Eureka: The Archaeology of

Innovation & Science

.;
Proceedings of the Twenty~Nih Annual Conference
'f of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary

CHACMOOL

Editors: Roman Harrison, Milan Gillespie, Meaghan Peuramki~Bown

·· THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Copyright 2002
 THE ORIGINS OF METALLURGY- A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE I

Haskel J. Greenfield
Department of Anthropology
University ofManitoba

This paper presents an ana(vtical procedure for ident(f)·ing and mapping the introduction and spread of metallurgy to regions
based upon the relative Ji'equency of metal versus stone tool slicing cut marks in butchered animal bone assemblages. Erperimems
established the relationship behreen the edge characteristics of metal and stone tools and the marks they produce 1rhen applied to
bone. Through the use of silicon molds ofslicing cut marks analy::ed through SEM. the type of tool used to produce such cut marks
on bone can be identified Quantif5·ing the distribution over time and space provides insight into the process of the introduction
and dij)z1sion of a jzmctional metallurgical technology for subsistence activities. Prehistoric data fi'om the Central Balkans of
southeast Europe are presented to illustrate the wility ofthe procedure. These data are used to calculate theji·equency of use and
relative importance of stone and metal implements over time. Ji'om the introduction of metallurgy during the Late i\'eolithic
through the end of the Bron::e Age.

Introduction

The origins of metallurgy has long intrigued archaeologists (e.g. Branigan 1974: Muhly 1985; Renfrew 1969;
Rosen 1984; Tylecote 1987; Wertheim and Muhly 1980). However, relatively little is known about the use of early
metal tools or their rate of adoption. It is only when such data are assembled can speculations truly be made about
their effect upon the societies that adopt them. Until very close to the end of the Neolithic period of the Old World.
stone tools are the only type of tool found. During the subsequent Eneolithic and subsequent periods, stone tools
begin a dramatic decline in frequency (cf. Rosen 1984).2 It has been commonly assumed that metal tools take their
place. However, there has been no way to monitor the importance of metal tools except with respect to the
disappearance of stone because metal tools are rare finds in sites. Metal tools deteriorate rapidly under most
conditions or were so expensive that they were quickly recycled.

This paper will present the results of new research that makes possible the investigation of the origins and
spread of metallurgy in the absence of metal artifacts. This is done through the analysis of cut marks on the bones of
butchered animals. By distinguishing whether cut marks on animal bones are made by metal or stone tools. an
independent measure of the relative importance of the different raw materials used for cutting can be generated. The
spread of metallurgy, as a result, can then be monitored.

Differences between stone and metal tools

There are some fundamental differences between stone and metal tools (that are relevant to the analysis at
hand). Experiments with steel knives have shown them to be superior to stone flake tools in a number of ways. They
are stronger, have greater longevity, retain their cutting edge longer, are more easily and can be frequently
sharpened. are generally sharper, and use less energy to cut through greater amounts of tissue with fewer strokes
(Walker 1978). As a result of the heavy investment in manufacture, however, they are kept and used for long periods
of time and not quickly discarded.

Eureka: the Archaeology of Innovation and Science- Proceedings of the 29th Annual Chacmool Conference
Copyright 2001, The Archaeological Association a_{ the University o_{Calgar): Calgmy. Alberta
R. Harrison. R. AI. Gi/le~p (editors)

430
1

Chipped stone tools, in contrast, have a relatively short functional life. Unmodified flakes are estimated to last 3-
4 minutes before dulling (Brose 1975). Stone tools have some but fewer advantages, such as the raw material is much
more readily available and require less knowledge. skill and energy to produce. Hence. they can be easily and are
more frequently discarded. They can be replaced more easily than metal tools.

These differences fade when the properties of different types of metals are considered. Some are more effective
than others for cutting. This will be explored next.

Differences in coppe1; bron:=e and iron metallurgy

Copper is a soft metal. Copper tools are weak and do not retain their fom1 or keep a straight edge under use. They
bend a~d dent easily. As a result. copper objects have limited functional utility, and copper knives would have been
too soft to be used for butchering. Most copper items tend to be of a display rather than functional nature (cf.
Branigan 1974).

