Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    1/18

    1

    Big Fish Hunting: interpretation of stone clubs from Lepenski Vir

    Ivana ivaljevi

    Laboratory for Bioarchaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

    [email protected]

    Abstract -In this paper, I discuss a specific type of stone tool found at LepenskiVir: clubs or mallets - which may have been used in fishing as stunners. The significance

    of large fish species (especially beluga sturgeon) in the diet, settlement patterns andcosmogony of the inhabitants of the Mesolithic-Neolithic settlement of Lepenski Vir (c.

    6200-5900. cal. BC) is amply manifested in the archaeological record, namely by

    significant quantities of sturgeon bones, the famous fishlike sandstone sculptures andisotopic dietary signatures of humans buried at the site. Ironically, there is less evidence

    to suggest how exactly these great animals were caught. The massive and often

    ornamented stone clubs were initially interpreted as magic and ritual devices;however, it should be noted that the ritual and profane uses of an object need notexclude one another. The aim of this paper is to present the material and stylistic

    properties of these tools, look into and interpret their contextual provenience, and offer

    an understanding of them not as passive objects, but as powerful agents in dramaticencounters with the big fish.

    Keywords: objects, agency, Lepenski Vir, Padina, Vlasac, Danube Gorges,Mesolithic, Neolithic, sculpted boulders, stone clubs, mallets, scepters, fish stunners,fishing, sturgeons, beluga sturgeon

    IntroductionSimilarly to human beings, material things possess the power to influence theoutcome of events, regulate relationships or express and reinforce beliefs. In recent years,social sciences have brought forward the idea of non-human agency; either in the form ofmeanings bestowed upon objects, animals and natural phenomena by human agents(Dobres and Robb 2000; Ingold 2007), or through deconstruction of ontologicaldifferences between people and things (Latour 2005; Webmoor 2007; Witmore 2007;Webmoor and Witmore 2008). Latour admits that things themselves do not necessarilydetermine or cause social activity. However, one can not imagine playing footballwithout a ball, boiling water without a kettle or hitting a nail without a hammer. In thissense, things might be understood as participants in social action (Latour 2005: 70-74).

    The interrelationship between human and non-human agency is perhaps bestdescribed by Wagner (1975: 59), who acknowledges that in learning how to use tools,we are secretly learning how to use ourselves (see also Chapman 2001). Material thingsoutside of us objectify the skills which reside inside of us, they enable and participatein specific culturally learned body techniques (sensu Mauss 1973 [orig. 1934]).

    At Lepenski Vir, the use of massive stone fish stunners enabled not solely a goodcatch, but also a specific type of fishing technique, body technique, and a specific mode

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    2/18

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    3/18

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    4/18

    4

    (Bknyi 1969; 1970; 1972; 1978; Clason 1980). These originate from freshwater fishes(carp, catfish, bream, pike, perch, huchen), and also from various anadromous(migratory) sturgeon species (beluga sturgeon, Russian sturgeon, sterlet, stellatesturgeon). Fish bones have been found in the majority of trapezoidal buildings atLepenski Vir (Bknyi 1969; 1972; Dimitrijevi 2008) and Padina (Jovanovi 1974;

    Bori 2001; Jovanovi 2008), as well as in some dwellings and burials at Vlasac(Srejovi i Letica 1978). Furthermore, the stable isotopes evidence manifests apredominantly aquatic diet throughout the Danube Gorges sequence, with an additionalintake of terrestrial food sources (Bonsall et al. 1997; Cook et al. 2001; Grupe et al. 2003;Bonsall et al. 2004; Bori and Miracle 2004; Bori et al. 2004; Nehlich et al. 2010). Botharchaeozoological and isotopic data suggest that fishing played a major role in theeconomy of Lepenski Vir and neighbouring sites. However, it should be kept in mind thatthere is much more to animals than sources of food, as there is much more to food thansimply a source of calories. Radovanovi (1996: 37) believed that fish, acting as a vitalresource, eventually moved from the domain of economy to the domain of ideology.

    This idea could be

    explained by a particularphenomenon taking placein the Danube each year.Anadromous Acipenserids(various sturgeon species)migrate from the Black Seaeach spring to spawn in thefresh waters of Danube(Bartosiewicz et al. 2008;Dinu 2010); in order tosucceed, they must fightthe current and swimupstream. One might easilyimagine that in the eyes ofthe inhabitants of theGorges, these were the onlyanimals that were coming back, repeating their journey year after year. Srejovi andBabovi (1983) emphasized the relationship between anatomical features of the fish andthe sculpted boulders found at Lepenski Vir (figs. 4-6), while Radovanovi (1997)associated the annual sturgeon run and a specific burial position/orientation of the dead.She interpreted the practice of placing the deceased extended on their backs, parallel tothe river, with their heads oriented downstream, as a manifestation of a belief that fishwould carry the deceaseds soul on its downstream voyage in the autumn and bring itback upon their return next spring. Similarly, Bori mentions the practice of placing thedeceased in a seated position with legs crossed and facing the river as the best position tosit down and enjoy the view (Bori 1999), possibly waiting for and observing thearrival of fish. According to this author (Bori 2005), sculpted boulders from LepenskiVir represent various stages of metamorphosis of the deceased into fish. It is significantthat individuals buried within trapezoidal buildings and commemorated with boulders

    Fig. 4 - Sturgeon caught in the fishermans net(after Petrovi 1998b [orig. 1941]: fig. 29)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    5/18

    5

    were predominantly adults, possibly because the transformation into a fish ancestorrequired fully human individuals to complete the cycle.

