were never totally absent. The same phenomenon was noted north of the Lower Danube, in southern and eastern Romania. The earliest wild boar canine tools were documented at the Mesolithic sites in the 394 Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021) Introduction Tools of wild boar canines were frequently used by Mesolithic communities throughout Europe (e.g., Marquebielle 2014), but during the Neolithic (e.g., Sidéra 2012) their presence is rarer, although they Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube Monica Mărgărit 1, Adina Boroneant, 2 1 Valahia University of Târgovis,te, Târgovis,te and “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Bucures,ti, RO< monicamargarit@yahoo.com 2 “Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy, Bucures,ti, RO< boro30@gmail.com ABSTRACT – This paper discusses the technological exploitation and transformation of wild boar teeth into tools during the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic north of the Lower Danube. Four main va- riables were taken into consideration: raw material procurement, blank production, object manufac- ture, and equipment maintenance. Tool finds from various prehistoric sites in Romania were com- pared, aiming to identify their impact on the economy of the prehistoric communities, and to deter- mine possible variations in their number/ways of use during early prehistory. Tool typology is poor. The finds studied showed different degrees of use-wear, as well as systematic re-sharpening of the active front. In addition, finished tools are predominant in comparison to the sub-products of the chaîne opératoire. The almost total lack of blanks may suggest no stocking was taking place. The entire tooth was used, resulting at times in several implements. Our experimental program, by fol- lowing closely the technical transformation schemes indicated by the archaeological specimens, sug- gests that such tusk tools were used for woodworking. IZVLE∞EK – V prispevku obravnavamo uporabo in tehnologijo preoblikovanja zob divjih pra∏i≠ev v orodja v neolitiku in halkolitiku na obmo≠ju severno od Spodnjega Podonavja. Upo∏tevali smo ∏tiri klju≠ne spremenljivke: zagotavljanje surovin, proizvodnjo polizdelkov, izdelavo predmetov in vzdr∫e- vanje opreme. S primerjavo orodij iz razli≠nih romunskih prazgodovinskih najdi∏≠ smo ugotavljali njihov vpliv na gospodarstva prazgodovinskih skupnosti in variabilnosti v ∏tevilu/na≠inu uporabe v starej∏i prazgodovini. Tipologija orodij je slaba. Analiza je pokazala razli≠ne stopnje obrabe in po- novno ostrenje. V produkcijski verigi je v primerjavi s polizdelki ve≠ kon≠nih izdelkov. Majhno ∏te- vilo prvih ka∫e na to, da njihove zaloge ni bilo. Zob je bil uporabljen v celoti, v≠asih za izdelavo ve≠ orodij. S pomo≠jo na∏ega eksperimentalnega programa smo lahko sledili tehni≠nim transformacijam orodij, ki ka∫ejo, da so bila uporabljena za obdelavo lesa. KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Chalcolithic; Lower Danube; Romania; wild boar; canines; tools; technolo- gical and use-wear analysis; experimental replicas KLJU∞NE BESEDE – neolitik; halkolitik; Spodnje Podonavje; Romunija; merjasec; podo≠niki; orodje; analize tehnologije in sledi uporabe orodij; eksperimentalne replike Orodja iz podo;nikov divjih pra[i;ev v neolitiku in halkolitiku v Spodnjem Podonavju DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.12 Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 395 1 The paper does not discuss adornments manufactured from this particular raw material unless they were derived from former tools. Iron Gates on both banks of the Danube (e.g., Vla- sac (Srejovi≤, Letica 1978), Icoana (Mărgărit et al. 2017a), Ostrovul Banului (Mărgărit et al. 2017b)), as an important component of the toolkit of the lo- cal foragers. At Icoana (Mărgărit et al. 2017a), the number of wild boar canine tools is comparable to that of bone and antler implements; the total osse- ous assemblage (n=484 items) reflects a well-balanc- ed use of the available osseous raw materials (bone 36%, antler 35%, and tooth 29%). Debitage waste was present at the site (Mărgărit et al. 2017a) and blanks were recovered from the Ostrovul Banului down- stream site (Mărgărit et al. 2017b), suggesting that tusk processing took place in situ. While Mesolithic tusk artefacts in our area of interest have received extensive publication (Mărgărit, Boroneant, 2017a; 2017b; Mărgărit et al. 2017a; 2017b), the situation is somewhat different for the Neolithic and Chalco- lithic assemblages. Taking this into consideration, the aim of this paper is to further explore the transformations of the wild boar canine tools1 during these two periods in south- ern and eastern Romania. Our objective was to cha- racterize wild boar canine exploitation patterns dur- ing the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic through the analysis of four main variables: raw material; blank production (debitage method); manufacture of im- plements and maintenance of the toolkit, as well as initiate a discussion on the economic and technolo- gical implications of wild boar tusk exploitation, starting from our own experimental reconstructions. Several sites attributed to different cultural groups were selected, based mainly on the availability of tusk artefacts and size of the assemblage. The paper focuses on our own study of the material, but also takes into account previous work (Tab. 1, see below). Archaeological and cultural framework The Neolithic Radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic – the Star- ≠evo-Cris, -Körös cultural complex – cluster between c. 6000–5400/5300 cal BC, although a handful of dates fall outside both ends of the interval. The only assemblage directly studied here originates from Mă- gura Buduiasca (Teleorman County), south-western Romania. Previous technological studies referred to a few sites in Oltenia at Cârcea-La Hanuri and Cârcea- Viaduct, and eastern Romania at Trestiana and Gru- măzes, ti (Marinescu-Bîlcu, Beldiman 1997; Beldi- man 2007; Beldiman, Sztancs 2013). Tusk imple- ments were mentioned at least at two Early Neoli- thic sites on the right bank of the Danube in the Iron Gates (Alibeg, Cuina Turcului). In most cases, such artefacts originated from pithouses (whether the floor or the infill is not always clear) and only rarely from the cultural layer. The Dudes,ti culture (c. 5500–4800 cal BC) and later on the Boian followed the Star≠evo-Cris, in southern Romania, while in the Iron Gates the latter culture was succeeded by the Vin≠a (c. 5700–4800 cal BC). The only Dudes,ti assemblage studied came from pit- features at Măgura Buduiasca (Teleorman County, c. 5300–5000 cal BC; Mirea 2011). Some interesting tusk implements (grave goods) came from the Late Dudes,ti/Early Boian necropolis from Cernica (Ilfov County, c. 5200–5000 cal BC; Stratton et al. 2019). One artefact came from a Vin≠a B2 context at Liub- cova-Ornit,a where the occupation was dated based on one charcoal sample to c. 5230–5000 cal BC (Lu- ca, El Susi 1989). The Precucuteni culture followed the Star≠evo in eastern Romania. Two sites from Ias,i County offered data pertinent to the present study: Isaiia – Balta Po- pii and Târgu Frumos – Baza Pătule. The technolo- gy of the tusk implements from the latter site were detailed and both presented by Andreea Vornicu (2014a). The former site was assigned based on pot- tery typology to the Precucuteni culture, phases II and III; occupation of the site falls within the inter- val between 4620–4440 cal BC (Ursulescu et al. 2020). The only date from the latter site (seen as Pre- cucuteni III) indicates occupation during the 4800– 4550 cal BC interval (Ursulescu et al. 2005). The ar- tefacts originated from features identified as house- platforms. The Chalcolithic Four assemblages originating from sites of the Gu- melnit,a culture (c. 4600–3850 cal BC; Bem 2001) were studied: Bordus,ani-Popină (Ialomit,a County), Căscioarele (Călăras, i County), Hârs,ova (Constant,a County) and Vitănes,ti (Teleorman County). Earlier publications report wild boar tusk tools from house features at Grădis,tea-Fundeanca (Dumitrescu 1933a) and Gumelnit,a (Dumitrescu 1924; 1925), while more recently their presence in funerary contexts was re- ported at Pietrele (Hansen et al. 2011). For the Cucuteni culture (c. 4650–3450 cal BC; Bem 2001), the assemblage the present author studied di- Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 396 rectly, came from Drăgus,eni (Neamt, County). Pottery typology indicated the site