Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište: = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Croatian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Beograd
Arheološki institut
2013
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Posebna izdanja / Arheološki institut
54 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | 176 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten |
| ISBN: | 9788680093857 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV043704369 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20160811 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 160808s2013 a||| |||| 00||| hrv d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788680093857 |9 978-86-80093-85-7 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)957724656 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)OBVAC13085792 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a hrv | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Šaric, Josip |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište |b = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |c Josip Šarić |
| 246 | 1 | 1 | |a Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| 264 | 1 | |a Beograd |b Arheološki institut |c 2013 | |
| 300 | |a 176 Seiten |b Illustrationen, Karten | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Posebna izdanja / Arheološki institut |v 54 | |
| 505 | 8 | |a Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache | |
| 505 | 8 | |a Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 123-127 | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Altpaläolithikum |0 (DE-588)4142082-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Kremenac |0 (DE-588)1111058709 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Kremenac |0 (DE-588)1111058709 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Altpaläolithikum |0 (DE-588)4142082-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Funde |0 (DE-588)4071507-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 810 | 2 | |a Arheološki institut |t Posebna izdanja |v 54 |w (DE-604)BV039717423 |9 54 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029116715 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 307.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 4971 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 930.1 |e 22/bsb |f 090512 |g 4971 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804176488023457792 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | SADRZAJ
Pregled istrazivanja paleolita na tlu Srbije.................................... 7
Istorijat istrazivanja na lokalitetu Kremenac................................... 11
Geomorfoloske karakteristike lokaliteta......................................... 15
Metodologija istrazivanja na lokalitetu......................................... 19
Postpaleolitski nalazi.......................................................... 23
Paleolitski okresani artefakti iz sondi 1 i 2................................... 25
Sonda 1 - radno mesto 1................................................... 25
Sonda 1 - ukop............................................................ 27
Sonda 1................................................................... 28
Juzno prosirenje sonde 1.................................................. 32
Sonda 2................................................................... 37
Artefakti pronadeni izvan stratigrafskog konteksta, u zoni Kremenca
i nj ego vom neposrednom okruzenju.............................................. 41
Koriscene sirovine.............................................................. 49
Tipologija...................................................................... 57
Opste karakteristike donjopaleolitske industrije okresanog kamena sa Kremenca... 61
Ergonomija...................................................................... 69
Nalazi sa Kremenca u okvirima regionalnog konteksta............................. 73
Zakljucak....................................................................... 79
Katalog......................................................................... 81
Postpaleolitski artefakti................................................. 81
Paleolitski artefakti..................................................... 82
Summary......................................................................... 103
Bibliografija................................................................... 123
Table
129
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
SUMMARY
Geographic position of Kremenac
The Nis basin represents one of the largest geomorphologic units of the Nisava
and Morava systems that are mutually connected by rivers. The basin stretches between
Selicevica and Mali Jastrebac and Svrljiske Mt. and Suva Mt., in the East and West, re-
spectively. Despite it is surrounded by mountains, the Nis basin is not isolated. By the
Gramade saddle, it is connected with the Svrljig valley, by the Kutina River it is bound
to Zaplanje, whereas by its Southwest margins it is connected with Dobric and Toplica.
The longer axis of the Nis basin stretches approximately 40 km in the East-North-
east-Southwest direction, whereas the shorter axis is approximately 23 km long. The Nis
basin actually represents the end of the valley of the Nisava river, and taking into consid-
eration that it is connected with the valleys of Leskovac and Aleksinac, it represents an
important traffic corridor of the present day Balkan peninsula (Martinovie 1976). Favour-
able geomorphologic characteristics were responsible that even in the long past the Nis
basin likely was a suitable direction for the easiest communications during discovering
and conquering new territories.
Kremenac, near the Rujnik village, represents a relatively denudated gentle slope.
It is approximately 1.6 km long in the North-South direction and 200-270 m wide in the
East-West direction, and is sporadically covered by scarce grass and bushes and cut by
numerous rural trails. This area is unsuitable for agriculture due to huge amounts of flint
pebbles scattered all around, and, therefore, the today’s habitants use it as a poor pasture
for their cattle and sheep.
Previous investigations at Kremenac
“It is probable that, along the creeks that flow into the Nisava river, more prehis-
toric stations will be found, what is indicated by the fact that the writer already knows
for the existence of a stone axe from Donja Studena, next to the Jelasnica river, whereas
at the Kremenac Hill, near the Rujnik village, a plenty of handled and semi-handled flint
has already been found.” By this very sentence, Orsic Slavetic (1936) drew attention of
the scientific community to the locality where semi-handled and handled flint flakes and
large amounts of no handled pebbles were found. The information given by Orsic Slavetic
was also illustrated by a map that showed the position of Kremenac with respect to the
villages of Rujnik and Hum, and the town of Nis (Fig. 1).
After this notation in „Starinar” in 1936, the Kremenac site was merely forgotten,
although in 1956, in its close vicinity, at Velika Humska Cuka, extensive archaeological
investigations were carried out (Garasanin and Garasanin 1958-1959). In spite of very
significant results that had shed new light onto the Eneolithic and Bronze Age periods -
according to which Garasanin defined a new cultural group, Bubanj-Hum - new research
started again, almost 30 years later. The story about Kremenac indirectly continued in
103
Josip Saric
1989, when the Archaeological Institute of Belgrade and the National Museum of Nis
initiated a common project led by Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic. The project aimed at
exploring possible Palaeolithic localities in the Nis region in detail. Special attention was
paid to the foothills of two elevated areas known among the habitants as Radanova Cuka
and Mala Humska Cuka. Apart of archaeological material which suggested that the area
was populated in both early Neolithic and Antique periods, during the reconnaissance of
the region between Velika Humska Cuka, Mala Humska Cuka and Radanova Cuka large
concentrations of flint flakes were noticed. The first field campaigns started in 1991 by
new reconnaissance works. This exploration revealed the traces of old soil works, and
the researchers considered them as indications of rudimental mining activities of stone
exploitation.
Because the aim of the project was not only to investigate the Palaeolithic sites,
but also to search on early traces of exploitation of raw material for making chipped
stone artefacts, after a break of three years, in 1994, probe excavations in the territory of
Mala Humska Cuka started again. Besides on the presence of the previously mentioned
high quantities of flint flakes, the research team based its expectations on the fact that the
investigated area was known in archaeological literature under the name of “Kremenac”.
After excavating three probes it was seen that the area with traces of old trenches
does not represent a place of flint but of built stone exploitation, because siliceous raw
material appeared in traces that are insufficient for any serious exploitation in the Prehis-
tory. According to ceramic fragments that are found in the probes, the built stone exploita-
tion was likely done in Byzantine period.
The results of excavations, on one side, and the fact that the previously found
stone artefacts represent half-products, on the other side, led the researchers to suppose
that the area of raw material exploitation was not located at Humska Cuka but somewhere
in the vicinity. In the same year, when the probe excavations were completed, the first
reconnaissance of Kremenac was carried out.
The aerial distance between Kremenac and Velika Cuka is only 2.3 km, and it is
quite possible that the real toponym of Kremenac (means „flint”) near Rujnik was in the
literature mistakenly allocated to the site where flint from Hum was found. This could
be the reason why the first works of the research team of the Archaeological Institute
of Belgrade and the National Museum of Nis were undertaken exactly around Humska
Cuka. In any case, the very first contact with Kremenac near Rujnik was an indication
for the archaeological research team that they had started the excavations at right place
(Kaluderovic i Buric-Slavkovic 1998).
Flint (i.e. opal) pebbles vary in size from a few centimetres in diameter to large
pieces that can be up to 80 cm in length and more than hundred kilograms in weight.