    Another significant aspect of the relationship between fish, humans and materialobjects is the difference in design of carved boulders found at Lepenski Vir, Vlasac andPadina. The boulders from Lepenski Vir are numerous, ranging from aniconic to more

    elaborate ones with carved human or fishlike faces (figs. 3, 6) (see Srejovi and Babovi1983; Bori 2005). At Padina and Vlasac, they are much fewer in number and not asingle one bears any apparent resemblance to human or animal physique. According toBori (2005: 65-66), the Lepenski Vir locale might have had an exclusive right to powerof depicting the face. Given that Lepenski Vir and Padina are the only sites in theGorges with a settlement-like appearance and a similar outline of the settlements,including similar architectural shape and furnishing of the houses, the absence of burials

    Fig. 5 - Shape of mouth in two different

    sturgeon species(after Stephen 2004: fig. 2(a))

    Fig. 6- Frontal and dorsal views

    of the quartz sandstone sculpture

    Danubius, representing a human-fish hybrid (after Srejovi and Babovi

    1983: p. 116). The large downturned

    mouth and the row of bony scutes on

    the back resemble anatomical featuresof sturgeon (see figs. 4-5)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    6/18

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    7/18

    7

    Fig. 8 Plan of the Lepenski Vir settlement: 1) Limestone floors; 2) Construction

    stones attributed to phase Lepenski Vir I (according to Srejovi 1969); 3)Construction stones attributed to phase Lepenski Vir II (according to Srejovi 1969);

    4) Stone clubs/mallets (according to Srejovi and Babovi 1983; Antonovi 2006)

    (plan modified after Bori and Dimitrijevi 2009: fig. 27)

    Tools that could be interpreted as fishing equipment on the basis of direct analogywith more recent fishing practices were scarce. Reports mention a couple of bone hooksfrom Lepenski Vir (Srejovi 1969: fig. VIII; 1972: fig. XII;see also Dinu 2010: fig. 2B),and a couple of harpoons from Vlasac (Srejovi and Letica 1978: 86, T. LVII, XCII2-3).In addition, a couple of rounded stone artefacts with grooves (which could have been

    used as weights for fishing nets) were found at Lepenski Vir (Srejovi 1969: figs. 42-43;1972: 133, figs. 35-36; Radovanovi 1996: 278; Antonovi 2003: 18, fig. 4; 2006: 24, 66-69; 2008: fig. 4). There is a possiblity that prehistoric fishermen in the Danube Gorgesused boats, perhaps similar to the Neolithic dugout canoe found on the Romanian bank ofDanube (Dinu 2010: fig. 4). Unfortunately, boats, as well as fences, reeds, baskets, netsand other devices made from organic material are not likely to survive in thearchaeological record.

    However, there are numerous finds of a specific type of stone tool possibly usedin fishing the elongated and massive clubs or mallets (figs. 9, 10, 11). These have beenfound throughout the Lepenski Vir settlement (fig. 8), and to a much lesser extent at thesites of Padina, Vlasac and Hajduka Vodenica (Srejovi and Letica 1978; Srejovi and

    Babovi 1983; Radovanovi 1996; Bori 2002a; 2005; Antonovi 2003; 2006; 2008).According to Antonovi (2006) these artefacts are exclusively characteristic to the region,and were an outcome of strong local Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic traditions. The rawmaterial used in their production came from a variety of locally available rocks: fine-grained metamorphic sandstones, fine-grained slightly silicified limestones, granite,diorite and various kinds of schistose metamorphic rocks (Antonovi 2006: 23;see TableI). These rocks were resistant to permanent pounding, which was the main purpose of thetools. As Antonovi (2006: 23) has observed, the majority of them bore traces of use, inthe form of shallow circular depressions with rough surface concentrated on one end ofthe tool, which probably resulted from pounding large fish on the head (fig. 12).

