Many potsherds recycled as tools have been discovered in the Early Neolithic ceramic assemblages ofsouth-western Bulgaria (6100e5600 cal. BC). Their large quantity has raised the issue of the role of thisindustry in the economy of the first farming societies in the Balkans. The scarcity of use-wear analyses onthe ceramic tools has required the development of an observation protocol adjusted to archaeologicalrecycled potsherds coupled with the construction of a wide experimental reference. The study methodhas allowed the determination of the macro- and microscopic characteristics of use-wear that arediagnostic of worked materials, kinematics and use-time of ceramic tools. It has highlighted theirtechnical functions which prove to be extremely diversified in the Early Neolithic of south-westernBulgaria: spindle whorls, tokens, hide scrapers or potter's ribs and smoothers. The broad use-range ofceramic tools, as well as their large quantity, shows the recycled potsherds were not occasional sub-stitutes of bone and lithic objects. On the contrary, they were fully integrated in the Neolithic toolkits forcarrying out certain technical productions.
The Neolithic corresponds to the emergence of a new economicsystem based on the production of food resources (eg Vigne andHelmer, 2007; Vigne, 2008; Willcox, 2013). This period e a majorturning point in the history of human societies e sees the intro-duction of a new range of tools (Goodale et al., 2010; Bofill, 2012).Alongside the emblematic polished axes and sickle blades, recy-cling potsherds as tools formed part of the industries that appearedwith the Neolithic way of life (Spoor and Collet, 1996; Godon, 2010).The populations from the 7th and 6th millennium cal. BC tookadvantage of the waste caused by the breakage of their fired claycontainers in order to produce implements that as yet have rarelyattracted the attention of prehistorians (Perl�es, 2001).
The large quantity and variety of ceramic tools found in the EarlyNeolithic settlements of south-western Bulgaria (6100e5600 cal.BC) has raised the issue of the role of this industry in the economyof the first Balkan farming societies (Salanova, 2007). This questionis all the more relevant as the few use-wear studies performed onthe recycled potsherds have shown the diversity of possible uses of
ceramic tools: hide defleshing and softening (Skakun, 1977;Korobkova, 1997; Shamanaev, 2002); plant processing (Sullivanet al., 1991; Korobkova, 1997); preforming and scraping of potterywall (Binder et al., 1994; Lopez Varela et al., 2002; Hameau, 2005;Van Gijn and Hofman, 2008) and ochre processing (Skakun, 1977).
The functional study of the Early Neolithic ceramic tools fromsouth-western Bulgaria required, however, important methodo-logical developments. Use-wear analyses of this type of prehistoricindustry remain rare. Only about ten works had hitherto beendevoted to the use of recycled potsherds as tools. The research isoften confined to the ceramic tools from one or two sites. Theyhave, furthermore, been carried out on limited assemblages thatgenerally consist of less than 50 tools. This restricted number ofpieces hinders the establishment of a systematic observation pro-tocol of use-traces on ceramic tools, similar to what has existed fora long time for bone and stone tools (eg Plisson and Van Gijn, 1989;Gutierrez Saez, 1993; Maigrot, 1997; Sid�era and Legrand, 2006). Itdid not encourage the construction of a large experimental refer-ence collection allowing an objective interpretation of use-wear onthe recycled potsherds, as exists for lithic industries (see Semenov,1964; Vaughan, 1985).
This article partly fills the gaps in the field of use-wear analysisof ceramic tools. The development of an observation protocolsuitable for recycled archaeological potsherds, coupled with the
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e10290
construction of a large experimental reference, has enabled thedetermination of macro- and microscopic characteristics of use-traces that are diagnostic of the worked materials, kinematics andlife-span of ceramic tools. It has, by this way, provided informationon the function of recycled potsherds dated from the Early Neolithicin south-western Bulgaria. The use-range of ceramic tools haschanged our view of the role of these industries in the daily life ofthe first Neolithic societies in the Balkans.
2. Historical context: the Early Neolithic in Bulgaria
The Neolithic transition in the Balkans occurs at the end of the7th millennium cal. BC (Reingruber and Thissen, 2005). It corre-sponds to the beginning of a production economy. Due to itsgeographic position, Bulgaria represents a key area for better un-derstanding the very onset of Neolithic period in the region(Lichardus-Itten et al., 2002).
2.1. Economic aspects
The data on the economy of Early Neolithic communities inBulgaria primarily come from the analysis of faunal and botanicalremains. The large predominance of domesticated animals (Capri-nae and Bovinae) and plants (cereals and pulses) shows that theeconomic system was primarily based on agriculture and hus-bandry (Benecke, 2006; Marinova, 2009). The toolkit that charac-terises the Neolithic way of life (pottery, polished axes, grindingstones or sickle blades) is effectively present at the sites(eg Lichardus-Itten et al., 2002).
This new economic model was not, however, uniformly adoptedin the Balkans. Regional variations exist. Thus, goats and sheepgreatly predominate in south-western Bulgaria while cattle aremore frequent in Thrace (Benecke, 2006). Chickpeas seem to havebeen consumed more at the Early Neolithic settlements in theformer region than in the latter (Marinova, 2009). The patchwork ofeconomic systems is explained, at least in part, by the various ori-gins of the first Neolithic populations in Bulgaria (Salanova, 2009;Salanova et al., in press).
2.2. Ceramic remains: neglected evidences of the economic sphere
Potsherds are by far the most abundant and best preservedarchaeological remains at Early Neolithic sites in Bulgaria. Theytherefore provided key evidence for characterising theway of life ofprehistoric groups. Although the potsherds may inform on theeconomy of these communities, the functional aspects of potteryproduction were hitherto the subject of any thorough analysis.
The extensive excavation of the Kova�cevo site (Figs. 1 and 2)directed by Jean-Paul Demoule, Marion Lichardus-Itten, VassilNikolov and Lilijana Perni�ceva (y) has provided a huge ceramicassemblage (Demoule and Lichardus-Itten, 2001; Lichardus-Ittenet al., 2002) whose excellent state of preservation allowed thor-ough research on the function of pottery productions (Salanova,2007). The analysis of this large corpus was conducted by L. Sala-nova, who has developed a new study method of Neolithic ceramicassemblages (Salanova, 2009; Salanova et al., 2010). The investi-gation began with a comprehensive characterization of potteryremains that served as the basis for the development of specializedanalyses on the manufacture and the use of fired clay containers.The research performed on the function of pottery productionsfocused on all human practices, from the first use of ceramic vesselsto the final decay of potsherds, through the recycling of potsherdsas tools (Vieugu�e, 2014). The systematic search for such ceramictools, conducted by L. Salanova and her team during the
comprehensive characterization of the assemblage, has revealedthe existence of a genuine industry made from potsherds.
The research initiated on the pottery production at Kova�cevowasthen extended to the whole of south-western Bulgaria for compar-isons.Within this regional program led byM. Grebska-Kulova and L.Salanova, the other six large Early Neolithic pottery assemblagesfrom the Struma valley were analysed (Grebska-Kulova andSalanova, 2011). They respectively come from the settlements ofIlindentsi, Bre�zani and Drenkovo excavated by M. Grebska-Kulova(Grebska-Kulova et al., 2011) as well as Vaxevo, Kraïnitsi andG�al�abnik investigated by S. �Cochad�ziev, A. Bakamska and J. Pavùk(Pavùk and �Cochad�ziev, 1984; �Cocha�ziev and Bakamska, 1990;�Cocha�ziev, 2001) (Figs. 1 and 2). The investigation was conductedaccording to the study protocol established on the ceramic assem-blage from Kova�cevo (Salanova et al., 2010). It has confirmed thepresence of ceramic tools at all the Early Neolithic settlements insouth-western Bulgaria (Salanova et al., in press).