Interestingly, today, during surface prospection, it is difficult to find the largest pieces of
raw material, but even the largest artefacts that represent one of the most distinctive char-
acteristics of the Kremenac industry. The explanation given below is maybe trivial, but it
is at the same time a logical one. Namely, during the past decades, the habitants used this
material in their everyday life, hence, many wells and abutments in Rujnik are built of
flint boulders and pebbles from Kremenac. Accordingly, we can just suppose how many
Prehistoric artefacts simply terminated as building stone material.
104
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
The reconnaissance works of the Kremenac area and its surroundings revealed the
presence of a smaller number of artefacts with technological-morphological characteris-
tics different from those of the primary archaeological material from Kremenac. These
are smaller cores, flakes and blades, which, without any doubt, belong to post-Palaeolith-
ic period. Their appearance at Kremenac is absolutely expected, because Kremenac, as a
site of high quality raw material suitable for chipped stone artefacts, was surely known to
the Eneolithic and Bronze Age populations of the territories of Velika and Mala Humska
Cuka.
At Kremenac itself, very few post-Palaeolithic artefacts were found on the sur-
face, whereas in the geological layers of probes 1 and 2 no artefacts were found at all.
The artefacts found during reconnaissance in the area between Mala and Velika Humska
Cuka predominantly were pristine, non-handled half-products. The above facts are clear
indicatons that the final handling of artefacts was done in a thus far undiscovered area
of post-Palaeolithic settlements within the territory of the Hum village. This statement is
corroborated by the finding of a massive anvil that was likely used as a bolster for core
chipping.
On the other hand, despite a very small number of artefacts of this post-Palaeo-
lithic inventory, the presented typological shapes unambiguously suggest that in the area
of Kremenac, apart of the exploitation of raw material, the production of artefacts with
all its phases was also present. It is valid for, at least, part of the artefacts used in post-
Palaeolithic settlements.
Mining or Quarrying?
The investigation of the traces of the oldest exploitation of certain raw material,
i.e. the earliest traces of mining, is one of the most interesting activities of prehistoric
archaeology. These investigations pose an important question: what can and should be
defined as a trace of the earliest mining? Namely, if we every single evidence of exca-
vating stones as raw material for making artefacts consider as indication of mining, than
mining activities can be traced as early as in the Lower Palaeolithic. On the other side, it
should be taken into consideration that mining implies an assemblage of organized and
complex activities, as well as a set of specific technological procedures. The traces that
have so far been discovered are not that old, and they are unequivocally confirmed only
for Neolithic period.
The oldest traces of exploitation of rocks suitable for producing chipped stone
artefact in the territory of Serbia are related exactly to Kremenac (Kaluderovic 1996).
The richness of Kremenac in raw material for producing chipped artefacts was pointed
out by the first researchers. It is understandable, taking into consideration that the name
Kremenac was given in the past by the habitants because they recognized which rock
types were particularly widespread in this area. Although in his reports Kaluderovic men-
tioned the presence of pits explaining them as traces of mining, at one place in the re-
ports he also stressed that in the area of opened probes some traces of shooting trenches
also occur. The trenches belong to typical army polygons that had existed in the areas of
105
Josip Saric
Kremenac. Therefore, stone was exploited at Kremenac anyway, but so far there are no
reliable traces of making trenches for searching for raw material. However, at Kremenac
exists both direct and indirect evidence on how stone exploitation was carried out in the
Lower Palaeolithic.
The heaviest artefact from Kremenac is a large and massive mallet weighing 4 kg,
which could not be used by one hand only (Fig. 18, T. XIV/2, T. XLVI/1). This large peb-
ble was carefully selected as a hitting tool taking care about its ergonomic characteristics,
i.e. in order to ensure that this heavy tool is easily handled and safely applied. Although
the pebble was not particularly modified, the presence of traces of frazzle along its nar-
rower side, which is typical for hitting a hard surface, confirms its successful usage.
A tool used for stone exploitation indeed exists, and it is now a question how
the working process was carried out? A clear and unambiguous answer is found on the
other side of the world, in the research done by Ligabue in 1985, in the tribe Kim-Yal at
Papua New Guinea. In 1990, Toth joined the second international expedition by which
the work of Ligabue continued, and thank to Toth very interesting data were presented
to the scientific community (Schick and Toth 1993). The members of the Kim-Yal live
in Irian-Jaya, in the northern part of New Guinea, and their village Langda is situated at
an 1800 m high plateau. This population lives by combining hunting-gatherer economy
with primitive agriculture. The fact that the members of the Kim-Yal tribe make stone
artefacts applying technological processes that are typical for Acheulian techno-com-
plex, i.e. for the Lower Palaeolithic, was written in Ligabue’s reports and recognised by
Shick and Toth. The presence of this preserved and still very vital Palaeolithic tradition
means that all phases in making chipped stone artefacts (except partial polishing of the
blade of final tools) are identical to those from the past. Because in the village area no
raw material available for processing can be found, the members of the Kim-Yal tribe
go deep down to the valley, in the bed of the river that flows in the foothill of the mas-
sive upon which they live. The river-bed contains large pebbles that cannot be easily
transported as individual pieces. Therefore, in order to make sure that the rocks deform
in a brittle fashion, i.e. that they shatter in pieces which are easy for carrying, a techno-
logical process of thermal treating is applied. It is done in such a way that, first, fire is
burned on a chosen pebble and is left to bum off. Afterwards, a Kim-Yal takes another
pebble and uses it as a mallet for breaking the one that was previously treated thermally
into smaller pieces (Fig. 19). This phase is in direct relationships with the tool found in
Kremenac, which also represents a strong indication about the way of stone exploitation
in that area.
There is another characteristic that links the material found at Kremenac with
technological processes in stone exploitation of the Kim-Yal tribe. This characteristic
suggests an intriguing possibility that can hardly be proved, maybe not at all. Namely,
the exposure of rocks to high temperatures always produces their decolourisation, and
frequently gives rise to surface damages such as shallow pits or networks of tiny frac-
tures. One of the artefacts from Kremenac is distinctively decolourised and exhibits
a network of cracks (T. XVI/1), and this raises the question whether the Kremenac
population has used fire in the same way as the Kim-Yal tribe is doing now. This ques-
tion is important because the time of the first continuous and controlled applications of
106
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
fire is still poorly constrained, in particular if taking into consideration the age of the
Kremenac findings, which places this locality in the period that is still enigmatic for
modem Archaeology.
It is worth noting that Kaluderovic alone stated that the research in 1995 com-
prised the entire surface around Kremenac, but due to the lack of time, only a basic
sketch was produced without detailed reconnaissance works. This remark is very impor-
tant because Kaluderovic emphasises that Kremenac embraces a surface of a few tens
of hectare, and at several other locations in the surrounding, one of which is called Mali
(Small) Kremenac, zones with flint fragments visible on the surface are also observed. In
his paper about the genesis and evolution of the Nis basin, Martinovic gives a geologi-
cal map of the Nis area, which delineates eight zones with Oligocene marls (?), opal and
tufa. One zone is situated next to the village of Camurlija, another is located next to Hum,
and the rest six zones are situated Northern and Western from Hum. The largest zone is
next to Rujnik. It corresponds to the line of Kremenac and its shape clearly overlaps with
the surface of the locality (Fig. 21). This fact negates the assumption of Kaluderovic that
the Kremenac flint is in the secondary position, and that it arrived to that place by strong
lacustrine activity in the geological past (Kaluderovic 1996a). The pebbles used as raw
material were indeed superimposed to certain transport by water, but it all occurred within
their own primary site.
Other five zones are the very same locations that were mentioned by Kaluderovic,
but they were not investigated by reconnaissance at all (Kaluderovic and Buric-Slavkovic
1998). Future investigations of the complex should be planned in order to perform de-
tailed reconnaissance works of the zone with opal around the Rujnik village.