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    8/18

    8

    It is significant that a similar fishing technique in the Danube Gorges (up to thebegginning of the 20th century) was recorded by the renown Serbian mathematician andpassionate fisherman Mihailo Petrovi Alas (1868-1943) (fig. 7). In his bookerdapskiribolovi u prolosti i sadanjosti (originaly published in 1941, and reissued in 1998) hementions that Danube fishermen were using massive wooden clubs to stun the fish. The

    fishermen would set up traps with attached nets (called sets) at locations where thestrong rapids or whirpools would drive the fish right into traps; once they were caught, acouple of men in boats would pull the nets closer, stunning the fish by two or three strongblows to the head (see Bori 2002a: fig. 5.12). In this manner, fishermen could catchlarge sturgeons swimming upstream in the spring, or swimming downstream in autumn.

    It is obvious that fishermen (in prehistory, as well as in more recent times) musthave had a deep understanding of fish behaviour and habits, and also of the variousfeatures of the landscape. It is striking that the majority of whirpool fishing spotsmentioned by Petrovi (1998b) [orig. 1941] overlap with the locations of Mesolithic-Neolithic sites in the Gorges (Bori 2002a: 153). Clearly, the comparison withethnographic evidence does not imply a direct translation of modern practices into the

    world of Lepenski Vir; rather, it can add to our understanding of fishing in the past andoffer means of interpreting how prehistoric stone tools could have been used.

    The agency of stone: scepters, stunners, participants

    Often ornamented with elaborate engravings, coloured with red pigments andshaped to resemble fish bodies, stone mallets from Lepenski Vir have originally beeninterpreted as ritual scepters used in imitative magic (Srejovi and Babovi 1983: 183).Wide range of motifs related to flowing water, in the form of wavy and zig-zag linesobserved on these tools (figs. 9-11, Table I), can be traced to the local Late Palaeolithicand Early Mesolithic tradition of decorating stone, bone and antler objects (see Srejoviand Babovi 1983: figs. 6, 8-10, 12-13). Some of the ornaments are thought to representfish (fig. 9, below) or even boats (fig. 11, middle). The use of red colour is another

    important tradition in the Danube Gorges: at Vlasac, the practice of sprinkling the deadwith red ochre was particularly related to bodies of women (some of them pregnant) andinfants (Srejovi and Letica 1978; Bori and Stefanovi 2004); at Lepenski Vir, it wasapplied to some of the stone boulders, a striking example being a sculpture representing ahuman vulva (Srejovi and Babovi 1983: p. 84). It is possible that red colour was relatedto important stages of birth and death, and in the case of stone clubs to the dramaticevent of taking the life of the fish (i. e. the ancestor) (Bori 2005).

    Fig. 9 - Two engraved

    stone clubs/mallets(inv. nos. IB. 941 and IB.

    937, see Table I),

    made from fine-grainedcarbonate sandstone

    (after Bori 2005: fig. 14)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    9/18

    9

    Fig. 11 Three engraved stone

    clubs/mallets (inv. nos. IB. 720, IB. 78

    and IB. 7, see Table I), made fromsiltsone without carbonate (top),

    marlstone (middle) and fine-grained

    quartz sandstone (bottom) (after

    Srejovi and Babovi 1983: p. 188)

    However (as shown in the previous chapter), Antonovi (2006) has demonstratedthat the use of these objects was not restricted to the symbolic arena. Although themajority of stone mallets with traces of use wear were not ornamented or coloured(Antonovi 2006; Table I), some of the finely executed and nicely decorated tools wereactually used (inv. nos. IB. 720 (fig. 11, top), SM. 575 (fig. 10, top), IB. 679 (fig. 10,middle). In addittion, Antonovi (2006: 23) notes that in case of some tools (one of themdecorated with parallel lines inv. no. IB. 830), the traces of wear could not be identifieddue to the friable nature of the rock. As Brck (2007) has shown, the dichotomy between

    ritual and profane (often insisted upon in archaeological literature) may be moreapparent then real; as symbolic meanings can be built upon practical solutions andfunctional objects, and vice-versa. Also, another manifestation that ritual and profaneuses of an object need not exclude one another is withessed in the very nature ofdeposition of these stone tools. The majority of them were found on building floors invicinity of rectangular hearths (fig. 8, Table I), probably left in the act of houseabandonment. The hearth area was often associated with stone and bone tools and pottery

    Fig. 10 Two engraved and one non-ornamented stone club/mallet (inv. nos.

    SM. 575, IB. 78 and IB. 942, see Table I),

    made from rugose chlorite-muscovitechist (top and bottom) and fine-grained

    sandstone (middle) (after Srejovi and

    Babovi 1983: p. 187)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    10/18

    10

    fragments (i. e. remains of everyday activities), but at the same time with a number ofburials and/or representational boulders (see the context of mallets nos. IB. 720 and IB.677, Table I), connecting the living with the dead and with ancestral locales. Similarly,given the complex biographies of buildings at Lepenski Vir, which have been utilised asdomestic space for the living and ultimately as burial grounds for the dead, their

    interpretation as houses or shrines is equally problematic.Another possible interpretation of stone mallets, perhaps mediating between theirritual and everyday use, is their understanding as participants in the social action (sensuLatour 2005). For example, the very act of clubbing the great fish to death (fig. 12) mayseem agressive or macho to us. Hower, the right way of killing an animal (includingthe proper sharing of meat within the community or disposal of body parts) may be seenas necessary for enabling the constant flow and transmission of essences in animisticsocieties; or as a mean of sharing ancestral substance in a totemistic worldview (Fowler2004: 123). In more recent times, Danubian fishermen have perceived the belugasturgeon (as well as sterlet and stellate sturgeon) as a stupid fish, not aware of its greatstrenght, which once caught, shows practically no resistance (Petrovi 1998a [orig.