In Kova�cevo, where the contextual data are the most precise, theceramic tools come mainly from the archaeological layers dated inthe first half of the 6th millennium cal. BC. They were discovered invarious archaeological features including settlement layers (62%),buildings (15%), pits (11%) and pavements (4%).
2.3. Main characteristics of ceramic tools
Potsherds recycled as tools have proven to be frequent at theseven main Early Neolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria.Indeed, 2920 pieces have been identified in the ceramic assem-blages (Table 1). This collection of ceramic tools is extremelyextensive. Up to now, the studied ceramic industries werecomposed of at most one hundred archaeological potsherds (LopezVarela et al., 2002; Godon and Lep�ere, 2006).
In addition to their quantity, the Early Neolithic ceramic toolsfrom south-western Bulgaria display a large range of shapes andsizes. Two main classes of objects make up the industries (Fig. 3).The first one includes all the potsherds that have been retouched ina circular form (1947 pieces, that is 67%). They can be subdividedinto five main categories: rounded potsherds with rough (57%) orabraded edges (12%), pottery fragments with abraded surfaces andedges (1%) and perforated potsherds with rough (15%) or abradededges (14%) (Fig. 3a). The second includes all the ceramic tools thathave not been retouched in a circular form (973 pieces, 33%). Theyare divided into three main categories: fragments with abradededges (71%), potsherds with grooved surfaces (1%) and fragmentswith abraded surfaces (1%) (Fig. 3b). Compared to the other ceramictoolkits already published, the Early Neolithic recycled potsherdsfrom south-western Bulgaria present great typological diversity.
The quantity and diversity of ceramic toolkits has raised thequestion of their technical functions during the 7th and 6th mil-lennium cal. BC (Vieugu�e, 2010). In other words, what were theyused for? To address this question, the ceramic tools from the sevenmain Early Neolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria havebeen the subject of use-wear analysis.
3. Method: a use-wear approach
The observation of ceramic tools has so far been mainly carriedout at macroscopic scale (from 2x to 50x) (eg Skakun, 1977; Binderet al., 1994; Shamanaev, 2002; Lopez Varela et al., 2002; exceptVan Gijn and Lammers-Keijsers, 2010). The worked materials usingthe recycled potsherds have generally been determined from one ortwo criteria: the outlines of abrasions and the polish (Skakun, 1977;Lopez Varela et al., 2002). The functional interpretations have oftenbeen based on a restricted experimental reference programme thatconsisted of testing the processing of a single raw material (hide or
Fig. 1. Map of Early Neolithic sites in the Struma Valley (Updated from �Cocha�ziev, 2007). Stars stand for the settlements whose the ceramic tools were studied; 1. Kova�cevo; 2.Ilindentsi; 3. Bre�zani; 4. Drenkovo; 5. Vaxevo; 6. Kraïnitsi; 7. G�al�abnik. Dots represent other known Early Neolithic sites e 8. Toumba; 9. Vinogradi; 10. B�algar�cevo; 11. Ko�cerinovo;12. Mursalevo; 13. Sapareva Banja; 14. Saparevo; 15. Kamenik; 16. Dupnitsa; 17. Delistovo; 18. Nevestino; 19. �Cetirci; 20. Piperkov �Ciflik; 21. �Siskovci; 22. Bersin; 23. Negovanci; 24.Priboj; 25. Pernik; 26. Gabrov Dol; 27. Divotino.
1 The tests were performed with goat hides. This animal is by far the mainspecies consumed during the Early Neolithic in South-western Bulgaria (Benecke,2006).
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 91
clay) under different states (fresh and dry hide versus wet andleather-consistency clay) (Skakun, 1977; Shamanaev, 2002; LopezVarela et al., 2002; Godon and Lep�ere, 2006). Unfortunately, thedescriptions provided in the previous studieswerenot able to clarifythe function of Early Neolithic ceramic tools in south-westernBulgaria. The development of a multi-scale observation protocol ofuse-traces on the ceramic tools, coupled with the construction of alarge experimental reference, has succeeded in identifying differentcriteria which are diagnostic of the worked materials, kinematicsand lifespan of archaeological recycled potsherds.
3.1. Elaboration of a large experimental reference collection
The issues surrounding the function of Early Neolithic ceramictools from south-western Bulgaria encouraged the construction of alarge experimental reference. The fact that research performed inother historical contexts has shown the diversity of potential usesof the archaeological recycled potsherds (Skakun, 1977; Korobkova,
1997; Lopez Varela et al., 2002) was a further encouragement. Theexperiments aimed to clarify the various aspects of the use ofabraded potsherds, including the worked materials, the kinematicand the lifespan of ceramic tools.
The preliminary observation of abraded potsherds had providedno information regarding the range of materials worked with theceramic tools. The experiments have, therefore, consisted of vary-ing the type and the state of processed materials. The five testedmatters are the main raw materials used by the Early Neolithiccommunities of south-western Bulgaria. The two experimentedstates e or humidity e correspond to the main states in which theraw materials could have been worked. Within the framework ofthis initial reference, the tests have concerned: (i) Hide processing.1
Fig. 2. Dating of the seven main Early Neolithic settlements in the Struma Valleydetermined from the decorated pottery (see Salanova, 2011; Salanova et al., in press).
Table 1Number of potsherds and ceramic tools recorded per site. The quantity of potteryremains depends particularly on the excavated surface area and the thickness ofarchaeological layers.
Sites Potsherds recorded Potsherds recycled as tools
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e10292
This raw material was widely exploited by Early Neolithic societiesin south-western Bulgaria, as the use-wear analysis of lithic in-dustries has shown (Gurova, 2006). Experiments were conductedon fresh and dry hides. The recycled potsherds could have beenused for hide defleshing or softening (Skakun, 1977). (ii) Woodworking.2 This raw material was in particular used in the con-struction of Neolithic houses (Lichardus-Itten, 2006; Jaulneau,2008). Green and dry wood were tested. (iii) Clay processing.3
This raw material was widely exploited for the manufacture offired clay containers that have been discovered in huge quantitiesat Early Neolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria (Salanova,2009; Salanova et al., in press). Wet and leather-consistency clayshave, in this case, been worked. The abraded potsherds could,indeed, have been used for the preforming or the scraping of pot-tery walls (Binder et al., 1994; Lopez Varela et al., 2002; Godon andLep�ere, 2006). (iv) Bone working.4 This raw materials was used forthe manufacture of equipment during the Early Neolithic in south-western Bulgaria (Sid�era, 2012). The processing of fresh and drybones using recycled potsherds was tested. (v) Marble working.5
Marble was exploited for the manufacture of bracelets(Bonnardin, 2008). The experiments were conducted on wet anddry materials. Such a hard rock could have been worked in boththese states during the first half of the 6th millennium cal. BC.
If the preliminary observation of recycled potsherds had pro-vided no indication regarding the worked materials, it had never-theless succeeded in approaching the kinematics of ceramic tools(Vieugu�e, 2010). The findings on the use direction and the incli-nation of Early Neolithic recycled potsherds from south-westernBulgaria have guided the choice of parameters tested. With fewexceptions, the abrasions on recycled potsherds were located attheir edges. Some of the ceramic tools showed, in addition,scratches whose orientation was always perpendicular to thelength of abraded edges. All the experimental potsherds have,
2 The tests were made with oak wood. This taxon is the most exploited species bythe first Balkan farmers (Marinova and Thi�ebault, 2007).
3 The tests were carried out using industrial clays which were tempered withsand (up to 10%). Thus, clays worked with experimental ceramic tools presentedcharacteristics similar to those commonly used by the Early Neolithic potters insouth-western Bulgaria (Niellini, 2006).
