39

Annales d'Université „Valahia” Târgovişte Section d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010, p.39-55 ISSN 1584-1855

The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” site

Diana-Maria Sztancs*, Sabin Adrian Luca**, Corneliu Beldiman*** * “Lucian Blaga” University, Doctoral Program, Sibiu, Romania; beldiana22@yahoo.com. ** Brukenthal National Museum, General Director; “Lucian Blaga” University, Faculty of History and Patrimony, Sibiu, Romania; sabin.luca@brukenthalmuseum.ro *** “Dimitrie Cantemir” Christian University, Faculty of History, Bucharest, Romania; cbeldiman58@yahoo.com Abstract: The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” site. The bone and antler industry represents all the artefacts, made in series, with the application of some well-defined operatory schemes (choice of raw materials, methods of débitage, façonnage etc.). The paper, uses data inserted in the Ph.D. thesis elaborated by the first author (“Bone and antler industry in the Neo-Eneolithic of Transylvania”), and proposes an example of Microsoft Access database application in the study of 88 artefacts made from bone and antler through detailed morpho-typological analyses of a batch of materials from the archaeological site from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”, Sibiu County (researches led by Professor Sabin Adrian Luca). The data’s analysis is based on the methodology recently proposed by Corneliu Beldiman (2007). All the parameters of the artefacts were studied as descriptors of the database: the archaeological context of the discovery, the special number of the artefact, the typological code, the conservation state, the morphometry, the integral description (morphology, the manufacture process with diverse parameters, the absolute chronology and the imagery). The database queries may offer relevant elements about the characteristics, specific associations and the evolution of different components of the batch from the same culture or several Prehistoric (Neo-Eneolithic) cultures from the site (Starčevo-Criş, Vinča, Petreşti).

Keywords: bone and antler industry, database, Miercurea Sibiului, Neo-Eneolithic, Petreşti, Romania, Starčevo-Criş, technology, Vinča. Résumé: Base de données de l’industrie préhistorique des matières dures animales de Transylvanie, Roumanie: quelques considérations sur le site de Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. L’industrie des matières dures animales représente la totalité des artefacts produits en série par l’application d’une chaîne opératoire standardisée bien définie (choix des matières premières, procédées de débitage et de façonnage etc.). L’article utilise les données insérées dans la thèse de doctorat élaboré par l’auteur principal (“L’industrie des matières dures animales du Néo-Énéolithique de la Transylvanie”) et propose un exemple de application de Microsoft Access database pour l’étude des 88 artefacts datés du Néo-Énéolithique en provenance du site de Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”, dép. de Sibiu (fouilles menées par Professeur Sabin Adrian Luca). L’analyse adopte la trame méthodologique proposée récemment par Corneliu Beldiman (2007). Tous les paramètres quantifiables des objets ont été utilisés comme descripteurs de la base de données: le contexte de la découverte, le numéro unique de l’artefact, le code typologique, l’état de conservation, la morphométrie, la description intégrale (forme, les procédées/opérations de débitage et de façonnage, mode d’utilisation supposé, datation absolue, images). Les interrogations peuvent offrir éléments relevants concernant les paramètres des artefacts, les associations in complexes et l’évolution de divers components de l’ensemble analysé pour chaque culture ou par l’approche comparative des cultures attestées dans le site (Starčevo-Criş, Vinča, Petreşti).

Diana-Maria Sztancs, Sabin Adrian Luca, Corneliu Beldiman

Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010 40

Mots-clé: base de données, bois de cerf, industrie des matières dures animales, Miercurea Sibiului, Néo-Énéolithique, os, Petreşti, Roumanie, Starčevo-Criş, technologie, Vinča.

Bone and antler industry is an important research domain of prehistoric technology, economy or spiritual manifestations. It reveals important data which is insufficiently studied or assimilated in the present Romanian archaeological research.

This particular kind of industry is remarkably illustrated in Romania by the structure of the prehistoric mobile inventories dated from the Upper Palaeolithic to Bronze Age.

Bone and antler industry (in fact including also teeth and shell) represents the preconceived artefacts obtained after applying well-defined operative schemes (these include generally the process of raw material acquisition, débitage and façonnage proceedings, finishing and usage).

