensions
are not adequate for arrow tips (length for completely preserved
43
Fig. 5. Fragmented projectile point from Velesnica.
projectiles from Donja Branjevina varies from 8,2 up to 12,6 cm).
The projectile points could have been inserted into the wooden part
of the spear, or attached to it with cordage (their original look
perhaps resembled to projectiles discovered with wooden shafts in
Switzerland e cf. Choyke and Bartosiewicz, 2004, pl. I). The traces of
attaching, in the form of horizontal incisions, are preserved at just
one example from Star cevo.
Projectile points could have been used both for hunting terres-
trial game and for catching prey in the water. Some similar artefacts
were, in fact, interpreted as being used in fishing (Torke, 1993).
Such artefacts, labelled transverse fish hooks, are particularly
numerous at the Chalcolithic site of Pietrele, where fishing was an
important activity (Benecke et al., 2013, Fig. 14). On the other hand,
finds from Switzerland were interpreted as projectile points (cf.
Deschler-Erb et al., 2002). Their use in human conflicts in the
Neolithic cannot be confirmed. However, the find of a bone pro-
jectile point in human vertebra from the Iron Gates Mesolithic
(Beldiman, 2007, 116) suggests that such a use was possible, and it
also testifies on their deadliness.
It was suggested that the breakage should demonstrate whether
the projectiles were extracted from the prey or from the hafting (cf.
Beldiman, 2005). In our examples it was not possible to note any
pattern; both basal and distal parts are found. It is interesting to
note, however, traces of burning on several examples. The projectile
points discovered at the sites of Zmajevac and MeCure c both
became white in colour, from exposure to high temperatures, while
some other specimen have minor traces of exposure to fire. They
probably broke off at the impact and were extracted later from the
prey, during thermic preparation for consumption of even
44 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48
Fig. 6. Lozenge-shaped projectile point from Starcevo-Grad.
afterwards.
4.2. Fish hooks
Fish hooks are rare in the Star cevo culture. Only one was
discovered on the site of Starcevo-Grad and two examples originate
from Donja Branjevina (Fig. 10).
4.2.1. Technological and typological traits
They are more or less U-shaped, with straight shanks and sharp
tips, and with clear traces of scraping with a chipped stone tool and
of fine polishing. Usually, large long bones with thick walls were
used; they were split longitudinally and the object was manufac-
tured from a segment of diaphysis by cutting and scraping with
chipped stone tool and by burnishing with abrasive stone. Basal
parts differ, one example from Donja Branjevina has a groove,
probably for attaching strings (Fig. 10b) and the other has flat,
slightly widened base (Fig. 10c). Morphologically, fish hooks
worldwide and from different periods are very similar (cf. Cleyet
Merle, 1990; Torke, 1993; Ritchie, 2010; Galili et al., 2013, and ref-
erences therein), and it is difficult to establish whether the small
differences that may be observed among them represent some
variation that is regionally or chronologically characteristic.
Beside these two examples, one more artefact from Donja
Branjevina should be mentioned, labelled “elaborated fish hook”
(Fig. 10a). The artefact is fragmented, therefore, it is not certain
Fig. 7. Lozenge-shaped projectile point with emphasized widening from Starcevo-
Grad.
whether it was used as hook or not. Its techno-typological traits (in
particular, elongated shank with notches) classify this item into
“elaborated fish hooks”, considered to be of Near-Eastern origin (cf.

ra, 1998).
Side
4.2.2. Identification and use
On these objects the manufacturing traces are well preserved
(not blurred by intensive manipulating), confirming the assump-
tion they were not used as tools, but as weapons.
Some similarities in morphology may be noted between fish
hooks and artefacts used most likely as belt hooks, noted at some of
the Starcevo culture sites (cf. Vitezovi
c, 2011a, pp. 338e339). They
can be distinguished by some technological and morphological
traits (belt hooks are usually made from bone segments obtained
by transversal cutting, so the curved shape is in fact the natural
shape of the long bone and was not obtained by cutting and
scraping and therefore the entire “U-shape” is more rounded; also,
the entire upper part, especially the “head” is not slender, but
sometimes very thick). Furthermore, belt hooks have more prom-
inent polish obtained by manipulation and prolonged contact with
leather or other soft, organic materials (cf. Vitezovi
c, 2011a, pp.
338e339).
The scarcity of fish hooks, however, is very intriguing. Perhaps
some of the artefacts interpreted as projectile points were in fact
used in fishing (see above), or other fishing techniques were used,
which included traps, baskets, nets and other artefacts made from
perishable material (cf. Cleyet Merle, 1990; Ritchie, 2010, and ref-
erences therein). It is interesting, also, that, except for Greece
(Stratouli, 1996), fish hooks are also scarce or non-existing in the
other Early Neolithic sites in the region. From Ko € ro
€ s sites, for
example, fish hooks were not reported thus far (cf. Makkay, 1990),
and it was assumed that of the double points were used as fishing
 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48 45