    1940]; 1998b [orig. 1941]). This view is in direct opposition with those of manycontemporary hunter-gatherer communities, in which the relationship with animals isbased on the idea of reciprocity rather than exploitation. Reciprocity implies that animalspresent themselves to the hunter to be killed; in turn, humans must follow properprocedures of butchering, consumption and disposal of animal bones (Ingold 1994: 9).Therefore, if the relationship between people and fish in the Danube Gorges isunderstood in terms of recipocity rather then exploitation, the role of massive fishstunners could be understood as an extended hand or a weapon of choice in enablingthe natural order of the world, the proper way of doing things.

    Conclusion

    In this paper, various approaches to matrial objects were discussed in the contextof Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges and Lepenski Vir in particular. As we have seen,stone clubs/mallets from Lepenski Vir have been interpreted as utilitarian tools, ritual andmagical objects, or both. Another possible approach to looking at them is as agents. Todo so, one must go way back, to the root of Modernist division between subject andobject, and Nature and Culture. This powerful metanarrative implies that theenvironment (object) is there to be exploited by mankind (subject). In this sense,animals are understood as resources (if hunted), or even as products (if bred) similarly to tools. However, such embedded concepts have a history in European thought,and are hardly universal. For example, in various cultural contexts, the nature-culturedichotomy may be less pronounced, or even non-existent (Ingold 1994), while the

    category of human may extend to include other living and non-living things. Animals,places and objects might be treated like persons, similarly to persons, or may encapsulatesomething of a person (Fowler 2004), while humans, similarly, can easily slip into theworld of animality (Bori 2007).

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    11/18

    11

    In the world of Lepenski Vir, social relations were created through complex websof engagement of humans, animals and objects. In these relations, the agency of all actorswas interdependant, and necessary for maintaining the social order. One cannot catch afish unless the fish alows itself to be caught, nor can one kill it without the use of tools.The boundaries beween subjects and objects in this particular interaction can be seen as

    both unstable and fluid. The metamorphic or hybrid nature of stone sculpturesrepresenting human/fish beings speaks in favour of such fluidity. Similarly, in the case ofinterrelationships of humans and tools, it is difficult to say where the hand stops andtool begins; for without the tool, the hand could not act the way it does. It might beconcluded that Lepenski Vir stone mallets, interpreted as both ritual scepters and fishstunners, could also be understood as powerful agents, enabling the inhabitants ofLepenski Vir to use their bodies in specific ways and to form relationships with otherliving beings.

    Fig. 12 Clubbing beluga sturgeon (drawing by Nemanja Vukainovi)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    12/18

    12

    INV.

    no.ROCK DIMESIONS ENGRAVING COLOURING CONTEXT REFERENCE

    IB.843

    Garnet-bearing

    amphibolechist

    39.5x4.8 cm / / House 61

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 185-cat. no. 90;

    Antonovi 2006: 51-cat.no. 6

    IB.753Muscovite-

    chlorite chist11.6x4.7 cm /

    Dark pigment onone end

    House 38. Other finds in context:animal bones, stones, chipped stone

    tools

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 185-cat. no. 91;

    Antonovi 2006: 52-cat.

    no. 8

    IB.256

    Gneiss-granite

    24x5.8 cm /Ochre on both

    sidesHouse 18

    Srejovi 1972: fig. 77;Srejovi and Babovi1983: 185-cat. no. 92;

    Antonovi 2006: 55-cat.no. 13

    SM.257

    Limestone 45.6x6 cm /Ochre on one

    side

    House 22, next to the hearth. Otherfinds in context: red deer antlers,bone hook, bone awls, chipped

    stone artifacts

    Srejovi 1969: fig. 81;1972: fig. 77; Srejovi and

    Babovi 1983: 186-cat.no. 93; Antonovi 2006:

    50-cat. no. 4

    IB.757

    Limestone 34x2.8 cm Wavy line, dotsRed-brown

    pigment on thewhole surface

    House 48

    Srejovi 1969: figs. 39,94; 1972: figs. 34, 77;Srejovi and Babovi1983: 186-cat. no. 94;

    Antonovi 2006: 57-cat.no. 17

    IB.