The terms “(animal) skeletal materials” and “hard skeletal material industry” (matières dures animales, industrie des matières dures animales) were proposed by the French researcher François Poplin in 1974 and were soon assimilated in the international literature (F. Poplin, 1974, p. 16; C. Beldiman, 2007, p. 44).

The various categories of objects belonging to the bone and antler industry, like artefacts made of bone, antler, teeth, shells etc. occupied a central place in the life of prehistoric communities. Their study offers important information regarding paleoeconomic aspects, the paleotechnological evolution, exchanges that are specific for a certain archaeological culture or epoch.

Human behaviour includes the subsistence strategies and the selection of species. By studying bone and antler industry in these contexts, we may establish the traditional characteristics of human behaviour in a precise chronological sequence and we may define the innovations that appear at a certain chronological sequence.

The raw material acquisition refers to a specific chain of stages that succeeded in a short period of time. This chain starts with: 1. hunting wild animals or slaughter of the livestock; 2. processing of carcass; 3. storing, preparation, consumption; 4. skeletal materials recovery.

The second segment is the technological one, which refers to the artefacts’ manufacturing:

1. débitage; 2. façonnage; conception and execution of various morpho-functional details.

The last segment consists in: 1. using and abandoning the artefact; or 2. using/reshaping/abandoning the artefact.

The stages are simplified when we discuss the deer’s antler characteristics. In this case, the acquisition is simplified and refers only to the gathering of the antlers in the period of shed (bois de chute) stags’ hunting and the detachment of the antlers from the animal’s skull (bois de massacre) (C. Beldiman, 2007; D.-M. Sztancs et al., 2005).

In the past two decades some Romanian archaeologists have been constantly interested in the systematic study of Prehistoric bone and antler industry (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neo-Eneolithic). In 2000 Corneliu Beldiman has elaborated the doctoral thesis entitled: “Bone and antler industry in Romanian Prehistory. Natural resources, human communities and technology dated from Upper Palaeolithic until Early Neolithic” (published in 2007). This represents the only monographic contribution treating all these epochs.

The methodological pattern proposed then was applied in some subsequent studies (C. Beldiman, 2001; C. Beldiman, 2004; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005c; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005d; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2006a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2006b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2007a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2007b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2008; D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, 2004; D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, 2007; D.-M. Sztancs et al., 2004).

The analyses of the artefacts made of animal skeletal materials form Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” were made according to the above mentioned methodology. This fact had some advantages regarding: the possibility of defining some new types and subtypes of Prehistoric bone and antler industry; the increasing of the studied lots and the formulation of some considerations regarding the artefacts’ typology and the Neolithic specific paleotechnology in Transylvania; the increasing of the studied Vinča

The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” site

Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010 41

lots; the first systematic approach of a lot of artefacts belonging to the Petreşti culture; the possibility of correlation of the archaeozoological diagnosis with the bone and antler industry parameters; the correlation of relative chronological that where established taking into account the cultural phases and sub phases represented in the site.

On this occasion we had the opportunity to define some specific markers regarding the methodology, the typology, the paleotechnology and paleoeconomy. The lot of artefacts from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” could be augmented through future excavations. Then the chance of an extended research – an exhaustive and multidisciplinary research of the site – that would offer the opportunity to correlate the conclusions concerning the bone and antler industry with other data.

Our approach intends to analyse and enhance the value of the bone and antler industry taking into account the methodology inspired by the Cahiers de Fiches typologiques proposed by the Commission Internationale de Nomenclature sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique of U.I.S.P.P. (H. Camps-Fabrer, 1974). In order to exhaustively explore the information, it takes into account the registration and the analysis of all essential data regarding: artefacts’ identification using a code, the realisation of the repertoire (which lays out the dataset regarding the code of the piece, discovery context, raw material, conservation status, subtype, and description), morphometry and manufacturing chain. Also, an important part is related to the digitization of information (pictures and database).

The methodological aspects regarding the complex study of bone and antler industry are: criteria and typology structure (categories/ groups/ types/ subtypes/ variants/ subvariants); the structure of the repertoire and individual form; coordinates of the analysis which follow the stages of the manufacturing chain; the registration and the interpretation of the manufacturing procedures and the use-wear traces.