Typology of chipped stone artefacts from Kremenac
Most items under consideration here, which undoubtedly represent true artefacts,
are distinct from the others by displaying characteristics typical to those produced by
technological process during chipping as well as by having a particular milky white pat-
ina which, in some cases, covers retouched surfaces, as well. Namely, all flints (in this
case opal), which contain unstable impurities, are subject to the formation of patina. The
patina can vary because of different factors, among which the following ones stand:
- rock fabric and micro texture
- rock permeability
- type, proportion and spatial distribution of impurities
- ambient factors, such as temperature and chemical composition of soil
The patina thickness can be irregular. It is noteworthy that the formation of patina
is controlled by the duration of rock’s exposure to the mentioned conditions. This long-
term process gives rise to two contrasting types of patina — milky-white and red-brown.
Both types of patina are primary distinguished by colour and their study enables under-
107
Josip Saric
standing of the cause of stone colouring. The Kremenac artefacts were made of a series of
multicoloured opals, whereas only one piece was made of coarse grained white quartzite
and three of limestone, and, as it was previously emphasised, many pieces have milky-
white patina. This detail is very important for two reasons: (1) it enables distinguishing
true artefacts from flakes formed by the fragmentation of pebbles when artillery vehicles
pass over, and, what is also important, (2) it enables distinguishing the oldest, Palaeolithic
artefacts, from those that are younger in age (Neolithic, Eneolithic), which are mentioned
by Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic (1998). But, it should be taken into account that
pristine pieces of raw material, which spent long time on the surface, had formed patina
before they were used for making artefacts. If the processed artefacts have also spent long
periods on the ground, it is very likely that patina was formed on retouched surfaces, as
well. However, if artefacts more or less resided underground, the pieces dated as Lower
Palaeolithic according to morphology could be covered by patina only along their pri-
mary surfaces, but not on the retouched ones.
To repeat again — patina is not the basic criteria for recognising the oldest Kre-
menac artefacts, but it is surely one of the most important arguments, and this should be
always kept in mind.
In the material from Kremenac some very recognizable and characteristic types of
chipped stone artefacts are present, but some specific types, for which is hard or impos-
sible to find analogous artefacts at other sites, were also found. It is important that such
artefacts were found in two or more specimens. This undoubtedly qualifies them as a
particular type, made on purpose, rather than single or accidentally shaped rock pieces.
The simplest piece from Kremenac is a single-sided chopper shown in T. XXVII/1 a,
lb. Its end is broken and thereby one part was used as a working surface, which is clearly
indicated by traces of usage.
The next type of single-sided choppers has a working surface that was formed by
removing a set of interconnected flakes, which can form a more or less regular working
surface depending on retouch grade. The single-sided choppers can have irregular (T.
XXVII/2a, 2b), straight line (T. IX/2; T, XIX/5; T. XXI/2), straight line denticulated (T.
XXVIII/la, lb), shouldered (T. XXVIII/2a, 2b), nosed (T. XII/2; T. XXIV/1)) or curved
line working surface (T. XXIX/la, lb). Taking into account that the single-sided choppers
are the simplest type of chipped stone artefacts, their final shape can be irregular and non-
standardized. Anyway, in the material from Kremenac the type of single-sided choppers
with a regular but concave working surface formed by removing a massive flake whose
large bulb leaves a concave surface is especially interesting (T. IX/2; T, XIX/5; T. XXI/2).
The fact that three such pieces are found at Kremenac implies that they represent a spe-
cific characteristic of the locality, and that this is a clearly defined type that was applied
for particular working activities.
Another specific characteristic of the material from Kremenac is the presence of
single-sided choppers with a cylindrical body. Two almost identical pieces were found,
implying that they are not accidental occurrences. These pieces differ only in that that the
chopper shown in T. IV/2 is made of limestone, whereas the sample shown in T. XXX/la,
108
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
lb is made of opal. The side opposite to the working surface of the latter piece is ergo-
nomically modified in order to provide easier handling. It can be stated that there are also
polygonal choppers that represent transitional types between the single- and double-sided
choppers. The retouch does not form a sinusoidal or zigzag working surface on the po-
lygonal choppers. By contrast, the flake facets produce pyramidal (T. III/2; T. XVIII/2) or
irregularly-shaped polygonal surfaces, and this clearly differentiates these artefacts from
other types of choppers. Additional modifications are not common on choppers, however,
the artefacts from Kremenac are specific because certain samples show evidence of ergo-
nomic adjustments of used pebbles or flakes done by additional retouching (example T.
XVIII/2; T. XXIX/la, lb; T. XXX/la, lb; T. XXXI/la, b).
An important characteristic of the Kremenac industry is the appearance of hand
axes. They do not represent classical, nicely modelled and double-sided retouched sam-
ples typical for Lower Palaeolithic/Acheulian industry, but in this case there is a set of
rudimentary proto-bifaces. The proto-bifaces from Kremenac are made of pebbles (T.
XXXIV/la, lb; T. XXXV/la, lb; T. XXXVI/la, lb) or of massive flakes from large
pebbles (T. IX/4; T. XXIV/2; XXV/1, 2). In both cases, the retouch is rough and has the
same characteristics as the retouch on choppers. In spite of the fact that the majority of
choppers and proto-bifaces belongs to the surface findings or the findings from the hu-
mus layer, for those findings for which there are data about finding conditions, i.e. about
the layer from which they originate, it is sure that they belong to the same stratigraphic
context and that they were used simultaneously. It is very important because in that case
we will not mistakenly date these choppers as representating older horizons with respect
to proto-bifaces.
Among proto-bifaces, there is one nice triangle-shaped specimen with smoothly
convex basement, which is made on a flake with preserved lens-like dihedral percussion
platform (T. XI/1). This artefact was found in sonde 1, excavation layer (e. 1.) IV. Its dor-
sal side is mostly under cortex, whereas along both edges a rough retouch is developed.
At the ventral side, the retouch was applied only along the left edge. It formed a zigzag
working surface, and on this side a nicely marked bulb of percussion is observed. This
artefact is interesting because the axis of the flake and the axis of the tool itself do not
overlap, but the flake axis is moved aside. It is one of the technological characteristics
that are found not only on Acheulian, but also in Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, and could
be significant for distinguishing from the artefacts of younger horizons (discussed also
below).
A very pronounced characteristic of the material form Kremenac is a series of
sidescrapers that were done on larger or smaller pebbles using a finer retouch than the
retouch of choppers and proto-bifaces. The shape of flakes is not standardized, but there
is a clear classification of sidescrapers according to the shape of the working surface. This
shape probably depended on the type of work for which a certain shape was most suit-
able. Before presenting the types of sidescrapers that are abundant in the material from
Kremenac, differences between sidescrapers and scrapers should be reconsidered. These
artefacts do not differ according to their use, and terms used for describing the artefacts
are applied in order to distinguish the location of retouch which shapes the working sur-
face. If the retouch is located mostly along one end (proximal or distal), the tool is defined
109
Josip Saric
as an endscraper. If the retouch is primarily located on one of the lateral margins (left or
right), the tool is defined as a sidescraper. In both cases, the working surface is used for
performing the same or similar works - scraping of certain soft or hard surfaces. This
produced characteristic damages that confirm that the terms applied for describing this
type of artefacts were used appropriately (Semenov 1957).
Among the scrapers from Kremenac occur pieces that are not retouched, because
the primary shape of the flake edge permitted to use such artefacts without special modi-
fications. Such samples were defined on the basis of typical traces of edge wears (T,
XXVI/3; T. XXXIX/1, 2, 3), and all such samples from Kremenac have convex working
surfaces that are parallel with the larger axis of flakes.
The basic shape of sidescrapers from Kremenac are specimens which have even
working surfaces, parallel with elongated axis of the flake on which they were made.
Characteristic artefacts are shown in T. XXVI/4 and T. XL/3.