Bronze tools are more durable than copper, but are not easily sharpened. They are an alloy of copper and tin or
arsenic (Branigan 1974; Muhly 1985).3 In low tin- or arsenic-copper alloys (which becomes bronze). the metal is still
soft as in copper tools. In both copper and low tin/arsenic bronze tools, the edge cannot be sharpened as with iron or
steel because the edge does not dull. Instead, it bends over or rolls over. They are sharpened through a beating
process. The edge has to be hammered back into a straight line with a small hammer. The cutting edge is beaten to
flatten the irregularities and thin the metal to a sharp edge. In effect, the sharpening process is a thinning process.
This is very different from that in iron tools. Low tin bronze tools cannot be sharpened on a wet stone.4 Bronze tools
with a high tin/arsenic content, however, are much stronger and more effective functional tools.

Bronze tools are made by melting and poring the metals into molds. They are then finished by annealing (a
heating and gradually cooling process that removes internal stresses, and toughens or tempers the metal) followed by
a final cold-hammering on an anvil. They are given their hard edge by this final cold-working [which is very different
than in iron or steel with its final hot working phase, followed by a dousing in cold water]. Cold working of the edge
doubles the hardness of bronze (Branigan 1974: 83-85). A considerable amount of hammering is necessary to
produce the finished product (Branigan 1974: 105). When a bronze cutting edge has dulled, it has to be annealed prior
to hammering the edge back into place. The bronze must be softened before it can be cold-worked. Otherwise, it is
too brittle and will shatter when cold-hammered. Iron and steel, by contrast, are worked while red hot. They are
quenched in cold water to harden them. Any copper-based metal (such as bronze) must be heated up, but it cannot be
sharpened while red hot. It is then submerged briefly in cold water to soften it and is worked while cooling. But most
work must be done while it is still warm. If the copper cools too much, the hammering must stop. Otherwise, the
metal will become brittle and shatter.5

Iron tools are hard, retain their shape for much longer, and can be easily sharpened with a stone. They are
sharpened through a grinding process. The stone grinds down the irregularities in the metal until a smooth sharp-
edged surface is achieved.

The experiment: methodology

A series of experiments comparing metal and stone tool cut marks were conducted by the author. Their resultant
marks were examined under various levels of power in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). A variety of shapes
of steel knives and chipped stone tool shapes were chosen to try to account for this source of variability in the
analysis. Each blade was drawn across a soft wooden board (pine) in the same direction, and with the same angle and
hand-held pressure.6 A soft wood (i.e. pine) was chosen as the medium, rather than bone, because it is softer and
more likely to accurately record the imprint of the blade during the cutting process.

In order to analyze the cut marks in a SEM, small molds of the cut marks need to be made. The SEM chamber
accepts relatively small-sized samples (2-3 em). Small silicone rubber molds of each of the experimental cut marks
were made using Dow Coming Silastic 9161 molding compound and Cutter Perfourm Light Vinyi Polysiioxane
Impression Material (type I, low viscosity) dental impression compounds. These are extremely sensitive media for

431
replicating microscopic morphology (Rose 1983). The shape of the mold is the reverse of the actual specimen's _it is
everted rather than inverted.?

Results of the e:rperiment

Metal knife marks

In general, the metal knife marks can be grouped into two categories: flat-edged and serrated-edged blades. The
results from each were quite different and are described below.

Knives with serrated-edged blades could be divided into two types: those with high and widely spaced serration
(such as steak and bread cutting knives) and knives with a low and tightly spaced seiTation, which are very saw-like
in function.

The characteristics of the saw-like knives (fig. 1) include a wide and shallow cut mark, with poor definition of
the edges and bottom of the groove. This is a reverse of the original cut mark. The edges slope ve1y gradually and
unevenly upwards, while the bottom seems to have a wave that weaves across the surface.

The tightly spaced seiTated knives (fig. 2) had a different pattern. It had a broad and relatively shallow groove,
with sides that slowly sloped downwards until half the depth is reached and then dramatically dropped at a steep
angle. The slope is much more gradual on the left side of the groove than on the right side. This pattern would be
difficult to distinguish from that of some of the stone tool cut marks. The reason is because both sides of the blade do
not have the same shape. The blade is flat on one side and scalloped on the other. This pattern is found on all seiTated
knives. but is accentuated on the tightly seiTated knife edges.