The study stages are: the examination of artefacts using macro- and microscopic instruments; the setting the typological code; the identification of morphometrical parameters; realisation of the database with the repertoire and images; the completing the descriptive repertoire.

An important part of our study regards computerised analysis: the input of data, applying

queries and the preparation of reports (with structured data, charts and pictures).

The statistical approach using Microsoft Access database is the main part of our conclusions regarding the specifics of the studied bone and antler industry which allows us to establish the important aspects of a culture or of a cultural phase. We also tried to distinguish the main characteristics and “chrono-cultural markers”, to observe the diffusion of influences (C. Beldiman, 2007).

As apart of doctoral thesis entitled “Bone and antler industry in Neolithic and Eneolithic of Transylvania”, elaborated by the first author, this article advances an example of Access database applications in the study of bone and antler industry by using detailed morpho-technological analysis of the artefacts from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” (archaeological researches led by Professor Sabin Adrian Luca) (S. A. Luca, 2004; S. A. Luca, 2005; S. A. Luca, 2006; S. A. Luca et al., 1998; S. A. Luca et al., 1999; S. A. Luca et al., 2000; S. A. Luca et al., 2001; S. A. Luca et al., 2002; S. A. Luca et al., 2003; S. A. Luca et al., 2004; S. A. Luca et al., 2005; S. A. Luca et al., 2006a; S. A. Luca et al., 2006b; S. A. Luca et al., 2007a; S. A. Luca et al., 2007b; S. A. Luca et al., 2008a; S. A. Luca et al., 2008b; S. A. Luca et al., 2008c; S. A. Luca et al., 2009; S. A. Luca, C. Suciu, 2007; S. A. Luca, C. Suciu, 2008). In this case, the aim of our database is not to inventory a type of archaeological objects, but to offer descriptive information regarding those using codes specific to typological taxonomy (C. Beldiman, 2007).

The archaeological site from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” is located at 50 km North of National Route No. 1 and at 3.5 km West of the town centre, at 250 m North of Secaş River (S. A. Luca et al., 2006, p. 10) (fig. 1). Archaeological excavations began in 1997. Archaeological vestiges are spread on a surface of approx. 300/100 m. Until now, 5 sections have been excavated and the stratigraphy is the following: the first level belongs to Starčevo-Criş culture (Ia – Starčevo-Criş IB; Ib – Starčevo-Criş IC-IIA; Ic – Starčevo-Criş IIB-IIIA); the second level belongs to Vinča culture (in the IIa sublevel there are huts built in two stages: Vinča A2-3 and Vinča A3; the IIb sublevel belongs to Vinča A3-B1); in 2007 pits with Vinča archaeological objects were discovered (S. A. Luca et al., 2008a; S. A. Luca et al., 2008b); the third level

Fig

. 1 -

Geo

grap

hica

l situ

atio

n of

arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ite M

ier

cure

a S

ibiu

lui –

“Pet

riş”

(Sib

iu C

ount

y map

)

The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” site

43 Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010

belongs to the Petreşti culture, AB stage; the fourth level is represented by pits dated from the II-I centuries B.C.; the fifth level has Gepidic complexes and graves from the V century A.D.; the sixth level is represented by a house from the I millennium A.D. (S. A. Luca, 2004; S. A. Luca, 2005; S. A. Luca, 2006; S. A. Luca et al., 1998; S. A. Luca et al., 1999; S. A. Luca et al., 2000; S. A. Luca et al., 2001; S. A. Luca et al., 2002; S. A. Luca et al., 2003; S. A. Luca et al., 2004; S. A. Luca et al., 2005; S. A. Luca et al., 2006a; S. A. Luca et al., 2006b; S. A. Luca et al., 2007a; S. A. Luca et al., 2007b; S. A. Luca et al., 2008a; S. A. Luca et al., 2008b; S. A. Luca et al., 2008c; S. A. Luca et al., 2009; S. A. Luca, C. Suciu, 2007; S. A. Luca, C. Suciu, 2008).