as Cucuteni A4 (Marine- scu Bîlcu, Bolomey 2000). Previous technological studies focused on the small assemblages from Cos- tes,ti – Cier (Vornicu 2014b) dated to the Cucuteni A2-3, with no radiocarbon dates available (Boghian et al. 2014) and Beres,ti – Dealul Bulgarului, Galat,i County (Beldiman et al. 2012) a Cucuteni A3 site. A small number of implements were reported main- ly from old excavations at Bodes,ti – Cetăt,uia Frumu- s,ica, Neamt, County – Cucuteni A, A-B and B (Măta- să 1946); Poienes,ti, Vaslui County (Vulpe 1953) – Cucuteni A; Ruginoasa, Ias, i County (Dumitrescu 1933b) – Cucuteni A. The only recent finds came from Fulgeris, – La trei cires,i, Bacău County, a Cu- cuteni A3 site (Iat,cu et al. 2016). All Cucuteni finds were associated with house features/platforms. Methods The methodology employed is based on the macro- scopic and microscopic analysis of the technologi- cal and wear marks present on the archaeological ar- tefacts, supplemented by experimental data. During the first stage of our research, we focused primarily on the preforms, blanks and manufacturing waste, and then on the finished pieces. All artefacts were observed under the microscope for the correct cha- racterization of the technological marks. The second stage aimed to reconstruct the sequence of the ma- nufacturing gestures and the transformation scheme from the raw material to the finished implement. Microscopic examination and photography were underta- ken using a Keyence VHX-600 digital microscope at magni- fications between ×30 and ×150. Our methodologies for recording morphological and morphometric attributes, and for the analysis of the techno- logical and use-wear marks, were developed with refer- ence to previous studies on tooth tools from prehistoric contexts (e.g., Chiquet et al. 1997; Maigrot 2001; 2005; Marquebielle 2009; 2014; Si- déra 2012). None of the ar- tefacts available for study has been directly dated. There- fore, period assignments are based on the reported archaeological context and associations. Starting with the data obtained from the archaeo- logical assemblages, replicas were created to assess all the variables involved in the techniques of pro- cessing the tusk implements (technological gestu- res, time required for each operation, tools employ- ed, re-sharpening actions, etc.). This allowed for the correct evaluation of the material costs and the energy invested in the manufacture of these types of artefacts, from the acquisition of the wild boar canines, to the use and the discard of the finished tools. Subsequent to their production, the experi- mental implements were used in the manner sug- gested by the relevant archaeological publications. Finally, various parameters of the two categories of implements (archaeological and experimental) were compared (e.g., the morphology of the active end following use, the use-wear marks, their resilience over time, etc.) in order to assess the validity of the previously suggested functions of the archaeological artefacts. Raw material Wild boars are adaptable mammals, mostly omnivo- rous (Albarella et al. 2006). A characteristic of the wild boar dentition is the presence of large, rootless and continuously growing permanent canines (tusks) in males (Schmid 1972) which serve for defence, finding food and as powerful weapons used against other males during the mating season. When the up- Fig. 1. Map of the sites mentioned in the text: red Star≠evo Cris,; blue Du- des,ti; green Vin≠a; black Vădastra; yellow Gumelnit, a; white Precucuteni; magenta Cucuteni. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 397 per canine is absent, the lower canine can reach an enormous length (Konjevi≤ et al. 2004). They are triangular in section, curved and directed towards the exterior. The proximal end is hollow. Only the anterior internal and external faces are co- vered with a thin layer of enamel. The lower cani- nes – used for toolmaking – have a natural wear facet towards the distal extremity, resulting from the abrasion against the upper canines (Marquebielle 2014). At the sites in discussion, only wild boar teeth (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758; Gentry et al. 2004) seem to have been used to make various tools, those of do- mestic pig (Sus domesticus, Erxleben, 1777; Gentry et al. 2004) do not bear any marks of technological modifications. The situation has both economic and technological explanations. According to certain ar- chaeozoological studies (Bălăs,escu et al. 2005a), at the Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites in the Lower Da- nube region male domestic pigs generally did not live beyond 1.5 years. It is extremely unlikely that prior to that age they developed canines of the size we identified at the tusk artefacts we present. Fe- male domestic pigs reach maturity, and cases of ra- ther old sows have been documented, but their ca- nines are too small for such purposes. The archaeological assemblages The Star≠evo-Cris, culture Significant information was provided by the site at Măgura-Buduiasca, Teleorman County (Beldiman, Sztancs 2009; 2013). The only blank (Fig. 2.a) still preserving part of the proximal end of the tooth indicates the tooth was extracted from the bone complete. The tip of the tusk was sawn off with a flint tool (Fig. 2.b-c). Subsequently, the blank was bipartitioned longitudinally by percussion. Finished tools included scrapers (six) and bevelled tools (1). The scrapers (Fig. 2.d; see also Beldiman, Sztancs 2009.Fig. 14) were also made on blanks obtained by splitting the canine longitudinally. The cutting edges were adjusted by abrasion over vari- able areas. At two specimens, the interior surface was regularized by longitudinal scraping. The ac- tive front with a concave facet was created exclusively by scrap- ing. The concavity developed lon- gitudinally, is of variable depth on different artefacts, and ends in a false point. A single specimen was obtained by bipartition, combining groov- ing and indirect percussion (Fig. 2.e). The technological marks left by this operation are still visible. Subsequently, the entire interior surface of the piece was shaped by longitudinal scraping (Fig. 2.f). The active front displays a con- vexo-concave area and a point, which created two scraping ed- ges. The only bevelled tool (Fig. 2.g) was made from the proximal ex- tremity of the tooth. It is fractur- ed both longitudinally and trans- versely. The tooth was biparti- tioned by percussion, with the abrasion of the cutting edges (Fig. 2.h). The active front creat- Fig. 2. Teeth artefacts from Măgura-Buduiasca (Star≠evo-Cris, culture): a blank; b-c sawing marks; d scraper; e grooving marks; f, i scraping marks; g bevelled tool; h abrasion marks. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 398 ed by the transversal scraping of the distal extremi- ty is present only on the interior surface. The visible technological marks overlap areas of use-wear, indi- cating re-sharpening (Fig. 2.i). From Grumăzes,ti (Neamt, County) was recovered one tooth broken from the jaw by direct percussion/frac- turing using a lithic tool (Marinescu-Bîlcu, Beldi- man 1997; Beldiman 2007.156). Two ‘polishers’ from Trestiana were also reported (Vaslui County; Popus,oi, Beldiman 2001; Beldiman 2007.93, type I B7; Beldiman, Sztancs 2013). Their manufacturing stages were similar to what we observed in the Mă- gura assemblage. In south-western Romania sporadic finds were men- tioned at the Early Neolithic sites at Cârcea-Viaduct (Dolj County; Marinescu-Bâlcu, Beldiman 1997; Beldiman 2007; Beldiman, Sztancs 2013), Cârcea- Hanuri (Marinescu-Bâlcu, Beldiman 1997; Beldi- man 2007; Beldiman, Sztancs 2013), and Alibeg (Caras,-Severin County; Boroneant, 2012). The exact number of finds is unknown. Flat blanks were used, obtained by longitudinal debitage by direct percus- sion. The resulting pieces were scrapers or short end- scrapers (Marinescu-Bâlcu, Beldiman 1997.294). The Dudes,ti culture Some information of technological nature comes from Măgura-Buduiasca (Mărgărit et al. 2016) and the necropolis of Cernica (Cantacuzino, Morintz 1968; Coms,a, Cantacuzină 2001; Mărgărit, Vintilă 2015). At Măgura-Buduiasca, five scrap- ers (Fig. 3.a,f) were obtained from flat blanks extracted by various methods of bipartition: percus- sion (two items), grooving com- bined with indirect percussion (one item – Fig. 3.g) and indeter- minate (where the shaping ope- ration had removed all previous technological marks – two items). Shaping the tools was acquired by two methods: scraping of the cutting edges only at the distal extremity (three pieces) and scraping of the entire interior surface, followed by abrasion (two pieces – Fig. 3.b-c). When preserved intact (two pieces), the proximal end was regularized by abrasion. Deep scraping on the area of the distal end created a deeper or shallower concavity (Fig. 3.d,h) ending in a thin point (Fig. 3.e), in most cases fractured (four items). It is this concave area that represents the active front (and not the false point). Marks visible on the active front indicate periodic re-sharpening. A sixth piece is a combination tool with two active ends (Fig. 3.i). The procedures employed for obtaining the flat blank could not be determined as all marks were erased by subsequent scrap- ing of the cutting edges when the Fig. 3. Teeth artefacts from Măgura-Buduiasca (Dudes,ti culture); a, f scrapers; b-c abrasion marks; d, h, m scraping marks; g grooving marks; i combination tool; j sawing marks; k use-wear marks; l pre- form. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 399 artefact was shaped. Similar to the items described above, it has a concave active edge at one end – the result of repeated re-shar- pening. At the other end, the marks left by the segmentation by sawing (Fig. 3.j) are hardly visible as they were almost erased by the abrasion of the active front. The exterior surface exhibits one area covered by polish with lon- gitudinal scratches (Fig. 3.k), re- sulting exclusively from use. The last piece is seemingly a pre- form for a bevelled-tool (Fig. 3.l). Longitudinal debitage with regu- larization of the interior surface was the first operation (Fig. 3.m). At one end, oblique abrasion cre- ated a chisel-like (bevelled) facet. No use-wear was detected, and thus it is not conclusive whether this was really intended as the active end. Boar canines are also present in funerary contexts, within the necropolis from Cer- nica. All specimens were scrap- ers. One specimen (Fig. 4.a) was made of a complete tooth, ex- tracted from the mandible. The blank was flat, obtained by bi- partition in percussion. The low- er surface was regularized by scraping (Fig. 4.b), more visible on the concave edge (Fig. 4.c) re- presenting the active front. In other cases scrapers were made from the distal end of the tooth such as the specimens in graves 81, 216, 250 (Fig. 4.d). The cutting procedure could only be determined for one specimen: a combination between grooving and indirect percussion (Fig. 4.e). The other two items had the lower faces regularized by abrasion (Fig. 4.f). The extremities were fractured except for the specimen in grave 250, preserving the proximal extremity regularized by abrasion (Fig. 4.g). On the concave edge there are obvious scrap- ing marks (Fig. 4.h). According to the published data (Coms,a, Cantacuzino 2001) such artefacts occurred both in men’s and women’s graves. Moreover, one of the scrapers, later transformed in- to a pendant (Fig. 4.i), was found alongside a male individual. The technological procedures observed are similar: the integral abrasion of the lower face (Fig. 4.j); the concave edge was thinned by repeated scraping rendering the active front inefficient (Fig. 4.k-l), and thus the tool was recycled and turned into a pendant. The perforation was carried out by unifacial rotation, initiated from the lower face. The rotation marks are slightly blurred, indicating that the pendant was worn for a while (Fig. 4.m) prior to burial. In grave M241B, an unmodified boar canine was deposited next to the shoulder blade. The spe- cimen preserved almost the entire length of the tooth, indicating it was extracted from the mandible complete. Fig. 4. Teeth artefacts from Cernica necropolis (Final Dudes, ti/Early Boian culture); a, d, i scrapers; b-c, h, k-l scraping marks; e grooving marks; f-g, j abrasion marks; m perforation detail. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 400 The Gumelnit,a culture Assemblages from four tell-settlements were direct- ly studied by the present authors: Bordus,ani-Popi- nă, Căscioarele, Hârs,ova and Vitănes,ti. At two other sites the presence of wild boar implements was noted: Pietrele and Grădis, tea Fundeanca. Two scrapers came from the tell-settlement of Bor- dus,ani-Popină. One was made from the central area of the tooth (Fig. 5.a). A flat blank was first obtain- ed by longitudinal bipartition, initiated by groov- ing (Fig. 5.b) on the concave facet and continued by indirect percussion. Subsequently, the concave edge was scraped longitudinally (Fig. 5.c). The active front has not acquired the usual morphology, indicating the artefact had not been used prior to discard. The second piece was made on the proximal end of the canine (Fig. 5.d). The flat blank was obtained by per- cussion (Fig. 5.e), and its proximal extremity was shaped by abrasion (Fig. 5.f). Scraping was carried on along the cutting edges to create the desired mor- phology. The presence of two concavities located bi- laterally suggests the existence of two active fronts. Despite the fact the tip of the implement broke at a certain moment in time, the artefact continued to be used, and use-wear formed on the fractured area (Fig. 5.h). There are no re-sharpening marks on the two active fronts, only polish and functional scrat- ches, indicating the implement was used unmodified prior to being discarded (Fig. 5.g). The Căscioarele assemblage consists of 13 imple- ments, of which 12 are scrapers. Nine were made from the proximal part of the tooth (Fig. 5.i, 6.a) and three from the distal one (Fig. 6.f). All blanks were flat, obtained by longitudinal bipartition in percussion. The cutting edges (Fig. 6.c) and the proximal end were adjusted by abrasion (Figs. 5.j, 6.b). The deep concavity ex- hibiting scraping marks (Figs. 5.k, 6.d,e) located towards the distal end is associated with a point that was intentionally created and not the result of use. On most of these artefacts, the tip of the point broke during use. Six specimens were intensely used, until the active front which had been re- peatedly shaped by scraping was exhausted, and the items became very thin in this area (Figs. 5.i, 6.a), and further use would have led to their breaking. Two implements (made on the distal end of the tool) are extre- mely narrow (Fig. 6.f); the con- cave edge had barely formed but reached its maximum depth (Fig. 6.g-h). They were also used as scrapers, their particular morpho- logy possibly pointing towards a different type of action or their use on a different type of mate- rial. The thirteenth piece was recycled and transformed into a pendant (Fig. 6.i). Originally a scraper ob- tained in the same way as the other 12 (on a flat blank, obtain- Fig. 5. a, d teeth artefacts from Bordus,ani-Popină(Gumelnit, a culture); i tooth artefact from Căscioarele (Gumelnit, a culture); b grooving marks; c, k scraping marks; e unshaped edge; f, j abrasion marks; g-h use-wear area. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 401 ed by longitudinal percussion; shaping by abrasion applied both to the cutting edges and the proximal end; active front with a deep concavity located on an area of narrow breadth; broken tip), when it became unusable, the initial tool was perforated by unifacial rotation initiated from the interior face. It had not even been re-sharpened after its last use, as the scrap- ing marks are blurred (Fig. 6.j). The rotation marks inside the perforation are still visible but blurred, suggesting its long use as a pendant (Fig. 6.k). The tell-settlement of Hârs,ova yielded four imple- ments: two preforms and two finished tools. A frac- tured preform was extracted from the central area of the tooth. The tooth was split longitudinally by percussion. The edges were shaped by scraping. The functional edge had not been created, suggesting the item was still in the process of modification. A second preform was made from the proximal area (Fig. 7.a). Shaping of the distal end by longitudinal scraping along the edge was started, but not finalized (Fig. 7.b). Irregular scraping took place at the proximal end, both on the interior and the exterior faces. Two cuts made by sawing (Fig. 7.c) are visible on the exte- rior face, but further observa- tions are not possible given the fractured state of the artefact. Both finished pieces were made from the proximal area of the tooth. In the first case, the tooth was cut longitudinally but the identification of the procedure was rendered impossible by the abrasion of the cutting edges. The