|
Along the Danube, the fifth millennium B.C. slowly begins to unravel its mysteries. And that, with the help of archeologists and their colleagues in connected fields, who come from far away lands sometimes even here, in time forsaken places, where everything seems to happen according to different rules than in the nearby cities. It is in such a village (Pietrele1, Baneasa commune, Giurgiu county) that the international interdisciplinary team2 chose to start its studies, fighting against the hot summers of the South. That which arouses their interest is a tell3 approximately 7 km from the Danube, a little further from the centre of the village. This tell (Figure 1) is an artificial lump, an important expression of the Eneolithic civilization: Gumelnita. The Gumelnita culture in southern Romania was once a part of a larger cultural area that included a part of Bulgaria, thus its complete name: Kodžadermen-Gumelnita-Karanovo VI. The site has been known for its scientific importance since 1934 [2] but it is only now, thanks to the modern investigation technology, that we may follow, into detail, the economical strategy of the long-term inhabitation of the area (cca. 300-500 years), the social order of the inhabitants, as well as establish the weather conditions and the cultural changes between the lower Danube, the Black Sea and Central Europe4.
As organizer and coordinator of the mobile conservation-restoration laboratory5, I had the privilege of intensely studying the ceramics and the artifacts discovered during the excavations. The laboratory provides, all along the digging period, operations of different difficulty levels, special recordings of the archeological materials (photographs, drawings, state of conservation, interventions, etc.) as well as processing the materials in a proportion of 80%-90%. A special case was offered by the two apparently queer fragments (Figure 2) discovered in successive excavation campaigns, that proved to be parts of the same object: a terracotta figurine. Figurine’s dimensions Preserved height: 7.1 cm Preserved length: 7.9 cm Maximum width preserved (at the level of the chair seat): 3.6 cm Maximum width of the back of the chair: 4.8 Preservation status The figurine has been discovered in high state of fragmentation. Main6 type of preservation: transversal. After the first reconstruction (Figures 3 and 4), the conservation state remains fragmentary, due to secondary fragmentations that have occurred to the figurine whose missing components haven’t been found in situ. Main fragmentation area: figurine’s waist (practically 'torn' in two pieces). Secondary fragmentation areas: - The head is missing; acute angle fragmentation; - Its superior limbs are fragmentary, transversally cracked; - The inferior limbs have acute cracks on the calf; - The legs of the chair are transversally cut at two levels: three of them, the back ones and the front left one, are cracked at the joint with the chair seat. The front right leg is cracked transversally, but it is almost entire, practically missing just its bottom point; - The lower side of the back is cut transversally. Substance; color The statue is made of good quality clay, cleansed of impurities and well compacted. On the outside, the color of the figurine varies from very pale brown (10YR 7/3)7 to dark gray and black (10YR 4/1 + 10YR2/1). Deeper, as can be seen in the cracked areas, the color of the clay varies from pale brown (10YR 6/3) to very dark gray and black (10YR 3/1+ 10YR 2/1). This variation of the clay color suggests an initial burning at the approximate temperature of 500° C - 600°C and a possible free oxygen first burn, continued in an oxidized environment [3]; it is possible that the clay contains organic vegetal substances. The circumstances of the discovery suggest even a second inner burning, with little amounts of oxygen and without vitrification.
Figure 1. 'Tell am Morgen' - Mãgura Gorgana in the morning light (Foto by Hansen).