Fig. 8. Projectile points from Bos metapodial bones from Donja Branjevina.

th, 2012, pp. 174).

gorges (To Fig. 9. Projectile point with zoomorphic head from Donja Branjevina.

5. Discussion
different hunting/fishing methods, but perhaps also to a relatively
reduced use of antlers in the Star cevo culture in comparison with
Osseous projectile points represent an important part of the
the Mesolithic period in the region (cf. Vitezovi
c, 2011a).
Star
cevo bone industry; they were present at almost all the sites,
Fish hooks display similar pattern in aspects of manufacture:
and are quite numerous at some of them. They demonstrate high
they also demonstrate high technological know-how; into the
technological know-how; they were made from carefully selected
manufacture itself a large amount of labour, time and skill was
raw materials, and into the manufacture itself a large amount of
invested and they also belong to class I e carefully made, stan-
labour, time and skill was invested. Following the classification
dardized tools (following the classification based on the
based on the manufacturing continuum (sensu Choyke, 1997, 2001;
manufacturing continuum e sensu Choyke, 1997, 2001; Choyke and
Choyke and Schibler, 2007), they belong to class I e carefully made,
Schibler, 2007).
standardized tools. They were not only carefully made, but also
As mentioned above, other fishing and hunting gear within the
used for a longer period, suggesting that hunting was an important,
Starcevo culture includes only three chipped stone arrows and
respected activity.
possible bullet slings made from clay and stone. Osseous raw ma-
From the techno-typological viewpoint, we may note among the
terials were, therefore, the main raw material for hunting weapons.
projectiles both the presence of earlier, Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
On the other hand, fishing gear most likely included other,
traditions, as well as innovations, related to the Near-Eastern in-
perishable raw materials (such as nets or baskets). Ceramic weights
fluences (subtype C). Projectile points in fact display very inter-
in different shapes, dimensions and weights are common on
esting symbiosis of tradition and innovation e some subtypes have
Starcevo culture sites (e.g., Bogdanovi

c, 2004; Vukovi
c et al., 2016)
Mesolithic forms, but also a new subtype is introduced, closely
and even stone weights are occasionally encountered (cf.
connected with the most important Near-eastern artefact type,
Antonovi
c, 2003, 63e64) and it is quite plausible that some of them
spatula-spoon (Vitezovi
c, 2016a).
served as net weights.
The absence of harpoons, otherwise known from several
Osseous raw material are generally very convenient for
Mesolithic sites in the region (e.g. Vitezovi
c, 2011b; Cristiani and
weapons, especially from the viewpoint of mechanics: they are
Bori
c, 2016, and references therein) and in the later, Vin
ca culture
strong and resilient and do not break easily, as demonstrated by
(Ba
ckalov, 1979), may be related to different cultural preferences,
46 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48
Fig. 10. Fish hooks from Donja Branjevina.
diverse experiments (cf. Guthrie, 1983). The predominance of
osseous materials, therefore, shows high technological knowledge,
but also, the reason why lithic raw materials were so rarely used
may be related to the hunting techniques, and also to a cultural
attitude towards certain raw materials (cf. Vitezovi