proximal end was cut trans- versally by sawing as shown by microscopic marks, despite the extremely rigorous shaping by abrasion of the area. The concave edge was scraped on the meso- distal area creating the active front. At the second implement (Fig. 7.d), the fracture edges and the inferior face were fully abraded (Fig. 7.e). At the distal end, the in- ferior face and the concave edge were rigorously shaped by scrap- ing (Fig. 7.f). The tip broke some- time during use, but the area of the fracture was abraded and the item remained in use. The conca- vity of the active front is deep, narrowing the width of the artefact in this area. The Gumelnit,a B1 level from the settlement of Vi- tănes,ti yielded three artefacts, a preform and two finished implements, probably combination tools. Pieces made from this raw material seem to be pre- sent in the A2 level of the same site (Torcică 2017. Fig. 62) but we did not have the opportunity to analyse the archaeological material. The median area of the tooth was used for the preform, detach- ed from the mandible by percussion. Longitudinal bipartition was achieved by indirect percussion. The concave edge was adjusted by abrasion. There are no signs of use-wear or scraping. One finished (and used) piece was manufactured from the proximal area of the tooth, indicating the Fig. 6. a, f, i teeth artefacts from Căscioarele (Gumelnit,a culture); b-c abrasion marks; d-e, g-h, j scraping marks; k perforation detail. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 402 tooth was extracted complete. The blank was ob- tained by percussion, followed by scraping to regu- larize the concave edge. The rest of the cutting edge remained unshaped. The concave edge was not the only active front, the fractured distal extremity seem- ingly had a bevelled morphology. The small area still preserved shows strong wear, with rounding of the surface and the erasure of technological marks. The second item also had two active fronts (Fig. 7.g). The procedure for longitudinal bipartition remains ob- scure, as the interior face was rigorously abraded. Transversal segmentation was performed by sawing (Fig. 7.h). Atypically, scraping marks on the convex edge indicate it to be the functional edge. It acquired an oblique rectilinear morphology. The distal end, shaped by abrasion, also has a convex morpholo- gy. The erasure of the abrasion marks towards the distal extremity and the smoothness of this area sug- gest the distal end might have also been active (Fig. 7.i). No re-sharpening of the tip is visible. The Cucuteni culture The assemblage studied directly by the present au- thors originated from Drăgus,eni (Neamt, County) and comprises 10 pieces: two blanks and eight finished implements. The two flat blanks were obtained by bipartition by percussion. The central area of the tusk was used for their manufacture, between the proximal end and the tip, an area partially hollow inside. Scrapers were the only typological category present. They were all manufactured on flat blanks obtained by bipartition by percussion retaining the entire length of the tooth (n=1), from the middle area of the tusk (n=4), and the tip (n=2). At two specimens the debitage edges and the inferior side (n=2) were shaped by abrasion (Fig. 8.a-b), while at two other specimens only the debitage edges (n=2) were ab- raded. In one case the debitage edge was adjusted by scraping. The proximal end (preserved in two cases) was cre- ated by abrasion. The opposite end was arranged by scraping (Fig. 8.c). The scrapers display little use-wear, given the fact the active front had not yet acquired the concave morphology. How- ever, there are visible re-sharpen- ing marks. One scraper was made on the en- tire length of the tooth (Fig. 8.d). The blank was obtained by bipar- tition by percussion, with the ab- rasion of the inferior face (Fig. 8.e-f). The active area was creat- ed by scraping (Fig. 8.g) towards the proximal part of the tooth. The shallow concavity that had formed indicates the implement was used for only a short while. One artefact (a double point) has two functional areas (Fig. 8.h). The blank is flat, extracted from the distal area of the tooth. The bipartition was performed by percussion, and the inferior face was abraded (Fig. 8.i). Two con- cave active fronts are visible, most likely used alternately. The piece shows extensive use-wear at the active ends, and both ex- Fig. 7. a, d teeth artefacts from Hârs,ova (Gumelnit, a culture); b, f scrap- ing marks; c, h sawing marks; e abrasion marks; g tooth artefact from Vitănes, ti (Gumelnit,a culture); i use-wear area. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 403 tremities probably fractured during use. Light scrap- ing marks (Fig. 8.j) indicate the piece was likely never sharpened before being discarded. The experimental program Our experiment involved both working wild boar canines and using the resulting tools. The presence of archaeological artefacts made from the proximal end of the tooth shows that at least some were ex- tracted complete from the mandible. By testing dif- ferent methods, we observed that in order to achieve this and not damage the tooth, the best method was to carefully break the mandible around the tooth. We also identified the main reason for the exclusive use of flat blanks: following dehydration, canines extracted from the mandible tend to crack longitu- dinally, starting from their proximal part (Fig. 9.a). The crack facilitates obtaining two similar flat blanks by striking a few blows by percussion. This has been highlighted previously by other studies (Maigrot 2005; Marquebielle 2014). For the debitage, both procedures observed on the archaeological specimens were tested: percussion and combined grooving + indirect percussion. Per- cussion: the natural crack of the tooth was hit with a hammer a few times, followed by detachment by bending (Fig. 9.b-c). Most likely, bipartition by gro- oving was used for fresher teeth, to facilitate the propagation of the crack along the entire length of the tooth. Using a burin, a groove was initiated by unidirectional movement of the tool (Fig. 9.d). Se- veral attempts showed that no great depth or length (e.g., along the entire tooth) were necessary (Fig. 9.f-g). The entire bipartition took c. 5 minutes. The two blanks thus marked were detached using a bone pointed tool (prepared beforehand) and a stone hammer. The tip of the bone tool was fixed in the groove and hit with the hammer; if necessary the same action was repeated along the groove. Generally, the crack spread along the tooth after only a few blows. This entire proce- dure took only a few seconds (Fig. 9.e). The obtained blanks were then transformed into (1) bevelled tools and (2) scrapers, as with the archaeological specimens. Bevelled tools. The active bev- elled front was obtained by a combination of unifacial sawing and bending. Segmentation was achieved using a lithic implement with a sharp edge, employed in a bidirectional movement (Fig. 10.a). When the cut was deep enough (depending on the thick- ness of the tooth), bending was applied (Fig. 10.b). Our experi- ments indicated that when bend- ing took place prematurely, acci- dents occurred damaging the morphology of the active front. This procedure lasted c. 10 min. The active front thus obtained had a V-shaped section morpho- logy, and displayed long, deep and regular microscopic scratch- es (Fig. 10.c). It was then shap- Fig. 8. a, d, h teeth artefacts from Drăgus,eni (Cucuteni culture); b, e-f, i abrasion marks; c, g, j scraping marks. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 404 ed to acquire the bevelled morphology. The proce- dure was performed by transverse scraping of the active end, using a flint blade (Fig. 10.d). In about one minute, the surface became regular, with long and irregular scratches (Fig. 10.e-f). The experimentally obtained implements were then used to remove wood bark (Fig. 11.a). Tools were highly efficient for approx. 