    370

    Marly

    limestone

    29x8 cm /Brown pigment

    around the

    center

    House 1, next to the hearth. Other

    finds in context: bone awl

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 186-cat. no. 95;

    Antonovi 2006: 52-cat.no. 7

    SM.575

    Rugosechlorite-

    muscovitechist

    25.4x5 cmWavy and zig-

    zag lines

    Red pigment onthe wholesurface

    House 47, corner B. Other finds incontext: pottery fragments

    Srejovi 1969: fig. 39;1972: fig. 34; Srejovi and

    Babovi 1983: 187-cat.no. 96; Bori 2002a: fig.

    5.11; Antonovi 2006: 54-cat. no. 11

    IB.679

    Fine-grainedsandstone

    22.5x5.6 cm Circular lineDark pigment

    around thecenter

    House 27, next to the hearth. Otherfinds in context: stone club/mallet IB.

    678, stone axe

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 187-cat. no. 97;

    Antonovi 2006: 54-cat.no. 12

    IB.942

    Rugosemuscovite-

    chlorite chist46.7x5.2 cm /

    Traces of red-brown pigment

    Zone of dark soil (pit). Other finds incontext: stone club/mallet IB. 941,

    animal bones

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 187-cat. no. 98;

    Antonovic 2003: fig. 3A;2006: 51-cat. no. 5; 2008:

    fig. 3A

    IB.720

    Siltstone

    withoutcarbonate

    21x4.2 cm Parallel shortvertical lines

    Traces of darkred pigment

    House 44/XLIV, next to the hearth.

    Other finds in context: sculpture"Forefather", stones, bones, antler

    Srejovi 1969: fig. 81;1972: fig. 77; Srejovi and

    Babovi 1983: 188-cat.no. 99; Bori 2002a: fig.

    5.11; Antonovi 2006: 53-cat. no. 10

    IB. 78 Marlstone 39.5x4.8 cm

    Boat motif,continuous

    vertical,horizontal anddiagonal lines

    Dark redpigment on thewhole surface

    UnknownSrejovi and Babovi

    1983: 188-cat. no. 100

    IB. 7Fine-grained

    quartzsandstone

    35.2x6.1 cmParallel, wavy,

    circular andintersecting lines

    Traces of darkpigment

    Unknown

    Srejovi 1969: figs. 39,79; 1972: figs. 34, 74;Srejovi and Babovi

    1983: 188-cat. no. 101

    IB.941

    Fine-grainedcarbonatesandstone

    43x 5cm

    Groups of shortvertical and zig-zag lines, "fish

    motif"

    Red pigment onthe wholesurface

    Zone of dark soil (pit). Other finds incontext: stone club/mallet IB. 942,

    stones, animal bones

    Srejovi and Babovi1983: 189-cat. no. 102;

    Antonovic 2003: fig. 3B;Bori 2005: fig. 14;

    Antonovi 2006: 53-cat.no. 9; Antonovi 2008:

    fig. 3BIB.937

    Fine-grainedcarbonatesandstone

    11.8x4.3 cmContinous rowsof short verticallines, "fish motif"

    Pigment on thewhole surface

    UnknownSrejovi and Babovi

    1983: 189-cat. no. 103;Bori 2005: fig. 14

    SM.473

    Mica chist 28.5x5.4 cm / /House 47, corner B. Other finds in

    context: pottery fragments,calcinated animal bones

    Srejovi 1969: 81;Antonovi 2006: 49-cat.

    no. 1

    IB.755

    Amphibolite 25.6x6.7 cm / /

    House 51, corner B. Other finds incontext: chipped stone tools, animalbones, traces of carbonized wooden

    post

    Antonovi 2006: 49-cat.no. 2

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    13/18

    13

    IB.678

    Mica chist 31.5x6.2 cm / /House 27, area D. Other finds in

    context: chipped stone tools, stoneaxe, stone club/mallet IB. 679

    Antonovi 2006: 50-cat.no. 3

    IB.677

    Gneiss 27.7x9 cm / /House 24, area A. Other finds in

    context: burials 8, 9 and 10, animalbones

    Antonovi 2006: 55-cat.no. 14

    IB.

    754

    Gneiss 30.5x5.1 cm / /House 39, area C. Other finds incontext: animal bones, chipped

    stone tools

    Antonovi 2006: 56-cat.

    no. 15

    IB.762

    Slightly silicifiedfine-grainedlimestone

    29.3x4.6 cm / /House 57, by the profile 'c'. Otherfinds in context: pottery fragments,

    animal bones, stones

    Antonovi 2006: 56-cat.no. 16

    IB.761

    Slightly silicifiedfine-grainedlimestone

    29.4x5.1 cm / /House 51. Other finds in context:

    chipped stone tools, animal bones,remains of carbonized wooden post

    Antonovi 2006: 57 - cat.no. 18

    SM.576

    Fine-grainedmetamorphosed

    sandstone33.5x5.8 cm / /

    House 51, corner B. Other finds incontext: chipped stone tools, animal

    bones

    Antonovi 2006: 58 - cat.no. 19

    SM.1282d

    Mica chist 26.5x5 cm / /Pit. Other finds in context: pottery

    fragmentsAntonovi 2006: 58-cat.