The absolute dating of the Prehistoric levels from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” is based on results that have been published recently (S. A. Luca et al., 2008a, p. 45):

Culture/subphase Complex Dating Starčevo-Criş IB-IC

B10/2003, Ia Level

GrN 28520: 7050 ± 70 BP

Starčevo-Criş IB-IC

G26/2005, Ia Level, ritual pit

GrN 29954: 7010 ± 40 BP

Starčevo-Criş IC-IIA

B1/2003, Ib Level

GrN 28521: 6920 ± 70 BP

Starčevo-Criş IIB-IIIA

B9/2003, Ic Level

GrA 26606: 6180 ± 40 BP (contaminated?)

In this site an assemblage of 88 bone and

antler artefacts was analysed (figs. 2-7). All data can be finding in the previous publications (C. Beldiman, 2004; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005c; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2005d; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2006a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2006b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2007a; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2007b; C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, 2008; D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, 2004; D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, 2007).

The database of bone and antler industry from Neolithic and Eneolithic from Transylvania contains three main tables (NEOLITIC IMDA, DICłIONAR, CATEGORII TIPOLOGICE). While designing the first table (NEOLITIC IMDA) there were recorded all the quantifiable parameters of artefacts which became the fields and store each information such as: context of

discovery, typological code of piece, morphometry etc. From Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” there are 88 records which correspond to each artefact and 38 fields that correspond to each characteristic of artefact.

The structure of the NEOLITIC IMDA table takes into account data regarding all the stages of the artefacts’ processing, characteristics and use (tab. no. 1). For example, the field related to the length of the active part has two numeric fields (one for the length of the preserved active part and one for the renewed one). For the objects that are not broken, the two mentioned values are the same. Two fields (having the same format) were designed for the cases in which the reconstruction of the incomplete artefacts is possible. Some records in our database are presented in the tab. no. 2.

The DICłIONAR table contains all the abbreviations and codes used in the main table. When the DICłIONAR and the NEOLITIC IMDA tables are connected, we obtain decoded information regarding the characteristics of the analysed artefacts (tab. no. 3).

The database queries may offer important clues regarding: the distribution of the artefacts’ characteristics, the specific associations and the evolution of the different components of the lot (in our case, Starčevo-Criş, Vinča, and Petreşti cultures).

The distribution of materials on levels and complexes reveals the following situation: Vinča artefacts are the most numerous (53); Starčevo-Criş materials are on the second place (25) and 10 artefacts belong to the Petreşti culture (chart no. 1).

It had been made a query regarding the typological distribution on cultural levels and complexes. The data obtained in this way was statistically processed using an Excel datasheet. According to chart no. 2 (which represents the result of the statistical procedure of the above mentioned query) we may observe that the Starčevo-Criş artefacts were discovered in closed complexes such as huts (B1, B4, B9, B10, B17, B19, B20) and pits (G21 şi G43); only three objects were discovered out of complexes – in the layers (the sublevel). The Vinča artefacts were discovered in huts (B5, B12, B15, B22), houses (L11, L14) and two pits (G41 and G44), while the Petreşti artefacts were discovered in house no. 1 (L 1) and in the cultural level out of complexes.

.

Fig. 2. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Archaeological excavations in 2005. Starčevo-Criş culture: bone points and polishing tools (left). Starčevo-Criş culture: bone spoons; blanks, bone and antler raw

materials; antler pendant; bone hammer (right)

Fig. 3. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Archaeological excavations in 2006. Vinča culture: bone and antler industry

Fig. 4. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Vinča culture: points made of bone, antler and boar tusks; polishing tools; bone spoons; pendant made of boar tusk

Fig. 5. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Vinča culture: blanks, raw materials, bone and antler waste

Fig. 6. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Archaeological excavations in 2006. Vinča culture artefacts 11 – 14; Petreşti culture artefacts 15 – 19

Fig. 7. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Petreşti culture artefacts

Table no. 1. Structure of „Neolitic IMDA” table

Table no. 2. Records in the main table

Table no. 3. Records in „DicŃionar/Dictionary” table.

Table no. 4. Records in „Listă tipologică/Typological list” table.

Table no. 5. Query design for analyzing the raw materials of the Starčevo-Criş culture at Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”.

