Results of the microscopic Analyses of Vessels from Assemblages of the Modlnica Type (with Furchenstichkeramik) from Site 5 in Modlnica, Kraków District, Poland

Abstract

At site 5 in Modlnica near Kraków, the first settlement in southeastern Poland (Małopolska) with materials of the Furchenstichkeramik type was discovered. the following article presents the results of microscopic analyses of several characteristic forms of vessels. the main objective of the research was to determine the mineralogical and petrographic composition of the ceramic fabrics, identify deliberate admixtures (raw materials), determine their origin as well as to analyse the white material encrusting the pottery decorated with the incised ornament (Furchenstichkeramik). The research indicates significant differences between the technology of production of the analysed materials and the manufacture of pottery attributed to local neolithic cultures. the most essential one seems to be the discovery of volcanic glass in the pottery fabric suggesting that the material may derive from outside the region. These results verify the archaeological typological-stylistic assessment of findings from Modlnica as an assemblage of danubian origin (slovakia, moravia). the results of the research presented below are the first microscopic analyses of assemblages with materials of the Furchenstichkeramik type.

White Encrustation Produced from Deer Antler Phosphate on Prehistoric Ceramics from Podunavlje

“…Zastawny et al . () used thin‐section analysis by polarized microscope to identify the encrustation composition on Eneolithic pottery. They described fragments with structures characteristic for bone tissues (Haversian canals).…”

“…), Macedonia and Thrace (Yiouni ), Romania (Ellis ), Greece (Gardner ) and Poland (Zastawny et al . ). Courtois () had already mentioned the use of bone at Vučedol in Croatia and Kostolac in Serbia.…”

Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate, animal and human agency

“…Second, to abolish the concept of something's ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ is odd considering that archaeological practice increasingly employs, in very sophisticated ways, knowledge from scientific fields that do study the nature of things . Some examples: knowledge from geology, mineralogy and petrography is used to understand the properties of stones for tools, and the effects of volcanic eruptions (Sigurdsson, Cashdollar and Sparks 1982; Goldberg and Macphail 2006; Zastawnya et al 2013); botany provides understandings of the use and domestication of plants and agricultural developments; palynology augments studies of prehistoric climate and diets (Molloy and O’Connell 2004; Moe et al . 2007); zoology and ethology are used to understand animal characteristics (including the agency of animals), for analyses of hunting, domestication and other interactions with animals (see references above); biochemical DNA analyses are mandatory for studying human evolution (Ovchinnikov et al 2000; Dalton 2010); dentistry, physiology and pathology are used to estimate age, sex, nutritional aspects, disease and causes of death from human bodily remains (Prag and Neave 1997; Piontek and Vančata 2012; Myszka, Piontek and Miłosz 2012); and cognitive psychology and neuropsychology highlight the cognitive processes connected to the cultural changes occurring in the Upper Palaeolithic (Renfrew and Zubrow 1994; Corballis and Lea 1999; Wynn 2002).…”