L’utilisation du harpon dans la culture Gumelniţa. Etude de cas : l’habitat de Borduşani-Popină (departement de Ialomiţa)

Cercetări Arheologice 17, 2010, 35-54
https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.17.03



L’utilisation du harpon dans la culture Gumelniţa. Etude de cas : l’habitat de Borduşani-Popină (departement de Ialomiţa)

The Use of the Harpoon in Gumelniţa Culture, Case Study: the Habitat of Borduşani-Popină (Ialomița County)

Authors: Monica Mărgărit Dragomir Nicolae-Popovici Florin Vlad

Keywords:

neo-eneolithic;, harpoon; antler; processing techniques

eneolithique, harpon, bois, chaîne operatoire

Abstract:

For the Neo-Eneolithic of the Romanian territory, the harpoon represents the type of a11ifact belonging to the bone industry on which we have mast information. The lot we had at our disposal for this study, coming from the settlement from 13orduşani-Popină, is made up of22 harpoons (coming from the diggings of the period 1991-2008), of which two can be considered pieces that were in the course of processing. ln this study we have tried to identify the way how the raw matter was obtained, turned into finite pieces (processing techniques), then the economy of these finite pieces (the ways how they were used and their role in the economy), and finally the eventual repairs of the fractured pieces and their reintegration in the economy of the community. We have provided as well a series of experimental or ethnographic examples, in order to illustrate the fact that the general denomination of harpoon is incorrect, when extended to designate all the points with hooks. The ethnographic comparisons themselves, which at first seemed to offer the key to the way how these weapons were used (in the context in which they have not reached us integrally, as they have no handle, which we might be not yet able to identify among the archaeological remains), complicated the discussions, proving that a prey can be hunted in different ways and the same weapon can be used with different methods.

Download: PDF

How to cite: Monica Mărgărit, Dragomir Nicolae Popovici, Florin Vlad, L’utilisation du harpon dans la culture Gumelniţa. Etude de cas : l’habitat de Borduşani-Popină (departement de Ialomiţa), Cercetări Arheologice, Vol. 17, pag. 35-54, 2010, doi: https://doi.org/10.46535/ca.17.03