Figure 2. Figurine before conservation (Photo by Hansen, drawings by Kelder, Vachta). Figure 3. Figurine after conservation-restoration intervention. Figure 4.Figurine drawing documentation. The conservation-restoration intervention applied to this figurine was minimal because the conservation state of the material had no major problems. Practically, the figurine was cleaned mechanically with brushes and cleaned with water then left out to dry. Dissoluble salts have been observed neither on the surface nor in the cracks. The assembling has taken place in the main fragmented area. An acryl adhesive was used for the reattachment of the cracked areas. The volumetric reconstruction of the missing area has proved to be more interesting; the operation took place in a laboratory because the research and decision of the material that is to be used in the process takes more time. Due to the multiple fragmentation areas of the figurine, the general shape and positioning have been more difficult to determine and study and the reconstruction of the missing parts became a top priority. An easily removable substance was used in order not to deteriorate the original one in any way a low fat white modeling material (Figure 5a, b). Given the fundamental points of the figurine, the process started by finding shapes to help put the statue together. After a couple of failed attempts, the reconstruction was restarted from the horizontal seat of the chair; from this point on, a human-like figurine gradually came together. Therefore, observing the anatomical features of the figurine and connecting the fragments with the whole, a 'readable' (Figure 6) piece was achieved: a human-like figurine sitting on a chair, known in the technical literature as "the sitting figurine" or, according to Radian Andreescu [4], the "semi-seated" type B figurine, one of the peculiar figurines "tailées d’une seule piece avec l’escabeau sur lequel elles sont assises in aeternis", as Vladimir Dumitrescu [5] calls them. Analysis Compositional analysis In order to decipher the means of composition of the statue, first each one of its parts had to be analyzed: the chair, the humanlike body and its features as well as the connection between these elements. Separating them is also important for a more detailed analysis of the category of similar objects. The chair The reconstruction of the shape of the chair was based on the lines of the shapes. From bird-perspective, the seat of the chair is slightly shaped like a trapeze, the front side is 3 cm narrower getting wider towards the back side, in contact with the back of the seat, where it reaches the maximum width of 4.5 cm. When looking from the side, the length of the seat is 3.5 cm. The legs of the chair are 1.9 cm long and we may presume they initially were 2, maybe 2.3 cm long. The back of the seat is approximately 5.1 cm. The maximum width is 4.7 – 4.8 cm in the upper side (the widest part). About 3.5 cm above the contact line between the seat and the back of the chair, it forms two edges, the right one with an inclination of approximately 21-22 degrees and the left one of 28-29 degrees. The two lines unite in the middle creating a back seat shaped as a pentagon that also includes a small round window. The joint angle between the seat and the back of the chair is obtuse (120°). This is very important when defining the wider category that includes the piece. The back of the chair shaped like a bow or like a pentagon with a hollow is an important element of the Gumelnita culture. The seat shaped like a bow can be found in Zaminet [6] and like a pentagon in DraganestiOlt Corboaica [7], Sultana [8], Luncavita-punct Cetatuie8 south from the Danube [9] (Tellisch Redutite) and Pietrele9. An original exemplary, like in Stoicani-Aldeni, can be found in Balanesti10.
Figure 5 a, b. Volumetric reconstruction of the missing areas.
Figure 6. Volumetric reconstruction of the figurine in drawing. Figure 7. Possible anatomical positions and the cinematic chains. The body is half-seated joining the back of the seat in a 120º angle (Figure 7 position C). Practically, the back with its curved spine has the same proclivity as the back seat of the chair with which it organically bonds. In the front, the body is slightly twisted, the axis of the shoulders slightly bent to the left, creating a winding of the medio-sagital symmetry axis on the AB axis (Figure 8.1). The left forearm and arm create one anatomical unit, lacking any separating line in the articulation of the elbow; both of them go over the chest, ambiguously ending without a palm, in the articulation of the right elbow, marked here by a strong flexion between the right arm and forearm. The right hand is missing but the analysis of the trails left behind (Figure 9) seems to indicate lifting it towards the head almost vertically. The neck of the body is long, the head is missing. The inferior limbs along with the pelvis are slightly twisted to the right hand and are separated by a crenel starting from the thoraces continuing deeper towards the pelvis (the line measures 1.7 cm in this area) and then up to the calf, separating the inferior limbs throughout their length. The sex of the figurine can not be determined, the feature belonging to the Eneolithic asexual figurines. However, it can be noticed that where the inferior limbs are inserted into the pelvis, unless we consider it a mark left by the modeling tools, a small 'V' is carved. The legs are bent, the lower calves and the feet are missing, but studying the proportions indicates the feet do not touch the ground. Practically, the feet are hanging in the air. Human-like figurine proportions Although barely sketched out, the human-like statue shows a long neck on a small torso diminished by sinking it into the chair11 and long thighs continued by calves that are supposed to have been quite long proportionally with the rest of the figurine. These references show that the figurine belongs to the tall human type, with long-type muscles [10, pp. 36-37] similar to the modern man. Connecting the composition, the position and the proportions After having described each element alone, the chair and the human body, it is clear that there is a natural connection between the two; the construction angle of the chair apparently determines the position of the body. The chair seems to be very important as it has been carefully molded, the greatest attention being