    no. 20

    IB.756

    Fine-grainedmetamorphosed

    sandstone27.5x4.5 cm / /

    House 54. Other finds in context:animal bones, chipped stone tools

    Antonovi 2006: 59-cat.no. 21

    SM.1028

    Slightly silicifiedfine-grainedlimestone

    34x6.1 cm / /House 65. Other finds in context:

    bone tool, chipped stone implementAntonovi 2006: 59-cat.

    no. 22

    SM.1028

    Slightly silicified

    fine-grainedlimestone

    12.5x6 cm / / House 65. Other finds in context:bone tool, chipped stone implement Antonovi 2006: 60-cat.no. 23

    SM.195

    Mica chist 24.4x3.1 cm / /House 19. Other finds in context:

    pottery vessel, animal bones, stonetools, chipped stone implements

    Antonovi 2006: 60-cat.no. 24

    IB.676

    Mica chist 12.9x5.1 cm / /House 9, in front of the hearth. Otherfinds in context: animal bones, stone

    tools, chipped stone artifacts

    Antonovi 2006: 61-cat.no. 25

    SM.970

    Mica chist 20x5.5 cm / /House 63, on a stone in front of the

    hearthAntonovi 2006: 61-cat.

    no. 26

    IB.681

    Fine-grainedlimestone

    15.8x4.8 cm / /House 41, area A. Other finds incontext: chipped stone artifacts,

    animal teeth

    Antonovi 2006: 62-cat.no. 27

    / Gneiss 17x5.5 cm / / Under the floor of House 1Antonovi 2006: 62-cat.

    no. 28SM.860

    Gneiss-granite 17.4x5.7 cm / /Layer of dark soil. Other finds in

    context: pottery fragmentsAntonovi 2006: 62-cat.

    no. 29

    / Granite 16.7x4.9 cm / /House 36. Other finds in context:

    stone toolsAntonovi 2006: 63-cat.

    no. 30

    SM.1267-1277

    Fine-grainedlimestone

    14.7 x 5.7 cm / /Concentration of stones and animal

    bonesAntonovi 2006: 63-cat.

    no. 31

    / Mica chist 8.8x3.9 cm / / Layer with pottery fragmentsAntonovi 2006: 63-cat.

    no. 32SM.365

    Mica chist 12x3.7 cm / /Disturbed layer with Neolithic and

    Roman potteryAntonovi 2006: 64-cat.

    no. 33

    IB.477

    Unknown(unavailable)

    8x5.5 cm / /House 9, in the back of the house.

    Other finds in context: animal bones,pottery fragments and bone tools

    Antonovi 2006: 64-cat.no. 34

    SM.102

    Diorite 15.9x4.5 cm / /Stone structure. Other finds in

    context: pottery fragments, animalbones

    Antonovi 2006: 64-cat.no. 35

    IB.830

    Mica chist 14.2x 5.7 cmWavy line, twoparralel straight

    lines/ Yellow soil

    Antonovi 2006: 65-cat.no. 36

    /Fine-grained

    limestone11x6 cm / /

    Layer with pottery fragments, animalbones and stone tools

    Antonovi 2006: 65-cat.no. 37

    /

    Fine-grained

    spotty limestone 7.6x4.7 cm / / House 3

    Antonovi 2006: 65-cat.

    no. 38

    Table I. Tabelar representation of published stone clubs/mallets from Lepenski Vir(after Srejovi and Babovi 1983; Antonovi 2003; 2006; 2008)

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    14/18

    14

    Acknowledgements

    This paper was inspired by my research on fishing techniques in the DanubeGorges, and will be integrated in my PhD dissertation Fishing in the Danube Gorges inthe Early Holocene (10

    th 6

    thmillennia BC). I am grateful to my mentor Professor Dr

    Vesna Dimitrijevi (Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), for encouraging me

    to shape my ponderings on the subject into this paper, and for all of her support. DrDuan Bori (Cardiff School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University) has been aconstant source of inspiration, and an important agent in my decision to make theDanube Gorges Mesolithic-Neolithic the subject of my research. Finally, I thankNemanja Vukainovi for bringing the dramatic scene of beluga fishing to life in hiswonderful drawing.

    This paper is the result of the Project Bioarchaeology of Ancient Europe humans, animals and plants in the prehistory of Serbia (III 47001) funded by theMinistry of Education and Science of the Republic of Serbia.

    BibliographyAntonovi, D. (2003) Mezolitska i neolitska kamena industrija erdapa, Glasnik

    Srpskog arheolokog drutva 19: 9-35.- (2006) Stone tools from Lepenski Vir, Belgrade: Institute of Archaeology, Cahiers

    de Portes de Fer, Monographies 5.- (2008) The development of the ground stone industry in the Serbian part of the

    Iron Gates, in C. Bonsall, V. Boronean and I. Radovanovi (eds) The Iron Gatesin Prehistory. New perspectives, BAR International Series 1893, Oxford:Archaeopress: 19-38.