On flat-sided knives (fig. 3) there is no scalloping of the blade. Both sides fall straight down from the top of the
blade toward the cutting edge. They steeply angle at the same degree toward the cutting edge creating a perfect V-
shaped profile. This type includes modem scalpels, razors, typical carbon steel kitchen knives, and most pocket
knives. Their cutting edges are sharpened equally on both sides in order to maintain their sharpness. The bottom or
apex of metal blades is often slightly flattened. Only in razor edged blades is the bottom of the blade a sharp V-shape.

Slicing with a low tin bronze knife

I conducted an experiment in order to visualize the difference between using carbon steel and low tin bronze
knives (with 2% tin alloy content).8 The relative effectiveness of steel versus bronze for butchering and the
morphology of the resultant cut marks were dramatically different. The steel knife, as expected, sliced through the
meat and into the bone, leaving a characteristic deep V-shaped mark. The bronze knife. after much struggle, shredded
rather than sliced through the meat. Upon contact with the bone. the soft edge began to bend and warp, leaving a
broad iiTegular (saw-like) cut mark. The low tin bronze knife was an inefficient cutting tool when compared to
chipped stone or steel cutting implements. It was too soft. It cut the meat, but poorly, and dulled upon contact with the
bone. One wonders why anyone would want to switch from stone to copper or bronze tools until relatively hard
alloys were invented. Therefore, it would seem that it is unlikely that early metal tools (i.e. copper or low tin:copper
alloys) would have been used for such activities.

Stone slicing cut marks

Twelve different sharp-edged chipped stone tool types were initially selected for the analysis from the prehistoric
assemblage at Petnica (table 1; Greenfield 1986; Starovi_ 1993). Tools from this site were used in the study since this
site was to provide the faunal sample with cut marks upon which the rest of the study was to rest. It was also thought
that using tools from the same site as the cut marks would minimize the morphological variability in cut mark shape
and minimize some ofthe difficulties in associated cut marks with particular types of stone tools. The tools were in
extremely good shape, did not have any evidence of differential wear or patina, and were still extremely sharp. The
same procedure of making the cuts on wood, making the mold, and observing it under an SEM was caiTied out with
the chipped stone tools. Each tool was hand-held and sliced over the wooden board -the same as for the metal tools,
but on the opposite side. The experiment will be replicated with modem fresh blades in the future.

The tools from Petnica can be divided typologically into three groups, long and short blades and scrapers. The
stone tools can be typologically divided into three groups. There were six short blades or (lamella- Serbian) (stone 1-
4. 6, & 9), three long blades (no_) (stone 7, 8, & 12), and three scrapers (strugac) (stone 5, 10, & 11) (table I). The
blades included single (stone 1 & 3) and triple backed or platformed blades (stone 2 & 4). and a curved blade (stone
3, 4, & 9). The scrapers included a large (stone 10) and a small example (stone 11 ). One blade (stone 1) had retouch
on its cutting edge, and this was the side used in the experiment. All of the other stone samples lacked any obvious
evidence of retouch.9

Long blade (stone 7, 8, 12)- The cross-section of long blades (fig. 4). was steeply sided on one side. and more
gradually sloping on the other. The apex would be relatively narrow but not razor sharp or flat. On the gradually
sloping side, it would gradually slope downwards in a series of parallel ridges.

Short blade - The pattern of the short blades (fig. 5) tends to be similar to that of the long blades. No
distinguishing diagnostic criteria could be identified that would allow them to be differentiated from long blades. The
cut mark of one of the blade's (Stone 2 - a triple-backed blade - fig. 6) resembled that of a scraper at the terminating
end of the cut mark. This illustrates the danger of relying only upon one end for the analysis. Each identification
should be based upon the same (initiating) end of the cut mark to ensure comparability.

It would be very difficult to identify one of the short blades as being made by a stone tool in the lower
magnification (50x - fig. 7). It strongly resembles that of a metal tool. It has sharply angled sides that rise steeply
from the base of the mold. It is in the higher magnification (lOOx and above- fig. 8) that it loses its resemblance to
metal knives. In the higher magnifications one can see that the there are two ridges along the apex and that the left is
lower than the right. The left side descends more gradually than the right side, which is steeply sloping - typical
characteristics of stone tool cut marks.

