Multilingual lexicon of Bone Industries- version 2. A. Averbouh dir. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Multilingual lexicon of bone industries, version - 2 (2016), Aline Averbouh dir.
AVERBOUH A. dir. 2016 − Multilingual Lexicon of Bone Industry, Version 2 (Français-Anglais- Allemand, Danois, Espagnol, Italien, Portugais, Roumain, Bulgare, Polonais, Russe, Hongrois). GDRE PREHISTOS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES II 2015, Hors série Préhistoires méditerranéennes, 131 p. with the following authors : N. Akhmetgaleeva, A. Balasescu, A. Boguzewski, A. Choyke, M. Christensen, M. Evora, N. Goutas, G. Ledosseur, Cl. Letourneux, S. Lev, L. Manca, M. Margarit, K. Mazurié, A. Pasquini, N. Skakun, J.-M. Tejero, Z. Toth, M. Zhilin et P. Zidarov. This multilingual lexicon was created in the framework of the CNRS European research group « Exploitation of osseous materials in Prehistoric Europe » (GDRE PREHISTOS). It was intended as a working tool to catalogue and translate the main terms used for the technical, typological or functional study of hard animal material industries by the GDRE members into distinct languages. This volume follows the first version published online in 2010 and provides an extended list of terms translated into 12 languages : French, English, German, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Russian and Hungarian.
05TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE Methodology & Archaeometr. Zagreb, 30th November ‒ 1st December 2017, 2017
Typological classification is very important tool for every archaeological research. It was used for analyses of chronology, contacts, innovations, and many more. Numerous studies were written on the typology only, and the entire approach was heavily criticized, especially in the second half of the 20th century with novel theoretical approaches. Particularly long debate on the usefulness of typology took place in the studies of chipped stone industries, although for other types of artefacts the approaches changed considerably. Increasing number of technological studies also initiated attempts of creating purely functional classifications. However, is typology completely out-of-date or do we still need it as an analytical tool? In this paper will be analysed classifications currently used in analyses of prehistoric bone industries, their possibilities and restrictions. The osseous industries are particularly difficult for classifications since they are usually less standardized than, for example, lithic or metal artefacts, therefore, certain flexibility is needed if we want to compare different assemblages in different regions, cultures and periods. The easiest, but not very useful approach is the classification based on the raw materials. Also other typologies were offered, with more or less strictly defined types. French archaeological school offered a typological classification that combines different criteria, form, function and raw material. Such typology also possesses certain flexibility and its application on diverse prehistoric osseous industries from South-East Europe will be discussed.
BAKRENO DOBA U SJEVERNOJ HRVATSKOJ COPPER AGE IN NORTHERN CROATIA, 2018
Osseous raw materials were very important throughout prehistory, since the Lower Palaeolithic. Although their role changed with the introduction of the new raw materials, especially with the development of the metallurgy, they were in the later prehistoric periods still used for production of a variety of artefacts – everyday tools, weapons, as well as decorative and non-utilitarian items. Unfortunately, the osseous industry in the Eneolithic period is not very well studied; in particular for the area of the South Carpathian basin and the Balkans analysed assemblages are only few, and the synthetic studies are almost non-existing. Additional problem concerns the available material; often the assemblages are incomplete, originating from excavations carried out in the 19th and in the first half 20th century, when the faunal material was not carefully recovered, but only selected items, and the information about the context is incomplete. In this paper will be offered an overview of the available data on the bone industries in the Eneolithic period from diverse cultures that inhabited the area of the South-East Europe, more specifically, of the south Carpathian basin and the Balkans.