4 The tests were performed on beef bones. The latters were favoured for themanufacture of bone tools during the Early Neolithic in south-western Bulgaria(Sid�era, 2012).
5 The tests were made on white marble similar to those worked by the firstfarmers of south-western Bulgaria (Bonnardin, personal communication).
therefore, been used in a transverse linear direction. The abradededges of recycled potsherds showed, furthermore, complex cross-sections that were either rounded or bevelled. The experimentalpieces have, therefore, been used in oblique or perpendicular po-sitions. Beyond assessing the differences in efficiency between thewire and the ridge of abraded edges, the two tested positions aimedto determine to what extent the inclination of ceramic tools influ-enced the development of use-traces.
As in the case of the worked materials, the lifespan of ceramictools could not be estimated from the preliminary examination ofNeolithic recycled potsherds. Thus, the experiments varied thisparameter. The ceramic tools have been used for 1, 5, 10, 15 and30 min. Although limited, these use-times have proved sufficient todetermine the lifespan of Neolithic recycled potsherds.
Each experiment was repeated three times. The replicas aimedat identifying the use-traces that are diagnostic of worked mate-rials, kinematics and lifespan of recycled potsherds on a minimumof recurrences. In the current state of data, the experimentalreference is made up of 300 pieces (Table 2). After completing theexperiments, the ceramic tools were the subject of a detailedexamination.
3.2. Observation of use-traces
The observation of use-traces began on the experimental tools.In addition to identifying the diagnostic criteria of the workedmaterials, kinematics and lifespan of recycled potsherds, the pre-liminary examination of 300 experimental pieces offered the op-portunity to develop a systematic observation protocol of ceramictools. The observation of use-traces has subsequently beenextended to Early Neolithic recycled potsherds from south-westernBulgaria. It has been able to refine the methodology previouslydeveloped on the experimental pieces.
The abrasions of ceramic tools were observed at both macro-and microscopic scales. This multi-scale approach has for a longtime demonstrated its effectiveness on knapped stone tools(Semenov, 1964; Keeley, 1980; Anderson-Gerfaud et al., 1987; 1993;Longo and Skakun, 2008). However, the protocol developed herediffers somewhat from those commonly applied to lithic industries,because of the heterogeneous matrix of tool blanks. In the pre-sented case study, the examination of recycled potsherds has sys-tematically begun with the naked eye. It has focused on thedifferent surfaces and edges of pottery fragments. The objectivewas to assess the state of preservation of the archaeological objects(erosion and concretions) and identify their different worn parts.The post-depositional alterations and use-wear of ceramic toolshave been distinguished on the basis of their specific extent andlocation. As several studies on taphonomic processes have shown(Schiffer and Skibo, 1989; Beck et al., 2002), the first display aubiquitous distributionwhile the second is concentrated on specificparts of the potsherds. The observation of potsherds recycled as
Fig. 3. The main categories of potsherds recycled as tools: (a) retouched pieces, (b) unretouched fragments.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 93
tools has continued under a stereomicroscope (from 2x to 90x). Itfocused on the use-traces that were visible on the fine fraction andthe mineral inclusions in the clay paste. The appearance of themineral inclusions within the different abraded areas of ceramic
Table 2Synthesis of experiments aiming at reconstructing the function of potsherds recycled as
tools has been systematically compared to those in the unwornparts. This comparison has enabled the discrimination of tracesfrom the natural erosion of mineral inclusions and from the use ofprehistoric ceramic tools. The use-wear analysis of recycled
tools. The figure in parenthesis refers to the number of tests performed per criteria.
Table 3Diagnostic use-traces of the raw material worked with ceramic tools.
Workedmaterials
Diagnostic criteria
Regularity of abrasions Outlines of use-wears Polish Abrasion of mineral inclusions Frequence of chipping Presence of large of deep scratches
Hide No Very diffuse Bright Unworn? Absent AbsentWood No Slightly diffuse Dull Unworn? Absent AbsentBone No Slightly diffuse Without Unworn? Absent AbsentClay Yes Clear Without Blunt/chipped Absent PresentMarble Yes Very clear Without Levelled Frequent Absent
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e10294
potsherds was completed using a metallographic microscope (100xand 200x). In this instance, the observations are confined to theabrasion of mineral inclusions that were present within the wornparts of ceramic tools.6
The thorough observation of use-traces has been able to identifythe macro- and microscopic use-wear characteristics that arediagnostic of worked materials. It has also informed about thecriteria that are typical of the kinematics and the lifespan ofceramic tools.
3.3. Identification of diagnostic criteria regarding the use of ceramictools
The recognition of diagnostic use-traces was based on thecomparison of abrasions of ceramic tools that were subjected to thesame experimental conditions.
As occurs with lithic and bone industries (Shchelinskij, 1977;Maigrot, 1997), the use-wear on ceramic tools varies dependingon the type of worked materials (skin, wood, bone, clay, marble).They can be distinguished on the basis of six criteria: the regularityof the abraded edges, the outline of use-wear, the polish, thebluntness of mineral inclusions, the frequency of chipping at thejunction of abraded edges/unworn surfaces and the presence/absence of large and deep scratches (Table 3 & appendix A). Thediagnostic criteria of worked materials do not seem only viable forthe recycled potsherds dated from the Early Neolithic in south-western Bulgaria. They correspond to those that have been re-ported for ceramic tools from the Early Bronze Age in NorthernCaucasus (Korobkova, 1997), showing some recurrences in the typeof use-traces formed.7
The abraded edges of potsherds used in the two positions tested(perpendicular and oblique) display different sections. Thereforethe inclination of use-wear allows the position of ceramic toolsrelative to the worked surface to be identified. Combined with theorientation of scratches preserved on the active parts of ceramictools, this inclination usually indicates the kinematics of recycledpotsherds (Binder et al., 1994; Vieugu�e et al., 2010) (Table 4).
The use-wears on ceramic tools are more or less extensivedepending on the use-time of experimental objects (1, 5, 10, 15 and30 min) (Table 5 & appendix B). The extent of the abraded edgesseems, therefore, to be a relevant indicator of the use-time ofceramic tools. However, the composition of the worked materialsstrongly influences the use-wear development rate. The use-timeof ceramic tools can, therefore, only be assessed if the materialsworked with the potsherds were previously determined. It is also
6 The examination of prehistoric tools under the microscope was performed onlyon a limited number of pieces. The tests conducted on the experimental recycledpotsherds prove, for the moment, to be negative. The detailed observation ofmineral inclusions did not provide any further data regarding the worked materials,the kinematics or the lifespan of ceramic tools.
7 The state of worked materials remains, however, much more difficult to di-agnose. Some overlaps were observed in the type of use-traces. Further in-vestigations are necessary for enlightening this aspect.
difficult to determine the use-time of prehistoric ceramic toolswhen the abrasions cover the entire edge of the recycled fragments.The extent of use-wear does not evolve logically, having reached allthe parts in contact with the worked material. Therefore only aminimum use-time can be suggested for the ceramic tools thathave completely abraded edges.
Once the diagnostic criteria were identified, it was possible toreconstruct the different aspects of the use of archaeologicalceramic tools.
4. Results: the broad use-range of ceramic tools during theEarly Neolithic in Bulgaria
The function of the Early Neolithic ceramic tools from south-western Bulgaria was hitherto poorly documented. The typolog-ical study of industries has shown that some potsherds were usedas “spindle whorls” and “tokens” (Vieugu�e, 2014). The use-wearanalysis of ceramic tools has revealed other functional categorieswhose existence was established from the identification of workedmaterials, kinematics and lifespan of abraded archaeological pot-sherds. The use-traces of the Neolithic ceramic tools were inter-preted by comparison with those of experimental pieces.