Scraper- Scrapers have a very distinctive cut mark pattern (fig. 9). The cut mark resembles that of the scallop-
edged metal knives. It is very shallow, with slowly sloping edges, and the appearance of a wave-like pattern along
one side. The other side tends to be smoother. The bottom of the groove tends to be relatively horizontal, with only a
slight slope to the side where it rapidly descends. One scraper (fig. 10) exhibits a very different pattern. It is also low
and broad, but rises quickly on the left side and descends more slowly to the right, in a series of parallel ridges.

The cut marks of blades as a whole can be distinguished from that of scrapers. The fonner are more sharply
defined, with higher sides, narrower cross-sections, well-defined ancillary ridging, while the latter are lacking in
these characteristics. In contrast, the pattern of the long blades was not distinguishable from that ofthe short blade.

Criteriafor distinguishing stoneji·ommeta! slicing cut marks

Based upon the above experiment and previous studies, it is possible to identify a readily observable set of
diagnostic criteria for distinguishing stone from metal slicing cut marks. In general, this study confinned some of
what has already been observed by others (e.g. Blumenschine eta!. 1996: Olsen 1988; Shipman 1981; Walker and
Long 1977), but allowed the first comprehensive identification of stone and metal tool cut mark features.

a) Metal knives produce sharp V- or hard cornered 1_1-shaped grooves that meet in a distinct apex at the bottom
ofthe groove;

b) Metal tools make more uniform patterns on the bone, often removing material in the groove more effectively.
They leave either no striations or striations of a more uniforn1 depth and spacing than when stone tools were used;
and

c) in general, metai knives produce a cleaner and more even slicing cut (except for scalloped-edge l<.nives and
saw-like blades).

433
 Metal knife marks are deep and steeply sided. culminating in an apex that has a sharp point or a horizontal
platform. They will be unifom1 or slightly off-angle V-shape in profile, depending on the type of metal edge or angle
of the cut. They tend to be deep and narrow or deep and wide. The edge of the groove steeply slopes downwards.
Many iron and steel metal knives are flat bottomed creating a 1_1-shaped profile. It was difficult to be able to make
metal knives as sharp-edged as stone knives until the development of modem types of razor-sharp steel (scalpels).
Copper and bronze are much softer metals. Iron can be sharpened but tends to dull quickly along its edge, creating the
broad flat band characteristic of metal cutting tools. In the case of metal, the parallel ridges tend to be of unifonn
height, orientation, and angle (while in stone they tend to differ height, with declining height toward one side).

High scalloped cutting edges yield cut marks that are very uncharacteristic of metal knife marks. They are broad
and poorly defined, and somewhat similar to a saw (described in Olsen 1988).

Chipped bifacial stone tools produce a shallower, less even cut. and tend to exhibit considerably more variability
in shape (cf. Walker and Long I 977: 608). The cut appears dirty (full of debris), with the apex weaving back and
forth. Because of the sinuosity of their cutting edges, bifacial chipped stone tools tend to produce wide and irregular
grooves (Walker and Long I 977: 608, fig. 4). These grooves appear as a series of ancillary parallel striations, of
uneven length and thickness. They are lateral to the apex of the cut. The lateral striations appear as ridging along one
side of the apex of the ridge (in the photographs). The striations reflect the uneven chipped (and often retouched)
surface of the stone blade. The smooth side reflects the smooth bulbous surface ofthe blade. They are always uneven
in cross-section, with one side rising relatively steeply to the apex, then descending gradually or in a series of
ancillary ridges downwards. This is function of the inhomogeneous shape of the sides of stone tools. Stone tools are
made through percussion which produces two distin<;t sides. The striations reflect the uneven chipped (and often
retouched) surface of the stone blade. The smooth side of the groove reflects the smooth bulbous surface of the blade.
The result is that contrary to the V -shape of metal knives, stone tools have two distinctly different sides - a smooth
and a rough side. This leaves a very distinctive groove- one side rises steeply and smoothly; the other side rises more
gradually, with multiple striae from the various facets left over from production.

Anazrsis of the prehistoric Petnica sample

Generally, it is assumed by prehistorians that there is an increase in the use of metal tools in slaughtering and
butchering animals through time. If this hypothesis is valid. this will be reflected by increasing frequency of metal
tool cut mark traces on animal bones. A prehistoric sample that cross-cuts the Neolithic-Bronze Age divide was
sought to test this assumption. Unfortunately, there are few sites where this takes place and where the faunal sample
was systematically collected. The prehistoric site at Petnica near Valjevo, Yugoslavia is such a site. It is located in a
valley in the Serbian foothills about 90 km SW of Belgrade. lt has an uninterrupted occupation sequence from the
Middle Neolithic through the Eneolithic, followed by a break until the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, with
another break until the Roman period (Greenfield 1986). Over 300 temporally-provenienced animals bones with
slicing cut marks have already been identified.