Bibliography

  1. S. Amdt, M. Newcomber, Breakage Paflerns an Prehistoric Bone Points: An Experimental Study, Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe, O.A: Roe (ed.), BAR Interntional Series, 269, Oxford, 1986, p. 165-173.
  2. A. Bălăşescu, D. Moise, V. Dumitraşcu, Mammals fauna from Borduşani Popină, dans: Archaeological Pluridisciplinary Researches at Borduşani-Popină, Târgovişte, 2003, p. 103-140.
  3. A. Bălăşescu, V. Radu, D. Moise, Omul şi mediul animal între mileniile VII-IV î.e.n. la Dunărea de Jos, Târgovişte, 2005.
  4.  C. Bellier, A. Billamboz, C. Cattelain, M. Julien, L. Mons, D. Ramseyer, A.-C. Welte, Fichegenerale des harpom· et pointes barbelees, Cahier VII: Elements, barbeles, Treignes, I 995.
  5. D. Berciu, Săpăturile arheologice de la Tangîru (1934). Raport preliminar, BMJV, I, 1935.
  6. P. Bion-Griffin, Technology and Variation in Arrow Design among the Agta of NortheastemLuzon, Projectile Technology, H. Knecht (ed.), New York, 1997, p. 267-286.
  7. M. Brudiu, Prelucrarea oaselor şi coarnelor de ren în aşezarea paleolitică de la Cotu Miculinţi (jud. Botoşani), StCerclstorV, 31, I 980, I, p. 13-22.
  8. E. Comşa, Date despre harpoanele din epoca neolitică din Muntenia, CCDJ, II, I 986, p. 43-50.
  9. M. Dauvois, Industrie osseuse prehistorique et experimentations, Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la prehistoire, H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Editions de l’Universite de Provence, 1974, p. 73-84.
  10. Vl. Dumitrescu, Decouvertes de Gumelnița, Dacia I, 1924, p. 325-342.
  11. Vl.Dumitrescu, Fouilles de Gumelnița, Dacia 11, 1925, p. 29-103.
  12. Vl. Dumitrescu, Principalele rezultate ale primelor două campanii de săpături din aşezarea neolitică târzie de la Câscioarele, StCerclstorV, 16, 1965, 2, p. 215-237.
  13. P. Goodchild, Survival skills of the North American lndians, Chicago Review Press, 1984.
  14. M. Julien, Les harpons magdaleniens, XVIIe suppl. a Gallia Prehistoire, Editions du CNRS, 1982.
  15. H. Knecht, Projectile Point of Bone, Antler, and Stane, Projectile Technology, H. Knecht (ed.),New York, 1997, p. 191-212.
  16. A. Legrand, Fabrication et utilisation de l’outillage en matiere osseuses du Neolithique de Chypre: Khrokitia el Cap Andreas-Kastros, BAR lntSer, 1678, 2007.
  17. M. Mărgărit, D. N. Popovici, F. Vlad, L’exploitation du bois dans l’habitat eneolithique de Borduşani-Popină (dep. de Ialomiţa), Annales d’Universite „Valahia” Târgovişte, Section d’Archeologie et d’Histoire, XI, 2009, I, p. 53-67.
  18. C. McClellan, My old people say. An ethnographic survey of Southern Yukon territory, Ottawa,National Museums of Canada / National Museum of Man (publications in Ethnology, 6), I, 1975
  19. R. McGhee, lvory for the Sea Women: the Symbolic Attributes of a Prehistoric Technology, Canadian Journal of Archaeology, I, 1977, p. 141-159.
  20. C. Micu, M. Maille, la periode eneolithique en Dobroudja du Nord (Roumanie), Hommes et passe des Causses, textes reunis par Jean Gascó, François Leyge et Philippe Gruat, Actes du Colloque de Millau, 16-18 Juin 2005, Editions des Archives d’Ecologie Prehistorique, Toulouse, 2006, p. 13-36.
  21. C. Osgood, lngalik material culture, New Haven, HRAF press (Yale University publications in Anthropology), 22, 1970.
  22. J.-M. Petillon, Des barbelures pour quoi faire ? Reflexions preliminaires sur la fonction des pointes barbelees au Magdalenien superieur, în J.-M. Petillon, M.-H. Dias-Meirinho, P. Cattelain, M. Honegger, C. Normand, N. Valdeyron (coord.), Recherches sur les annatures de projectiles du Paleolithique superieur au Neolithiquc (actes du colloque C83, XVe congres de l’UJSPP, Lisbonne, 4-9 septembre 2006), Palethnologie, I, 2008, p. 69-102.
  23. J. M. Petillon, CI. Letoumeaux, Des gibiers, des armes … et des questions : les pratiques lynegetiques dans le Magdalenien superieur Isturitz, în I. Sidera, E. Vila, P. Erikson (eds.), La chasse, pratiques sociales et symboliques, Paris, de Boccard, 2006, p. 13-26.
  24. J. Pokines, M. Krupa, Self-Barbed Antler Spearpoints and Evidence of Fishing in the late Upper Paleolithic of Cantabrian Spain, Projectile Technology, H. Knecht (ed.), New York, 1997, p. 241-262.
  25. D. Popescu, lesfouilles de Cuneşti, Dacia, V-VI, 1938, p. 109-120.
  26. V. Radu, Several data about fish and fishing importance in the palaeoeconomy of the Gumelnița A2 community from Borduşani-Popină, în Archaeological Pluridisciplinary Researches at Borduşani-Popină, 2003, p. 159-172.
  27. V. Radu, Quelques engins de peche emploies pendant la periode neo-eneolithique sur le teritoire de la Roumanie, CercA, XIV-XV, 2007-2008, p. 413-422.
  28. D. Ramseyer, Harpons neolithiques d’Europe Occidentale, Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osscusc prehistorique Paleolithique jusqu’â l’Âge du Bronze, Cahier VII: Elements barbeles, Editions du Cedare, Treignes, 1995, p. 47-57.
  29. Gh. Ştefan, les fouilles de Căscioarele, Dacia, II, 1925, p. 191-192.
  30. U. Stodiek, Preliminary results of an experimental investigation of Magdalenian antler points, inLa chasse dans la Prehistoire, actes du colloque intemational de Treignes, 3-7 octobre 1990, C. Bellier, P. Cattelain, M. Otte (dir.), Bruxelles, Societe royale helge d’ Anthropologie et de Prehistoire (Anthropologie et Prehistoire, 111) l’Universite de Liege – Service de Prehistoire (ERA UL, 51) I CEDARC (Artefacts, 8), 2000, p. 70-78.
  31. J. E.Yellen, A. S. 8rooks, E. Cornelissen, M. J. Mehlman, K. Stewart, A middle stone age worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 268, 1995, 521 O, p. 553-556.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License