Retouched sidescrapers with working surfaces parallel with the elongated axis of
the flake can have convex T. XI/3; T. XXXVIII/la, lb; T. XL/la, lb), concave (T. VI/5a,
5b; T. X/2a, 2b; T. XXII/1; T. XXXVIII/2a, 2b; T. XL/2a, 2b), sinusoidal (T. XXXIX/4a,
4b) or nosed (T. XLII/la, lb) working surfaces.
Only one sidescraper has an even working surface that is oblique with respect to
the elongated axis of the flake (T. XXXVII/4a, 4b).
Doubled sidescrapers have both lateral edges retouched, which are convex in shape
and are connected on the distal end (T. XL/4; T. XLI/3). The sample shown in T. XLI/3
could represent a prototype of Mousterian points that are characteristic for advanced Mid-
dle Palaeolithic, and which were made on typical Levalloisian flakes.
In the material from Kremenac scrapers are somewhat less abundant than sidescrap-
ers. They are represented by classical endscrapers on a flake (T. XXII/2, 3; XLII/3a, 3b),
discoidal scrapers (XLII/2a, 2b; T. XLIII/la, lb), trapezoidal endscrapers (T. XLIII/2a,
2b), convergent endscrapers (T. XLI/la, lb, 2a, 2b) and by a single piece of irregularly
shaped endscraper (T. XLIII/3a, 3b).
A tool of trapezoidal shape shown in XLI/4 represents a combination of sidescrap-
er/endscraper and, in contrast with all other sidescrapers and scrapers that have retouched
dorsal edge, its retouch is placed along the ventral edge.
A trapezoidal cleaver (T. XLIV/la, lb) and a massive flake with nicely shaped
encoche formed by inverse retouch on the right edge of the proximal side (T. XLIV/2a,
2b) are represented by a single sample each.
Some non-retouched flakes and blades were considered Lower Palaeolithic in age
only according to the place of finding. Namely, they were found within layers from which
clearly typologically defined Lower Palaeolithic artefacts originated. Non-retouched
flakes from the pit of sonde 1 (T. VI/1, 2, 3, 4) do not have clearly defined stratigraphy,
because the material from the pit could have been mixed up. Taking into account that they
were found with two proto-bifaces and one concave sidescraper, and that they are enough
characteristic from technological point of view, they must not be misdated as post-Pal-
aeolithic. Non-retouched flakes shown in T. XI/2, 4, T. XII/1, T. XIII/3, 4, T. XIV/1, T.
XIX/1, 3, T. XXI/3, 4, 5, 6, T. XXIII/4, T. XXVI/1, 2, 3 derive from a stratigraphic con-
text in which pieces of raw material with traces of exploitation (T. VIII/2; T. XIII/2; T.
no
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
XXI/1), cores (T. XI/5; T. XII/3; T. XIX/4) and hammerstones were found. It means that
these non-retouched flakes were formed during testing the quality of raw material, as by
products during chipping larger specimens (choppers and proto-bifaces), or because there
was a need for smaller pieces. The last is inferred from the size of some cores (T. XI/5;
T. XII/3) and from the presence of a few retouched flakes which shape was not modi-
fied (T. XVIII/3; T. XXII/4; T. XX/1, 2). Anon-retouched flake found on the surface (T.
XLIV/3a, 3b) has distinctive characteristics of the Levalloisian techno-complex, which
certainly implies that this item does not belong to the post-Palaeolithic production.
General characteristics of chipped stone industry from Kremenac
There are few artefacts from the collection from Kremenac, which belong to post-
Palaeolithic period (T. 1/1-12). These artefacts are from the Eneolithic or Bronze Age pe-
riod, when the habitants of Velika and Mala Humska Cuka came to Kremenac searching
for suitable raw material for making chipped stone artefacts.
More significant and interesting Palaeolithic artefacts are those that due to their
morphology and typology drew particular attention of the investigators. After reporting
all the Kremenac artefacts, including both those from the excavations and those collected
from the surface, the story about this locality provides new confirmations for earlier state-
ments, but also provokes some questions for which so far no final answers exist.
Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic (1998) noticed some important characteristics
of the material from Kremenac and, at the beginning of their investigations, on the basis
of the incomplete analysis of findings, they wrote:
„ The tools vary in size from ten to up to thirty five centimetres and their forms can
be described as natural shapes, flat-like, egg-like, trapezoidal or others that are not easy
to define typologically. Usually, the major part of the surface of tools is unprocessed,
whereas their smaller part has clearly visible working surface. Some tools have rough,
zigzag edges, while other have working surfaces that were not previously processed, but
formed by utilization. ”
The above cited comment of Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic is right, although
in the recovered material there are nicely retouched items of clearly recognised typology.
However, in the surrounding items having shapes that are not easy to incorporate in the
existed typological frame of the Palaeolithic finds are more abundant. The artefacts have
unusual size and mass and this is one of the basic characteristics of the Kremenac collec-
tion.
Opal, which dominates in the Kremenac area, is used as raw material. The opal
quality completely fulfils the requests of the chipped stone artefacts industry. There are
only two artefacts made of quartzite and three items made of limestone. The utilization
of this raw material of rather poor quality is the consequence of a rational approach in the
use of available material. Due to practical reasons, all raw materials that could be used for
making artefacts were indeed utilized.
For making the opal artefacts, natural pebbles, which surface and edges were not
rounded too much were used. This means that the pebbles did not undergo long transport
111
Josip Saric
and were not long exposed to abrasive effects of water, sand and stone. The geological
context in which these pebbles were formed has still not been well defined and, therefore,
further investigations are foreseen. It is evident that the area of Kremenac (Fig. 3) spa-
tially completely overlaps with one of the opal zones in the areas of Rujnik and Hum (Fig.
20), which were mentioned by Martinovic (1976). During the selection of these pebbles
it was always taken into consideration that they should fulfil certain ergonomic criteria
in order to minimize needs for additional modifications. Frequently, pebbles that already
have naturally narrow or relatively sharp edges, which can get the function of working
surfaces, are being selected. In such a way, the minimal effort gives rise to maximal ef-
fects. Such an approach resulted in numerous pebbles that are available for holding and
with working surfaces that lack retouch traces but have visible damages that resulted from
usage.
The pebbles could be as heavy as more than 4 kg (T. XV/2), but also as light as
only few hundreds of grams (T. XVIII/2). In case those artefacts are being produced from
flakes from large pebbles, distinctively large pieces are being used and they can be deter-
mined as fragmented pebbles rather than as flakes (T. XLV/2, weighing approx. 2.6 kg).
Regardless whether we speak about entire pebbles or their fragments/flakes, their
dimension is controlled by the type of work to be done by the given artefact. Therefore,
the largest and the heaviest tools from Kremenac are represented by mallets and ham-
merstones, i.e. mallets/hammerstones. These tools were applied for the same or similar
works - from a larger piece of raw material, i.e. core, another smaller piece (flake) was
knapped with the aim to use it for other types of work. Such a flake could have been used
in its original shape, or it could have been subsequently retouched. It is common that
hammerstones are considered as tools used for knapping smaller parts from cores. Mal-
lets are massive and rough tolls used for chopping up huge pieces of raw material, either
to ensure easier transportation or in order to obtain smaller pieces suitable for making
a core or a specific tool. Given that the industry of Kremenac is rich in heavy tools that
were frequently made from fragments produced by primary crashing of larger pebbles, it
can be concluded that in this process mallets were used. The fact that after crashing the
pebbles smaller pieces could be further processed implies that the mallet was used also
as hammerstone. This can be a likely explanation why double term mallet/hammerstone
was used.