The analysis

All of the bones in the Petnica assemblage were examined for cut marks. Conclusions regarding the distribution
of stone versus metal cut marks are based upon observation on the original bone cut marks at low power with a
reflecting light microscope (data summarized here).! 0 Silicone molds were made of each, and some of them have
been photographed with an SEM and illustrated here.

Most research on cut marks has utilized SEM's. However, few researchers have access to SEM's. In addition,
only a small number of samples tend to be examined in a SEM due to the cost and time. Large faunal assemblages
tend to have proportionately large numbers of bones with cut marks. In order to monitor the spread of metallurgy. and
to achieve results with some statistical validity, the entire assemblage must be examined to the number bones with cut
marks. Based upon the sample size, then either all of the cut marks or a smaller sub-sample can be selected to
-'
uetermme. tI1e type 01r mstrument
. mak'·mg t I1e cut mar--s.
k 1t ' .IS un 1'11(eiy,
' 'now ever, that most samptc:S
,_ "-an11 ""Pr
~ • - · he
--

examined beneath an SEM. Therefore it is vital to be able to extend the results based upon higher power SEM
observations to the more commonly available low power reflecting optical microscopes that can be brought into the

434
field. One of the major drawbacks to the optical low power approach (particularly when conducted in the field) is that
different types of cutting implements are difficult to recognize. For example, the more typical iron (V-shaped) versus
steel (1_[-shaped) profiles. By taking a mold, the cut mark can be examined under a higher power microscope under
more controlled conditions to better detennine the type of cutting implement. Also, it is difficult to recheck material
at a later date. Hence, the results presented below only indicate whether stone or metal tools were utilized.

The results of the optical microscope are summarized in table 2. Stone tool cut mark appear in each of the
periods. Metal cut marks have a very different distribution. In general, the data demonstrate that the incidence of
metal cutting implements is minimal prior to the Bronze Age.

Metal-type cut marks appear in all layers of the site. However, in the Neolithic levels they are found in such
sma!I'numbers that they can be attributed to occasional misidentification due to using an optical microscope. Metal
tools begin to appear during the Late Neolithic (Yin~ D culture) at the site ( 16%). This is the period of earliest
metallurgy in the Balkans. Large copper veins are being mined in nearby eastern Serbia and metal axes and other
implements are appearing in sites throughout the region (Jovan~1980). During the Eneolithic, the frequencies
remain low (13%) attesting to the continued but low incidence of metal use. The quality of metal tools for slicing is
probably minimal explaining their low numbers. There is a gap in the sequence for the Early and Middle Bronze Age.
During the Late Bronze and transition to the Early Iron Age at the site, the proportion of metal cutting implement is
dramatically higher than in the earlier phases (41 %). High tin bronze knives are typical of this period and are
effective cutting tools. Even so, stone tools remain important even during this period. The proportions in the Roman
period are difficult to detennine since the Roman deposits were pits that cut into and were mixed with material from
the underlying layers (i.e. Late Neolithic strata). Hence most of the ceramics from the roman pits were from the Late
Neolithic and it is not surprising that the cut marks on bones generally reflects this. However, a new type of knife
appears at this point in time- flat bottomed blade- possibly early steel.

The patterns observed for the Central Balkans parallel those documented in the Levant (Rosen 1984: 504 ).
Functional chipped stone tool types gradually disappear between the end of the Chalcolithic and Iron Age. The first
stage in the adoption of metallurgy did not involve the wholesale replacement of flint tools (as is commonly
assumed). The vast majority of early metal (copper) objects dating to the Chalcolithic seem to reflect ceremonial and
ritual functions. By examining cut marks on bones, the biases in the stone tool data (such as haphazard recovery in
post-Chalcolithic excavations) is minimized.

Conclusion

Experimental replication of cut marks using chipped stone tools and steel knives yielded consistent differences in
morphology which allowed the differentiation of metal from stone knife cut marks under high magnifications. Metal
knives leave a very different slicing profile than stone knives. Metal leaves either a sharp V- or 1_1-shaped profile, and
lacks any parallel ancillary striations. In contrast, stone knives leave a more irregularly shaped profile, with a deep
groove at the bottom of a steeply angled side, and then a gradual rising of the slope with one or more parallel
ancilla!)· striations.