11%

61%

28%

Petreşti Starčevo- Criş Vinča

Chart no. 1. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Cultural distribution of artefacts

Chart no. 2. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Distribution of artefacts in cultural complexes

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

B1B10

B17B19

B20 B4 B9G

21G

43Stra

tB12

B15B22 B5

G41

G44 L11

L14

Strat L1

Strat

Diana-Maria Sztancs, Sabin Adrian Luca, Corneliu Beldiman

Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010 50

Site Culture Type Débitage Pieces

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

I A7 PD/D, Şa 1

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

I A7 a

PD/D, Şa 1

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

I A7 a

Şa, PD/D 2

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

I A9 b

Şa, PD/D 1

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

I A9a Şa, PD/D 1

Miercurea Sibiului

Starčevo-Criş

V A2 Şa

bilaterală 1

Table no. 9. The débitage by groove and

splinter technique of the Starčevo-Criş culture at Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”

The distribution of the artefacts on levels,

complexes and layers offers a specific image of the utilisation of certain artefacts in complexes as huts. In this case, we may establish if the artefacts were used during more stages of the cultural evolution and we may draw conclusion regarding i.e. the process of knowledge transfer between generations (pointing out the role of tradition).

The study of raw materials may be done in correlation with levels, complexes and the typology. To exemplify this, it was chosen a database query regarding the use of metapodials for obtaining different types of artefacts during the evolution of three cultures presented in the analysed site. Statistical approach will offer the opportunity to draw conclusions regarding specific options made by prehistoric people with respect to the choice of raw material during the community evolution (charts 3, 4, 5).

The differentiation of animal exploitation in the analysed communities could be observed by applying a query regarding the evolution of raw materials from which specific types of artefacts were made at different chronological moments. This is illustrated in table no. 4.

In the analysis of bone and antler industry, the morphometry (all the parameters

sampled, such as: total length, the dimensions of distal extremity/part, medial part, proximal extremity/part, the length of active part etc.) is very important. Entering all this information into the database offers an important view regarding the way in which the anatomical parts were chosen so as to obtain a certain type of artefacts. The studying of the length classes, corroborated with the archaeozoological analysis contributes to formulating conclusions regarding: the moment the raw material was obtained (the animal’s age, the season of hunting/slaughter etc.); the technical proceedings applied during the manufacturing chain; the functional role of the artefacts; the elements regarding the strategies applied in animal exploitation (tab. no. 6, 7, 8).

For example, table no. 5 and chart no. 6 present the length classes for the typological category of points (I A). The graphical representation allows us to conclude that the Starčevo-Criş points from the site have an average length of 70 – 80 mm and that Vinča points have an average length of 60 mm. From this information, we may establish that the points were used during the same activities. Also, we may observe that two Vinča points were broken and one of them had reshaped the active part.

Inserting the characteristics of the bone and antler artefacts in the database allows us to formulate relevant conclusions regarding the Prehistoric exploitation of the environmental resources and the human relationships with the vegetal and the animal world.

In this context, the discoveries from Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” offered new types of artefacts attested for the first time in Romania (for example, the Starčevo-Criş hook-pendant). The using of a database allowed us to insert them in the typological list (C. Beldiman, 2007).

Database queries are very important because they deliver us relevant information about the artefacts’ characteristics, about the specific associations and the artefacts’ evolution in the same culture or across centuries, in the Transylvanian Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures using complex combinations of parameters.

Acknowledgements

Contributions of Diana-Maria Sztancs to

the present paper (database, artefact analysis, translation into English etc.) are realized as part of Project ID-7706 (Invest in people!-The development of doctoral studies’ and the PhD

10% 10%

20%

10%50%

V A2 I A9 I B1 I A7 I A1

Chart no. 3. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. The use of metapodials as raw materials of the Starčevo-Criş culture

12%

7%

7%

7%

26%

7%

13%

7%

7%7%

I A1 I A7 I A9 b I B1 I B1 I I1 V A2 V A2 V A3 a V A3 a

Chart no. 4. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. The use of metapodials as raw materials of the Vinča culture

14%

14%

29%14%

29%

I A7 a I I1 b2 I I1 I I1 a I I1 b

Chart no. 5. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. The use of metapodials as raw materials of the Petreşti culture

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ST1 ST2 ST3 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 P1