    Bartosiewicz, L., Bonsall, C. and iu, V. (2008) Sturgeon fishing along the Middle and

    Lower Danube, in C. Bonsall, V. Boronean and I. Radovanovi (eds) The IronGates in Prehistory. New perspectives, BAR International Series 1893, Oxford:Archaeopress: 39-54.

    Bartosiewicz, L., Boronean, V., Bonsall, C. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) Schela Cladovei:a preliminary review of the prehistoric fauna,Mesolithic Miscellany 16(2): 2-19.

    - (2001) New Data on the prehistoric fauna of the Iron Gates: a case study fromSchela Cladovei, Romania, in R. Kertsz and J. Makkay (eds.) From theMesolithic to the Neolithic (Proceedings of the International ArchaeologicalConference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996),Budapest: Archaeolingua: 15-21.

    Bknyi, S. (1969) Kimenjaci (prethodni izvetaj) in D. Srejovi (ed) Lepenski Vir.Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju, Belgrade: Srpska knjievna zadruga:224-228.

    - (1970) Animal Remains from Lepenski Vir, Science 167(926): 1702-1704.

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    15/18

    15

    - (1972) The vertebrate fauna in D. Srejovi (ed) Europe's first monumentalsculpture: new discoveries at Lepenski Vir, London: Thames and Hudson, 186-189.

    - (1978) The vertebrate fauna of Vlasac, in M. Garaanin (ed) Vlasac. AMesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates. Volume II. Geology Biology

    Anthropology, Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Monographies:35-65.

    Bonsall, C., Cook, G. T., Hedges, R. E. M., Higham, T. F. G., Pickard, C. andRadovanovi, I. (2004) Radiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of the dietarychange from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new resultsfrom Lepenski Vir,Radiocarbon 46: 293-300.

    Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness, D., Boronean, V.,Bartosiewicz, L., Payton. R. and Chapman, J. (1997) Mesolithic and earlyNeolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective, Journal of European

    Archaeology 5(1): 5092.Bori, D. (1999) Places that created time in the Danube Gorges and beyond, c. 9000-

    5500 BC,Documenta Praehistorica XXVI: 41-70.- (2001) Mesolithic and early Neolithic hunters and fishers in the Danube Gorges:

    an analyses of archaeozoological data in R. Kertsz and J. Makkay (eds) Fromthe Mesolithic to the Neolithic (Proceedings of the International ArchaeologicalConference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996),Budapest: Archaeolingua: 101-124.

    - (2002a) Seasons Life Cycles and Memory in the Danube Gorges, c. 10000-5500BC, Ph.D Dissertation, Cambridge, University of Cambridge.

    - (2002b) The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretation of the Mesolithic andNeolithic sequences in the Danube Gorges,Antiquity 76: 1026-1039.

    - (2005) Body metamorphosis and animality: volatile bodies and boulder artworksfrom Lepenski Vir, Cambridge Archaeological Journal15(1): 35-69.

    - (2007) Images of animality: hybrid bodies and mimesis in early prehistoric art,in C. Renfrew and I. Morley (eds) Material Beginnings: A Global Prehistory ofFigurative Representation, Cambridge: The McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research: 89-105.

    Bori, D. and Dimitrijevi, V. (2007) When did the Neolithic Package reach LepenskiVir? Radiometric and faunal evidence,Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV: 52-71.

    - (2009) Apsolutna hronologija i stratigrafija Lepenskog Vira (AbsoluteChronology and Stratigraphy of Lepenski Vir), StarinarLVII(2007): 9-55.

    Bori, D., Grupe, G., Peters, J. and Miki, . (2004) Is the Mesolithic-Neolithicsubsistence dichotomy real? New stable isotope evidence from the DanubeGorges,European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 7(3): 221248.

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    16/18

    16

    Bori, D. and Miracle, P. (2004) Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities in theDanube Gorges: new AMS dates from Padina and Hajduka Vodenica (Serbia),Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 341-371.

    Bori, D. and Stefanovi, S. (2004) Birth and death: infant burials from Vlasac and

    Lepenski Vir,Antiquity 78: 526-546.Brck, J. (2007) Ritual and Rationality. Some problems of interpretation in European

    archaeology, in T. Insoll (ed) The Archaeology of Identities, London and NewYork: Routledge: 281-307.

    Chapman, J. (2001) The fractality of personal relations in the Mesolithic and Neolithicof South East Europe, in R. Kertsz and J. Makkay (eds)From the Mesolithic tothe Neolithic (Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held inthe Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996), Budapest:Archaeolingua, 145-165.

    Clason, A. T. (1980) Padina and Starevo: game, fish and cattle, Palaeohistoria 22:141-173.