given to details12. In comparison to the chair, the human figurine seems to be neglected. From compositional point of view, the insertion obtuse angle of the back of the chair into the seat determines the human figurine to bend and slightly sink [10, pp. 56-57] into it, the torso looking as if it were 'sunk' into the back of the chair; this may be well observed from the back side of the figurine. Practically, when studying such a figurine, not only the angle described by the bent legs is important, but also the one between the thighs and the spine. The 'sitting' position makes possible at least anatomically speaking to determine the position of the figurine, as well as its belonging to a certain subtype and to the 'sitting figurine' category. For a better explanation I have resorted to drawing the possible anatomical positions and highlighting the cinematic chains that change radically according to the angles between the involved anatomical elements (Figure 7). In the sitting position (Figure 7, position A) with the feet leaning on the floor, the main support is on the ischium and the thighs and the angle between the thighs and the calves is approximately 90º, similar to the one between the thighs and the torso or the vertebral column. Anatomically speaking, this is a natural resting position that may present endless positioning possibilities [10, pp 56-57]. Practically, in the classical 'sitting' position the center of gravity is situated towards the back limit of the support which prevents the torso from leaning back. When the back is supported, it reaches maximum [4, 6] muscle relaxation. In the technical literature significant pieces in terracotta representing the second sitting position, dating back from the late Neolithic and Eneolithic were found South from the Danube as well as in the North. Figure 7 position B shows the angle defining this position that opens more than 90º, which leads to the modification of the cinematic chain that also opens. This is where another element gains position and that is the area holding the feet. In this particular case, the feet stand on the ground. The drawing is the result of the study on the published statues belonging to this position. Common features of statuettes in this position The angle between the seat and the thighs of the figurine on the one side and the back of the chair on the other is an obtuse one, sometimes reaching 120º. The chair has 4 legs, clearly separated one from the other, two in the front and two in the back. The chair and the figurine have been molded together. The back of the chair is either in the shape of a pentagon or in the shape of a bow, being hollowed in the center. The bent lower limbs reach the ground having been molded as part of the front legs of the chair. All the statues are women. The statues come in different sizes, between 3 and 8 cm high. Particular features The position of the upper limbs is different. For example, at Zaminet on the area of Neolithic culture, Salcuta (I-III) – Krivodol-Bubani the figurines have their upper limbs stretched sideways and present a symmetry on the medio-sagital axis. One of them has one of arm over the chest, the other one bent and lifted towards the head and the legs are symmetrically placed; another figurine has the upper limbs bent and placed under the breasts, and other two have the upper limbs are symmetrically placed around the medio-sagital axis, flexed, leaning on the hips. The statue in Potcoava (belonging to the Gumelnita culture) has its upper limbs flexed and asymmetrically positioned, the right one over the chest, ending in the opposite shoulder, the left one bent, ending in the lap, while the lower limbs are symmetrically positioned. The way of representing the legs differs for Zaminet three figurines are represented with the lower limbs flexed and compact to the knees, from where they divide and merge with the legs of the chair. For other two statues the lower limbs are modeled together up to the calf; after that they separate and merge with the legs of the chair, creating a fish tail. The statue in Potcoava has the lower limbs molded together, the sexual triangle is marked by carved lines, the lower limbs are also separated one from the other using a carved line; due to the fragmentation of the figurine, we do not know how the lower limbs end. As a result of a brief study on the Neo-Eneolithic statues, another semi-sitting position was included in the drawing (Figure 7, position D). A third option (Figure 7, position C) was conceived according to the data of the statue from Petrele after studying some of the other statues published in the literature. As it may be observed, the cinematic chain of this position has some significant changes in comparison to the initial sitting position; it is extremely open due to the bigger angle between the pelvis and the spine, that reaches 120º. The main differences separating it from the previous position are the flexed legs that do not touch the ground. The position might be considered a transitory one, between 'sitting' and 'laying on the back'. It would rather belong to the 'lay back figurines', the half-laying figurine or the long figurine, than to the seated or semi-sitting figurine. The back is leaning against the chair, the legs are bent and do not touch the ground. Practically, the weight is supported by the thighs. This is why the center of gravity moves to the ischium and on the back. The statues in Tell Tschatalka and Tell Sawa [11] are in a similar position; the human-like body is clearly separated from the piece of furniture and even seems to be molded separately. In relation with Cascioarele, Sultana and Stoicani-Aldeni [12], the fragmented statues seem to be a good analogy to this one; the human-like figurine as well as the chair have been modeled simultaneously [4]. Geometry of Composition The three-dimensionality of the objects might render the compositional analysis a bit difficult as it gives us more than one perspective, each point of view opening new leads in the investigation. Therefore, such an analysis is extremely selective. W. Bailey [13] severely criticizes the geometrical study on prehistoric figurines, a critic well put as it does not offer any new data and is limited to a graphical representation and the study of proportions. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 show the geometrical hypothetical frames that might surround the figurine. These are of course, non-scientific, as they only follow the contours of the statue. However, they establish the geometric perimeters of the parts of an image [14 ], be it a three-dimensional one. I have made the plastic geometric analysis taking into consideration two main perspectives that are, in my opinion, essential for the statue: the side and the frontal views. The followed objectives were: the dynamic of the major and minor parts, the movement of the lines; the composition consisting in straight or curved lines, the type of composition (opened/closed) according to the centripetal or centrifugal position of the piece. The resultant of the diagram is in both cases, similar: static, closed, compact, centripetal composition, circumscribed in an indefinite pentagon13. The indefinite pentagon with slight variations and somehow decentralized is also used on the back of the chair. The main guidelines of the pieces are included in the general pentagon, the more important lines focus on the curved lines. The composition is dominated by curved and oblique lines. The most static piece of the composition is the horizontal line of the chair. Even if the outlines of the pentagon are discreet, the connections they establish is reflected in the psychology of the perception of a work of art [14]. It is not a mere happening that the back of the chair is shaped like a pentagon; that is the result of a mental matrix that, more or less conscious of the fact, keeps repeating the general shape14. Among these shapes, the higher mentioned pentagon appears in several objects belonging to these cultural zones, for example in models in the houses or on the sacred tombs [4, 15, 16], on handles and as a functional ornament on lids [17]. It is therefore a well-known figurine. The composed figurine15 in rondebosse16 is made of a human body and a chair, molded using a single piece of material. The figurine preserved areas showing the way the clay has been handled, a great opportunity to study the ways of confectioning, modeling and finishing, the handprints and traces of tools. The analysis of the marks left on the back part of the figurine revealed a separation marked AB (Figure 10), along the crack. This separation is highly important because it is a break line and a clue revealing the modeling technique. It is the result of folding the soft clay; practically, the craftsman started by making a stray of clay almost the same width as the finished piece, folded it once making the piece: in the lower part, the seat and in the upper part, the torso (Figure 11). The back of the chair has been added to this element; judging by the tracks, it was made separately, using a roll of clay made especially for modeling a bole, using the 'columbine'17 method [3, 18] (Figure 12 a). This one has been very well 'sewn' in the upper frontal side, where it joints the neck and the body of the figurine; however, it has been left untouched in the back area, where there are no traces of sewing (Figure 12 b). It is very likely that the procedure might have been similar in the lower side of the back area that is currently missing; the sewing only appears in the frontal area. On the back of the figurine one may observe traces of pressure being applied; they are in fact traces of the roll creating the back of the chair. Creating the figurine in this way has left the jointing area between the seat and the back of the chair very fragile, a zone situated exactly on the AB line (Figure 10) which became the area most affected by fragmentation. Therefore, the means of putting the piece together also determines the way it was damaged by a mechanical shock. Vladimir Dumitrescu [19] asked himself the same question, drawing the line between the confectioning of this type of figurine and the way it was fragmented, clearly stating that they were molded differently in comparison to those broken on the vertical axis, that had been made by assembling two parts of clay on this very axis that became, technically speaking, the most vulnerable area. After having roughly completed the piece, the artist began working on the details: the legs of the chair, the anatomic parts, which he carved out of the raw shape. The model has been molded by a strong and steady hand, in an alert rhythm as if from a single blow. The composition is compact and the forms just rise one out of the other. Studying the molding traces that are still visible in some areas, leads us to the following conclusions: - The contact zone between the left shoulder and the back of the chair, the outline indicates it was made by 'pinching' the clay in the back of the chair and dragging it to the shoulders of the figurine, the right shoulder, the clay has been 'dragged' towards the neck. - The molding area of the upper side of the back of the chair shows signs of smoothing, done with the fingers and a tool (on the right side) made out of the same wood, in the shape of a lamella; the blade was approximately 0.6 cm thick (Figure 13 a, b). - The inside part of the seat conserved traces of the way the legs were made; they were made of a small ball of clay on which a small quantity of material from the chair was stretched, for better 'sewing'. In that which regards the type of finishing, the frontal and side areas are molded neatly enough; in some places, we even find traces of tools (the equivalent of the modern spatula) made of bone18 or wood; the surface is smooth, without any clear polishing marks. The back of the human figurine, the back side of the back of the chair as well as the inside of the seat are slipshod, with unleveled surfaces. Moreover, the only part that seems to be added towards the end, is the 'roll' on the upper side, that creates the back of the chair and that seems to be 'sewn'19 [20] to the humanlike figurine only on the front side; the back side clearly shows signs of having been glued to the front side. The shapes of the statue are strongly outlined and slightly rounded; the important anatomic signs are obviously outlined, especially in the lower part of the body. Due to treating the frontal and side areas differently in comparison to the back area that was somewhat neglected, one might sustain that the figurine was placed so that only the carefully finished areas were at sight. Yet, these differences are not very upsetting, so that all together, the statue is unitary in that which regards the modelling and finishing techniques.