10 minutes, then the active front became blunt, acquiring a strong pol- ish. Re-sharpening by transverse scraping was ap- plied (Fig. 11.b). After c. 40 minutes of use in all, the active front changed from a rectilinear (Fig. 11.c) to a concave morphology (Fig. 11.d), suggesting that the different morphologies observed on the archa- eological artefacts were not caused by different ma- nufacturing processes, but by variable degrees of use. A more concave morphology suggests longer usage. No use-wear marks were left on the active front, having been eliminated by the periodic re- sharpening. Scrapers. Segmentation by unifacial sawing, fol- lowed by bending were the initial procedures (Fig. 12.a). Segmentation was applied obliquely to the axis of the tooth. To shape the tool, scraping along the cutting edges (Fig. 12.b-c), combined with abra- sion (Fig. 12.d) on one of the sides (as identified at the archaeological pieces) took place; the active front was regularized by longitudinal scraping. This entire procedure was completed in 5 minutes. The scrapers thus obtained (Fig. 12.e) were used for stripping bark for 40 minutes. Since only the central part of the active front actually touched the wood, the wear developed along this surface. Moreover, being re-sharpened every ten minutes, a concavity appeared in the central area. It evolved gradual- ly (Fig. 12.f) according to the degree of wear, hence the differing morpho- logies of the active fronts on the ar- chaeological scrapers. Discussion Acquisition of raw material Wild boars live in groups of 10–20 individuals, consisting of females and sub-adults, led by a female (Le- duc et al. 2015). Males, on the other hand, are solitary most of the time, the separation from the group oc- curring between 11 and 16 months (Nivois et al. 2014). Two types of hunting expeditions can thus be di- stinguished at the prehistoric com- munities, based on their goal: (1) for the group of females and sub-adults (allowing the capture of several indi- viduals) and (2) for the solitary male (allowing the capture of a single spe- cimen). The two implied different hunting strategies and in the second case it could have turned more dan- gerous (although chasing a mother defending her young might also prove lethal). The latter expedition type aimed at collecting tusks for tools (in addition to procuring meat), Fig. 9. Experimental debitage operation: a natural crack; b bipar- tition by percussion; c blanks; d-e bipartition by grooving and in- direct percussion; f-g groove details. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 405 as only adult males could provide canines as large as those found in the archaeological collections. The larger/older the animal, the longer the canines. Hunting might thus have been a selective choice be- tween the mere procurement of meat and the pro- curement of a certain type of raw material (tusk). A certain limitation of the available tusk is also sug- gested by the use of complete canines and the conti- nuous re-sharpening of the tools obtained. Moreover, many of the finished items are made on thin blanks, which means they derive from the base of the tooth, indicating the tooth was extracted from the mandible undamaged and complete. The acquisition of the raw material in the case of the wild boar tooth thus re- quires an additional effort related to both the hunting of the animal and the obtaining of the raw material. Also indicative of possible constraints regarding the availability of tusk, is the transformation of exhaust- ed tools into pendants. During the Chalcolithic this occurred both in funerary contexts (at the Cernica necropolis and Pietrele; Hansen et al. 2011.Abb. 22) and in settlements (Căscioarele, Grădis,tea-Fundeanca, Gumelnit,a in the Gumelnit,a culture, and Bodes,ti-Fru- mus,ica, Bont,es,ti, Fulgeris,-La trei cires,i, Poienes,ti, Ruginoasa and Scânteia in the Cucu- teni area). According to the pub- lished illustration, the Pietrele ca- nine fragment preserves a thin ac- tive end with a deep concavity (indi- cating a former scraper), but is also perforated. Similar artefacts came from earlier Hamangia (Cheia, Con- stant,a County; Voinea et al. 2014) and Precucuteni contexts (Târgu-Fru- mos, Ias,i County; Iat,cu et al. 2016). It is our belief that such artefacts were not meant initially to be orna- ments, as such pendants (originating both from occupation layers and fu- nerary contexts) do not show any traces of scraping/specific active ed- ges for scrapers as we have identi- fied at the items discussed. This in- dicates a prior stage in the artefact’s biography, that of a functional tool. Their transformation does not seem to be a systematic process, though. Wild boar appliqués or pendants, manufactured as such, were recorded both in funerary contexts at Cernica (Mărgărit, Vintilă 2015) and Chir- nogi-S, uvit,a Iorgulescu (Mărgărit, Dimache 2019) and in the occupation layers at Măgura-Buduiasca (Dudes,ti level; Mărgărit et al. 2016), Radovanu (Măr- gărit et al. 2014), Vidra (Mărgărit, Vintilă 2018), Târgu Frumos (Ursulescu et al. 2006), Fulgeris, (Iat,- cu et al. 2016), Scânteia (Mantu, T,urcanu 1999) and Drăgus,eni (Marinescu-Bîlcu, Bolomey 2000). Those pieces had been worn as ornaments, and display use-wear. The scarcity of wild boar implements in Neo- lithic/Chalcolithic assemblages Although apparently less frequent than during the Mesolithic, artefacts made of wild boar canines are nevertheless present in most Neolithic and Chalco- lithic cultures at the Lower Danube. The Mesolithic ‘abundance’ is in fact restricted to the area of the Iron Gates, with other Mesolithic/Tardenoisian sites yielding no implements other than lithics. The assem- blages we studied clearly indicated that the techno- logical knowledge of tool-making does not disappear, despite the fact they are no longer essential in the toolkits of the community members. Without getting into much detail, our research into previous publications suggests that the scarcity of Fig. 10. Experimental shaping operation: a sawing procedure; b-c groove details; d shaping of the active end; e-f active end details. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 406 the Neolithic/Chalcolithic sites with finds of wild boar implements may be the result of a series of fa- ctors: the manner of excavation (no wet/dry sieving employed), the size of the areas actually excavated at a particular site, their selection as mere faunal remains (which often remained unpublished) and their lack of inclusion among the archaeological ma- terials selected for brief excavation reports. It is noteworthy that most of the artefacts we traced (and there are probably more) came from earlier publications from the 1930s and 1940s when field reports were more detailed and rigorous. Undoub- tedly, such finds occurred at those sites in later exca- vations but were not reported. Other than the excavation and publication bias, there is also the question of the intensity of the hunt- ing practices among these later prehistoric commu- nities, and the availability of wild boar in various areas during prehistoric times. The NMI of wild species from Early Neolithic Măgu- ra-Buduiasca amounts to c. 55% of the faunal re- mains. Wild boar holds second place (after deer) with a hunting preference for adult individuals. During the Dudes,ti occupation of the same site, do- mestic animals prevail (76.6%), and wild boar falls fourth among the wild species (after deer, aurochs and roebuck). The frequency of wild species rises again during the Gumelnit,a culture: at Căscioarele (level B1) they amount to 84.1% with a quantitati- vely significant number of wild boar remains at si- tes such as Gumelnit,a and Hârs,ova (Bălăs,escu et al. 2005a; 2005b). In contrast, at the sites in the Tele- orman Valley wild boar does not exceed 4% through- out the Neolithic, but reaches 14% during the Chal- colithic Gumelnit,a A2 phase (Bălăs, escu, Mărgărit 2014). Important variations in the percentages of the hunted species were noted during different chro- nological stages. Still, the number of tools made of wild boar canines stays constantly low despite all these variations recorded in the faunal assemblages. The technological analysis of wild boar im- plements The typology observed is poor: wild boar teeth were used mostly to manufacture scrapers with different morphologies, followed by a much smaller number of combination tools and bevelled implements. With- in these three categories there are several subtypes resulting from variations/combinations in the mor- phology of the active end. It is noteworthy the pre- valence of the longitudinal debitage, favoured by the mechanical characteristic of the material. Being hollow inside and triangular in section, longitudinal natural fracture lines occur along the tooth. Follow- ing the death of the animal/extraction of the tooth, the tusk tends to crack, especially in dry environ- ments (see the Experimental program above). Productivity appears to be high in these prehistoric assemblages and little of the tooth was left unused. Longitudinal bipartition allows the extraction of two similar blanks, both to be transformed into finished items. The main technique was lon- gitudinal splitting by percussion, combined at times with grooving and indirect percussion. Transversal debitage took place by direct percus- sion and, more rarely, by sawing. Surface modification was almost uni- versally accomplished by scraping, with abrasion used more rarely. These techniques were combined on different artefacts, in order to shape the sides of the blank. Alternatively, scraping was used for the develop- ment of the active front. A comparison between the studied Mesolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic assemblages shows continuity both typologically and technologically. Scrapers were predominant both the Mesolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic Fig. 11. Use of tooth bevelled tool: a wood bark removal; b re-shar- pening of the active end; c unused bevelled tool; d used bevelled tool. Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 407 assemblages, followed by bevelled and combination tools. During all periods, the prevalence of longitu- dinal exploitation of the tooth was noted. However, during the Mesolithic, volume blanks were also used and only flat blanks were observed during later pre- history. The main technique used for longitudinal de- bitage remained percussion, and sometimes also a combination of grooving and percussion. Surface mo- dification was almost universally accomplished by scraping, with abrasion used more rarely throughout the entire earlier prehistory. Functionality Over time, the terminology employed for the tools made of wild boar canines varied, as did the functio- nality assigned to them. Initially, starting strictly from their morphology, a double function was sug- gested, associating their use in cutting and drilling actions, and the tools were thus called perçoirs with sharp edges (Barbaza 1989). Éva David (2000) called them chisels given the lateral morphology resembling that of a chisel flank, used for scraping while the tip (when existing) was used for grooving, like a burin. Romanian terminology followed the trends of the international one. Earlier publications illustrate points (in Romanian ‘vârf ’), tools for pottery decoration/smoothen- ing (in Romanian ‘netezitor’), etc. The functional interpretation of the artefacts was further compli- cated in many cases by the pres- ence of the false points (see above, in the section on morphology), seen as the active parts, and thus those pieces were erroneously in- terpreted by non-specialists as piercers/perçoirs –‘străpungătoa- re’. The perforations on some of the tusk artefacts saw them auto- matically catalogued as pendants/ adornments (‘pandantive’), and thus the previous biography of the object was completely disregarded. More recent publications, based mainly on comparisons with eth- nographic data collected from In- donesia, indicate their use in scrap- ing wood and removing bark (Mai- grot 2001; 2005; Legrand, Sidéra 2007; Sidéra 2000; 2008; 2012). Our own experiments pointed to- wards the same conclusion. Moreover, experimen- tal studies related to the archaeological materials of northwestern Russia and northeastern Belarus (4th– 2nd mill. BC) have proven that the pieces of wild boar canines were used for the working of wood and bark, skin, and the drilling of abrasive materials (Malyutina, Charniauski 2021). The very fresh as- pect of the scraping marks existing on some arte- facts encouraged us to suggest the periodic restora- tion of the active front. This is also confirmed by the ethnographic studies of Patricia Anne Chiquet et al. (1997). Conclusion The experimental examples presented above con- firm the high efficiency of these tools in wood pro- cessing activities. Boar canine scrapers proved resi- stant enough not to break during use. The tools’ en- durance was proven experimentally, and their use was possible until the active front was exhausted with no possibility of further re-sharpening. As shown in some cases, when the active front was in- efficient, the pieces were turned into pendants. A Fig. 12. Processing and use of tooth scraper: a sawing marks; b-c scrap- ing marks; d abrasion marks; e unused scraper; f used scraper. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 408 second important conclusion of our experiments was that all tools had the same functionality re- gardless of the morphology of the active front, and the items were efficient in the same wood process- ing actions. Additionally, there was a permanent con- cern for maintaining an effective active front by pe- riodically re-shaping it. Few sites have yielded waste products/blanks, so no definite conclusion can be reached regarding their place of manufacture, but the site seems to be the place for their use and dis- carding. In addition, finished items are generally fractured and significantly more numerous in relation to the by-products of the operating chain. The fact that the blanks are almost absent means that there was no stock of blanks to be processed as needed. The tooth was probably completely transformed into the fin- ished objects after extraction. This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CCCDI – UEFIS- CDI, project number PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2019-1279, within PNCDI III and with financial support from the Recurring Donors Fund of the Romanian Academy managed by the Patrimoniu Foundation (project no. GAR-UM-2019-II-2.1-1/15.10.2019). We would like to thank Pavel Mirea for granting us access to the col- lections of the Teleorman County Museum and to Radu-Alexandru Dragoman to the archaeological as- semblage of Căscioarele-Ostrovel (“Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Archaeology, Romanian Academy). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Albarella U., Dobney K., and Rowley-Conwy P. 2006. The Domestication of the Pig (Sus scrofa). New Challenges and Approaches. In M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwil- ler, and B. D. Smith (eds.), Documenting deomestication. New genetic and archaeological paradigms. University of California Press. Berkley and Los Angeles: 209–228. Barbaza M. 1989. Cultures et société au Paléolithique terminal, au Mésolithique et au début du Néolithique ancien dans le sud-ouest de l’Europe. Mémoire d’habili- tation à diriger des recherches. Toulouse le Mirail Univer- sity. Toulouse. Bălăs,escu A., Mărgărit M. 2014. Domestic versus wild du- ring the Neolithic in the Teleorman Valley/Domestic ver- sus sălbatic în neoliticul de pe valea Teleormanului. In M. Mărgărit, G. Le Dosseur, and A. Averbouh (eds.), An over- view of the exploitation of hard animal materials dur- ing the Neolithic and Chalcolithic/O privire asupra ex- ploatării materiilor dure animale de-a lungul neoliticu- lui s,i calcoliticului. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgovis,te: 71–90. Bălăs,escu A., Radu V., and Moise D. 2005a. Omul s,i me- diul animal între mileniile VII–IV î.e.n. la Dunărea de Jos. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgovis,te. Bălăs,escu A., Moise D., and Radu V. 2005b. The palaeoe- conomy of Gumelnit,a communities on the territory. Cul- tură s,i civilizat,ie la Dunărea de Jos XXII: 167–206. Bejenaru L., Ursulescu N., Cotiugă V., and Stanc S. 2013. Manufacture and use of boar tusks at Târgu Frumos (Ias, i County, Romania): Chalcolithic, Precucuteni culture. Po- ster presentation at the 9th meeting of Worked Bone Re- search Group, Henan Administration of Cultural Heri- tage, and the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Re- lics and Archaeology in Zhengzhou City, Henan pro- vince, China. 14–20 April 2013. Beldiman C. 2007. Industria materiilor prime animale în preistoria României. Resurse naturale, comunităt,i umane s,i tehnologie din Paleoliticul superior până în Neoliticul timpuriu. Studii de Preistorie. Supplementum 2. Asociat,ia Română de Arheologie. Editura Pro Univer- sitaria. Bucures, ti. Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M. 2009. Industria materiilor dure animale apart,inând culturii Star≠evo-Cris, descoperi- tă în as,ezarea de la Măgura ‘Buduiasca-Boldul lui Mos, Ivă- nus,’, jud. Teleorman. Considerat,ii asupra repertoriului ti- pologic. Buletinul Muzeului Judet,ean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 1: 31–54. 