    Cook, G. T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R. E. M., McSweeney, K., Boronean, V., Pettitt, P.B.(2001) A freshwater diet-derived 14C reservoir effect at the stone age sites in theIron Gates Gorge,Radiocarbon 43(2A): 453-460.

    Dimitrijevi, V. (2008) Lepenski Vir animal bones: what was left in the houses?, in C.Bonsall, V. Boronean and I. Radovanovi (eds) The Iron Gates in Prehistory.New perspectives, BAR International Series 1893, Oxford: Archaeopress: 117-130.

    Dinu, A. (2010) Mesolithic fish and fishermen of the lower Danube (Iron Gates),Documenta Praehistorica XXXVII: 299-310.

    Dobres, M-A. and Robb, J. E. (eds) (2000)Agency in Archaeology, London: Routledge.

    Fowler, C. (2004) The Archaeology of Personhood. An anthropological approach,London and New York: Routledge.

    Grupe, G., Miki, ., Peters, J. and Manhart, H. (2003) Vertebrate food webs andsubsistence strategies of Meso and Neolithic populations of Central Europe, in G.Grupe and J. Peters (eds.) Documenta Archaeobiologiae 1. Jahrbuch derStaatssammlung fr Anthropologie und Paloanatomie. Mnchen: Verlag MarieLeidorf, Rahden/Westf.

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    17/18

    17

    Ingold, T. (1994) From trust to domination: an alternative history of human-animalrelations, in A. Manning and J. Serpell (eds) Animals and Human Society:Changing Perspectives, New York: Routledge: 1-22.

    - (2007) Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues June 2007 Vol.14. No 1: 1-16.

    Jovanovi, B. (1969) Chronological frames of the Iron Gate group of the early Neolithicperiod,Archaeologia Iugoslavica X: 23-47.

    - (1974) Praistorija Gornjeg erdapa, Starinar12(1971): 1-22.- (2008) Micro-regions of the Lepenski Vir culture: Padina in the Upper Gorge and

    Hajduka Vodenica in the Lower Gorge of the Danube, DocumentaPraehistorica XXXV: 1-36.

    Latour, B. (2005) Reasembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Mauss, M. (1973) [orig. 1934] Techniques of the body (Translated by Ben Brewster),Economy and Society 2: 1, 70-88.

    Petrovi, M. (1998a) [orig. 1940] Beograd negdanji centar velikoga ribarstva, in D.Trifunovi (ed) Ribarstvo. Sabrana dela Mihaila Petrovia knjiga 14, Beograd:Zavod za udbenike i nastavna sredstva, 10-174.

    - (1998b) [orig. 1941] erdapski ribolovi u prolosti i budunosti u D. Trifunovi(ur.) Ribarstvo. Sabrana dela Mihaila Petrovia knjiga 14, Beograd: Zavod zaudbenike i nastavna sredstva, 175-270.

    Radovanovi (1996) The Iron Gates Mesolithic, Ann Arbor: International Monographs inPrehistory, Archaeological Series 11.

    - (1997) The Lepenski Vir culture: a contribution to interpretation of itsideological aspects, in Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovi completis LXV annis abamicis, collegis, discipulis oblatum, Beograd: Centar za arheoloka istraivanja,Filozofski fakultet, 8593.

    Sokolov, L. I. (1989) Huso Brandt, 1869, in Holk, J. (ed.) The freshwater fishes ofEurope. Vol. 1, Part II: General Introduction to Fishes Acipenseriformes,Wiesbaden: AULA Verlag, 154-179.

    Srejovi, D. (1966) Lepenski Vir a new prehistoric culture in the Danubian region,Archaeologia Iugoslavica VII: 13-17.

    - (1969)Lepenski Vir: Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju, Beograd: SrpskaKnjievna Zadruga.

    - (1972) Europe's first monumental sculpture: new discoveries at Lepenski Vir,London: Thames and Hudson.

    Srejovi, D. and Babovi, Lj. (1983) Umetnost Lepenskog Vira, Beograd: Jugoslavija.

  • 7/28/2019 Big Fish Hunting - Interpretation of Stone Clubs From Lepenski Vir

    18/18

    18

    Srejovi, D. and Letica, Z. (1978) Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje u erdapu (I arheologija),Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti.

    Stephen, D. (2004) Discovery of the Genus Huso in the Pacific Coast of North America:The White Sturgeon or Steluga: Huso transmontanus (Richardson, 1836),

    (manuscript, available at http://evolutionqed.com/Huso.html).Wagner, R. (1975) The Invention of Culture, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Webmoor, T. (2007) What about one more turn after the social in archaeologicalreasoning? Taking things seriously, World Archaeology 39: 4, 563-578.

    Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C. L. (2008) Things Are Us! A Commentary onHuman/Things Relations under the Banner of a Social Archaeology,NorwegianArchaeological Review 41: 1, 53-70.

    Witmore, C. L. (2007) Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto, WorldArchaeology 39: 4, 546-562.