Figure 8. Compositional analyses.
Figure 9. Analyses of the modelling trails.
Figure 10. Analysis of the marks left on the back part of the figurine.
Figure 11. Modelling technique. Figure 12a. Modelling technique, figurine execution reconstruction; Figure 12b. Analysis of the modelling technique and cinematic chain.
Figure 13a. Analysis of traces, photo from beneath. Figure 13b. Analysis of traces, the lower inferior side.
Analysis of the traces regarding the fragmentation of the piece
There is a wide range of theories regarding the fragmentation of the archeological pieces, based mainly on the intentionality of this action in the frames of a ritual. Luckily, the piece offers the most interesting data regarding the fragmentation and the way it occurred. Apparently, the piece seems chaotically fragmented, confusing at first. An important step in understanding the phenomenon is establishing the broken sections. Therefore, I tried to frame the statue in a geometrical shape (Figure 14). The prism allowed a clear observation of the plans on which the braking 'occurred'. Therefore, the cracks revealed their belonging to one of the plans; most of the fragments from the frontal area gathered in the lower horizontal plan IJKL; in the higher horizontal plan I’J’K’L’ there are two cracks in the arm-forearm area. All of these fragmentations belonging to the horizontal surfaces are transversal and are marked by the orange color, according to the area they belong to. This transversal fragmentation is also present in the main 'crack' that broke the statue in half. Other types of fragmentation, not as many though, belong to the side surfaces EFGH and E’F’G’H’, colored in purple, according to the area they belong to. These back cracks are the result of a ricochet. They have a different trace than the transversal fragmentation, although they are in the same area (the upper part of the neck of the statue, where it joints with the head) in two opposite sections that form an acute angle. Only one fragmented area goes out of the established pattern: it belongs to the side surface EFGH and is a direct, side crack colored in dark violet and marked as Z. This is in fact the area in which the statue was hit and fractioned; the next fragmentation took place in the upper area, horizontally, as well as sideways. The lower area being the heaviest, was the first to be damaged, the following one being the upper area. That is one way to explain why most of the cracked areas are situated in the lower part despite the fact that the upper side is more fragile and less resistant. The impacts occurred in two consecutive moments, the second strike being a ricochet from the first one that hit the upper part of the statue, thus beheading it. Figure 15 shows the reconstruction of the impact, the lines that might have acted on the statue as well as the impact zones. Regarding the object that hit the statue, judging by the damage, we may say it was a blunt, hard, object with a blade longer than the damaged object. Figure 16 presents the missing parts of the statue, hypothetically reconstructed out of plasticine and removed afterwards.
Figure 14, 15. Fragmentation process. Figure 16. Reconstructed fragments.
Although typologically it is a semi-sitting figurine, the statue is different due to its details. Conceived massively, it resembles the figurines in the subtype presented in Figure 7 position B; as it has bent legs that do not touch the ground, it is similar to the subtype in Figure 7 position C; it differs due to the curved symmetry axis and the rhythm of its shapes that take it out of any common or well-known pattern. The position of the arms resembles a male representation, a semi-sitting statue [4] separately molded; another analogy is with a standing statue [8]. Due to the lack of detailed information regarding the execution technique of the figurine, it is very difficult to find technical analogies. Technically as well as regarding the style, the statue is a time capsule, it is unique, it boils with information and it allows a wide range of interesting presumptions.
Notes:
1. This article was also published in German as a chapter of a comprehensive article about the project, thanks to DAI (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Eurasien Abteilung) translated by Dr. N. Boroffka (whom I once again thank) [1].
