Neolitsko zemljoradničko oruđe i njegov značaj u počecima poljoprivrede na tlu Srbije

Abstract

Ustaljivanje zemljoradnje i stočarstva na evropskom tlu vezuje se za proces neolitizacije. Po svim dosadašnjim proučavanjima, neolitizacija i neolit predstavljaju import koji je dospeo na evropski kontinent putem nekoliko mogućih mehanizama difuzije: migracijom, kolonizacijom u manjim grupama infiltracijom, postupnim osvajanjem pograničnih teritorija i kontaktima radi razmene (Zvelebil 2001). Sasvim je moguće da se na evropskom tlu odvijao proces paralelan sa neolitizacijom na bliskom i srednjem istoku, a koji možemo nazvati mezolitizacijom. Neolitizacija je u ovom našem delu sveta proces specifičan za bliski i srednji istok, a karakterišu ga sedelački život i stalna naselja, uzgajanje žitarica i domestifikacija određenih vrsta životinja, pre svega ovce i koze. Taj proces započinje pre uvođenja keramike kao tehnološke inovacije u svakodnevni život (prekeramički neolit). Istovremeno na evropskom tlu odvija se poseban globalni proces (mezolitizacija) kao prirodni odgovor evropskog kontinenta na promenu klime nastalu u postglacijalnom periodu. U tom procesu evropsko tlo, u kulturnom smislu, postaje jedinstveno. Stvaraju se stalna staništa kao rezultat izobilja hrane na jednom mestu zbog povoljnijih klimatskih uslova. Sa stalnim staništima povezana je pojava formalnih prostora za sahranu kako u naselju tako i odvojenih organizovanih nekropola van areala staništa. Ustaljuje se običaj posipanja pokojnika okerom i prilaganje oruđa-oružja i nakita u grobove. U industriji okresanog kamena dolazi do mikrolitizacije oruđa, a to znači da postaje povećana upotreba luka i strela - lakog oružja za brži lov. Ishrana se dosta oslanja na akvatične resurse, pa su mnogo više zastupljeni ribolov i sakupljanje školjki i puževa. Pripitomljava se pas. Pojavljuje se glačano oruđe za sečenje drveća, ali ne radi stvaranja oranica, već za drvo kao građu.

Neolithic agricultural tools (hoes, axes, hammer axes, pickaxe, plowshares planters, saws, trashing tools, millstones and rubbers) have been found in small quantity at the sites in our country and hence it is very difficult to discuss this type of tools and the level of agriculture in the Neolithic economy. There are many possible reasons for such small amount of these tools but two most probable keep coming to our mind: one is that such tools had been left in the fields and never had been brought into the settlement and other that this type of tools had been mostly made of wood. This could explain the fact that there are so few tools, which could be related to agriculture at our Neolithic sites and so many tools revealing the traces of use resulting from woodworking. Wood, considering that it is more flexible than stone, bone and antler proved to be more suitable material for production of tools used in agriculture as it is suggested by some experimental testing (Krasnov 1971: 2123). Therefore we think that it is utterly wrong to associate large number of stone tools with cutting edge discovered at our Neolithic sites with primary Neolithic agriculture. In favor of this speaks the fact that most of these tools reveal the traces of use resulting from woodworking. More comprehensive investigation of the beginnings of agriculture in this territory is of utmost importance just because these areas were among the first after Greece and Bulgaria on the path of influence (or colonization) by the bearers of Neolithic progress from the Near East and Anatolia. One of rather important links in that investigation are the very tools of stone, bone and antler as objects, which could illustrate the prehistoric economy and which had been so far neglected as less attractive objects in the museum collections and as inferior chronological indicators.