Besides the tools for making chipped stone artefacts, the industry of Kremenac is
also represented by items that, according to their morphological-technological-typolog-
ical characteristics, provide much larger possibilities for determining the place of Kre-
menac in the chronological scale. It is very ungrateful if the chronological location of a
site is determined only according to typology of the recovered artefacts. It is clear that
dating based on typology of artefacts and on analogy with species from other localities
always leaves a big space for debates, because this approach is associated with many
shortcomings. However, there are situations when such approach is inevitable, and this
exactly is the case of Kremenac, especially given the present level of investigations. In
the beginning of their research, Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic (1998) pointed out
that there was a lack of stratigraphical and sedimentological analyses, and that the entire
geological context of the site was largely unknown. However, given that a site like Kre-
112
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
menac undoubtedly can have large significance, it would be unprofessional not to try to
give an interpretation using all presently available data. It means the necessity for taking
into consideration the analyses of artefacts collected from the surface that was affected by
both human activities and natural phenomena, such as gravitational and debris transport.
Including such artefacts for general analyses, because among the artefacts collected from
the surface occur some of the most beautiful and typologically most characteristic sam-
ples that play a very important role in the age determination of the locality.
It is good that a considerable number of the Kremenac artefacts derives from geo-
logical layers, i.e. from the stratigraphic context. On the other hand, the layers are not
found to contain organic matter that could be suitable for I4C dating. In the sketch 1/96,
done in the field-work on July 19th 1996 in trench 1, along the Northern profile, a few
places of sampling for palinological analyses were marked. It is a layer at depths between
0.65 m and 0.81 m, and it is marked by marshy clays. This layer is important because it
covers a pale-gray layer with calcified interlayers and opalic pebbles among which arte-
facts were found. Unfortunately, these palinological samples were not found in the depot
of the National Museum in Nis. Similarly, the results of palinological analyses, if they had
been completed at all, have never been even mentioned by Kaluderovic.
The choppers of the Kremenac collection represent the most intriguing findings
from this site. This is a significant suite of findings even in the context of the Lower Palae-
olithic of entire Europe. Thank to works of De Mortillet, bifaces in the form of hand axes
became the representative of the Lower Palaeolithic localities (Mortillet 1900). However,
investigations done in Southeast Asia in the second part of the thirties in the 20th century
provided information that these hand axes were used simultaneously to roughly proc-
essed pebbles — choppers (Movius 1950). Discoveries of the chopper type tools were not
limited only to southeast Asia, but their presence was noticed in Europe as well, where
they were discovered along high sea shores and old river terraces in Portugal (Breuil and
Zbyszewski 1942, 1945).
A contribution to the investigation of choppers in middle Europe is given by
Zebera (1952) who noticed them at high plateaus and river terraces in middle Bohemia
during geological mapping of the area. Similar artefacts were published by Rust (1956)
and Mohr and Mottl (1956).
During the sixties of the last century investigations aimed at finding the earliest
pre-Acheulian artefacts were reinforced. They were especially intensive in France, Spain
and Italy, where such findings were also stratified. The results of these studies revealed a
plethora of archaic artefacts made of roughly chopped pebbles (Valoch 1966).
Investigations were also done in the region of east Africa and they provided many
reports on findings of remnants of both hominids and artefacts. In 1989, Bonifay pub-
lished data about artefacts from many sites from Massif Central dated to approx. 2.5 Ma.
Shortly after, he presented a comprehensive review about the earliest settlements of Eu-
rope and Near East (Bonifay and Vandermeersch 1991).
The conservatism of some researchers and their unwillingness or inability to ac-
cept new ideas, as well as the inhibition by traditional attitudes, have resulted in numerous
113
Josip Saric
debates in which huge energy has been consumed for diluting the main core of study. This
culminated in 1993 at the Tautavel meeting organized by the European Science Founda-
tion. At this meeting Bosinski claimed that the oldest artefacts from Massive Central
are, in fact, tephrofacts that formed during volcanic eruptions. According to his opinion,
these are pseudoartefacts, and he suggested that all findings for which the assumed age
was higher than a million years are problematic and they should not be taken into con-
sideration. As the only exception he mentioned the artefacts from Dmanisi, which were
reliably dated by the finding of a hominid mandible (Valoch 1996). The entire discussion
about the age of European choppers involved geomorphological aspects of sites, Aeolian
abrasive traces on choppers, and fractures on pebbles formed by natural forces. Namely,
during transport physical interaction between pebbles occurs, and this commonly results
in their fracturing. Such breaking often ensures that the pebbles are transported by gravity
along steep slopes. This is actually a complex problem that still requires more systematic
investigations, analyses of archaeological material from stratified sites along with reliable
geomorphological analyses of these sites. Today, nobody denies the existence of so-called
geoartefacts that look sometimes very much like true artefacts, but nobody can also deny
that chopper type tools exist, and that they exist even in post-Palaeolithic cultures where
their artificial nature can be easily proved.
The choppers from Kremenac were made from pebbles or massive flakes chopped
out from larger pebbles. The shaping of a working surface is doing by removing a few
flakes from one side, and this is a way of producing single-sided choppers. In another
way, by stepwise removing flakes from both sides double-sided choppers are made. In
both cases, the formed working surfaces are roughly sinusoidal or zigzag in shape and
afterwards there is no need for additional retouching of the blade on the working surface.
The shape of facettes suggests that these artefacts were made by using hard hammer-
stones, similar to those found at Kremenac.
An important characteristic of the artificially made choppers is their even working
surface and by this feature they are readily distinguished from the geofacts. In contrast to
the geofacts, for which different natural forces randomly break the pebble’s edges mak-
ing a single and non-organized surface, the Kremenac samples display evidence of the
same system applied to both primary pebbles, used as the background (Fig. 22a), and to
massive flakes derived from larger pebbles (Fig. 22b). The massive flake (Fig. 22b) has a
lens-shaped section caused by the appearance of a distinctive bulb of percussion, which,
in turn, is an unequivocal indicator of concentrated strokes. The lens-like section of the
pebble from Fig. 22a was made in a way that the entire surface was circularly thinned in
order to enlighten handling. It is a mutual characteristic of these two artefacts, which was,
in this case, produced in two different ways.
Another, more important characteristic, was produced in the same way on both
these artefact types, and this is what distinguishes artificially shaped choppers from geo-
facts. Stepwise chopping of larger or smaller flakes, first from one, and then from the
other side of a pebble/flake, produces a sinusoidal or zigzag cutting edge of the working
surface that can be observed from the frontal side of the tool. However, if the artefact is
observed laterally, it is clear that the convex edge of the pebble/flake has been removed
by retouching and that the blade of the working surface is even. This system of organized
114
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
retouch appears only with the artificially shaped samples. The choppers made by human
hand can be patined, and they can have erosion-driven rounded edges. It mostly depends
on the conditions to which the artefacts were superimposed, and, therefore, there are
samples without patina and lacking rounding as a response of erosion processes. This is
the reason why these characteristics cannot be always considered as reliable criteria for
dating.
Proto-bifaces are artefacts which, in both chronological and technological sense,
pre-date the most recognizable interval of Lower Palaeolithic cultures, represented by
nicely shaped double-sided retouched hand axes. On a biface it is possible to recognize
the basic shape of a hand axe, but the retouch itself may not be double-sided. If a retouch
exists on both sides of the artefact, it does not cover both surfaces entirely (T. XXXIV/la,
lb; T. XXXV/la, lb). Some samples are not even retouched, but they are prepared in
such way to obtain massive flakes with primary wedge shape after chopping, hence, sub-
sequent shaping is not necessary (T. XXV/1, 2). The proto-bifaces from Kremenac imply
the same approach of shaping, which was applied for choppers found in the same context.
Proto-bifaces sensu stricto, i.e. those that have a double-sided retouch, were made
by removing rough flakes that produce very pronounced alternating facettes that, in turn,
form a zigzag shaped working surface, similar to those on choppers (Fig. 23).