2. Partners in this joint project include: Eurasia Department of the German Archaeological Institute (Prof. Dr. Svend Hansen and Dr. Agathe Reingruber), the Archaeological Institute "Vasile Pârvan" (Prof. Dr. Alexandru Vulpe and PhD cand. Meda Toderaş) and the Institute of Physical Geography of the University in Frankfurt a.M. (Prof. Dr. Jürgen Wunderlich). Members of the excavation team are Nico Becker (clay spoons), Prof. Dr. Norbert Benecke (archaeozoology), Dr. Irma Berdzenishvili (drawings), Prof. Dr. Ivan Gatsov and Petranka Nedelcheva (flint tools), Cristina Georgescu (restoration), Dr. Jochen Görsdorf (archaeometry), Prof. Dr. Andreas Hauptmann and Dr. Michael Prange (archaeometallurgy), Jorrit Kelder, M.A. (miniature furniture), Florian Klimscha, M.A. (axes and celts), Ute Koprivc, M.A. (grinding stones), Michael Müller (statuettes), Andrei Mocanu (animal figurines), Dr. Reinder Neef (archaeobotany), Prof. Dr. T. Douglas Price (isotope analyses), Christoph Schröder (miniature vessels), Dr. Baoquan Song (geophysics), Dr. Daniel Spânu (house models), Tilmann Vachta, M.A. (loom weights), Prof. Dr. Joachim Wahl (anthropology), Heide Wrobel (jewellery) and Petar Zidarov (bone artifacts). 3. Tell: generic term from Arabian (tall) and Hebrew (tel) defining an artificial (made from architectural materials, organic or mineral artifacts, bones etc.) lump in the land, used initially in the Archaeology of the Nearby East. In Turkish it is a synonym for höyük (Çatalhöyük), Persian tappeh. In the Balkans there are some synonym terms, magoula or tomba (in Thessaly and Macedonia, also defining tombs). In Bulgaria the term moglia is also used and in Slovenia - gomila and in Romania - măgură. 4. See http://www.dainst.org/index_6832_en.html and
5. Between 2004-2007 exclusively, in 2008 in collaboration with Maria Tomuschat and Sandra Kaufhold, students at Fachhohschule für Wirtschaft, Restaurierung, Grabungtechnik, Berlin.
6. Technically speaking, the crack that mostly affects the structural integrity of an object can be considered the main fragmentation.
7. "Munsell soil color charts 2000", this code is going to be used on further descriptions of colors of the interior and exterior of the figurine.
8. A "Lost" Civilization: Gumelniţa, in Finds Catalogue, Miniatural Objects - "Miniatural Chair", inv. 629, Eco-Museum Research Institute, Tulcea.
http://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie/gumelnita/gumelnita_engl/cd/default.htm 9. Unique finding, Pietrele - Măgura Gorgana 2006. 10. Diggings Silvia Marinescu – Bîlcu.
11. Although it may be ignored at first or considered accidental, this “sinking” of the human-like body into the back of the chair may have as a starting point the direct observation of this phenomenon by the creator of the statue; modeling the entire figure may also prove the direct observation.
12. This was also noticed by Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu when I showed her the piece.
13. The regular pentagon has all the sides and the angles (108º) equal.
14. Important studies are made on mental models, a concept described in 1922 by Ludwig Wittgwenstein and developed in 1927 by Georges-Henri Luquet in Le dessin enfantine (Paris, 1927) and continued by Kenneth Craik in The Nature of Explanation (Cambridge, England, 1943). For further details, see also: 15. The composed figurine is an appropriate term to define this type of figurine that combines a human figure and one or more elements that together form a plastic composition, term that defines the association of two or more elements in one piece of work. 16. Term defining a three-dimensional sculpture regardless the material used in making it (terra cotta, bone; stone; copper; bronze etc.)
17. Old technique of modeling the ceramic vessels by forming rolls, placing them one over the other and 'sewing' them together [3, 18].
18. The bone as well as the well polished wood are the ideal materials for a fine finishing of the clay; even today, the best modeling tools are made of bone or wood.
19. 'sewing' is commonly used among the potters and refers to sticking two pieces of clay when making a bowl; the edges are pressed inside and outside the bowl; afterwards, the surfaced is smoothened. The technique is also used for the statues in terra cotta at the joints, reassuring resistance during drying and burning and diminishing the risk of cracking or unstitching [20].