c, 2011a, 2016b).
6. Concluding remarks
Osseous hunting and fishing equipment is very important for
studying the importance and role of hunting and fishing within
Starcevo communities. Other data are so far relatively scarce, but
future detailed analyses of faunal remains, possible ceramic arte-
facts used for hunting and fishing, etc., may reveal more informa-
tion on these activities. Osseous artefacts are almost exclusive raw
material used as hunting weapons; their careful manufacture
probably reveals the attitude towards their owners and/or activity
for which they were used (cf. Choyke, 1997).
In the entire Star
cevo culture osseous industry we may see an
interesting mix of preservation of some of the techno-typological
traits connected with the Mesolithic tradition and the introduc-
tion of the new techno-types, mainly of Near-Eastern origin, but
somewhat altered during the process of adoption into the new
cultural milieu (Vitezovi
c, 2016a). Hunting and fishing weapons are
by no means exception to this, quite contrary, projectile points are
particularly interesting as they display interesting symbiosis of
tradition and innovation.
Osseous projectiles represent an important part of the Starcevo
culture bone industry. High knowledge of the mechanical proper-
ties of the raw materials, careful manufacture that demanded skill,
and standardized shapes reveal high technological level. The very
choice of the raw materials, as well as large labour and time
investment into their manufacturing suggest that hunting was an
important activity, probably also adding to a person's status and
prestige. Their relative abundance suggests that hunting was not a
rarely practiced activity.
On the other hand, scarcity of fish hooks suggests that other
methods of fishing, such as nets and baskets, may have had more
prominent role in obtaining aquatic resources, or perhaps com-
posite lure hooks, such as those from the later, Vin ca culture (cf.
Cristiani et al., 2016) were not recognized thus far in the archaeo-
logical record.
Acknowledgments
This paper is the result of the projects financed by the Ministry
of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia, Bioarchaeology
of ancient Europe: humans, animals and plants in the prehistory of
Serbia, no. III 47001, and Archaeology 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.
References
Antonovi
c, D., 2003. Predmeti od gla canog kamena iz Vin ce. Arheoloski institut,
Beograd.
AranCelovi
c Garasanin, D., 1954. Star ceva
cka kultura (Аrheoloski seminar,
Ljubljana).
Ba
ckalov, A., 1979. Predmeti od kosti i roga u predneolitu i neolitu Srbije. Savez
arheoloskih drustava Jugoslavije, Beograd.
Bartosiewicz, L., Bonsall, C., 2004. Prehistoric fishing along the Danube. Antaeus 27,
253e272.
Beldiman, C., 2005. Paleotechnology of antler working in the Mesolithic of the Iron
Gates, Romania. In: Luik, H., Choyke, A., Batey, C., Lo~ugas, L. (Eds.), From Hooves
to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture 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. Tallinn
Book Printers, Muinasaja teadus 15, Talinn, pp. 33e46.
Beldiman, C., 2007. Industria materiilor dure animale în preistoria Rom^ aniei.
Resurse naturale, comunita ţi umane şi tehnologie din paleoliticul superior pa ^na

în neoliticul timpuriu. Editura Pro Universitaria, Asociaţia Rom^ ana  de Arheo-
logie, Bucureşti.
Benecke, N., Hansen, S., Nowacki, D., Reingruber, A., Ritchie, K., Wunderlich, J., 2013.
Pietrele in the lower Danube region: integrating archaeological, faunal and
environmental investigations. Documenta praehistorica XL, 175e193.
Bla
zi

c, S., 2005. The faunal assemblage. In: Karmanski, S. (Ed.), Donja Branjevina: a
Neolithic Settlement Near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia), vol. 10. Societ a per
la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, quaderno,
pp. 74e76.
€ ko
Bo €nyi, S., 1974. History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe.
Budapest.
€ ko
€nyi, S., 1988. Neolithic fauna of Divostin. In: McPherron, A., Srejovi

Bo c, D. (Eds.),
Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. University of Pittsburgh, Pitts-
burgh, pp. 419e445.
€ ko
Bo €nyi, S., 1992. Animal remains of Mihajlovac-Knjepiste, an Early Neolithic set-
tlement in the iron gate Gorge. Balcanica XXIII, 77e88.
Bogdanovi
c, M., 2004. Grivac. Naselja protostar ceva
cke i vin
canske kulture. Centar
za nau cna istra
zivanja SANU i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu, Kragujevac.
Bosi

c, M., 1981. Ribrske sprave i alati u Vojvodini (in Cyrillic), vol. 27. Rad Muzeja
Vojvodine, pp. 1e127.
Bradfield, J., Lombars, M., 2011. A macrofracture study of bone points used in
experimental hunting with reference to the South African middle stone age.
South. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 66, 67e76.
Bradfield, J., Brand, T., 2015. Results of utilitarian and accidental breakage experi-
ments on bone points. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 7 (1), 27e38.
Buc, N., 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38,
546e557.
Campana, D., 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The Manufacture and
Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 494. Oxford.
Choyke, A., 1997. The bone tool manufacturing continuum. Anthropozoologica
25e26, 65e72.
Choyke, A.M., 2001. A quantitative approach to the concept of quality in prehistoric
bone manufacturing. In: Buitenhuis, H., Prummel, W. (Eds.), Animals and Man
in the Past. Essays in Honour of Dr. A.T. Clason, Emeritus Professor of Archae-
ozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands, pp. 59e66. ARC-Pub-
licatie 41, Groningen.
Choyke, A.M., Schibler, J., 2007. Prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological
perspective: research in Central Europe. In: Gates St-Pierre, C., Walker, R. (Eds.),
 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48 47

Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Newcomer, M., 1974. Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon).
Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 51e65. World Archaeol. 6 (2), 138e153.
Choyke, A.M., Bartosiewicz, L., 2004. Osseous projectile points from the Swiss Osipowicz, G., 2007. Bone and antler. Softening techniques in prehistory of the
Neolithic: taphonomy, typology and function. In: Roksandi
c, M. (Ed.), Violent North Eastern part of the Polish Lowlands in the light of experimental
Interactions in the Mesolithic : Evidence and Meaning. Archaeopress, Oxford, archaeology and micro trace analysis. EuroREA: J. (Re)construct. Exp. Archaeol.
pp. 75e88. 4 (2007), 1e22.
Christensen, M., Legoupil, D., Pe
tillon, J.-M., 2016. Hunter-Gatherers of the old and

Peltier, A., 1986. Etude expe
rimentale des surfaces osseuses façonne
es et utilise

es.
new worlds: morphological and functional comparisons of Osseous projectile Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 83 (1), 5e7.
points. In: Langley, M. (Ed.), Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an Under- Pe
tillon, J.-M., 2005. Tir expe
rimental de pointes a  base fourchue en bois de renne.
standing of Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Vertebrate Paleobiology and In: Dujardin, V. (Ed.), Industrie osseuse et parures du Solutre
en au Magdale
nien
Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 237e252. en Europe. Socie
te

pre
historique française, Paris, pp. 243e256.
Christidou, R., 1999. Outils en os ne
olithiques du Nord de la Gre ce: e

tude tech- Pe
tillon, J.-M., 2006. Des Magdale
niens en armes. Technologie des armatures de
nologique. PhD thesis. University of Paris X-Nanterre, Paris. projectiles en bois de ce
rvide en Magdale
nien supe
rieur de la grotte d'Isturitz
Clason, A., 1982. Padina and Star cevo: game, fish and cattle. Palaeohistoria XXII, (Pyre
ne


es Atlantiques). Editions CEDARC, Treignes.
141e173. Pe
tillon, J.-M., Letourneux, C., 2003. Au retour de la chasse.... Observations expe
ri-
Cleyet-Merle, J., 1990. In: Errance (Ed.), La prehistoire de la pe ^che. Paris. mentales concernant les impacts sur le gibier, la re
cupe
ration et la maintenance
Cristiani, E., Dimitrijevi
c, V., Vitezovi
c, S., 2016. Fishing with lure hooks at the late des projectiles dans le Magdale
nien supe
rieur d'Isturitz (Pyre
ne

es-Atlantiques).
Neolithic site of Vin ca e Belo Brdo, Serbia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 65, 134e147. Pre
hist. Me
diterrane
ennes 12, 173e188.
Cristiani, E., Bori

