Affiliation:
1. Novosibirsk State University
Abstract
Purpose. In archaeological sites of the Early Iron Age and the Hunno-Sarmatian period, there are very similar bead sets, among which carnelian products stand out. Carnelian has a high hardness coefficient and its drilling, even with modern tools, it is extremely technological and time-consuming. The important detail of the drilling process is the configuration of the cutting part of the tool, which leaves specific traces on the stone. In order to reconstruct this main operation, we conducted a series of experimental traceological studies, including the study of traces on the walls of the channels of beads from archaeological sites and on the channels of experimental samples.Results. In one series, six experiments were conducted using six drills made of copper rod. As a result of the research drills with rounded cylindrical and tubular shapes left similar traces fixed on artifacts. It is worth noting that according to written sources, carnelian was drilled using diamond as an abrasive. Experimental work has shown that carnelian can also be processed and drilled with corundum.Conclusion. Each technological operation is associated with the practical experience and knowledge of the properties of the mineral, in particular its crystal structure. The process of making beads from such hard stones as carnelian, agate, quartz, jasper, turquoise is one of the most labor-intensive and time-consuming. The craftsmen had to know the properties of the material they were working with as well as it was necessary for the minimum set of tools, consisting of a drill, reamer, tools for grinding and, polishing and various types of abrasives. Despite the complexity of their production, stone beads were intended for trade and exchange operations belong to the mass production of ancient stone-cutting workshops. Obviously, this was due to the high consumer demand for the jewelry they made.
Publisher
Novosibirsk State University (NSU)
Reference15 articles.
1. Alekseeva E. M. Antichnye busy Severnogo Prichernomorya [Antique beads of the Northern Black Sea region]. Moscow, Nauka, 1975, 94 p. (in Russ.)
2. Groman-Yaroslavski I., Bar-Yosef Mayer D. E. Lapidary technology revealed by functional analysis of carnelian beads from the early Neolithic site of Nahal Hemar Cave, Southern Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2015, vol. 58, pp. 77–88.
3. Gubenko E. V., Poselyanin A. I. Kollektsiya ukrashenii iz tagarskogo mogil'nika Belyi Yar I (Altaiskii raion, Respublika Xakasiya) [Collection of jewelry from the Tagar burial ground Bely Yar I (Altai region, Republic of Khakassia)]. Vestnik Khakasskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N. F. Katanova [Bulletin of the Khakassian State University named after N. F. Katanov], 2022, no. 3 (41), pp. 6–10. (in Russ.)
4. Hayden B. Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution of Material Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1998, no. 1 (5), pp. 1–55.
5. Lemmlejn G. G. Opyt klassifikatsii form kamennyx bus [Experience in classifying the forms of stone beads]. In: KSIIMK. [Brief research reports of the Institute of the History of Material Culture]. 1950, iss. XXXII, p. 157–172. (in Russ.)