Wl1ile most research concerned with the origins of metallurgy has relied upon the metal artifacts. this approach is
fraught with a host of problems. The number of early metal tools from the earliest prehistoric periods (Neolithic,
Copper, and Bronze Ages) is quite small. Almost certainly, the range of recovered metal tools does not reflect the full
range then a\ ailable. Metal was such a precious commodity in antiquity that it was used and reused. Most metal was
recycled. Metal was typically discarded only when it was no longer worth salvaging. Metals decompose relatively
rapidly under most depositional conditions. The original rarity, recycling of worn tools, and decomposition of early
metal tools prevent us from discovering all of the types of tools then in existence.

As a result, little evidence exists to detern1ine exactly when the change-over from a stone- to a metal-oriented
economy took place. Did it take place slowly or rapidly and was the spread of metallurgy a relatively uniforn1
process? These are vital questions which must be answered before the question of causal priority can be established.

435
Figure 1. SEM photograph of the groove from modern metal knife 8, 25x magnification.
Figure 2. SEM photograph of the groove from modern metal knife 7, I SOx magnification.

437
Figure 3. SEM photograph of the groove from modern metal knife 4, 200x magnification.

438
Figure4. SEM photograph ofthe groove from Petnica stone too17, IOOx magnification.

439
Figure 5. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool I, 47x magnification.

!HI
Figure 6. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool2, 129x magnification.
Figure 7. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool 9 (view a), SOx magnification.
Figure 8. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool9 (view b), 102x magnification.

443
Figure 9. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool 11, SOx magnification.

44 ...
Figure 10. SEM photograph of the groove from Petnica stone tool 5, 60x magnification.

445
TABLE 1. Test of stone and metal cutting instruments on a soft wooden board (conducted in Petnica 1988)

Samp Type of instrument Edge Angle of\" Comments Quality of

Raw
le # on knife mold
material
Scalpel/razor for paper Flat-sided Even V-shape Did not take
Metal
cutting

2 Medicine scalpel Flat-sided Even Y-shape Not very Did not take
Metal
sharp-used

3 Medicine scalpel Flat-sided Even V-shape Not very Did not take
Metal
sharp-used:
broken tip

Metal 4 Eating (table) knife Flat-sided Uneven V- Good

shape

5 Eating (table) knife Shallow. tightly spaced Good

serration

6 Serrated steak knife Deep and widely spaced Did not take
Metal
serration

7 Bread cutting knife Deep and widely spaced Bread Good

Metal
serration cutting side

8 Bread cutting knife Small. tightly spaced Bone Good

Metal
serration cutting side

Kitchen knife with wooden Flat-sided Uneven V- Good

Metal 9
handle shape

Kitchen knife with plastic Flat-sided Uneven Y- Good

Metal 10
handle shape

Pocket (folding) knife Flat-sided Even Y-shape Large Good

Metal 11
Flat-sided Even V-shape Small Good
Metal 12 Pocket (folding) knife

Good
Stone Backed blade On the serrated side.
used
Good
Stone 2 Triple backed blade Without retouch
Good
Stone 3 Single backed blade Curved
Good
Stone 4 Triple backed blade
G,x>d
Stone 5 Scraper
Go,>d
Stone 6 Blade
Good
Stone 7 Knife
G~>Od
Stone 8 Knife
Good
Stone 9 Curved blade

Stone 10 Large scraper

Stone 11 Small scraper

Stone 12 Blade fragment

446
 TABLE 2. Summary of cut marks by raw material type and stratum at Petnica (1980-1986 excavations)

Stratum Date Stone Metal

B.C. (cal.) # % # %
Middle Neolithic (Vinca B) 4500-4200 BC 16 94.12% 1 5.88%
Late Neolithic (Vinca C) 4200-3800 BC 20 90.91% 2 9.09%
Late Neolithic (Vinca D) 3800-3300 BC 36 83.72% 7 16.28%
Eneolithic (Baden-Kostolac) 3300-2500 BC 19 86.36% 3 13.64%
LBA-EIA (Halstatt A-B) 1000-800 BC 24 58.54% 17 41.46%
Vinca: Roman* 100-300 AD 33 91.67% 3 8.33%
[*Roman pits, filled with
animal bones, intrusive into
Vinca C horizon- 94% Vinca
ceramics]
Total 148 33