c, D., 2016. Mesolithic harpoons from Odmut, Montenegro: chro- Pe
tillon, J.-M., Bignon, O., Bodu, P., Cattelain, P., Debout, G., Langlais, M.,
nological, contextual, and techno-functional analyses. Quat. Int. 423, 166e192. Laroulandie, V., Plisson, H., Valentin, B., 2011. Hard core and cutting edge:
Delporte, H., Hahn, J., Mons, l, Pinçon, G., de Sonneville-Bordes, D., 1988. Fiches experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips.
typologiques de l’industrie osseuse pre
historique. Cahier I. Sagaies. Publications J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1266e1283.
de L'Universite
de Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Pe
tillon, J.-M., Dias-Meirinho, M.eH., Cattelain, P., Honegger, M., Normand, C.,
Deschler-Erb, S., Marti-Gra €del, E., Schibler, J., 2002. Die Knochen-, Zahn und Valdeyron, N., 2009. Projectile weapon elements from the upper Palaeolithic to
Geweihartefakte. In: de Capitani, A., Deschler-Erb, S., Leuzinger, U., Marti- the Neolithic. In: Proceedings of Session C83, XVth World Congress UISPP,
Gra€del, E., Schibler, J. (Eds.), Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon- Lisbon, September 4-9, 2006). Palethnologie 1.
Bleiche 3. Funde. Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau. Pe
tillon, J.-M., Plisson, H., Cattelain, P., 2016. Thirty years of experimental research
Thurgau, pp. 277e366. on the breakage patterns of stone age Osseous points. Overview, methodo-
Dinu, A., 2010. Mesolithic fish and fishermen of the lower Danube (Iron Gates). logical problems and current perspectives. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (Eds.), Multi-
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII, 299e310. disciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Vertebrate
Filipovi
c, D., Obradovi
c, Ð., 2013. Archaeobotany at Neolithic sites in Serbia: a Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 47e63.
critical overview of the methods and results. In: Miladinovi
c-Radmilovi
c, N., Ritchie, K., 2010. The Ertebølle Fisheries of Denmark, 5400e4000 B.C. PhD thesis.
Vitezovi
c, S. (Eds.), Bioarheologija na Balkanu: bilans i perspektive. Srpsko University of Wisconsin e Madison.
Arheolosko Drustvo and Blago Sirmuiuma, Beograd and Sremska Mitrovica, Roma
n, D., Villaverde, V., 2012. The Magdalenian harpoons from the Iberian Med-
pp. 25e55. iterranean, based on pieces from Cova de les Cendres (Teulada-Moraira,
Galili, E., Zemer, A., Rosen, B., 2013. Ancient fishing gear and associated artifacts Valencian region). Quat. Int. 272e273, 33e41.
from underwater explorations in Israel - a comparative study. Archaeofauna 22, Schibler, J., 2013. Bone and antler artefacts in wetland sites. In: Menotti, F.,
145e166. O'Sullivan, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Wetland Archaeology. Oxford
Galik, A., Haidvogl, G., Bartosiewicz, L., Guti, G., Jungwirth, M., 2015. Fish remains as University Press, Oxford, pp. 339e355.
a source to reconstruct long-term changes of fish communities in the Austrian Schibler, J., 2001. Experimental production of Neolithic bone and Antler tools. In:
and Hungarian Danube. Aquat. Sci. 77, 337e354. Choyke, A.M., Bartosiewicz, L. (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies
Garasanin, M., 1979. Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije (in Cyrillic). Srpska knji zevna through Time and Space e Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ)
zadruga, Beograd. Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August e 5 September 1999, British
Greenfield, H., 2008. The vertebrate fauna from Hajdu cka Vodenica in the Danubian Archaeological Reports International Series 937. Archaeopress, Oxford,
Iron Gates: subsistence and taphonomy from the Early Neolithic and Mesolithic. pp. 49e60.
In: Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V., Radovanovi
c, I. (Eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory: Seetah, K., 2005. Butchery as a tool for understanding the changing views of ani-
New Perspectives, BAR International Series 1893, pp. 205e226. mals: cattle in Roman Britain. In: Pluskowski, Aleksander (Ed.), Just Skin and
Guthrie, D.R., 1983. Osseus projectile points: biological considerations affecting raw Bones? New Perspectives on Human-animal Relations in the Historical Past.
material selection and design among paleolithic and Paleoindian peoples. In: Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 1e8. BAR Internationals Series 1410.
Clutton-Brock, J., Grigson, C. (Eds.), Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and Semenov, S.A., 1976. Prehistoric Technology. An Experimental Study of the Oldest
Their Prey. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 273e294. British Archaeological Reports Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Barnes and Noble,
163. Wiltshire.
Hahn, J., 1988. In: Camps-Fabrer, H. (Ed.), Fiche sagaie  a base simple de traditin Shea, J.J., 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence from
aurignacienne, у Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse pre
historique. Africa, the Levant, and Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 823e846.
Universite
de Provence, Aix-en-Provence. Side
ra, I., 1998. Nouveaux e
le

ments d’origine ProcheeOrientale dans le Ne
olithique
Houmard, C., 2003. Re
flexions sur les te ^tes de projectiles rainure
es d'apres l'e

tude ancien balkanique: analyse de l’industrie osseuse. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Pre
histoire
du site de La Garenne (Indre). Pre
histoire Anthropologie me
diterrane
ennes 12, d'Anatolie. Gene se de deux mondes. Lie ge, pp. 215e239.
165e172. Sinclair, A., 1995. The Technique as a symbol in late glacial Europe. World Archaeol.
Iovita, R., Sano, K., 2016. Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age 27 (1), 50e62.
Weaponry. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Stankovi
c, S., 1986a. Embouchure du ruisseau Kameni cki Potok - site du groupe de
Dordrecht. Star cevo. Compte-rendu des fouilles de 1981. Ðerdapske sveske III, 467e471.
Julien, M., 2016. Foreword: invention, innovation,and creative imagination. In: Stankovi
c, S., 1986b. Localite
Knjepiste - une station du groupe de Star cevo.
Langley, M. (Ed.), Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an Understanding of Ðerdapske sveske III, 447e452.
Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthro- Stratouli, G., 1996. Die Fischerei in der Aga € €is wa€rhend des Neolithikums. Zur
pology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. v-vii. Technik und zum potentiellen Ertrag. Praehistorische Z. 71 (1), 1e27.
Knecht, H., 1997a. In: Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York. 
Sari
c, J., 2005. Chipped Stone Projectiles in the Territory of Serbia in Prehistory.
Knecht, H., 1997b. The History and development of projectile technology research. Starinar n.s. LV, pp. 9e33.
In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 3e36. 
Sari
c, J., 2014. Artefakti od okresanog kamena u starijem i srednjem neolitu na tlu
Langley, M., 2016. Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an Understanding of Srbije. Arheoloski institut, Beograd.
Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthro- Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385,
pology. Springer, Dordrecht. 807e810.
Legrand, A., 2007. Fabrication et utilisation de l’outillage en matie res osseuses du Torke, W., 1993. Die Fischerei am pra €historischen Federsee. Archaol. Korresp. 23,
Ne
olithique de Chypre: Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. British Archaeolog- 49e66.
ical Reports international series 1678. Archaeopress, Oxford. To
th, Zs, 2012. Bone, antler and tusk tools of the Early Neolithic Ko € ro
€s culture. In:
Legrand, A., Side
ra, I., 2006. Trace
ologie fonctionnelle des matie res osseuses: une Anders, A., Siklo
si, Zs (Eds.), Central/South-East European Transect, Volume III:
me
thode. Bull. Soc. Prehist. Fr. 103 (2), 291e304. the Ko € ro
€s Culture in Eastern Hungary. BAR International Series 2334, Oxford,
Lozovski, V., 1999. Archaeological and ethnographic data for fishing structures from pp. 171e178.
northeastern Europe to Siberia and the evidence from Zamostje 2, Russia. In: Vitezovi
c, S., 2011a. Kostana industrija u starijem i srednjem neolitu centralnog
Coles, B., Coles, J., Jorgensen, M.S. (Eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Balkana. PhD thesis, Faculty of Philosophy. University of Belgrade.
Archaeology. Wetland Archaeology Research Project, pp. 139e145. Vitezovi
c, S., 2011b. The Mesolithic Bone Industry from Kula, Eastern Serbia. Before
Maigrot, Y., 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnellede l’outillage en matie res farming 2011/3, article 2.
dures animalesLa station 4 de Chalain (Ne
olithique final, Jura, France). The se de Vitezovi
c, S., 2012. Kostani projektili sa lokaliteta Starcevo-Grad (in Cyrillic, English
Doctorat. Universite
de Paris I. summary: osseous projectiles from the site Star cevo-Grad). Glasnik Srpskog
Makkay, J., 1990. Knochen, Geweih und Eberzahngegensta €nde. Commun. Archae- arheoloskog drustva 28, 233e246.
ologiae Hungar. 38, 23e58. Vitezovi
c, S., 2016a. Neolithization of technology: innovation and tradition in the
48 S. Vitezovi
c / Quaternary International 472 (2018) 38e48
Starcevo culture osseous industry. Documenta Praehistorica XLIII, 123e138.
Vitezovi
c, S., 2016b. Bos and the bone spoon revisited: spatula-spoons in the
Starcevo culture. In: Bacvarov, K., Gleser, R. (Eds.), Southeast Europe and Ana-
tolia in prehistory. Essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary.
Universita €tsforschungen zur pra €historischen Archa€ologie Band 293 Aus der
Abteilung für Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Arch€ aologie der Universit€at Mün-
sterVerlag. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp. 189e196.
Vukovi
c, J., Vitezovi
c, S., Milanovi
c, D., 2016. Pavlovac-kovacke Njive e Neolithic
layer. In: Peri
c, S., Bulatovi

c, A. (Eds.), Archaeological Investigations along the
View publication stats
Route of Highway E-75 (2011e2014). Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade,
pp. 167e204.
Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori

c, D., Pettit, P., Richards, M., 2002. In the beginning:
new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and South-East
Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63e117.
Wiessner, P., 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points.
Am. Antiq. 48 (2), 253e276.
Zhilin, M., 1988. Technology of the manufacture of Mesolithic bone arrowheads on
the upper Volga. Eur. J. Archaeol. 1 (2), 149e176.