4.1. Identification of worked materials
Through the experiments, the worked materials using the EarlyNeolithic ceramic tools in south-western Bulgaria were identified.The use-wear analysis of abraded potsherds has shown the pres-ence of two main groups of ceramic tools.
The first one includes 609 pieces (that is 85%). The facets ofabrasions are regular and clearly delineated. The mineral inclusionsthat are pedestalled are very blunt or even chipped. The junctionsbetween the edges and the adjacent surfaces display no chipping.Large and deep scratches are also frequently observed (20%). Allthese macro- and microscopic use-wear characteristics are similarto those observed on the experimental potsherds that have beenused for clay processing (Fig. 4). Therefore, the ceramic tools withabraded surfaces and edges havemainly been used as potter's tools.Similar fragments are also known to have been used for themanufacture of fired clay containers in other contexts (Lopez Varelaet al., 2002; Godon and Lep�ere, 2006).
The second group consists of 6 pieces (that is 1%). This time, theabrasions follow the original irregularity of the potsherd's edges.The outline of use-wear appears scattered. The mineral inclusionsare not too blunt. The junctions between the edges and the adjacentsurfaces are not chipped. No scratches have been identified. This setof characteristics is similar to those observed on the experimentalpotsherds that were used for hide processing (Fig. 5). Scrapersmade from potsherds are well known in other prehistoric societies(Skakun,1977; Khlopina,1979; Rakhmanov,1983; Korobkova,1997;Shamanaev, 2002). Their limited number in the Early Neolithic ofsouth-western Bulgaria is, however, surprising. Few scrapers havebeen identified in the lithic industries (Gurova, 2006).
Table 4Diagnostic use-traces of the kinematic of recycled potsherds.
Kinematics Diagnostic criteria
Cross-section of the abraded edge Orientation of scratches
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 95
4.2. Determination of the kinematics of recycled potsherds
In the same way as the worked materials were determined, itwas possible to reconstruct the kinematics of abraded potsherds.
In south-western Bulgaria, the potsherds used for clay pro-cessing display abraded parts that are located at their edges (97%)or their outer surface (3%) (Fig. 6). The 590 potsherds with abradededges (Fig. 6a) present no use-traces on their inner and outer sur-faces (see Fig. 4e). This absence suggests that the ceramic tools didnot penetrate the worked materials. The striations observed on theabraded edges of 123 potsherds (that is 21%) are, furthermore, al-ways perpendicular to the longer side of the active parts (Fig. 6a).Such an orientation suggests that the ceramic tools have consis-tently been used in a transverse linear movement. The use-direction of recycled potsherds, as well as their low penetrationinto the worked materials, testify that the ceramic tools were notused for cutting clay blocks. To the contrary, they attest the use ofceramic tools for rubbing the clay surfaces of objects. Moreover, therecycled potsherds often have concave or convex abraded edgesreminiscent of the curved profile of the Neolithic pots (Fig. 6a).They were, therefore, used as potter's ribs. Potter's ribs haveabraded edges whose cross-section can vary on the same tool.Some recurrences can, however, be observed. Schematically, thesection of abraded edges is often slightly curved (89%), and morerarely bevelled (11%). Most of ceramic tools have, therefore, beenused perpendicularly to the worked surface. Thus, the potters haveused the wire of abraded edges for manufacturing their ceramicvessels. This choice suggests that the ceramic tools were primarilyused for scraping the wall of fired clay containers that were beingmanufactured. Such a technical action generally aims at reducingand homogenising the thickness of pottery walls (see Binder et al.,1994). A smaller number of potter's ribs was also used in an obliqueposition. The potters seem, therefore, to have sought to use theridge of abraded edges. This behaviour indicates that some ceramictools were used for blending the surfaces of fired clay containers.Such a technical movement aims at enhancing the adhesion of coils(Binder et al., 1994). According to their kinematics, the ceramictools dated in the Early Neolithic in south-western Bulgaria wereinvolved in different stages of pottery shaping.
The 19 potsherds with abraded surfaces are often worn at theircentre (65%) (Fig. 6b). Therefore, the most prominent part of theouter surface of recycled potsherds seems to have been preferablyused. Furthermore, the abrasion displays a flat section. Ceramictools have, therefore, been used tangentially to the worked
Table 5Diagnostic use-traces of the use-time of ceramic tools.
Use-time Diagnostic criteria
Extent
Hide Wood Bone Clay Marble
1 min x x x Localised Localised5 min x x x Partial Partial10 min x x x Partial Partial15 min Localised Localised x Covering Partial30 min Partial Partial Localised Covering Covering
surfaces. On 6 of the ceramic tools examined, the striations aremultidirectional. This aspect of use-traces certifies that the recycledpotsherds were used without preferential use-direction (Fig. 6b).Such a kinematic is clearly reminiscent of that of potter's smoothers(Fig. 6b) (Lopez Varela et al., 2002). The potsherds with abradedsurfaces were involved in the finishing of Neolithic pottery. The co-existence of potter's ribs and smoothers within the industriesshows the complex integration of ceramic tools in themanufacturing process of pottery dated in the first half of the 6thmillennium cal. BC.
The ceramic tools were, however, not only used for the manu-facture of pottery. They were also involved in hide processing. The 6potsherds that have worked this raw material only display abra-sions at their edges (see Fig. 5e). The absence of visible use-traceson the adjacent surfaces shows that ceramic tools have not pene-trated theworkedmaterials. Therefore, the recycled potsherds havenot been used for cutting hides. In addition, the section of theabraded edges of ceramic tools shows no inclination. This suggeststhat recycled potsherds were not used with a very acute angle forscraping hides. The most likely hypothesis seems to be that of thesoftening of animal skins. The presence of hide scrapers within theceramic industries is further evidence of the highly diversifiedfunctions of ceramic tools during the Early Neolithic.
4.3. Estimating the lifespan of ceramic tools
Based on the experimental reference, it was possible to estimatethe use-time of Early neolithic ceramic tools in south-westernBulgaria.
The potter's ribs display abrasions that do not generally coverthe whole of the edges (in 85% of the cases) (Fig. 7). However, theexperiments have shown how the potsherds wore rapidly in con-tact with tempered clay. With a few exceptions, the ceramic toolswere completely abraded after working this raw material for10 min. Therefore, four-fifths of the potter's ribs were used for ashorter period of time. The remaining one-fifth was used longer forthe manufacture of fired clay containers.
The potter's smoothers have, likewise, few developed abrasions.Use-traces are often confined to a small area on the outer surface ofthe ceramic tools. It has generally not caused significant reductionof the potsherd thickness. However, the experiments have shownhow rapidly the potsherds wore out in contact with tempered clay.Therefore, potter's smoothers identified in the Early Neolithicpottery assemblages in south-western Bulgaria had a very shortuse-time.
Conversely, the potsherds that were involved in the hide pro-cessing always display a covering abrasion (Fig. 8). This observationindicates at first glance a longer period of use. Moreover, experi-ments have shown that the potsherds from Kova�cevo wore slowlyin contact with this raw material. Use-wear significantly extendafter 15 min. The extent of abrasions found on the hide scrapersfrom Kova�cevowould, therefore, suggest a relatively long use-time.