A part of the Kremenac collection having smaller and less precisely retouched
artefacts, among which sidescrapers are especially distinguished, gives a strong impres-
sion of its old age. That archaic characteristic implies either the early phase of Mousterian
with a still strong influence of Acheulian traditions or to part of the Acheulian industry,
which was previously neglected due to the investigations of bifaces as its most charac-
teristic segment. The assumption that a Middle Palaeolithic horizon exists in Kremenac
was given by Kaluderovic (1996b) in one of his reports. A possibility that the Mousterian
inventory exists was repeated in the first paper, where part of these surface findings was
published by Saric (2011). In order to solve a complex problem the material from Kre-
menac, we need to recall ourselves to the precious work of Kelley. In 1937 he emphasised
that the Acheulian industry, which is distinguished according to large artefacts of biface
type, is, in fact, rich in artefacts made of flakes (Kelley 1937). Among these artefacts
there are numerous smaller hand points and characteristic sidescrapers of different types
and varieties which, according to their morphology, largely resemble the Mousterian ar-
tefacts. Outside of their stratigraphical context, these sidescrapers would be surely dated
as Mousterian, instead of Acheulian. The sidescrapers from Kremenac (Fig. 24) are very
similar to the Acheulian pieces described by Kelley (1937).
After having a complete insight in the Kremenac collection from the National
museum in Nis, we think that it is an exclusively Lower Palaeolithic locality with part of
material that is only similar to the Middle Palaeolithic artefacts. It is interesting that in the
Lower Palaeolithic locality of Bilzingsleben (Germany) there are sinusoidal sidescrap-
ers on massive flakes which completely correspond to the artefact from Kremenac (T.
XXXIX/4a, 4b; fig. 24c). The sinusoidal sidescraper and nosed sidescraper on the flake
with Levalloisian characteristics (T. XXXIX/4a, 4b; T. XLII/la, lb; fig. 24e), due to their
clear analogy with the Bilzingsleben site, additionally imply that the group of the Kre-
menac artefacts with a hypothetical Mousterian provenience has, in fact, to be related to
115
Josip Saric
the Lower Palaeolithic habitus. In terms of typology, these artefacts can really be related
to the Middle Palaeolithic habitus, but morphological characteristics do not prove such
a conclusion. This fact leads to the assumption that maybe there are two chronological
horizons at Kremenac, but both Lower Palaeolithic in age. The younger horizon contains
artefacts that morphologically “announce” characteristics which will become dominant
during the Middle Palaeolithic, and according to which the Mousterian techno-complex
will become distinguishable.
One of the indications of the existence of two chronological horizons is observed
on artefacts which represent re-utilized older pieces. These tools were made by using
samples that have been superimposed to atmospheric and soil influence. These samples
had patina that was later removing by retouching. Despite it is indirect evidence that does
not give absolute certainty in concluding, this is something that indeed exists in Kre-
menac, and should not be neglected.
Ergonomy
Ergonomy is a science of the modem world, which is dealing with shaping prod-
ucts aimed at modulating them in order to be suitable for application and to induce the
most pleasant feeling to those who use them. The rise of ergonomy is related to rapid
developments in technology and technical devices. These devices had been getting more
and more perfect and efficient with time, but then, men’s limited capabilities appeared
as limitation factors in their further development. A technologically perfect device is not
ergonomic (and not useful to full extent), if a man, with all his bio-psycho-social char-
acteristics, is not able to use it successfully. This inability of successful application in
present day life conditions is becoming a limiting factor of both technological and techni-
cal developments. These are much more complex processes than it seems at first sight.
Ergonomy integrates complex investigations in which biologists, anthropologists, psy-
chologists and sociologists are involved. The ultimate aim is to integrate their knowledge
in a clear and accorded assemblage of requirements that are necessary to be fulfilled in
projecting and designing the final products in order to satisfy all man’s needs.
Ergonomy is rarely mentioned in archaeological literature, despite there are many
reasons to discuss its aspects in the prehistoric (and not only prehistoric) context.
When we speak about ergonomy of the findings from Kremenac, we take into
consideration that every single retouch was not produced by the shaping a particular tool
and its useable working surfaces. There is also additional shaping of tools along handling
surfaces in order to adapt the tool for easy and safe applications. The way of such adapt-
ing tools can be threefold, and evidence that a careful and deliberated approach is applied
is present on many artefacts from Kremenac. This approach is distinctively more needed
for massive samples because it is very important that such samples have a good and safe
fathom in order to avoid accidental drop-down which can produce damages and even
injuries.
The first way of adapting artefacts to be safe and comfortable for using was ap-
plied during the selection of pebbles to be used as mallets or hammerstones. In this con-
116
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
text, pebbles that already have original cavities suitable for fathom are being selected
because further modification of these pebbles is not needed. The only attention is paid
to the orientation of such artefacts and on the position of a future working surface. The
heavy mallet shown in T. XLVI/1 is the best example for this among the material from
Kremenac. Given its size and weight, it is clear that it was handled by both hands during
application. When the hands are placed opposite to the working surface that has typical
traces of frazzling, there is only one position when the tool “lays” in the hands, and when
the fathom is assured by thumbs that “fall” in two natural holes.
The second way adopting tools to safer and more comfortable holding and to more
productive applying of tool appears on artefacts that have undesirable and uncomfortable
bulges. In such cases, the bulges are removed by rough but directed retouching. In such
a way, the bulges are flattened to an even surface or removed to form a cavity that will
provide a comfortable space for fingers. There are many such samples in the material
from Kremenac, and the most characteristic are shown in T. XLVI/2-4; T. XLVII/2-4;
T. XLVIII/1-5. Traces of identical procedures in ergonomic adaptations of artefacts are
present on numerous Lower Palaeolithic samples from Sahara.
The third way of adaptations is the combination of the two ways presented above.
Apiece of raw material is carefully chosen, and then oriented in a way to use natural cavi-
ties. If there are some disturbing surfaces, they are removed by simple retouching, as it is
seen on a sample T. XLVII/1.
There is no doubt that numerous tools from the material from Kremenac have
zones of retouch that were not formed as working but holding surfaces. These tools, ir-
respectively to their dimensions and weight, have perfect ergonomy, and it is one of im-
portant characteristics of this industry.
Regional context of findings from Kremenac
After reviewing the collection of chipped stone artefacts from Kremenac, it is
necessary to point out to dilemma that has occupied Kaluderovic. In his first summarized
presentation of the excavation results, Kaluderovic (1996a) postulated that massive and
roughly processed tools, although not having direct analogies in the surrounding areas,
probably belong to the Lower Palaeolithic. Kaluderovic (1996b) extends his next report
with the following conclusion: “Eventually; numerous Middle Palaeolithic tools, prob-
ably belonging to the earlier phases, and the possibility that older archaeological stratum
is Lower Palaeolithic in age, will surely enrich a poor data set about early hominization
of Europe, and introduce a new geographical area into the knowledge about this proc-
ess ”.
In the next presentation of the same results of investigations that were more ex-
tensive, but still summarized, Kaluderovic and Buric Slavkovic (1998, 217) suggest that
these tools originated from a later Palaeolithic phase or even from the post-Palaeolithic
period, stating: “. ..their unusual characteristics could have been formed as the result of
direct exploitation of this flint-rich deposit, i.e. they could have been at the beginning of a
long and complex process of stone usage, which later continued in other places. ”
117
Josip Saric
It is surprising why such an experienced researcher as Kaiuderovic was so hesitant
and uncertain with dating the findings from Kremenac. By the time when Kaiuderovic
was publishing his reports, archaeometallurgy became popular in Serbian archaeology,
hence many investigations were aimed at discovering old traces of mining. That is the
reason why in all his three reports of investigations at Kremenac, Kaiuderovic has more
or less insisted on these traces, although the evidence supporting such conclusions was
not that strong. Given that true mining activities involve specific technological proce-
dures, some of which can be very complex, and taking into account that they so far have
not been registered at this site, Kremenac, at least in this moment, cannot be treated as a
mine. However, this by no means diminishes the significance of Kremenac. This site defi-
nitely contains traces of raw material exploitation, but this exploitation was rudimentary,
mostly involving collecting from the surface.