Acknowledgements

1. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Petnica Science Station (Valjevo. Yugoslavia).
International Research and Exchanges Board (Washington, D.C.). Russian/East European Institute of Indiana
University (Bloomington, IN. USA). Social Science and Humanities Research Council (Ottawa, Canada). and the
University of Manitoba for financial and administrative support during the conduct of this research. The research at
the Petnica Science Station was carried in collaboration with Z.eljko Jei,. then archaeologist at the Station, without
whose encouragement this research would never have been completed. I am forever grateful to him. Any errors in
this analysis are, however, my fault.

2. To some extent, the decline of flint is probably a function of the differential recovery procedures conducted by
Neolithic versus post-Neolithic prehistorians (cf. Greenfield 1986. 1991, I 993 ). In general, the former have generally
used sieves longer and traditionally pay more attention to chipped stone remains during recovery. analysis, and
publication.

3. In the Aegean and Turkey. tin slowly replaces arsenic as the major alloy in bronze tools during the Early
Bronze Age. By the Middle Bronze Age. this process is complete with the almost complete eclipse of arsenic. But
the use of real bronze tools was a regionally restricted phenomenon in the Early Bronze Age (Branigan 1974; Muhly
1993; Yenner and Vandiver 1993 ).

4. There has been little or no discussion in the literature on when wet (sharpening) stones appear in
archaeological record. This would be another proxy measure for monitoring the introduction of iron cutting
implements.

5. Larry Gardner. amateur blacksmith. Indiana University Biology Department. personal communication. 1989.

447
 REFERENCES CITED
Blumenschine, Robert L Curtis W. Marean. and Salvatore D. Capaldo.
1996. Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identificationof cut marks. percussion
marks. and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. Journal of.i.rchaeological Science 23: 493-507.
Branigan, Keith.
1974 . ...Jegean Metahrork of the Earz1· and Middle Bron:::e Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brose. David S.
1975. Functional analysis of stone tools: a cautionary note on the role of animal fats. American ...Jmiquity 48: 86-
103.
Greenfield. Haske!.
1986. The Paleoeconomy of the Central Balkans (Serbia): ...J Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Late
1\'eolithic and Bron:::e Age (ca. -1500-1000 B.C.). British Archaeological Reports (Oxford), International
Series 304, volumes I and 2.
Jovanovis,;:'Borislav.
1980. The origins of copper mining in Europe. Scient{fic American 242 (5 ): 152-167.
Muhly. James.
1985. Sources of tin and the beginnings of Bronze Age metallurgy. American Journal a/Archaeology 89 (2):
275-91.
Olsen. Sandra L.
1988. The Jdent{fication a_( Stone and Metal Tool A/arks on Bone Arti(acts. in Scanning Electron Microscopy in
Archaeology. Edited by S. L. Olsen. British Archaeological Reports.I.S.S. 452. pp. 337-360.
Renfrew. Colin.
I 969. The autonomy of the southeast European Copper Age. Proceedings o{the Prehistoric Society 35: 12--!7.

Rose, Jennie J.
1983. A replication technique for Scanning Electron Microscopy: applications for Anthropologists. American
Journal o_{Physical Anthropology 62: 255-261.
Rosen. Steven A.
1984. The Adoption of Metallurgy in the Levant: A Lithic Perspective. Currem Anthropology 25: 50-!-505.
Shipman. Pat.
I 981. Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic Problems. Annals ofthe JVe1r li1rk
Academy a/Sciences 376: 357-386.
StaroviC: Andre.
1993. Petnica. Diplomski Rad. University of Belgrade.
Tylecote. R. F.
1987. The Earz1· Hist01:1' o.fthe !lfetallurgy in Europe. London.
Walker, Phillip L.
1978. Butchering and stone tool function. American Antiquity 43 (4 ): 710-715.
Walker. Phillip Land J. C. Long.
. .J . 1 ., -l .... 60"-
1977. An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks. Amen can. 1~<! r -· ·
616.
We11heim, Theodore A. and James D. Muhlly, editors.
1980. The coming o.fthe Age oflron. Yale University Press: New Haven.

448