Bibliography
1. S. Hansen, M. Toderaş, A. Reingruber, I. Gatsov, C. Georgescu, J. Görsdorf, T. Hoppe, P. Nedelcheva, M. Prange, J. Wahl, J. Wunderlich, P. Zidarov, Pietrele, Măgura Gorgana. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im Sommer 2006. Eurasia Antiqua 13, 2007, 71-80. 2. Berciu, D. (1956). Cercetări arheologice în regiunea Bucureşti, Materiale şi cercetãri arheologice 2, pp. 503-544. 3. Ciucã M., Anghel D., Sabãu D., “Consideraţii cu privire la tehnologia de confecţionare a ceramicii culturii Precriş, in Apulum XXXVIII, 1, 2000, pp. 110, pp. 127 4. Andreescu-Romus Radian, Plastica antropomorfã gumelniţeanã. Analiza primarã, Bucharest, 2002, pp. 20, pl 31, fig. 4 / pp. 16 - Fig. 1, 2 / pl. 37, 2. 5. Dumitrescu V., Plastica epocii eneolitice în România, La plastique anthropomorphe en argile de la civilization eneolithique balkano-danubienne de type Gumelniţa, Bucharest, 1938, pp. 61. 6. Nikolov B., Zamineţ, Sofia 1975, Fig. 42, 45-47, 64-67, 74, 101, 103. 7. Nica M., Floroiu Z., Zorzoliu Tr., Vasilescu M. Scvia, "Tell-ul eneolitic gumelniţean de la Drãgãneşti-Olt, punctul Corbeanca”, pp. 54. 8. Comşa E. Figurine antopomorfe din epoca neoliticã pe teritoriul României, Bucharest, 1995, pp. 219. / pp. 179, Pic. 50, 3. 9. Jungsteinzeitin Bulgarien (Neolithikum und Äneolithikum), Sofia, 1981. 10. Ghitescu Gh., Anatomie artisticã, vol II, Formele corpului în repaos şi mişcare, Bucharest, 1962, pp. 36- 37, 56-57. 11. Jungsteinzeit in Bulgaria, Sofia, 1981, Abb. 151 (Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI;) for Tell Sawa, Abb. 222, pp. 197. 12. Petrescu-Dîmboviţa M., Materiale, Cetãuia de la Stoicani. 13. Bailey W. Douglass, Prehistoric Figurines, Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic, London – New York, 2005 pp. 13-15.
14. Dumitrescu Z. Structuri geometrice, Structuri plastice , Bucharest, 1984, ch. Structuri plane şi structuri compoziţionale.
15. Todorova H. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien, Hausmodelle von Ovčcarovo, (1-5) und Radingrad (6) München 1982; 16. Şerbănescu D. Modele de locuinţe şi sanctuare neolitice în Cultură şi civilizaţie la Dunarea de jos, 15, 1997, pp. 232-251, Fig. 2, 3; 4, 1. 17. Hansen S., Dragoman A., Reingruber A., Gatsov I., Görsdorf J., Nedelcheva P., Oanţă-Marghitu S., Song B. Der Kupferzeitliche Siedlungschügel Pietrele an der Unteren Doanu. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen im Sommer 2004 in Eurasia Antiqua 11, 2005, fig. 20; Hansen u. a., 2006 fig. 32 (P02B47), fig. 33 (B111Cer1). 18. Berdoucou M. La céremique archeologique in La conservation en archéologie, Paris, 1990, pp. 83-84
About the author
Cristina Georgescu
Contact: iriskant@yahoo.fr
Cristina Georgescu is a conservator specialized in ceramics with a special interest on archaeological objects. She is currently working at the Vasile Pârvan Archaeology Institute in Bucharest. After receiving her degree in Conservation from the National Art University in Bucharest in 2001, she specialized in ceramics conservation taking courses from the Romanian Ministry of Culture and Cults (2002, 2003) and the Astra National Museum Complex in Sibiu (2002).
Her experience in the field includes several on-site projects involving mural paintings and archaeological object conservation. In 2001 and 2002 she coordinated the experimental archaeological workshops “Kangourou”, organized by the Romanian Archaeological Society. Since 2004 she is involved in the research project from the Neolithic site of Pietrele where she undertakes the conservation laboratory work of the archaeological materials. She has lectured at symposiums organized by the Vasile Parvan Institute and has published several articles in the field.
To save this article please
Download this article
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/715 |
||||