Lungime iniŃială Lungime păstrată

Chart no. 6. Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. The length of points made of metapodials (mm): ST = Starčevo-Criş; V = Vinča; P = Petreşti

Type Raw material Number of pieces

I A1 Metapodial 1

I A14 Tooth 1

I A15 Rib 3

I A7 Metapodial

5

I A9 b Metapodial

1

I A9a Metapodial

1

I B1 Metapodial

1

I B1 Long bone 5

I C4 Humerus 1

I F10 Rib 3

Table no. 6. Raw materials of the Starčevo-Criş culture

Culture Type Total length 1 Total length 2 Starčevo- Criş I A7 a 78 76 Starčevo- Criş I A7 a 73 70,5 Starčevo- Criş I A7 a 79 76,5

Vinča I A19 87 68 Vinča I G1 a 130 72 Vinča I A7 a 79 76,5 Vinča I A15 68 60 Vinča I A15 49 45 Vinča I A15 37 33

Petreşti I A7 a 57 55

Table no. 7. Classes of length used in tools typological category – points

Table no. 8. Query design for analyzing the débitage by groove and splinter technique (Şa) of the Starčevo-Criş culture

Diana-Maria Sztancs, Sabin Adrian Luca, Corneliu Beldiman

Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010 54

students’ competitiveness in the United Europe), University “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, project financed by Social European Fund (POS DRU).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beldiman C., 2001, Tehnologia şi mediul animal în preistorie: istoricul cercetărilor asupra industriei materiilor dure animale şi evoluŃia concepŃiilor metodologice, Analele UniversităŃii Creştine „Dimitrie Cantemir”, Seria Istorie, 4, Bucureşti, p. 49-88.

Beldiman C., 2004, Cerişor, com. Lelese, jud. Hunedoara. Industria materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 85-94, 469-475.

Beldiman C., 2007, Industria materiilor dure animale în preistoria României. Resurse naturale, comunităŃi umane şi tehnologie din paleoliticul superior până în neoliticul timpuriu, AsociaŃia Română de Arheologie, Studii de Preistorie, Supplementum 2, Bucureşti.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2005a, Industria preistorică a materiilor dure animale din „Peştera de la Cauce”, in S. A. Luca, C. Roman, Dr. Diaconescu, H. Ciugudean, G. El Susi, C. Beldiman, D.-M. Sztancs, Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (II) (sat Cerişor, com. Lelese, jud. Hunedoara), Universitatea «Lucian Blaga» Sibiu, Institutul pentru Cercetarea şi Valorificarea Patrimoniului Cultural Transilvănean în Context European, Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis V, Sibiu, p. 155-254.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2005b, Cerişor, com. Lelese, jud. Hunedoara. Raport final privind studiul industriei materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 112-120, 479-489.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2005c, Şeuşa, com. Ciugud, jud. Alba. Date privind industria preistorică a materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 370-374, 499-507.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2005d, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Industria preistorică a materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 224-229, 493-498.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2006a, Morfologie anatomică – artefact – rol funcŃional în cadrul industriei preistorice a materiilor dure animale: o brăŃară de os descoperită în aşezarea

de la Gornea, jud. Caraş-Severin, Corviniana, 10, Hunedoara, p. 45-65.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2006b, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Industria preistorică a materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 224-229, 493-498.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2007a, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”. Industria preistorică a materiilor dure animale, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 233-236.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2007b, Date asupra industriei materiilor dure animale din aşezarea neo-eneolitică de la Miercurea Sibiului-„Petriş, jud. Sibiu, Corviniana, 11, Hunedoara, p. 9-30.

Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., 2008, Paléotechonologie et néolithisation dans la partie sud de la Transylvanie, Roumanie: l’industrie des matières dures animales de la culture Starčevo-Criş dans le site Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş”, dép. de Sibiu, Roumanie, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 7, Sibiu, p. 77-90.

Camps-Fabrer H. (ed.), 1974, Premier Colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence.

Luca S. A., 2004, New data about the Neolithic in Transylvania from the point of prehistoric sites in Miercurea Sibiului area, in Gh. Dumitroaia et al. (eds.), Cucuteni. 120 de ani de cercetări. Timpul bilanŃului , Piatra NeamŃ, p. 39-41.