The diagnostic use-traces on ceramic tools established from theexperimental reference have proved efficient to decipher theworked materials, the kinematics and the lifespan of Neolithicrecycled potsherds. The combination of these three parameters has
Fig. 4. Comparison of use-traces between archaeological (left) and experimental (right) potsherds having worked clay. The photos show (a) the regularity of abraded edge, (b) theclear outlines of use-wear, (c) the absence of polish, (d) the abrasion of mineral inclusions, (e) the absence of chipping at the junction between abraded edges and adjacent surfaces,(f) the presence of large and deep scratches.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e10296
Fig. 5. Comparison of use-traces between archaeological (left) and experimental (right) potsherds having worked hide. The photos show (a) the irregularity of abraded edge, (b) thediffuse outlines of use-wear, (c) the altered bright polish, (d) the unworn mineral inclusions, (e) the absence of chipping at the junction between abraded edges and adjacentsurfaces.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 97
Fig. 6. Kinematics of the ceramic tools used for the manufacture of pottery: (a) potsherds with convex abraded edge þ perpendicular scratches, (b) potsherds with flat abradedsurface þ random scratches.
Fig. 7. Comparison of the extent of abrasions between archaeological (left) and experimental (right) tools having worked clay during 5 min (a) and 10 min (b).
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e10298
allowed the proposal of very precise assumptions on the function ofindustries made from potsherds. In addition to the “spindle whorls”and “tokens”, the research has revealed the presence of potter'ssmoothers and ribs involved in the manufacture of fired clay con-tainers. They also demonstrated the existence of hide scrapers usedfor making objects in organic materials. Thus, the use-wear analysisof ceramic tools has revealed a use-range that was far morediversified than those established from only the typological studyof industries. This functional diversity of ceramic tools was hithertounsuspected in the Early Neolithic of south-western Bulgaria. Itraises questions about the role of this industry in the daily life of thefirst farming societies in the Balkans.
5. Discussion: the role of ceramic tools in the daily life of thefirst Balkan farming societies
In the absence of use-wear analysis, the role of ceramic tools inthe economic sphere of the earliest agro-pastoral communities inthe Balkans was enigmatic. The information collected on thefunction of recycled potsherds, combined with data from othercategories of archaeological remains, has succeeded in clarifyingthis under-researched aspect. Only preliminary tests have, for themoment, been performed regarding the Early Neolithic settlementof Kova�cevo. The techno-functional studies that were undertakenon all the categories of archaeological remains from the site, are
Fig. 8. Comparison of the extent of abrasions between archaeological (left) and experimental (right) tools having worked hide during 30 min.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 99
ongoing (Lichardus-Itten, 2009). This exploratory work has, how-ever, opened new perspectives about the integration of recycledpotsherds within the technical systems and the Neolithic toolkits.
8 Because of the relatively small quantity of stone, bone and ceramic tools foundon the Early Neolithic settlements in the southern Balkans.
5.1. The insertion of ceramic tools in the technical systems
Placing the archaeological recycled potsherds in the differenttechnical systems has been particularly difficult. Such a task in-volves knowing the precise characteristics of the finished products.However, the study of Neolithic objects manufactured with pot-sherds is not always possible. Those made in leather or plant fibreare not preserved at the Early Neolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria. Even when the finished products have survived,the identification of Neolithic objects that were effectively pro-duced with ceramic tools has been extremely difficult. This isparticularly the case for the fired clay containers. The wide anddeep scratches that are so characteristic of the use of potter's ribsfor the manufacture of pottery were often erased by the slippingand the polishing of Neolithic pots (Vieugu�e et al., 2010). Althoughits limits could not be circumvented, the research has provided ageneral overview of the fired clay containers made with ceramictools. It has combined the information from the use-wear analysisof ceramic tools with that from the technological study of potteryconducted by L. Gomart (Salanova et al., 2010).
In Kova�cevo, 568 potter's ribs have been identified. This figure isparticularly low compared to the Individual Minimum Number ofpottery that is estimated to be 98 447 fired clay containers at thesite. Knowing that the lifespan of ceramic tools was quite limited, itappears unlikely that the abraded potsherds have insured theentire pottery production at the settlement. This find raised thequestion about the type of fired clay containers that were fashionedwith ceramic tools. The abraded edges of the most complete toolsdisplay a curved shape that is more or less pronounced. Thisobservation gave the impression that ceramic tools were used formanufacturing various sizes and shapes of pottery. The technicaltraces observed on 76 complete fired clay containers fromKova�cevoconfirm such a trend (see Vieugu�e et al., 2010). The wide and deepscratches that are diagnostic of the use of potter's ribs wereobserved on different typological categories, ranging from low-opened to very high-closed ceramic vessels. They were identifiedon various size classes, ranging from 11 to 48 cm in circumference(Fig. 9). In the current state of the data, the ceramic tools do notseem to have been used for shaping any particular type of pottery.Future research should attempt to clarify the factor that hasdetermined the use of such equipment.
Whatever the case, the recycled potsherds involved in themanufacture of pottery would probably not have been able to work
the entirety of the pottery production. The potsherds were, like-wise, not able to soften all the worked hides at the site. This findraised the question of complementarity with other industries thatwere used by the communities during the first half of the 6thmillennium cal BC.
5.2. The place of recycled potsherds within the Neolithic toolkits
Identifying the place of archaeological recycled potsherdswithin the Neolithic toolkits of the first Bulgarian farmers has notbeen an easy exercise. Such an investigation involves knowing theprecise use-range of other industries during the first half of the 6thmillennium cal. BC. However, the study of different type of toolswas not always possible. The wood industry, suspected of havingheld a central place in Neolithic toolkits,8 is not preserved at EarlyNeolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria. Of course, thistaphonomic bias could not be circumvented. However, the com-parison of the use-range of ceramic tools with those of bone andlithic industries respectively established by I. Sid�era, (1998, 2012)and M. Gurova, (2006) has allowed the importance of recycledpotsherds within the toolkits of the first Balkan farmers to beapproached.
In Kova�cevo, 576 potsherds were used for the manufacture ofceramic vessels. Some several tens of lithic tools were also devotedto this technical task (Gurova, 2006). On the other hand, the boneindustry was apparently not used for the production of pottery(Sid�era, personal communication). Likewise, 579 potsherds wereinvolved in the manufacture of threads. Only a few stone objectsmay have been integrated in textile production because theirmorphology is identical to that of ceramic spindle whorls. All thesefacts indicate that the recycled potsherds are mostly not occasionalsubstitutes of bone and lithic objects.
The recycled potsherds were fully integrated in the range oftools used by Early Neolithic communities from Bulgaria. Comple-mentarities are, by the way, observed between industries (Fig. 10).In Kova�cevo, two categories of tools are systematically involved inthe processing of the same raw materials. Thus, hide processingwas performed with bone and lithic objects. Clay processingrequired the use of flint and ceramic tools. Such complementaritiescan result from a chronological change of the type of blanks usedfor the manufacture of prehistoric tools. They may also reflect asynchronous use of different types of tools, as has been proven inother historical contexts (Sid�era, 1993; Beugnier and Maigrot,2005). The combination of different use-wear analyses, according
Fig. 9. Sample of fired clay containers fashioned using ceramic tools (After Vieugu�e et al., 2010).
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102100
to the chronological framework established from the decoratedpottery (Salanova, 2011), will be able to answer this question. Somedivisions also exist (Fig. 10). The ceramic and bone tools do notseem to have been used in the same technical fields. This opposi-tion between bone/clay cannot be explained by physical con-straints. Indeed, bone tools are well-suited for working unfired clay.Indeed, some examples are known in other prehistoric societies(Yakovleva and Skakun 2008; Maigrot, 2010). Ceramic tools are,likewise, relatively effective for the processing of dry skin. Scrapersmade from potsherds are also recurrent in some archaeologicalcultures (Skakun, 1977; Khlopina 1979). Future research shouldattempt to identify the reasons for the preferential use of bone andceramic tools in order to perform these technical tasks.
Operating together with bone and lithic industries in a coherenttechnical system, the potsherds recycled as tools obviously playedan important role in the economy of the first farmers in south-western Bulgaria.
Fig. 10. Complementarities and divisions between lithic, bone and ceramic industriesin the field of hide processing and pottery manufacture.
6. Conclusion & perspectives
The research undertaken on the first pottery productions in theBalkans has cast new light on the importance of the recycling ofceramic waste at the beginning of the Neolithic. Tens, hundreds oreven thousands of potsherds recycled as tools were identified atEarly Neolithic settlements in south-western Bulgaria. The issuesurrounding the function of this equipment led us to undertake itsuse-wear analysis.
The investigation has required the development of a uniqueobservation protocol for use-traces on ceramic tools. This protocol,suitable for the heterogeneous matrix of potsherds, includes theexamination of the fine fraction and the mineral inclusions at bothmacro- and microscopic scales. The study has in parallel requiredthe construction of a large experimental reference (300 tests)allowing an objective interpretation of use-traces on ceramic tools.The experimental reference programme is the first to vary theworked materials (hide, wood, bone, clay and marble), the kine-matics (perpendicular and oblique position) and the lifespan (1, 5,10, 15 and 30 min) of ceramic tools. The research has allowed us toestablish the use-traces that are diagnostic of the various aspects ofthe use of ceramic industries that hitherto had remained unclear.The raw materials processed with potsherds have been deductedparticularly by the regularity of abraded edges, the outlines ofabrasions, the polish, the bluntness of inclusions, and the frequencyand the depth of scratches. Combined with the kinematics and thelifespan of ceramic tools, they have allowed the proposal of veryprecise hypotheses about the function of Neolithic recycledpotsherds.
The investigation has revealed the unsuspected diversity of usesof Early Neolithic ceramic tools in south-western Bulgaria. Pot-sherds were not only used as spindle whorls and tokens, but also ashide scrapers, potter's ribs and smoothers during the first half ofthe 6th millennium cal. BC. The large use range of ceramic tools, aswell as their quantity, shows that Neolithic recycled potsherds didnot constitute occasional substitutes of bone and lithic objects. Onthe contrary, they were fully integrated in the toolkits of the firstBalkan farmers, carrying out certain technical productions.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102 101
The results encourage further investigations into the archaeo-logical recycled potsherds which should be considered in the sameway as bone and lithic industries. A review of the available liter-ature on the Early Neolithic reveals the presence of ceramic toolsin areas neighbouring south-western Bulgaria. They are attested atseveral sites in Thessaly (Achillion, Chalki or Franchti) (Gimbutaset al., 1989; Vitelli, 1993), Northern Greece (Nea Nikomedeia andGiannitsa) (Pyke and Yiouni, 1996), Macedonia (Anzabegovo andVeluska Tumba) (Simoska and Sanev, 1975; Gimbutas, 1976) andBulgarian Thrace (Karanovo for example) (Hiller and Nikolov,1997). Their existence is even proved beyond the south-easternEurope at the turn of the 7th and 6th millennium cal BC. Casesare particularly attested in the Levant (eg Spoor and Collet, 1996;Orrelle et al., 2012) and Anatolia (Godon, 2010). Future researchwill therefore consist of searching systematically for recycledpotsherds within ceramic assemblages in order to know the realextent of the recycling of pottery wastes at the beginning of theNeolithic. They will focus on performing the use-wear study ofsuch industries in order to establish their actual function. Futurework will also aim at identifying the chronological and regionalvariations that are strongly suspected in the composition ofceramic toolkits used by the first Eastern Mediterranean farmers.They will try to understand the meaning of such differences inrelation to the patchwork of economic systems came into placewith the Neolithic.
Acknowledgments
This paper comes from different use-wear studies of ceramictools that were conducted within the framework of two maininternational research programs: The first is entitled “The Neo-lithisation process in the Struma Valley (Southwestern Bulgaria)”directed by M. Grebska-Kulova and L. Salanova; The second is“Kova�cevo: A French-Bulgarian excavation in the Struma River Val-ley” directed by J.-P. Demoule, M. Lichardus-Itten, V. Nikolov and L.Perni�ceva. First, I would like to thank Laure Salanova (SeniorResearcher at the CNRS, UMR 7055) who is behind my research onthe function of potsherds recycled as tools. Her technologicalapproach to prehistoric ceramic assemblages has represented afundamental support for the understanding of this atypical in-dustry. I also would like to express my gratitude to Hugues Plisson(Researcher at the CNRS, UMR 5199) who has taught me Trace-ology. His overview of prehistoric tools has been an undeniableadvantage for the functional characterization of the Early Neolithicceramic tools from Bulgaria. I wish also to thank J.-P. Demoule, M.Lichardus-Itten (Professors at the University of Paris 1), V. Nikolov(Researcher at the Archaeological Institute of Sofia) and L. Perni-�ceva (y) for allowing the study of the unique assemblage ofceramic tools from Kova�cevo. Without the study of this assem-blage, the development of a systematic study method of ceramictools would not have been possible. I would also like to express mygratitude to M. Grebska-Kulova, I. Kulov (Researchers at the His-torical Museum of Blagoevgrad), A. Bakamska (Researcher at theHistorical Museum of Pernik) and S. �Cochad�ziev (Professor at theUniversity of Veliko Tarnovo) for allowing the examination of therecycled potsherds from Ilindenci, Bre�zani, Drenkovo, Kraïnitsi,Vaxevo and G�al�abnik. The observation of the ceramic tools fromthese six Early Neolithic settlements has allowed the studymethod previously developed for the implements from Kova�cevoto be refined.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.016.
Anderson, P.C., Beyries, S., Otte, M., Plisson, H., 1993. Traces et fonction : les gestesretrouv�es. �Etudes et Recherches Arch�eologiques de l'Universit�e de Li�ege 5,Li�ege.
Beck, M.-E., Skibo, J.-M., Hally, D.-J., Yang, P., 2002. Sample selection for ceramic use-alteration analysis: the effects of abrasion on soot. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29, 1e15.
Benecke, N., 2006. Animal husbandry and hunting in the Early Neolithic of South-East Europe: a review. In: Gatsov, I., Schwarzberg, H. (Eds.), Aegean - Marmara -Black Sea: the Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic, pp. 175e185.
Beugnier, V., Maigrot, Y., 2005. La fonction des outillages en mati�ere dure animale eten silex au N�eolithique final. Le cas des sites littoraux des lacs de Chalain etClairvaux (Jura, France) au 30�eme si�ecle avant notre �ere. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr.102 (2), 335e344.
Binder, D., Gassin, B., S�en�epart, I., 1994. �El�ements pour la caract�erisation des pro-ductions c�eramiques n�eolithiques dans le Sud de la France. L'exemple de Gir-ibaldi. In: Binder, D., Courtin, J. (Eds.), Terre cuite et Soci�et�e. La c�eramique,document technique, �economique, culturel. Juan-les-Pins, pp. 256e267.
Bofill, M., 2012. Quantitatives analysis of use-wear pattern : a functional approachto the study of grinding stones. In: Borrell, F., Bouso Garcia, M., Gomez Bach, A.,Tornero Dacasa, C., Vicente Campos, O. (Eds.), Broadening Horizons 3, Confer-ence of Young Researchers Working in the Ancient Near-east, Barcelone,pp. 63e84.
Bonnardin, S., 2008. La parure. In: Demoule, J.-P., Lichardus-Itten, M. (Eds.), Kova-�cevo. Rapport des fouilles n�eolithiques franco-bulgares dans la vall�ee du Stry-mon, vol. 20. Minist�ere des Affaires �etrang�eres - Acad�emie des Sciences deSofia, Paris, pp. 15e18.
�Cocha�ziev, S., 2001. Vaksevo : praistori�ceski seli�sta. Veliko T�arnovo.�Cochad�ziev, S., 2007. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in the Struma River Basin.
Veliko Tǎrnovo.�Cocha�ziev, S., Bakamska, A., 1990. �Etude du site N�eolithique ancien de Kraïnitsi dans
le d�epartement de Kjustendil. Stud. Praehist. 10, 51e76.Demoule, J.-P., Lichardus-Itten, M., 2001. Kova�cevo (Bulgarie), un �etablissement du
N�eolithique le plus ancien des Balkans. In: Guilaine, J. (Ed.), Communaut�esvillageoises du Proche-Orient �a l'Atlantique (8000-2000 avant notre �ere).S�eminaires de la chaire “Civilisations de l'Europe au N�eolithique et �a l'Age duBronze” du Coll�ege de France, Paris, pp. 85e102.
Gimbutas, M., 1976. Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by Excavation of Anza,Southeast Yougoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles.
Gimbutas, M., Winn, S., Shimabuku, D., 1989. Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement inThessaly, Greece, 6400e5600 cal BC. Los Angeles.
Godon, M., 2010. De l'empreinte �a l'outil, de la trace �a la fonction : exemple d'outilsde potiers dans le N�eolithique c�eramique centre-anatolien. In: Maigrot, Y.,Vieugu�e, J. (Eds.), Outils de potier n�eolithiques : traditions techniques etorganisation des productions c�eramiques, Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrançaise 107/4, Paris, pp. 691e707.
Godon, M., Lep�ere, C., 2006. Les est�eques en c�eramique du Chass�een provençal : desoutils simples ? In: Astruc, L., Bon, F., L�ea, V., Milcent, P.-Y., Philibert, S. (Eds.),Normes techniques et pratiques sociales. De la simplicit�e des outillages pr�e- etprotohistoriques, Antibes, pp. 235e242.
Goodale, N., Otis, H., Andresky, W., Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., Bart, K., 2010. Sickle bladelife history and the transition of agriculture: an early Neolithic case study fromSouthwest Asia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 1192e1201.
Grebska-Kulova, M., Salanova, L., 2011. La n�eolithisation de la vall�ee de la Struma(Sud-ouest de la Bulgarie). Rapport du Programme PHC Rila 2009-2010, 92 p.
Grebska-Kulova,M., Kulov, I., Salanova, L., Vieugu�e, J., Gomart, L., 2011. Раннонеолитнотоселище при с. Илинденци,М.Масовец, община СтруМяни. Археология.
Gurova, M., 2006. Functional aspects of the Early Neolithic flint assemblages fromBulgaria and NW Anatolia. In: Gatsov, I., Schwarzberg, H. (Eds.), Aegean e
Marmara e Black Sea: the Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic,Langenweissbach, pp. 157e173.
Gutierrez Saez, C., 1993. L'identification des activit�es �a travers la trac�eologie. In:Anderson, P.C., Beyries, S., Otte, M., Plisson, H. (Eds.), Traces et fonction : lesgestes retrouv�es, �Etudes et Recherches Arch�eologiques de l'Universit�e de Li�ege50, Li�ege, pp. 477e487.
Hameau, P., 2005. T�emoignages d'activit�e poti�ere �a la grotte du Vieux-Monoï,Signes. Rev. Cent. Arch�eol. Var. 5, 78e99.
Hiller, S., Nikolov, V., 1997. Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992.€Osterreichisch-Bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo 1,Salzburg-Sofia.
Jaulneau, C., 2008. From observation to interpretation. In: Dionysios, D. (Ed.), E-learning Methodologies and Computer Applications in Archaeology. Hershey,New-York, pp. 79e103.
Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tools Uses: a MicrowearAnalysis. Chicago and London, 212 p.
Korobkova, G., 1997. Kostjanye strugi i keramicheski orudija kamennogo veka.Kammennyj vek evropejskikh ravnin, Materialy mezhdunarodnoj konferentsii,pp. 192e198.
Lichardus, J., Nikolov, V., Lichardus-Itten, M., 2002. Beitr€age zu jungsteinzeitlichenForschungen in Bulgarien. Saarbrücker Beitr€age zur Altertumskunde 74, Bonn.
J. Vieugu�e / Journal of Archaeological Science 58 (2015) 89e102102
Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J.-P., Perni�ceva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M., Kulov, I., 2002.The site of Kovatchevo and the beginnings of the Neolithic period in South-western Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excavations 1986-2000. In:Lichardus, J., Nikolov, V., Lichardus-Itten, M. (Eds.), Beitr€age zu jungsteinzei-tlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien, Saarbrücker Beitr€age zur Altertumskunde,Bonn, pp. 99e158.
Lichardus-Itten, M., 2006. Habitations en fosse : mythe ou r�ealit�e au N�eolithiqueancien Balkano-carpatique. In: Fr�ere-Sautot, M.-C. (Ed.), Des trous… Structuresen creux pr�e- et protohistoriques, Montagnac, pp. 203e211.
Lichardus-Itten, M., 2009. La n�eolithisation des Balkans m�eridionaux vue �a traversla c�eramique de Kova�cevo. In: Astruc, L., Gaulon, A., Salanova, L. (Eds.),M�ethodes d'approche des premi�eres productions c�eramiques : �etude de casdans les Balkans et au Levant, Internationale Arch€aologie 12, Rahden,pp. 13e20.
Longo, L., Skakun, N., 2008. “Prehistoric Technology”, 40 Years Later: FunctionalStudies and the Russian Legacy. Memorie del museo civico di storia naturale diVerona, Verone.
Lopez Varela, S.L., Van Gijn, A., Jacobs, L., 2002. De-mystifying pottery production inthe Maya Lowlands: detection of traces of use-wear on pottery sherds throughmicroscopy analysis and experimental replication. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29,1133e1147.
Maigrot, Y., 1997. Trac�eologie des outils tranchants en os des V�e et IV�e mill�enaires av.J.-C. en Bassin parisien. Essai m�ethodologique et application. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist.Fr. 94 (2), 197e216.
Maigrot, Y., 2010. �Etude comparative de deux s�eries d'outils en os impliqu�es dans laproduction c�eramique n�eolithique du jura : clairvaux XIV (N�eolithique moyen)et Chalain 4 (N�eolithique final). In: Maigrot, Y., Vieugu�e, J. (Eds.), Outils de potiern�eolithiques : traditions techniques et organisation des productionsc�eramiques, Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistorique Française 107/4, Paris,pp. 737e755.
Marinova, E., 2009. Plant economy and vegetation during the Early Neolithic ofBulgaria. In: Gatsov, I., Boyadzhiev, Y. (Eds.), The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-eastern Europe Transect Volume 1-Early Neolithic Sites on the Territoryof Bulgaria, British Archaeological Report International Series 2048, pp. 59e62.
Marinova, E., Thi�ebault, S., 2007. Anthracological analysis from Kova�cevo, southwestBulgaria : woodland vegetation and its use during the earliest stages of theEuropean Neolithic. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 17 (2), 223e231.
Niellini, F., 2006. C�eramiques et mati�eres premi�eres n�eolithiques �a Kova�cevo (Bul-garie). Master thesis at the University of Paris I, sunder the supervision of M.Lichardus-Itten, Paris. 2 vol.
Orrelle, E., Eyal, R., Gopher, A., 2012. Spindle Whorls and their blanks. In: Gopher, A.(Ed.), Village Communities of the Pottery Neolithic Period in the Menashe Hills,Isra€el - Archaeological Investigations at the Sites of Nahal Zehora, MonographSeries, 29/2, pp. 632e657.
Pavùk, J., �Cochad�ziev, M., 1984. Neolithische Tellsiedlung bei Galabnik in West-bulgarien (Grabungsbericht der Jahre 1980-1982). Slov. Archeol. 32 (1),195e226.
Perl�es, C., 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The First Farming Communities inEurope, Cambridge.
Plisson, H., Van Gijn, A., 1989. La trac�eologie : mode d'emploi. L'anthropologie 93(3), 631e642.
Pyke, G., Yiouni, P., 1996. The excavation and the ceramic assemblage. In:Rodden, R.J. (Ed.), Nea Nikomedeia: the Excavation of an Early Neolithic Villagein Northern Greece. The British School at Athens. Supplementary volume, 25.
Rakhmanov, U., 1983. Keramicheskoe orudie truda epokhi bronzy c poseleniaDzharkutan. Istor. Mater. Kul't. Uzb. 18, 18e20.
Reingruber, A., Thissen, L., 2005. 14C database for the Aegean catchment (EasternGreece, Southern Blakans and Western Turkey) 10.000-5500 cal. BC. In:Lichter, C. (Ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-european Relationsfrom the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th MillenniumCal. BC, Istanbul, pp. 295e327.
Salanova, L., 2007. D�ecoder les soci�et�es n�eolithiques : r�eflexions sur les d�ecorsc�eramiques. Habilitation �a Diriger des Recherches of the University of Paris I,under the supervision of Prof. M. Lichardus-Itten, Paris, Unpublished.
Salanova, L., 2009. La plus ancienne c�eramique bulgare (Kova�cevo, Bulgarie) : car-act�erisation technique, implications socio-culturelles. In: Astruc, L., Gaulon, A.,Salanova, L. (Eds.), M�ethodes d'approche des premi�eres productions c�eramiques: �etude de cas dans les Balkans et au Levant, Internationale Arch€aologie 12,Rahden, pp. 21e28.
Salanova, L., 2011. Ceramic assemblages and chronology: problems and solutions forthe Early Neolithic settlement of Kovatchevo. Stud. Praehist. 14, 286e298.
Salanova, L., Vieugu�e, J., Gomart, L., 2010. M�ethode d'�etude des gros corpusc�eramiques : la s�erie n�eolithique de Kova�cevo (Bulgarie). Arheol. Sofia 12 (4),3e17.
Salanova L., Gomart L. and Vieugu�e J., 6000 cal BC in Southwestern Bulgaria: di-versity and discontinuities during the neolithization process, In: Biehl P. andRosenstock E., (Eds.), 6000 BC: Transformation and Change in the Near East andEurope, Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, (in press).
Schiffer, M.-B., Skibo, J.-M., 1989. A provisional theory of ceramic abrasion. Am.Anthropol. 91 (1), 101e115. Oxford.
Semenov, S.A., 1964. Prehistoric Technology. An Experimental Study of the OldestTools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Londres.
Shamanaev, A., 2002. Reused pottery fragments as a focus of functional analysis.Acta Archaeol. Lund. 36, 143e148.
Shchelinskij, V.E., 1977. Eksperimental'no-trasologicheskoe izuchenie funkcij nij-nepaleoliticheskih orudij. In: Praslov, N.D. (Ed.), Problemy Paleolita Vostochnoj ICentral'noj Evropy. Nauka, pp. 182e196.
Sid�era, I., 1993. Outillage d'os et de silex �a Cuiry-l�es-Chaudardes et �a Darion, unecons�ecration aux mati�eres animales. In: Anderson, P.C., Beyries, S., Otte, M.,Plisson, P. (Eds.), Traces et fonction : les gestes retrouv�es, �Etudes et RecherchesArch�eologiques de l'Universit�e de Li�ege 50, Li�ege, pp. 147e157.
Sid�era, I., 1998. Nouveaux �el�ements d'origine proche-orientale dans le N�eolithiqueancien balkanique : analyse de l'industrie osseuse. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Pr�ehistoired'Anatolie. G�en�ese de deux mondes, �Etudes et Recherches Arch�eologiques del'Universit�e de Li�ege 85, Li�ege, pp. 215e239.
Sid�era, I., 2012. Nouveau regard sur la n�eolithisation : les industries osseuses del'Anatolie au Bassin parisien via la M�editerran�ee. Paris.
Sid�era, I., Legrand, A., 2006. Trac�eologie fonctionnelle des mati�eres osseuses : unem�ethode. Bull. Soc. Pr�ehist. Fr. 103 (2), 291e304.
Simoska, D., Sanev, V., 1975. Neolitska naselba Velu�ska tumba kaj Bitola. Maced.Acta Archaeol. 1, 25e88.
Skakun, N., 1977. Eksperimental'no-trasologicheskie issledovanija keramicheskikhorudij truda epokhi paleometalla (po materialam Altyn-depe i Tekkem-depe).Sov. Arkheol. 1, 264e268.
Spoor, R.H., Collet, P., 1996. The other small finds. In: Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (Ed.), TellSabi Abyad: the Late Neolithic Settlement.
Sullivan, A.-P., Skibo, J.-M., Van Buren, M., 1991. Sherds as tools: the roles of vesselfragments in prehistoric succulent plant processing. N. Am. Archaeol. 12 (3),243e255.
Van Gijn, A., Hofman, C.L., 2008. Were they used as tools? an exploratory functionalstudy of abraded potsherds from two pre-colonial sites on the island ofGuadeloupe, northern Lesser Antilles. Caribb. J. Sci. 44 (1), 21e35.
Van Gijn, A., Lammers-Keijsers, Y., 2010. Toolkits for ceramic production: informaltools and the importance of high power use-wear analysis. In: Maigrot, Y.,Vieugu�e, J. (Eds.), Outils de potier n�eolithiques : traditions techniques etorganisation des productions c�eramiques. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e Pr�ehistoriqueFrançaise 107/4, Paris, pp. 755e762.
Vaughan, P., 1985. Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson.
Vieugu�e, J., 2010. Du vase aux tessons : formes et fonctions de la c�eramique duN�eolithique ancien de l'habitat de Kova�cevo (6200e5500 av. J.-C., Bulgarie).PhD dissertation at the University of Paris 1 under the supervision of L. Sala-nova, Paris, 2 vol.
Vieugu�e, J., 2014. Fonctions des productions c�eramiques: m�ethode et application auN�eolithique ancien balkanique. CNRS �Editions, Paris, 199 p.
Vieugu�e, J., Gomart, L., Salanova, L., 2010. Les est�eques en c�eramique des potiersn�eolithiques de l'habitat de Kova�cevo (6200-5500 av. J.-C., Bulgarie). In:Maigrot, Y., Vieugu�e, J. (Eds.), Outils de potier n�eolithiques : traditions tech-niques et organisation des productions c�eramiques, Bulletin de la Soci�et�ePr�ehistorique Française 107/4, Paris, pp. 709e723.
Vigne, J.-D., 2008. Zooarchaeological aspects of the Neolithic diet transition in thenear East and Europe, and their putative relationships with the Neolithic de-mographic transition. In: Bocquet Appel, J.-P., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The NeolithicTransition and its Consequences. Springer, New York, pp. 179e205.
Vigne, J.-D., Helmer, D., 2007. Was milk a “secondary product” in the Old WorldNeolithisation process? Its role in the domestication of cattle, sheep and goats.Anthropozoologica 42 (2), 9e40.
Vitelli, K., 1993. Franchti Neolithic pottery. volume 1 : classification and ceramicphases 1 and 2. In: Jacobsen, T.W. (Ed.), Excavations at Franchti Cave, Greece.Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis.
Willcox, G., 2013. The roots of cultivation in Southwestern Asia. Science 341 (6141),39e40.
Yakovleva, L., Skakun, N., 2008. Functional analysis of tools used in ancient ceramicproduction. In: Longo, L., Skakun, N. (Eds.), “Prehistoric Technology” 40 YearsLater: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Oxford Archaeopress,pp. 465e468.