Another reason why Kaiuderovic was uncertain in dating the Kremenac artefacts
is related to the fact that during his research findings of similar age from the surrounding
were mostly unknown. Therefore, it seems that he alone became suspicious in his first
assumption. Although the project of studying the Kozamika cave started in the eight-
ies of the last century, the results of the investigation of Lower Palaeolithic localities in
the areas of Rhodopes and Stara Mt. (Balkan) in Bulgaria had still not been published
when Kaiuderovic wrote his reports. By that time, the results of the investigations of
Lower Palaeolithic sites in Turkey - more precisely those in Turkish part of Thrace, where
some of very significant sites were discovered, such as cave Yarimburgaz, Ku§tepe, Ya-
tak and Balitepe — were also not known. Due to this lack of data for direct correlation,
Kaiuderovic had no idea that he was in possession of Lower Palaeolithic artefacts. This,
in turn, was the reason why he was gradually ‘displacing’ his determinations from Lower
Palaeolithic to post-Palaeolithic periods.
Even at the moment of writing this text there is still, at least, one dilemma which
is difficult to solve taking into account the quantity of the available material, poorly con-
strained stratigraphy of the site, and the lack of data about organic matter. It is related
to a group of artefacts that are similar to those Middle Palaeolithic in age, however, in
morphological sense, due to archaic characteristics, they are strongly considered Lower
Palaeolithic artefacts. On the other hand, it is very important and must be emphasised
again, that the Lower Palaeolithic artefacts from Kremenac, can be in technological and
morphological sense clearly defined. They certainly are neither mining tools nor half-
products. The tools defined by Kaiuderovic as related to mining, are, in fact, massive
mallets and hammerstones used in the process of making chipped stone artefacts.
** *
The present level of investigations of the earliest hominization of the European
continent implies theories about four possible directions of migrations (Ivanova 2006).
The most likely direction of the early hominization of Europe was Africa - Near East
- Balkan Peninsula and this direction was confirmed by numerous material evidence.
During the Pliocene and at the beginning of the Pleistocene Dardanelles and Bosphorus
118
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
were dry lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, and the latter in that
time was a freshwater lake. The migration of megafauna that preferred a colder climate
could have used this direction, from the Near East, i.e. Asia Minor to Europe. A logical
consequence of these movements was human migrations following the wild animals as a
source of highly valuable proteins.
Extraordinary significance for tracing directions of early hominization of Europe
across the Balkan Peninsula have sites from the territory of present day Bulgaria. It is
noteworthy that the locality of the Kozamika cave (in the close vicinity of Belogradcik
on the slopes of Balkan Mt.) is situated around 70 km air distance from Kremenac. The
findings from the Kozamika cave are considered the oldest Lower Palaeolithic findings
in Europe, with some artefacts dated to 1.500.000 and 600.000 years BP. The localities
of Siroka Poljana and Kremenete are open air sites in the western Rodopes, which are
separated by a distance of approximately 10 km. By analogy with the age of the Cauca-
sus sites, these two localities were dated to around 500.000 years BP. By this dating, it is
postulated that this area in Bulgaria was settled during the period between 800.000 and
500.000 years BP (Ivanova 2006).
Pebble tools are registered in layers 11a, lib and lid from the Kozamika cave,
and that can be especially significant for the interpretation of findings from Kremenac
(Guadelli et al. 2005). However, it is important to underline differences, as well, which
are not exclusively related to dimensions, but also to typology, because the artefacts on
pebbles from Kozamika are defined as sidescrapers.
Mihailovic has mentioned pebble tools in the frame of the Mousterian culture in
the Balkans, describing a very rich industry at the locality of Medena stijena (Mihailovic
1993). However, the pebble tools occur in a completely different context in this locality,
appearing as a logical consequence of the rational use of available raw materials. At Kre-
menac, where high quality raw material is abundant, and where the original grain size of
raw material does not dictate reduced dimensions of artefacts, choppers can be interpreted
only as the inventory of a culture older than that belonging to the classical Mousterian.
This type of tools from Kremenac are larger than the pebble choppers found in the Ko-
zamika cave, as well as than those from considerably younger layers of Medena stijena.
Namely, in the latter two sites the size of tools was controlled by the original size of raw
material (i.e. available pebbles which they were made of).
The series of chipped pebbles with Acheulian characteristics from Valea Dirjo-
vului, Farca§ele, Valea Lupului and Mitoc - Malul Galben in Romania (Paunescu, 1970;
11-13, Fig. 2), as well as Lower Palaeolithic artefacts made of smaller flint and quartzite
pebbles from Verteszolos in Hungary - all dated to approximately 350.000 years, can be
regarded as unequivocal indications for tracing the earliest hominization of southeastern
Europe (Dobo§ 1988). Along this direction and further to the West, there are sites such as
Donje Pazariste, Golubovec and Punikve with artefacts of Acheulian provenience (Malez
1979), i.e. Sandalja I, close to Pula, with a chopper type artefact from Villafranchian lay-
ers (Malez 1987; Karavanic and Jankovic 2006). This further corroborates the supposed
direction of migration.
In the centre of this wide area of the above mentioned sites occurs Kremenac, near
the Rujnik village, as one of the potentially key localities. Despite some age differences
119
Josip Saric
among some localities, all of them confirm the assumption about an early settling of the
Balkan Peninsula. It is important in the close vicinity of the Rujnik village, some 2 km
eastern from Kremenac, the rocky masif of Velika Humska Cuka occurs, whereas around
10 km to the East the Sicevo Gorge is situated. At both localities occur numerous smaller
caves which could have given the early habitants comfortable shelters. From these places
they could have been moving around in order to further investigate the wider area search-
ing for necessary food and raw material resources. In the last years the excavations at
Velika and Mala Balanica sites in the Sicevo gorge were carried out. The age of mandible
BH-1 from Mala Balanica was estimated to 397.000 - 525.000 years (Rink et al. 2013).
This clearly suggests a possibility that the habitants from this area were also going to
Kremenac as a source of quality raw material for making chipped stone artefacts.
Findings from the closer and wider Balkan surroundings of the Kremenac locality
imply that the area of this site was unavoidable in the migration of Lower Palaeolithic
populations across present day Southeastern Europe. In other words, this is part of the
route used for hominization of, not only Southeastern Europe, but, more importantly,
entire Europe. New investigations of the Velika and Mala Balanica caves in the Sicevo
Gorge will certainly help in the interpretation of the Kremenac findings.
The observations reveal that in the area of Bosphorus in northwestern Turkey more
than one Lower Palaeolithic industry was active. Authors point out that, on the basis of
the present level of investigation, it is not possible to answer to the question if the reasons
for variability of these industries are related to chronological, functional, ecological or
some other differences (Runnels and Ozdogan 2001). Findings from Kremenac fit to this
conclusion. The artefacts are roughly processed, with strong characteristics of the so-
called “pebble culture”, but part of them show properties of early bifaces approaching to
Acheulian. Irrespectively of morphological characteristics, a majority of these artefacts
was made of unprepared pebbles, and most of them were chosen carefully, so it was
not necessary to modify their natural shape substantially. The retouch is anyway rough
and made by hard flakers, and that is inferred from the presence of negative facets with
very distinctive cavities at places where the bulb of percussion was removed. Dinger and
Slimak (2007) also emphasised difficulties in estimating the age of findings in Turkish
Thrace, emphasising that the largest problems were rare finding sites, a relatively low
number of artefacts and the fact that the majority of artefacts were found on the surface.
At present, Kremenac is an isolated site in the territory of Serbia with a relatively modest
number of artefacts mostly belonging to surface findings. The so-called chopper indus-
try from Kremenac fits to the view derived from the investigation of material from Es-
kice Sirtu and Giimu§dere (Runnels and Ozdogan 2001) and Yatak, Ku^tepe and Balitepe
(Dinger and Slimak 2007) in Turkish Thrace. However, the situation is here additionally
complicated by the fact that except this chopper industry, evidence of a biface industry
as well as artefacts which carry some characteristics of a Middle Palaeolithic industry
are also present at Kremenac. It is noteworthy that the younger dating of the sites from
Turksih Thrace is the consequence of insufficient investigations and natural conditions in
which older sites probably could not be preserved.
Having in mind a generally accepted interpretation that the typical Balkan Moust-
erian is characterized by the presence of a relatively large percentage of retouched Upper
120
KREMENAC - DONJOPALEOLITSKO NALAZISTE
Palaeolithic types of artefacts (Runnels and Ozdogan 2001), than the supposed Mous-
terian material from Kremenac provides a completely different image. Differences are
observed in the absence of Upper Palaeolithic artefact types, in the negligible presence
of Levalloisian flakes, i.e. in the total absence of classical triangle Levallois points, no
matter if retouched or not. The almost entire Kremenac industry is based on the use of
massive flakes removed from unprepared pebbles, hence, it could be stated that the Mous-
terian horizon at Kremenac carries such strong archaic features that looks much closer to
the Lower than to the Middle Palaeolithic. This is a significant argument that probably
directly relates this group of artefacts to those of Lower Palaeolithic age.
This statement is supported by recent radiometric age determinations of mandible
BH-1, which was found during the excavations at the Mala Balanica site, in the Sicevo
Gorge (Rink et al. 2013). These data promote Kremenac as one of the most significant
archaeological sites of Southeastern Europe.
***
Despite ambiguities which the artefacts from Kremenac place in front of the re-
searchers, it is in this moment not so important to date our locality, but to emphasise the
fact that a Lower Palaeolithic industry does exist at Kremenac, no matter if we speak
about its early, middle or late phases.
Conclusions that are based on the combination of excavation analyses and those
obtained from the surface investigations could be summarized as follows:
- Kremenac should be regarded as a place of exploitation of quality raw material,
but, taking into account the way of exploitation, it can neither be considered a
mine nor an indication of mining activities;
- Apart of raw material exploitation, Kremenac was also a place for sporadical
stops and dwellings of prehistoric communities, because, along with tools used
for breaking larger pebbles, clearly defined tools used in other every day activi-
ties also occur;
- At Kremenac undoubtedly exists a Lower Palaeolithic industry;
- This industry is characterized by the use of large pebbles or massive flakes;
- Besides retouched and typologically clearly defined artefacts, the Kremenac in-
dustry has artefacts represented by unprocessed pebbles; the originally suitable
form of these pebbles made their use possible, and that is evident from the pres-
ence of characteristic application traces;
- There are indications that two chronological horizons exist, both Lower Palaeo-
lithic in age;
- The artefacts defined by Kaluderovic as mining tools represent, in fact, mallets
and hammerstones used in the process of raw material preparation and of making
chipped stone artefacts;
- Tools which were interpreted by Kaluderovic as half-products possibly deriving
from the post-Palaeolithic period, are, in fact, Palaeolithic tools that represent
well defined artefacts characterized by the presence of frazzle traces on their
working surfaces;
121
Josip Saric
- Artefacts with some characteristics that indicate the Mousterian industry and
with strongly pronounced archaic elements most likely are pre-Mousterian in
age, and they could be related to the younger horizon of the Lower Palaeolithic.
***
Archaeology, as a relatively young science, is not and still cannot be, in many of
its segments, as exact as some natural sciences are. Many conclusions are the result of
the researchers’ observations that are based on unverifiable assumptions that frequently
pose more questions than provide answers. When we hold a chipped stone artefact in our
hands, we will define it morphologically, typologically and, maybe, with respect to its
functional aspects. If we are lucky to find uncontaminated organic matter from the same
layer, we can also determine its age. However, on the other side, there are questions that
will forever remain unanswered: was the artefact made by a male or a female person, was
that person young or old, was he/she healthy or ill, did he/she have family, in which part
of the day the artefact was made, did he/she have any developed conscience about the past
and what were his/her visions of the future...?
The researcher’s higher or lower capability for abstract thinking and for synthe-
sizing and connecting the observations will commonly push forward some intriguing
possibilities that are difficult or impossible to prove. Suggesting final conclusions on the
basis of incomplete data sets or when solid evidence is missing is not recommended and
can be very misleading. However, we are certain that future investigations at Kremenac,
which are foreseen as the continuation of the works that started more than 15 years ago,
will provide more precise chronological determinations of these artefacts. These investi-
gations will provide new confirmations of the significance of Kremenac in the research of
early hominization of southeast Europe. Taking into account that géomorphologie char-
acteristics of the terrain, its forestry, and extensive human activities that commonly ex-
tremely change the environment, are all controlling factors for areas that can be searched
for Lower Palaeolithic sites, easy reachable Kremenac represents a challenge and real
treasure, which is waiting for future researchers.
122
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Šaric, Josip |
| author_facet | Šaric, Josip |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Šaric, Josip |
| author_variant | j š jš |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV043704369 |
| contents | Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 123-127 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)957724656 (DE-599)OBVAC13085792 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02105nam a2200469 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV043704369</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20160811 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160808s2013 a||| |||| 00||| hrv d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788680093857</subfield><subfield code="9">978-86-80093-85-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)957724656</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)OBVAC13085792</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Šaric, Josip</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište</subfield><subfield code="b">= Kremenac lower palaeolithic site</subfield><subfield code="c">Josip Šarić</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Kremenac lower palaeolithic site</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Beograd</subfield><subfield code="b">Arheološki institut</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">176 Seiten</subfield><subfield code="b">Illustrationen, Karten</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Posebna izdanja / Arheološki institut</subfield><subfield code="v">54</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 123-127</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071507-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Altpaläolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4142082-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kremenac</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1111058709</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kremenac</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1111058709</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Altpaläolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4142082-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4071507-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="810" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arheološki institut</subfield><subfield code="t">Posebna izdanja</subfield><subfield code="v">54</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV039717423</subfield><subfield code="9">54</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029116715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">307.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">930.1</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">090512</subfield><subfield code="g">4971</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Kremenac (DE-588)1111058709 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Kremenac |
| id | DE-604.BV043704369 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T07:32:58Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788680093857 |
| language | Croatian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-029116715 |
| oclc_num | 957724656 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 176 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publishDateSearch | 2013 |
| publishDateSort | 2013 |
| publisher | Arheološki institut |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Posebna izdanja / Arheološki institut |
| spelling | Šaric, Josip Verfasser aut Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Josip Šarić Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Beograd Arheološki institut 2013 176 Seiten Illustrationen, Karten txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Posebna izdanja / Arheološki institut 54 Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 123-127 Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd rswk-swf Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd rswk-swf Kremenac (DE-588)1111058709 gnd rswk-swf Kremenac (DE-588)1111058709 g Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 s Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 s DE-604 Arheološki institut Posebna izdanja 54 (DE-604)BV039717423 54 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Šaric, Josip Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Zusammenfassung in englischer Sprache Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 123-127 Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4071507-3 (DE-588)4142082-2 (DE-588)1111058709 |
| title | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| title_alt | Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| title_auth | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| title_exact_search | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| title_full | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Josip Šarić |
| title_fullStr | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Josip Šarić |
| title_full_unstemmed | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site Josip Šarić |
| title_short | Kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalazište |
| title_sort | kremenac donjopaleolitsko nalaziste kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| title_sub | = Kremenac lower palaeolithic site |
| topic | Funde (DE-588)4071507-3 gnd Altpaläolithikum (DE-588)4142082-2 gnd |
| topic_facet | Funde Altpaläolithikum Kremenac |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=029116715&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV039717423 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT saricjosip kremenacdonjopaleolitskonalazistekremenaclowerpalaeolithicsite AT saricjosip kremenaclowerpalaeolithicsite |