2013. The osseous artefacts of the Star≠evo-Cris, cul- ture in Romania. An overview. In A. Coms,a, C. Bonsall, and L. Nikolova (eds.), Facets of the Past. The Chal- lenge of the Balkan Neo-Eneolithic. Proceedings of the International Symposium Celebrating the 85th Birth An- niversary of Eugen Coms,a, 6–12 october 2008. Aca- demy Publishing House. Bucures,ti: 106–133. Beldiman C., Sztancs D.-M., and Cornel I. 2012. Artefac- te din materii dure animale în colect,ia Muzeului de Is- torie Galat,i. Eneolitic/Osseous Materials Artefacts in the Collection of History Museum Galat,i. Aneolithic. Editu- ra Mega. Cluj Napoca. References ∴ Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 409 Bem C. 2001. Noi propuneri pentru o schit,ă cronologică a eneoliticului românesc. Pontica XXXIII-XXXIV: 25–121. Berciu D. 1956. Cercetări s, i descoperiri arheologice în re- giunea Bucures,ti. Materiale s,i cercetări arheologice II: 491–562. Boghian D., Enea S. C., Ignătescu S., Bejenaru L., and Stanc S. M. 2014. Comunităt,ile cucuteniene din zona Târgu- lui Frumos. Cercetări interdisciplinare în siturile de la Costes,ti s,i Giurges,ti. Editura Universităt,ii ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. Ias, i: 51–60. Boroneant, A. 2012. Aspecte ale tranzit,iei de la mezoli- tic la neoliticul timpuriu în zona Port,ile de Fier. Mega. Cluj-Napoca. Cantacuzino Gh., Morintz S. 1968. Descoperirile arheolo- gice de la Cernica s,i important,a lor pentru cunoas,terea vechilor culturi din t,ara noastră. Bucures,ti. Materiale de Istorie s,i Muzeografie. Muzeul Municipiului Bucures,ti VI: 7–26. Chiquet P. A., Rachez E., and Pétrequin P. 1997. Les dé- fenses de sanglier. In Les sites littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs et de Chalain (Jura), III: Chalain sta- tion 3, 3200–2900 av. J.-C. Archéologie et culture maté- rielle. Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme. Pa- ris: 511–521. Christescu V. 1933. Les stations préhistoriques de Vădas- tra. Dacia III-IV: 167–225. Coms,a E., Cantacuzino Gh. 2001. Necropola neolitică de la Cernica. Editura Academiei Române. Bucures,ti. David É. 2000. L’industrie en matières dures animales des sites mésolithiques de la Baume d’Ogens et de Birsmat- ten Basisgrotte (Suisse): résultats de l’étude technologi- que et comparaisons. Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 81: 79–101. Dumitrescu H. 1933a. Rapport sur les sondajes de Grădi- s,tea-Fundeanca. Dacia III-IV: 150–156. 1933b. La station préhistorique de Ruginoasa. Dacia III-IV: 56–87. Dumitrescu V. 1924. Découvertes de Gumelnit,a. Dacia I: 325–342. 1925. Fouilles de Gumelnit,a. Dacia II: 29–103. 1933. La station préhistorique de Bont,es, ti. Dacia III- IV: 88–114. 1965. Principalele rezultate ale primelor două campanii de săpături din as,ezarea neolitică târzie de la Căscioa- rele. Studii s,i Cercetări de Istorie Veche 16(2): 215– 237. 1986. Stratigrafia as,ezării tell de pe Ostrovul de la Căs- cioarele. Cultură s,i Civilizat,ie la Dunărea de Jos 2: 73–81. Hansen S., Toderas, M., Reingruber A., Nowacki D., Norga- ard H., Spânu D., and Wunderlich J. 2011. Die kupferzeit- liche Siedlung Pietrele an der Unteren Donau. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen und geomorphologischen Untersuchun- gen im Sommer 2010. Eurasia Antiqua 17: 45–120. Iat,cu I., T, urcanu S., Solca L., and Bejenaru L. 2016. De la natură la cultură: arta prelucrării osului s,i cornului. Catalog de expozit,ie. Editura Palatul Culturii. Ias,i. Konjevi≤ D., Kierdorf U., Verstraete F. J. M., Janicki Z., Sla- vica A., Keros T., and Severin K. 2004. Malformation of the permanent maxillary canine after dental infraction in a wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 35(3): 403–405. https://doi.org/10.1638/03-101 Lazarovici C. M, Lazarovici Gh. 2012. Ruginoasa-Dealul Drăghici. Monografie arheologică. Bibliotheca Archaeo- logica Moldaviae XX. Editura “Karl A. Romstorfer”. Suceava. Lazarovici C-M., Babes, M. 2015. Poienes,ti – As,ezări pre- istorice. Volume 22. Bibliotheca Archaeologica Molda- viae. Editura Karl Ramstorfer. Ias,i. Leduc C., Bridault A., and Cupillard Ch. 2015. Wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) hunting and exploitation strategies during the Mesolithic at Les Cabônes (Ranchot Jura, France), layer 3. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2: 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.05.010 Legrand A., Sidéra I. 2007. Methods, Means, and Results When Studying European Bone Industry. In C. Gate, R. Walker (eds.), Bones as tools: current methods and in- terpretations in worked bone studies. Congrès de la SAA, Montréal, Avril 2004. BAR International Series 1622. Ar- chaeopress. Oxford: 291–304. Luca S. A., El Susi G. 1989. Considerat,ii privind uneltele din corn s,i os din stat,iunea neolitică de la Liubcova - ”Or- nit,a”. Apulum 25: 49–58. Maigrot Y. 2001. Technical and functional study of ethno- grafic (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) and archaeological (Chalain and Clairvaux, Jura, Frace, 30th century BC) tools made from boars’tusks. In S. Beyries, P. Petrequin (eds.), Ethno- archaeology and its transfers. Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth An- nual Meeting in Bournemouth 1999. BAR International Series 983. Archaeopress. Oxford: 67–79. Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 2005. Ivory, bone and antler tools production systems at Chalain 4 (Jura, France): late Neolithic site, 3rd mil- lennium. In H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. Batey, and L. Lou- gas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Muinasaja teadus 15. Tallinn Book Printers Ldt/Trükitud Tallinna Raamatutrükikojas. Tallin: 113–126. Malyutina A., Charniauski M. 2021. Wild boar tusk arte- facts from peat bog sites of north-western Russia and north-easternd Bellarus (4th–2nd mill. BC): technology, function, context. In S. Beyries, C. Hamon, and Y. Mai- grot (eds.), Beyond use-wear traces: going from tools to people by means of archaeological wear and residue analyses. Sidestone Press. Leiden: 211–224. Mantu C.-M., T,urcanu S. 1999. Catalog. In V. Chirica, C.- M. Mantu, and S. T,urcanu (eds.), Scânteia. Cercetare ar- heologică s,i restaurare. Helios. Ias,i. Marinescu-Bâlcu S., Beldiman C. 1997. Industria materi- ilor dure animale în cadrul culturii Star≠evo-Cris, pe teri- toriul României: as,ezarea de la Grumăzes,tii, jud. Neamt,. Memoria Antiquitatis 21: 273–296. Marinescu-Bîlcu S., Bolomey A. 2000. Drăgus,eni. A Cu- cutenian Community. Editura Enciclopedică. Bucures,ti. Marquebielle B. 2009. Mesolithic bone tools in Southwest- ern Europe: the example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat”. In B. Kufel-Diakowska, J. Baron (eds.), Writ- ten in Bones. Studies on technological and social con- texts of past faunal skeletal remains. 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, September 7–11, 2009, Wroclaw, Poland. Wratislavia Antiqua. Uniwersytet Wroc- ławski, Instytut Archeologii. Wrocław: 63–79. 2014. Le travail des matières osseuses au Mésolithi- que. Caractérisation technique et économique à par- tir de séries du sud et de l’est de la France. Unpublish- ed Ph.D. thesis. University of Toulouse 2 Le Mirail. Tou- louse. Mărgărit M., Vintilă C-M. 2015. New information from old collections. Reevaluation of personal adornments made of hard animal materials from the necropolis of Cernica. Studii de Preistorie 12: 81–115. Mărgărit M., Boroneant, A. 2017a. Industria materiilor du- re animale din situl mezolitic de la Alibeg (jud. Caras, -Se- verin). Materiale s,i Cercetări Arheologice XIII: 15–30. 2017b. The Mesolithic osseous industry from Răzvrata (the Iron Gates region). In M. Mărgărit, A. Boroneant, (eds.), From hunter-gatherers to farmers. Human adaptations at the end of the Pleistocene and the first part of the Holocene. Editura Cetatea de Scaun. Târgo- vis,te: 81–92. Mărgărit M., Vintilă C-M. 2018. Podoabe s,i figurine con- fect,ionate din materii dure animale descoperite în as,e- zarea eneolitică de la Vidra (jud. Ilfov). Studii de preis- torie 15: 73–105. Mărgărit M., Dimache M. 2019. Personal adornments from the Eneolithic necropolis of Chirnogi-S,puvit,a Iorgulescu (Romania): a picture of prehistoric communities symbo- lism. Documenta Praehistorica 46: 398–413. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.46.25 Mărgărit M., S, tefan C. E., and Dumitras,cu V. 2014. Mana- gement of osseous materials for processing artifacts in the Boian settlement of Radovanu – La Muscalu (Romania). Archaeologia Bulgarica 18(3): 1–34. Mărgărit M., Bălăs,escu A., and Mirea P. 2016. Exploatarea tehnologică a materiilor osoase în nivelul Dudes, ti de la Măgura ‘Buduiasca’ (‘Boldul lui Mos, Ivănus,’), jud. Teleor- man. Buletinul Muzeului Judet,ean Teleorman. Seria Ar- heologie 8: 5–32. Mărgărit M., Boroneant, A., Balint M., Bălăs,escu A., and Bonsall C. 2017a. Interact,iuni om-mediu în situl mezo- litic de la Icoana (Port,ile de Fier). Studii de Preistorie 14: 37–77. Mărgărit M., Boroneant, A., and Bonsall C. 2017b. Analiza morfologică s,i funct,ională a pieselor din materii dure ani- male din situl mezolitic de la Ostrovul Banului (jud. Me- hedint,i). Banatica 27: 39–72. Mătasă C. 1946. Frumus,ica. Village préhistorique à cera- mique peinte dans la Moldavie du Nord. Monitorul Ofi- cial s,i Imprimeria Statului. Imprimeria Nat,ională. Bucure- s,ti. Nivois E., Brandt S., Gamelon M., and Baubet E. 2014. Le sanglier mâle: quand et comment devientil solitaire? Fau- ne sauvage 302(1): 4–8. Popus,oi E., Beldiman C. 2001. Industria materiilor dure animale în as,ezarea neolitică timpurie (Star≠evo-Cris,) de la Trestiana, jud. Vaslui: ace de cusut. Memoria Antiqui- tatis 22: 21–62. Schmid E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones. For Prehistori- ans, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. Elsevier Publishing Company. Amsterdam, London, New York. Sidéra I. 2000. L’outillage en os et en ivoire. In D. Ram- seyer (ed.), Muntelier/Fischergässli. Un habitat néolithi- 410 Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube que au bord du lac de Morat (3895 à 3820 avant J.C.). Archéologie fribourgeoise 15. Editions Universitaires Fri- bourg Suisse. Fribourg: 118–156. 2008. Rubané, Villeneuve-Saint-Germain et Cardial: Fi- liations des Industries Osseuses. In L. Burnez-Lanotte, M. Ilett, and P. Allard (eds.), Fin des traditions danu- biennes dans le Néolithique du bassin Parisien et de la Belgique (5100–4700 Av. J.-C.). Mémoire XLIV de la Société Préhistorique Française. Paris: 209–220. 2012. Nouveau regard sur la néolithisation. L’indu- strie osseuse de l’Anatolie au Bassin parisien via la Méditerranée. De Boccard. Paris. Srejovi≤ D., Letica Z. 1978. Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje u ∑erdapu. Tom I. Arheologija. Posebna izdanja. Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. Beograd. Stratton S., Griffiths S., Kogălniceanu R., +8 authors, and Whittle A. 2019. The Emergence of Extramural Cemete- ries in Neolithic Southeast Europe: A Formally Modeled Chronology for Cernica, Romania. Radiocarbon 61(1): 319–346. https://doi.10.1017/RDC.2018.34 S, tefan Gh. 1925. Les fouilles de Căscioarele. Dacia II: 138–197. Torcică I. 2017. Cultura Gumelnit,a în vestul Munteniei. Unpublished PhD thesis. ”Vasile Pârvan” Institute of Ar- chaeology. Romanian Academy. Bucures,ti. Ursulescu N., Boghian D., Haimovici S., Cotiugă V., and Coroliuc A. 2002. Cercetări interdisciplinare în as,ezarea precucuteniană de la Tg. Frumos (jud. Ias,i). Aportul ar- heozoologiei. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis I: 29–54. Ursulescu N., Boghian D., and Cotiuga V. 2005. Proble- mes de la culture Precucuteni a la lumiére des recherches de Târgu Frumos (dep. de Ias,i). In V. Spinei, C. M. Lazaro- vici, and D. Monah (eds.), Scripta praehistorica. Miscel- lanea in honorem nonagenarii magistri Mircea Petre- scu-Dîmbovit,a oblate. Editura Trinitas. Ias, i: 217– 260. Ursulescu N., Tencariu F. A., Asăndulesei A., Vornicu D.-A., Vornicu-T, erna A., and Mihu-Pintilie A. 2020. As,ezarea pre- cucuteniană de la Isaiia-Balta Popii (com. Răducăneni, jud. Ias,i, România) – cercetări arheologice interdisciplinare. Cercetări Arheologice XXVII: 113–140. Voinea V., Grigorut,ă O., and Cărpus, C. 2014. Hard animal material adornments discovered in Hamangia settlement from Cheia/Podoabe din materii dure animale descope- rite în as,ezarea Hamangia de la Cheia. In M. Mărgărit, G. Le Dosseur, and A. Averbouh (eds.), An overview of the exploitation of hard animal materials during the Neo- lithic and Chalcolithic/O privire asupra exploatării ma- teriilor dure animale de-a lungul neoliticului s,i calcoli- ticului. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgovis, te: 101–136. Vornicu A. 2014a. Technological behaviour in the man- ufacturing of bone pointed tools: a case study on the Chal- colithic settlement from Târgu Frumos (Ias,i County, Ro- mania)/Comportamentul tehnologic în confect,ionarea vâr- furilor: un studiu de caz din as,ezarea calcolitică de la Târ- gu Frumos (judet,ul Ias,i, România). In M. Mărgărit, G. Le Dosseur, and A. Averbouh (eds.), An overview of the ex- ploitation of hard animal materials during the Neoli- thic and Chalcolithic/O privire asupra exploatării ma- teriilor dure animale de-a lungul neoliticului s,i calco- liticului. Cetatea de Scaun. Târgovis,te: 137–154. 2014b. Artefactele din materii dure animale. In D. Bo- ghian, S. C. Enea, S. Ignătescu, L. Bejenaru, and S. M. Stanc (eds.), Comunităt,ile cucuteniene din zona Târ- gului Frumos. Cercetări interdisciplicare în siturile de la Costes,ti s,i Giurges,ti. Editura Universităt,ii “Alexan- dru Ioan Cuza”. Ias, i: 51–60. Vulpe R. 1953. Săpăturile de la Poienes,ti din 1949. Ma- teriale s,i cercetări arheologice 1: 213–506. 411 Monica Mărgărit, Adina Boroneant, 412 C ul tu re Si te To ta l R ef er en ce s C om m en ts A lib eg * * B or on ea nt , 20 12 C âr ce a- * * M ar in es cu -B âl cu , B el di m an 1 99 7< V ia du ct B el di m an 2 00 7< B el di m an , S zt an cs 2 01 3 C âr ce a- H an ur i * * M ar in es cu -B âl cu , B el di m an 1 99 7< B el di m an 2 00 7< B el di m an , S zt an cs 2 01 3 St ar ;e vo -C ri s , C ui na T ur cu lu i * * B or on ea nt , 20 12 M ă g ur a- 6 1 1 8 B el di m an , S zt an cs 2 00 9< 2 01 3 B ud ui as ca G ru m ăz es ,t i 1 1 M ar in es cu -B âl cu , B el di m an 1 99 7< B el di m an 2 00 7 Tr es tia na 2( |) 2 Po pu s ,o i, B el di m an 2 00 1< B el di m an 2 00 7< de sc ri be d as ‘p ol is he r\ sh or t sc ra pe r’ , t yp e I B el di m an , S zt an cs 2 01 3 B 7 M ă g ur a- 5 1 1( |) 7 M ăr gă rit e t al .2 01 6 D ud es ,t i B ud ui as ca C er ni ca 5 1 6 C an ta cu zi no , M or in tz 1 96 8< C om s ,a , C an ta cu zi nă 20 01 < M ăr gă rit , V in til ă 20 15 V ăd as tr a V ăd as tr a 2 * C hr is te sc u 19 33 on e w ith p er fo ra tio n, in il lu st ra tio n on ly V in ;a Li ub co va - 1 1 Lu ca , E l S us i 1 98 9. Fi g. 1 \1 7< B el di m an 2 00 7 O rn it , a B or du s ,a ni - 2 2 – Po pi nă C ăs ci oa re le 12 1 13 S ,t ef an 1 92 5< D um itr es cu 1 96 5< 1 96 8 G um el ni t ,a 4( |) * D um itr es cu 1 92 4< 1 92 5 G um el ni t ,a H âr s ,o va 2 2 4 – Pi et re le 1+ * * B er ci u 19 56 .F ig . 3 4\ 1< H an se n et a l. 20 11 Su lta na * D um itr es cu 1 92 5. fo ot no te 2 V ită ne s ,t i 2 1( |) 3 – G ră di s ,t ea 2 * D um itr es cu 1 93 3a Fu nd ea nc a Tâ rg u Fr um os U rs ul es cu e t al .2 00 2< B ej en ar u et a l. 20 13 < fiv e pu bl is he d as p en da nt s (p ro ba bl y us ed Pr ec uc ut en i B az a Pă tu le * * 90 (| ) V or ni cu 2 01 4a < I at ,c u et a l. 20 16 as s cr ap er s) , o ne p oi nt , o ne ‘t ec hn ic al p ie ce ’, on e po in t an d tw o ‘w or ke d’ p ie ce s Is ai ia -B al ta P op ii 1 1\ * U rs ul es cu e t al .2 02 0 D ră gu s ,e ni 7 1 2 10 M ar in es cu -B îlc u, B ol om ey 2 00 0 C os te s ,t i – C ie r 1 4 5 V or ni cu 2 01 4b Scraper Bevelled tool Combination tool Preform Blank Raw material Tool (generic) Implements of wild boar canines during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic at the Lower Danube 413 Ta b. 1 . N eo li th ic a n d Ch al co li th ic s it es w it h pu bl is he d w il d bo ar c an in e as se m bl ag es f ro m t he a re a of i n te re st . B er es ,t i – 1 1 2 B el di m an e t al .2 01 2 aw l p ro ba bl y fo r pe rf or at in g hi de s D ea lu l B ul ga ru lu i B od es ,t i – 1 * M ăt as ă 19 46 < I at ,c u et a l. 20 16 w ith p er fo ra tio n, p os si bl y re -u se d as Fr um us ,ic a pe nd an t C uc ut en i B on t ,e s ,t i 1 * D um itr es cu 1 93 3 w ith p er fo ra tio n, r eu se d as p en da nt Fu lg er is , – 2 * Ia t ,c u et a l. 20 16 w ith p er fo ra tio n, r e- us ed a s pe nd an t La t re i c ire s ,i Po ie ne s ,t i * 3 * V ul pe 1 95 3< L az ar ov ic i, B ab es , 20 15 R ug in oa sa 1+ 4 * D um itr es cu 1 93 3b < L az ar ov ic i, La za ro vi ci 2 01 2 on e po in t, on e to ol w ith p er fo ra tio n, r eu se d as p en da nt Sc ân te ia 1 * La za ro vi ci , L az ar ov ic i 2 01 2 si m ila r to a n ar te fa ct fr om R ug in oa sa * In di ca te s th e pr es en ce o f a rt ef ac ts , w ith n o in fo rm at io n on t he e xa ct n um be r< b ol d ch ar ac te rs > t ec hn ol og ic al s tu dy b y M on ic a M ăr gă ri t.