Luca S. A., 2005, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , “Luncă” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 239-240.

Luca S. A., 2006, Aspecte ale neoliticului şi eneoliticului din Transilvania (II), Corviniana, 10, Hunedoara, p. 11-44.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 1998, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 44.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 1999, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 64.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Suciu C., Spânu L. A., 2000, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 86.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 2001, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica

The database of prehistoric bone and antler industry from Transylvania, Romania: some remarks about the Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” site

Tome XII, Numéro 2, 2010 55

cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 143.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Gonciar A., Batiuk S., Suciu C., 2002, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 204.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 2003, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 196.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 2004, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 124.

Luca S. A., Georgescu A., Gonciar A., Batiuk S., Suciu C., 2005, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petri ş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 204.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 2006a, Săpăturile arheologice de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, (jud. Sibiu). Campaniile anilor 1997-2005. Stratigrafie şi cronologie, Brukenthal Acta Musei, I.1, Sibiu, p. 9-20.

Luca S. A., Biagi P., Spataro M., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., El Susi G., Beldiman C., 2006b, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 222-224.

Luca S. A., Beldiman C., Biagi P., Ciută B., Ciută M., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Spataro M., Suciu C., 2007a, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 233.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Suciu C., 2007b, Archaeological researches at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (Sibiu County, Romania). The campaings from 1997 to 2005, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 6, Sibiu, p. 7-24.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Suciu C., 2008a, Săpăturile arheologice de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (jud. Sibiu). Campaniile anilor 1997-2005. Stratigrafie şi cronologie, Brukenthal Acta Musei, III.1, Sibiu, p. 7-46.

Luca S. A., Diaconescu D., Suciu C., 2008b, Archaeological research in Miercurea Sibiului-Petris (Sibiu County, Romania): the Starčevo-Cris level during 1997-2005 (a preliminary report), Documenta Praehistorica, 35, Ljubljana, p. 325-343.

Luca S. A., Beldiman C., Biagi P., Ciută B., Ciută M., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., El Susi G., Spataro M., Suciu C., 2008c,

Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Bucureşti, p. 199-200

Luca S. A., Beldiman C., Biagi P., Ciută B., Ciută M., Diaconescu D., Georgescu A., Natea Gh., NiŃu Fl.-M., Şeulean A., Dumitrescu Fl., M., Suciu C., El Susi G., Tincu S., 2009, Miercurea Sibiului – “Petriş” , Cronica cercetărilor arheologice în România, Târgovişte, p. 147-149.

Luca S. A., Suciu C., 2007, Digitalizare şi accesibilitate on-line – proiecte în desfăşurare ale IPCTE Sibiu, Brukenthal Acta Musei, II,1, Sibiu, p. 13-39.

Luca S. A., Suciu C., 2008, Migrations and local evolution 5in the Early Neolithic of Transylvania. The typological analysis and the perspective of lithic industries, Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 7, Sibiu, p. 39-56.

Poplin F., 1974, Principes de la détermination des matières dures animales, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Premier Colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, p. 15-20.

Sztancs D.-M., Beldiman C., 2004, Piese de podoabă din materii dure animale descoperite în Peştera Mare, sat Cerişor, com. Lelese, jud. Hunedoara, Corviniana, 8, Hunedoara, p. 97-109.

Sztancs D.-M., Beldiman C., 2007, Identitate socială şi simbol în preistorie: piese de podoabă din materii dure animale aparŃinând culturii CoŃofeni descoperite în sudul Transilvaniei, in S. Avram (ed.), Istorie şi tradiŃie în spaŃiul românesc, 7, Sibiu, p. 9-32.

Sztancs D.-M., Beldiman C., Ciută M.-M., 2005, Podoabe din materii dure animale aparŃinând culturii CoŃofeni descoperite recent în Transilvania, Revista BistriŃei, 19, BistriŃa, p. 31-49.

ABBREVIATIONS

CIMEC Institutul de Memorie Cul-

turală, Bucureşti

IPCTE Institutul pentru Cercetarea şi Valorificarea Patrimoniului Cultural Transilvănean în Context European, Univer-sitatea „Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu