Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature 9781407306773, 9781407336770

Citation preview

BAR S2136 2010

Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia Cultural, technological and functional signature

LEGRAND-PINEAU & SIDÉRA (Eds)

Edited by

Alexandra Legrand-Pineau Isabelle Sidéra and

Natacha Buc Eva David Vivian Scheinsohn

ANCIENT AND MODERN BONE ARTEFACTS

B A R

BAR International Series 2136 2010

Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia Cultural, technological and functional signature

Edited by

Alexandra Legrand-Pineau Isabelle Sidéra and

Natacha Buc Eva David Vivian Scheinsohn with the collaboration of

Douglas V. Campana, Alice M. Choyke, Pam Crabtree and Elisabeth A. Stone

BAR International Series 2136 2010

ISBN 9781407306773 paperback ISBN 9781407336770 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306773 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

The Worked Bone Research Group in Paris 31 August 2007 Maison René Ginouvès, Nanterre, France

WBRG Publications 1999 – 2nd meeting – Budapest (Hungary) Choyke, A. M. & Bartosiewicz, L. (eds.), 2001. Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series 937. 2003 – 4th meeting – Tallinn (Estonia) Luik, H., Choyke, A. M., Batey, C. & Lougas, L. (eds.) 2005. From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Tallinn, Muinasaja teadus 15.

ANCIENT AND MODERN BONE ARTEFACTS FROM AMERICA TO RUSSIA CULTURAL, TECHNOLOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL SIGNATURE Contributions from 6th International Conference Worked Bone Research Group - ICAZ Paris, 26 - 31 August 2007 PART I

Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie René-Ginouvès, Nanterre, France

Financial supports

CNRS – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique INRAP – Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives École Doctorale de l’Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense Ministère des Affaires étrangères Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Université Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne UMR 7055 Préhistoire et technologie UMR 7041 ArScan équipe Protohistoire européenne

Supports

ICAZ – International Council for Archaeozoology WBRG – Worked Bone Research Group Musée d’Archéologie Nationale Unité d’Archéologie de la Ville de Saint-Denis

ii

Meeting organizers

Mme Isabelle SIDERA, CNRS, Chercheur Mme Eva DAVID, CNRS, Chercheur Mme Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU, CNRS, Ingénieur de recherche contractuelle M. Jean-François GORET, Ville de Saint-Denis, Chercheur Mme Nicole RODRIGUES, Ville de Saint-Denis, Chercheur Mme Catherine SCHWAB, Ministère de la culture, Conservateur du Patrimoine

Scientific committee

Sous la présidence de M. Pierre ROUILLARD, CNRS, Directeur de Recherche Mme Anne AUGEREAU, Directrice scientifique et technique adjointe de l’INRAP M. Patrice BRUN, Professeur, Université de Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Mme Alice CHOYKE, Professeur, Université Américaine de Budapest (Hongrie) Mme Michèle JULIEN, CNRS, Directeur de recherche Mme Catherine PERLES, Professeur, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense M. François POPLIN, Professeur, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle Mme Ingrid SENEPART, Ville de Marseille, Chercheur M. Paul VAN OSSEL, Professeur, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense M. Jean-Denis VIGNE, CNRS, Directeur de recherche

Organizing committee

Mme Penelope AMATO, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense Mme Dorothée DERIEUX, Ministère de la culture, Conservateur du Patrimoine Mme Nejma GOUTAS, CNRS, Chercheur Mme Gaëlle LE DOSSEUR, Université de Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne M. Jean-Marc PETILLON, CNRS, Chercheur Mme Elise TARTAR, Université de Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Conference manager

Mme Chantal Thomas

10th International Conference ICAZ - Bone Raw Material Exploitation in South America Session Mexico City, 23 – 28 August 2006 PART II Support

ICAZ – International Council for Archaeozoology WBRG – Worked Bone Research Group Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía de México Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México

Meeting organizers

M. Joaquin ARROYO-CABRALES and † M. Oscar J. POLACO Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México

Session organizers

Mme Vivian SCHEINSOHN, Professeur and Mme Natacha BUC Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires

Copy editor Translations editor

Mme Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU M. Timothy SELLER

iii

Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... vii Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU and Isabelle SIDÉRA PART I — Worked Bone Research Group - ICAZ Cultural Signature Down to the Bone: Tracking Prehistoric Bone Technology in Southern Patagonia ........................................................... 1 Vivian SCHEINSOHN The Impact of Insularity on Morphologies and Techniques. The Aceramic Neolithic Bone Tools from Khirokitia (Cyprus) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU The Neolithization in Southern Levant: Impact of Animal Herding on the Exploitation of Bone Materials, from Reticence to Adoption of Domestic Herds ........................................................................................................................ 17 Gaëlle LE DOSSEUR Worked Bone, Tooth and Antler Objects from the Early Neolithic Site of Asparn/Zaya-Schletz (Lower Austria) ......... 31 Daniela FEHLMANN Bone Artefacts from the Neolithic and Medieval Site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét (Northern Hungary) ............................. 41 Erika GÁL Worked Bone Remains from Godin Tepe, Iran - Chalcolithic to Iron Age ...................................................................... 49 Pam CRABTREE and Douglas V. CAMPANA Bone-Working in Roman Dacia ........................................................................................................................................ 55 Lóránt VASS Socio-economic and Cultural Implications in Medieval Society: the Unpublished Collections of the Region of Douai (France) .................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Dorothée CHAOUI-DERIEUX Iroquoian Bone Artifacts: Characteristics and Problems .................................................................................................. 71 Christian GATES ST-PIERRE Bone Working and Productions in the Medieval Castle of Guetrat (Salzburg) ................................................................ 87 Felix LANG Tortoiseshell in the 17th and 18th Century Dutch Republic ............................................................................................. 97 Marloes RIJKELIJKHUIZEN Technological Signature Non-Utilitarian Transformation of Horse Mandibles. Magdalenian Examples from Pekárna (Moravia, Czech Republic) and La Vache (Ariège, France) ...................................................................................................................... 107 Martina LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ Palaeolithic Portable Art and its Relation to Ungulate Bones (Metapods) ..................................................................... 115 Éva DAVID

iv

Mesolithic Zoomorphic Perforated Antler Staff Heads from Central Russia and Eastern Urals: Ceremonial Weapons or Shaman’s Staves?........................................................................................................................................ 135 Mikhail ZHILIN Experiments on Manufacturing Techniques of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Slotted Bone Projectile Points from Eastern Urals .......................................................................................................................................................... 141 Svetlana SAVCHENKO Ribs as a Raw Material in Roman Bone Artefacts from Virunum (Southern Austria) ................................................... 149 Kordula GOSTENČNIK Antler Manufacturing in the Eastern Carpathian Regions in the Time of Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture (Late Roman Period) ........................................................................................................... 159 Sergiu MUSTEAŢĂ and Alexandru POPA Highland Tunes in the Lowlands: a Medieval Vulture Bone Flute from Northern Germany ......................................... 171 Hans Christian KÜCHELMANN Archaeological Evidence of Pre-Industrial Worked Bone Activity in 18th Century Seville, Spain ............................... 193 Marta MORENO-GARCÍA, Carlos M. PIMENTA, Ana PAJUELO PANDO and Pedro M. LÓPEZ ALDANA Functional Signature Reconstructing the “Chaîne Opératoire” of Skin Processing in Pavlovian Bone Artifacts from Dolní Věstonice I, Czech Republic ............................................................................................................................................................... 191 Michaela RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ Sewing With or Without a Needle in the Upper Palaeolithic? ........................................................................................ 201 Penelope AMATO Technology and Use-wear Analysis of the Non-utilitarian Bones Objects from the Russian Upper Paleolithic Site of Byki-7(I) .................................................................................................................................................................... 211 Natalia AKHMETGALEEVA Testing Functional Hypothesis of Late Holocene Bone Bipoints from the Lower Parana Wetands (Argentina) ........... 217 Natacha BUC Early Neolithic and Chalcolithic Crude Adzes. A Technological and Use-wear Focus on an Unknown Artefact Type from Near-East to Western Europe ........................................................................................................................ 227 Isabelle SIDÉRA The Complete and Usable Tool: Some Life Histories of Prehistoric Bone Tools in Hungary ........................................ 235 Alice M. CHOYKE and Márta DARÓCZI-SZABÓ Hafted Points and their Functional Interpretation on the Basis of their Horizontal Distribution at the Neolithic Site of Arbon Bleiche 3 (3384 – 3370 BC), Switzerland ................................................................................................ 249 Jörg SCHIBLER, Elisabeth MARTI-GRÄDEL, Sabine DESCHLER-ERB and Thomas DOPPLER Tracing the Function of the Antler “Points” from the Late Bronze Age Fortified Settlement of Asva in Estonia ......... 255 Heidi LUIK Use-wear or Butchery Marks: a Borderline Case. Bone Objects from Roman Carnuntum, Lower Austria ................... 263 Günther Karl KUNST Pierced Metapodials from al-Ândalus: Some Observations Towards their Understanding ............................................ 271 Marta MORENO-GARCÍA and Carlos M. PIMENTA

v

PART II — Bone Raw Material Exploitation in South America - ICAZ Late Pleistocene Technology in the New World: Bone Artifacts from Cueva del Medio and Other Sites in the Southern Cone of South America ................................................................................................................................... 279 Hugo G. NAMI Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Bone Instruments from the Uruguayan Atlantic Coast ............................................ 287 Federica MORENO RUDOLPH and Ignacio CLEMENTE CONTE The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Prehispanic Harpoon Heads from Beagle Channel, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia, Argentina) ......................................................................................................................................... 295 Vivian SCHEINSOHN Linking Evidences: from Carcass Processing to Bone Technology. The Case of the Lower Paraná Wetlands (Late Holocene, Argentina)............................................................................................................................................. 303 Alejandro ACOSTA, Natacha BUC and Leonardo MUCCIOLO Bone Technology and Archaeological Interpretation in Prehispanic Colombia .......................................................................315 Elizabeth RAMOS-ROCA

vi

Introduction Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU Isabelle SIDÉRA In what ways does bone industry research advance the understanding of archaeological entities, the technological contexts of peoples in the past, and site functions? Through 34 contributions organised around the themes Culture, Technology, and Function, this book gives prominence to recent developments in bone industry research – whether methodological or theoretical – and to the results of empirical studies on the corpus – whether originating from Europe, Asia or America, and whether concerned with Prehistory or more recent periods. Before giving the details of its contents and orientations it should be noted the paper is the fruit of collective work within the framework of the WBRG "Worked Bone Research Group" of the ICAZ "International Council for ArchaeoZoology". At the end of the 1990s the increasing importance of research on bone artefacts of every period and every geographic zone led the specialists in this field to come together. The meeting was concerned with documentation, but also with squeezing the artefacts for their potential archaeological information, with crossing data, confronting points of view, pooling the methodologies developed here and there, and sharing expert knowledge, issues and lines of research – all this with no limits as to place or chronology: diversity is a source of riches. Thus the Worked Bone Research Group was born in 1997. It started with a meeting of 30 European researchers at the London British Museum invited by Ian Riddler (Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd), before rapidly becoming world-wide with 250 specialists from every continent. Joining the Group to the ICAZ was a good idea in so far as a certain number of researchers were also working on the biological, zoo-technical, or economic aspects of bone material. In 2000 the WBRG became one of the nine working groups of the ICAZ. The WBRG equipped itself with various tools to make itself work. First of all, a mailing list co-ordinated by Alice Choyke (American University of Budapest) brings everyone into a network that constitutes an exchange and expertise tool. A web site, a real shop window for the Group’s work, was recently set up by Jörg Schibler, Hans-Christian Küchelmann, and Petar Zidarov (http://www.wbrg.net/). It allows the diffusion of scientific, bibliographical, and event-related information. Lastly, an international conference is held every other year. It regularly results in a publication. Thus, the present work follows the 6th Meeting of the Worked Bone research Group (WBRG) – ICAZ. We have made a point of adding the texts from the Bone Raw Material Exploitation in South America session, organised in 2006 by Vivian Scheinsohn and Natacha Buc (University of Buenos Aires – Argentine) in Mexico City during the 10th International Conference of the ICAZ. One of the strengths of this paper is its synthetic presentation of empirical research, whether on recently updated corpora or older ones seen in an innovative way. Indeed, this documentation fills in chronological and geographical gaps. It enriches knowledge about archaeological cultures and makes it possible to define the issues involved - whether economic or social, functional or symbolic. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic portable art and personal ornaments in France, Czech Republic, and Russia are given fresh a look from the angle of techniques and functions; a process that most often leads, paradoxically, to dealing with the issue of symbols. Eva David and Martina Lázničková-Galetová are not only interested in the motifs of the bone engravings, but also in their material bases - species and anatomic part. These authors show that the status of the animal selected is an important criterion for understanding the message of Palaeolithic art. Here again the question arises of the messages the objects transcribe, approached by Mikhail Zhilin through the curious fantastic creatures carved in the reindeer antler. For him the perforations or the shapes given to these objects’ terminations indicate fittings for handles possibly evoking Shaman’s staves or ceremonial instruments. In the same way, an ivory ring set with a horse’s head from the Russian site of Byki-7 (1) can be distinguished from the classic personal ornament repertoire by its form and the quality of its workmanship. For Natalia Akhmetgaleeva this object was given an unwonted value that may be sought in the beliefs of the hunter-gatherers installed on the site. Lastly, Alice M. Choyke and Márta Daróczi-Szabó consider the extent of the pieces’ surface wear to be an indicator of the conditions in which they were buried. Surface wear, according to them, reflects the value given the object when in use. Certain objects are degraded because they were abandoned and only had a functional value. Others, well preserved, were buried deliberately – perhaps as part of an offering – as they personified their owners.

vii

We have acquired new data on everyday life in the upper Palaeolithic thanks to exceptionally well-preserved collections. On the basis of anthropological references and use-wear traces on bone tools from the well-known site of Dolní Věstonice Michaela Rašková Zelinková seeks to situate the role and place of the various tools inside the stages of the chaîne opératoire of one of the period’s most important activities: treating hides. Along with questions relating to stitching techniques Penelope Amato illustrates the final stage in the process of preparing and forming the hides. She raises the issue of the coexistence of eyed needles and awls, showing they may have been either functionally complementary or involved in two distinct stitching techniques. How technical borrowings, traditions, and innovations fitted together is a question of interest for Neolithic researchers – whether investigating key-regions in the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle-East, or Europe. The bone assemblage from the end of the Cypriote Aceramic Neolithic provides a fine example of insularity, i.e. autarkic development of characteristic technical practices, broadly free of the original traditions (Alexandra Legrand-Pineau). On the other hand, indifference to technical innovation appears in the industries of the Levant (Gaëlle Le Dosseur). In fact, a time-lag occurred between the domestication of goats and their integration as a source of raw materials for manufacturing objects, for which a strong tradition was preserved. In the same way, the strong inertia of certain skills as well as the extent to which they were diffused is underlined by a type of object called crude adze, found in the Neolithic from the Levant as far as western Europe (Isabelle Sidéra). These objects – very simple to make and so poorly identified in the series - echo another type of piece presented by Pam Crabtree and Douglas Campana: the caprine mandible scrapers from the Chalcolithic site of Tepe Godin (Iran). The reader can measure the diversity of criteria considered and methodologies used to give the objects a meaning through a series of texts. One after the other, analyses of correspondences, experimentation, or again spatial analyses are effectively brought into action to interpret the bone industries: Svetlana Savchenko provides precious information on all the stages of projectile head manufacture in Mesolithic and Neolithic Russia, and Jörg Schibler, Elisabeth Marti-Grädel, Sabine Deschler-Erb, and Thomas Doppler show that in the Swiss Neolithic bipoints can be assimilated to armatures for arrows and are, in fact, associated within the space of the site with the remains of hunted animals. It is striking that the same bipoints are also used in Argentine by huntergatherers. Their use-wear analysis reveals – as in the Swiss Neolithic – they were used as hunting weapons for arrows or spears (Natacha Buc). Beside hunting, fishing is illustrated on a Bronze Age site off Estonia by antler points with unusual spiral striations. They probably correspond to traces of strings wound round the points to make and repair fishing nets: this is Heidi Luik’s hypothesis. Also manufactured to exploit maritime resources, the harpoon heads of the hunter-gatherers of Tierra del Fuego are described by Vivian Scheinsohn. Alongside these focused studies the reader also has access to original data on complete series of bone objects. The same also applies to the collections from South America (Argentina, Colombia, and Uruguay) that the authors look at again in the light of innovative technology or traceology methods (Hugo G. Nami, Vivian Scheinsohn, Alejandro Acosta, Natacha Buc, Leonardo Mucciolo, Elizabeth Ramos-Roca, Federica Moreno Rudolph, and Ignacio Clemente Conte) or again to the Neolithic LBK collections of Austria and Hungary. The rich collections presented by Daniela Fehlmann and Erika Gál blaze the trail for studying European Neolithisation. As for those researching the Roman era they will be more interested in studies on a document not usually much considered in Antiquity. They will discover vast corpora from Austria, Rumania, and more generally the eastern Carpathian mountains. These original studies - concerning sites with military (Lóránt Vass) or civil purposes (Kordula Gostenčnik, Günther Karl Kunst, Sergiu Musteaţă and Alexandru Popa) – allow research into various aspects of daily life or again into the specialised nature of certain manufactures. As far as technology is concerned the authors rely on the methodologies perfected by the pre-historians, thereby renewing the way the period is seen. These methodologies also highlight transformations in technical practices while connecting them to exchanges, to the growing influence of the eastern Mediterranean from the 2nd century (Kordula Gostenčnik), or again to the migrations from the North of Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries (Sergiu Musteaţă, Alexandru Popa). Those more particularly interested in the Medieval period will look at the work of Dorothée Chaoui-Dérieux, Erika Gál, Hans Christian Küchelmann, Felix Lang, Marta Moreno-García and Carlos Pimenta, which offers a veritable unparalleled mine of information on reference sites – whether urban or not. The diversity of the forms of the Medieval bone industry - combs, tokens and chessmen, flutes, ice-skates, fancy-good articles – finally becomes visible. Going beyond a morphological description these objects are put back in their production context. Thanks to a multitude of remains the manufactures’ chaînes opératoires are reconstructed and the workshops the products came from are located inside the sites. Evidence for the circulation over long distances

viii

of raw materials, finished objects, or even individuals can also be seen. For instance, the flute Hans Christian Küchelmann has reconstructed, found in North Germany, is definitely of Mediterranean origin. Lastly, alongside these remarkable objects, the Middle Ages did not lack quite unsophisticated objects the functions of which remain mysterious: for example the worn cattle and horse metapods pierced from Spain presented by Marta Moreno-García and Carlos Pimenta. Lastly, the more recent periods are illustrated by three texts describing very different ways of life depending on the region and context studied. Marloes Rijkelijkhuizen considers the topic of luxury via the work on tortoiseshell - an expensive material - in connection with the trade between the Netherlands and the Dutch West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries. The hyper-standardised production the bone rosaries made in Seville (Spain) in the 18th century show evokes the pre-industrial character of certain craft manufactures (Marta Moreno-García, Carlos M. Pimenta, Ana Pajuelo Pando and Pedro M. López Aldana). Then, there is an interesting contribution from Christian Gates Saint-Pierre on the bone tool production of the Iroquois in Canada and how it evolved, once they were confronted with the arrival of the Europeans. This is an almost anthropological example about the transformations of the technical environment, useful for dealing with the issues involved in the changes in object forms and technical practices. We hope this volume will be of use both to specialists in the field and to archaeologists and historians in other disciplines – so that they can harpoon useful information, or see it as a means of evasion far away from their usual research topics.

ix

PART I — Worked Bone Research Group – ICAZ

Cultural Signature

Down to the Bone: Tracking Prehistoric Bone Technology in Southern Patagonia Vivian SCHEINSOHN Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, CONICET, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract Bone technology appeared relatively early in the Patagonian archeological record. It appears in two different contexts. In the insular area (Magellanic channels and Tierra del Fuego) it is found in association with maritime littoral adaptations (Orquera and Piana 1999). Here it is very abundant and it includes high variability of raw materials and designs (Scheinsohn 1997). In continental Patagonia, on the contrary, bone tools are scarce but nevertheless recorded in every site. As a result of this apparent scarcity, no attention was devoted to bone tools in continental Patagonia. Here I will look for bone technology in continental Southern Patagonia to detect whether experimentation with bone technology or early bone technology existed. To do so, I will describe bone tools from Cerro Casa de Piedra locality, specifically from Cerro Casa de Piedra 5 and 7 sites (CCP5 and CCP 7) and from Pali Aike Volcanic Field, specifically from Fell, Pali Aike (PA) and Cañadón Leona (CL). attention was devoted to bone tools there. In previous works (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002; in press) I developed a bone raw material exploitation model for Tierra del Fuego. That model proposed an experimental, an exploitation, and an abandonment moment. The expectations for the experimental moment were: a) bone raw material variability b) design variability; c) lack of standardization.

Introduction Patagonia is the only landmass in the southern hemisphere from 46º to the south. This situation imposes certain climatic conditions: predominance of strong winds from the West (Westerlies), short days and prolonged nights in winter and the reverse in summer and oceanic influence that is manifested as a lack of subpolar conditions, tundra and permafrost (Morello 1984).

The results obtained in Tierra del Fuego demonstrated that between 7000-4500 BP there was no record of an experimental moment there.

Due to the rain shadow effect caused by the Cordillera, Patagonia is divided into two contrasting environments: 1) a forested and rugged area, near the Cordillera and 2) a steppe, which cover most of its surface. In the steppe the main staple for people who inhabited the area from c. 12 000 BP was guanaco (Lama guanicoe). This is an indigenous camelid that lives in big herds in the Patagonian steppe and Andean foothills. It reaches 1.75m in height and weighs 120kg. It feeds on dry grasslands and mallines (wetlands). It is a good climber that moves with ease in rugged terrain. In the forest, the only Patagonian native cervid, the huemul, (Hippocamelus bisulcus) was important. This is a cervid of almost a meter in height, and is the largest indigenous prey one can find in the forested area. In summer, it lives in higher rugged forested areas, while in winter it moves downwards to areas with Nothofagus forests. It is a solitary animal that sometimes forms family groups of three individuals (male, female, and offspring).

In this work I will look for a “neglected” technology bone technology - in continental Southern Patagonia to detect whether experimentation with or early bone technology existed. To do so, I will present bone tools from Cerro Casa de Piedra locality, specifically from Cerro Casa de Piedra 5 and 7 sites (CCP5 and CCP 7) and from Pali Aike Volcanic Field, specifically from Fell, Pali Aike (PA) and Cañadón Leona (CL). Here we are looking for the cultural signature for an initial moment of the exploitation history of bone raw material. Cerro Casa de Piedra Locality Cerro Casa de Piedra is mainly a volcanic rhyolitic hill, located at 47 15 70 S and 72 10 50 W, within Parque Nacional Perito Moreno, NW of Santa Cruz Province, Argentina. The hill has several caves and rock shelters facing northwards. Among those caves CCP5 y CCP7 were the most important. The oldest radiocarbon dates are from cave 7 (9700 BP). During the early occupations the rocky roof sheltered c. 223m2 of ground. Around c. 3400 BP rockfall episodes sealed the west wing of the site (Civalero and Aschero 2003). CCP5 presents a record of human occupation dated from 6700 to 2500 BP. Nowadays, those sites are located in a transitional environment between Nothofagus forest (Nothofagus

Bone technology appeared relatively early in the Patagonian archeological record. It is found in two contrasting contexts. In the insular area (Magellanic channels and Tierra del Fuego) it is found in association with maritime littoral adaptations (Orquera and Piana 1999). In this environment it is very abundant and shows a high variability of raw materials and designs (Scheinsohn 1997; in press). In continental Patagonia, on the contrary, it is scarce but nevertheless was recorded in every site. As a result of this apparent scarcity no

1

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN pumilio) and the shrub steppe. A series of climatic fluctuations were identified in this area, corresponding to the Neoglacial (Aschero et al. 2005; De Nigris 2005). As a correlate, various lakes located in the National Park (Azara, Nansen, Volcán, Belgrano, Burmeister) experienced level changes that led to a paleolake that at some times unified them all. According to Gonzalez’s geomorphological studies, the Belgrano and Burmeister lakes could be relict stages of a deep lake basin, which would have reached a level 100m above the modern Belgrano Lake (800m a.s.l.). This paleolake would have had various transgression pulses and, in this respect, it is interesting that the earliest dates in the area were obtained in sites located above 900m a.s.l. (Civalero and Aschero 2003). The concentration and redundancy of CCP occupations should be related with this paleolake given that when it was active, CCP was located in a peninsular environment (Aschero et al. 2005; De Nigris 2005).

Pali Aike is a small cave within the caldera of an extinct volcano. Bird found the bones of seven ground sloths, American horse, and guanaco, together with human bones and artifacts. He excavated the cave completely, so that its history can be reconstructed only by studying the collections stored at the AMNH. A single radiocarbon date of 8639 BP ± 450 years (C-485) should be considered a minimum age (Bird 1988). In this case it is difficult to determine what proportion of the bones should be attributed to human activities. After Bird, Emperaire, Laming-Emperaire, and Reichlen excavated Fell (1952-1953/1958-1959). Bird returned to Fell during 1969-1970 summer. In 2000 Hugo Nami developed a research project in Rio Chico (near Fell). Finally from 2003 until now, Borrero and others developed a research project in PAVC both in Argentinean and Chilean territory. The project conducted by Borrero is beginning to show traces of intensive and localized human occupation (Borrero and Barberena 2006). They suggest that in southern Patagonia in contrast with that happened at the Magellan channels, notwithstanding the relevance of marine remains for subsistence, organizational nodes were located in the interior. Although these nodes do not suggest the existence of less mobile systems, this may help to explain the absence of traces of intense coastal occupation and mobility reduction in the light of isotopic and faunal data that show the importance of marine resources in subsistence (Borrero and Barberena 2006). Coastal habitats were used in a transient form, one in which the intensity of occupation was usually below the intensity of use of interior sites. However, the introduction of marine foods was significant. (Borrero and Barberena 2006) For this work, then, we consider two areas with early sites and bone technology. The difference is that one is clearly an interior zone (CCP) while the other has a strong marine influence (PAVF).

Fieldwork in this area began in 1980 and continues until today. Due to the cold and dry conditions inside the cave, extraordinary preservation conditions were recorded, allowing guanaco skin/hide, vein threads, vegetal fiber, bones with periosteum, and wooden artifacts to be found. Both sites include rock art, associated with the earlier phases of human occupation in Patagonia. In both sites guanaco dominate as the main staple over huemul. Since bones without associated meat predominate, De Nigris (2005) has supposed that the body part distribution reflects preservation of some parts of the meat by drying. Pali Aike Volcanic Field Pali Aike Volcanic Field (PAVF) is one of the regions where early Patagonian archaeological research began. Research by Junius B. Bird from 1930 in Fell, Pali Aike, and Cañadon Leona, in Chilean territory, allowed him to develop the first systematic sequence for Patagonia (Bird 1937). Fell is a small cave on the right bank of the Chico River. Bird divided the cave sequence into five periods. In the lower deposits, hearths, artifacts, and bones of ground sloth, guanaco, and extinct horse were found in association. The artifacts include abundant projectile points of what has come to be known as the "fishtail" or Fell type. However, not only humans contributed to the formation of the deposits. A recent study of the bones stored at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), revealed not only cut marks on horse bones, but also carnivore punctures on horse, Lama sp., and ground sloth bones (Borrero and Martin 1996). Moreover, the Fell Cave deposits also include remains of hawks, falcons, and terrestrial carnivores suggesting natural deposition (Borrero 1999). Human presence can be assumed for the lower levels of Fell, as testified by cut marks on bones and abundant artifacts and hearths, but humans were not the only contributors (Borrero 1999). After this initial period, Period II was characterized by bone projectile points, Period III by stemless projectile points, Period IV by scrapers and stemmed projectile points, and finally, Period V by little stemmed projectile points that Bird called ona type.

Methodology Since the sample is small (CCP 5 -CCP7 N=45 and CL, PA & Fell N=93) and I am looking for the signature of an initial moment of bone technology and its subsequent evolution. I group the sample into three temporal blocks: - Block I: includes the very first phase of human occupation. In CCP7 this represents layers 19 to 9, in PA the layers from 36 to 54 inches and in Fell the layers 12 to 17 (or layer IV) - Block II a second phase includes CCP5 layers 6 to 3, in CCP7 layers 8 to 2, in PA layers from 36 to 12 inches, and Fell layers 5 to 11 (or layers II -III) - Block III: the more recent phase includes CCP5 layers 2 to surface, CCP7 layers 1 to surface, PA from surface to 12 inches, and Fell from surface to layer 4 (or layer I) The sample included tools that were certainly related to human action. Poorly preserved tools and those with dubious traces of working were discarded. Bone

2

DOWN TO THE BONE: TRACKING PREHSTORIC BONE TECHNOLOGY IN SOUTHERN PATAGONIA modifications related with consumption processing were not considered.

while the lateral section was utilized as compressor or soft hammer. They resemble also some soft percussion hammers from Paleolithic sites. Although Jackson suggests that they were related to Paleoindian contexts, in CCP they were found throughout the whole sequence. They have also been identified in other sites in Patagonia as in Chorrillo Malo (Otaola, com. pers.) in Santa Cruz province. The serrated epiphyses were recorded throughout the whole sequence, but only at CCP. They probably were the remains of bone tool manufacture. Of the three pieces recorded, two were made of guanaco and the third from a condor ulna (Cruz pers. com.). Finally, few possible bone projectile points were recorded: a fragment in CCP and three complete ones in Fell and PA. The shape of the Fell artefacts suggests that they were the points of darts or spears.

Results The predominance of guanaco bones in the PAVF sample is higher than in the CCP sample (85.19% in PAVF, 76.60% in CCP). Considering the temporal blocks, more variation is recorded in BI but by only one more taxon. In analyzing morphological tool groups, B I and II present more variation than BIII (9 groups versus 8, Figure 1) but the difference it is not significant.

Figure 1: Morphological groups by temporal block.

Certain groups of tools that were recorded in every temporal block: flakers, awls, a form of tool I have called superficial action tool, and serrated epiphyses. The more common group in the whole sequence was flakers. Flakers are tools made of guanaco long bone splinters that have the active end blunted and may include the bone epiphyses at the proximal end. Some of them were identified as lithic retouchers by microwear (see Nami and Scheinsohn 1997). They have a very standardized morphology in CCP, and in PAVF they could include notches. These notches are very similar to the marks left by percussion flaking, and it may be argued that they try to mimic it (Figure 2). There is only one made out of huemul antler. The awls are varied, ranging from slightly formalized splinters to more formalized ones, even with decoration. They are not very abundant but were recorded throughout the whole sequence of tools and made of guanaco bone. Superficial action tools were very recently identified as a bone tool form in Patagonia. Mariana De Nigris (pers. com.) found them among faunal remains from CCP7. When I analyzed these bones, I found that they conform a consistent pattern: they were made from guanaco long bones (mostly metapodials, although there were a tibia and a femur) with marks in the curved area of the tool near its end. They reminded me of the marks that Chilean archaeologist Donald Jackson identified on certain type of paleoindian bone tools from southern Chile that he named “retocadores extremo laterales” (extreme-lateral flakers, Jackson 1990). Their presence was recorded in TaguaTagua,Cueva del Medio, and Cueva de Lago Sofía 1, all located close to the sites treated here. Jackson argued that one of the ends of these pieces was utilized as flaker

Figure 2: Flakers from Palli Aike.

The rest of the bone tools were recorded in only one or two blocks. Decorated bones were recorded in two blocks, one in CCP and two others in PAVF. Since this work is focused on technology, we will only mention their presence here. But it is worthy to note that one example from CCP is a painted piece of rib, decorated with short black lines while the others are incised. One of the decorated bones found in PA is a fox tibia. Among the tools recorded in temporal block BI are atlatlor spearthrower- related tools. There is no clear record in Patagonia of this type of weaponry. Some rock art designs at Cueva de las Manos appear to indicate its presence (Podestá et al. 2005), and a supposed atlatl hook was found at Baño Nuevo Cave (Aisén River Basin) in Chile. This kind of tool is mentioned in the book compiled by Hyslop (Bird 1988) on Bird’s travels in Chile. A photo is shown in that book, but it is erroneously labeled. I found it among the Fell AMNH collection (Figure 3). The identification of another in CCP (Figure 4) very similar although of different size, gives new support to the evidence for this kind of weaponry in southern South America. Related to this kind of weaponry, I identified as foreshafts a kind of tool that was recorded in CCP and in PA (Figure 5). Although there is discussion over the

3

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN function of these “rods” (Lyman et al. 1998; Lyman and O’Brien 1999; Pearson 1999), this identification can be supported by comparison with those found in Clovis sites by Lahren and Bonnichsen (1974) and those presented by Martínez (2003) in the Argentinean NW.

ancient guanaco rock art paintings present in CCP. Otherwise it would be impossible to differentiate this piece of bone from a mere splinter. Three morphological groups are found in BII and in no other temporal block: 1) hafts: there is an extraordinary example of a hafted broken scraper (Figure 8) that permits certain bone fragments to be interpreted as hafts. This piece was found with a sinew attaching the broken part of the scraper and presents the very same marks as those reported on the superficial action tool (see above). As in the previous case, if the sinew and the broken scraper were not found, it would be impossible to differentiate this haft from other bone splinters. Some sort of mastic attached to another bone fragment allowed it to be interpreted as a bone haft. 2) Two possible mouthpieces were recorded in CCP, both decorated with notches. 3) A possible needle or pendant eye was identified.

Figure 3: Atlatl hook from Fell.

Figure 6: Flat Point from CCP.

Figure 4: Atlatl hook from CCP.

Figure 7: Brush from CCP.

Figure 5: Foreshaft from Palli Aike.

A conspicuous tool identified in BI is what I call a flat point (Figure 6). It consists of a flattened guanaco long bone fragment, with a point at the active end and a bevel at the other for hafting. This point type, although scarce, was present in CCP and PAVF. Miotti (pers. com.) also has reported the presence of a similar tool in Maripe Cave (Central Deseado Basin, Northern Santa Cruz Province). A brush was recorded in BI, specifically in CCP (Figure 7). This functional ascription was supported by a piece of guanaco wool attached to a bone fragment. This wool was stained in red, the very same color of the more

Figure 8: Bone hafted lithic scraper from CCP.

4

DOWN TO THE BONE: TRACKING PREHSTORIC BONE TECHNOLOGY IN SOUTHERN PATAGONIA BIII includes two exceptional types: the pounders and the combs. The pounder was originally identified as a result of guanaco processing (Muñoz and Belardi 1998). More recently, Hajduk and Lezcano (2005) identify it as a bone tool utilized as a pounder. This kind of tools was recovered in high numbers but only in CL. Originally it was part of the sample analyzed by Muñoz and Belardi (1998). This pattern indicates that this morphological group’s presence is due to guanaco processing, but certain marks noted by Hajduk and Lezcano (2005) were recorded on some of these tools.

interesting. Tools are related to lithic manufacturing and the processing of other materials rather than to weaponry in this block. The presence of tools related to only one site is important in this block. In the future we plan a microwear experimental program for hafts, superficial action tools, and brushes to identify characteristic microwear for these tool groups and then to look for these characteristics on archaeofaunas as a way to identify this sort of tools among faunal remains. The tracking of morphological groups identified for this paper should be carried out on other sites of Patagonia. Probably most of the bone technology in Patagonia, given the low degree of modification in certain tools identified during this work, was recorded as faunal remains. Also, as this paper revealed, decoration could be an important issue in terms of bone technology in Patagonia. The tracking of decoration patterns on bone tools in other sites should allow clarification of this point. Bone technology in Patagonia, a largely neglected technology, is now finding its way into Patagonian archaeology.

The combs are a more recent morphological group since they were made out of cow horn, present in this area after European colonization. Discussion Bone raw material variability Bone raw material variability was low in comparison with the Fueguian situation (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002). In the three temporal blocks considered here, variability was lower in BIII but the difference is due to only one more raw material. In comparing regions more raw materials were utilized in PAVF than in CCP, which it is to be expected since in PAVF marine resources are more frequent and there was many different kinds of bone available than in CCP.

Acknowledgements Carlos Aschero, Teresa Civalero, Damián Bozzuto, Antonella Di Vruno and the others members of the CCP archaeological projects helped me with their knowledge and their support. Also I want to acknowledge to the American Museum of Natural History and the Study Collection Grant they gave me that allowed the study of Fell, Pali Aike and Cañadón Leona materials.

Bone exploitation is mostly related to animal consumption in both areas, but it is worthwhile noting the presence of canid, condor, and fox bone. Some of these animasl clearly were not consumed by human populations, so it is a possibility that their bones were scavenged. Design variability

Mariana De Nigris, Pablo Fernández and Natacha Buc contributed their taxanomic determinations and many, many comments and discussions that enriched this paper. Isabel Cruz kindly gave me photographs and materials on condor identification in CCP

Regionally, design variability is higher in CCP and lower in CL. Considering temporal blocks, variability is high in B I and low in B III. This is to be expected if a first experimental moment in the archaeological record was occurring during BI.

Rafael Goñi contributed data on the presence of atlatl hooks in Patagonia. Sabrina Leonardt and Florencia Rizzo (University of Buenos Aires students) helped me to organize the data. Thanks to all.

Standardization

Vivian Scheinsohn Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano 3 de Febrero 1370 (1426) Capital Federal, Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected]

Standardization is apparent in the awls and flakers only, given the low quantities of the other morphological groups. Conclusions BI reflects a moment of experimentation, although the sample of bone tools is small. The importance of tools related with atlatl weaponry is notable in the sample. Obviously these tools were not in an experimental stage. The decrease in bone tool variability in BIII is

References cited Aschero, C.A., Goñi, R.A., Civalero, M.T., Molinari, R., Espinosa, S., Guraieb, A.G. and Bellelli, C. 2005.

5

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN Morello, J. 1984. Perfil Ecológico de Sudamérica. Características estructurales de Sudamérica y su relación con espacios semejantes del planeta. Barcelona, ICI - Ediciones Cultura Hispánica.

Holocenic Park: Arqueologia del Parque Nacional Perito Moreno. Anales de Parques Nacionales 17, 71-119. Bird, J. B. 1988. Travels and Archaeology in South Chile, in J. Hyslop (ed.). Iowa City, University of Iowa Press. Borrero, L.A. 1999. The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonization of Fuego-Patagonia. Journal of World Prehistory, 13(3), 321-355.

Muñoz, A. S. and Belardi, J. 1998. El marcado perimetral en los huesos largos de guanaco de Cañadón Leona (Colección Junius Bird): Implicaciones arqueofaunísticas para Patagonia Meridional. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 26,107-118.

Borrero, L. A and Martin, F. M. 1996. Tafonomía de carnívoros: un enfoque regional, in J. Gomez Otero (ed.), Arqueologia. Solo Patagonia. Puerto Madryn, CENPATCONICET, 189-198.

Orquera, L. and Piana, E. 1999. Arqueología de la región del Canal Beagle (Tierra del Fuego, República Argentina). Buenos Aires, Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.

Borrero, L. A and Barberena, R. 2006. Hunter-Gatherer Home Ranges and Marine Resources. An Archaeological Case from Southern Patagonia. Current Anthropology 47(5), 855-867.

Pearson, G. 1999. North American Paleoindian BiBeveled Bone and Ivory Rods: A New Interpretation. North American Archaeologist 20, 81-103. Podestá, M., Paunero, R., Raffino, R. and Rolandi, D. 2005. El arte Rupestre de Argentina Indigena. Patagonia. Buenos Aires, Union Académique Internationale, Academia Nacional de la Historia (Argentina).

Civalero, M. T. and Aschero, C.A. 2003. Early occupations at Cerro Casa de Piedra 7, Santa Cruz Province, Patagonia argentina, in L. Miotti, M. Salemme and N. Flegenheimer (eds.), Where the South Wind Blow: Ancient Evidences for Paleo South Americans. Dallas, A&M University Press, 141-147.

Scheinsohn, V. 1997. Explotación de materias primas óseas en la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

De Nigris, M. 2005. El consumo en grupos cazadoresrecolectores. Un ejemplo zooarqueológico de Patagonia Meridional. Buenos Aires, SAA. Emperaire, J., Laming-Emperaire, A. and Reichlen, H. 1963. La Grotte Fell et autres sites de la region volcanique de la Patagonie Chillienne. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 52, 167–257.

Scheinsohn, V. 2002. Un modelo evolutivo en Argentina. Resultados y perspectivas futuras, in G. Martinez and J. Lanata (eds.), Perspectivas Integradoras entre arqueología y evolución. Teoría, Métodos y casos de aplicación. Olavarría, Serie Teoórica 1, INCUAPA.

Hajduk, A. and Lezcano, M. 2005. Un “nuevo-viejo” integrante del elenco de instrumentos óseos de Patagonia: los machacadores óseos. Magallania 33(1), 63-80.

Scheinsohn, V. in press. Hearts and Bones: Bone Raw Material Exploitation In Tierra del Fuego. Oxford, BAR International Series 209.

Jackson, D. 1990. Retocadores extremo-laterales en contextos Paleo-Indios. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, Serie Ciencias Humanas 19, 121-124. Lahren, L. and Bonnichsen, R. 1974. Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southwestern Montana. Science 186, 147-150. Lyman, R., O’Brien, M. and Hayes, V. 1998. A Mechanical and Functional Study of Bone Rods from the Richey-Roberts Clovis Cache, Washington, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 887-906. Lyman, R. and O’Brien, M. 1999. Prehistoric osseous rods from North America: arguments on function. North American Archaeologist 20(4), 347-364. Martínez, J. 2003. Ocupaciones Humanas Tempranas y Tecnología de Caza en la Microrregión de Antofagasta de la Sierra (10.000 - 7000 AP). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

6

The Impact of Insularity on Morphologies and Techniques. The Aceramic Neolithic Bone Tools from Khirokitia (Cyprus) Alexandra LEGRAND-PINEAU CNRS UMR 7055 - Préhistoire et Technologie, MAE, Nanterre, France Abstract Technological and use wear analyses conducted on bone industries from Khirokitia and Cap Andreas-Kastros, two key sites for the late Aceramic Neolithic period in Cyprus (Culture of Khirokitia - 7th-6th millennium cal.B.C), bring new data: the large exploitation of the fallow deer, the large proportion of needles and the preferential and continuous use of percussion and grinding for tool manufacture, which show that these bone industries evolved in a closed environment without any regular contacts with the mainland. These data confirm the knowledge on the mechanisms of formation of the Neolithic period in Cyprus which mention the progressive isolation of the communities from the end of the 9th millennium cal. B.C and the emergence of an original culture, the Culture of Khirokitia, at the beginning of the 7th millennium cal. BC. 2003; Peltenburg et al. 2000; 2001; Şevketoğlu 2002; Stordeur 2003; Todd 2001; 2003; Vigne et al. 2003) (Figure 1). The site of Khirokitia, till then considered the first agro-pastoral village, is now used as a reference for the late phase of Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic, between the 7th and the first half of the 6th millennium BC (Le Brun 2001a) (Figure 2). With the Culture of Khirokitia several insular cultural characteristics developed while elements of near-east tradition disappear progressively. Thus, at Khirokitia the constructions were circular in plan whereas the quadrangular plan had already been adopted on contemporary sites in the Near-East; ware made from stone had no equivalent in the Near-East where ceramics

Introduction Thanks to the recent discoveries and research carried out in Cyprus in recent years the image we had of the mechanisms forming the Neolithic on this island is now more precise. The discovery and excavation of several sites including Parekklisha-Shillourokambos have enabled the existence to be proved on Cyprus of a Neolithic population earlier than initially supposed - from the beginning of the 9th millennium BC -, still presenting affinities with the PPNB in the Levant and Anatolia (Briois et al. 1997; Guilaine et al. 2000; Guilaine and Briois 2001; Guilaine and Le Brun 2003; Peltenburg

Figure 1: Map of Cyprus (adapted from Gomez and Pease 1992).

7

ALEXANDRA LEGRAND-PINEAU

Figure 2: Datings (from Clarke et al. 2007, fig. 2.2, 17).

were already known, and the lithic industry was essentially based on blades made from local raw materials (Astruc 2002; Le Brun 1986; 1989a; 1994).

village of Khirokitia (East sector). The second occupation is located westward beyond a limit constituted by a wall (West sector). The Khirokitia bone industry has yielded 2317 pieces (recent excavations from 1977 to 2003) with a majority of finished products (n = 2210, i.e. 95.38% of the total) and very few manufacturing wastes and unfinished blanks (n = 89, i.e. 4.49%). About 122 objects that have not been possible to be studied here come from earlier excavations (Dikaios 1953, 293-296).

One of the objectives of the technological and functional study on the bone Khirokitia industry, the most important Cypriote series (2317 objects in total), is to show what within the forms and technical practices - raw material selection, manufacturing techniques and methods used, and the objects’ material functions - is shared with the Near-East or peculiar to insular know-how (Legrand 2007). A comparison based on bibliographic data with the very well documented industries of the early PPNB in the early Neolithic of the North Levant (from the North of the Mediterranean coast to the Middle Euphrates), of the central Levant (including a part of the Valley of the Orontes and of the Litani), of the South Levant (between Sinai to the south and the basin of Damascus to the north, the Mediterranean to the west and the margins of the Arabian desert to the east), of the upper Valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates, Anatolia and the Zagros (which borders to the east the Jezireh and the Mesopotamian Plain), is considered (Figure 3).

An industry that marks a break with near-eastern traditions The selection of raw materials Long bones, metapodials in particular (94.88% of the long bones identified) were mainly used for Khirokitia bone industry. The ulnas, tibias and ribs are rarely selected. So the selection of raw materials and anatomic parts was relatively strict, the more so as the bones in the animal remains represent all the bones in the skeleton (personal communication Simon Davis). This systematic selection also marked the animal species. Four main species have been identified on the site: fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), sheep, goats, and pigs (Davis 1984). Fallow deer and caprine remains are the most common. The determination of the animal species that were used for manufacture tools, effected in collaboration with Simon Davis, discloses a clear predominance of fallow deer over the other species (n = 279, i.e. 69.75% of species determined), despite a restricted sample (400 attributions, i.e. 17.26% of the whole of the industry) (Table 1).

Archaeological Context The village of Khirokitia is located in the southern part of Cyprus, 6km as the crow flies from today’s coast. Its total area is estimated to be about 2 hectares of which 4000m² have been excavated (old excavation by Porphyrios Dikaios and recent excavation by Alain and Odile Le Brun) (Hesse and Renimel 1978; Le Brun and Daune-Le Brun 2003). A long sequence attributed to the late Aceramic Neolithic has been recognised including two occupations (Le Brun 1984; 1988; Le Brun and Daune-Le Brun 2003). The first occupation consists of the primitive

This predominance marks all the Khirokitia stratigraphic sequence (Figure 4a). However, from the late levels of

8

THE IMPACT OF INSULARITY ON MORPHOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES.

Figure 3: Map of the Near-East. Anim al Species

N

%

Fallow deer

279

69.75

Caprine

Sheep

38

Ind.

79

methods meet the strict criteria characterising bone production at Khirokitia. If these first results are compared with the data available for the Near-East it is evident strong exploitation of bone is also a feature marking the industries of the North and South Levant from the early to the late PPNB (Le Dosseur 2006; Stordeur 1988a). Thus, the Khirokitia and Levant industries could belong to the same tradition of economic and social processes. A tradition that could also mark the selection of anatomic parts since - as in Cyprus metapodials are widely used for manufacturing tools in the North and South Levant from the early to the middle and late PPNB (Le Dosseur 2006, 608-609). On the other hand, when the Khirokitia industry is compared to the Anatolia industries differences appear. In south-east Anatolia in the early - middle PPNB (at Cafer Höyük and Çayönü) as in south-west Anatolia in the early Neolithic (at Hacilar) bone exploitation remained preponderant but the use of antler was more important. Moreover, making tools from tibias was more common in south Anatolia in the late PPNB at the sites of Çatal Höyük and Mersin (Garstang 1953; Mellaart 1964; 1967) as in north Anatolia in the early Neolithic on the site of site of Ilipinar (Marinelli 1995).

29.25

Pig

2

0.5

Bird

1

0.25

Fish

1

0.25

Total

400

100

Table 1: Khirokitia - Animal species exploited for the industry.

the Aceramic Neolithic an important fall in fallow deer among the animal remains appears while the proportion of caprines increases (Davis 2003) (Figure 4b). The fallow deer’s diminution does not seem to have had any effect on the selection of animal species for manufacturing the tools: whether due to maintenance of a deeply rooted tradition or to resources sufficient to meet needs – for the time being no hypothesis is privileged. Nevertheless, it is admitted that the raw material selection

9

ALEXANDRA LEGRAND-PINEAU

Figure 4: Khirokitia; A) selection of caprines and fallow deer by architectural level (n=327). The level E is the earliest architectural level studied here. The layer 2 corresponds to the occupation of the site in the ceramic Neolithic; B) frequence by level of fallow deer and caprine bones in the animal remains (adapted from Davis 2003, fig. 6).

The types of object

Kastros, another reference site for the late Aceramic Neolithic located by the sea at the extreme east of the island in the Karpas peninsula (Legrand 2007).

Points constitute the essential part (96.34%) of Khirokitia tools, which is also one of the principal characteristics of the PPNB industries in the Near-East. On the other hand, Khirokitia tools are distinguished by a quite unique proportion of needles (624 needles in total, i.e. 42.28% of bone tools) (Figure 5). Edged tools are not so common (3.66% of the tools). Lastly, toothed objects, tubular elements, few handles, and various indeterminable objects complete the Khirokitia assemblage. Among these tools and objects some were particularly significant in the Near-East on a cultural level; this is especially the case for the toothed objects and tubular elements. The toothed objects made from split ribs found at the site of Mureybet (PPNA - early PPNB, North Levant) (Stordeur 1974), are also found with some variants for the late PPNB in the South Levant on the site of Ramad (de Contenson 2000) and in the Zagros at the site of Jarmo (Braidwood et al. 1983). The toothed objects of Khirokitia differ from those of Mureybet in the support chosen - long bones in this case (Figure 6). Moreover, they are only found at Khirokitia in the earliest levels of the occupation before disappearing completely.

Figure 5: Khirokita - Needles (photo: A. Legrand-Pineau).

The tubular elements are numerous in the North Levant, at Mureybet and Halula (middle - late PPNB), in the South Levant, the site of Aswad (middle PPNB) (Aurenche and Cauvin 1982; Stordeur 1978; 1982; 1995; 1996;), in the Zagros, at Ganj Dareh (early PPNB), and Ali Kosh and Jarmo (late PPNB) (Braidwood et al. 1983; Hole et al. 1969; Stordeur 1994) but also in Anatolia, at Cafer Höyük (early - middle PPNB) and at Ilipinar (early Ceramic Neolithic) (Marinelli 1995; Stordeur 1988a). The tubular elements are not very common at Khirokitia but more numerous proportionally at Cape Andreas-

Figure 6: Khirokitia Toothed objects (photo: A. Legrand-Pineau).

10

THE IMPACT OF INSULARITY ON MORPHOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES.

Other cultural markers present in the Near-East are absent from the Cypriot industries: the hooks and the spoons (Sidéra 1998; 2005). The hooks principally characterise the early and middle PPNB of south-east Anatolia (Cafer and Çayönü) (Redman 1973; Stordeur 1988a) even if a few examples have been identified in the North Levant, at Dja’de (early PPNB), Halula (middle - late PPNB), Abu Hureyra (middle - late PPNB) and in the South Levant, at Nehal Hemar (middle - late PPNB) (Coqueugniot 2000; Moore et al. 1975; Stordeur 1996). Their presence is also found in the early Neolithic in Anatolia at the sites of Ilipinar and Hacilar (Marinelli 1995; Mellaart 1964; 1967; 1970).

137). The insular communities thus preserved the main manufacturing techniques used on the continent: percussion, sawing, abrasion, and shaving but privileged a few such as percussion and abrasion. We can finish with the issue of techniques by taking the example of needles. The techniques used for obtaining the blanks for manufacturing needles are unknown at Khirokitia, for lack of manufacturing waste. On the other hand, the perforating techniques are better documented. The eyes were made by hand rotation or drill (Figure 7). A single example found in the first levels of the occupation shows a quite different method also found on the site of Mureybet (North Levant): longitudinal incision (Stordeur 1978) (Figure 8). This method was then identified during the middle PPNB, at Halula, then in the early - middle PPNB, in South-East Anatolia in Cafer Höyük and Çayönü, and in the central Levant in the late PPNB (Aswad) (Stordeur 1988a; 1995; 1996). It is to be noted that in the South Levant at the sites of Motza (end of early PPNB - middle PPNB) and Nahal Hemar (middle - late PPNB), this method has been identified on flat tools (Le Dosseur 2006, 374-457).

Spoons, manufactured from the Natufian (Schroeder 1991; Stordeur 1988b), above all characterise the assemblages of the late PPNB in south Anatolia (Çatal Hüyük, Mersin and Hayaz Höyük) and those of the early Neolithic in North Anatolia (Pendik, Ilipinar) (Clason 1985; Garstang 1953; Marinelli 1995; Mellaart 1964; 1970; Özdoğan 1983). Among the range of types and morphologies met on the continental sites, some examples of which have been exposed, only a few have been identified at Khirokitia: points, needles, edged edges, toothed objects and tubular elements. This is a restricted set within which two types of tools in particular were manufactured: the points and the needles. Additionally, representatives of the neareastern tradition are few and far between in this assemblage, whether modified or rapidly abandoned – as is the case for the toothed objects. Just as the methods for selecting raw materials seem to show, the typological analysis of the Khirokitia industry confirms the establishment in Cyprus of local technical procedures and new skills. What of the manufacturing techniques and methods implemented? Manufacturing techniques

Figure 7: Khirokitia - Perforation by alternating rotation (photo: A. Legrand-Pineau).

Splinter points obtained by direct percussion are in the majority at Khirokitia (62% of types of points). Generally, the shaping on these points is not extensive, limited to the active part and done by abrasion. Other techniques such as indirect percussion and sawing could be combined to manufacture points, and lead to various methods being constituted depending on the localisation and the extension of sawing on the blank (Legrand 2005; Sidéra 2004). In this case abrasion remained the most used shaping technique and could extend to the mesial and proximal parts. The edged tools were manufactured in the same way. The splinter and half-metapodial points are also frequent in the PPNB industries (for example, Braidwood et al. 1983; Garstang 1953; Hole et al. 1969; Lechevallier 1978; Le Dosseur 2006; Marinelli 1995; Voigt 1983). But as opposed to what has been observed in Cyprus, shaping by shaving is favoured on the continent (Stordeur 1984,

Figure 8: Khirokitia - Perforation by longitudinal incision (arrows) (photo: A. Legrand-Pineau).

11

ALEXANDRA LEGRAND-PINEAU Conclusion

Aurenche, O. et Cauvin, M.-C. 1982. Qdeir I, campagne 1980 : une installation néolithique du VIIe millénaire. Cahiers de l’Euphrate, 3, 51-77.

Comparing the industry of Khirokitia with those of the Near-East gives answers that help resolve the issue of how the Cypriot industries were formed. It is undeniable that from a range of forms and techniques identified in the industries of the Levant, the upper Valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Zagros and Anatolia these communities drew on several elements, some of which are especially significant on the cultural level: toothed objects, tubular elements, perforation by longitudinal incision, heat treatment, etc. If some of them lasted throughout the Khirokitia late Aceramic Neolithic, others, on the contrary, quickly disappeared from the early levels - such as the toothed objects and perforation by longitudinal incision. In parallel, the development and systematisation can be seen of the technical processes choice of bone and specie, and the use of percussion, abrasion and perforation by rotation - that played a role in characterising the Khirokitia bone industry. A process that sifted out tools and techniques of near-eastern origin seems therefore to have quickly established itself and could confirm the hypothesis that the insular communities developed in a certain isolation without a regular external contribution (Le Brun 1986; 1989b). The break with the continental identity seems to have occurred before the rise of the Khirokitia Culture during the evolution of the Neolithic on the island between the 9th and 7th millennia BC: so the Khirokitia Culture bone industry would be the result of a local evolution.

Braidwood, L., Braidwood, R., Howe, B., Reed, C. and Watson, P. 1983. Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks. Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications, 105. Briois, F., Gratuze, B. et Guilaine J. 1997. Obsidienne du site néolithique précéramique de Shillourokambos. Paléorient, 23(1), 95-112. Clarke J., McCartney C. and Wasse A. 2007. On the Margins of Southwest Asia. Cyprus during the 6th to 4th Millennia BC. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Clason, A.T. 1985. The Bone and Antler Objects of Hayaz Höyük. Anatolica, 12, 43-59. Coqueugniot, E. 2000. Dja’de (Syrie), un village à la vieille de la domestication (seconde moitié du IXème mill. av. J.-C.), in J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde, Naissance des agricultures. Paris, Éditions Errance, 61-80. Davis, S. 1984. Khirokitia and its Mammal Remains, a Neolithic Noah’s ark, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-1981. Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 41, 147-162. Davis, S. 2003. The Zooarchaeology of Khirokitia (Neolithic Cyprus), Including a View from the Mainland, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 253-268.

Acknowledgements I should like to thank Alain and Odile Le Brun for having entrusted me with the study of the bone industries at the sites of Khirokitia and Cape Andreas-Kastros, as well as Simon Davis for his help with the attributions. This text has been traduced from its original French version by Thimothy Seller.

De Contenson, H. 2000. Ramad, site néolithique en damascène (Syrie) aux VIIIe et VIIe millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne. Beyrouth, Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche Orient. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, tome 157.

Alexandra Legrand-Pineau CNRS UMR 7055 « Préhistoire et Technologie » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l’Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

Dikaios, P. 1953. Khirokitia. Final Report on the Excavation of a Neolithic Settlement in Cyprus on behalf of the Department of Antiquities 1936-1946. London, Oxford University Press, Monographs of the Department of Antiquities of the Government of Cyprus n° 1. Garstang, J. 1953. Prehistoric Mersin. Yümük Tepe in Southern Turkey. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

References cited Astruc, L. 2002. Analyse fonctionnelle et spatiale de l’industrie lithique de Khirokitia (Néolithique précéramique, Chypre). Paris, Éditions CNRS.

Gomez, B. and Pease, P. 1992. Early Holocene Cypriot Coastal Palaeography. Report of the Department of Antiquities, 1-8.

12

THE IMPACT OF INSULARITY ON MORPHOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES.

Guilaine, J., Briois, F., Vigne, J.-D., Carrère, I., Willcox, G. et Duchesne S. 2000. L’habitat néolithique précéramique de Shillourokambos (Parekklisha, Chypre). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 124(2), 589-594.

colonization to exploitation. Boston, Caari Monograph Series, 5, 109-118. Le Brun, A. 2001b. Khirokitia, village néolithique précéramique de Chypre, in J. Guilaine (ed.), Communautés villageoises du Proche-Orient à l’Atlantique (8000-2000 avant notre ère). Paris, Éditions Errance, 53-62.

Guilaine, J. and Briois, F. 2001. ParekklishaShillourokambos: An Early Neolithic Site in Cyprus, in S. Swiny (ed.), The earliest prehistory of Cyprus from colonization to exploitation. Boston, Caari Monograph Series, 5, 37-54.

Le Brun, A. et Daune-Le Brun, O. 2003. Deux aspects du Néolithique Pré-céramique Récent de Chypre : Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 45-60.

Guilaine, J. et Le Brun, A. 2003. Avant-propos, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43.

Le Dosseur, G. 2006. La néolithisation au Levant Sud à travers l’exploitation des matières osseuses. Etude techno-économique de onze séries d’industries osseuses du Natoufien au PPNB récent. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I.

Hesse, A. et Renimel, S. 1978. Reconnaissance des limites du site Néolithique de Khirokitia (Chypre) d’après les distributions superficielles des vestiges et la résistivité du sol. Revue d’Archéométrie, 2, 5-18.

Lechevallier, M. 1978. Abou Gosh et Beisamoun, deux gisements du VIIe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne en Israël. Mémoires et Travaux du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques Français de Jérusalem, n° 2, Association Paléorient.

Hole, F., Flannery, K. and Neely, J. 1969. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain: an Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan – Iran. University of Michigan, Memoire n° 1 of the Museum of Anthropology. Le Brun, A. 1981. Un site néolithique précéramique en Chypre : Cap Andreas-Kastros. Paris, Recherche sur les Civilisations Mémoire n°5.

Legrand, A. 2005. New Evidence on the Bone Reduction Techniques from Khirokitia – Cyprus (7th millennium cal. B.C.), in H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.E. Batey and L. Lõugas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn 26 – 31 August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja teadus 15, 105-112.

Le Brun, A. 1984. Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-1981. Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 41. Le Brun, A. 1986. Khirokitia : une Civilisation Originale ? in Cyprus between the Orient and the Occident, Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium, Nicosie, 8-14 septembre 1985, 1-11.

Legrand, A. 2007. Fabrication et utilisation de l’outillage en matières osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre : Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. Oxford, BAR International Series 1678.

Le Brun, A. 1988. La stratigraphie de Khirokitia et les nouvelles dates C14. Report of the Department of Antiquities, 25-28.

Marinelli, M. 1995. The Bone Artifacts of Ilipinar, in J. Roodenberg (ed.), the Ilipinar Excavation I. Five seasons of fieldwork in Northwestern Anatolia 19871991. Institut Historique et Archéologique néerlandais d’Istanbul, n° 72, 121-142.

Le Brun, A. 1989a. Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1983-1986. Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 81. Le Brun, A. 1989b. Le Néolithique de Chypre et sa relation avec le PPNB du Levant. Paléorient, 15/1, 161167.

Mellaart, J. 1964. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük. Anatolian Studies, 14, 39-119. Mellaart, J. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Londres, Thames and Hudson.

Le Brun, A. 1994. Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1988-1991. Paris, Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Mellaart, J. 1970. Excavations at Hacilar. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Le Brun, A. 2001a. At the Other End of the Sequence: The Cypriot Aceramic Neolithic as Seen from Khirokitia, in S. Swiny (ed.), The earliest prehistory of Cyprus from

13

ALEXANDRA LEGRAND-PINEAU Moore, A. M. T., Hillman, G. C. and Legge, A. J. 1975. The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: a Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 41, 50-77.

Sidéra, I. 2005. Technical Data, Typological Data: a Comparison, in H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.E. Batey and L. Lõugas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn 26 – 31 August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja teadus 15, 81-90.

Özdoğan, M. 1983. Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikir Tepe Culture in the Marmara Region, in R.M. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, 401-412.

Stordeur, D. 1974. Objets dentés en os de Mureybet (Djezireh, Syrie) des phases IB à III : 8 400 à 7 600 BC. Paléorient, 2/2, 437-442.

Peltenburg, E. 2003. Identifying Settlement of the XthIXth Millenium B.P in Cyprus from the Contents of Kissonerga-Mylouthkia wells, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 15-34.

Stordeur, D. 1978. L’outillage osseux, in M.-C. Cauvin et D. Stordeur (eds.), Les outillages lithiques et osseux de Mureybet (Syrie). Cahier de l’Euphrate n° 1, 81-101. Stordeur, D. 1982. L’industrie osseuse de la Damascène du VIIe au VIe millénaire, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L’industrie en os et en bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Age des métaux. 2e réunion du groupe de travail n° 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Saint Germain en Laye, Editions du CNRS, 9-25.

Peltenburg, E., Colledge, S., Croft, P., Jackson, A., Mac Cartney, C. and Murray, M.A. 2000. Agro-pastoralist colonization of Cyprus in the 10th millenium BP: initial settlement. Antiquity, 74, 844-853.

Stordeur, D. 1984. L’industrie osseuse de Khirokitia, in A. Le Brun (ed.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-1981. Paris, Edition Recherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 41, 129-144.

Peltenburg, E., Croft, P., Jackson, A., Mac Cartney, C. and Murray, M.A. 2001. Well Established Colonists: Mylouthkia 1 and the Cypro Pre Pottery Neolithic B, in S. Swiny (ed.), The earliest prehistory of Cyprus from colonization to exploitation. Boston, Caari Monograph Series, 5, 61-93.

Stordeur, D. 1988a. L’industrie osseuse de Cafer dans son contexte anatolien et proche oriental. Note préliminaire, in Round table on Aceramic Neolithic in South East Turkey, Istanbul 1986. Anatolica XV, 203213.

Redman, C. 1973. Early Village Technology. A View Through the Microscope. Paleorient, 1/2, 249-261. Schroeder, B. 1991. Natufian in the Central Beqaa Valley, Lebanon, in O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), the Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 1, 43-80.

Stordeur, D. 1988b. Outils et armes en os du gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan) Israël. Paris, Mémoires et travaux du centre de Recherche français de Jérusalem n° 6, Association Paléorient. Stordeur, D. 1994. Outils et parures en os de Ganj Dareh (Iran, VIIIe millénaire B.C.). Cahiers de l’Euphrate, 7, Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 245-296.

Şevketoğlu, M. 2002. Akanthou Arkosyko (TatlisuCiftlikdüzü) the Anatolian Connections in the 9th millennium BC, in W.H. Waldren and J.A. Enseyat (eds.), World Islands in Prehistory, International Insular Investigations. Oxford, BAR International Series 1678, 98-106.

Stordeur, D. 1995. L’industrie osseuse d’Aswad, in H. de Contenson (ed.), Aswad et Ghoraifé, sites néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie) aux IXe et VIIIe millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne. Beyrouth, Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 137, 313-317.

Sidéra, I. 1998. Nouveaux éléments d’origine proche orientale dans le Néolithique ancien Balkanique : analyse de l’industrie osseuse. Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 215-239.

Stordeur, D. 1996. Los objetos de hueso, in M. Molist (ed.), Tell Halula (Siria), un yacimiento neolitico del valle medio del Eufrates. Campanas de 1991 y 1992. Instituto del Patrimonio Historico Español, 115-123.

Sidéra, I. 2004. Exploitation de l’os au Néolithique dans les bassins parisien et rhénan, in D. Ramseyer (ed.), Matières et techniques, Cahier XI, Fiche de la Commission de nomenclature sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Paris, Edition de la Société Préhistorique Française, 163-171.

Stordeur, D. 2003. De la vallée de l’Euphrate à Chypre ? A la recherche d’indices de relations au Néolithique, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole

14

THE IMPACT OF INSULARITY ON MORPHOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES.

Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 353-372. Todd, I.A. 1987. Vasilikos Valley Project 6: Excavations at Kalavasos-Tenta I. Göteborg, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 71/6. Todd, I.A. 2001. Kalavasos-Tenta Revisited, in S. Swiny (ed.), The earliest prehistory of Cyprus from colonization to exploitation. Boston, Caari Monograph Series, 5, 95108. Todd, I.A. 2003. Kalavasos-Tenta: a Reappraisal, in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 35-44. Vigne, J.-D., Carrère, I. and Guilaine, J. 2003. Unstable Status of Early Domestic Ungulates in the Near East: the Example of Shillourokambos (Cyprus, IX-VIIIth millennia cal. BC), in J. Guilaine et A. Le Brun (eds.), Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du Colloque International, organisé par le Département des Antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17 au 19 mai 2001. Paris, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique supplément 43, 239-252. Voigt, M.M. 1983. Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: the Neolithic Settlement. University of Pennsylvania, University Museum Monograph 50.

15

The Neolithization in Southern Levant: Impact of Animal Herding on the Exploitation of Bone Materials, from Reticence to Adoption of Domestic Herds Gaëlle LE DOSSEUR CNRS UMR 7041 - ArScan, Ethnologie Préhistorique, MAE, Nanterre, France Abstract The neolithization in the Southern Levant (Figure 1) is characterized by many changes, from technical and economic points of view, as well as from social and symbolic ones. While knowledge of this slow process gets richer, the field of investigation remains open. The aim is to contribute to a better comprehension of a field often neglected by research in the Southern Levant – the exploitation of bone materials. In particular, this field should be very sensitive to an important innovation during this period: animal herding in the PPNB. In this article, the impact of this economic change will be stated and discussed: do the bone tool makers use the new source of raw material represented by domestic goats and sheep or do they stay attached to hunted animals like gazelles? How do they treat the bones coming from these two kinds of sources? After having succinctly presented the context and the methods used to determine species, these questions will be discussed, aiming for a better comprehension of the changing relation between man and animals and more widely, of neolithization. Context In the Southern Levant, neolithization lasts from 13000 to 5000 years cal. BC and consists of five major periods. The first period is the Natufian (13 000-9600 cal. BC), during which people start to reduce their mobility while maintaining an economy based on hunting and gathering (Lieberman 1998; Pichon 1991; Tchernov 1991; Valla 1998). Many animal species were hunted at this time: large mammals (aurochs, cervids, etc.), medium mammals (boars, etc.), small mammals (gazelles, roe deer, etc.) and very small animals (birds, foxes, hares, etc.). Among small mammals, gazelles are the most numerous on many sites, especially in the Mediterranean zone and Irano-turanian margins. In dry regions, east of the Jordan River and south of the Dead Sea, caprines are more often hunted (Byrd 1989). The second period is the Pre Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA: 9600-8200 cal. BC) during which the process of settlement continues, the villages get bigger, and agriculture begins (Colledge 2002; Weiss et al. 2006; Willcox 2002). People still hunt the same species as before, though the very small animals (foxes, etc.) increase in importance at some sites (Hatoula, Davis et al., 1994; Netiv Hagdud, Tchernov 1994). Inhabitants of the Mediterranean zone, continue to favor gazelles though a little less than during the Natufian, for example, in Hatoula and Netiv Hagdud (see notes 4 and 5). In dry regions, goats are often hunted (Horwitz et al. 1999; Mithen et al. 2000).

Figure 1: Map of Near East (from the Web).

circular one (in Northern Levant this phenomenon appears as early as the end of PPNA) (Stordeur 2000; Stordeur and Abbès 2002), agriculture improves, and animal domestication starts (Ducos and Horwitz 2003; Horwitz et al. 1999; Peters et al. 2005). During middle PPNB, in the Jordan Valley and in the Mediterranean zone, the proportion of caprines in the fauna.increases abruptly. They are mainly goats, outnumbering after this time the animals formerly favored (gazelles, etc.). At this time, the animals retain a wild anatomy but, as evidenced by a rapid change in the number, ages, and gender of killed animals and by traces of pathologies (KöhlerRollefson 1997), some researchers think that they could already be at the first stage of domestication (Ducos and

The third period is the Pre Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB: 8200-6900 cal. BC) during which villages continue to enlarge, a rectangular plan in architecture replaces a

17

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR Horwitz 2003; Horwitz 2003; Horwitz et al. 1999). During late PPNB (7500-6900 cal. BC), sheep are raised in addition to goats. Caprines continue to increase in number while gazelles decrease in the fauna. From this period forward, caprines are fully domesticated. Cattle could also have been raised from the PPNB onwards (Horwitz and Ducos 2005).

Metrical criteria In addition to anatomical criteria, metrical methods were used to differentiate goat and sheep metapodials. Boessneck’s method is one of them (Boessneck 1969). It can be applied to medial distal condyles of metatarsals and metacarpals. It is based on the ratio between the dorso-ventral width of the trochlea and the dorso-ventral width of the corresponding condyle (Figure 5).

Eventually, neolithization comes to an end with the Pre Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC: 6900-6500 cal. BC), during which animal herding increases, and pork is added to the domestic stock. The Pottery Neolithic (6500-5000 cal. BC) follows, characterised by the emergence of ceramics. In this initial stage of research, the impact of animal herding on the exploitation of bone materials will be followed until the PPNB, which is the beginning of animal domestication. Method Before presenting the results of the research, the methods used to determine the species from which the bone tools were made will be briefly stated. More specifically, this will revolve around the differentiation among the three main species to be discussed: gazelles, goats, and sheep.

Figure 5: The metrical method of Boessneck to distinguish metapodials coming from goats and sheeps. How to measure the ratio.

In the case of metacarpals, a ratio above 63 indicates that the bone comes from a sheep while a ratio below 63 indicates that it comes from a goat (Figure 6). In the case of metatarsals, the method is less precise, as there is an overlapping zone between the values 59 and 62.5. When the ratio is above 62.5, the bone comes from a sheep while it comes from a goat when the ratio is below 59 (Figure 7).

Anatomical criteria Anatomical criteria described in many publications were used, always with the help of a reference collection (Boessneck 1969; Kratochvil 1969; Payne 1969; Prummel and Frisch 1986; Rowley-Conwy 1998). The main ones include. Goat metapodials are less slender than those of sheep (Figure 2). The edges of the distal condyles diverge on goat metapodials while they are almost parallel on sheep (Figure 2-2). The depressions just above the distal condyles are deeper on goat metapodials than on sheep (Figure 2-1). On gazelle metacarpals, there is a small facet on the medio-ventral side of the proximal articulation, not observed on caprine metacarpals (Figure 3-1). On gazelle metatarsals, the volume on the medio-ventral side of the proximal articulation is much more obvious than on caprine metatarsals (Figure 3-3). Distal condyles of gazelle metapodials are smaller, more slender and more elongated than distal condyles of goat metapodials. They are also less rounded than distal condyles of sheep metapodials (Figure 3-2).

13

Sheep medial ratio Goat medial ratio 12

Trochlee width (mm)

11

Sheep (ratio > 63)

10

Goat (ratio < 59)

9

8

7

6 11

The distal articulation of goat tibias is rectangular while sheep is more trapezoidal (Figure 4-1). On the medial side, the transition between the diaphysis and the distal articulation is more obvious on sheep tibias than on goats (Figure 4-2).

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Condyle width (mm)

Figure 6: Boessneck’s ratios measured on goats’ and on sheeps’ medial sides of metacarpals (datas in Rowley-Conwy, 1998).

18

20

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT Figure 3

Figure 2

Figure 4

Figure 2: Some differences between a sheep’s metapodial and a goat’s metapodial. Goats’ metapodials are less slender than sheeps’ ones; 1) the depressions just above the distal condyles are deeper on goats’ metapodials than on sheeps’ ones; 2) the edges of distal condyles diverge on goats’ metapodials while they are almost parallel on sheeps’ ones. Figure 3: Some differences between a gazelle’s metapodial, a sheep’s metapodial and a goat’s metapodial; 1) on gazelles’ metacarpals proximal articulation, there is a small facet on the medio-ventral side, not observed on caprines’ metacarpals; 2) differences in the volume of the three distal ends; 3) there is a volume on the medio-ventral side of gazelles’ proximal metatarsals much more obvious than on caprines’ metatarsals. Figure 4: Some differences between a sheep’s tibia and a goat’s tibia; 1) the distal articulation of goats’ tibias are rectangular while the distal articulation of sheeps’ tibias are more trapezoidal; 2) on the medial side, the transition between the diaphyse and the distal articulation is more obvious on sheeps’ tibias than on goats’ ones.

Figure 3

19

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR 12

Overlapping zone (Boessneck's ratio between 59 and 62,5)

13

Sheep medial ratio

Overlapping zone (ration between 59 and 62,5)

Goat medial ratio

12

Sheep (ratio > 62,5)

11

10

Trochlee width (mm)

Trochlee width (mm)

11

Sheep (ratio > 62,5)

10

9

Goat (ratio < 59)

Case 1

Sheep medial ratio (Rowley-Conwy, 1998)

9

Sheep lateral ratio (Rowley-Conwy, 1998) Goat medial ratio (Rowley-Conwy, 1998) Case 2

8

Goat lateral ratio (Rowley-Conwy, 1998) Sheep medial ratio

Goat (ratio < 59)

8

Sheep lateral ratio 7

Goat medial ratio Goat lateral ratio

7 6 12 6 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Condyle width (mm)

20

Condyle width (mm)

Figure 8: Boessneck’s ratios measured on goats’ and on sheep’s medial and lateral sides of metatarsals (datas in Rowley-Conwy, 1998 and datas measured on referential skeletons from Givat Ram in Jerusalem).

Figure 7: Boessneck’s ratios measured on goats’ and on sheeps’ medial sides of metatarsals (datas in Rowley-Conwy, 1998).

et al. 2007). The sample contains 540 pieces. Other sites and earlier periods of the Natufian were considered, mainly through the literature: Mallaha (early and late Natufian, Stordeur 1988), Hayonim Cave1 (early and late Natufian, Belfer Cohen 1988; Campana 1991), Hayonim Terrace (late Natufian, Boyd 1996), Wadi Hammeh (early Natufian, Edwards 1991 and in preparation). Mallaha and Wadi Hammeh are small hamlets with round houses where people obviously spent a long time during the year. Hayonim Cave could be a more specialized place, where funeral activities play an important role.

According to Rowley-Conwy (Rowley-Conwy 1998), it is possible to enlarge this method to lateral condyles of metacarpals but not to lateral condyles of metatarsals. However, using his reference data and mine, most frequently the ratio calculated on lateral condyles of metatarsals either confirms the result reached with the ratio on medial condyles or falls in the overlap zone and does not yield any result (Figure 8). In one case (case 1), the ratio calculated on the lateral condyle falls in the sheep zone while the medial ratio is in the overlapping zone: this is not a problem since the bone actually comes from a sheep. In a second case (case 2), more problematic but unique, the lateral ratio is at the limit of goat zone while the bone comes from a sheep.

One PPNA village was studied through rough data collected by D. Stordeur - Jericho, in the Jordan Valley (Kenyon 1981). The sample includes 346 pieces. Other villages from the Mediterranean zone were analysed using published data - Hatoula (Stordeur 1994). For early PPNB, the material from Motza was directly studied. It includes 403 pieces. Motza is a village of hunters situated in the Mediterranean zone (Khalaily et al. 2007).

To conclude, I believe that if the lateral ratios are more often in the overlapping zone than medial ratios, and thus give less precise results, they only rarely lead to wrong determinations. Consequently, I suggest applying Boessneck’s method to all condyles of metapodials – either lateral or medial, either from metatarsals or from metacarpals – and therefore to condyles coming from undetermined and unsided metapodials, which are the vast majority in bone tool samples. The bone comes from a sheep when the ratio is above 63 while it surely comes from a goat when the ratio is clearly below 59.

The species hunted on these Natufian and PPNA sites were already mentioned above. There is no change during early PPNB. For middle PPNB, the material from two sites was directly studied: Motza (43 pieces) and Abu Gosh (86 pieces) (Lechevallier 1978) in the Mediterranean zone. The sample of Jericho in the Jordan Valley was studied through rough data collected by D. Stordeur (74 pieces). The three sites are permanent villages. Agriculture is attested in Jericho, while a kind of proto-domestication of caprines (goats) is suspected in Jericho and Abu Gosh (cf. above). On these two sites, caprines outnumber gazelles for the first time in the Mediterranean zone.

Eventually, to distinguish goat and sheep metapodials, anatomical criteria are primarily used and the method of Boessneck secondarily, for which a wider application is suggested. This application is a proposition than could be corrected in the future. Sites and material studied The Natufian sites considered in this study are situated in the Mediterranean and Irano-turanian zones. The material of one site was directly studied. It comes from Mallaha (Galilee) and it dates to the last phase of the period (Valla

The material from one late PPNB site was directly studied. It comes from ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson et al. 1992) at the limit between the Mediterranean and the

20

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT Irano-turanian zones. The sample contains 249 pieces. Fully domesticated caprines are common in the fauna. Sheep are quite frequent in addition to goats (Wasse 2000 and 2002). Gazelles are rare.

important place of this animal in people’s mentality during the Natufian (Valla 1995). After the Natufian, the situation remains quite similar during PPNA (Figure 11) and early PPNB (Figure 12), in a system still based on hunting. Various species were exploited, among which gazelles had an important place. They were not always in the first place (see Jericho) but they remained the most frequently used animals among small mammals, according to their availability in the fauna. However, a change is noticed. The use of gazelle skeletons was more and more focused on metapodials, while the rare phalanges selected were used in a completely different way than before: those bones were no longer cut but used whole instead (Figure 10-7).

Due to the general state of preservation (high rate of fragmentation, concretions) and the transformation process, the number of pieces that could be attributed to species or body-size classes is low (cf. Figures 10 to 15). So, the results that follow are tendencies that need to be confirmed with a greater number of pieces and sites. Results Before addressing the impact of animal herding on the exploitation of bone materials, one needs to recall the situation just before, during the Natufian, PPNA, and early PPNB.

From the Natufian to early PPNB, goats, rarely hunted except in the arid regions, were rarely used for bone tool manufacture. When they were chosen, they were treated the same way as gazelles were.

Gazelles: a small ruminant valued for bone tools during the Natufian, PPNA, and early PPNB. During the Natufian, various types of animals were exploited: aurochs, dama, red deer, wild goats, roe deer, gazelles, rabbits, foxes, birds. In Hayonim Cave, Hayonim Terrace and Wadi Hammeh (Figure 9-1), where gazelles were abundant and frequently hunted, those animals were valued by bone tool makers. They were not always the most frequently used animal, but they were the most frequently chosen among small mammals. This reflects the frequency of gazelle in the faunal assemblage. This remark is important for the following discussion. In Mallaha, gazelles were also valued, especially for ornaments, but other small ruminants such as roe deer were used (see Stordeur 1988 for early/late Natufian and Figure 10 for final Natufian). Various body parts were selected from the gazelle skeleton, particularly metapodials for awls and phalanges for beads but also tibias, horn cores, etc. (Figure 9-2 to 95). Gazelles were not only chosen because they were abundant, but certainly also for obvious technical advantages. For example, their metapodials are perfectly adapted to awls in their length, rectilinear form, and density.

Figure 9: 1) sites studied and cited; 2) gazelles’ metapodials used for awls during Natufian (photo: G. Le Dosseur); 3) gazelles’ phalanges used for beads during Natufian (photo: M. Barazani); 4) gazelles’ horn cores during Natufian (photo: from Harrison et Bates, 1991, fig. Cii,199); 5) tibias; 6) partridges’ tibio-tarsus used for beads during Natufian (photo: from the Web ; drawing : from Pichon, 1983 and 1987); 7) use of gazelles’ phalanges during PPNA.

Gazelles may also have been chosen for symbolic reasons. On some sites (Mallaha) (Maréchal 1991), gazelle phalanges were selected for one kind of bead (Figure 9-3) though other bones as useful, such as bird tibiotarsus (Figure 9-6), were available and preferred on other sites (Hayonim Cave) (Pichon 1987). One should also keep in mind the numerous deposits of gazelle bones, especially in burials, which obviously reveal the

21

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR

Big mammals (aurochs, equids, red deer, big fallow deer…) Medium or big mammal

Equipment 1

21

15

11

12

Medium mammal (fallow deer, boar...)

27

Medium/big mamals or caprines

Small mammals

Small mammals (caprines)

Small mammals (gazelles)

Fauna (Rabinovitch et Bridault, in : Valla et al., 8 2004)

159

88

175

22

462

Small mammals (roe deer)

518

Small mammals (gazelles or roe deer)

Very small animals (foxes, rabbits, birds)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 10: Frequencies of species used in Mallaha during final Natufian.

Equipment

22

2

5

3

1

9

Big mammals Medium/big mammals Medium mammals Medium/big mammals or caprines Small mammals Small mammals (caprines) Small mammals (gazelles) Small mammals (roe deer) Very small animals Fauna (Clutton-Brock, 1979)

35 1

0%

54

10%

20

20%

294

30%

40%

50%

2

60%

70%

128

80%

90%

100%

Figure 11: Frequencies of species used in Jericho during PPNA.

22

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT

Equipment

8

10

11

25

1

7

10

Big mammals Medium or big mammals Medium mammals Medium/big mammals or caprines Small mammals Small mammals (goats) Small mammals (gazelles) Very small animals

Fauna (after L. Shapir, In : Khalaily et al., 2007) 150 806

0%

10%

201

20%

4036

30%

40%

50%

1166

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 12: Frequencies of species used in Motza during early PPNB.

Impact of animal herding: from reticence to adoption of caprines

also differences, especially during late PPNB. Two new types of objects produced in ‘Ain Ghazal-LPPNB are concerned: gazelles were used for very fine pointed tools while caprines were used for objects with a whole articulation (Figure 16-2a). These examples demonstrate a difference in the investment between the two species. Gazelle bones are more transformed than caprine bones. Differentiated treatments are also revealed through the selection of body parts. The choices seem more varied on caprines (metapodials, tibias, ribs) than on gazelles (metapodials) (Figure 16-2b). This confirms a tendency seen as early as the PPNA: on gazelle skeletons, bone tool makers tended to limit their choice to one body part.

During middle PPNB, in Jericho and Abu Gosh, the choices remained the same as before, despite an important change: the increasing number of caprines in the fauna and their possible herding (Figure 13). In particular, bone tool makers persisted in using hunted gazelles rather than goats which were on the way to be domesticated, even though goats are much more numerous in the faunal assemblage (Figure 14). We might expect that the numerous goats, at first glance similar to gazelles, would have replaced them, but this is not observed.

This recalls other Neolithic contexts, for example in Europe. In this region as in the Levant, at the beginning of animal domestication, hunted and domestic animals of an equivalent size2 were used the same way in the bone industry. Later, once animal domestication was more important, and once a clearer distinction may have been made between the wild and the domestic world, they were treated differently (Sénépart 1993; Sidéra 2000). In addition, from this time in Europe, people reduced their use of wild cervids to their antlers (Sénépart 1993). The same is observed for gazelles in Southern Levant. Progressively, bone tool makers limited their choice to gazelle metapodials.

On the contrary, during late PPNB, when animal herding increased, bone tool makers at ‘Ain Ghazal changed their choices. At this time, they preferred domestic caprines to hunted gazelles (Figure 15). According to my identifications, sheep among the caprines, they may have preferred. The increased number of sheep in the herds could therefore explain this important change. During middle and late PPNB, at the three sites mentioned, there are common uses of gazelle and caprine bones. For example, their metapodials were cut in half to make the ubiquitous awls (Figure 16-1). But there are

23

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR

Big mammals Equipment from Abou Gosh

2

2

5

14

2

6 Medium or big mammals 252

Fauna (Ducos and Horwitz, 2003; Horwitz, 2003)

1573

123 861

4571

418

Medium mammals

1213 12 (roe deer)

Medium/big mammals or caprines 132

Fauna from Abou Gosh (Ducos and Horwitz, 2003)

1149

52

626

3164

418

823

Small mammals

9 (roe deer) Small mammals (caprines) Equipment from Jericho

4

1

1

5

2

2

5 Small mammals (gazelles)

Small mammals (roe deer)

3 (roe deer) Fauna from Jericho (Clutton-Brock, 1979)

95

3

117

388

109

64 Very small animals

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 13: Frequencies of species used in Abou Gosh and Jericho during middle PPNB.

Equipment Jericho

1

Equipment Jericho (sample studied by J. Clutton-Brock, 1979)

1

5

2

15

Caprines Goats Fauna Jericho (Clutton-Brock, 1979)

30

343

15

109 Sheep (possibly intrusive after Horwitz and Ducos, 1998) Gazelles

Equipment Abou Gosh

2

Fauna Abou Gosh (Ducos and Horwitz, 2003)

6

380

0%

2784

10%

20%

30%

40%

823

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 14: Frequencies of gazelles’ and goats’ bones in the fauna and in the equipment of Abou Gosh and of Jericho during middle PPNB.

24

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT

Equipment

21

7

45

10

Big mammals

1

Medium or big mammals

Medium mammals

Fauna (Von den Driesch and Wodtke, 1997)

282 313

3237

Medium/big mammals or caprines

410 64

Small mammals

Small mammals (caprines)

Fauna (Wasse, 2000)

39

79

40

458

Small mammals (gazelles)

88

Very small animals

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Equipment (the possible determinations are included)

8

1

Equipment

9

2

9

1

1 Caprines Goats Sheep Gazelles

Fauna (Wasse, 2000)

184

154

Fauna (Von den Driesch and Wodtke, 1997)

120

2812

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

88

323 102

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

410

100%

2 Figure 15: 1) frequencies of species used in ‘Ain Ghazal during late PPNB; 2) frequencies of gazelles’, goats’ and sheep’s bones in the fauna and in the equipment of ‘Ain Ghazal late PPNB.

25

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR 3,5

Tools on gazelles' metapodials Goats' (wild) metapodials

Number of pieces measured

3

Goats' (wild) metapodials (Jericho, PPNB)

2,5

2

1,5

1

0,5

0 50-60

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140

Length (mm)

Figure 17: Lengths of tools made on gazelles’ metapodials in Jericho and Abou Gosh (middle PPNB) compared to lengths of goats’ metapodials (the referential bones come from current wild goats and from Jericho’s wild goats, PPNB).

Another potential criterion is the texture of bones. According to some zoologists (D. Helmer personal communication), the external texture would be smoother and shinier on gazelle bones than on goat bones. Therefore, gazelle bones could have been preferred for aesthetic reasons. A third criterion might also be the density and solidity of bones. We know that during middle PPNB the domestic biological form of goats was not achieved, so there could not be any difference between gazelle and goat bones density in terms of wild versus domestic. But comparison between wild gazelle bones and wild goat bones remains to be made.

Figure 16: Similarities (1) and differences (2) in the use of gazelles’ and caprines’ bones during PPNB. 1) gazelles’ and caprines’ metapodials can be cut in halves to make common awls; 2a) gazelles’ bones can be used to make very fine pointed tools while caprines’ bones can be used to make tools with a whole articulation; 2b) The bones used are more varied on caprines’ skeletons than on gazelles’ ones.

Finally, one cannot eliminate non-material factors to explain the persistent choice of gazelles, such as strength of habit or a symbolic link to the animal. Gazelles played an important symbolic role in the Natufian. In middle PPNB, in Kfar Hahoresh, gazelles still seem to hold an important place. The association of their bones with men’s bodies in tombs (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004) is an indication of this. But is the status of gazelles more important or different from the status of goats? The data collected in Kfar Hahoresh seem to reveal that. An almost complete gazelle skeleton was intentionally buried with a man while the bones of goats are always found isolated in tombs and could simply be intrusive. However, until now this phenomenon has been seen on only one site. It should be checked on others to be confirmed.

Two highlighted phenomena need to be discussed: the persistent use of the rare hunted gazelles instead of the numerous goats at the first stage of domestication during middle PPNB and the adoption of domestic caprines during late PPNB. Most of the material factors that could theoretically explain the first phenomenon were examined. At least three of them could not be eliminated with the data at hand. The first is the length of bones. Though gazelles and goats are both small ruminants, metapodials of gazelles, which are the most frequent type of bones used, are a little bit longer. Gazelles might have been preferred because their bones allowed longer tools to be made. However, this is not obvious on the tools at hand. All the tools made from gazelles at Abu Gosh and Jericho could have been made from goat bones according to their length3 (Figure 17). But one should always keep in mind that the lengths are measured on used tools that may have been intensively rejuvenated.

If this distinction between gazelles and goats is confirmed, would it express an opposition between a wild world and a domestic one?4 We must be careful about ethnocentrism. The frequent opposition in our cultures between the wild world, uncontrolled and far from the familiar and social environment, and the domestic world, controlled by people and included in their intimate space,

26

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT is not universal (Descola 2005). Here are some examples. The Achuar in Amazonia and the inhabitants of Mount Hagen in New Guinea are sedentary or semi-sedentary people who cultivate plants and tame (Amazonia) or raise (New Guinea) animals. Beyond the house and the cultivated gardens, the forest, though it is not controlled by people, is not considered as a wild world. It remains a familiar and socialised space, where people regularly come to negotiate with guardian spirits who give care and food to the plants and animals that live there. For this reason, plants and animals from the forest are not considered as wild but as domesticated (Descola 1993; 2005). Even in societies from East Asia and India, where agriculture and animal herding are more intensive, there is no opposition as clear as in the Occident between a wild and a domestic world (Descola 2005).

Another possible factor might be the growing number of sheep in the herds during late PPNB. If the preferred choice of sheep bones among caprine bones is confirmed, one could think that this change was responsible. But why would sheep be considered as better substitutes for gazelles than goats? Is it because their bones, especially their metapodials, are longer than goat bones and more similar to gazelle metapodial? Again, this is not obvious on the material: all the tools made on sheep bones could have been made on goat elements insofar as their length is concerned (Figure 18). But we must remember the possibility of intensive rejuvenation on measured tools. Density could be another issue that remains to be tested. 6

In the particular context of the Levant, during the Natufian, a distinction in terms of relationships with men seems to be expressed in burials between hunted gazelles and the tamed dog. Only dogs seem to be symbolically linked with people by a similar funerary treatment. The bodies of dogs could be buried entirely, as were the bodies of humans with which they were associated. On the contrary, gazelles are only present as isolated and selected bones (horn corns) in the deposits (Valla 1995; 2003).

Tools on sheeps' metapodials Goats' metapodials (wild) Goats' metapodials (domestic)

Number of pieces measured

5

4

3

2

1

0 50-60

Curiously, during the PPNB in Kfar Hahoresh, goats that may be in “incipient domestication” (Horwitz and Goring-Morris 2004) are buried as isolated bones (cf. above) while there is one example of a hunted gazelle buried as a beheaded body as were many humans at this time. This gazelle is associated with a human modelled skull, as if it completed it. Thus, at this time on this site, gazelles seem to be symbolically linked with humans, as if to compensate the distance created by the less frequent hunting of gazelles and the start of caprine domestication. It is strange that during PPNB the treatment of hunted gazelles, rather than that of caprines in “incipient domestication”, resembles the treatment of tamed dogs during Natufian. We face here a complex and interesting change in human/animal relationships that should be thoroughly discussed in the future with more archaeological and ethnographical data.

60-70

70-80

80-90

90-100

100-110

110-120

120-130

130-140

Length (mm)

Figure 18: Lengths of tools made on sheeps’ metapodials in ‘Ain Ghazal (late PPNB) compared to lengths of goats’ metapodials (the referential bones come from current wild and domestic goats and from ‘Ain Ghazal’s wild and domestic goats, PPNB, PPNC and PN).

Conclusions As a conclusion, one should insist on the fact that all the results are tendencies that need to be confirmed on a bigger number of artefacts and sites. However, we know that some of the phenomena observed in Southern Levant are not isolated. During final PPNB and Pottery Neolithic in El Kowm 2 (Northern Levant) (cf. Figure 1), bone tool makers used mainly hunted gazelle bones despite the greater number of domestic caprines in the fauna (Helmer and Stordeur 2000). Then on this site, the phenomenon is the same as the one observed in Southern Levant during middle PPNB: persistent use of hunted animals despite the growing number of domesticated or proto-domesticated ones.

How may we explain the second phenomenon: the adoption of caprines in ‘Ain Ghazal during late PPNB? Could it be because the number of gazelles in the fauna became too low? It is true that their proportion in the fauna was lower during late PPNB than during middle PPNB but the difference is not very great. Then could the adoption of raised caprines at hand instead of hunted gazelles reveal a will to spend less effort in the acquisition of raw materials? This hypothesis is tempting since the tendency to invest less is also seen in the techniques of debitage and standards of production (Le Dosseur 2008).

Now that we have several examples of this phenomenon in the Levant from middle PPNB to Pottery Neolithic, we would like to know at what rate domesticated animals were finally adopted for bone industry. Today, we have one example dating to the late PPNB in ‘Ain Ghazal. We would like to know if this is an epiphenomenon or a

27

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR general trend in Southern Levant in this period. We also wonder when and where this new choice occurs in the Northern Levant. The study of numerous new collections from the whole Levant would help to answer those questions.

Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné), in D. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs (eds.), Science in archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson, 331-358. Boyd, B. 1996. An examination of bone artefacts from the later Epipaleolithic (Natufian) Levant. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

Finally, a discussion about the changing relationships between human and animals was proposed but it is still preliminary. An article by F. Valla (2009), recently issued, gives food for thought on this matter. It would be extremely stimulating to combine and confront his results and discussions with the ones presented here in the future.

Byrd, B. 1989. The Natufian: settlement variability and economics adaptations in the Levant at the end of the Pleistocene. Journal of World Prehistory, 3, 159-197. Campana, D.V. 1991. Bone implements from Hayonim Cave: some relevant issues, in O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, 459-466.

Note 1: A sample of 247 pieces coming from this site was directly studied by us. Note 2: Gazelles and caprines in the Levant.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1979. The mammalian remains from the Jericho Tell. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 45, 135-157.

Note 3: The bone reference collection come from current gazella gazella, current capra aegagrus - as capra were still of the wild morphology in Jericho and Abu Gosh during MPPNB - and MPPNB Capra aegagrus from Jericho.

Colledge, S. 2002. Identifying pre-domestication cultivation in the archaeological record using multivariate analysis: presenting the case of quantification, in R.J.T. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds.), The dawn of farming in the Near East. Berlin, S.E.N.E.P.S.E., 6, 1999, Ex Oriente, 141-152.

Note 4: At this time, on many sites, gazelles were still hunted while goats could be on the way to domestication. Acknowledgements

Davis, S.J.M., Lernau, O. and Pichon, J. 1994. The animal remains: new light on the origin of animal husbandry, in M. Lechevallier and A. Ronen (eds.), Le gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale. Israël, Mémoires et Travaux du C.R.F.J., 8, Association Paléorient, 83-100.

I thank very much F. Valla, H. Khalaily, O. Marder, D. Stordeur, G.O. Rollefson, Z. Kafafi for having given me the chance to study the material from Mallaha, Jericho, Motza, Abu Gosh and ‘Ain Ghazal. I also thank R. Rabinovitch, L.K. Horwitz and D. Helmer to have helped me in the determinations. I warmly thank A. Legrand, N. Goutas and A. Choyke for their advice and corrections. Species determinations were done by me on all the sites directly studied, with the help of the archaeozoogists who I thank very much here (R. Rabinovitch and L.K. Horwitz). The determinations at Jericho were made by D. Stordeur and J. Clutton-Brock.

Descola, P. 1993. Les lances du crépuscules. Relations jivaros, haute Amazonie. Paris, Terre Humaine, Editions Plon. Descola, P. 2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris, Bibliothèque des Sciences Humaines, NRF Editions Gallimard. Ducos, P. and Horwitz, L.K. 2003. Pre Pottery Neolithic B fauna from the Lechevallier excavations at Abu Gosh, in H. Khalaily and O. Marder (eds.), The Neolithic site of Abu Gosh. The 1995 Excavations. Jérusalem, Israel Antiquities Authorities Reports, 19, Israel Antiquities Authority, 103-119.

Gaëlle Le Dosseur CNRS UMR 7041 ArScan « Ethnologie Préhistorique » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l'Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

Edwards, P.C. 1991. Wadi Hammeh 27: an early Natufian site at Pella, Jordan, in O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1, 123-148.

References cited Belfer Cohen, A. 1988. The Natufian settlement at Hayonim Cave. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

28

THE NEOLITHIZATION IN SOUTHERN LEVANT Harrison, D.L. and Bates, P.J.J. 1991. The mammals of Arabia. Sevenoaks, Harrison Zoological Museum Publication, Seconde Edition.

Israël. Paris, Mémoires et Travaux du C.R.F.J., 2, Association Paléorient. Le Dosseur, G. 2008. La place de l’industrie osseuse dans la Néolithisation au Levant Sud. Paléorient 34(1), 59-89.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1997. Proto-élevage, pathologies, and pastoralism: a post mortem of the process of goat domestication, in H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G.O. Rollefson (eds.), The prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, S.E.N.E.P.S.E., 4, Ex Oriente, 557-565.

Lieberman, D.E. 1998. Natufian "sedentism" and the importance of biological data for estimating reduced mobility, in O. Bar Yosef and T.R. Rocek (eds.), Seasonality and sedentism, archaeological perspectives from old and new world sites. Cambridge, Peabody Museum Bulletin 6, Harvard University, 75-92.

Helmer, D. and Stordeur, D. 2000. Les outils en os d'El Kowm 2 caracol : matière sauvage ou domestique? in D. Stordeur (ed.), Une île dans le désert : El Kowm 2 (Néolithique Précéramique, 8000-7500BP, Syrie). Paris, Editions du C.N.R.S, 265-280.

Maréchal, C. 1991. Eléments de parure de la fin du Natoufien : Mallaha niveau I, Jayroud 1, Jayroud 3, Jayroud 9, Abu Hureyra et Mureybet IA, in O. Bar Yosef et F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 1, 589-612.

Horwitz, L.K. 2003. The Neolithic fauna, in H. Khalaily and O. Marder (eds.), The Neolithic site of Abu Gosh. The 1995 Excavations. Jérusalem, Israel Antiquities Authorities Reports, 19, Israel Antiquities Authority, 87101.

Mithen, S., Finlayson, B., Pirie, A., Carruthers, D. and Kennedy, A. 2000. New evidence for economic and technological diversity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A: Wadi Faynan 16. Current Anthropology, 41/4, 655-663.

Horwitz, L.K. and Ducos, P. 1998. An investigation into the origins of domestic sheep in the Southern Levant, in H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz and A.M. Choyke (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East III, Conference of the I.C.A.Z. Groningen, A.R.C. Publication 18, 80-94.

Payne, S. 1969. A metrical distinction between sheep and goat metacarpals, in P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.), The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. London, Duckworth, 295-305.

Horwitz, L.K. and Ducos, P. 2005. Counting cattle: trends in Neolithic Bos frequencies from the Southern Levant. Revue de Paléobiologie (Genève), volume special, 10, 209-224.

Pichon, J. 1983. Parures natoufiennes en os de perdrix. Paléorient, 9/1, 91-98. Pichon, J. 1987. L'avifaune de Mallaha, in J. Bouchud (ed.), La faune du gisement natoufien de Mallaha (Eynan), Israël. Paris, Mémoires et Travaux du C.R.F.J., 4, Association Paléorient, 115-150.

Horwitz, L.K., Tchernov, E., Ducos, P., Becker, C., Von den Driesch, A., Martin, L. And Garrard, A. 1999. Animal domestication in the Southern Levant. Paléorient, 25(2), 63-80.

Pichon, J. 1991. Les oiseaux au Natoufien, avifaune et sédentarité, in O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 1, 371-380.

Horwitz, L.K. and Goring-Morris, N.A. 2004. Animals and ritual during the Levantine PPNB: a case study from the site of Kfar Haroresh, Israel. Anthropozoologica, 39(1), 165-178.

Peters, J., Von den Driesch, A. and Helmer, D. 2005. The upper Euphrates-Tigris basin: cradle of agro-pastoralism, in J.-D.Vigne, J. Peters and D. Helmer (eds.), First steps of animal domestication, new archaeozoological approaches. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the I.C.A.Z., Durham, August 2002. Oxbow Books, 96-124.

Kenyon, K.M. 1981. Excavations at Jericho. London, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Khailaily, H., Bar Yosef, O., Barzilai, O., Boaretto, E., Bocquentin, F., Eirikh-Rose, A., Greenhut, Z., GoringMorris, A.N., Le Dosseur, G., Marder, O., Sapir-Hen, L. and Yizhaq, M. 2007. Excavations at Motza in the Judean Hills and the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B in the Southern Levant. Paléorient, 33(2), 5-37.

Prummel, W. and Frisch, H.G. 1986. A guide for the distinction of species sex and body side in bones of sheep and goat. Journal of Archaeological Science, 13, 567577.

Kratochvil, Z. 1969. Species criteria on the distal section of the tibia in Ovis ammon f. aries and Capra aegagrus f. hircus 1. Acta Veterinaria (Brno), 38, 483-490.

Rollefson, G.O., Simmons, A.H. and Kafafi, Z. 1992. Neolithic cultures at 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology, 19, 443-470.

Lechevallier, M. 1978. Abou Gosh et Beisamoun : deux gisements du VIIème millénaire avant l'ère chrétienne en

29

GAËLLE LE DOSSEUR Rowley-Conwy, P. 1998. Improved separation of Neolithic metapodials of sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) from Arene Candide Cave, Liguria, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 251-258.

Proche-Orient levantin ? In Sens dessus dessous. La recherche du sens en préhistoire. Recueil d'études offert à Jean Leclerc et Claude Masset, Revue archéologique de Picardie, numéro spécial, 21, 205-218.

Sénépart, I. 1993. Quelques remarques à propos de l'exploitation de la faune sauvage dans l'industrie de l'os néolithique du sud-est de la France (Languedoc oriental, basse vallée du Rhône, Provence), in Exploitation des animaux sauvages à travers le temps, XIIIème rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes, IVème colloque international de l'HASRI. Juan les Pins, Editions A.P.D.C.A., 293-301.

Valla, F. 2009. From Eynan (Mallaha) to Netiv Hagdud: developing a new self awareness, in S.L. Kuhn, L.E. Lieberman, R.H. Meadow, M.M. Voigt and H.T. Wright (eds.), Transition in Prehistory, essays in honor of O. Bar Yosef. Oxford and Oakville, Oxbow books, p. 303-324. Valla, F., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Samuelian, N., Bocquentin, F., Rabinovich, R., Bridault, A., Simmons, T., Le Dosseur, G., Rosen, A.M., Dubreuil, L., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. and Belfer-Cohen, A. 2004. Les fouilles de Mallaha en 2000 et 2001 : 3ème rapport préliminaire. Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society, 34, 49-244.

Sidéra, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du rubané au Michelsberg. Gallia Préhistoire, 42, 107-194. Stordeur, D. 1988. Outils et armes en os de Mallaha. Paris, Mémoires et Travaux du C.R.F.J., 6, Association Paléorient.

Valla, F., Khalaily, H., Valladas, H., Kaltnecker, E., Bocquentin, F., Cabellos, T., Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E., Le Dosseur, G., Regev, L., Chu, V., Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., Samuelian, N., Valentin, B., Delerue, S., Poupeau, G., Bridault, A., Rabinovich, R., Simmons, T., Zohar, I., Ashkenazy, S., Delgado Huertas, A., Spiro, B., Mienis, H.K., Rosen, A.M., Porat, N., Belfer-Cohen, A. 2007. Les fouilles de Ain Mallaha (Eynan) de 2003 à 2005 : quatrième rapport préliminaire. Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society, 37, 135-379.

Stordeur, D. 1994. L'industrie osseuse, in M. Lechevallier et A. Ronen (eds.), Le gisement de Hatoula en Judée occidentale, Israël. Paris, Mémoires et Travaux du C.R.F.J., 8, Association Paléorient, 193-210. Stordeur, D. 2000. Jerf el Ahmar et l'émergence du Néolithique au Proche-Orient, in J. Guilaine (ed.), Premiers paysans du monde, Naissance des agricultures. Paris, Editions Errance, 33-60.

Von den Driesch, A. and Wodtke, U. 1997. The fauna of 'Ain Ghazal, a major PPN and early PN settlement in Central Jordan, in H.G.K. Gebel, Z. Kafafi and G.O. Rollefson (eds.), The prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives from 1997. Berlin, S.E.N.E.P.S.E., 4, Ex Oriente, 511-556.

Stordeur, D. et Abbès, F. 2002. Du PPNA au PPNB : mise en lumière d'une phase de transition à Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie). B.S.P.F., 99/ 3, 563-595. Tchernov, E. 1991. Biological evidence for human sedentism in Southwest Asia during the Natufian, in O. Bar Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), The Natufian culture in the Levant. Michigan, Ann Arbor International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 1, 315-340.

Wasse, A.M.R. 2000. The development of goat and sheep herding during the levantine Neolithic. Unpublished PhD Thesis, London University. Wasse, A.M.R. 2002. Final results of an analysis of the sheep and goat bones from 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Levant, 34, 59-82.

Tchernov, E. 1994. An early Neolithic village in the Jordan Valley, Part II: The fauna of Netiv Hagdud. Cambridge, A.S.O.R., Bulletin 44, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Weiss, E., Kislev, M.E. and Hartmann, A. 2006. Autonomous cultivation before domestication. Science, 312, 1608-1610.

Valla, F. 1995. L'animal "bon à penser" : la domestication et la place de l'homme dans la nature, in M. Otte (ed.), Nature et culture, Colloque de Liège, 13-17 décembre 1993, Liège. E.R.A.U.L, 68, 649-665.

Willcox, G. 2002. Geographical variation in major cereal components and evidence for independent domestication events in the Western Asia, in R. T. J. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds.), The dawn of farming in the Near East.Studies in Near Eastern. Berlin, Production, Subsistence and Environment 6, Ex Oriente, 133-140.

Valla F. 1998. The first settled societies - Natufian (12500-10200 BP), in Levy T.E. (ed.), The archaeology of society in the Holy Land. London and Washington, Leicester University Press, 170-187. Valla, F. 2003. Une urgence : donner du sens. Des sacrifices dans le Natoufien et l'Horizon PPNA du

30

Worked Bone, Tooth and Antler Objects from the Early Neolithic Site of Asparn/Zaya-Schletz (Lower Austria) Daniela FEHLMANN University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Abstract Systematic excavations at Asparn/Zaya and Schletz (Lower Austria) conducted by the Lower Austrian Department of Prehistory (NÖLM) started in 1983 and ended in summer 2005. A fortified settlement from the end of the Linear Pottery Culture was recovered. Two oval fortification ditches run parallel to each other, filled with a mixture of late Notenkopf and early Zseliz pottery. The third ditch, which appears to be the oldest, is filled with linear ornamented pottery as well as Notenkopf pottery. A total of 147 worked bone, antler, and tooth artefacts were recovered and studied. The majority of the industry can be attributed to the layers and features that contained early Neolithic pottery (132 objects), but because the site was also occupied in the early Bronze Age and Migration Period, some of the bone implements belong to these periods. These antler, bone, and tooth objects were studied, described, and drawn in my thesis (http://othes.univie.ac.at/1949/). In this paper I will provide an overview of the typical early Neolithic objects found, focusing on raw material selection, typological classification, and the description of the worked bone, tooth, and antler objects, which are represented as graphics. Introduction

with loess soils of the highest quality.

The Neolithic site of Asparn/Zaya and Schletz in Lower Austria is a fortified settlement from the end of the linear pottery culture (LBK). It is located 35km west of the border with Slovakia and 23km south of the border with Moravia (Figure 1).

Agricultural activities brought linear pottery to the surface, and in 1983 an aerial photograph was taken, which shows oval fortification ditches (Windl 1982, 49). Systematic excavations at Asparn/Zaya and Schletz, conducted by H. Windl as the head of the Lower Austrian Department of Prehistory (NÖLM), started in 1983 and ended in summer 2005. The excavation campaigns

This is one of the driest and warmest regions of Austria,

Figure 1: Map of the geographic location of the site of Asparn/Zaya-Schletz in the northeast of Austria.

31

DANIELA FEHLMANN explored 37 trenches with a total area of 23.583m² (Figure 2).

Worked bone, tooth and antler industry Bone objects were evenly distributed across the site, with no special concentrations of bone, tooth, or antler artefacts. The preservation of the bones is reasonably good because the settlement is located on loess sediment with a high level of chalk. In some cases it was possible to study manufacturing traces and use wear, which help us determine the probable function and purpose of the objects. In other cases the surface is corroded and fabrication traces are invisible.

A fortified settlement from the end of the Linear Pottery Culture was recovered, with two oval fortification ditches that run parallel to each other, filled with a mixture of late Notenkopf and early Zseliz pottery; the third ditch, which appears to be the oldest (Windl 1996, 10), was filled with only linear ornamented pottery as well as Notenkopf pottery. Inside the fortified area there are remains of several LBK features as well as buildings (LBK longhouses) arranged in NE-SW direction.

The choice of raw material Most people may know that large numbers of human bones were found at the base of the fortification ditches; these were considered evidence of an abrupt end of the Early Neolithic settlement (Teschler-Nicola et al. 1996). With help of AMS measurements, performed at VERA, these human bones were dated 6175 - 6025 BP (uncalibrated; or about 5260 - 5060 BC calibrated), whereas 14C ages of human bone samples of four graves, uncovered in the settlement range from 6235 + 40 BP (calibrated: 5310 BC) to 6165 + 35 BP (calibrated: 5260 BC; Wild et al. 2004, 382).

Bone and antler implements attributed to the Linear Pottery Culture are represented in different numbers; there are 105 tools and objects made of bone –80% of all artefacts. Tooth and antler were less numerous categories with only 7 and 8 items. Twelve items could not be identified; they were made of either bone or antler. The raw material used to produce bone implements was mainly derived from domestic food animals like sheep, goats, and cattle. Wild species are encountered in small

Figure 2: Asparn/Zaya-Schletz. General map of the excavated trenches – an overview; with fortification ditches, drawn after magnetic prospecting (by D. Fehlmann).

32

WORKED BONE, TOOTH AND ANTLER OBJECTS FROM THE EARLY NEOLITHIC SITE OF ASPARN/ZAYA-SCHLETZ numbers. Nine artefacts were made of red deer (Cervus elaphus; antler and red deer canine beads). Other taxa, such as hare (Lepus europeus), dog, perhaps roe deer, and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were also used to manufacture artefacts (Table 1). It is not clear whether aurochs bone was used in tool production.

As in most settlements of the linear pottery culture, people mainly used the animals that were eaten: sheep, goats, and cattle. Hunting was not an important subsistence activity (Benecke 2001, 39-56; Döhle 2005, 275) and the rate of use of wild animal bones to produce domestic tools is low but stable (Sidéra 2001, 222).

Most of the large faunal assemblage remains to be studied. However, we can compare the worked bone assemblage with the faunal material from trench 20, which has been analysed (Figure 3). Pig is much more common in the unworked osseous material, while the frequency and distribution of other species represented seem to be more or less equal to those represented by the tool group.

Type of species

Number of pieces

Percent

OC

44

33.3

small ruminants

7

5.3

sheep

3

2.3

cattle

25

18.9

cattle-sized animals

6

4.5

pig

2

1.5

red deer

9

6.8

dog

2

1.5

hare

6

4.5

28

21.2

132

100

unidentified TOTAL

Tools made from domestic animal bones Metapodial-points Metapodial-points are most common in the assemblage (55 items). Usually they were made from the metatarsus of Caprinae (goat or sheep) that were first split along the sulcus and then sharpened at one end. There was no item that could be identified as a metatarsus of roe deer, but it is possible that it was used too. Marks of handling polish noted on most of the implements indicate their long use. A little less than half of the metapodial-points have an open epiphysis and were made out of subadult animals (12 out of 26 unfragmented items). The length of the metapodial points varies between 43 and 101mm (Ø 72.5mm, Figure 4). The small length of the awls is generally due to continuous resharpening. Either the point was resharpened by grinding on sandstone (Figure 5-2) or with a flint tool (Figure 5-1). A reworked metapodial point shows no evidence of polishing and fresh traces at the working end, while the surface on the rest of the tool is highly polished with manufacture-traces nearly invisible.

Table 1: Asparn-Schletz, LBK. Distribution of animal species within the worked bone, antler and tooth assemblage (OC = Ovicaprinae = sheep or goat). The identification of the bone tools from the point of view of the animal species has been kindly provided by G. K. Kunst.

The appearance of a point with a red dyed working end (obj. 10428) is also worth considering, even if the

Figure 3: Frequencies of animal-species (unworked faunal material), Asparn/Zaya-Schletz (TRENCH 20) (after Kanelutti 1996).

33

DANIELA FEHLMANN coloration might be due to special chemical influences while the object was lying in the ground.

The interpretation of the function of metapodial points is still an open question. It’s difficult to characterize the expected wear on these tools because the manner of their use is variable. Most items show a smoothed naturally polished surface as a result of the work that was done with it. Metapodial points could have been used as manipulators in weaving and basketry or may have been twisted in the manner of a perforator. However, concentric scratches of that type were never observed. There are no striations indicating movements or rotating motions. The points appear in funeral context. We know them from the German graves, specially the necropolis of Aiterhofen (Nieszery 1995), where they seem to be associated with male graves more often than with females. At Asparn-Schletz most of the points were found as settlement waste in pits and ditches; one item was found in grave 19.

Figure 4: Length of the metapodial-points.

Other points Within the point category, comprising about 50% of all objects, there are ulna points (three items) that were made from the ulna of cattle, as well as other points, made from the compacta of long bones. Rib objects The repertory of discoveries from Asparn-Schletz also includes rib objects. These could be subdivided into spatulae and rib scrapers.

Figure 5: Reworked metapodial-points; 1) point 2398 was recarved with a flint tool, photography is accomplished using a stereo-microscope and SEM (VIAS); 2) reworked through new abrasion (obj. 7247).

Spatulae are thin, flat implements with two different modified working ends. Therefore the ribs were first split in two parts or the two edges were removed, so that the ventral and dorsal side of the rib fall apart. One such part with spongiosa on one side and compacta on the other was finished by smoothing of the implement on sandstone to remove the sharp splinters. Abrasion was also used to form the working end, which could be rounded; some tools have a pointed or square end. All 17 implements from the site of Asparn-Schletz are just fragmentary, so it is not possible to say which kinds of ends were usually combined. It seems that spatulae were usually obtained from cattle ribs.

There are different ways of manufacturing the medapodial points (Figure 6). The most common is method one, where the metapodial is split in two parts without preceding abrasion. On some objects an incision (“integral grooving”), made with a flint blade can be observed. The splitting itself was very easily done, followed by some slight smoothing of the implement on sandstone to remove the sharp splinters resulting from splitting. Abrasion was used to form the point. In method two abrasion was used first. After grinding both faces (the palmar and ventral side of the metapodial) on sandstone, the bone was halved. As a last step, the working end was abraded on sandstone. Method two is verified through some half-finished objects. There are several metapodial points that show a very high level of abrasion. This could be a third method where the distal epiphysis was reduced or modified as well. The points have flat cross sections and are worked all over.

Considering the thickness of the objects (0.2 – 0.4cm) it is unlikely that these tools were used under significant pressure. Some of the objects still display a highly polished surface, the polish being very bright and smooth. This suggests that these tools could have been used as polishers. They were probably used in pottery manufacture, to finish the vessel surface or to draw the lines on the surface of the linear pottery.

One point was found where the tool is made of the proximal side of the medapodial.

Two items were found that could be identified as rib scrapers. These were obtained from cattle ribs, too, but to

34

WORKED BONE, TOOTH AND ANTLER OBJECTS FROM THE EARLY NEOLITHIC SITE OF ASPARN/ZAYA-SCHLETZ

Figure 6: Manufacturing processes Asparn-Schletz, after Sidéra 2005, 86 (adapted by D. Fehlmann).

Another object (Figure 8-3) was carved out of a cow’s scapula. It shows a perforation at the tapering end. Because of the bad condition of the surface there are no traces left. Comparable objects were found in Roztoky, a site of linear pottery culture near Prague (Object 287; Rulf 1984) as well as Herxheim (but this implement was made of compacta of long bone; Haack 2001-02, Tafel 35/169). It’s possible that there are links to the Balkan spoons from the Protovinča-period, which were made from flat bones (e.g.: Szarvas 23, Hungary; Makkay 1990, Figure 4-1, 4-2. / Karanovo III, north, Bulgaria; Hiller and Nikolov 1977, Tafel 71/1-4; Hiller and Nikolov 2005, Tafel 195/1,2). Objects made of long bone

Figure 7: Obj. 541.5, rib scraper with traces of abrasion at the working end.

In two cases the diaphysis of a femur was used to make a kind of tube.

produce rib scraper the ribs were not split so these tools are more solid. The scraping end was formed by abrasion on sandstone (Figure 7).

One item was made of the femur of sheep or goat, the other one from the femur of a dog.

Other implements made of rib and flat bones include shovel-like objects. There are two implements (Figure 81, 8-2) that are made in the same way as the spatulae – from split ribs – but they have one end that is small and one that is wide and rounded.

The diaphysis was separated from the epiphyses and the long bone was completely hollowed out by removing the spongy substance of bone.

35

DANIELA FEHLMANN The compact bone was reduced to a few millimetres by grinding and smoothing on sand stone. The tubes have straight edges at each side; the surface is polished from use, but traces from abrasion can still be found at the distal and proximal ends.

one stick with a two-prong end was found, too (Haack 2001, 266). There are different interpretations given. N. Nieszery says it is possible that the sticks are part of the belt or perhaps an ornament (Nieszery 1995, 196). It is also possible that the sticks were used to make the so called “Notenkopf” impressions in the surface of the pottery, which are the same size as the end of the sticks.

Similar tubes were found at the linear pottery sites of Herxheim (Haack 2001/02, Tafel 42/199) and BadNauheim, Nieder-Mörlen (Hüser 2005, Tafel 20/192); Mannheim-Wallstadt-Käfertaler Str. (Lindig 2002, Taf. 84/97); Hilzingen, “Forsterbahnried” (pit 348; Fritsch 1998, Taf. 28/7) as well as Berry-au-Bac (grave 586 “Vieux Tordoir”; Sidéra 2000, fig. 29/16). The function and purpose of the object is unclear. Because of two incisions or break outs on the edge, the object from Bad Nauheim, which was made of the ulna of a greylag goose, was interpreted as a kind of bead. Such notches could not be found at the two objects from Asparn-Schletz. Implements of that shape could be used in many ways – e. g. as a box to carry needles or flakes of flint.

Figure 9: Obj. 1415: working end (8.5x).

Pendants and amulets – ornaments made from hunted animals Barely worked pendants, only perforated at the distal end, were made of the fifth metatarsal of hare (Lepus europaneus). There were six items found - three well preserved and three fragmented - that were made in the same way. Four out of the six items are from neighbouring pits from the north-western part of the excavated area (section 31); the other two pendants (Figure 10-2, 10-6) were excavated in the southern part of the settlement.

Figure 8: Objects made of rip and flat bone, Asparn-Schletz (drawing: D. Fehlmann).

Three beautiful ivory-coloured sticks found in AsparnSchletz were made of the compacta of bone. They displayed a well preserved, highly polished surface, the polish being very bright and smooth. There are only a few abrasion traces from the manufacturing process left (Figure 9). The objects are measuring 63.5 to 72.7mm in length, with a diameter between 4 and 6.5mm. Similar implements appear in graves of the German necropolis Aiterhofen-Ödmühle (Nieszery 1995, 281, Tafel 34/1,2,3; 274, Tafel 19/3) and Sengkofen (Nieszery 1995, 305, Tafel 66/5), as well as in the settlements of Štúrovo (Slovakia, Pavúk 1994, fig. 53-1) and Herxheim (Germany; Haack 2001-02, Tafel 41/191, 190), where

Figure 10: Perforated Metatarsals V of hare (Lepus europaneus). Asparn/Schletz (drawing: D. Fehlmann).

36

WORKED BONE, TOOTH AND ANTLER OBJECTS FROM THE EARLY NEOLITHIC SITE OF ASPARN/ZAYA-SCHLETZ Similar objects appear in Pulkau (an Austrian site of late linear pottery culture; Trnka 1972, 104; fig. 15) and in the settlement of Vedrovice (Czech Republic; Berkovec, Dreslerová, Nyvltová-Fišáková, Švédová 2004, fig. 7-4), where two items were manufactured from metatarsi of hare, three items from metatarsi of fox (Vulpes vulpes).

graves, discovered, for example, in the necropolis of Aiterhofen-Ödmühle (e.g.: grave 93, Nieszery 1995, Tafel 36/3). In German literature these items are called “Geweihknebel” (Figure 13-1, 13-2).

It seems likely that these objects are typical for late LBK. Hunting-amulets (the usual and most common interpretation for these pendants) still appear in the succeeding cultures; so e. g. in Lengyel-context (in Friebritz (Lower Austria; Neugebauer-Maresch, Neugebauer, Grozschmidt, Randl, Seemann 2002, 230, fig. 15-16: grave 134). The special use of an element of a wild animal – hare in this case – suggests that those people had symbolic or iconographic attitudes toward animals. The pendants themselves perhaps represent a culture-specific symbol, difficult for us to understand today. Figure 11: Propeller-shaped beads, Asparn-Schletz (drawing: D. Fehlmann).

Red deer canine beads and their imitations were encountered in the assemblage from Asparn-Schletz too, including one bead made of a red deer canine and five imitations. Four of them were found in grave 19, in which a boy was buried: Grave goods include a spondylus bangle on the left upper arm, a stone adze, a grindstone, undecorated pottery, flakes of flint, a metapodial point and a necklace with four intact red deer canine bead copies together with spondylus beads. Three propeller-shaped beads were found together in one pit (Figure 11). Even if the beads look unfinished in their shape and there are still traces of the abrasion process to see, all three objects have polished surfaces (Figure 12) and were used for some time. Maybe they were used as buttons or were worn like canine teeth on a necklace or bracelet. Ad hoc tools obtained from the proximal femur of cattle include three items, which were discovered in trench 20. Cut marks under the caput femoris indicate that the bones were from meat consumption. The diaphyses were somehow broken off, perhaps to get the bone marrow out. What is rather unusual is that these items show percussion traces on their separation surface. Perhaps they had suitable working edges for some task and were handy enough to be used. This suggests that among the faunal remains selected, osseous waste was also used for simple tools, as in this case, as hammers, without any modification.

Figure 12: Obj. 599.2c with polished surface.

Another two fragments of barely modified antler tines show working traces at their ends which indicate that the implements may have served as a punch for flint working. Finally, there are three antler tools with a shaft hole, made from the proximal part of the beam. The first item is a kind of tamper, known from several linear pottery sites (Figure 13-3). The one excavated in Asparn-Schletz broke at the perforation. It is a quite commonplace for these objects to break. It was manufactured by cutting or chopping off the bez and the brow tine, then smoothing the surface by grinding on sandstone. The shaft hole was made in a U-shape. The proximal working end, which is formed by the base of the beam (bur) was rounded and smoothed too and shows impacts from battering on the surface. This suggests that these tools could have been used as a hammer (percuteur)

Antler artefacts The worked antler material of Asparn-Schletz includes eight manufactured items that were all made of antler of red deer. It could not be determined whether they are from hunted (animals) or naturally shed. There were two fragments found that belong to a type of object we already know as a traditional item in male

37

DANIELA FEHLMANN

Figure 13: Antler artefacts, Asparn-Schletz (drawing: D. Fehlmann).

or a tamper to stamp soil or food. A well preserved item was found at the linear pottery site of Bad Nauheim. It shows a straight cut end on the opposite side of the tool on which percussion traces could be recognised, as well (Hüser 2005, 45).

As typical for Linear Pottery Culture assemblages, the majority (55) of the artefacts are points made from the metapodia of Caprinae, followed by spatulae that have been prepared from the ribs of large ruminants (17). By comparing the tools from Asparn-Schletz with those from other early Neolithic sites it was possible to classify and interpret many bone objects that were fragmentary.

Another fragmented antler tool with a U-shaped shaft hole (Figure 13-5) shows the following manufacturing traces: the beam was chopped off above (distal) the trez tine. The trez tine was removed in the same way, too. The surface of the item was not smoothed and does not show any traces. The oval shaft hole is on the fragmented proximal side of the antler tool.

Some of the bone, antler, and tooth implements excavated from domestic features – such as pendants and amulets, or the three beautiful compacta sticks – usually appear as part of clothing or grave goods in graves. They are well known – for example from the German necropolis Aiterhofen-Ödmühle, Sengkofen (Nieszery 1995) or Sonderhausen (Kahlke 2004).

An axe with a length of 201mm (Figure 13-4) has a small round perforation with a diameter of 16mm which was probably made by drilling. The working end was formed to a transversal edge by removing some material by grinding, chopping, or cutting at the back face. There are no other traces of manufacturing or use preserved.

Judging from the pottery, the site of Asparn-Schletz has always been open to the south-east (Slovakia, Transdanubia). Like the pottery, some bone artefacts found have parallels in early and middle Neolithic assemblages in Slovakia (e.g. Štúrovo: metapodial and ulna points, implements made of flat bones, compacta sticks), but also appear in German assemblages (e.g. in Herxheim-Rosheim: Haack 2001-2002; Vaihingen/Enz: Sidéra 1998; Bad Nauheim-Nieder-Mörlen: Hüser 2005). The spatial distribution of the most common categories is remarkable. However, regional trends can be observed. Pendants of the fifth metatarsal of hare, of which 5 items were found in Asparn-Schletz, are well known from sites of late Linear Pottery Culture and Lengyel-context in Lower Austria and the Czech Republic (Vedrovice) but do not appear in German assemblages.

Conclusion The excavations of the fortified early Neolithic settlement Asparn/Zaya-Schletz (Notenkopf i.e. Musical Note culture, with influence of early Zseliz), dating to the last third of the 6th millennium BC, have yielded 132 worked bone, antler, and tooth implements. Typologically, the bone artefacts have been subdivided into the following categories: points; rib objects (as spatulae and rib scrapers) and implements made of flat bones; objects made of long bones; pendants and amulets, including red deer canine beads and their imitations; antler artefacts and ad hoc tools.

A development can be traced within the LBK culture: While various antler artefacts (e.g. chisels) are absent in Asparn-Schletz, they appear at sites in the west and

38

WORKED BONE, TOOTH AND ANTLER OBJECTS FROM THE EARLY NEOLITHIC SITE OF ASPARN/ZAYA-SCHLETZ remain typical for middle and late Neolithic assemblages in central Europe.

Hiller, St., Nikolov, V. 1977. Karanovo – Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984 – 1992. österreichischbulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, I.2. Horn/Wien.

Because of the good condition of some bone-implements, it was possible to study manufacturing traces and use wear, allowing us to interpret the probable function and purpose of the objects.

Hiller, St., Nikolov, V. 2005. Karanovo – Die Ausgrabungen im Nordsüd-Schnitt 1993-1999. österreichisch-bulgarische Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Karanovo, IV.2. Wien.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Günther Karl Kunst for taking me to Paris, for assistance and encouragement.

Hüser, A. 2005. Die Knochen- und Geweihartefakte der linearbandkeramischen Siedlung Bad Nauheim-NiederMörlen in der Wetterau. Marburg, Kleine Schriften 55.

Daniela Fehlmann Maierhof 7 A-2172 Schrattenberg Austria [email protected]

Kahlke, H.-D. 2004. Sondershausen und Bruchstedt – Zwei Gräberfelder mit älterer Linienbandkeramik in Thüringen. Weimar, Thüringisches Landesamt für archäologische Denkmalpflege. Kanelutti, E. 1996. Quantitative Verteilung der Tierknochen, in H. Windl (ed.), Rätsel um Gewalt und Tod vor 7.000 Jahren. Asparn/Zaya, 24-25.

References cited

Lindig, S. 2002. Das Früh- und Mittelneolithikum im Neckarmündungsgebiet. Bonn, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 85.

Benecke, N. 2001. Zur Bedeutung der Jagd während der Linienbandkeramik im südöstlichen Mitteleuropa und in Osteuropa, in R.-M. Arbogast, C. Jeunesse, J. Schibler (eds.), Rolle und Bedeutung der Jagd während des Frühneolithikums Mitteleuropas (Linearbandkeramik 5500-4900 c. Chr.). Premières rencontres danubiennes, Strasbourg 20-21 novembre 1996. Internationale Archäologie 1, 39-56.

Makkay, J. 1990. Knochen-, Geweihund Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolithischen KörösKultur. Communicationes Archæologicæ Hungariæ, 2358. Neugebauer-Maresch, Chr., Neugebauer, J. W., Grozschmidt, K., Randl, U., R. Seemann, 2002. Die Gräbergruppe vom Beginn der Bemaltkeramik im Zentrum der Kreisgrabenanlage Friebritz-Süd, Niederösterreich, in A. Krenn-Leeb, J.W. Neugebauer, A. Pedrotti (eds.), Aktuelle Fragen des Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. Trento, Preistoria Alpina 37, 187-253.

Berkovec, T., Dreslerová, G., Nyvltová-Fišáková, M., Švédová, J. 2004. Bone Industry of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) at Vedrovice, Moravia, in A. Lukes, M. Zvelebil (eds.), LBK Dialogues-Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture. Oxford, BAR International Series 1304, 159-176. Döhle, H.-J. 2005. Nachweise wildlebender Säugetiere und Vögel aus bandkeramischen Siedlungen und ihre Eignung als Umweltindikatoren, in J. Lüning and Chr. Frirdich (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jhd- Symbosium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16-19 September 2002. Internationale Archäologie 7, 276-288.

Nieszery, N. 1995. Linienbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Internat. Arch. 16. Pavúk, J. 1994. Štúrovo, Ein Siedlungsplatz der Kultur mit Linearkeramik und der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Nitra. Rulf, J. 1984. Příspěvek k poznání neolitické kostěné Industrie v Čechách (A contribution to the study of Neolithic bone industriy of Bohemia). Archeologické rezhledy, 36, 241-260.

Fritsch, B. 1998. Die linearbandkeramische Siedlung Hilzingen „Forsterbahnried“ und die altneolithische Besiedlung des Hegaus. Rahden/Westfalen. Haack, F. 2001. Knochenstäbchen – Zur Terminologie bandkeramischer Knochengeräte, Archäologie in der Pfalz, Archäologische Denkmalpflege Amt Speyer. Jahresbericht, 266-270.

Sidéra, I. 1998. Die Knochen-, Geweih- und Zahnartefakte aus Vaihingen- Ein Überblick, in R. Krause (ed.), Die bandkeramischen Siedlungsgrabungen bei Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden Württemberg), Ein Vorbericht zu den Ausgrabungen von 1994-1997. Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission, 79, 83-84.

Haack, F. 2001-2002. Die bandkeramischen Knochen-, Geweih- und Zahnartefakte aus den Siedlungen Herxheim (Rheinland-Pfalz) und Rosheim (Alsace). Magisterarbeit, Freiburg i. Br.

39

DANIELA FEHLMANN Sidéra, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du rubané au Michelsberg : De l´économie aux symboles, des techniques à la culture. Gallia Préhistoire, 42, 107-194. Sidéra, I. 2001. Domestic and Funerary Bone, antler and tooth objects in the Neolithic of Western Europe, a comparison, in A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 221-229. Teschler-Nicola, M. et al. 1996. Anthropologische Spurensicherung- Die traumatischen und postmortalen Veränderungen an den linearbandkeramischen Skelettresten von Asparn/Schletz. Archäologie Österreichs, 7/1, 4-12. Trnka, G. 1972. Siedlungsreste der jüngeren Linearbandkeramik aus Pulkau, p. B. Hollabrunn, Niederösterreich. Archaeologia Austriaca, 63, 53-110. Wild, E. et al. 2004. Neolithic Massacres: Local skirmishes or general warfare in Europe? Radiocarbon, 46/1, 377 – 385. Windl, H. J. 1982. Fenster zur Urzeit, Luftbildarchäologie in Niederösterreich, Katalog der NÖLM N. F. 117, Asparn/Zaya. Windl, H. J. 1996. Rätsel um Gewalt und Tod vor 7.000 Jahren - Eine Spurensicherung, Katalog der NÖLM N. F. 393, Asparn/Zaya.

40

Bone Artefacts from the Neolithic and Medieval Site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét (Northern Hungary) Erika GÁL Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Abstract In this paper, the author presents Middle and Late Neolithic as well as Early Medieval bone artefacts from the recently excavated site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét in Northern Hungary. Points carved out from the metapodiae of small ruminants by the “groove and splinter” technique made up the majority of the Middle Neolithic tool assemblage. Other types of artefacts and objects made from antler and pig tusk were found in small numbers. The medieval points were made from dog tibiae. In spite of the modest size of this tool assemblage, the implements presented bring new information to our knowledge about Middle Neolithic objects and bone crafting in Northern Hungary. Nevertheless, it is likely that there was a change in the economic life of the inhabitants during the Neolithic. While the bones of sheep and goat predominated in the Middle Neolithic assemblages, cattle looks to have been the most important species in the Late Neolithic. Bones from cattle and small ruminants were equally well represented in the medieval assemblage. It has to be emphasised, however, that the mentioned deposits contained only 137 to 288 identified bones each.

Introduction The multi-period site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét is located in Northern Hungary, near the modern border of Hungary with Slovakia (Figure 1). Rescue excavations preceding the placing of drain pipes in the locality were carried out by Gábor Bácsmegi in 2002. The excavations went down to 1.5m deep, and unearthed a number of archaeological deposits dated to different periods. The remains from the Middle Neolithic features included traces of the Zseliz culture and the Music Note (Notenkopf) group of the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture dated to 5330-4940 BC cal. The Late Neolithic finds were assigned to the Lengyel culture and their age corresponded to 4970-4380 BC cal. In addition to the Neolithic deposits, the remains of an early medieval (Árpád Period; 10th-11th century) settlement were found (Bácsmegi 2002).

In addition to the bones representing food remains, 24 artefacts made from the antler of red deer (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus 1758) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus Linnaeus 1758), as well as bone and tusk were also found. The majority of them (22 specimens) originate from the Middle Neolithic deposit. One tool was found in the Middle Neolithic assemblage, while two points made from dog tibiae (Canis familiaris Linnaeus 1758) came from the ruins of the medieval settlement (Table 1). Since most of the implements under study dated back to the Neolithic, I used Jörg Schibler’s work developed for the Neolithic bone tools assemblage from the dwelling deposits of Twann in Switzerland (Schibler 1981) when grouping them from a typological point of view. His categories of tip shapes and cross-sections were also applied, referring to these traits as “Form”: shape/cross-section, as in Schibler’s publication (Schibler 1981, 16-18, figs. 3-7).

The majority of animal bones (85%) were collected from Neolithic features. Only 168 remains were found at the medieval settlement. Out of the 1123 animal bone remains collected from the whole site, 899 could be identified to at least the level of genus. According to the analysis of the assemblage, the meat provision at Karancsság was based on the four primary domestic species: cattle (Bos taurus Linnaeus 1758), sheep (Ovis aries Linnaeus 1758) and goat (Capra hircus Linnaeus 1758), and pig (Sus domesticus Erxleben 1777).

Figure 1: The location of the multiperiod site of Karancsság–Alsó-rét.

41

ERIKA GÁL Type of tool (Schibler's typology) Small ruminant point (Type 1/1) Large point without articular end (Type 1/9) Rib point (Type 1/13) Rib amulet Rib tool Bird long bone tube (Type 27) Pig tusk scraper Antler tool Dog tibia point Total

Middle Neolithic 12

Late Neolithic

Early Medieval

1 1 2 1 1 1 2

1

21

1

2 2

Table 1: Summarising table including the tools identified from the site of Karancsság–Alsó-rét.

In spite of the small size of the sample under study, the worked bones represented a variety of tools. Besides the special feature of certain specimens, this assemblage was also worth analysing because of our poor knowledge about Middle Neolithic bone tools from Hungary, and generally, bone tools from Northern-Hungary. Description of tools Middle Neolithic specimens Antler chisel-point The chisel-point made from the antler of roe deer (Figure 2) was found in the Zseliz culture Feature 75. The tops of tines of the antler, cut off from the skull, show marks of polishing. The top of the main tine was rounded, flattened and presents three smooth edges suggesting its use in chiselling. The top of the smaller tine is naturally pointed, but also shows working marks. The lower (proximal) half of the antler is heavily hand-polished. The greatest length of the tool is 133.8mm. The greatest breadth is 40.6mm, while the greatest depth is 20.5mm.

Figure 2: Chisel-point with polished edge and point made from roe deer antler.

One of the best preserved objects (Figure 3a) was found in the Zseliz culture Feature 75. It was made from the metacarpus of an adult sheep or goat. In addition to the common “groove and splinter” technique described in a number of papers (e.g. Camps-Fabrer and D'Anna 1977), another step in processing was added. Namely, not only was the diaphysis of the metacarpus ground, but the natural form of the distal epiphysis, serving as the handle of point, was also flat-polished. Consequently, the cross section of the handle of the point resembles a square or rectangle, depending on the depth of the epiphysis, which is greater in metatarsi and smaller in metacarpi.

Antler tool-fragment A fragment of red deer antler was found in the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) Feature 37. The tool-fragment had been broken on both ends and was poorly preserved. Hand polish and the remains of a smooth surface on the narrower end of the fragment points to its use as a tool, which was used for a relatively long time. The fragment is 80.7mm long; its greatest breadth is 29.5mm, its greatest depth is 25.8mm. Small ruminant metapodial points (Schibler Type 1/1) The Middle Neolithic deposit yielded 12 points and point-fragments made from the metapodiae of small ruminants, most possibly Caprinae. They were carved out from the skeletal parts of young and adult animals alike. Four points were completely preserved, while the others more or less damaged.

According to the regular shape and grinding marks, much energy was invested in designing this object. The smooth surfaces including the edges and its relatively small size indicate its long term use and occasional curation. The top of the point is well preserved, featuring Form 2/1. The whole length of the implement is 68.5mm, the greatest breadth is 11.0mm, and the greatest depth is 9.0mm. The width 5mm below the tip is 3.8mm, the working tip is 6.2mm long.

42

BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND MEDIEVAL SITE OF KARANCSSÁG Another well-preserved metapodial point was found in the same feature. According to the incompletely ossified proximal epiphysis, this tool was carved out from the metacarpus of a lamb (Figure 3b). The piece, including the handle, was designed with much care, and abandoned before long term use. The top, belonging to Form 2/4, is in excellent condition, and it does not indicate curation. The complete length of the point is 86.4mm, the greatest breadth is 10.0mm, and the greatest depth is 10.0mm. The width 5mm below the tip is 2.9mm, the working tip is 7.6mm long.

Large point without articular end (Schibler Type 1/9) This straight narrow point (Figure 4) was found in the Zseliz culture Feature 75. It had been carved out from the diaphysis of a long bone (possibly metapodium) from large ruminant. The base of the tool is rounded, the top also shows long-term use-marks, but is well preserved. The greatest length of the point is 141.3mm; the greatest breadth is 10.0mm, while the greatest depth is 7.7mm. The top belongs to Form 4/7.

The third specimen worth mentioning was found in the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) Feature 37. This point was also made from the metacarpus of a lamb (Figure 3c). Contrary to the aforementioned two points, the dorso-plantar surface of the bone exhibits rough transversal grinding marks. Only the lateral surface and the working tip of the point are polished. The very end of the tip is slightly nicked, but it could be assigned to Form 12/1. The complete length of the point is 78.2mm, the greatest breadth is 9.2mm, and the greatest depth is 6.4mm. The width 5mm below the tip is 2.5mm, while the length of the working tip is 15.3mm.

Figure 4: Long point (Schibler Type 1/9) made from the diaphysis of long bone from large mammal.

Rib point-fragment (Schibler Type 1/13) The point made from a split rib of a large ruminant was found in a Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) feature. The piece is broken on both ends, but its shape clearly refers to a point (Figure 5a). The cortical surface and the edges are smooth, indicating the intensive – and possibly long-term – use of the tool. The greatest length of the fragment is 79.4mm, the greatest breadth is 17.8mm, and the greatest depth is 3.0mm.

The shortest complete metapodial point (Figure 3d) originates from the Zseliz culture Feature 75. An undeveloped sheep or goat yielded the skeletal part. The implement was carefully designed in its early life, but used for a long time. It has been abandoned or lost in good condition after subsequent curation. The top of point is well preserved and belongs to Form 2/1. The complete length of the point is 60.92mm, the greatest breadth is 11.0mm, and the greatest depth is 8.3mm. The width 5mm below the tip is 2.8mm, while the length of the working tip is 6.0mm.

Rib amulets This cornered artefact (Figure 5b) was also found in a Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) feature. Both the cortical and the spongy surface and the edges of the split rib fragment were highly polished. Other manufacture or working traces cannot be observed. The object presents some hand-polish. Its greatest length is 74.4mm, the greatest breadth is 24.2mm, while the greatest depth is 2.6mm.

The main characteristics of the other (fragmented) metapodial points are summarized in Table 2.

A fragment of a similar object was found in the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) Feature 37. A section of the polished edge and the smooth cortical surface would suggest that it was the beginning of an amulet. Since the spongy surface of the split rib fragment is only partially polished, it is likely that the piece broke during the proceeding, and was therefore abandoned. The greatest length of the object is 63.9mm, the greatest breadth is 15.4mm, and the greatest depth is 2.7mm.

Figure 3: Small ruminant metapodial points(Schibler Type 1/1) with quadrilateral handles. Figure 5: a) Rib point; b) amulet.

43

ERIKA GÁL Preservation Complete Complete Complete Complete Nicked point Handle-fragment Fragment Fragment Fragment Fragment Top-fragment Top-fragment

Base 32 1 32 2 32 32 11 11 11 11 11 11

Form 2/4 12/1 2/1 2/1

2/1 2/1 2/4 2/1

GL 86.4 78.2 68.5 60.9 86.8 42.4 74.0 66.4 54.1 36.2 58.7 23.1

GB 10.0 9.2 11.0 11.0 13.2 9.8 7.3 11.0 8.4 7.1 9.7 7.4

GD 10.0 6.4 9.0 8.3 9.6 8.1 6.0 4.5 6.5 3.1 6.5 3.8

LMF 7.6 15.3 6.2 6.0

GSB 2.9 2.5 3.8 2.8

7.9

2.2

Profile I III I I I III I I I III II I

Feature 75 37 75 75 75 37 75 75 75 37 unknown 75

Age Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic

Culture Zseliz TLPC - Music Note Zseliz Zseliz TLPC - Music Note TLPC - Music Note Zseliz Zseliz Zseliz TLPC - Music Note TLPC - Music Note Zseliz

Table 2: Table summarising the characteristics of small ruminant metapodial points.

The greatest length of the object is 65.2mm, the greatest breadth is 15.7mm, and the greatest depth is 3.1mm.

Rib tool-fragment Another rib tool-fragment was found in the Zseliz culture Feature 42. The base of the tool was broken and the top is slightly rounded. The cortical surface and the edges are slightly smooth. The spongy surface does not show any modification. It is likely that the tool was abandoned after its breakage. The greatest length of the fragment is 41.5mm, the greatest breadth is 18.1mm, and the greatest depth is 4.0mm Bird long bone tube (Schibler Type 27) This fine object (Figure 6) was found in the Zseliz culture Feature 42. The tube was carved out from the diaphysis of an ulna from a goose. Both the size of the skeletal part and the occurrence of goose species in Hungary suggest that the grey-lag goose (Anser anser Linnaeus 1758) yielded this specimen. The tube was cut off by straight cut marks, and the edges were slightly rounded and polished. The object itself was both longitudinally and transversally polished. The smooth texture indicated that it was employed for a long time. According to its size, shape and use marks, it is likely that the tube was part of a combined implement such as a panpipe, or used as a bone case closed with wooden or reed cork. The greatest length of the object is 72.4mm, the greatest breadth is 10.5mm, and the greatest depth is 9.1mm

Figure 7: Wild boar tusk scraper.

Late Neolithic specimen Rib point-fragment (Schibler Type 1/13) The single Late Neolithic bone artefact was found in the Lengyel culture Feature 63. It most probably represents a fragment of a rib point made from a split fragment of rib from large ruminant. Both ends of the object were broken. The cortical surface and the edges are polished; the spongy surface was not modified. The greatest length of the object is 36.7mm, the greatest breadth is 16.5mm, and the greatest depth is 3.8mm

Figure 6: Bird bone tube made from the diaphysis of ulna from (possible grey-leg) goose.

Pig tusk scraper-fragment The fragment of the right side lower tusk (Figure 7) was found in the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture (Music Note group) Feature 37. The size of the fragment suggests that a male wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus 1758) yielded this specimen. The aboral end is broken. According to the frequent thin transversal marks on most of the buccal surface (including the edges) of the tusk, flint used to be grinded on this object. The lingual surface of the tusk does not show any manufacture or use marks.

Medieval specimens Dog tibia points (Schibler Type 1/3 and 1/8) A complete point and a point fragment carved out from dog tibiae were found in the bone deposit of the early medieval settlement of Karancsság (Figure 8). Both

44

BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND MEDIEVAL SITE OF KARANCSSÁG specimens had been similarly designed; the distal epiphyses of the tibiae served as the handles of points. The base is missing in the damaged specimen, and it has been longitudinally broken in half. Both points are smooth and show high hand-polish. The tops are sharp and well preserved.

The majority of implements from Karancsság were found in Feature 37 and Feature 75. Both of them were rather large pits, most probably dug near houses (personal communication Gábor Bácsmegi). Archaeological finds coming Feature 37 have been identified as belonging to the Music Note group of the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture. An amulet-fragment, three metapodial points, the tusk scraper and the unfinished antler tool were found in this pit. Feature 75, assigned to Zseliz culture deposits, yielded four metapodial points, the large point and the antler tool from roe deer.

The top of the complete specimen belongs to Form 3/1. The greatest length of the point is 93.5mm, the greatest breadth (which is the depth of the distal epiphysis of tibia) is 15.2mm, and the greatest depth is 19.5mm. The width 5mm below the tip is 3.8mm, while the length of the working tip is 4.6mm. The top of the broken specimen belongs to Form 3/2. The greatest length of the fragment is 93.2mm, the greatest breadth is 12.5mm, while the greatest depth is 7.6mm. The width 5 mm below the tip is 4.5mm, while the length of the working tip is 6.9mm.

With a total of 22, tools represented less than 4% of the animal bone assemblage found in Middle Neolithic deposit. In spite of the small sample, various types of implements could be recognized. The majority (12) of the artefacts represent points made from the metapodiae of small ruminants. Although roe deer was identified from five skeletal parts – including the antler tool under study – it is likely that sheep and goat yielded the metapodial points. These two species yielded 45% of the Middle Neolithic bone deposit, suggesting the importance of Caprinae in the economic life of the inhabitants settled at Karancsság. This frequency of sheep and goat remains in Middle Neolithic deposits is not common. Contrary to the overwhelming dominance of these two species during the Early Neolithic in Hungary, cattle seemed to have taken the leading place of Caprinae since the Middle Neolithic both in Northeastern Hungary (Gál 2005, 164, tabl. 2) and in the rest of the Carpathian Basin (Bartosiewicz 2005, 51-52, tabl. 6.1). Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that the remains of sheep and goat were the also most frequent at the Middle Neolithic site of Tiszavasvári – Deákhalmi-dűlő, about 200km east of Karancsság (cf. Figure 1). Interestingly enough, however, none of the few bone tools (already listed at the beginning of this chapter) were made from the skeletal parts of Caprinae at this settlement (Vörös 1994).

Figure 8: Points made from dog tibiae.

Both undeveloped and adult sheep and/or goat provided raw material for the metapodial points found at Karancsság (cf. Table 2). Half of the 74 aged Caprinae bones from the whole Middle Neolithic deposit belonged to fully developed individuals, while the rest of remains originated from lambs and subadult sheep and goat. The presence of all age categories, including newborn specimens, indicated that the settlement was inhabited year-round. Evidence of curation and hand-polish noted on most of the metapodial points suggested their longterm use. Two points, relatively well preserved and of large size, looked like they had been abandoned or lost shortly after their manufacture.

Discussion The total of 22 antler, bone and tusk tools collected from the Middle Neolithic features of the site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét represent not only the largest, but also the most interesting, part of the tool assemblage under study. Contrary to the well represented and thoroughly studied Early Neolithic (Körös culture) worked bones from a number of sites located on the Great Hungarian Plain (Choyke 2007; Makkay 1990), little is known about bone manufacture during the Middle Neolithic. The Alföld Linear Pottery culture site of Tiszavasvári – Deákhalmidűlő located in North-eastern Hungary (cf. Figure 1) yielded only six bone tools; five polishers made from cattle ribs and a polisher made the metapodium of wild horse (Equus gmelini Antonius 1912). The latter has been considered as having been used in leather processing rather than as a net-weight or a runner (Vörös 1994).

Metapodial points made from the skeletal parts of Caprinae were rather frequent and well distributed all over Europe during the Neolithic. Less common, but also well distributed, were the metapodial points with flat (quadrilateral shaped) handles. They have been identified

45

ERIKA GÁL from bone deposits throughout the Neolithic, beginning by its earliest phase, from Eastern, Southern and Western Europe alike. According to the younger specimens, this type of metapodial points survived as late as the Early Chalcolithic (Gál 2010, fig. 14).

A single instrument from the assemblage under study was carved out from avian skeletal part. It is likely that represents the oldest bird bone tube found in Hungary. Similar, but longer pipes cut off from ulnae were usually drilled and formed into music instruments in the Period of Migrations and Middle Ages in the Carpathian Basin (Gál 2005b). During the same archaeological period many pipes are found in Great Britain. As referred to in one of the publications dealing with short bird bone tubes, similar to the specimen from Karancsság, these short, straight and high-polished pieces may have simply served as a case, or may have been a part of a more complex implement, such as a panpipe (MacGregor et al. 1999, 1977, fig. 934).

Large ruminants yielded five rib-tools and a large point at Karancsság. Split ribs were fashioned to points and other kinds of tools, some of which could not be precisely identified because of their bad preservation. Two quadrilateral artefacts have been assigned to amulets due to their special shape and polished faces. It is likely that their smooth surface resulted from hand-polish or/and contact with another soft material such as a leather case. The only Middle Neolithic settlement, Tiszavasvári – Deákhalmi-dűlő, from which bone tools have been so far published, mostly yielded rib tools. They have been described as rib-polishers, and all five specimens were found broken. Although they were not illustrated, it is likely that those fragments represented ad-hoc tools, and had been less carefully designed than the pieces found at Karancsság (Vörös 1994, 173).

The bone tools from Karancsság bring new data to our knowledge about bone manufacture in the Carpathian Basin not only from a chronological, but also a regional point of view. The bone artefacts published thus far from North Hungary included various artefacts originating from Iron Age features of the sites of Sajópetri, Salgótarján and Ludányhalászi. Mostly large ruminants such as the cattle and red deer yielded the skeletal parts that have been worked, but bones from small ruminants such as the sheep and goat, as well as from dog, have also been used by people for designing various implements and decorative items (Bartosiewicz 2007; Bartosiewicz and Gál 2010).

The rest of the artefacts under study were made from the skeletal parts of wild animals. Antler tool are made from red deer and roe deer. Both species yielded similarly few remains in the Middle Neolithic deposit (five and six specimens, respectively). The unfinished tool from red deer represented a fragment of tine top. It cannot be stated, therefore, whether a shed antler was carved or the antler belonged to a killed animal. The other remains, including unworked antler fragments, were found in different features, suggesting that more than one red deer yielded the identified remains.

Conclusion The multi-period site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét yielded the richest Middle Neolithic (Transdanubian Linear Pottery- and Zseliz culture) deposit of bone tools known so far, filling a chronological gap between the wide range of well-known early Neolithic Körös- and late Lengyel culture artefacts excavated from a great number of Neolithic settlements in Hungary.

According to the developmental stage of the roe deer bifurcated antler, it probably belonged to a two-year-old buck. The remains of base underneath the antler rose in the specimen under study (cf. Figure 2) would suggest that this antler was not naturally lost, but it was cut off from the skull of the killed roe deer. The presence of antler on the living animal, at the same time, is indicative of hunting during the period of the year from spring to winter.

The selection of raw material for carving out most of the implements coincided with the frequency of Caprinae remains identified from the Middle Neolithic features, a phenomenon that was not characteristic to the coeval site of Tiszavasvári – Deákhalmi-dűlő in North-eastern Hungary. Although a number of other animals such as large ruminants, Cervids, wild boar and a bird also yielded bones and antlers that have been worked, it is likely that people mostly took advantage of the waste deposited at the settlement when designing bone implements. The underrepresented number of remains from wild animals both in the kitchen midden and tool assemblage indicates the secondary role of hunting in the economic life of the settlers. The number of skeletal parts from young animals indicated year-round presence in the area of Karancsság during the Middle- and Late Neolithic periods represented.

Wild boar yielded the tusk from which the scraperfragment was identified (cf. Figure 7). None of the other Suid remains from the assemblage could be assigned to wild boar, but it has to be emphasised that the remains were rather fragmentary. Obtaining the raw material for this type of tool must have been involved killing the animal, which is indicative of hunting in a dense forest area. The frequent scratch-marks left by flint tools and its preservation suggested its use for extended time period. Scrapers made from tusk are common features in the LBK culture as referred by a number of papers to (e.g. Rulf 1984; Sidéra 2000). A similar implement has been also described from the Bronze Age settlement of Marolles-sur-Seine in Île-de-France (Poplin in Masset and Mordant 1967, 127-128, fig. 37).

The Caprinae metapodial points found in the Middle Neolithic tool-assemblage bring new evidence of a

46

BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE NEOLITHIC AND MEDIEVAL SITE OF KARANCSSÁG specially designed type of point. The so-called flat handled points, in the case of which not only the diaphysis, but the distal epiphysis of the metapodium was ground, were largely distributed all over Europe during the Neolithic. The specimens from Karancsság, however, represent new data with respect to the Middle Neolithic, and the northern part of Hungary, since previous data included only Early Neolithic (Körös culture) evidence from the eastern areas of the Great Hungarian Plain.

dans la Préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 912 juin 1976. Paris, Editions du CNRS, 311–323. Choyke, A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime – tools for a season: the bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23, in A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Budapest, Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 641-666. Gál, E. 2005a. Animal bone remains from archaeological excavations in North-East Hungary, in E. Gál, I. Juhász, P. Sümegi (eds.), Environmental archaeology in NorthEastern Hungary. Budapest, Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 139-174.

Acknowledgements I am grateful for Gábor Bácsmegi for inviting me to work on the animal bone remains found at the site of Karancsság – Alsó-rét.

Gál, E. 2005b. New data to the bird bone artefacts from Hungary and Romania, From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja teadus, 15, 325-338.

Elisabeth Stone is thanked for revising the draft English text. Erika Gál Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Úri u. 49 1014 Budapest Hungary [email protected]

Gál, E. 2010. Bone artefacts from the site of Capo Alfiere, in J. Robb (ed.), The Neolithic settlement at Capo Alfiere. The Chora of Croton I. Austin, University of Texas Press, in press. MacGregor, A., Mainman, A. J., and Rogers, N. S. H. 1999. Bone, ivery and horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and medieval York. York, York Archaeological Trust – Council for British Archaeology.

References cited Bartosiewicz, L. 2005. Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent areas, in D. Bailey, A. Whittle, V. Cummings (eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 51-63.

Makkay, J. 1990. Knochen-, Geweihund Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolitischen Körös-Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae, 23-58. Masset, C. and Mordant, C. 1967. Les sépultures collectives de Marolles-sur-Seine (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire, 10 (1), 75-136.

Bartosiewicz, L. 2007. Les objects d’os travaillés, in M. Szabó (ed.), L’habitat de l’époque de La Tène à Sajópetri – Hosszú-dűlő. Budapest, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 273-274.

Rulf, J. 1984. Peispevek k Poznani Neolitiské Kosténé Industrie v Cechach. Archeologické roshledy, 36, p. 241260.

Bartosiewicz, L. and Gál, E. 2010. Living on the Frontier: “Scythian” and “Celtic” animal exploitation in Iron Age Northeastern Hungary, in D. Campana, A. M. Choyke, P. Crabtree, S. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov (eds.), Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonialism, Complexity and Animal Transformations. Oxford, Oxbow Books, in press.

Sidéra, I., 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg. De l’économie des symboles, des techniques à la culture. Gallia Prehistoire, 42, p. 108-194. Schibler, J. 1981. Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag, 15.

Bácsmegi, G. 2003. Karancsság határa, in J. Kisfaludi (ed.), Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2002. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Camps-Fabrer, H. and D’Anna, A. 1977. Fabrication expérimentale d’outils partir métapodes de mouton et tibias de lapin, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Deuxième Colloque International sur l’Industrie de l’os

Vörös, I. 1994. Animal husbandry and hunting in the Middle Neolithic settlement at Tiszavasvári – Deákhalmidűlő (Upper Tisza region). A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 36, 167-184.

47

Worked Bone Remains from Godin Tepe, Iran - Chalcolithic to Iron Age Pam CRABTREE and Douglas V. CAMPANA Anthropology Department, New York University, USA Abstract Godin Tepe is a Chalcolithic and Bronze Age site in western Iran that was excavated by the late T. Cuyler Young between 1969 and 1973. In 1979 Allen Gilbert completed an analysis of about 10,000 animal bone fragments from the Godin excavations. Gilbert argued that many of the faunal bones in the Godin assemblage had been used as expedient tools. For example, he suggested that caprine mandibles were used as scrapers. In preparation for the final site publication, we have had the opportunity to examine the rest of the faunal collection from Godin. Our research suggests that the Godin faunal collection includes only a small number of bone tools and other worked bone objects. We also identified a small number of caprine mandibles that appear to have been used as casual tools. This article will review the evidence for worked bone from Godin Tepe. Introduction

History of the faunal and worked bone research at Godin

Godin Tepe is a Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age site located in western Iran (Figure 1). The site was excavated by the late Dr T. Cuyler Young of the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada over three field seasons between 1969 and 1973. After a long delay, the final report on the excavations at the site is now in press (Gopnik and Rothman in press). Excavations at the site revealed four main chronological phases. The earliest period, Phase VI, dates to the 4th millennium BCE (ca. 3000-4000 BCE). Phase IV represents the appearance of the Early Transcaucasian Culture (ETC) at the site and has been dated between 3000 and 2600 BCE. Phase III, which yielded the bulk of the faunal specimens, dates to the Bronze Age between about 2600-1600 BCE. A later Phase, Phase II, has been recently radiocarbon dated to about 750 BCE.

The initial zooarchaeological research at Godin Tepe was carried by the late Dr Dexter Perkins, Jr and Patricia Daly. In 1979, Dr Alan Gilbert of Fordham University examined about 10,000 animal bones that had been recovered from the Godin excavations as part of his PhD research. At that time, the final chronological phasing of the site had not been completed, and Gilbert focused on the animal bones that were recovered from the excavation unit that was known as the “Big A.” As was common at the time, the faunal remains were hand-collected without systematic fine screening. In addition, some of the bones were deemed “unidentifiable” by Perkins and Daly and were discarded in the field. Gilbert’s (1979) dissertation was ground-breaking in that it was one of the first zooarchaeological studies that

Figure 1: Map of the Middle East showing the location of Godin Tepe in western Iran.

49

PAM CRABTREE AND DOUGLAS V. CAMPANA attempted to apply taphonomic principles to an urban faunal assemblage from the ancient Near East. However, Gilbert’s research came to a rather startling conclusion. He argued that many of the faunal remains from Godin Tepe had been used as expedient tools, and therefore these animal bones could not be used to reconstruct the patterns of animal distribution and consumption at the site. In particular, he argued that many of the caprine mandibles showed polish that resulted from their use as scrapers. He also suggested that some of the cattle acetabuli may have been used as mortaria. Gilbert’s conclusions were based on an analysis of only some of the faunal remains that were recovered from Godin.

indicate that about 90% of the cattle survived to about 3 years of age. While about 30% of the cattle were slaughtered in their prime (3-4 years of age), a majority of the cattle survived to maturity. Worked bone from Godin Tepe Pointed implements or awls made from caprine ulnae are the only group of fully-worked tools in the sample. Although they are the most common bone implement, there are only five clear-cut worked specimens of a total of 124 caprine ulnas in the faunal assemblage. Two of these specimens came from Phase III, three from Phase IV, and one is unprovenienced. They were made by sharpening the distal end of the bone, probably with a coarse stone grinder. These tools show a fair amount of polish from being handled, as well as rounding and polish near the sharpened tip (Figure 5), with no obvious scratch pattern. The tips are probably too large for these tools to have served as efficient perforators, but otherwise their use is uncertain. Gilbert illustrates a similar ulna that was recovered from the portion of the assemblage that he analyzed.

In the summer of 2006, the results of the 1969-73 excavations from Godin were being prepared for final publication. Since Dr Gilbert was unavailable, we had the opportunity to examine the remainder of the Godin faunal collection and to re-examine the question of whether a substantial portion of the Godin fauna were preserved because they were used as casual tools. Using the comparative collections housed at the New York University faunal lab and the zooarchaeology lab at the Harvard University Anthropology Department, we examined over 34,500 animal bones and fragments, including some of the faunal remains that had initially been discarded as unidentifiable. We will first present a summary of the basic zooarchaeological data and we will then examine the evidence for bone working and casual tool use at Godin Tepe.

Gaming pieces made from caprine astragali (Figure 6) are the only other common worked bone objects in the sample. The illustration shows four views of a single astragalus that has been modified as a gaming piece. There are five specimens, all from Phase III, out of a total of 73 astragali in that phase, and 168 in the entire sample. Astragalus dice or gaming pieces are well-known in Near Eastern contexts of the period. These examples were made by grinding the bones flat on the medial and lateral sides.

Faunal remains from Godin Tepe Species ratios, based on NISP (Figure 2), indicate that caprines dominated the Godin faunal assemblage throughout the history of the site. Cattle are second in importance, followed by small number of pigs and equids. The equid remains are currently under study by Emma Hite. The importance of pigs appears to have increased during Phase II (Iron Age), although the Phase II faunal sample is relatively small. Our data indicate that sheep generally outnumber goats, although the Phase III assemblages included several nearly complete skeletons of immature goats. Sheep outnumber goats by a ratio of just over 2:1 during Phase IV, and these results are paralleled at other sites associated with the ETC culture. These results are also consistent with Gilbert’s earlier conclusions. Both the dental (Figure 3) and the epiphyseal data for sheep and goats from Phase III indicate that although some of the caprines were slaughtered during the first two years of life, the majority of the sheep and goats recovered from Godin were adult animals, including a number of elderly animals with heavily worn teeth. Only a small number of ageable cattle mandibles were recovered from the Godin faunal assemblage. However, they indicate that both older adult and juvenile cattle were present in the collection. The epiphyseal fusion data for the Phase III cattle are shown in figure 4. These data

Three minimally worked objects, all made on different elements (Figure 7) (a sheep/goat radius, a sheep/goat tibia, and a sheep metacarpus), exhibit a number of similarities. All three show polish (in varying degrees) around the central shaft, and the broken end on all three is rounded through use. At first glance these might have been used as implement handles, but there is no evidence of anything being forced into the central cavity. None of the objects shows polish at the epiphyseal end, which is usually worn if a tool is held as a handle. Each of the objects shows groups of fine scratches running transversely across the shaft near the broken end, suggesting the tools were used as some sort of rubber, with a motion at right angles to the axis of the shaft. There are a few objects represented by a single specimen: a very heavily polished object made from a scapula from Phase IV, that appears to be a handle with the working end missing; a heavily worn sharpened tool from Phase III with a polished, darkened tip, possibly heated; an unworked rib fragment from Phase III that shows substantial polish and many fine transverse scratches across the edge; and an unprovenienced spindle whorl made from a femoral head.

50

WORKED BONE REMAINS FROM GODIN TEPE, IRAN - CHALCOLITHIC TO IRON AGE

Figure 2: Species ratios based on NISP for Godin Tepe Phases II, III, IV, and VI.

Figure 3: Age profile based on dental eruption and wear, following Payne (1973), for sheep and goats from Godin Tepe Phase III.

Figure 4: Age profile, based on epiphyseal fusion (Silver 1969) for cattle from Godin Phase III.

51

PAM CRABTREE AND DOUGLAS V. CAMPANA

Figure 5: Example of a pointed implement made on a caprine ulna.

Figure 6: Example of a gaming piece made on a caprine astraghalus.

Figure 7: Minimally worked bone objects from Godin Tepe.

Finally, of 152 ageable mandibles from Phase III, there were 3 specimens with polish and use-wear similar to that described by Gilbert (Figure 8). The polish is very slight and the wear consists of a few patches of very fine parallel scratches running transversely to the axis of the jaw. One additional jaw from Phase III and an unprovenienced specimen show only very slight polish;

another unprovenienced jaw shows stronger polish and a similar pattern of fine scratches. The minimal wear suggests these mandibles were used casually a few times as a scraper or in a similar fashion. Most of the mandibles, like the one shown here (Figure 9) show no evidence for use as casual tools. This mandible, like many others from Godin Tepe, shows evidence of ante-mortem tooth loss.

52

WORKED BONE REMAINS FROM GODIN TEPE, IRAN - CHALCOLITHIC TO IRON AGE Gilbert also describes a number of cattle acetabula that showed parallel striations on the articular surface. We identified a small number of similar acetabula (Figure 10). Gilbert suggested that these parts of the cattle pelves might have been used as mortars for grinding coarse materials. It seems more likely that these quite regular striations are the result of pathology. Arthritis could lead to contact and abrasion between the head of the femur and the articular surface of the acetabulum. In our opinion, these bones are unlikely to have been used as tools.

Figure 10: Example of a cattle acetabulum showing pathological changes.

Conclusions Our analysis of the Godin faunal assemblage has shown that a small number of the sheep and goat ulnae were modified and used as awls and that a few caprine astragali were flattened for use as dice. A small number of other worked bone pieces were recovered from the Godin assemblage, and a small proportion of the mandibles appear to have been used casually as scrapers. The question that remains is whether casual tool use structured the Godin faunal assemblage to such an extent that the animal bone remains cannot be used to reconstruct animal husbandry practices and Chalcolithic and Bronze Age diet. To answer this question, we also examined the body-part distribution for sheep and goat bones (and sheep/goat fragments) from the Phase III assemblage. The data clearly show that mandibles (including fragments of the ascending ramus, condyle, and coronoid process) are the most common elements in the Phase III faunal assemblage. However, elements that were rarely used as tools, including vertebrae, skull fragments, humeri, and first phalanges, are well represented in the assemblage. Hand collection without fine sieving appears to be one of the major factors that did structure this faunal collection. First phalanges far outnumber the smaller second and third phalanges, and carpals and tarsals other than the astragalus and calcaneus are poorly represented in the sample. While Gilbert is to be commended for recognizing that some of the mandibles were used as casual scrapers, it is our opinion that casual tool use is not the primary factor that structured the faunal assemblage from Godin Tepe. The unmodified bones can be used to study the ways that the residents of this Chalcolithic and Bronze Age town were supplied with meat and other animal products.

Figure 8: Example of a caprine mandible from Godin Tepe showing polish from casual use.

Figure 9: Example of a caprine mandible without polish but showing the dental attrition that is typical of many of the Godin specimens.

53

PAM CRABTREE AND DOUGLAS V. CAMPANA Pam J. Crabtree Anthropology Department New York University 25 Waverly Place New York, NY 10003 USA [email protected] Douglas V. Campana 285 Pennington-Lawrenceville Rd. Pennington, NJ 08534 USA [email protected] References cited Gilbert, A. S. 1979. Urban Taphonomy of Mammalian Remains from the Bronze Age of Godin Tepe, Western Iran. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Columbia. Gopnik, H. and Rothman, M. S. in press. On the High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum/ Mazda Press. Payne, S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: the mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23, 281303. Silver, I. A. 1969. The Ageing of Domestic Animals, in D. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs (eds.), Science in Archaeology. London, Thames and Hudson, 283-302.

54

Bone-Working in Roman Dacia Lóránt VASS Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania Abstract Roman bone objects are usually considered the results of a standardized, “industrialized” production. There is hardly any Roman carving that does not have a precise analogy from other province. Are there any special features of this mass, any kind of tradition, any particular features of the bone industry of one province? The aim of this article is to identify these special features and to determine the main economic aspects of bone working of Dacia, a much neglected area of the Romanian research. The province of Dacia is considered one of the most militarized and Romanized provinces due to massive military concentration and colonization. Soldiers and colonists coming from the different provinces of the Roman Empire brought with them their tradition and special demands that affected the bone industry in this province. The bone arrowheads, nocks, and bow stiffeners from the military fort of Porolissum, Micia, and Tibiscum are connected to the eastern archery units stationed here. The largest concentrations of bone artifacts are usually observed in urban settlements, probably owing to a well defined permanent clientele. The products are more diverse than the bone objects from the military forts from Dacia, which are designed to satisfy the internal demands of the troops. In the last part of the study, I try to identify different workshops on the basis of the working debris and unfinished objects. define the special features that characterize this economic activity. It will examine to what extent the bone items can contribute to the reconstruction of daily or economic life.

Introduction Bone artifacts recovered in large numbers from different archaeological sites from the provinces of the Roman Empire reveal an organized and standardized mass production. Thus, the various bone artifacts can shed a light on aspects of the economic life of a province, such as the clientele, the acquisition of raw materials, the social organization, tradition etc. Unfortunately, bone working in the province of Dacia was, and still is, a neglected field of archaeological research. The standardized character of the carvings, which has been ignored by researchers, can explain this general passivity. Bone artifacts usually appear in archaeological reports as parts of catalogues. Their analyses hardly extend beyond the level of quantitative studies. Studies of these artifacts are few in number; they discuss either the bone collection of a museum (Cociş-Alicu 1993; Petică-Zrinyi 2000) or the bone finds from specific archaeological sites1. Typological studies are very rare as well. The exception is the study written by N. Gudea and I. Bajusz which established a typology for hairpins for the first time (Gudea-Bajusz 1991) from a specific region (Dacia Porolissensis), and which became a reference in the Roman archaeology in Romania. There is so far only one article, published recently, that has tried to identify and to collect all the workshops from the territory of Roman Dacia (Timoc 2007).

The province of Dacia (cf. Figure 5) Dacia is one of the most interesting of the Roman Empire’s provinces. Established after the Dacian-Roman war led by Trajan in 106 AD, it was part of the Empire for a short time, being abandoned officially in 271 AD under Aurelianus2. Although the Roman rule did not really last very long, Dacia is one of the most urbanized and Romanised provinces, having in total 11 cities (10 municipii and 1 colonia deducta), from which 4 were distinguished with the prestigious ius Italicum. Roman rule also meant a strong military concentration within the province which can be explained by its strategic position and by a massive colonization3 ex toto orbe Romano, mentioned by Eutropius. In the province the army and the ethnically diverse colonists became the main consumers and economic forces. They brought their traditions with them, which determined the cultural and economic profile of the new province. Monetary circulation in Dacia in the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd century AD was twice as intensive as in Pannonia or in Moesia (Găzdac 2002, 4750) as a result of this massive concentration of colonists. From an economic perspective, the most prosperous part of the province is Dacia Superior (Apulensis). The imperial road from Rome passed through this region, and it is situated in the most fertile part of Transylvania. The two most important cities of the province, Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetus Dacica and Apulum, are located in the same region as well. The eastern and southern part, Dacia Inferior, though it has a very strong military character, is the least developed part of the Dacian

The level of research concerning the bone artifacts is low, and the title of this paper may seem a bit risky. Speaking about an industry without proper and detailed studies and analyses can be challenging. Even if the available data are limited, they permit description of the main aspects of this industry. This paper does not intend to present an exhaustive picture of bone-working; rather it tries to

55

LÓRÁNT VASS provinces, having just one urban settlement, Romula. The level of Romanisation in this region is low, probably because of the small population. The varying levels of research may also explain this disproportionate evidence for Roman culture and lifestyle in different geographical areas. Romanian Roman archaeology has overemphasized the investigation of the limes area and military construction, especially in the region of Dacia Porolisssensis and Dacia Apulensis.

the demand by a permanent clientele that maintains the line of production (Figure 6). The profile of production can be also influenced by existing tradition, or by different fashion trends. The quantity and the price of the products are strongly influenced by the technology used (mechanized or manual).

Bone-working and economic life In the Roman period bone artifacts are very widespread products of economic life. In comparison to the prehistoric bone industry, Roman bone items are usually standardized, related items, fittings, or jewelry. Items of similar size and decoration are found in the most farflung provinces of the Empire. The most popular group of artifacts made of bone is the diverse group of hairpins that are recovered in large quantities not only from the sites of Dacia, but in the other provinces as well. The spread of hairpins reflects the general tendency of the Roman economy to satisfy the demand of all consumers, even of the less wealthy population. In comparison with Pannonia (Bíró 1994) or other provinces, the bone carvings from Dacia are not as well represented. The majority of the bone artifacts are various kinds of related fittings for articles such as furniture, tools, military equipment, and gaming pieces (cf. Figure 4) (AlicuNemeş 1982; Cociş-Alicu 1993; Ciugudean 1997; PeticăZrinyi 2000; Vass 2006). We rarely find beautiful and unique pieces that could be considered works of art4 among the bone carvings. The lack of beautiful carvings and the large number of related items and hairpins proves that the bone industry in Dacia is based mainly, even more than in the other Roman provinces, on mass production.

Figure 1: The proportion of the main types of bone and antler products in Dacia. These diagrams are based on published material only. Abbreviations used: OH-Ornaments and objects related to hair-styles; OE-Objects of everyday use; GP-Gaming pieces; MD-Medical instruments; TI-Tools and instruments; OC-Object related to cosmetics; OWS- Objects related to weaving and spinning; MEW- Objects decorating weapons, weapon-fittings, and objects of the military equipment; OWObjects of wear; FF-Furniture fittings, appliqué, decorations.

The majority of the finished products (Figure 1) were unearthed from settlements (cities: Ciugudean 1997; Cserni 1912, 280-282; Alicu-Nemeş 1982; Gudea-Bajusz 1991; Vass 2006 and military settlements: Gudea et al. 1992, 86-88, nr. 1-57, 92, nr. 1-10, fig. C-CII, CXXCXXVI; Gudea-Pop 1971, Taf. LVIII, Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXXII-LXXXIV; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Taf. LXXXII, Taf. XCIV-C, CI/1-4), although research at urban settlements is very limited. Not only is the quantity higher in these cases, but the artifacts are more diversified (Figure 3) in terms of function. This could be explained by the continuity and larger scale of production in these sites, owing probably to a stable clientele. In the case of the better researched military forts, the range is much more limited (Figure 2), production being focused on satisfying the local needs of the troops. Most of the bone items are tools, instruments, and objects related to military equipment and weapons.

Figure 2: The distribution of bone products in Roman forts in Dacia.

Bone tool production is determined by the acquisition of and type of raw material used in manufacturing and by

Figure 3: The distribution of bone products in Roman settlements in Dacia.

56

BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA

Figure 5: The province of Dacia (after Cristian Găzdac).

(Bíró 1994, 12), antler was used largely for manufacturing handles, bow stiffeners, gaming pieces etc. (Petică-Zrinyi 2000, pl.II/4, 5, 8, pl.V/7; Gudea et al. 1992, Pl CXXI, CXXII). Considering that Dacia was rich in forests, the acquisition of antler was not a problem either. By collecting the shed antler pieces the artisan could collect enough raw material for manufacturing, without the need for hunting. Ivory was not a popular raw material; it may have been too expensive. We have only a few artifacts made of this material5. Figure 6: Economic aspects of bone working.

Clientele Raw material

The province of Dacia was established for strategic purposes, which means that a large concentration of military units was placed inside it. In such a militarized province (Figure 7) it is no wonder that the main consumers were members of the army. The majority of the identified workshops are situated along the western limes (Tibiscum, Buciumi, Porolissum), along the large Imperial road. They were meant to satisfy the internal needs of the troups (for weapons, military equipment, etc.). Because archaeological investigations in Romania have focused mostly on the military features, with the exception of Apulum we do not have a general picture of the bone working in the cities. On the basis of the distribution of functional categories we can surmise that the bone industry from the cities was of a civilian character and intended to satisfy consumer demands. Unfortunately, the lack of published material makes it impossible to separate the different social levels among the consumers.

On the basis of the published literature, it is very hard to determine the raw material used and the animal species from which the raw material came. Archaeozoological studies usually focus on the ancient livestock and food habits, without analyzing the bone-working debris. The food debris came mainly from the most common domestic species including Bos taurus, Ovis, Capra, Sus, and Equus (Gudea 2007). The analyses of the finished bone artifacts and working debris reflect the same situation. Bone artifacts are made usually of long bones of the species mentioned above (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig. 7). We can conclude that the raw material was provided mainly by the abundant food debris. As in other provinces, antler was another very popular raw material, preferred because of its flexible structure. Although antler combs were not as popular as they were in Pannonia

57

LÓRÁNT VASS

Figure 7: Workshops in Dacia (after Cristian Găzdac).

fighting or for hunting? The low weight and the broad head (in the case of leaf-shaped items) may argue for their use as hunting weapons. However, these artifacts were recovered among other metal weapons from the weapon-deposit near the praetentura of the big auxiliary camp from Porolissum (Gudea et al. 1988, 149). This and the fact that bone objects related to arrows could be found in Tibiscum and Micia where the other archery units were stationed could not be coincidental. In all three camps a considerable number of finished and unfinished bow stiffeners were found6 among these objects. Without access to all the objects discussed above, it was impossible to observe any kind of similarities in the technical process or to identify the existence of a common know-how. These objects reflect rather a special kind of fighting strategy that the units brought with them. This seems to be plausible since these units were stationed on the western limes, a defensive line facing the land inhabited by the dreaded Sarmatian population famous for their archery skills. The role of the eastern irregular archery units was probably to keep this barbarian population away from the Roman borders.

Tradition, fashion Identifying tradition in manufacturing or in distribution of certain mass-produced artifacts is very difficult. There is no evidence of bone working in the province before the Roman period. The indigenous Dacian population did not use bone as raw material, so the possibility of an inherited cultural tradition is excluded. What kind of cultural tradition can we then observe? The only plausible tradition would have come from outside, brought in by colonists or soldiers, as we believe, from east. This is true of the many bone arrowheads (Figure 8) found in the large auxiliary camp from Porolissum (Gudea 2006, fig. 10) and the arrow nocks from Tibiscum ( Benea 2003, fig. VII/1,12; Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-66, 5-67, 5-68) and Micia (Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-64, 5-65). The unpublished bone arrowheads as well as the bone nocks from Porolissum are unique pieces in the Roman Empire. They were found in military forts where three similar irregular units had been stationed, the numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensis (Porolissum), the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium (Tibiscum), and the cohors II Flavia Commagenorum equitata sagittariorum (Micia). The arrowheads and nocks could have been part of the weaponry of these eastern archery units. The bone arrowheads are precise imitations of iron and bronze ones; we can find among them leaf-shaped arrowheads just like arrowheads of triangular cross-section. The manufacturing of one of these little items takes more time and energy than making one of metal, but they are considerably lighter. Pauli Jensen analyzed the Roman arrowheads in Denmark and concluded that light arrowheads can reach a higher speed, and living tissue is less resistant to penetration at high speed (Pauli Jensen 2005, 544). Were these arrowheads were used for

Figure 8: Bone arrowheads from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum (photo by the author).

58

BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA Workshops (cf. Figure 7)

Buciumi

The hardest part of worked-bone research is the location and definition of workshops. In comparison to other handicrafts, bone working does not need a special tool kit or special room for the equipment. Unfortunately, the Roman written sources do not even mention this handicraft; the only written evidence for it refers to the ivory sculptors (eborarii) who were working in the same building and collegium with the carpenters (citrarii) (Deschler-Erb 1998, 93). Usually the most reliable clue to the existence of bone workshops is the waste material and unfinished pieces. Taking into consideration this ‘mobility’ of bone workshops, we believe that almost every settlement had at least one workshop producing bone artifacts, even if the publications and research do not reflect this. I will present the main workshops identified so far, focusing first of all on the waste material.

A workshop (Figure 10) was identified in the barrack nr 5 in the auxiliary fort from Bucium (Gudea et al. 1992, 8689). As in Tibiscum, this workshop was supplying the army. On the basis of the unfinished and finished bone items, we can show that this workshop specialized in producing handles and counters (Gudea et al. 1992, 8687, nr.1-37, fig. CXX-CXXII, CXV/1-4). Antler is the most popular raw material in this case, too. Unfortunately, in the absence of archaeozoological analysis of the animal bones coming from this site, we cannot determine whether the preference for antler for manufacturing artifacts was related to the hunting of cervids in the region. The handles are made of antler tines by sawing and by maintaining the lightly curved natural form of the raw material. Barrack nr 5, where the workshop was identified, contained waste material of bronze working as well, indicating that the bone workshop used the same building as other handicrafts and probably the same tool kit.

Tibiscum The workshop (Benea 2003, 223) from Tibiscum was of a military character. It was identified in masonry in the 3rd phase of the auxiliary fort (120-165 AD). In the inventory of this workshop we find many unfinished or finished bow stiffeners (Figure 9), some arrowheads, handles, unfinished counters, and pendants of antler (Benea 2003, 224, Taf. IV-VII). The distribution of functional categories reveals that the workshop satisfied the internal demands of the archers (cohors I Sagittatorium) stationed here. The raw material used here was mainly antler. The manufacturing techniques are the same as those used elsewhere in the Roman Empire. The sawn-off antler tines were split to different sizes and forms. The prepared material then was shaped by rasping or by faceting with a knife to produce the desired form.

Figure 10: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from Buciumi (after Gudea et al. 1992).

Porolissum The bone arrowheads recovered from the big auxiliary camp from Porolissum were discussed above. In addition to these arrowheads, a lot of unfinished and finished bow stiffeners of antler were recovered, indicating that there was a bone workshop specialized in producing weapons belonging to the archery unit stationed here (Figure 11). Unfortunately, we cannot locate the workshop precisely, because the majority of these stiffeners were recovered from the water cistern in the camp along with glassworking and ceramic debris (Gudea et al. 1988, 151). Antler cutoffs, unfinished pieces, and waste material were recovered from the amphitheatre, too (Vass 2006, 646 nr. 1-4; fig. 2-1, 2-4). A small number of unfinished objects were recovered here that could not be clearly connected to a finished product. As a result it is difficult to determine whether another workshop functioned in the

Figure 9: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from Tibiscum (after Benea 2003).

59

LÓRÁNT VASS amphitheatre or whether the debris reached here as waste material from the nearby workshop in the fort.

governor’s palace had its own workshop. Another workshop was located in the northern part of the colony. In a large building (Figure 12-B) B. Cserni found 316 bone artifacts, including 216 hairpins and needles (Figure 13) (Cserni 1912, 280-282, fig. 23-2)8. The bone working debris and the large numbers of hairpins and needles reveal a specialized bone workshop or store, whose main product was hairpins. The bone artifacts were concentrated in rooms A, B and I, so we can conclude that the bone working took place in these rooms. In this building a large quantity of ceramic and glass-working waste material was identified as well. This underlines again that bone-working was a complementary handicraft, and it functioned in the same workshop as other handicrafts.

Micia In the military fort of Micia, in a store dated to 106-107 AD, bow stiffeners, arrow nocks and antler waste material were unearthed (Petculescu 2002, 765, fig. 3-32, 3-39, fig. 4-40, 4-52). The waste and unfinished material consisted of antler plaque cutoffs related to the production of bow stiffeners as seen at the forts of Porolissum and Tibiscum. The plaques bear the traces of rasping and cutting with a saw. The workshop can be related probably to the eastern archery unit, cohors II Flavia Commagenorum.

The third workshop was located in the territory of the cannabae, in Moţilor Street and Gemina Street (Figure 12-C). Various antler tine, goat horn core, and long bone cutoffs were recovered from dwellings and pits dated to the time of Trajan and Hadrian (Ciugudean 2001, 62). The fourth workshop comes from the cannabae as well. In the backyard of Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan High school (Figures 12-D and 14) a large trash pit with bone-working debris was recovered. The debris included ephiphysis cutoffs thrown away after the preparation of raw material and various parts of diaphysis probably deposited for future processing (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig.7). We are dealing, therefore, with at least four separate bone workshops, each with its own clientele and profile. It seems that each workshop satisfied the demand of a certain area: cannabae, civilian settlement (colony), or governor’s palace. Apulum is a good example of the organization of the bone-working industry in urban settlements.

Figure 11: Unfinished and waste material from the production of bow stiffeners from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum (photo: L. Vass).

Apulum We identified several bone workshops in the urban settlement of Apulum (Figure 12). So far, Apulum is the only city where we can closely observe the organization of the bone industry. The nature of the production differs totally from the workshops of military character presented above. Its main clientele is the civilian population. Excavations carried out in the beginning of the 20th century by B. Cserni (Ciugudean 1997, 82, pl. 37-2; Ciugudean. 2001: 63; 69, fig. 5; Ciugudean 2000, 63) in the governor’s palace (Figure 12-A), south-east of the legionary fort, recovered many finished and unfinished bone items, including a rib with circular cutoffs for manufacturing counters. This proves that the

Figure 12: Workshops in Apulum.

60

BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA army, as well as part of the civilian population. The distribution of functional categories of different workshops can shed light upon the profile and clientele of these products. Thus we can distinguish between workshops of military and of civilian character. There is no Roman fort that would not have at least one bone workshop meant to supply the military unit. So far, we managed to identify just four such workshops: in Tibiscum, Micia, Buciumi, and Porolissum, as well as three other possible workshop from the forts from Romita, Ilişua and Cumidava. Even if Dacia is considered a very urbanized province, the research on urban settlements is very limited. We only have information about the bone industry of Apulum, where we identified at least four different workshops. Each workshop had its own clientele and was meant to satisfy the demand of a particular area (cannabae, colony, governor’s palace). The clientele in all four cases seems to be the civilian population, as the predominance of hairpins suggests. We emphasize that this overview of the bone industry in Dacia focused on the economic aspects of this handicraft. Further research and publications may modify or confirm these conclusions.

Figure 13: Bone objects from a possible workshop in Apulum (after Cserni 1912).

Lóránt Vass Str. Kogălniceanu nr. 1, Cluj-Napoca Babeş-Bolyai University Romania [email protected] Note 1: Bone finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Dacica: Alicu-Nemeş 1982; Due to D. Ciugudean’s serious studies the majority of these studies focus on the bone items from Apulum: Ciugudean 1997- we should mention that this work is the first and so far the only monograph dedicated to bone objects from Dacia (Ciugudean 2001; Ciugudean 2002).

Figure 14: Workshop debris from Apulum (after Ciugudean 2001).

Other bone- or antler-working workshops in Dacia could have functioned in almost every Roman settlement and fort, including some other military forts from Romita 9, Ilişua 10, Cumidava 11, and settlements like Cristeşti 12. In these cases the small number of unfinished objects and waste material, and in some cases the lack of information concerning their precise localization or the poor quality of the illustrations, do not allow us to reconstruct the character of the bone industry at these sites so the existence of standardized production is probable but not certain.

Note 2: During its existence, Dacia’s administrative and political organization was largely unmodified. There were only two major administrative reorganizations: one during the reign of Hadrian, when for defensive purposes, Dacia was divided into two political entities: Dacia Superior and Dacia Inferior. In the same period another administrative entity appeared: Dacia Porolissensis, though its exact boundaries are still not clear. The other reorganization took place in 168 under Marcus Aurelius, when these existing entities were renamed: Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Apulensis and Dacia Malvensis (Ardevan 1998, 25-28).

Conclusions Bone-working, like any other handicraft can be used as an archaeological source for reconstructing economic and daily life. The bone industry in Dacia and other parts of the Roman Empire, is based on mass production. That is why the majority of bone artifacts are different related fittings (handles, hinges, weapon parts, etc) or ornaments (hairpins). In a militarized and Romanized province like Dacia, the main consumers were the members of the

Note 3: The massive colonization resulted from the Dacian-Roman war in 105-106 AD. The elite of the native Dacian population must have been executed, and a large part of the civilian population ended their traditional settlements and lifestyle. It is still unclear what actually happened to the indigenous Dacian population after the war.

61

LÓRÁNT VASS Note 4: Except for a statue of Hercules from Apulum and another of Eros riding a dolphin (both still unpublished) from Porolissum we do not possess any unique pieces.

Benea, D. 2003. Istoria aşezărilor de tip vici militares din Dacia romană. Timişoara. Bíró, M. 1994. The bone objects of the Roman Collection. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici II, Budapest.

Note 5: Hopefully the lack of ivory pieces can be explained by the improper analysis of raw material or by the unpublished artifacts that are lying in the cupboards of different researchers.

Ciugudean, D. 1997. Obiectele din os, corn şi fildeş de la Apulum. Alba Iulia. Ciugudean, D. 2001. Workshops and manufacturing techniques at Apulum (Ad 2nd-3rd Century), in A. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through time and Space. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 61-72.

Note 6: The bow stiffeners from Porolissum are still unpublished (see Figure 7); Tibiscum: Benea 2003, Taf. VII/3-6, 8-11; Benea-Petru 1994, fig. 22; Micia: Petculescu 2002, fig. 1-4; 5-53. Note 7: According to N. Gudea, the Roman archery units concentrated in Porolissum were not necessarily equipped according to the weaponry of the enemy. Rather, they were used to prevent the raids by the barbarian population outside the province (Gudea 2006, 399).

Ciugudean, D. 2002. Noi artefacte din os de la Apulum. Apulum XXXIX, 289-300. Cociş, S. and Alicu, D. 1993. Obiecte de os din Dacia Apulensis şi Dacia Porolissensis. Acta Musei Porolissensis XVII, 114-149.

Note 8: Cserni, on the basis of the many hairpins and needles, confirms that the owners of the building were women for a long period.

Cserni, B. 1912. Jelentés a Colonia Apulensis területén végzett ásatásokról. Muzeumi és Könyvtári Értesítő 6, 257-28.

Note 9: Antler tines, probably unfinished objects, without illustration (Matei-Bajusz 1997, 129).

Deschler-Erb, S. 1998. Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Augst.

Note 10: Antler tine cutoffs, a plaque showing traces of testing decorating tools (compass). Unfortunately, the authors do not provide any kind of information about their place of discovery inside the camp or any description of them (Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXIV/3-5, LXXXIII/2-9).

Găzdac, C. 2002. Circulaţia monetară în Dacia şi provinciile învecinate de la Traian la Constantin I, vol. I, Cluj-Napoca. Gudea, N. 2006. Sagittarii Porolissenses şi armele lor. I. (Sagittarii Porolissenses and their weapons), in C. Gaiu and C. Găzdac (eds.) Fontes Historiae. Studia In Honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistrita-Cluj-Napoca, 395415.

Note 11: Unfortunately, the quality of the photos is very poor, so we can barely see any kind of manufacturing traces on the illustrated antler cutoffs (Gudea-Pop 1971, Taf. LVIII/5-10).

Gudea, A. 2007. Contribuţii la istoria economică a Daciei romane. Studiu arheozoologic. Cluj-Napoca.

Note 12: In the settlement of Cristeşti four objects may be considered as unfinished or waste material. Considering that the four objects were made of three different types of raw material (goat horn, antler and bird-bone) these pieces represent a rather ad-hoc style of manufacturing (Petică-Zrinyi 2000, 124, nr.12, 13; 125, nr. 16, 17, pl. II/4, 5, 8, 9).

Gudea, N. and Bajusz, I. 1991. Ace de păr din os de la Porolissum. Câteva observaţii în legătură cu ace din os pentru prins părul din Dacia Romană, in Acta Musei Porolissensis XIV-XV, 81-126. Gudea, N., Chirilă, E, Lucăcel, V., Pop, C. 1992. Das Römerlager von Buciumi. Cluj-Napoca.

References cited Gudea, N., Chirilă, E, Matei, A. V., Bajusz, I., Tamba, D. 1988. Raport preliminar în legătură cu săpăturile arheologice şi lucrările de conservare şi restaurare executate în complexul daco-roman Porolissum în anii 1986-1987, in Acta Musei Porolissensis XII, 147-189.

Alicu-Nemeş, E. 1982. Obiecte de os descoperite la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Acta Musei Napocensis XIX, 345366. Ardevan, R. 1998. Viaţa municipală în Dacia Romană. Timişoara.

Gudea, N. and Pop, I. I. 1971. Das Römerlager von Râşnov (Rosenau) CVMIDAVA. Beiträge zu den Limesuntersuchungen im Südosten des römischen Dazien. Braşov.

Benea, D. and Petru, P. 1994. Tibiscum. Timişoara.

62

BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA Matei, A.V., Bajusz, I. 1997. Castrul roman de la Romita-Certiae. Das Römergrenzkastell von RomitaCertiae. Zalău. Pauli Jensen, X. 2005. Arrowheads in Danish bogs – Evidence on change in military tactics, in Limes XIX, Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Pecs, Hungary, September 2003. Visy, Zs, 543-555. Petculescu, L. 2002. The military equipment of oriental archers in Roman Dacia, in Ph. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T Fiema and B. Hoffmann (eds.), LIMES XVIII, Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), Volume II. Oxford, BAR International Series 1084, 765-770. Petică, M. and Zrinyi, A. 2000. Obiecte de os în colecţiile Muzeului Judeţean Mureş. Marisia XXVI, 123-135. Protase, D., Gaiu, C. and Marinescu, L. 1997. Castrul roman de la Ilişua, Bistriţa. Timoc, C. 2007. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în provincia Dacia, in D. Benea (ed.), Meşteşuguri şi artizani în Dacia romană. Timişoara, 171-183. Vass, L. 2006. Unpublished Roman bone artifacts from the amphitheatre of Porolissum, in C. Gaiu and C. Găzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistriţa-Cluj-Napoca, 641-657.

63

Functional categories Ornaments and objects related to hair-styles

Artifacts belonging to functional categories hairpins

bracelets Pendants, amulets

Objects of everyday use

Comb needles

Gaming pieces

counters

dice

Medical instruments

spoons

palettes Tools

Knife handles

Knot loosener

Objects related to cosmetics

Tools used for decorating pottery Flutes Handles Unguentum jars (pyxis)

Objects related to weaving and spinning

spatulas Distaffs, spindles Spindle whorls Loom fittings

Objects decorating weapons, weapons fittings and military equipment

Scabbard chapes Scabbard slides Gardă de sabie Bow stiffeners

Arrow heads, nocks Objects of wear

rings Needles with three holes

Furniture fittings, appliqués, decorations

Decorative appliqués

Reference Alicu-Nemeş 1982, p. 352-353; Gudea-Bajusz 1991; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl I-IX; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl C; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXII/110, 13-19; Isac 1999, Taf VII/44-47; VIII, IX/5658, X/65-67; Ciugudean 1997, Pl IV-IX; PeticăZrinyi 2000, Pl IV, V/3-6; Ciugudean 2002, Pl II/1-5, III/1-4, IV/4; Unpublished (from Apulum) Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVI/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XIII/1-5 XIV/1-3; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Pl LXXXII/5; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/2 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl.X/1. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, PL II-III, Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XIV; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CI; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXII/11, 12, 20; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XV-XVIII; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl I; Ciugudean 2002, Pl II/6-7; Vass 2006, Fig. 4-5. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl. IV/10-13; V; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CXXII, CXXV/14; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XXI/4-6; XXII-XXIII; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIII/3-6; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXI-XXXII; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/3-5; Ciugudean 2002, Pl V/3-6; Vass 2006, Fig.7/40-43. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, PL VI/1-4; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XXI/1-3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXIII/1-6; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/1; Vass 2006, Fig. 7/44. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IX/2; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl. CXXVI/3; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XII-XIII; Ciugudean 1997, Pl. XXVI-XXVII/1-4; Ciugudean 2002, Pl V/1-2, Vass 2006, Fig. 3/11. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/3-4; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXVI/11 Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CXX/4-6, CXXVI/5; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVIII/3, XIX/1; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIII/2, LXXXIV/2; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl III/8; Ciugudean 2002, Pl III/5, Vass 2006, Fig. 12/12. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl.VIII/2, Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIV/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, PL XI/2-3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl V/2 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXIV/1. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IV/1-7; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XI/4, 6; Pl XVI/1-5., Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXVII/8,9; Pl XXVIII/1,2,5,6. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IX/2; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XIII/6; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, VI/2; Vass 2006, Fig. 3/8. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XI/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XV/1-2; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXVII/6-7; Gudea 2008, Pl LXXI/9 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3-5 Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl VI/5, VII/1,6, 7, 8; VIII/1; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XXIV; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XII/1-4; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl II/1-3 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/2, Vass 2006, Fig. 6/34 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/2 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXX/2-4; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Pl LXXXII/1-2; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/7; Benea 2003, Taf VII/9-11., Vass 2006, Fig.6/30-33. Gudea et alii 1992, Pl C/3; Benea 2003, Taf. VII/1,2, 12, Petculescu 2002, Fig. 5/64-68. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XII/5-6, Vass 2006, Fig. 3/10 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XVII/7,8, XXV/1-2; MateiBajusz 1997, Pl CI/2,3. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/3.; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/1, VI/6, Vass 2006, Fig.3/5-7

Figure 4: Functional categories and types of objects made of bone in Dacia.

64

Socio-economic and Cultural Implications in Medieval Society: the Unpublished Collections of the Region of Douai (France) Dorothée CHAOUI-DERIEUX Ministère de la Culture / Direction générale des patrimoines / Département du pilotage de la recherche et de la politique scientifique Abstract The current work deals with artefacts and waste products made of hard animal tissues (bone, antler and ivory), deposited at the archaeological service of the City of Douai (Northern France). The date range covered by the assemblage is c.600 to c.1700; the bulk of the material is of medieval date (c. 600 – late 15th century). Except for a few specific pieces of research, these objects have never been investigated altogether in the same study. The Douai archaeological service has been carrying out rescue excavations since the beginning of the 1970’s on a broad territory which counts archaeological sites of different periods and different status: rural sites of the early Middle Ages, as well as medieval urban sites, or ecclesiastical sites. Whereas most of the rural sites present the same types of objects requiring low technological know-how (picked-cumbeaters, needles, pins...), other sites especially those with a relatively high social status, produce objects requiring greater expertise. To date, the catalogue is almost complete. The Douai collection reveals a great diversity of artefacts, which are quite comparable to those excavated from other north-European sites: through its location, Douai is actually certainly included in the Scandinavian zone of influence, known for its bone and antler working. Some comparisons shall then be established between these sites. Investigating the database should also allow us to test the relevance of the criteria we defined: dimensions of the objects - especially the combs, typological distribution of the artefacts by site status (in a social and economic context), or evolution of the ornamentation. To complete the study an archaeo-zoological approach will need to be followed – particularly with the updating of unfinished articles and rejects of a certain size in the fauna collections.

Introduction Since its creation the archaeological service of Douai, founded in 1976, becoming in 2001 Direction de l'Archéologie préventive de la Communauté d'Agglomération du Douaisis (Douai region Agglomeration Community preventive Archaeology Department) has carried out numerous archaeological operations not only in the territory of Douai, but also in the territory of the communes of the Douai arrondissement corresponding to a homogeneous geographic and historic unit named Ostrevent (Figure 1). These archaeological operations – conducted for more than 30 years both in urban and rural contexts – have brought to light an abundant volume of artefacts made of hard animal materials - bone, antler, ivory – especially for the medieval and modern periods. If these objects have been studied punctually within the framework of some operation reports or publications (Barbieux 1993; Demolon 1999) they have never been the subject of an overall study on the scale of the territory.

The 47 sites may be grouped together in several broad categories – a category may correspond to a site – depending on their status, the context and occupation chronology: 1. A very large number of rural sites of the early Middle Ages inhabited at different periods between the 4th and 12th centuries: these sites have yielded essentially fragments of combs and instruments associated with weaving. Of these sites, the Merovingian village of Brebières should be mentioned, excavated at the end of the 1960s under the direction of Pierre Demolon (Demolon 1972), and one of the first great excavations of early medieval rural settlements in France. The site is on the frontier of Flanders and Artois, not far from Douai. It is characterised by about thirty hut foundations yielding objects from the 6th and 7th centuries; occupation ceased in the 8th century. The settlement appears to have stretched along a marshy bank. In particular, the excavation has brought to light fragments of a comb case of the second half of the 6th century comparable to the one found in a silo type structure dating to the Merovingian period at Lauwin-Planque “Avenue Jacques Cartier” (Figure 2).

The study framework The work presented here, carried out in the context of a doctorate at the University of Paris I under the direction of Joëlle Burnouf, offers an exhaustive approach to these collections. Today the inventory is almost finalised, with more than 900 finished objects for a total of 47 sites (Table 1).

65

DOROTHEE CHAOUI-DERIEUX

2. A series of medieval urban sites heavily occupied from the 10th century. The site of the “Rue Hyacinthe Corné” at Douai has yielded a comb in a 14th century context (Figure 3) comparable to examples brought to light in Estonia for the same period (Luik 2005). As for the excavation of the “Nouvelles Galeries” site at Douai, it has yielded an exceptional chessman (“rook” or castle), dated to the 12th century (Figure 4) (Gaborit-Chopin 2004, 191).

Figure 3: bone comb, 14th century (Douai, “Rue H. Corné”).

Figure 1: geographic location of Douai, France.

Figure 4: chessman (“rook”) made from pig metapod, 12th century (Douai, “Nouvelles Galeries”).

3. A count’s site: “La Fonderie de Canons”, at Douai, excavated at the end of the 1970s under the direction of Pierre Demolon and Etienne Louis, which revealed a quasi continuous occupation between the early Middle Ages and the modern period. The excavation yielded 131 finished bone, antler, or ivory objects including certain remarkable pieces, evidence of the site’s specific character (13th century tabula token for example: Figure 5).

Figure 2: comb case made from ribs of large herbivore, Merovingian period (Lauwin-Planque, “Avenue Jacques Cartier”).

66

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS IN MEDIEVAL SOCIETY

Figure 7: ice-skate made from long bone, 8th – 9th century (Abbey of Wandignies-Hamage).

5. An “aristocratic” site: Vitry-en-Artois “Les Colombiers” (Pas-de-Calais), excavated from 1984 to 1988 under the direction of Pierre Demolon. It is defined as a Merovingian settlement dependent of a royal “villa”. Vitry-en-Artois is mentioned by Gregory of Tours (History of the Francs, book IV, chapter LI) in 575: it was here that the king Sigebert I, coming from Paris to combat his brother Chilperic besieged in Tournai, decided to assemble the whole army and have himself proclaimed king (of his brother’s possessions); during this assembly he was assassinated. This site yielded 57 objects, mainly combs, unearthed in the hut foundations, and finally showed few differences from a “classic” rural settlement of the same period.

Figure 5: antler tabula token, 13th century (Douai, “La Fonderie de Canons”).

4. A religious site: the Merovingian female abbey of Wandignies-Hamage was excavated during several campaigns successively programmed from 1991 under the direction of Etienne Louis, and has been the subject of many intermediate reports or articles. A double monastery, founded on the banks of the Scarpe in the 630s under the influence of saint Amand, and abandoned towards the end of the 11th century, it was occupied by a community of women. Belonging to the oldest monastic foundations in the north of Gaule it is one of the 2 Carolingian cloisters discovered by excavation in Europe (along with Landevennec, in Brittany), and the first built in wood. The site’s early abandon, the reconstruction on the same spot of a small priory in 1133, and the rising of the water-table in the 10th or 11th century have preserved the remains of the monastic buildings.

6. Only one site has evidence of bone-working chaîne opératoire, but for the modern period: the site of “the Charterhouse” of Douai. The excavations have yielded 155 artefacts (rejects due to manufacturing faults, unfinished objects) as follows: balusters, handles, buttons, and sundry objects. Most of these artefacts were made from bovine or caprine metapods; they had all been turned, and the lathe marks are still largely visible.

Among the artefacts brought to light at this site there is a composite comb, dated to the 8th century (Figure 6), with a curved back and made from antler comparable to that of Saint-Denis, as well as an ice-skate dated to the 8th–9th century (Figure 7). A thesis on the hard animal material collections of Saint-Denis is currently being drafted by Jean-François Goret (Goret 2004). This ensemble will eventually be a collection comparable with Douai’s.

The finds studied concern a variety of fields in everyday life: - Utilitarian: weaving implements (wheel spindles, in both urban and rural context, spindle whorls, weaving card), handles, etc. - Toilet: numerous combs – bone or antler (as well as remains of bone and horn combs with the middle missing), burins, toothbrushes, etc. - Pastimes: chessmen, tabula tokens, playing dices (out of 42 brought to light, 41 were discovered in an urban context), music accessories (instrument tailpieces or pegs), ice-skates, etc. - Religion: ivory plaque from the beginning of the 14th century showing Christ on the cross (Figure 8) discovered on the site of “La Fonderie” in Douai, pilgrim stafflets, rosary beads, etc. - Clothing: 2nd half 14th century belt buckle in Douai “rue du Kiosque” (Figure 9), buttons with a few token or button matrices, etc. - Personal ornaments.

Figure 6: antler composite comb, 8th century (Abbey of Wandignies-Hamage).

67

DOROTHEE CHAOUI-DERIEUX 1. On the scale of the object – forming databases makes up the essential part of the work. Each object must be studied in detail - on the level of the material and its anatomic origin – when that can still be determined – and on that of its manufacture and the tools used to make it. The aim is to be able to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire when possible – when the animal element has not been entirely transformed, and the tools have left visible traces (traceology). Using an archaeo-zoologist’s services proves necessary; especially when the pieces have undergone major modifications. 2. Next, the finds are envisaged globally on the scale of each site, so as to integrate the study into the understanding of the site, and so that the analysis of the site in return provides information relevant for this study. The object is to define each batch’s discovery context, and try to see in which framework the production took place. In this way the various stages of the chaîne opératoire are taken into account, which may enable the following questions to be answered: were the sites concerned used for acquiring material? For production? And in which case, what type of production: domestic or on a larger scale (issue of defining this activity as craft or “industry”)? Or of consumption? And in this case, for what type of population and for what use? Lastly, a production typology will be drawn up, on the scale of both the site, and the territory (cf. below), also enabling a possible specialisation of production by site (or by category of site: rural settlement, count’s township, religious establishment, etc.).

Figure 8: ivory plaque representing Christ “on the cross”, the Virgin and St. John, beginning 14th century (Douai, “La Fonderie de Canons”).

3. On the scale of the territory, studying the various centres for procuring the raw materials, the production, or the consumption of these articles allows the organisation of the network, and the location of the craft activities in the town and round about to be better understood. It will be possible to consider, for example, the proximity between material procurement and production centres; privileged quarters may be defined. 4. Lastly, on the European scale this study will make it possible to understand whether the production brought to light in the Douai region is part of a “standardised” production already found on other sites, whether it is a specific production, or whether certain cultural influences - especially from the countries of northern Europe - are perceptible.

Figure 9: bone belt buckle 2nd half of 14th century (Douai, “Rue du Kiosque”).

The study’s methodology Every object is examined from both a typological and technological point of view. The latter approach – common today for earlier periods – in spite of the occasional study, is only slowly catching on in France (Bourgeois et Rodet-Belarbi 2009, for instance).

Perspectives The interest of such a study lies in a collection still totally unpublished – with a few exceptions – and covering a broad chronological period. With this material it becomes possible to get to grips with the issues of typochronological evolution, social differentiation, or techniques employed.

The better to get to grips with this production (of which it can be hard to decide whether it is a real craft manufacture or a relatively slap-dash production) several scales of research are contemplated here:

68

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS IN MEDIEVAL SOCIETY The artefacts are representative of different fields of everyday life: their analysis will allow a better perception of the sites’ occupants and their society.

CNRS UMR 7041 ArcScan « Archéologies environnementales » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l’Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

Certain objects are evidence of totally mastered knowhow, while others seem to have been made by anybody with the slightest manual skill (the example of the eyed needles made from pig fibula by making use of the bone’s natural form is typical, and present an obvious contrast with certain combs or chess pawns that require a very great technical expertise).

References cited Barbieux, J. 1993. Archéologie urbaine dans le NordPas-de-Calais du Haut Moyen Age à la Révolution. Exposition itinérante. Douai, Association des archéologues des collectivités du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

The sites studied present, at this time, few traces of onthe-spot bone-working. Whether, then, the craftsmen we are dealing with here were nomads or sedentary, working in their spare time or full-time, only on these materials or on others, are very pertinent questions. It is perfectly possible to imagine the presence of craftsmen residing at least a part of the year at Douai and who supplied the surrounding sites.

Bourgeois, L. et Rodet-Belarbi, I. 2009. Le mobilier en os et en bois de cervidé : témoins de fabrication et produits finis, in L. Bourgeois (ed.), Une résidence des comtes d’Angoulême autour de l’an Mil, le castrum d’Andone (Villejoubert, Charente). Caen, Publications du CRAHM, 256-275.

On the other hand, the social differentiation found between the sites enables the productions and their techniques to be looked at from a “sociological” standpoint: it will be interesting in this way to inquire into possible differences in the types of objects or materials chosen owing to differences in environment or living standards. What Jean-Hervé Yvinec had found interesting in the Douai region for his faunal study was that it was a “pilot zone for the north of France”, since it “brings rural, urban, seigniorial, and monastic sites together”, thereby allowing a “micro-regional synthesis concerning alimentation in various social settings in the early Middle Ages” (Yvinec 1996). These considerations apply to our subject perfectly.

Demolon, P. 1972. Le village mérovingien de Brebières (VIe – VIIe siècles). Arras, Mémoires de la Commission Départementale des Monuments Historiques du Pas-deCalais, XIV-1. Demolon, P. 1999. 20 ans d’archéologie dans le Douaisis. Catalogue d’exposition. Douai, Halle aux Draps, Mairie de Douai, 10 – 19 septembre 1999. Archaeologia duacensis, n°16. Douai. Gaborit-Chopin, D. 2004. La France romane aux temps des premiers capétiens 987- 1152. Catalogue d’exposition. Paris, Musée du Louvre, 10 mars – 6 juin 2005. Paris, coédition Musée du Louvre Editions / Editions Hazan.

Lastly, as the Douai region is on the frontier between the lands of northern Europe and the rest of France the issue should be raised of possible influences between the types of production. A large number of comparisons can already be made between portable goods from AngloSaxon countries or the Baltic regions – Northwest Europe, of which Douai, in Flanders, is fully a part.

Goret, J.-F. 2004. Os, bois de cervidé et ivoire. Le mobilier en matières dures d’origine animale à SaintDenis. Archéologia, n° 297, 116-117. Luik, H. 2005. Bone and antler artefacts among Estonian archaeological finds from the Viking Ages until the Middle Ages. Unpublished Dissertationes archaeologiae Universitatis Tartuensis, Tartu.

Acknowledgements Here I should like to thank Isabelle Rodet-Belarbi (archaeo-zoologist Inrap, associated researcher at the CÉPAM) who was a great help for me in giving an anatomic attribution to numerous pieces. Photos: D. Chaoui-Derieux.

Yvinec, J.-H. 1996. Eléments de synthèse sur l’alimentation carnée durant le haut Moyen Age dans le Douaisis, in M. Colardelle (ed.), L'homme et la nature au Moyen Age : paléoenvironnement des sociétés occidentales. Actes du Ve Congrès international d'archéologie médiévale tenu à Grenoble, 6-9 octobre 1993, Société d'archéologie médiévale. Paris, Errance, 30-36.

Dorothée Chaoui-Derieux Ministère de la Culture / Direction générale des patrimoines / Département du pilotage de la recherche et de la politique scientifique.

69

DOROTHEE CHAOUI-DERIEUX

lieu-dit

nombre d'artefacts étudiés 34

n° site

commune

104

Brebières

105

Hordain

La Chapelle

5

107

Douai

La Fonderie

131

108

Douai

Fontaine Saint-Maurand

34

110

Douai

Marché aux Poissons

4

115

Douai

Place Suzanne Lannoy

1

117

Douai

Place Carnot

12

123

Douai

Hôtel du Soleil

2

124

Douai

Hôtel Dieu

2

126

Douai

Résidence d'Anchin

15

131

Hordain

La Motte

2

135

Douai

rue Hyacinthe Corné

4

136

Douai

rue des Malvaux

19

137

Douai

Petite Place

1

145

Douai

place Saint-Amé

55

155

Douai

parking Saint-Julien

48

163

Vitry-en-Artois

Les Colombiers

57

169

Douai

rue des Potiers

3

170

Courchelettes

rue Gauguin

4

185

Douai

ruelle d'Anchin

1

200

Douai

rue du Grand Bail - Ecole des Mines SAMIIA

201

Douai

Arsenal

203

Ecaillon

La Motte

2

209

Estrées

Les Catillons

2

213

Izel-les-Esquerchin

Le Bois du Petit Lapin

8

225

Wandignies-Hamage

l'abbaye

14

186

Douai

1 2 38

228

Douai

ruelle de l'Evêque

17

234

Douai

rue de Paris - SIMCA

15

242

Flers-en-Escrebieux

Grande Haie (hôtel Formule 1)

18

246

Douai

rue François Lemaire

11

255

Douai

Nouvelles Galeries

18

262

Douai

rue Saint-Benoît

38

271

Douai

rue de l'Université

2

276

Douai

rue Mongat

15

286

Lauwin-Planque

avenue Jacques-Cartier

41

287

Douai

rue Saint-Nicolas

1

307

Douai

rue François Cuvelle

8

308

Douai

ancienne Chartreuse

155

341

Guesnain

place Roger Salengro

5

345

Dechy

rue Victor Hugo

1

349

Douai

rue du Kiosque

17

361

Cantin

rue du Château / rue de l'Eglise

4

371

Brebières

rue Désobry

6

376

Escaudain

rocade

8

412

Douai

rue de la Cuve d'Or

11

448

Oisy-le-Verger

rue du Château

10

TOTAL

902

Table 1: Inventory of the collections studied.

70

Iroquoian Bone Artifacts: Characteristics and Problems Christian GATES ST-PIERRE Université de Laval, Québec, Canada Abstract The Iroquoian populations living in Northeastern North America before and after contact with the first Europeans produced large quantities of well preserved bone tools in archaeological sites. This article presents a detailed description of the various functional categories of bone tools typically found in prehistoric Iroquoian bone tool assemblages. The major similarities and differences between the bone tools of the various Iroquoian subgroups, mainly the Iroquois, Hurons, and St.Lawrence Iroquoians, will be highlighted. This will be followed by a discussion of some important problems frequently encountered when studying Iroquoian bone artifacts, regarding cultural and chronological variations, the links between tools made of stone, bone, and metal, morphological standardization, functional identifications, and technological analyses. between artifacts made of bone, stone and metal, morphological standardization, functional identifications, and technological analyses.

Introduction The ancient Iroquoian populations of Northeastern North America were renowned for the quality and beauty of their ceramic productions, but they were also gifted makers of objects made of bone, antler, tooth and shell (collectively referred to as "bone" hereafter, unless specified otherwise). Because these artifacts were produced at the very end of prehistory or during the historic period, their preservation is usually excellent despite the acidic soils of the area. However, this category of artifacts has not received all of the attention it deserves from archaeologists. As a result, publications dealing specifically with Iroquoian bone artifacts are very few and what we know about them usually comes from published or unpublished site reports containing short chapters or sections with simple descriptions of worked bone assemblages. Far from being peculiar to Northeastern North America, the situation is about the same everywhere else on the continent, as opposed to Europe where bone artifact specialists and publications are legion. Finding the exact reason(s) for this situation is well beyond the objectives of this article. However, this lack of interest towards Iroquoian bone artifacts must be stressed here as it explains many of the voids and lacunae in our knowledge and understanding of these artifacts.

Figure 1: Map of Northeastern North America showing the historical location of the various Iroquoian nations.

It must be stressed from the onset that the Iroquoian bone artifacts described and discussed in this article are predominantly those of the Iroquois, or Five Nations Iroquois (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk), the Huron, the Neutral, and the St.Lawrence Iroquoians. This is only because the archaeology of these groups is much more developed compared to the archaeology of other Northern Iroquoian populations (the Erie, Petun, Susquehannock, and Wenro). This should not affect significantly the general description of the panIroquoian bone artifacts, but it certainly represents a serious hindrance in our efforts toward comprehensive inter-group comparisons.

This article offers a general introduction to the bone artifacts manufactured by the various Iroquoian populations of Northeastern North America during the Late Woodland period (AD 1000 to 1550) and the historic (or Post-Contact) period, especially the 16th, and 17th centuries (Figure 1). It first presents a description of the various functional categories of bone artifacts typically found in prehistoric Iroquoian worked bone assemblages. The major similarities and differences between the worked bone assemblages of the various Iroquoian nations are then highlighted. This is followed by a discussion of some important problems frequently encountered in the analyses of Iroquoian bone artifacts, regarding cultural and chronological variations, the links

Readers unfamiliar with Iroquoian cultures are referred to the excellent overviews provided by Engelbrecht (2005),

71

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE Snow (1994), Tooker (1964), Tremblay (2006), and Trigger (1976, 1978), among many others. For the purpose of this article, suffice it to say that Iroquoians were egalitarian, matrilineal and matrilocal societies living in longhouses located in large semi-permanent villages that were sometimes palisaded. Their subsistence was based on the products of horticulture, essentially corn, squash and beans although hunting, fishing and gathering provided important food complements.

a rounded and large proximal end. This is based on the assumption that Iroquoian awls were handled in the same manner as modern metal awls used in leatherwork, where awls are pushed from the base into leather pieces. However, the presence of wear on the shaft of many Iroquoian awls, the high frequency of awls with rough, unfinished bases, as well as the impressive length of many specimens (>20cm) strongly suggest that at least some of the Iroquoian awls were held and pushed by the shaft, not the base.

Bone artifact descriptions In the following descriptions of Iroquoian bone artifacts particular attention is given to form, function, and materials, but decoration (when present), manufacturing techniques and site context are also discussed when relevant data are available. Regarding function, no distinction as been made between so-called "utilitarian" and "non-utilitarian" objects. Here any worked bone is considered utilitarian, whether it is used as a tool, a weapon, a body or cloth ornament, a gaming piece, or a ceremonial object; these are all utilitarian functions, material responses to specific needs. Categories will be presented in five large ensembles of similar functions; manufacture, food procurement and warfare, food preparation, ornament, and leisure/ceremonial. Some categories will inevitably receive more comment than others, and a unique category, bone handles, will be treated separately. Readers should also be aware that since this is only an overview article with an imposed space limit, this exercise cannot pretend to be exhaustive. Figure 2: a-v) Bone and antler awls; w-y) bodkins or pins. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Manufacture Awls This category includes bone artifacts used in the manufacturing of other objects, or what could be called "bone tools" properly speaking. Awls are certainly the most ubiquitous category of Iroquoian bone tools. They can count for more than 80% of the total in worked bone assemblages. The shapes and dimensions of Iroquoian bone awls are extremely variable and reflect a complete lack of standardization (Figure 2). Awls can be simply defined as pointed tools used for piercing holes. From a strictly morphological point of view, this basic definition implies that an awl only need to have a pointed end to accomplish the task it is used for. For the rest, anything goes, so to speak, although there is a tendency for bone awls to have a sharp distal end and a somewhat long and narrow shaft. Not surprisingly, bodkins, pins, daggers, tattooing needles, food picks, pottery markers, pins from the cup-and-pin game, and corn husking pins are often confounded with awls because their general morphology is quite similar, if not identical in some cases.

The skeletal elements that served as the original support for awls and the manufacturing techniques are varied, although some are more common than others. Thus, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) metacarpals and metatarsals are frequently encountered although white-tailed deer antler, mandible, ulna and tibia, black bear (Ursus americanus) ulna and fibula, beaver (Castor canadensis) and racoon (Procyon lator) radius, racoon bacula, long bones from large birds, and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) spines were also used. A possible ivory awl was also reported, from the Dawson site (Pendergast and Trigger 1972, 133). In some cases, the transformation of the skeletal element was minimal. For instance, transforming a deer second or fifth metacarpal or metatarsal (from the dew claw) into an awl only necessitated sharpening and polishing the proximal end which is naturally pointed (cf. Figure 2u-v). Likewise, there are many examples of what are sometimes called "splinter bone awls", i.e. awls that were made from splinters resulting from the splitting of long bones (cf. Figure 2c, i, q). Long splinters with an acute angle were selected and, again, their form only

Along with Thomas (1998, 94), I disagree with authors such as Jamieson (1993, 51) and Junker-Andersen (1981, 11-12) who have stated that awls should necessarily have

72

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS necessitated sharpening and polishing of that pointed end to obtain an expedient awl.

needles (Clermont et al. 1983, 61-62; Finlayson 1998, 215-216; Lennox 1981, 311; 1984, 102).

Bone awls were sometimes decorated with incisions forming abstract designs such as filled-in triangles, chevrons, criss-cross motifs, or series of short parallel incisions perpendicular to the long axis. The spatial and contextual provenience of the bone awls on the archaeological sites is extremely varied, but like many other Iroquoian bone tools they are more frequently discovered in middens and refuse heaps.

Other categories of objects Flakers and punches are sometimes present in Iroquoian bone tool assemblages, but usually in small quantities. This is largely due to the continuously diminishing importance of flaked stone tools in the material culture of Iroquoian societies. Flakers represent one of the few functional categories of objects most frequently made from antler instead of bone.

Chisels Chisels represent another important category of Iroquoian bone tools (Figure 3g). They were almost exclusively made of beaver incisors. However, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) incisors were also used on some rare occasions, as well as antler tines and bear canines. Mandibular beaver incisors were favored, and they were sometimes still left attached to the mandible that acted as a handle. The only modification needed was accentuation of the lingual bevel naturally present at the distal end of rodent incisors. The resulting tool was used as a chisel to carve wood, as reported by Sagard (1976, 322) among the Hurons. A rarer variant shows a lateral bevel instead, resulting in a pointed distal end, which is more suggestive of an awl-like utilization or even as a crooked knife.

Spatulate bone tools (cf. Figure 3e), usually displaying a large and flat distal end, have been identified on many occasions in Iroquoian assemblages but, again, never in any large numbers. They could be used to carry out certain kinds of tasks, but the shaping of pottery rims, the smoothing of clay coils, and the making of incised decoration on pottery are the tasks most often cited. Bones with dentate or serrated edges have also been interpreted as pottery decorators (cf. Figure 3f). Archaeologists have frequently suggested that the use wear visible on the edges of some clam shells is the result of utilization as scraping or burnishing tools in pottery manufacture. This is a plausible explanation, but it has never been clearly demonstrated. Some rare and hypothetical bone or antler adzes and axes have also been identified in various collections (see Beauchamp 1902, 324-325; Clermont et al. 1986, 37-40). Likewise, Wright (1981, 102) suggested that antlers with hafting holes (cf. Figure 3h) initially interpreted as arrow-shaft straighteners, were more probably used as thong preparers. However, Lennox (1981, 317) believes they were more probably used as "holders for antler drifts" in flint knapping activities. Prevec and Noble (1983, 46-47) proposed that hollowed antler tines were used as "(…) pronged detachable heads for wooden handled cultivators", based on wear patterns (see also Wintemberg 1936, 33 and Wright 2004, 1244, 1248). Finally, Ritchie (1980, 287) suggested that bone scrapers or "beamers" were used to remove the hair from deer hides.

Figure 3: a-d) Bone needles; e) spatula; f) possible pottery decorator; g) modified rodent incisor; h) perforated antler. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Food procurement and warfare This very general ensemble includes objects used in food procurement activities, especially hunting and fishing, but also bone objects which could be either used as hunting weapons or as weapons of war, such as daggers and projectile points.

Needles Needles are included in most large assemblages of Iroquoian bone artifacts (cf. Figure 3a-d). It is necessary to distinguish the short, straight and slender needles with an eye drilled at the proximal end, from the longer, larger, usually flat needles with an eye in the middle or near the middle part of the tool, and sometimes retaining the curvature of the mammal ribs they were often made of. While the former were probably used for sewing clothes, the latter might be more properly described as netting needles. Finally, it has been suggested that some very finely pointed needles may have served as tattooing

Iroquoian people predominantly made common fish hooks carved into a "J" shape (Figure 4h-j), although composite fish hooks were also used. Some of these fish hooks are barbed and they may have a knob at the proximal end for attachment to a line. The Iroquoian fishing gear also included bone barbs (Figure 4k-l), which are short bi-pointed objects that were either inserted at the distal end of fish spears, inserted into the shank of

73

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE compound fish hooks, or attached to fish lines in the manner of gorges. Longer variants of barbs may have served as prongs inserted into fish leisters or tridents. Because of their small size and simple form, barbs could be made out of virtually any bone skeletal element. Barbs are most abundant on fishing camps such as the Steward site (Jamieson 1993) and the Dunsmore site (Thomas 1998, 98).

(Figure 5a-c). It includes some very slender, elongated shapes which makes them look like awls, pins or prongs, functions which they might also have had. Interestingly, some of these projectile points are decorated with incised abstract designs similar to those observed on bracelets and armbands. The second sub-category consists of antler or bone conical points, generally showing a flat base and a round or oval shape in cross-section (Figure 5d-f). The third category, called "hollow bone points" by Wintemberg (1936, 24), were made by cutting off the extremities of small long bones and the shaping of a beveled and pointed distal end, revealing the medullary cavity (Figure 5g-h). Some specimens in the last two categories have small lateral barbs on each side of the base, which may have facilitated attachment to the shaft.

Figure 5: Bone and antler projectile points. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Figure 4: a-g) Bone and antler harpoon heads; h-i) bone fish hooks; j) unfinished fish hook; k-l) bone barbs or leister prongs. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

As mentioned earlier, daggers can be easily confused with awls, knives, corn husking pins, and even projectile points, and so they are not often identified as daggers in the literature. Perhaps they can correctly be distinguished from awls when they have a tip with a wide angle, clearly unsuitable for a fine piercing, and/or when they do not possess sharp blades. However, these morphological traits often do not suffice to establish a valid differentiation from knives or even husking pins. Daggers could be made out of virtually any long bone from medium to large mammalian species, including human ulnae as reported at the Campbell site (Finlayson 1998, 172, 293) and the Roebuck site (Jamieson 1983, 164; Wintemberg 1936, 56, 59). A decorated dagger made of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) ivory also exists from the Atwell site (Bradley 1987, 65).

Iroquoian harpoons display important variations in terms of shapes and sizes, some having a single barb, others having multiple barbs on one side, and still others being barbed on both sides (cf. Figure 4a-g). In many cases the barbs are limited to the distal part, but other specimens have series of barbs running down almost to the base. Some have a small hole drilled at the base for attachment of a line to the shaft, others do not. Most harpoons were made of mammalian bone, but antler could also be utilized. They were probably used to catch large fish species or medium to large size mammals, such as (but not exclusively) sea mammals. Normally, harpoons are not decorated, but there are notable exceptions, such as the harpoon decorated with incised, encircling, regularly spaced lines from the Walker site (Wright 1981, 102).

Food preparation

The shapes and sizes of Iroquoian projectile points are again quite varied. However, at least three sub-categories can be identified (see Junker-Anderson 1981, 32-35). First is the bone projectile point that most resembles stone projectile points, being flat and thin, with symmetrical blades and a stem or a narrowed base

Food preparation is certainly one of the domains of activities in which Iroquoian peoples made full use of tools and other implements made with materials other than bone: utensils made of wood, various stone tools, ceramic cooking vessels, bark containers, etc. (see Morgan 1851; Parker 1910; Tooker 1964; Waugh 1916).

74

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS As a consequence, the types of bone tools used in food preparation are limited.

bones of birds or mammals (Figure 6a-g). Tubular beads made of human fibulae, ulnae or radii have also been identified, notably at the Roebuck site (Jamieson 1983, 164-165; Wintemberg 1936, 64) and the Christianson site (Fitzgerald 1982, 200, 202), as well as beads made from the distal part of deer proximal phalanges, the so-called "deer toe bead" (McCullough 1978, 74-75; Prevec and Noble 1983, 47; Wintemberg 1939, 34). Manufacturing traces and bead waste indicate that in many cases long bone diaphyses were first scored and snapped, the extremities then being smoothed and polished (Figure 6cd). Those beads are sometimes decorated with a series of incised parallel lines (Figure 6a-b).

One of the most intriguing Iroquoian bone tools is the corn husking pin. As its name indicates, this tool was used to peel the husk from the corn cob. Better known from ethnographic descriptions (Parker 1910, 32-33; Waugh 1916, 39-40, 169), bone husking pins have certainly been confused with awls and other pointed bone tools by archaeologists in the past, as mentioned earlier, and only microwear analysis can allow a valid distinction (Gates St-Pierre 2007). Thus, they are never clearly identified in archaeological assemblages. Another tool possibly used in the preparation of corn is the corn scraper, which consists of a simple, usually unmodified, deer mandible used to detach the kernels from the cob, as recorded by Parker (1910, 53-54) and Waugh (1916, 169) among the Iroquois. This tool is not common in archaeological assemblages however, and has only been identified at a few sites (Emerson 1967, 133; Jamieson 1993, 53; Pendergast 1966, 34; Wintemberg 1936, 48), perhaps because zooarchaeologists are not recognizing them in the faunal assemblages.

Iroquoians also made beads out of shell, especially whelk (Busycon sp.) columella, in which case they can adopt many diferent shapes: flat, concave-sided (four pointed stars), discoidal (Figure 6k), tubular (Figure 6j), etc. (see Cowin 2000). Simply perforated shells of various species of snails were also used as beads. There also exist a few examples of carnivore canines having their extremities cut to expose the root canal, which were probably used as beads (Finlayson 1998, 228; Wintemberg 1936, 64). Although beads can be found in many contexts, they count among the artifacts most frequently encountered in burials. For example, more than a thousand beads forming many complete necklaces were found with the burials of the Tram site (Walker 2007, 125; Wray et al. 1991).

Antler, bone and shell spoons and ladles have been recovered from a number of sites, generally in burials dating from the historic period (see examples in Kenyon 1982; Pratt 1976; Prisch 1982; Ritchie 1936; Skinner 1920a; Snow 1995, 83; and Wood 1964, among others). Antler was favored over bone and shell, in part because it allowed the production of broader and larger spoons. While most are left undecorated, some have notches or carved decoration along the handle or at the proximal end. Knives made with bone, and sometimes antler, are seldom present in Iroquoian assemblages. Also, at least one alleged example of a shell knife has been reported, from the Kirche site (Ramsden 1989, 52). Some knives are decorated with a series of incised parallel lines, filledin triangles or other abstract motifs, but most are undecorated. For the purpose of this article, knives have been arbitrarily classified as objects used in food preparation activities, although they could obviously have been used to accomplish some other tasks as well. Moreover, we have seen that bone knives can be confused with many other bone objects with a pointed distal end. In this regard, an asymmetric shape, a distal end with a broad angle, and a very sharp blade might not necessarily represent essential characteristics of Iroquoian bone knives. Ornament

Figure 6: a-g) Bone beads; h) bear tooth pendant; i) shell gorget; j-k) shell beads. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Beads are probably the most abundant category of Iroquoian ornamental artifacts made of bone or other animal materials. Most bone beads have a tubular or cylindrical shape, especially those made from the long

75

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE Many Algonquian and Iroquoian tribes of Northeastern North America, including the Iroquois, Neutral and Huron, made wampums in late prehistoric times, but more importantly during the 17th and 18th centuries. The term wampum (or wampumpeag, from an Alonquian language) refers to belts or collars of cylindrical, white and purple (or "black") beads made with North Atlantic channeled whelk (Busycon canaliculatum) shells and quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) clam shells respectively. They were used as currency for some time, but they were also used to record treaties, alliances and other significant events in a pictorial manner. It has been noted that;

Armbands and bracelets are always decorated which usually consist of rows of dots or small punctates, sometimes connected by an incised line. Some authors have established a parallel between arm tatoos and the rows of dots on armbands and bracelets, apparently suggesting that the later may constitute a material representation of the former (Williamson and Veilleux 2005, 20). Dots forming triangles and incised triangles filled with parallel lines are also frequent motifs. They may represent abstracted tails and wings of the Thunderbird, a mythical character common to both Iroquoian and Algonquian ideologies (see Fox 2004). Bodkins have often been identified by archaeologists among Iroquoian worked bone assemblages (cf. Figure 2w-y). However, they have proposed many different morpho-functional definitions of bodkins (as a dagger, an elaborate awl, a hairpin, a blunt sewing or weaving needle, etc.) and many seem quite far from the modern definitions found in dictionaries. Williamson and Veilleux (2005, 27) have noted that bodkins are frequently found in semi-subterranean sweat lodges, which suggest a use as hairpins instead of weaving tools. In support of that hypothesis is the fact that "bodkins" are usually very well manufactured, entirely polished, sometimes without any eye, and often decorated with a series of annular grooves at the proximal end. Interestingly, it has been suggested that this type of carved decoration might represent rattlesnake tails (Fox 1982; see also Williamson and Veilleux 2005, 27).

"[a]lthough the generic term wampum has been applied to a variety of shell and other beads, the term properly denotes a particular type of white and purple cylindrical shell bead drilled from opposite ends with steel awls and composing Iroquois wampum belts (...) or "true" wampum (...)". (Fenton 1998, 225). Because wampums had a great economic, social, political and symbolic importance, they have been well documented by historians, anthropologists and archaeologists, including almost every aspect of their manufacture (see Beauchamp 1901; Burggraf 1938; Orchard 1929; Wilcox 1976, among others). Never abundant, Iroquoian armbands and bracelets (or wristlets/anklets) are long, flat and thin pieces of bone with a strong curvature and one or two holes at each end, probably for attachment (Figure 7). It is possible that soaking or boiling in water was necessary to obtain a more malleable bone and creating the desired curvature. They were generally manufactured from large mammal ribs, probably white-tailed deer or black bear, but some other specimens have been reported as having been made of antler. There is also at least one case where human cranial bone was employed (Carter 1981, 33).

Other long, slender and pointed objects simply identified as "pins" by archaeologists might also represent hairpins. One such object from the Droulers site, very carefully crafted, was particularly long (14.5cm), bipointed, with a rounded "barb", incised decoration at one end, and was entirely darkened and polished (Gates St-Pierre 2001, 47). Bone pendants and gorgets are ornamental objects with one or two holes for suspension and are believed to be worn around the neck or attached to clothing. Pendants were often made from carnivore (especially bear) canines which were either perforated or grooved at the root for suspension (cf. Figure 6h). Other pendants take the form of perforated deer teeth, or fish vertebra, or of circular or ovate shell (cf. Figure 6i), bone, antler or even ivory discs with a perforation at the top or at the center and, in some cases, engraved decoration. Some pendants and gorgets were made with human skull bones (see Jamieson 1983). It should be noted that some objects identified as pendants might in fact constitute elements assembled, alternating with beads, to form necklaces (see examples in Snow 1995; Walker 2007). The primary function of Iroquoian bone and antler combs was certainly to clean and fashion one’s hair. However, Iroquoians also used combs as an ornamental object, either by wearing it at the back of the head or by drilling a hole at the top of the handle to attach a string and wear

Figure 7: Bone armbands. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

76

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS A few other bone, antler, tooth or shell items have been reported as body or clothes ornaments in the literature. For example, objects interpreted as shell earplugs or ear spools were recovered at the Grimsby site (Kenyon 1982) and at the Power House site (Hayes 1989, 41). Bone and shell maskettes (miniature masks), claw cores (the curved distal phalanges of most bird and some mammal species) and fragments of animal skulls (recovered in burials), might also have had an ornamental and/or symbolic function.

it as a pendant or at the waist. Archaeological preforms and manufacturing debris indicate that combs were manufactured by first obtaining a rectangular or trapezoidal shape, which was next divided in two sections by a horizontal line engraved somewhere in the middle (Figure 8e-f). This was followed by the engraving of vertical guiding-lines in the lower part which were then cut out to form the teeth using modified rodent incisors (chisels) or stone knives (and, later, with metal tools). The handle was apparently carved after the teeth. A rough draft was first marked out and one or a series of holes served as decoration or as starting points for more elaborate carvings (Figure 8a-d, g). Finally, the combs were sometimes painted, dyed, or embellished with feathers and beads (Weisshuhn 2004).

Leisure and/or ceremonial Modified phalanges are quite common in Iroquoian assemblages of bone artifacts. The modifications are varied and the skeletal element usually consists of deer proximal phalanges, although wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), American elk (Cervus elaphus) or moose (Alces alces) phalanges have also been recorded on rare occasions, as well as human phalanges (Finlayson 1998, 170). Perhaps the most frequent type of modification consists of drilling a small hole at the distal end of the phalange, while the proximal articular surface is either perforated or completely removed to create a large aperture (Figure 9a-h). Some of these phalanges have burn marks or a series of short and parallel incisions on their dorsal surfaces. The second major variant have one or many surfaces of the phalange that were ground, flattened or faceted, usually to the point of exposing the marrow cavity (Figure 9i-m).

The motifs engraved on the middle part of the combs are usually geometrical (straight lines, wavy lines, punctates, chevrons, criss-cross, or hourglass motifs) and the carved effigies on the handles, simple or double, will more frequently adopt animal shapes (mostly bear, heron, otter, wolf, beaver and serpent), and/or human shapes, real or mythical (European and the famous Trickster1, for example), and are usually symmetrical. Bone and antler combs have been predominantly recovered in burials of the historic period, and especially (but not exclusively) in women’s graves (Weisshuhn 2004, 143; Wray 1963).

Figure 8: a-d, g) Complete and e-f) unfinished bone and antler combs. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Figure 9: Modified deer phalanges (a-d and e-h are the same bones from different views). Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

77

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE There have been many different functional interpretations from archaeologists concerning modified phalanges: elements in the cup-and-pin game, gaming pieces, dice, counters, beads, bangles, rattles, jinglers, wedges, flute stops, whistles, toggles, and arrowheads (see McCullough 1978, 86-99 for a more detailed discussion). However, phalanges of the first variant are predominantly interpreted as pieces of the cup-and-pin game which was widespread among the North American native populations throughout the historic period (Culin 1975, 527-561; Guilday 1963), but this is contested by McCullough (1978, 91) Ferris et al. (1985, 10), and Wright (1974, 100) among others. Regarding the function of the second variant of modified phalanges, opinions are more diverse, although their use as gaming pieces or as toggles are perhaps the uses most frequently suggested.

Williamson and Veilleux (2005, 5-13) have suggested that figurines with their head intentionally removed "(…) represents a symbolic beheading or spirit capture or expulsion". Shell figurines or effigies representing humans (Saunders and Sempowski 1991, 20-21), fishes and birds (see Cowin 2000) have also been reported. Turtle shell rattles have often been identified in Iroquoian assemblages, but they are usually only present as drilled carapace fragments (Figure 10d-e). Although most are undecorated, a section of a turtle carapace from the Van Eden site is decorated with a burned-in image of men in a canoe, and was probably part of a rattle (Finlayson 1998, 228, 1262). Also notable are the human skull rattles from various Iroquoian sites (Abel 2001, 134-135; Finlayson 1998, 293; Pratt 1976, 139; Prevec and Noble 1983, 47; Wray et al. 1987, 45-47; Wright 1981, 103), which have been interpreted as evidence for warfare and cannibalism (Jamieson 1983; 1990, 394).

Bone tubes constitute an intriguing category (Figure 10ac), especially because it can be difficult to distinguish them from large beads, although some authors have suggested maximum lenghts that would allow to differentiate beads from tubes: 55mm for Wright (1981, 306) and 100mm for Lennox (1981, 306). It has also been noted that tubes are more often decorated compared to beads (Wright 1981; Lennox 1981). Bone tubes are also intriguing because their function is largely uncertain. While most would see them as "sucking tubes" used in shamanistic curing activities, many other utilizations are possible, and Thomas (1998, 88) has enumerated just some of them: "(…) as tubular components of other items, such as sockets for feathers in costumes, as parts of containers for small objects, as sliding elements of snares, or as parts of some other types of compound artifacts". Mammalian long bones, especially deer bones, were used to manufacture bone tubes. At the Hamilton site, where bone tubes are especially abundant, numerous other species were also identified however: Canada goose (Branta canadensis), trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator), wild turkey, American elk, dog (Canis familiaris), wolf (Canis lupus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereargenteus), lynx (Lynx lynx), bear and racoon (Lennox 1981, 307-308). In their extensive study of Iroquoian decorated bone and antler artifacts, Williamson and Veilleux (2005, 21) have indicated that the most common type of decoration on bone tubes are short parallel incisions (which could also possibly represent a tally system), but annular grooves, triangles, zigzag motifs and wavy lines were also recorded (Figure 10b-c).

Much less common categories of Iroquoian bone objects associated with leisure or ceremonial activities are antler dice or "gaming pieces" (Beauchamp 1902, 319-320; Wray et al. 1991, 218), deer scapula pipes (Figure 10f-i) (Pendergast 1966, 33; Ramsden 1989, 51; Wintemberg 1936, 84; Wright 2004, 1244, 1251; see also Chapdelaine 1989, 208), deer antler pipes (Wray et al. 1991, 47), and bone flutes (Finlayson 1998, 320, 345; Lennox 1981, 313).

Beautifully carved antler figurines, usually less than 10cm in their maximum length, are generally interpreted as grave offerings ("protective charms", according to Ritchie 1954, 67) and almost exclusively accompany the burials of infants or young children (Carpenter 1942; Mathews 1980, 73-74; Saunders and Sempowski 1980, 19; Williamson and Veilleux 2005, 5; Wray et al. 1991, 223). Antler figurines represent either complete bodies of adults, mostly females adopting the "September Morn" pose (one hand on the chest and the other hand over the genitals or the abdomen), or infants without arms or legs.

Figure 10: a-c) Bone tubes; d-e) fragments of turtle rattles; f-i) deer scapula pipes. Collections of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

78

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS Handles

17th century (Carpenter 1942; Sempowski and Saunders 2001), an augmentation associated with a significant increase in child mortality (Saunders and Sempowski 1991, 19).

A handle is the part by which an object is held and controlled, the non-active part of the object. In the case of Iroquoian bone objects, handles are physically distinct from the functional part, which can be the tip of an awl, the blade of a dagger, a modified rodent incisor, etc. Thus, bone handles cannot be considered within functional categories per se, since they are elements of more complex objects having different functions.

Bradley (1987, 64) has observed a diminishing in the frequency of pendants, but a rising frequency of gorgets made from human cranial bone during the protohistoric period among the Onondaga. He also observed a tendency for discoidal shell beads to be replaced by tubular wampum beads during the first half of the 17th century (Bradley 1987, 172-179). Wampum beads have been found virtually all over Iroquoia, but they were especially abundant among the Iroquois; and if their origin can be traced back at least to the Middle Woodland period (AD 1-1000) in New York State (Ceci 1989), it is only during the 17th and 18th centuries that they really became numerically important. Their form and function also changed significantly through time (see Ceci 1989; Lainey 2004; Snyderman 1954, among others). Similarly, Sempowski (1989) has identified variations through time in the frequency of marine shell artifacts (including wampum) on post-Contact Seneca sites, fluctuations that she related to specific changes in trading activities.

Iroquoian tool handles were frequently, but not exclusively, made from antler, and while some are quite rudimentary (a broken antler tine with a socket drilled at one extremity), others are much more sophisticated; finely carved and polished, displaying regular forms and elaborate decoration, including carved effigies and incised abstract motifs. Such elaborate handles became more popular in historic times when metal items were being introduced in the Iroquoian material culture, such as brass, copper or iron knife blades, awls and chisels. Cultural and chronological variations If most of the categories described in the preceding section are pan-Iroquoian, especially the manufactured bone tools, others are limited to specific groups and could be considered «cultural signatures». Likewise, some bone artifacts saw dramatic changes in their morphology or frequency through time, while the popularity and the forms of others remained relatively stable for centuries.

In her extensive study of modified deer phalanges, McCullough (1978, 58-85) identified some interesting distribution trends. Among the Neutral and Huron-Petun for example, the occurrence of modified deer phalanges increased over time until their disappearance by the historic period, and the perforated variant appears earlier than the ground variant, as was also noted by Emerson (1967, 133) and Wright (1966, 77). Regarding the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, the same chronological trend has been observed (Pendergast 1967, 42; Pendergast and Trigger 1972, 282; Wintemberg 1936, 68, 70) where the ground variant predominates (Jamieson 1990, 394, 1993, 55; Tuck 1971, 207; and Wright 2004, 1248).

Bone and antler combs are particularly instructive in this regard. They are almost exclusively limited to pre- and post-Contact sites of the Neutral and Iroquois, and more especially the Seneca. Prehistoric specimens are rare, crude, have only a few teeth (about 3 to 6) and are decorated with simple geometric motifs (cf. Figure 8), while their historic counterparts are much more abundant (especially during the 17th century) and – thanks to the introduction of iron knives by the Europeans – have more elaborate shapes, are decorated with fine carvings of human and animal effigies, and have a larger number of thinner teeth (Bradley 1987, 64, 126; Weisshuhn 2004; Wray 1963). Iroquoian bone and antler combs disappear following the annihilation of the Seneca at the very end of the 17th century. Other nations will gradually integrate European combs into their material culture. For her part, Walker (2007, 128-129) noted that post-Contact bone artifacts from New York State are generally more diverse and more frequently decorated than pre-Contact ones, especially combs.

The results of a comparative study of Huron and St.Lawrence Iroquoian bone artifacts presented by Jamieson (1993, 53-54) indicated that corn husking pins and mandible corn scrapers are both absent from Huron and St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites. As mentioned earlier, these tools were also known and used by the Iroquois, at least during the historic period as reported by Parker (1910, 32-33) and Waugh (1916, 39-40, 169). Jamieson mentions that corn husking pins and mandible corn scrapers are "functionally equivalent" (Waugh 1916, 56; see also Jamieson 1990, 393), which is wrong: husking and scraping corn cobs are not exactly the same tasks. Deer scapula pipes (cf. Figure 10f-i) would represent another distinctively St. Lawrence Iroquoian bone artifact according to Jamieson (1990, 394; see also Wright 2004, 1244). The single specimen from the Huron Kirche site might have been brought there through exchange with the St. Lawrence Iroquoians (Ramsden 1989, 64-66). The same author also indicated that bone beads appear to be abundant everywhere, except in St. Lawrence Iroquoian assemblages, where stone and clay beads are more

Human figurines and maskettes were essentially of Iroquois origin, although a few specimens have also been found at an Erie village, the Goodyear site (Engelbrecht 1991, 7) and at an ancient Wenro village (Skinner 1920b). They were almost exclusively manufactured during the early historic period, i.e. before the end of the

79

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE numerous (Jamieson 1990, 394; 1993, 54, 56). Discs cut from human skulls and interpreted as fragments of rattles are more common in St. Lawrence Iroquoian assemblages, without being exclusive to this group (Jamieson 1990, 394).

Neutral (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990, 420; Noble 1978, 157; Prevec and Noble 1983, 46). The manufacture of projectile points, scrapers, knives, drills, and other flaked stone tools almost came to an end in late Iroquoian times, and these tools were apparently replaced by their bone equivalents. In fact, the decline in stone tool production is inversely proportional to the ever rising popularity of bone tools during the Late Woodland period and the early historic period in Iroquoia. Finlayson (1998, 27) offers an excellent illustration of this phenomena; he estimated that the ratio of bone artifacts to pottery rim sherds rose from 0.2:1 to 1:1 during the Middle Stage (AD 1300 to 1400) of the Ontario Iroquois Tradition in the Crawford Lake area of Southwestern Ontario.

In their general presentation of Neutral bone and antler artifacts, Lennox and Fitzgerald (1990, 423) noted that bone "sucking tubes" were especially numerous during the 1630-1650 period, and may represent "(…) an attempt to combat the psychological and physical trauma initiated by the post-A.D. 1634 epidemics". They also stated that bone tubes were restricted to the Neutral (Lennox and Fitzgerald 1990; Prevec and Noble 1983, 47), but this is incorrect. Bone tubes are especially numerous in Neutral assemblages, for example at the Hamilton site where 200 have been found (Lennox 1981, 305; see also Williamson and Veilleux 2005, 22-23). However, bone tubes have also been identified in various assemblages of the Huron, Iroquois and St. Lawrence Iroquoians (Beauchamp 1902, 317, 337; Gates St-Pierre 2001, 46-47; Pendergast 1972, 32; Pendergast and Trigger 1972, 139, 259; Ramsden 1990, 371; Snow 1995, 392; Sutton 1990, 19, 36, 80-81, 92-93; Walker 2007).

It seems that Iroquoians gradually but steadily came to prefer the greater range of morpho-functional objects they could get from bone compared to stone, especially during the historic period. At this time, the introduction of metal tools allowed a greater range of manufacturing possibilities. It is also possible that as the Iroquoians gradually turned into semi-sedentary horticulturatlists, high quality cherts became less readily available (see Jamieson 1990, 392-393).

Some regional variations not related to ethnicity are also worthy of attention. First is the scarcity of bone artifacts in some areas, especially in the Central Province of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians located around Lake St. Pierre, near the city of Trois-Rivières. This is where the Mandeville (Chapdelaine 1989), Lanoraie (Clermont et al. 1983), and Masson (Benmouyal 1990) villages were located, three Iroquoian villages with some of the smallest collections of bone tools. The osseous food remains are abundant on each of these sites, and as a consequence bone preservation cannot be held responsible for this situation. Benmouyal (1990, 118) suggested that wood might have been favored over bone as the preferred material in the manufacture of objects, a not entirely convincing hypothesis as it does not explain why the phenomena is only observable in this specific area. In sum, the mystery remains.

Although Iroquoian societies never ceased to produce bone objects, the adoption of European manufactured goods by Iroquoian societies had other important consequences. One is the appearance of bone and antler imitations of imported objects which were largely if not completely ignored before, such as spoons. Similarly, a profound transformation occurred in the morphology and/or manufacturing techniques of some other categories, combs and handles notably, while many others, such as awls, fish hooks, knives, needles, projectile points, and beads, were gradually replaced by European equivalents made of metal or glass. Thus, in some cases the shift was in material preference only, not in form or function.

Another interesting regional distinction is the high frequency of artifacts made of sea mammal bones in the St. Lawrence River Estuary, a region inhabited by Algonquian groups but regularly visited by transhumant St. Lawrence Iroquoians from the Quebec City area (Chapdelaine 1993). The worked bone assemblages discovered on Iroquoian hunting camps in this region include many harpoons, barbed leister prongs and other pointed objects probably used to hunt seals and beluga (Chapdelaine 1984; Plourde 2001; Plourde and Gates StPierre 2003; Tremblay 1993).

One of the major problems encountered when studying Iroquoian bone artifacts is the nearly complete lack of morphological standardization. The first section of this article highlighted the immense morphological variability existing within almost any of the bone tool categories. One important consequence of this is the absence of Iroquoian bone artifact types.

Morphological standardisation

There have been a few attempts at creating typologies for some specific categories of bone artifacts. For example, Timmins (1997, 144-145) defined three awl types based on essentially two morphological characteristics of the tip: the shape in cross-section and the degree of taper. However, these types do not take into account the full morphological variability of bone awls since they only consider the form of the tip. For her part, McCullough

Stone, bone, and metal The Iroquoians did not make and use stone tools as much as their ancestors did, with the possible exception of the

80

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS established 24 kinds of modified phalanges, each based on one or two variables, but these are classes, not types.

have almost never been applied to Iroquoian bone artifacts (Gates St-Pierre 2007).

Typologies and other classifications may be too closely associated with the old fashioned culture history paradigm in the eyes of many, but they are still useful. The lack of typologies for Iroquoian bone artifacts can be problematic when one tries to make comparisons between a certain number of worked bone assemblages or for studying and understanding mental templates. One factor that could explain this situation is the relatively high number of diverging opinions as to how functional categories of bone artifacts should be defined in the first place, which brings us to another problem: establishing valid functional identifications.

Technological analyses The last point that should be underlined here is the nearly complete absence of technological studies of Iroquoian bone objects. This is an aspect that has received even less attention than functional analyses from researchers. Studies of Iroquoian bone tools rarely go beyond the morpho-functional description level and only occasionally touch upon other technological aspects (material procurement, manufacturing techniques, technological choices, etc.). Thus, technological analyses of Iroquoian bone artifacts involving the systematic study of manufacturing traces and the use of the chaîne opératoire concept, for example, are nonexistent. This situation is not unique to studies of Iroquoian bone artifacts, however. Most of North American bone tool specialists (myself included) should follow the example of their European colleagues in this regard, but without losing sight of an essential anthropological perspective, often lacking in European analyses of bone artifacts.

Functional identifications Some bone tools are task-specific and their peculiar morphology makes it easy to correctly identify their function – a fish hook for example. However, the functional identification of many other Iroquoian bone artifacts can be very problematic. As an opposite example, there are many things one could do with a bone awl; not only piercing hide or leather for clothes making, but also piercing other materials such as bark for the making of containers or canoes, while still others can be used in basket making, in plant fiber processing, as corn husking pins, hair pins, bodkins, tattooing needles, food picks, pins in the cup-and-pin game, pottery markers, etc. Perhaps this is because an awl is a very simple tool to make, and because its very basic shape allows it to be used in quite a large variety of tasks. Microwear analyses that I have conducted suggest that some Iroquoian awls were indeed used to pierce holes in hide, but many others were used to make holes in bark, were involved in plant processing or basket-making, or had use-wear resulting from working with more than one material, suggesting that at least some awls were used as multifunctional tools (Gates St-Pierre 2007). The same study also demonstrated that Iroquoian awls and corn husking pins can only be properly differentiated with a microwear analysis.

Conclusion The main objective of this article is to offer a general, non-exhaustive overview of the Iroquoian worked bone assemblages. The major problems encountered in analyses of Iroquoian bone artifacts are also underlined, along with some possible solutions. But perhaps the most important obstacle in Iroquoian and North American bone tool studies is the lack of worked bone specialists. A simple look at the country of origin of authors in edited volumes on worked bone studies, or at the lists of participants at the international meetings of the Worked Bone Research Group (a subgroup of the International Council for Archaeozoology), is quite illustrative in this regard, as they are overwhelmingly dominated by European researchers. Thus, I would not only conclude with a call for better classifications and more use-wear and technological analyses of Iroquoian bone tools, but also with a plea for the formation of more bone tool specialists in North American academia.

Ethnohistoric and ethnographic documents can represent useful sources of information in our efforts to find out the function of some categories of Iroquoian bone artifacts. However, microwear analysis may very well be the only way to identify the real function of many other problematic bone objects. For example, a thorough microwear analysis of modified deer phalanges could certainly narrow the array of hypotheses formulated regarding their possible functions. The so-called bone sucking tube is another illustrative example: a bone tube has a very simple morphology that can be easily obtained, but the more simple an object, the more varied the functions it can have. Again, a microwear analysis might help identify the precise function of these objects. Unfortunately, such analyses of functional signatures

Note 1: The Trickster is a widespread Native American mythological character dominant in creation stories who plays tricks (such as shape-shifting) and defies conventional rules of behavior, sometimes maliciously (see Hynes, Doty and Ross-Murray 1997; Radin 1956). Acknowledgements I am indebted toward Marie-Eve Brodeur, Adrian L. Burke, Alice Choyke and Alexandra Legrand for their judicious comments on a preliminary version of this

81

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE article. I would also like to thank Jean-Luc Pilon and Stacey Girling-Christie from the Canadian Museum of Civilization for their valuable collaboration.

Research Records N°20. Rochester (New Rochester Museum and Science Center, 63-80.

York),

Chapdelaine, C. 1984. Un campement de pêche iroquoien au royaume du Saguenay. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, 14/1, 25-33.

Christian Gates St-Pierre Département d’histoire Université Laval 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines Local 5309 Québec, Qc, Canada G1V 0A6 [email protected]

Chapdelaine, C. 1989. Le site Mandeville à Tracy: variabilité culturelle des Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent. Signes des Amériques N°7, Montréal, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec. Chapdelaine, C. 1993. La transhumance et les Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, 23/4, 23-38.

References cited Clermont, N., Chapdelaine, C. and Barré, G. 1983. Le site iroquoien de Lanoraie : témoignage d’une maisonlongue. Signes des Amériques N°3, Montréal, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec.

Abel, T. J. 2001. The Clayton Cluster: Cultural Dynamics of a Late Prehistoric Village Sequence in the Upper St. Lawrence Valley. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany.

Clermont, N., Chapdelaine, C. and Ribes, R. 1986. Regard sur la préhistoire trifluvienne: le site Bourassa. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, 16/2-3, 5-55.

Beauchamp, W. M. 1901. Wampum Belts and Shell Articles Used by the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, 41, 319-480.

Cowin, V. L. 2000. Shell Ornaments from Cayuga County, New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 28, 1-13.

Beauchamp, W. M. 1902. Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin of the New York State Museum, 50, 243-350.

Culin, S. 1975 (1907). Games of the North American Indians. New York, Dover Publications.

Benmouyal, J. 1990. Un village iroquoien à Deschambault. Quebec City, Report submitted to the Ministère des Affaires culturelles du Québec.

Emerson, J. N. 1967. The Payne Site: An Iroquoian Manifestation in Prince Edward County, Ontario. In W. E. Taylor (ed.), Contributions to Anthropology V: Archaeology and Physical Anthropology. Ottawa, National Museum of Canada, Bulletin N°206, Anthropological Series N°872, 125-257.

Berg, D. J., Bursey, J. A. 2000. The Worked Faunal Material from the Anderson Site: A Uren Village on the Lower Grand River, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology, 69, 718.

Engelbrecht, W. 1991. Erie. The Bulletin – Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association, 102, 2-12.

Bradley, J. W. 1987. Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, 1500-1655. Syracuse, Syracuse University Press.

Engelbrecht, W. 2005. Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse (New York), Syracuse University Press.

Burggraf, J. D. 1938. Some Notes on the Manufacture of Wampum Prior to 1654. American Antiquity, 4/1, 53-55.

Fenton, W. N. 1998. The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy. Norman (Oklahoma), University of Oklahoma Press.

Carpenter, E. 1942. Iroquoian Figurines. American Antiquity, 8/1, 105-113.

Ferris, N. I., Kenyon, I., Prevec, R., Murphy, C. 1985. Bellamy: A Late Historic Ojibwa Habitation. Ontario Archaeology, 44, 3-21.

Carter, J. A. 1981. Spang: A Sixteenth Century Huron Village Site, Pickering, Ontario. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.

Finlayson, W. D. 1998. Iroquoian Peoples of the Land of Rocks and Water, A.D. 1000-1650: A Study in Settlement Archaeology (4 volumes). Special Publications N°1. London (Ontario), London Museum of Archaeology, University of Western Ontario.

Ceci, L. 1989. Tracing Wampum’s Origins: Shell Bead Evidence from Archaeological Sites in Western and Coastal New York, in C. F. Hayes III and L. Ceci (eds.), Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference.

82

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS Fitzgerald, W. R. 1982. Lest the Beaver Run Loose: The Early 17th Century Christianson Site and Trends in Historic Neutral Archaeology. Mercury Series N°111. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man.

Junker-Andersen, C. 1981. A Preliminary Typology of Bone Awls and Awl-Like Implements from Ontario Archaeological Sites. Unpublished manuscript, Toronto, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. Kenyon, W. A. 1982. The Grimsby Site: A Historic Neutral Cemetery. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum.

Fox, W. A. 2004. Horned Panthers and Erie Associates, in J. V. Wright and J.-L. Pilon (eds.), A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F. Pendergast. Mercury Series N°164. Gatineau (Quebec), Canadian Museum of Civilization, 283-304.

Lainey, J. C. 2004. La «monnaie des Sauvages»: les colliers de wampum d’hier à aujourd’hui. Montréal, Éditions du Septentrion.

Gates St-Pierre, C. 2001. Variations sur un même thème: les objets en os des Iroquoiens du Haut-St-Laurent. Archéologiques, 11-12, 35-54.

Lennox, P. A. 1981. The Hamilton Site: A Late Historic Neutral Town. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Mercury Series N°103.

Gates St-Pierre, C. 2007. Bone Awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis, in C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 107-118.

Lennox, P. A. 1984. The Hood Site: A Historic Neutral Town of 1640 A.D. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Mercury Series N°121.

Hamell, G., Fox, W. A. 2005. Rattlesnake Tales. Ontario Archaeology, 79-80, 127-149.

Lennox, P. A., Fitzgerald, W. R. 1990. The Culture History and Archaeology of the Neutral Iroquoians, in C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London (Ontario), Ontario Archaeological Society, OAS Occasional Publications of the London Chapter N°5, 405-456.

Hayes, C. F. III 1989. An Introduction to the Shell and Shell Artifact Collection at the rochester Museum and Science Center, in C. F. Hayes III and L. Ceci (eds.), Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference. Rochester (New York), Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records N°20, 37-43.

Mathews, Z. P. 1980. Seneca Figurines: A Case of Misplaced Modesty, in N. Bonvillain (ed.), Studies on Iroquoian Culture. Rindge (New Hampshire), Department of Anthropology, Franklin Pierce College, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology N°6, 71-90.

Hynes, W. J., Doty, W. G. and Ross-Murray, C. D. (eds.), 1997. Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticism. Tuscaloosa (Alabama), University of Alabama Press.

McCullough, K. M. 1978. Modified Deer Phalanges at the Draper Site. London (Ontario), London Museum of Archaeology, University of Western Ontario, Research Report N°5.

Jamieson, B. J. 1983. An Examination of PrisonerSacrifice and Cannibalism at the St. Lawrence Iroquoian Roebuck Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 7/2, 159-175.

Morgan, L. H. 1851. League of the Ho-de’-no-sau-nee, Iroquois. Rochester (New York), Sage and Brothers Publishers.

Guilday, J. E. 1963. The Cup-and-Pin Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 33/4, 159-163.

Game.

Noble, W. C. 1978. The Neutral Indians, in W. E. Engelbrecht and D. K. Grayson (eds.), Essays in Northeastern Anthropology in Memory of Marian E. White. Rindge (New Hampshire), Department of Anthropology, Franklin Pierce College, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology N°5, 152-164.

Jamieson, B. J. 1990. The Archaeology of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, in C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London (Ontario), Ontario Archaeological Society, OAS Occasional Publications of the London Chapter N°5, 385404.

Orchard, W. C. 1929. Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians: A Study Based on Specimens in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. Contributions from the Museum of the American Indian N°11. New York, Heye Foundation.

Jamieson, B. J. 1993. Preliminary Observations on the St.Lawrence and Huron Bone, Antler and Ivory Artifacts, in J. F. Pendergast and C. Chapdelaine (eds.), Essays in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Archaeology: Selected Papers in Honour of J. V. Wright. Dundas (Ontario), Copetown Press, Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology N°8, 49-58.

Parker, A. C. 1910. Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. Albany (New York), New York State Museum, Bulletin N°144.

83

CHRISTIAN GATES ST-PIERRE Pendergast, J. F. 1966. Three Prehistoric Iroquois Components in Eastern Ontario. Ottawa, National Museum of Canada, Bulletin N°208, Anthropological Series N°73.

Ritchie, W. A. 1980. The Archaeology of New York State. Harrison (New York), Harbor Hill Books. Sagard, G. 1976 (1632). Le grand voyage du pays des Hurons, présentation par Marcel Trudel. Montréal, Cahiers du Québec N°27, Hurtubise HMH.

Pendergast, J. F. 1967. The Berry Site, in W. E. Taylor (ed.), Contributions to Anthropology V: Archaeology and Physical Anthropology. Ottawa, National Museum of Canada, Bulletin N°206, Anthropological Series N°72, 26-53.

Saunders, L. P. and Sempowski, M. L. 1991. The Seneca Site Sequence and Chronology: The Baby or the Bathwater? The Bulletin – Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association, 102, 13-26.

Pendergast, J. F. 1972. The Lite Site: An Early Southern Division Site Near Belleville, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology, 17, 24-61.

Sempowski, M. L. 1989. Fluctuations Through Time in the Use of Marine Shell at Seneca Iroquois Sites, in C. F. Hayes III, L. Ceci (eds.), Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference. Rochester (New York), Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records N°20, 81-96.

Pendergast, J. F. and Trigger, B. G. 1972. Cartier’s Hochelaga and the Dawson Site. Montreal, McGill– Queen’s University Press.

Sempowski, M. L. and Saunders, L. P. 2001. Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow: The Advent of Dutch Trade Among the Seneca. Rochester (New York), Rochester Museum and Science Service, Research Records N°24, 3 volumes.

Plourde, M. 2001. A Late Woodland Winter Seal Hunting Ground at the Mouth of the Saguenay River (Quebec). Northeast Anthropology, 62, 55-70. Plourde, M. and Gates St-Pierre, C. 2003. Les phocidés du secteur de l’embouchure du Saguenay: modalités d’exploitation au Sylvicole supérieur. Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, 33/1, 45-60.

Skinner, A. 1920a. Two Antler Spoons from Ontario. New York, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs N°2.

Pratt, P. P. 1976. Archaeology of the Oneida Iroquois, volume 1. George’s Mills (New Hampshire), Man in the Northeast, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology N°1.

Skinner, A. 1920b. An Iroquois Antler Figurine. New York, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs Vol. 2, N°5. Snow, D. R. 1994. The Iroquois. Oxford (UK) and Cambridge (USA), Blackwell.

Prevec, R. and Noble, W. C. 1983. Historic Neutral Iroquois Faunal Utilization. Ontario Archaeology, 39, 4156.

Snow, D. R. 1995. Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Collections. University Park (Pennsylvania), Matson Museum of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, Occasional Papers in Anthropology N°22.

Prisch, B. C. 1982. Aspects of Change in Seneca Ladles A.D. 1600-1900. Rochester (New York), Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records N°15.

Snyderman, G. S. 1954. The Functions of Wampum. American Philosophical Society Proceedings, 98/6, 469494.

Radin, P. 1956. The Trickster: A Study in American Indian Mythology. New York, Schocken Books. Ramsden, C. N. 1989. The Kirche Site: A 16th Century Huron Village in the Upper Trent Valley. Dundas (Ontario), Copetown Press, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Archaeology N°1.

Sutton, R. E. 1990. Hidden Amidst the Hills: Middle and Late Iroquoian Occupations in the Middle Trent Valley. Dundas (Ontario), Copetown Press, Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology N°3.

Ramsden, P. G. 1990. The Hurons: Archaeology and Culture History, in C. J. Ellis and N. Ferris (eds.), The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. London (Ontario), Ontario Archaeological Society, OAS Occasional Publications of the London Chapter N°5, 361384.

Thomas, S. C. 1998. Parsons Site Worked Bone and Antler. Ontario Archaeology, 65-66, 87-103. Timmins, P. A. 1997. The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Hull (Quebec), Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series N°156.

Ritchie, W. A. 1954. Dutch Hollow, An Early Historic Period Seneca Site in Livingston County, New York. Research Records N°10. Rochester (New York), Rochester Museum and Science Center.

84

IROQUOIAN BONE ARTIFACTS: CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS Tremblay, R. 1993. Iroquoian Beluga Hunting on Ile Verte, in J. F. Pendergast and C. Chapdelaine (eds.), Essays in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Archaeology: Selected Papers in Honour of J. V. Wright. Dundas (Ontario), Copetown Press, Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology N°8, 121-137.

Wood, A. 1964. Historic Burials at the Boughton Hill Site (CAN 2-2), Victor TWP., Ontario Co., N.Y. The Bulletin – Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association, 32, 6-16. Wray, C. F. 1963. Ornamental Hair Combs of the Seneca. Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 33/1-2, 35-50.

Tremblay, R. 2006. St.Lawrence Iroquoians, Corn People. Montréal, Pointe-à-Callière, musée d’archéologie et d’histoire et Éditions de l’Homme. [traduction of Les Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent: peuple du maïs, same publishers].

Wray, C. F., Sempowski, M. L. and Saunders, L. P. 1991. Tram and Cameron: Two Early Contact Era Seneca Sites. Rochester, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records N°21.

Trigger, B. G. 1976. The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. Montréal, McGillQueen’s University Press.

Wright, J. V. 1966. The Ontario Iroquois Tradition. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Bulletin N°210, Anthropological Series N°75.

Trigger, B. G. (ed.) 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15: Northeast. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.

Wright, J. V. 1974. The Nodwell Site. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Mercury Series N°22.

Tuck, J. A. 1971. Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse (New York), Syracuse University Press.

Wright, J. V. 2004. A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume III, Part 1 (A.D. 500 – European Contact). Gatineau (Quebec), Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series N°152.

Walker, R. B. 2007. A Diachronic Study of Pre- and Post-Contact Antler, Bone and Shell Artifacts from New York State, in C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 119-131.

Wright, M. J. 1981. The Walker Site. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Mercury Series N°103.

Waugh, F. W. 1916. Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Memoir N°86, Anthropological Series N°12. Weisshuhn, K. 2004. Les peignes amérindiens dans le Nord-Est américain. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Montréal, Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal. Wilcox, U. V. 1976. The Manufacture and Use of Wampum in the Northeast. The Bead Journal, 3/1, 10-19. Williamson, R. F. and Veilleux, A. 2005. A Review of Northern Iroquoian Decorated Bone and Antler Artifacts: A Search for Meaning. Ontario Archaeology, 79-80, 337. Wintemberg, W. J. 1936. Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenvile County, Ontario. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Bulletin N°83, Anthropological Series N°19. Wintemberg, W. J. 1939. Lawson Prehistoric Village Site, Middlesex County, Ontario. Ottawa, National Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Bulletin N°94, Anthropological Series N°25.

85

Bone Working and Productions in the Medieval Castle of Guetrat (Salzburg) Felix LANG University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria Abstract The Guetrat Castle is situated about 15km south of the town Salzburg (Austria). It was erected about 1198 and abandoned soon after 1304. Between 2002 and 2004 the whole complex was restored. In course of this, archaeological investigations were undertaken. Beside some bone objects such as crossbow-nuts and counters, 85 pieces of refuse (mostly antler) from a bone carver were found. They mainly show traces of sawing and knife shaping, as well as some hacking. Due to the distribution of the waste material, the work place of the bone carver was most likely situated in a room of the hall. Looking at the waste, there are certain parts of antler that are almost completely missing (e.g. burrs), which are not suitable for manufacture. This points to an itinerant worker with a prepared stock of raw material more easily transported. The man may have been settled in the town of Salzburg or the settlement of Hallein and itinerant just a part of the year to satisfy his clientele. under the archbishop’s control and was abandoned soon after that because it had no strategic function anymore (Höglinger and Hampel 2006, 147; Zaisberger and Schlegel 1992, 162-164).

Historical overview and structures of the castle Guetrat is situated about 15km south of the town Salzburg on a narrow oblong rock near to Hallein. The castle was erected about 1198. At this time salt mining in the region started again. This led to a rivalry between the possible users of this mining, the archbishop on the one hand, and the monastery of Berchtesgaden and Reichenhall on the other. Because of this some castles were erected to assure the power of the archbishop over the territory, who was also in competition with local aristocratic families like the Grafen of Plain (Mitterauer 1999, 427-428; Zaisberger 1998, 52).

In the years 2002-2004 the whole complex was restored. In course of this, archaeological investigations were undertaken, which clarified the ground plan (Figure 1) (Höglinger and Hampel 2006). The entrance was situated on the north-western side and led along the rock to the southern end of the castle, a small bastion (H). From there it was possible to get northwards over a ramp (G) to a probably two-storied gate-tower (F). After the gatetower are two open courtyards (E, D), separated by a wall. From the upper courtyard (D) it was possible to enter the main area of the castle at the northern end of the rock. It consisted of an at least four-storied keep (C) and the hall separated into two rooms at the ground floor (A, B), which could be entered by a passage through the keep.

Adalbert III, archbishop of Salzburg, instructed one of his men, Chuno Burggraf of Hohenwerfen, to build a castle there, which he later owned. By 1209 he is already known from documents as Chuno von Guetrat. Toward the end of the 13th century the masters of Guetrat lost their power. They had to give the castle to the archbishop and got it back as fief. About 1304 it came definitely

Figure 1: Ground plan of Guetrat with the division in different sectors (after Höglinger and Hampel 2006, 147, fig. 1).

87

FELIX LANG Gaming pieces (Figure 3): Two counters (Figure 3-1, 3-2) are made of long bones. Instead of the common round shape they are rectangular (cf. Röber 1995a, 915-917, fig. 34-2, 34-3, 35 and 37; Stauch 1993a, 48, fig. 64; Stauch 1993b, 53, fig. 72, 55, fig. 75 and 76). Figure 3-3, made of the end of an antler tine, represents a different type. It has a riffled surface (cf. MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 1982, fig. 940, Nos7729-7734; Stauch 1993a, 48, fig. 64).

The bone objects Crossbow-nuts (Figure 2) (cf. Chandevau 2004, 9, pl. 3, Nos9-10; MacGregor 1985, 158-161, MacGregor 1991, 359, fig. 183; Röber 1995a, 905, fig. 17-18; Vilsteren 1987, 33-35, No28; Walter 1993, 129-131, fig. 79-80; Wild 1995, 55-56, fig. 128, Cat. No162). All three are broken lengthwise. These nuts were “cradled in a socket lying across the top of the stock, it was secured by a pin or by strands of gut threaded through the axial perforation; the sear of the trigger engaged in a notch cut in the underside of the nut (…) The bow-string was held under tension in a second notch cut in the upper side, slotted transversely to form twin projections, between which lay the arrow, fitted to the string. Pressure on the lower end of the trigger mechanism disengaged the sear from its notch, leaving the nut free to rotate in its cradle under the tension of the bow string, until the string was freed and the arrow released” (MacGregor 1995, 159; also Harmuth 1975, 91-92, fig. 70-73). The figure 2-2 has incised lines on the spongy inside, so it was probably made of two parts (cf. Walter 1993, 130, fig. 80, No1). This could have been also the case for the two other fragments.

Figure 3: Gaming pieces.

Buzz-bones (Figure 4): All of them have a single perforation cut through the centre of the shaft. Except for figure 4-5 (tarsometatarsus of a goose) they were made of pig metapodials, two metacarpi and two metatarsi, as usual for these objects (cf. MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999; 1980). They have been interpreted as fasteners, bobbins for winding wool or whistles, but parallels from Scandinavia suggest that they are playthings, mounted on a twisted string and spun first one way and then the other (MacGregor 1985, 102-103; MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 1980-1981; Röber 1995a, 920; Vilsteren 1987, 52, No85). Needle fragments (Figure 5): Figure 5-1 is most likely the tip of an antler needle. This also may be the case for figure 5-2 made of a long bone but the object is too fragmented to be sure. Figure 2: Crossbow-nuts.

88

BONE WORKING AND PRODUCTIONS IN THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE OF GUETRAT (SALZBURG) Handles (?) (Figure 7): Four tines have a hollowed base. On one of them the other end is rounded (Figure 7-1); the others have natural ends (Figure 7-2, 7-4). The first one was quite likely used as an implement handle (cf. Röber 1995a, 924, fig. 43), whereas this is not certain for the others. Similar objects have been interpreted, for example, as arrows/spearheads or thorns stuck on wooden sticks for driving cattle (Becker 1989, 130; Ulbricht 1978, 83-84). But in contrast to the Guetrat examples these objects have sharpened points. So the Guetrat examples seem to be handles, although figure 7-4 is rather small for that. It is also possible that they are not finished, maybe even not objects but raw material (MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 1998-1999). At least no traces of usage can be seen on them macroscopically.

Figure 4: Buzz-bones.

Figure 5: Fragments of needles (?). Figure 7: Handles (?).

Wedge (Figure 6): One antler tine has a sharpened end, shaped on two sides, suggesting a use as a wedge (cf. MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 1997-1998, fig. 954; Ulbricht 1978, 83).

Mounts (Figure 8): These three objects also may be unfinished. They are most probably mounts (cf. Chandevau 2002, 31-40; MacGregor 1991, 363; Röber 1995a, 895-901, fig. 12-14, 904-907, fig. 19-21; Vilsteren 1987, 60-61, fig. 11, Nos107-108). At least the rivet holes (although they are rather big) and the riffled undersides indicate that they were fixed to something else (cf. Röber 1995a, 905, fig. 20). Figure 8-3 was made of a long bone, the others of antler. Objects of uncertain function (Figure 9): I have to admit that I have not the slightest idea what the last two objects were used for. Both are made of antler tines sawn off at both ends and one end is worked out semispherically. The complete one (Figure 9-1) is perforated lengthwise. Similar objects have been suggested to have been used to fasten strings or belts (Becker 1989, 126-127; Ulbricht 1978, 81-82), but the perforations of these objects have a greater diameter, so it is uncertain if the two pieces of Guetrat were used the same way (cf. also MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 1999-2000, fig. 958).

Figure 6: Wedge.

89

FELIX LANG (Figures 14-18, 15-4 and 18) can not be identified more closely. The waste includes some ends of tines (Figure 10) as well as sections of beam or tines, which seem to be raw material cut to the right length (Figure 11) or waste of this stage of production (Figures 12-1, 12-2, 12-5 to 12-7, 12-9 to 12-13, 12-15 to 12-19). This is also the case for two pieces of bone (Figure 12-3, 12-8) and two undetermined pieces (Figure 12-4, 12-14). In addition, there are quite a lot irregular rods (Figure 13) and narrow shavings (Figure 14). Some regular plates of antler or bone seem to be half fabricated (Figure 15). One of them has a longitudinal narrow shape, unlike to the others (Figure 15-26).

Figure 8: Mounts.

Figure 10: Bone waste: antler tines.

Figure 9: Objects of uncertain function.

Waste from a bone-carver’s workshop As mentioned before, some of the objects seem to be unfinished and related to that quite a number of waste pieces (85) have been found. Like the finished objects, most of them are from antler (72 pieces, 84.7% of the waste material). Another is most likely a piece of antler (Figure 14-6). Nine bones (10.6%) show traces of working, including six cattle bones: three scapulae (Figure 15-12, 15-13, 15-15), one femur (Figure 12-3), one radius (Figure 15-7) and one metatarsus (Figure 152). Figure 12-8 could be a part of a pig’s femur. Concerning figure 15-19 it is just possible to say that it is from long bone and figure 14-13 from bone. Three pieces

Figure 11: Bone waste: sections of beam or tines.

90

BONE WORKING AND PRODUCTIONS IN THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE OF GUETRAT (SALZBURG)

Figure 12: Bone waste: narrow sections or fragments from antler and bone.

Figure 13: Bone waste: irregular rods. Figure 15: Bone waste: half fabrics.

Working techniques Mainly saws and knives were used. Some examples show also traces of hacking (cf. Figures 6, 10-3, 13-5). Four pieces (cf. Figures 10-4, 13-2, 13-6 and 13-7) have longitudinal grooves, possibly for splitting the antler lengthwise (cf. Ulbricht 1978, 30). Another four waste pieces have incised lines on the underside and sometimes also on the narrow sides (cf. Figures 14-12, 15-6, 15-10 and 15-16), which recalls the mounts mentioned above (cf. Figure 8). Incised lines can be seen also on figures 14-13, 15-12, 15-15. In these cases their function is uncertain. Maybe they were used as working bases. Whether drillers were used is not sure. The perforations of the buzz-bones (cf. Figure 4) were cut with a knife (MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999; 1980), possibly the rivets of the mounts as well (cf. Figure 8). The hollowed bases of the tines (cf. Figure 7) possibly were worked out with the tip of a knife or, as in some cases the rather straight edges suggest, with a chisel. Certainly the

Figure 14: Bone waste: narrow shavings.

91

FELIX LANG perforations of the crossbow nuts (cf. Figure 2) and of figure 9-1 were drilled out, but in all of these cases it is uncertain if they were made locally. No traces for lathe turning can be seen on the waste material, which indicates that only carving took place at the castle.

of the keep. Seven pieces were found in the gate-tower F and the northern courtyard E, so an occasional workplace may have been there. The distribution of the (almost) finished objects (Figure 18) shows that this is not just coincidental. It gets even clearer omitting the four tines with hollowed bases and the three mounts that could be half fabricationss as mentioned above. This picture demonstrates a more regular distribution over the whole area (Figure 19).

Locally produced objects It is rather difficult to say what objects were made in the workshop, because distinctive half fabricated objects are missing. Possibly figure 15-26 was intended as a needle. Other pieces could be half-finished plates for implement handles (cf. Figure, 15-1 to 15-3), whereas plates that seem too thin for that (especially the ones made of scapulae) most probably were used as mounts (cf. Figure 15-11 to 15-16 and 15-20). This shows the longitudinal narrow shavings (cf. Figure 14) originating from the production of these objects (Chandevau 2002, 36, pl. 3; Röber 1995a, 926-927, fig. 46), as well as the incised lines on figures 14-12, 15-6, 15-10, 15-16 that resemble the (half) finished examples (cf. Figure 8). Figure 15-21 could have been intended for a strap-end with triangular end (Röber 1995a, 909, fig. 25-27 and 32-4; Röber 1995b, 330-331, fig. 3-3 and 3-4). At last, figure 15-25 resembles the two rectangular counters (cf. Figure 3-1, 3-2), although the shape is quite rough.

Figure 16: Distribution of the waste material in the castle.

The sawn of ends of tines may have been for handles, at least those without a shaped surface, but this is just an assumption. There is no clear indication for it. Also, the buzz-bones may have been made locally. For them, it was not necessary to be a skilled worker; even a child would have been able to produce them (MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999; 2005). Half fabrications of these objects are hard to recognize or to find, because it was not necessary to change the original bone very much, and waste from the production is almost impossible to find. As far as can be seen, crossbow nuts were not produced locally, because they had to be lathe turned. As is known from written sources from Britain, they were not made by craft specialists in bone but by workshops that produced the whole crossbow (MacGregor 1985, 160-161; 1991, 367-368).

Figure 17: Number of the waste pieces in the different sectors.

Workplace of the bone carver The distribution of the waste material (Figure 16) shows a concentration in room B of the hall (34 pieces, 40%), the keep C (23, 27.1%) and the courtyard D (19, 22.4%). The situation gets even clearer looking at the different sectors divided during the excavation (Figure 17). Most of the waste (27), more than 50% of the whole, was found in B4, the southwestern part of the hall, and in C1, the passage of the keep (17). It is quite likely that the workplace of the bone carver was situated in the core of the castle, possibly in the ground floor close to the southern wall. A part of the waste was carried out and thrown outside in the courtyard or simply in the passage

Figure 18: Distribution of the bone objects.

92

BONE WORKING AND PRODUCTIONS IN THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE OF GUETRAT (SALZBURG) This model was of course developed for a bigger settlement and can not be applied easily for a castle that stands primarily for one commercial unit/household. So the distribution of waste is more or less indistinctive. But there remain the three different kinds of craft that could have taken place at Guetrat. Usually objects from market production have a higher quality than in the other categories and they are made in larger numbers (Janssen 1983b, 387). Another important factor is an easy means of transportation to the consumermarket (Janssen 1983b, 390). In Guetrat there is not as much waste material as one would expect for a workshop satisfying the need of a bigger market, although statements about quantity based on archaeological finds are quite problematic (cf. Müller 2000, 24). Also the technical quality is not that high – no drilling or lathe turning can be seen, and decoration is lacking – and the variety of products that were made here are not as specialized as would be expected (cf. also Röber 1995a, 929). But the best argument against market production is the location of the castle, which lies away from important traffic routes. Because of this, the distribution of the products would have been quite difficult. Therefore market production can be excluded.

Figure 19: Distribution of the bone objects without handles (?) and mounts.

Some considerations about the kind of craft Generally it can be stated that a development of craftsmanship took place during the medieval age. Whereas from the 8th to the 10th century bone working took place mainly just for one’s own need, there was a change in the 11th-12th century. Now there are products of high quality, especially in the clerical and feudal sphere (Röber 1995a, 922-924). For the 13th and 14th century workshops can be seen for the first time, situated in the towns (Röber 1995a, 932).

This accords with what is known about the castles of southwestern Germany, where a specialist production of bone objects is not demonstrated so far. Only very small quantities of bone waste have been found there (Röber 1995a, 923-924). Generally craftsmanship in castles served mainly for the production of raw material and seldom for the finishing of certain objects like weapons, implements etc. (Janssen 1983a, 315-316).

A determination of the character of handicraft due to archaeological sources is problematic (cf. MacGregor 1985, 44-51; Müller 2000, 23-24). Axel Christophersen distinguishes three different stages based on the finds from the settlement of Lund (Christophersen 1980, 223224):

There remain the possibilities of home craft and customer production that are not easy to distinguish (cf. Röber 1995a, 927). It seems quite likely that the carver was an inhabitant of the castle producing at least a part of the local needs (cf. Janssen 1983a, 278-295). But one thing points to an itinerant craftsman. Looking at the waste, there are certain parts of antler almost completly missing, parts that are not suitable for manufacture: burrs, junctions of beam and tines, pedicles with parts of the skull. On only one fragment of a beam (cf. Figure 12-2) the beginning of a tine can be seen, and one pedicle includes a part of the skull (cf. Figure 12-1), but both seem to fit for processing. This contrasts with other find spots of antler working (e.g. Becker 1989, 111-112, fig. 9, tabl. 7). If all of these parts were not thrown down the slopes of the rock, this suggests that the raw material was prepared before reaching the castle. It is quite hard to imagine that there was a trade in prepared bone raw material for separate craftsmen. By contrast a prepared stock would have been easier for an itinerant worker to transport (cf. MacGregor, Mainman and Rogers 1999, 2005), coming on demand up to the castle. The man was possibly resident in the town of Salzburg or the rapidly developing settlement of Hallein (Zaisberger 1998, 138) and itinerant just a part of the year to satisfy his clientele

1. Home craft: The needs of the household are met by its own production. 2. Customer production: The items are commissioned directly from itinerant craftsmen. 3. Market production: Sedentary craftsmen produce wares for a general market. The distinctive markers for his division are the distribution and the quantity of the waste as well as the spectrum of products. For home craft, small quantities of waste (up to 15 pieces) linked to each household, as well as the heterogenic composition of waste and finished objects are characteristic. Customer production is indicated by small concentrations of waste (more than 15 pieces) that are chronologically limited and scattered over the whole settlement but not linked to each household. The products have individual shapes; specialisation is not or very limitedly recognisable. Due to continual market production over a long time period, concentrations of waste emerge. These are fixed to certain points of the settlement. There are standardized products and sometimes imported raw materials.

93

FELIX LANG (cf. MacGregor 1991, 356; Janssen 1983a, 292-293). It is also possible that he came only to people with greater social power.

MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn. The technology of Animal Remains since the Roman Period. Totowa, Barnes and Noble.

Of course this interpretation is based just on one find spot. More investigations must be undertaken to make more concrete statements about craftsmanship in medieval Salzburg. This paper represents just a first step in this direction.

MacGregor, A. 1991. Antler, Bone and Horn, in J. Blair and N. Ramsey (eds.), English Medieval Industries: Craftsmen, Techniques, Products. London and Rio Grande, 355-378. MacGregor, A., Mainman, A.J. and Rogers, N.S.H. 1999. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York, The Archaeology of York. The Small Finds 17. York Council for British Archaeology.

Acknowledgements I would like to give thanks to Peter Höglinger and Ulli Hampel for the permission to publish the material and to Gerhard Forstenpointner for the zoological identification.

Mitterauer, M. 1999. Wirtschaft und Handel, in H. Dopsch and H. Spatzenegger (eds.), Geschichte Salzburgs. Stadt und Land 1. Vorgeschichte, Altertum, Mittelalter 1. Salzburg, 419-436.

Felix Lang University of Salzburg, Archaeology Residenzplatz 1 A-5020 Salzburg Austria [email protected]

Müller, U. 2000. Handwerk in den Hansestädten des südlichen Ostseeraumes. Bemerkungen zum Forschungsstand und zur Problemstellung, in U. Müller (ed.), Handwerk – Stadt – Hanse. Ergebnisse der Archäologie zum mittelalterlichen Handwerk im südlichen Ostseeraum, Kolloquium des Lehrstuhls für Ur- und Frühgeschichte am Historischen Institut, ErnstMoritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Mai 1998. Frankfurt am Main, 9-35.

References cited Becker, C. 1989. Die Geweihfunde vom Spandauer Burgwall, in A.V. Müller and K.V. Müller-Muči (eds.), Ausgrabungen, Funde und naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen auf dem Burgwall in Berlin-Spandau, Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Neue Folge, Band. Berlin, 101-142.

Röber, R. 1995a. Zur Verarbeitung von Knochen und Geweih im mittelalterlichen Südwestdeutschland. Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 20, 885-944. Röber, R. 1995b. Artefakte aus Knochen und Geweih, in M. Untermann (ed.), Die Latrine des AugustinereremitenKlosters in Freiburg im Breisgau. Stuttgart, 329-334.

Chandevau, F. 2002. La motte castrale de Boves (Somme). Tabletterie et petits artefacts (Xe-XVIe siècles). Revue Archéologique de Picardie 1/2, 25-71.

Stauch, E. 1993a. Brettspiel von der römischen Kaiserzeit zum Hochmittelalter. Ein nobler Zeitvertreib, in A. Pfeiffer (ed.), Archäologische Funde aus Römerzeit und Mittelalter. Spielzeug in der Grube lag und schlief. Heilbronn, Museo 5, 42-49.

Christophersen, A. 1980. Håndverket i Forandring. Studier i Horn- og Beinhånverkets Utvikling i Lund ca. 1000-1350. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 4°ser., 13 (Lund). Harmuth E. 1975, Die Armbrust (Graz). Höglinger, P. and Hampel, U. 2006. Funktionsanalyse und Baudetails der Ruine Guetrat bei Hallein. Land Salzburg, Castrum Bene 9, 147-156.

Stauch, E. 1993b. „Het er gekniet also vil ze kirchen als vor dem spiel“. Das Brettspiel gerät in Verruf, in A. Pfeiffer (ed.), Archäologische Funde aus Römerzeit und Mittelalter. Spielzeug in der Grube lag und schlief. Heilbronn, Museo 5, 50-59.

Janssen, W. 1983a. Die Bedeutung der mittelalterlichen Burg für die Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des Mittelalters, in H. Jankuhn et al. (eds.), Das Handwerk in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit 2. Göttingen, 261-316.

Ulbricht, I. 1978. Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu. Neumünster, Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 7. van Vilsteren, V.T. 1987. Het benen Tijdperk. Gebruiksvoorwerpen van been, gewei, horn en ivoor 10.000 jaar geleden tot heden. Assen, Drents Museum.

Janssen, W. 1983b. Gewerbliche Produktion des Mittelalters als Wirtschaftsfaktor im ländlichen Raum, in H. Jankuhn et al. (eds.), Das Handwerk in vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit 2. Göttingen, 317-394.

Walter, P. 1993. Le vieux château de Rougemont, site médiéval. Belfort, Deval.

94

BONE WORKING AND PRODUCTIONS IN THE MEDIEVAL CASTLE OF GUETRAT (SALZBURG) Wild, W. 1997. Reichenbach – Burg und Letzi Mülenen: Die Rettungsgrabungen von 1941 und 1990-1996. Bern, Monographien des Archäologischen Dienstes des Kantons. Zaisberger, F. 1998. Geschichte Salzburgs. 376 Seiten. Wien. Zaisberger, F. and Schlegel, W. 1992. Burgen und Schlösser in Salzburg. Wien, Flachgau und Tennengau.

95

Tortoiseshell in the 17th and 18th Century Dutch Republic Marloes RIJKELIJKHUIZEN Amsterdam Archaeological Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Abstract Tortoiseshell was an expensive raw material used for luxury items. Tortoiseshell objects are not only present in museum collections, but were also found in archaeological excavations. This article discusses the provenance and import of this raw material and the production and use of tortoiseshell objects in the Dutch Republic in the 17th and 18th centuries. Introduction

and also smaller in size, because of human selection for bigger animals.

Tortoiseshell objects are to be seen in many museum collections. Dutch collections often hold beautiful tortoiseshell objects dated in the 17th and 18th century. The perfect conservation of many of these objects is remarkable and they still display the lustre as they did in olden times. But tortoiseshell can also be found in archaeological collections; sometimes still easily recognized and showing original colour and patterns, sometimes weathered and hard to identify as tortoiseshell. To reveal the history of this extraordinary material, historical and archaeological sources were researched, together with museum objects. This article discusses the import of tortoiseshell to the Dutch Republic and craft in the Republic in the 17th and 18th century, with an emphasis on the city of Amsterdam.

Species Tortoiseshell is derived from sea turtles and not, as the name suggests, from tortoises who live on land. Three species of turtles could be used for the harvest of tortoiseshell: the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and, most important, the hawksbill turtle (Eretmycholys imbricata). Tortoiseshell of hawksbill turtles was used most frequently, because it is the thickest tortoiseshell of all and it has a beautiful pattern (Vuillemier 1979). Hawksbill is usually not eaten and considered to be poisonous in some areas. The hawksbill turtle used to have a large area of distribution in tropical waters around the whole equator and could be seen very frequently. It is smaller in size than the green turtle and loggerhead turtle (Lehrer 1998).

Tortoiseshell Exploitation Like many animals, turtles and tortoises were exploited for different purposes. In areas that are the natural habitat of these animals, humans have used them for centuries. They were used for necessities such as food; the flesh and eggs were consumed. Furthermore, oils were derived from their bodies and several parts could be used for medicines (Lehrer 1998). Another purpose for which turtles were caught was tortoiseshell. Tortoiseshell was used for the manufacture of objects, which was the main reason why some species almost became extinct. For economic reasons tortoiseshell, a prized material, was exported to many regions in different parts of the world. This material became a sign of extreme luxury in Northwestern Europe. A disadvantage for the turtles was that they could easily be caught. They were turned on their backs when they went on land to lay their eggs. The turtles couldn’t get out of this position and one could come back later to collect the animals. Turtles were also caught by using nets (Benjamins and Snelleman 19141917; De Schmidt and Van der Lee 1979). As a result of the pursuit of profit for many years, the numbers of turtles declined (Van Dijk and Shepherd 2004). Turtles used to be abundant, but are nowadays highly endangered

Anatomy of turtles The skeleton of a turtle is very different from that of mammals or even any other order of animals. Their exoskeleton comprises of several fused bones which form the shell. The shell covers and protects the rest of the body; it could also function as a reservoir for water and fats. The shell of a turtle consists of a solid bone structure covered with a epidermal layer of keratinous scutes. The upper, dorsal part of the shell is called the carapace, the ventral part is called the plastron. The two parts are connected, but not where head, tail and limbs are pretruding. The carapace consists of fused ribs, vertebrae and dermal bones. Thus spinal cord and ribs are connected to the shell and the animal can not escape his shell. The sutures of the bones of the shell and the sutures of the keratinous scutes do not overlap each other, which enhances the strength of the shell (Gilbert et al. 2001; Romer 1962, 159). The carapace is strongly curved, while the plastron is flat. Since the hawksbill turtle was primarily used for the harvest of tortoiseshell, this species will be discussed in

97

MARLOES RIJKELIJKHUIZEN particular. The size of this species depends on the habitat. A Caribbean hawksbill can reach a size between 76 and 91cm, and weights 45 to 75kg. An Asian hawskbill has a length between 61 and 76cm, with a weight of 28 to 41kg (Lehrer 1998, 97). According to Vuillemier a turtle of 75kg supplies 2.5kg of tortoiseshell (Vuillemier 1979). The maximum amount of tortoiseshell that can be harvested from one turtle is probably 4kg (Lehrer 1998; Andes 1911).

tortoiseshell were kept a secret or were too simple to write down, and she leans toward the first explanation (Shenton 1992, 176; Vuillemier 1979, 40). Because the working of tortoiseshell was probably similar to the working of horn (Grall 2002) and such processes were not easily kept a secret, the second option seems more probable. New methods of working of baleen, for example, were not easily kept secret. This can be seen in many historical sources in which several people try to dispute a patent of John Osborne, who invented new ways to process baleen.

The carapace of the hawskbill turtle has thirteen scutes. Five scutes in the middle are slightly arched and cover the neurals (neuralia). On both side of these five arched scutes, four more scutes are present which cover the costalia. These eight scutes are flatter and thinner. On the outer edge of the carapace, twenty five small outer scutes are present; these are not suitable for object manufacture (Vuillemier 1979). The size of thirteen scutes can be 17cm wide and 30cm long (Andes 1911; Vuillemier 1979), although the real useable size is probably smaller (see further). The scutes of the hawskbill can be 1.5 to 3.5mm thick (Vuillemier 1979). As a result of manufacture processes, the thickness of tortoiseshell objects is thinner than the scutes and usually measures between 1 and 3mm (see further).

When tortoiseshell was used for inlay of veneer, an underlay is often present. Red paper, gold foil or a white chalk substance prevent that the glue or wood from being seen through the toirtoiseshell and enhance the colour of the tortoiseshell (Vuillemier 1979). This was standard practice in different parts of north-western Europe, which also shows that techniques were not at all a secret. Expensive materials were often replaced by cheaper imitations. For example, tortoiseshell was imitated by stained horn and there are even recipies for imitating tortoiseshell in ivory (Andes 1911; Vuillemier 1979). In a later period tortoiseshell was replaced by various kinds of synthetics that imitate the colour and pattern of genuine tortoiseshell.

Like size, the colour and pattern of the keratinous scutes, depend on natural habitat (Vuillemier 1979). The scutes of the plastron are, according to Williams, not mottled and are translucent (Williams 2002). Almost all tortoiseshell, however, was harvested from the carapace of the turtles.

Identification of tortoiseshell The most distinctive feature of tortoiseshell is probably its colour. The tortoiseshell from the hawksbill turtle in particular displays a bright yellow translucent colour with red-brown spots. As stated above, the patterns differ depending on species and provenance. The coloured spots are made up of small dots of pigment. The spots differ only slightly on either side of the tortoiseshell, in contrast with horn which has different coloured layers and is therefore not as translucent as tortoiseshell. So called ‘blond’ horn can be translucent, but tortoiseshell can even then still be easily recognized. Horn shows corrugations in the longitudinal direction which are absent in tortoiseshell. Both horn and tortoiseshell consist of growth layers, but the layers of horn split much more easily. The weathering of tortoiseshell is very characteristic; it shows the layers peeling off at the edges of the layers. This process is preceded by a wavy pattern of small white dots. When the edges of the layers are beginning to detach, the translucency of the tortoiseshell disappears (O’Connor 1987; Vuillemier 1979).

Manufacture techniques The first step in object manufacture is the removal of the scutes from the bony shell. In order to detach the scutes it was necessary to use heat. For this purpose the living animal was held over a fire or boiled in water. In the belief the tortoiseshell would grow back, the turtles were thrown back into the sea. Although this is in fact true, the animal would not survive this brutal attack (Benjamins and Snelleman 1914-1917; Vuillemier 1979, 41; Williams 2002, 34-35). Tortoiseshell is, like other keratinous tissues, thermoplastic. This means that it can be formed by using heat. As a result the tortoiseshell can obtain a different form than the original scute, and it can be melted together. However, applying too much heat could make the tortoiseshell brittle (Shenton 1992). Scraps of tortoiseshell can even be melted and moulded, although it then loses its transparency. The raw material was usually flattened, pressed, filed and polished (O’Connor 1987; Williams 2002). Moulds of wood and copper could be used to reshape the tortoiseshell. Techniques that were used for horn could also be used for tortoiseshell (for horn working see for example Hardwick 1981). Vuillemier suggests that the manufacture techniques of

Trade VOC and WIC Two important Dutch trading companies were the East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, hereafter VOC) for trade in the east and the West India

98

TORTOISESHELL IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY DUTCH REPUBLIC Company (Westindische Compagnie, hereafter WIC) for trade in the Atlantic. The East India Company was founded in 1602. The activities and government of the VOC were divided into six ‘kamers’, of which Amsterdam was the largest, followed by Zeeland. The four smaller ‘kamers’ were Rotterdam, Delft, Hoorn and Enkhuizen. The VOC existed until the end of the 18th century (Gaastra 2002). The first WIC (WIC I) was founded in 1621 and the second WIC (WIC II) succeeded the first in 1674 and existed until 1791. Like the VOC the WIC was divided into ‘kamers’; the five ‘kamers’ of the WIC were Amsterdam, the largest, Zeeland, the second in size and the three smaller ones, Maze, Stadt en Lande, and Noorderkwartier (Den Heijer 2002). But as we will see, neither of these companies initiated the import of tortoiseshell to the Dutch Republic.

The Lesser Antilles can be divided into the windward (from Martinique to Aruba) and the leeward (from Saint Martin to Dominica) islands. Curaçao, Aruba and Bonaire are part of the windward islands (in Dutch: benedenwindse eilanden). Curaçao was claimed by the Dutch in 1634, and a few years later Aruba and Bonaire. Aruba and Bonaire were placed under the government of Curaçao. Aruba has some salt pans, but Bonaire was of little economic value (Den Heijer 2002, 93). Curaçao became the centre of the slave trade in the Caribbean in the second half of the 17th century. Slaves were shipped by the WIC from Africa to Curaçao and from Curaçao delivered to the Spanish colony of Venezuela (Den Heijer 2002). Of the leeward island (in Dutch: bovenwindse eilanden), Saint Martin, Saint Eustatius, Saba and Tobago were in Dutch hands for shorter or longer periods of time. Saint Martin and Saba were placed under the government of Saint Eustatius. Saint Martin merely delivered salt, but Saint Eustatius became an important centre for the slave trade for a decade, between 1720 and 1730 (Den Heijer 2002, 93, 150; Spruit 1988). The Dutch first conquered Saint Eustatius in 1636. The islands alternated between Dutch, English and/or French hands. The American war of independence (1775-1783) provided an important economic stimulant for Saint Eustatius (Den Heijer 2002, 150). This ended with the beginning of the fourth DutchEnglish war in 1780. During this war from 1780 until 1784 Saint Eustatius fell to English and later French hands (for a full history of the Dutch in the Caribbean see Goslinga 1971-1990).

Asian trade in tortoiseshell Asian waters are the natural habitat of the hawksbill turtle and the VOC had a strong grip on trade in Asia. Therefore one would expect the export of tortoiseshell to the Dutch Republic. The VOC was indeed involved in the tortoiseshell trade in Indonesia, but this was a part of the inter-Asian trade and (almost) none of the Asian tortoiseshell reached the Dutch Republic (Coolhaas and Van Goor 1960-2007). A lively trade in tortoiseshell already existed in Indonesia, and the Dutch stepped into this existing trade (Noorduyn 1983). Probable reasons for the fact that tortoiseseshell was not exported from Asia to the Dutch Republic are that the trade of tortoiseshell between Asian countries was more profitable than export to the Dutch Republic. However, more research must be done to look into this trade, and many uncertainties still remain.

Trade in the Caribbean The slave trade was monopolized by the WIC until 1730. Slaves were shipped from western Africa to the Caribbean to work on plantations or salt pans. The products that were cultivated on the plantations were mainly sugar, tobacco and cotton. The Caribbean Sea was considered to be a free trading area. On the leeward islands private trade was allowed and in 1675 trade with Curacao was officially permitted for private traders and foreign ships. In practice the latter was already the case even before it was officially allowed. Private traders had to pay taxes to the WIC for the products that were shipped (Den Heijer 2002, 93, 137, 147).

The Netherlands Antilles The second area where tortoiseshell was a traded is the Caribbean area. In this area, the hawksbill turtle lives and breeds as well. In the 16th century the Spanish crown already had a strong influence in the Caribbean area and occupied many islands. Soon the English, French and Dutch also were interested in the Caribbean islands. The several European nations fought repeatedly, and the superior powers on the islands changed continously. Many of the original inhabitants, the Indians, were enslaved or more often driven away by Europeans, who replaced them with African slaves who had to work on the plantations and salt pans. Most of the Indians, however, died of European diseases. Several of the islands were for longer or shorter periods of time, ruled by the Dutch. The Netherlands Antilles consisted of the islands Curaçao, Bonaire, Aruba, Saint Eustatius, Saint Martin and Saba (Figure 1). Aruba has a status aparte since 1986, and other islands are in discussion of becoming Dutch municipalities or receiving a status aparte as well.

The products were weighed at the weigh-house; all goods that changed owners or were unloaded needed to be reported and weighed. Half of the bill was paid by the seller and half by the purchaser of the goods. Unloaded cargo that wasn’t traded at the islands was free of charge (De Schmidt, van der Lee and Schiltkamp 1978). As a guarantee, usually a merchant in the Republic paid a bill of exchange (communication Den Heijer), but sometimes this was done by the governor himself. In this private trade the products were often shipped by members of the government, to earn some extra money in addition to

99

MARLOES RIJKELIJKHUIZEN

Figure 1: Map of Antilles.

their salary (Spruit 1988, 118). Products that were shipped in the private trade were, for example, sugar, coffee, cotton, tobacco, cacao, ginger, wood, indigo, hides, and tortoiseshell.

tortoiseshell were exported to the Dutch Republic. This means an average of 507 pounds per year. When we calculate 5 pounds of tortoiseshell per turtle, this means an average of 101 turtles a year. These can be easily caught during the season when the turtles lay their eggs. This shows that tortoiseshell was not imported in large amounts and that it remained an expensive material. Importation depended on private traders and was not very regular, although 1755, 1762 and 1764 can be seen as a peak years.

Import of tortoiseshell to the Dutch Republic Tortoiseshell was imported from the Antilles by private traders. Because their cargo was charged taxes by the WIC, the amounts of tortoiseshell and other products that were imported to the Dutch Republic were recorded in the archives of the WIC. These archives are kept in the National Archives of the Netherlands (Nationaal Archief) in The Hague. Many parts of the archive of the WIC have not been preserved and therefore the information is limited (Den Heijer 2002). To look into this trade, lettres and papers that were sent from Saint Eustatius to the largest ‘kamers’ Amsterdam and Zeeland were studied (Nationaal Archief, WIC, 617-637, 246-252, 1180-1196). These documents were searched for lists of outgoing ships and cargo manifests. These date in the second half of the 18th century. For this period, the import of tortoiseshell was reconstructed (Figure 2). This reconstruction is based on data that were recorded by the WIC and that have been preserved until the present day. These data may therefore be not complete. For some years numbers are partly estimated because quantities are not mentioned in pounds. The lack of data between 1780 and 1783 coincides with the fourth Dutch-English war. Amounts of tortoiseshell that have been imported in the 17th and beginning of 18th century are unknown.

Prices that were paid for exported tortoiseshell were high. In 1751, the price of the weighed tortoiseshell was 8 to 12 reals per pound (approximately 28.8 guilders). In comparison, 0.5 to 2 reals per pound (approximately 1.2 to 4.8 guilders) was paid for ivory (De Schmidt, Van der Lee and Schiltkamp 1978). In some cases the lists of cargo also mention who was shipping the goods and to whom the goods were shipped. The persons who were shipping the goods were often members of the government of the island. Sometimes the governors themselves were involved in this trade. On the leeward islands the income came merely from these kinds of extras. Johannes de Graaf, especially, governor who resided on Sint Eustatius, was famous for his good pickings (Spruit 1988, 118). Governors who exported tortoiseshell were, for example, Hendrik Coesvelt, Johannes Heijliger, Johannis de Graaf and Jan de Windt. But skippers also sometimes shipped tortoiseshell, as, for example, skipper Jacob Bosch who shipped 70 pounds of tortoiseshell on his ship to himself. The persons to whom the products were shipped were probably often Dutch merchants.

Between the years 1738 and 1790 records indicate that 26,875 1/2 (Dutch) pounds (1 pound is circa 0.5kg) of

100

TORTOISESHELL IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY DUTCH REPUBLIC

Figure 2: Export of tortoiseshell from Saint Eustatius to the Dutch Republic.

It is unknown by whom and where the turtles were caught and who removed the scutes from the shell. The tortoiseshell that was shipped from Saint Eustatius did not necessarily originate from that island; undoubtedly the tortoiseshell was also coming from other islands. Turtles were, for example, shipped from Blanko, Saint Martin, Saba and Saint Croix and Saint Christopher (Saint Kitts) to Saint Eustatius. It is, however, unknown which species of turtles were shipped and if they were imported for the purpose of harvesting the tortoiseshell. It is also possible that small expeditions to other islands were made to catch turtles or that they were caught with nets at sea. Turtles or possibly the tortoiseshell could also be bought at local markets.

Craft Artisans and products The products that were made of tortoiseshell can be seen in historical sources, archaeological and museum collections. The various sources show the expensive nature of the material and that it was only reserved for the rich. Tortoiseshell objects can be found in the inventories of the Dutch Oranje family (Drossaers and Scheurleer 1976). Archaeological evidence for the wealth of the owners of tortoiseshell objects includes the find of combs in church graves (Alkmaar: Berendse, Bitter and Scharff 1999; Leiden: Mulder 1981). Only the very rich were buried within the church.

Almost all the tortoiseshell that was recorded in the papers that were sent from Saint Eustatius to the ‘kamers’ Amsterdam and Zeeland was destined for Amsterdam. Of the total of 27.411½ pounds of tortoiseshell only 18 pounds was shipped to Middelburg (Zeeland), 672 pounds to Vlissingen (Zeeland) and 72 pounds to Rotterdam; 50 pounds was destined for Saint Martin. Amsterdam was not only an important port of trade, but also a centre of craft. The tortoiseshell was crafted in Amsterdam by different artisans into many objects.

Not only their products, but also the artisans themselves have left their traces. Tortoiseshell was used by many different artisans. Proof of the use of tortoiseshell by artisans in Amsterdam can be found in historical sources from that time. We see combmakers, knife makers, fan makers and other craftsmen who all used tortoiseshell in small amounts. Apparently specialised tortoiseshell buyers and workers also existed (Glasbergen 2004), although they must have been few in number. No waste products or waste fragments of tortoiseshell have been found in excavations yet. This is probably because of the high prices of the material and waste fragments were probably also used.

101

MARLOES RIJKELIJKHUIZEN The artisans and their products will be discussed below in detail. Historical sources which were used include inventories of two knife makers in Amsterdam (Amsterdam City Archives, notarial archives), data from Amsterdam published by Van Dillen (Van Dillen 1974) and inventories of houses in Alkmaar dated from the 18th century (data received by J. Klinkert). Inventories reveal the presence of tortoiseshell products in people’s homes. The bookbindings of the National Library of the Netherlands (Koninklijke Bibliotheek) in The Hague were studied. Many tortoiseshell objects are present in the collection of the Rijksmuseum (see website of Rijksmuseum). The main archaeological collection used is that of the city of Amsterdam (Rijkelijkhuizen 2004). This collection contains ten objects of tortoiseshell: four combs, five boxes and one fan. The archaeological collection of Alkmaar was studied; it holds three combs made of tortoiseshell. Some tortoiseshell combs in other Dutch cities were reported, although these were not always identified as tortoiseshell (Vlissingen, Buitenhuis 2003; Leiden, Mulder 1981). Collections from other cities are yet to be researched.

Comb makers also used tortoiseshell as a raw material. The majority of the combs excavated in Amsterdam were made of elephant ivory (Rijkelijkhuizen 2004). Some combmakers only used ivory, but others also used horn or tortoiseshell. In 1638 a combmaker is mentioned who taught a 15 year old boy to make combs of ivory, horn and tortoiseshell (Van Dillen 1974, 378). Other shops also sold tortoiseshell combs, for example knife makers. The inventory of the shop of Pieter Meijerick shows that small tortoiseshell combs were worth 30 1/2 cents apiece and large combs 87 1/2 cents. In comparison, a comb of horn, wood or ivory was worth 0.1 to 0.17 cents a piece (Amsterdam City Archives, Notarial archives, 4711). Fans Fans were manufactured in Amsterdam (Van Nierop 1933), but many artisans were involved in the making of fans (Catalani 1973; Payen-Appenzeller 2000), or (part of) fans could be imported. Fans were in fashion for a period of time, especially in the 18th century. They were luxury items and could be made of many materials. These fans were folding fans, and small pieces of the fans often are found in excavations. In rare cases an almost complete fan is excavated. The fan excavated in Amsterdam is made of tortoiseshell and ivory and is dated to the 17th century (Figure 4).

Combs The tortoiseshell objects that have been found most frequently in excavations are combs (Figure 3). These are mainly large, one sided combs. These large combs were fashionable combs and not really used for combing the hair. The comb found in a church in Alkmaar (Berendse, Bitter and Scharff 1999) was put in the hair and was therefore decorative, not functional. In Amsterdam one comb was found that could have been used for combing the hair. It looks exactly like the ivory two sided combs, which were used for combing and removing lice. This example has one coarse and one fine side. One comb from Amsterdam is a small comb with a handle, made out of one piece of tortoiseshell and could be a moustache or eyebrow comb. Moustache- and eyebrow combs were not unusual in those days (Glasbergen 2004; inventories Alkmaar). Tortoiseshell combs can be dated to the 17th and 18th century.

Figure 4: Fan of tortoiseshell and ivory, excavated in Amsterdam. Photo: Anneke Dekker, AAC (collection: Municipal Archaeological Department).

Boxes A very general term for all sort of containers and cases is the term box. These boxes held spoons, tobacco, snuff, tea and many other items. It is unknown who made these boxes. And although a tobaccobox maker was registered

Figure 3: Comb of tortoiseshell, excavated in Amsterdam. Photo: Anneke Dekker, AAC (collection: Municipal Archaeological Department).

102

TORTOISESHELL IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY DUTCH REPUBLIC in Amsterdam in the 17th century (Glasbergen 2004), it is likely that many other artisans also made boxes of various sizes and of various materials. Boxes of tortoiseshell mentioned in inventories in Alkmaar are, for example, used for storage of tobacco, snuff, pins or earspoons. In Amsterdam five small boxes have been excavated (Figure 5); one is made of tortoiseshell combined with ivory. The boxes are dated to the 18th century.

material and time of effort (Amsterdam City Archives, Notarial archives, 4711, Pieter Meijerick). Veneering Like ivory and other materials, tortoiseshell could also be used as veneering for cabinets, clocks and other furniture. This kind of furniture was only for the rich and is mentioned in the inventories of the Oranje family. Often different materials were combined in marquetry. Little is known about the cabinet makers. Many of the skilfully made cabinets were thought to have been made in France, but a cabinet present in the collection of the Rijksmuseum proves that such cabinets were also made in the Dutch Republic. This masterpiece was made between 1650 and 1660 by Willem de Rots for Amalia van Solms (wife of Frederik Hendrik van Oranje Nassau, stadtholder of the Dutch Republic 1625-1647). It is an excellent example of furniture decorated with marquetry of several materials (Figures 6 and 7). For decoration a pattern was sawn in a double layer of material, in this case an ivory layer and a tortoiseshell layer. The front and sides of the cabinet are decorated in première partie, ivory in tortoiseshell. The upper side and inner sides are in contre partie, tortoiseshell in ivory. Red paper was probably used as underlay (Baarsen 2006).

Figure 5: Box of tortoiseshell, excavated in Amsterdam. Photo: Anneke Dekker, AAC (collection: Municipal Archaeological Department).

Knife handles Although no knife handles of tortoiseshell have been reported to have been found in archaeological excavations in the Netherlands, their presence is mentioned in the inventories of Alkmaar. The inventories also list forks with tortoiseshell handles and tortoiseshell spoons. The reason that no tortoiseshell knife handles were found could be that only a small layer of tortoiseshell was applied to the knife handles, which detach easily when the knife handles were discarded (for knife handles with tortoiseshell, see Moore 1999). Horn knife handles, for example, are more likely to be preserved because they are made of a solid piece of horn. Another reason why tortoiseshell knife handles have not been found in excavations is that they were indeed rare and expensive.

Figure 6: Cabinet of Amalia van Solms with marquetry of tortoiseshell and ivory (photo and collection: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam).

Tortoiseshell knife handles were produced in Amsterdam. An inventory of a knife maker in the year 1708 in Amsterdam shows 154½ pounds of tortoiseshell as a raw material present in the shop, and also many tortoiseshell knife handles and tortoiseshell combs (Amsterdam City Archives, Notarial archives, 5075, Menso Sadelaer, 1708). Tortoiseshell was only used in small amounts by knife makers; the main materials were ivory, bone, wood, and horn in smaller quantities. Another inventory of a knife maker in Amsterdam, in the year 1691, shows the use of tortoiseshell for the manufacture of knife handles. The price of the knife handles depended very much on

Figure 7: Close up of the marquetry of the cabinet of Amalia van Solms (photo and collection: Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam).

Bookbindings In the past, people would buy a book without the binding. The book was brought to the bookbinder who would put a bookbinding on the book at the will of the customer. Tortoiseshell was used for bookbindings from the second half of the 17th century until the 18th century, and sometimes in the 19th century. It was often used in Holland, France and England. It is not a coincidence that these three nations were all active in the Caribbean area.

103

MARLOES RIJKELIJKHUIZEN The tortoiseshell bookbindings mainly covered religious books, such as bibles and psalterbooks (Shenton 1988; 1992). Tortoiseshell bookbindings are mentioned in the inventories of houses in Alkmaar. In the beautiful collection of the National Library of the Netherlands (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, hereafter KB) thirteen tortoiseshell bookbindings are present (Figures 8 and 10), which are dated in the 17th and 18th century; two are dated in the 19th century (For other tortoiseshell bookbindings, see, for example Van Noordwijk 2006). The bookbindings of tortoiseshell are made up of three parts: the upper board, the lower board and the spine piece. The spine piece is usually rounded and has two headcaps. The rounded spine piece with headcaps was made of one piece of tortoiseshell and was made by pressing the tortoiseshell into shape when it was heated (Figure 9). The headcaps tend to break easily. It was necessary to make the bookbinding in three parts, or else the book could not be opened at all, because tortoiseshell is a rigid material. The metalwork consists of hinges, clasp, corner pieces and sometimes a metal chain. The metal that was used was silver or guilded silver. The two bookbindings from the 19th century have golden metalwork. The bookbinding could be decorated with inlay of various materials, such as metal or mother of pearl. The metalwork and book itself were also often decorated. A tortoiseshell binding was merely decorative, because it could hardly be opened. The bookbindings from the KB show no indications that several pieces of tortoiseshell were welded together, and high quality tortoiseshell was used. The upper and lower board are always flat. The smallest book has an upper and lower board with a length of 72mm and a width of 43mm. The biggest two books are 168 to 100mm and 165 to 113mm. This is smaller than the largest size that Andes and Vuillemier gave for the size of the scutes of the carapace (300 x 170mm), but the size and thickness of the scutes do not equal the largest size that can actually be used.

Figure 9: Spine piece of a tortoiseshell bookbinding (photo: M. Rijkelijkhuizen, collection: KB, The Hague).

The manufacture of a bookbinding requires that rectangular plates be made from the scutes. The plates must also be abraded to make them equally thick and even. These two bookbindings seem to be the largest size possible. The thickness of the tortoiseshell bindings is 1 to 3mm. All but one bookbinding are made of a solid layer of tortoiseshell only. The tortoiseshell binding was directly glued onto the endpapers of the book. Between the endpapers and the bookbinding a white substance probably was applied to avoid glue being seen through the tortoiseshell and to enhance the colour of the tortoiseshell (communication KB). One exception in the collection of the KB is a bookbinding that is larger than the examples mentioned above (Figure 10). It is 290mm long and 154mm wide.

Figure 10: Bookbinding, made of tortoiseshell of the green turtle or the loggerhead turtle (photo: M. Rijkelijkhuizen, collection: KB, The Hague). Figure 8: Bookbinding of tortoiseshell (photo: M. Rijkelijkhuizen, collection: KB, The Hague).

104

TORTOISESHELL IN THE 17TH AND 18TH CENTURY DUTCH REPUBLIC The tortoiseshell layer is also much thinner than the other bookbindings and is therefore the only one where the tortoiseshell is placed on a layer of wood. The pattern and colour of the tortoiseshell is also different from all the other bindings. This suggests it is harvested from a larger turtle than the hawksbill, such as the green turtle or the loggerhead turtle. These turtles are larger and have a thinner layer of tortoiseshell with a different pattern.

Gawronski & Wiard Krook, Municipial Archaeological Department of Amsterdam; Peter Bitter and Sjaak Waterlander, Municipial Archaeological Department of Alkmaar; Henk den Heijer, Leiden University; Rens Top, KB The Hague; Rijksmuseum Amsterdam; J. Klinkert.

Marloes J. Rijkelijkhuizen Amsterdam Archaeological Centre University of Amsterdam Turfdraagsterpad 9 1012 XT Amsterdam The Netherlands [email protected]

Shenton (1988, 1992) suggests that the tortoiseshell bookbinding was not made by the bookbinder himself, but it was contracted out. This is very probable; for example, a tortoiseshell maker could make the bindings. It would require very different techniques to make a tortoiseshell binding than a leather one. Silver pieces were made by a silversmith (Van Noordwijk 2006) or by clasp makers (Glasbergen 2004). This indicates that many artisans were involved in the manufacture of a tortoiseshell bookbinding.

References cited Andes, L.E. 1911. Verarbeitung des Hornes, Elfenbeins, Schildpatts, der Knochen und der Perlmutter. Wenen, Leipzig.

Conclusions

Baarsen, R. 2006. Kabinet. Vereniging Rembrandt, 2023.

The export of tortoiseshell from the Caribbean to the Dutch Republic was a small scale trade initiated by private traders. Tortoiseshell was shipped in small amounts from Saint Eustatius. Where the turtles originally were caught is unknown. Importation from this area probably dates back to the second half of the 17th century and continued until the end of the 18th century. The amounts of tortoiseshell that were shipped from Saint Eustatius in the second half of the 18th century were reconstructed from the available sources. Almost all tortoiseshell was destined for Amsterdam.

Benjamins, H.D. and Snelleman, J. F. 1914-1917. Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch West-Indië. Den Haag/Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff/E.J. Brill. Berendse, F., Bitter, P. and Scharff, H. 1999. Overzicht van kleding en sieraden, in P. Bitter et al. (eds.), Goed gevonden. Textielvondsten uit archeologische opgravingen in de Grote of St. Laurenskerk te Alkmaar. Gemeente Alkmaar.

In the 17th and 18th century, Dutch Republic tortoiseshell was crafted into all sorts of objects. Amsterdam was in this period a centre of trade and craft, and tortoiseshell was used by many artisans in this city, such as comb makers and knife makers. Artisans who were familiar with the working of horn were able to process this ‘new’ material the same way as they did with horn. Their products can be seen in museum and archaeological collections and are mentioned in historical sources.

Buitenhuis, H. 2003. Faunaresten, in A. Ufkes (ed.), Een archeologische onderzoek op het terrein ‘Alhambra’ te Vlissingen. ARC-publicatie 85, 135-143. Catalani, C. 1973. Waaiers (second edition). Bussum, Van Dishoeck. O’Connor, S. 1987. The identification of osseous and keratinaceous materials at York, in K. Starling and D. Watkinson (eds.), Archaeological bone, antler and ivory. London, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, 921.

The scutes of the carapace of the hawksbill turtle were used as tortoiseshell; only one bookbinding was made of a different species, probably the green turtle or the loggerhead turtle. Tortoiseshell objects remained expensive and a sign of extreme luxury; these objects were often used for decorative purposes only. They were luxury items, to be found in the richest households.

Coolhaas, W.P. and Goor, J. van 1960-2007. Generale missiven van gouverneurs-genraal en raden aan Heren XVII der Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie. ’s Gravenhage, Nijhoff, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën. Dijk, P.P. van and Shepherd, C.R. 2004. Shelled out? A snapshot of bekko trade in selected locations in Southeast Asia. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Louise van Wijngaarden-Bakker, Amsterdam Archaeological Centre, University of Amsterdam (AAC); Anneke Dekker (AAC), Jerzy

Dillen, J.G. van 1974. Bronnen tot de geschiedenis van het bedrijfsleven en het gildewezen van Amsterdam, part

105

MARLOES RIJKELIJKHUIZEN III, 1633-1672. ’s Gravenhage, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën 144.

Noordwijk, B. van 2006. Zondags Zilver. Drie eeuwen versierde kerkboekjes. Heerenveen, NBG.

Drossaers, S.W.A. and Lunsingh Scheurleer, T.H. 19741976. Inventarissen van de inboedels in de verblijven van de Oranjes en daarmee gelijk te stellen stukken 15671795. ’s Gravenhage, Nijhoff, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën.

Payen-Appenzeller, L’Aventurine.

P.

2000.

Fancy

fans.

Paris,

Rijkelijkhuizen, M.J. 2004. Dierlijke materialen in Amsterdam. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

Gaastra, F.S. 2002. De geschiedenis van de VOC (seventh edition). Walburg Pers, Zutphen.

Romer, A.S. 1962. The vertebrate body. Philadelphia, Saunders.

Gilbert, S.F., Loredo, G.A., Brukman, A. and Burke, A.C. 2001. Morphogenesis of the turtle shell: the development of a novel structure in tetrapod evolution. Evolution and development 3 (2), 47-58.

Schmidt, J.T. de, and van der Lee, T. 1979. West Indisch Plakaatboek. Publikaties en andere wetten betrekking hebbende op St. Maarten St. Eustatius Saba, 1648/16811816. Amsterdam, Emmering.

Goslinga, C.C. 1971. The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580-1680. Assen, Van Gorcum.

Schmidt, J.T. de, van der Lee, T. and Schiltkamp, J.A. 1978. West Indisch Plakaatboek. Publiakties en andere wetten alsmede de oudste resoluties betrekking hebbende op Curaçao Aruba Bonaire, 1638-1816. Amsterdam, Emmering.

Goslinga, C.C. 1985. The Dutch in the Caribbean and in the Guianas 1680-1791. Assen, Van Gorcum. Goslinga, C.C. 1990. The Dutch in the Caribbean and in Surinam 1791/5-1942. Assen, Van Gorcum.

Shenton, H. 1988. The use of membranes in conservation: the case histories of a tortoiseshell bookbinding and the lady Clapham doll’s mask. Preprints for the UKIC 30th Anniversary Conference, 76-80.

Glasbergen, J.B. 2004. Beroepsnamenboek. Beroepsaanduidingen vóór 1900 in Nederland en België. Amsterdam, Veen.

Shenton, H. 1992. The history and conservation of tortoiseshell bookbindings. Papers of the Conference on Book and paper Conservation, held in Budapest 4-7 September 1990, 174-187.

Grall, E. 2002. Tortoiseshell imitations, in P. van Duin and H. Piena (eds.), The meeting of East and West in the furniture trade. Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on Wood and Furniture Conservation, 26-32. Hardwick, P. 1981. Discovering horn. Southampton.

Spruit, R. 1988. Zout en slaven. De geschiedenis van de Westindische Compagnie. Houten, De Haan.

Heijer, H. den 2002. De geschiedenis van de WIC (second edition). Walburg Pers, Zutphen.

Vuilleumier, R. 1979. Schildpatt. Verarbeitungstechniken und Imitationen. Maltechnik, Restauro 85 (1), 40-47.

Lehrer, J. 1998. Land- en zeeschildpadden (translation of Turtles and Tortoises 1990). Lisse, Rebo Productions.

Williams, D.C. 2002. Tortoiseshell and imitation tortoiseshell, in P. van Duin and H. Piena (eds.), The meeting of East and West in the furniture trade. Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on Wood and Furniture Conservation, 33-43.

Moore, S. 1999. Cutlery for the table. Sheffield, Hallamshire Press. Mulder, W.J. 1981. Cultuurhistorische aspecten. In Graven in de Pieterskerk. Stichting, Vrienden van de Pieterskerk Leiden. Nierop, L van 1933. Gegevens over de nijverheid van Amsterdam. Bijeengelezen uit de advertenties in de Amsterdamsche Courant 1795-1811, en in de advertentien, aankondigingen en verschillende berigten van Amsterdam 1812-1813. Jaarboek Amstelodamum 30. Noorduyn, J. 1983. De handelsrelaties van het Makassaarse rijk volgens de notitie van Cornleis Speelman uit 1670. Nederlandse Historische Bronnen III, 96-124.

106

Technological Signature

Non-Utilitarian Transformation of Horse Mandibles Magdalenian Examples from Pekárna (Moravia, Czech Republic) and La Vache (Ariège, France) Martina LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ Anthropos Institute, Moravian Museum, Czech Republic Abstract Mammal mandibles were used as dietary resources, and they were also shaped into non-utilitarian items of "art mobilier". Two different ways of mandible processing into "art mobilier" were observed; they differ in the degree of bone modification. Established “chaînes opératoires” show how important this raw material was and which criteria were used to select appropriate mammals. This provides information for the reconstruction of possible ways mammal hard material was chosen for non-utilitarian purposes at two Magdalenian sites with distinct geographical contexts. The use of horse mandibles (Equus caballus) is a proof of the alimentary-utilitarian-symbolic status of horse in the Magdalenian. tissue; the possibility of processing such tissues varies. Mons and Kandel (2002) studied 630 artefacts of portable art collected at French sites (Gourdan, Lortet, Mas d´Azil, La Vache, Arudy, Laugerie-Basse, La Madeleine) from a collection of the Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Paris, France, and they came to the conclusion that ribs were the most frequently used animal bone material for portable art production. Scapulas were used less frequently, and hyoid, phalanx, metapodium, and cranium were rarely used (Figure 1). It is necessary to note that detailed anatomical and osteological identification and evaluation of processing technology have not received enough attention and appeared in studies of portable art relatively recently (cf. Delporte 1976; Delporte and Mons 1973; Mons 1972).

Introduction There are a variety of artifacts of portable art made of hard animal tissues in the Magdalenian, and the techniques of their preparation show a high degree of variability. Hard animal tissues for art production, such as bone, antler, and ivory, were obtained as byproducts from hunting and prey processing or they were just collected (deer shed antler, ivory) (Averbouh 2000). Bone and antler are the most frequent types of raw material used for the production of portable art. Ivory was used less frequently. Antler and ivory represent raw material of relatively constant quality and shape. There is a large number of different sizes and anatomical shapes of bones. Considering the classic bone classification based on morphology, there are long, short and flat bones, and we may describe various bone types with differences in the ratio of cancellous and compact bone

The motivation for choosing a particular bone type as a raw material for a final product may include, besides the physical properties of bone, the morphology of the bone,

Figure 1 : Types of animal bones used in portable art in Magdalenian , sample of 630 pieces from the french sites of Gourdan, Lortet, Mas d´Azil, La Vache, Arudy, Laugerie-Basse and La Madeleine. Collections Musée des Antiquitées Nationales (from Mons L. and Kandel D. 2002).

107

MARTINA LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ which can be advantageous or disadvantageous – for artifact processing – (Pigeaud 1999).

Magdalenian, its hemimandible represents the best bone element for the production of spatula-like artifacts because of its length/width ratio (Figure 2). It seems that this bone element’s potential was sought-after by the Magdalenian hunters even though the transformation of its shape for that purpose requires a complex preparation.

This study deals only with the processing of flat bones – mandibles, more specifically horse mandibles (Equus caballus sp.). Difficulties that stem from the fragmentary nature of flat bones, where identification is never easy (compare, for example, the discussion "The Woman with a reindeer" from Laugerie Basse, Delporte 1988; Saban 1967), are the reasons for the inaccurate classification of the anatomical origin of the raw material. They might have a misleading effect on studies focused on hard animal tissues at the site. Such a mistake in bone identification (the bone is described as a scapula while actually a mandible) is the subject of our discussion. Material and methods Artifacts of portable art from Pekárna made of hard animal tissues deposited in the Moravian Museum in Brno (Svoboda 1976; Valoch 1970), Czech Republic, have been already examined (Lázničková 2005; Lázničková-Galetová 2002). The technology of their production was determined more precisely for this study. Although faunal remains found on the same site were studied by Musil (1958; 2002), a complete zooarchaeozoological analysis of the site was not done. An artifact from La Vache Cave (Ariège, France) was studied during an internship associated with the working group Commission de nomenclature de l´industrie de l’os préhistorique that focused on the analysis of cranial elements as base material for portable art. A binocular magnifying glass was used for the examination of bone surface. Unfortunately, the other artifacts from La Vache Cave have not been studied so far because of technical issues.

Figure 2: Comparison of horse and reindeer mandibles (photos: http://www.equinestudies.org/knowledge_base/mamma lian.html, date: 20. 8. 2007).

Utilitarian mandible processing in butchery Butchery processing leaves traces of skinning, evisceration, dismembering, disarticulation, and meat extraction on mandibles (Binford 1981; Letourneux 2003; Patou-Mathis 1997). Another alimentary process that leaves traces on mandibles is marrow extraction (Delpech and Rigaud 1974). This process requires a hammerstone that produces bone fragmentation. The hemimandible is broken lengthwise into two parts (Patou-Mathis 1997) (Figure 3). M. Patou Mathis (1997) argues that horse marrow was highly valued. Outram and Rowley-Convy (1989) confirm the importance of mandibular marrow, which follows femur and humerus in importance in a horse skeleton. Considering fat content, it is higher than in the limbs (Cachorro 2000-2001) and it is the last fat reserve in periods of biological stress (Cachorro 20002001). The characteristic bone fragmentation during butchering may be an auxiliary tool for sorting fragments into morphotypes (cf. Muniz 1988).

Horse mandible as base material The mandible – a flat bone – consists of a thin layer of cancellous bone surrounded by compact bone (Barone 1986). The mammal mandible is formed by two mandibular rami, hemimandibles, which are fused among ungulates. Each mandibular ramus consists of an alveolar process with a vertical and a horizontal part with different ratios of compact and cancellous bone tissue. The hemimandible is composed of two contiguous walls with an alveolar socket. The horse mandible (Equus caballus sp.) is osteologically independent of the skull and it has – in contrast to the maxilla – a wide flat area. The horse mandible, as we understand it, is a sought-after base material for decorated items such as spatulas in the Magdalenian. Although horse is second among the alimentary sources in the horse-reindeer dichotomy which forms the socio-economic base in the

The primary goal for raw material obtained in this way was not artifact production (Averbouh 2000). Mandibular fragments obtained as butchering waste were used as a

108

NON-UTILITARIAN TRANSFORMATION OF HORSE MANDIBLES base material for two artifacts of portable art in LaugerieBasse Cave (France) (Figure 4). They are reindeer mandibles broken lengthwise and the bone fragment (waste from marrow exploitation) is not further manipulated, but only "decorated" by engraving using the fracture edge as part of the figuration.

Horse mandible transformation in Pekárna Cave (Moravia, Czech Republic) Pekárna horses Remains of horse bones found during research at Pekárna Cave point to, according to Musil (1958), a population of at least 31 individuals. Berke (1989) identified 48 both young and old individuals. It is possible to trace the predominance of cranial remains – mainly mandibles and isolated teeth – and foot bones, especially phalanges. Nonetheless, we detect a lack of ribs, vertebrae and long bones (Musil 1958). Those facts were explained as the result of the possible transport of selected animal parts, heads, extremities, and pieces of boneless flesh, to the cave (Berke 1989). Varying levels of bone preservation and possible selection of some bones during excavation may also have played a role in this deficit. Regarding the processing of animal bodies, there is evidence of a complete and intensive process starting with skinning and ending with marrow extraction (Turner 2003). Cut-marks observed on the skeletons of horses indicate activities such as skinning, disarticulation, filleting, tendon removal, and marrow extraction (Berke 1989; Turner 2003). Horse bones are the most frequently used items for portable art in Pekárna Cave and horse is also the animal most frequently portrayed in mobiliary art.

Figure 3: Butchering processing of a horse mandible – Lazaret Cave (Middle Paleolithic, Nice, Alpes Maritimes) black rectangles = indication of fragments, P = approximate fracturing surface (after Patou-Mathis 1997).

Horse mandible fracturing in Pekárna There were 220 fragments of horse mandible found among faunal remains from the Magdalenian layers (g, h) in Pekárna Cave (excavated by K. Absolon and R. Czizek). Fractures of mandibles are mainly lengthwise, indicating marrow extraction. Long cut-marks on mandibular walls correspond to skinning traces. Morphotypes resulting from the processing of horse mandibles from Pekárna are mostly longitudinal fragments with teeth, indicating marrow fracturing. The region between pars molaris and ramus mandibulare is the weakest spot because it has a very thin layer of cancellous bone. It is probably highly prone to fragmentation, and fragments are difficult to classify further (note the identification issue for such fragments mentioned above).

Figure 4: Artifact of recycling to the alimentary waster produced by butchering – reindeer mandible engraved with fish - MH 38.189.1732 Laugerie Basse (photo: D. Oster, Musée de l´Homme, Paris).

Non-utilitarian mandible processing: use in portable art If we consider the area for graphic expression, the mandible – together with scapula – offers the biggest flat area of base material. When fragmentary, those two bones are often identified incorrectly. The common feature of both bones is the small thickness of the large flat surface made by the compact bone tissue after removing the spongy part.

Hemimandibles fragmented in such a way cannot be used as a base material for further production of Pekárna-type spatulas. Although, in some cases, hemimandibular walls are exposed and can result in wall separation, the fragments are small due to longitudinal fragmentation. The small thickness, and thus the fragility of the mandibular walls, may play a role in this as well.

The bone is worked in the thinnest spot of the spongy tissue layer through direct extraction of the final product shape – "cutting and engraving" (découpage in French) (Averbouh 2000). This technique of bone working is used for rondel production. Thin rondels with a thickness around 0.3cm were produced from the scapula or mandible (Bott 1992). Their raw material is difficult to identify.

I argue that it was not possible to use butchering waste to produce the Pekárna-type spatulas. Bone fragments had

109

MARTINA LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ to be carefully chosen after acquisition and transport. In Pekárna, where selective transport of horse heads was suggested, there may be another reason for such a choice.

Pailhaugue for Monique Hall; Pailhaugue 1998). Horse (Equus caballus) is unimportant; it is present only rarely in Monique Hall (MNI=3, N.R?). The hunted fauna consists of ibex and reindeer (Pailhaugue 1998). Animals represented in portable art of this cave consist predominantly of ibex; horse is in second place (Clottes and Delporte 2003a).

Spatulas made of horse mandibles Non-utilitarian manipulation of raw material – a horse mandible in Pekárna Cave – results in items of portable art: engraved spatulas (Figure 5). Spatulas may be divided into two morphologically different parts: the handle (made of the rostral part of the mandibular body, the incisival area) and the functional part (made of the jugular part of the lingual wall of the hemimandible) (Lázničková 2005). Those artifacts (Absolon 1939) (MNI=5) have a standardized form and production method determined by the material that was used (Lázničková 2005). The presence of raw material at the site and a number of pieces of this item in different stages of processing and use suggest in situ production.

Figure 5: Two spatula from Pekárna Cave (21.001, 21.002) (photos: K. Jursa, MZM).

The chaîne opératoire for the transformation of a horse mandible into a spatula (Figure 6) may be described as follows: 1. Raw material procurement 2. Débitage – formation of the bone blank extraction of both mandibular rami. extraction of the mandibular wall = splitting in two (the lingual wall is used). 3. Façonnage scraping and smoothing of the dental alveolus from the inner side of the mandibular wall. cutting and shaping, grooving. stripping of the surface (chattermarks). shaping of the bevelled face along the whole perimeter of the side and the proximal part. figurative engraving. non-figurative engraving. finishing (?)

Figure 6: Location of spatula 21. 001 on a horse hemimandible (Barone 1986), the lingual side, S. Péan.

The artifact indicating horse mandible transformation in La Vache Cave is deposited in Musée des Antiquités Nationales in Saint-Germain-en-Laye (n°83069), (Figure 7). It was found during the research of Robert Romain, Malvesin-Fabre G. and Nougier Louis-René (1940-1967) in Garrigou Hall (Alliat, Ariège). The present monograph about La Vache Cave (Clottes and Delporte 2003b) mentioned the artifact as "os dit : Bison sur omoplate" (a bone named "Bison on scapula", translation by the author) and it is indicated as unpublished. In fact, there is an earlier publication of the artifact (Robert 1951); the author doubts the faunal identification of the artifact and writes: "il ne semble pas que ce soit une omoplate" (it does not seem to me that it is a scapula, translated).

The present state of item conservation, together with the partial reconstruction of the missing parts with another material (Lázničková 2005), does not allow us to say whether these artifacts were used and what their function was. One spatula, with no figurative engraved decoration, was worn out due to further unspecified use of its distal part. There is also a difference in the shape of the distal part among the artifacts – some are pointed and others round - which may also relate to their function. Figurative engravings on spatulas fully use the space provided by the bone material and they also use the relief and shape of the bone to complete the engraving.

The artifact (180mm long, 79mm wide, thickness: min. 3.19mm, max. 6.19mm, beveled edge 2mm) has long oval shape and it is refitted from four pieces (Clottes and Delporte 2003b). The raw material was identified as a horse mandible (S. Péan 2006). The spatula position on the mandible (Figure 8) is located mainly on the lingual

Horse mandible transformation in La Vache Cave (Alliat, Ariège, France) The fauna from La Vache Cave in Garrigou Hall is known at the level list of taxa (Ml, published by N.

110

NON-UTILITARIAN TRANSFORMATION OF HORSE MANDIBLES side; alveolar remains (undulations) correspond to the complete set of cheek teeth, especially M1, P4 and P3 (Stéphane Péan, pers. com. 2008). The shape of the edges (alveolar and vestibular) and thus their distance (artifact thickness) follows the original shape for the bone. There is a beveled 5mm edge around the major part of the artifact. The proximal part of the artifact is rounded and its shape is similar to spatula 21.005 from Pekárna. There are undulations on the artifact surface at the location of the M1, P4, and P3 and scraping (scratch striae). The artifact has figurative and geometric engravings. The figurative engraving depicts a bison in profile; we can also see the relation between the engraved depiction and the bone form. The bison head is formed according to the proximal part and it is situated along the beveled edge. The engraving of the bison represents spring moulting, as M. Crémades (1997) suggested.

Figure 8: Location of spatula from La Vache on a horse hemimandible, S. Péan.

Discussion The comparison of the artifacts according to our criteria reveals similarities between the studied items from Pekárna and La Vache Caves especially in: -

overall artifact form, which is determined by the anatomical shape of the mandibular ramus, artifact size, particularly thickness, surface ondulations, which, in our opinion, resulted from dental alveoli removal, both artifact edges (alveolar and vestibular) bear the characteristic thin beveled edge resulting from the anatomical structure of mandible.

Our research suggests that the artifacts – the two spatulas from Pekárna and La Vache Caves – are the same in terms of the “chaîne opératoire”. The same mental concept (longitudinal splitting of bones) (Averbouh 2000) was used to obtain a long flat segment of compact bone tissue and to remove the cancellous tissue. This can be seen on decorated smoothers and segments with polishes; their raw material is rib (hemirib). Such tools were not found in Pekárna Cave, but La Vache Cave produced several items (Averbouh and Buisson 2003). There were ribs from different animals (ibex, horse, and bison). Only horse ribs were used in Pekárna; they were complete, not cut crosswise or lengthwise. Artifacts from Magdalenian sites Fontalès (Darasse 1955), Gourdan (Piette 1874), and La Vache (Buisson and Pinçon 2003) provide examples of other tools representing a possible division of the functional part and the handle part., Their raw material is reindeer antler. Another item from La Vache is a spoon made of a long bone diaphysis of a large mammal which has no engraving but traces of scraping (Buisson and Pinçon 2003).

Figure 7: An artifact from La Vache (photo S. Péan, MAN; relevé, Clottes et Delporte 2003b, cat 510).

The hypotheses for the use of the heterogenous tool group, found in a small number of pieces in the

111

MARTINA LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ Magdalenian, vary from food preparation and marrow consumption to dyeing (Buisson and Peltier 1993). Conclusion and perspectives

Martina Lázničková-Galetová Anthropos Institute Moravian Museum Zelný trh 6 659 37, Brno Czech Republic [email protected]

We can see two means of horse mandible processing in the Magdalenian technocomplex: alimentary use (butchering and marrow extraction), second, as raw material for further specific production. There are two ways of obtaining a mandible as a base for portable art (engravings). First, the recycling of waste originating from butchering activities; the Magdalenian populations used accidental fragments of bone (opportunistic acquisition) and suitable pieces with a potential for engraving. Second, the intentional acquisition of the bone material (voluntary human choice), which was not used for marrow and grease extraction but for the production of standardized artifacts such as engraved spatulas (Pekárna, La Vache). On both sites, artifacts are standardized and made of walls of horse mandibles using a complex and similar "chaîne opératoire". The deliberate choice and specific acquisition of horse mandibles shows the management level of hard animal tissues on the sites that were studied. Currently, there does not seem to be any preference for certain age or sex of horses; the small number of artifacts only enables us to deduce they were adult individuals, corresponding to the hypothesis that flat pieces with maximum surface were sought for. It seems that the search for the maximum space for engravings as well as bone form and shape was a high priority for the Magdalenian creators. It would be useful to reassess the importance of bone element choice in portable art studies, which – if related to the knowledge of archaeozoology – may offer clues for the studies of economic behavior represented by inhabitants of different sites. In the pursuit of this goal, we hope to specify the status of horse and the diversity of roles it played in different Magdalenian groups (Bignon 2007) as a hunted animal used for raw material for utilitarian and non-utilitarian item production and an object of depiction in both portable and cave art.

References cited Absolon, K. 1939. Les nouvelles fouilles dans la grotte de Pekárna et les poignards faits en mâchoires de cheval. Mélanges de Préhistoire et d´Anthropologie, 257-262. Averbouh, A. 2000. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L’exemple des chaînes d’exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I. Averbouh, A. and Buisson, D. 2003. Les lissoirs, in J. Clottes and H. Delporte H. (eds.), La grotte de la Vache (Ariège) : Fouilles Romain Robert. Volume I - Les occupations du Magdalénien. Paris, CTHS / RMN, 309325. Barone, R. 1986. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques. Paris, Vigot Frères. Berke, H. 1989. Archaeozoology and site cachement in the Magdalenian: Solutré, Petersfels, Pekárna Cave, Kniegrotte: A preliminary report. Early Man News, 14, 15-31. Bez, J.-F. 1995. Une expérience de découpe bouchère pratiquée au silex: aspects anatomiques. Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranées, 4, 41-50. Bignon, O. 2007. L´autre "civilisation du Renne"...pour une réinterprétation des stratégies cynégétiques au Magdalénien dans le Bassin parisien, in S. Beyries and S. Vaté (eds.), Les civilisations du renne d'hier et d'aujourd'hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques et anthropologiques. XXVIIe rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes, Actes des rencontres, 19-21 octobre 2006. Sophia-Antipolis, APDCA, 223-241.

Acknowledgements My acknowledgments belong to the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GAČR 404/07/0856), which enabled me to take part in the conference. The article was written during the study of artifacts in Musée des Antiquités Nationales with kind assistance of Catherine Schwab. We also prepared there, together with S. Péan (artefact determination, location of artifacts in mandible, photos), data for Commission de nomenclature de l’industrie de l´os préhistorique – Cahier Matières d´art. I thank my colleague Nejma Goutas for technological notes and Daniel Sosna for the English corrections. The study is supported by the post-doc grant GAČR 404/03/D063, institutional grant MZM MK0CEZ00F2402 and Barrande Program MEB 020809.

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones ancient and modern myths. New York, Academic press. Bott, S. 1992. Les rondelles paléolithiques et épipaléolithiques. Mémoire de fin d'études présenté a l'Institut de Pré- et Protohistoire (IPL) de l'Université de Leiden (Pays-Bas). Buisson, D. and Peltier, A. 1993. Fiche cuillers a cuilleron élargi, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique, cahier

112

NON-UTILITARIAN TRANSFORMATION OF HORSE MANDIBLES VI, Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc, 141-144.

Letourneaux, C. 2003. Devinez qui est venu dîner à Brassempouy ? Approche taphonomique pour une interprétation archéozoologique des vestiges osseux de l'Aurignacien ancien de la grotte des Hyènes (Brassempouy, Landes). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I.

Buisson, D. and Pinçon, G. 2003. Les Cuillers, in J. Clottes and H. Delporte (eds.), La grotte de la Vache (Ariège) Tome II - L’art mobilier. Paris, CTHS / RMN. Cachorro, A.M. 2000-2001. Fracturation anthropique intentionnelle sur mandibules et phalanges dans le niveau VIII de la grotte de Las Caldas (Asturies, Espagne). Préhistoire Européenne, 16-17, 255-270.

Mons, L. 1972. Notes de technologie de l'art paléolithique mobilier (I et II). Antiquités Nationales, 4, 14-21. Mons, L. and Kandel, D. 2002. De l'utilisation des matières dures animales dans l'art préhistorique, in M. Patou-Mathis, P. Cattelain and D. Ramseyer (eds.), L'industrie osseuse pré- et protohistorique en Europe Approches technologiques et fonctionnelles. Actes du colloque 16, XIVe Congrès de l'UISPP, 2-9 septembre 2001. Liège, Amay, Bulletin du Cercle archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz XXVI, 97-103.

Clottes, J. and H. Delporte, 2003a. La grotte de la Vache (Ariège). Tome I, Les occupations du Magdalénien. Paris, CTHS / RMN. Clottes, J. and H. Delporte, 2003b. La grotte de la Vache (Ariège). Tome II, L’art mobilier. Paris, CTHS / RMN. Crémades, M. 1997. Bestiaire figuré, environnement animal, saisonnalité a la Grotte de la Vache (Alliat, Ariège). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 94(4), 455-469.

Muniz A., Morales 1988. On the Use of butchering as a paleocultural index: proposal of a new methodology for the study of bone fracture from archaeological sites. Archaeozoologia, II/1-2, 111-150.

Darasse, P. 1955. Deux œuvres d'art magdaléniennes de l'abri de Fontalès, près de Saint-Antonin (Tarn-etGaronne). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 715-718.

Musil, R. 1958. Fauna moravských magdalénských stanic. Anthropozoikum, 7, 7-23. Musil, R. 2002. Fauna moravských jeskyní s paleolitickými nálezy, in J. Svoboda (ed.), Prehistorické jeskyně, Dolnověstonické studie, svazek 7, Archeologický ústav AV ČR Brno.

Delpech, F. and Rigaud, J.-P. 1974. Étude de la fragmentation et de la répartition des restes osseux dans un niveau d´habitat paléolithique, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Premier colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque, 18-20 avril 1974. Aix-en-Provence, 47-55.

Outram, A. and Rowley-Convy, P. 1989. Meat and Marrow Utility Indices for Horse (Equus). Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 893-894.

Delporte, H. 1976. Typologie et technologie de l'art paléolithique mobilier, in Les courants stylistiques dans l'art mobilier au paléolithique supérieur, XIe congrès de UISPP. Nice, 37-53.

Pailhaugue, N. 1998. Faune et saisons d´occupation de la salle Monique au Magdalénien Pyrénéen Grotte de la Vache (Alliat, Ariège, France). Quaternaire, 9, 385-400.

Delporte, H. 1988. La femme au renne de Laugerie Basse. L'Anthropologie, 92(1), 51-64.

Patou-Mathis, M. 1997. Les marques de boucherie au Paléolithique. Revue Méd. Vétérinaire, 148, 959-968.

Delporte, H. and Mons, L. 1973. Notes de Technologie et de Morphologie de l'art paléolithique mobilier. Antiquités Nationales, 5, 20-31.

Piette, E. 1874. Histoire de la cuiller. Association française pour l'avancement des sciences, 3eme session. Lille, 679-684.

Lázničková-Gonyševová, M. 2002. Art mobilier Magdalénien en matières dures animales de Moravie (République tchèque). Aspect technologique et stylistique. L´Anthropologie 106 (4), 525-564.

Pigeaud, R. 1999. Art mobilier sur support contraignant : étude des proportions de trois chevaux magdaléniens conservés au Musée des Antiquités Nationales et de leur inscription dans le volume de la pièce. Antiquités Nationales, 31, 11-43.

Lázničková-Galetová, M. 2005. Les "spatules" de la grotte de Pekárna (Moravie, République tchèque) : analyses typologique et techno-stylistique, en relation avec le support. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique française, t. XXXIX, 221-230.

Robert, R. 1951. Une gravure inédite de la grotte de "La Vache" (Ariège). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, t. VI (12), 84-86. Saban, R. 1967. Réflexions anatomiques sur la plaquette de la "Femme au Renne" (Laugerie Basse, Magdalénien

113

MARTINA LÁZNIČKOVÁ-GALETOVÁ IV). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique francaise, t. LXIV, 131-142. Svoboda, J. 1976. Zur Problematik der magdalénienzeitlichen Kunst Mitteleuropas. Anthropologie 14, 163193. Turner, E. 2003. Horse hunting and the utilisation of horse carcasses during the Magdalenian in Europe, in S. Costamagno and V. Laroulandie (eds.), La Mode de Vie au Magdalénien. Apports de l´Archéozoologie. Oxford, BAR International Series 1144, 47-64. Valoch, K., 1970. Oeuvres d'art et objets en os du magdalénien de Moravie (Tchécoslovaquie). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l'Ariège XXV, 79-93.

114

Palaeolithic Portable Art and its Relation to Ungulate Bones (Metapods) Éva DAVID CNRS UMR 7055 - Préhistoire et Technologie, MAE, Nanterre, France Abstract The search for a possible relation between Palaeolithic engraving and the anatomic material that served as its base, when this relation concerns the lower leg – more precisely the metapod (to start with) – takes the author to the Musée d’Archéologie nationale (MAN – National Museum of Archaeology, at Saint-Germain-en-Laye) where 22 Magdalenians and Solutrean art-works are picked out from old archaeological material – four originals among them and first hand examined. As this anatomic extremity can also show evidence – through incisions on its bones – for other uses of the anatomical part, the criteria for studying engraved art mobilier on metapod are discussed at length. Of the engravings ascribed to the Magdalenian it will be noted they evince - for those that express a figurative art - a sense of the anatomy, as well as a close relationship between the animal and the bone it is depicted on – both as a rule each time attributable to the same species. Finally, the hypothesis according to which a link of a symbolic nature between Magdalenian man and the ungulates - particularly reindeer - can be seen in the technical procedure revealed on right reindeer metatarsi engraved with reindeer is explored. metatarsal diaphysis) or convex (cranial face of the metacarpal diaphysis) surfaces (Figure 1). As for the less spacious surfaces, they tend to be convexo-concave (caudal face of the metacarpal or metatarsal diaphysis) often with considerable projections at the anatomic extremities (pits/dimples, articulatory surfaces, condyles and intermediate contours). Hence, diaphyseal planes edges and faces - provide the best surfaces for engraving. The morphology of the lower leg bones theoretically makes it possible to execute motifs of varying scale in any anatomical direction. Nevertheless, as far as artiodactyl metatarsi are concerned, the presence - quite pronounced on the cranial face for instance - of a dividing line is an obvious obstacle to any attempt to trace a single line, in one stroke, from one side to the other of the diaphysis. In general then, this median groove delimited the designs, which, accordingly, are all "comprehensive framing, i.e. the artist mentaly fitted the image he wanted to realise within the largest available surface of the blank" (Leroi Gourhan 1971, 413). As we shall see this anatomic constraint may have been used as an integral part of the figurative expression and the anatomic contours have been emphasised, even sculpted, so as to exploit the forms they evoked in their natural state.

Introduction Palaeolithic art mobilier – the fact is apparent straight away – is extremely well represented on bone. Nonetheless, the anatomic identity of its material base has not been systematically investigated where the diaphysis is concerned. This is mainly because numerous decorated pieces are entirely worked over, which has generally prevented the original part of the animal skeleton from being precisely identified. But, in addition, the artwork itself is essentially what is retained, studied, and then separated in whole or part from the osteological substrate on which it rests. Palaeolithic engraving was not, however, produced on totally transformed material only, and the most advance studies make a point of emphasising the importance for understanding prehistoric art of the blank itself and how its original relief is used (Sauvet 1998; Tosello and Sauvet 1998). Does a relation exist, then, between the representation -figurative or not and the bone material, to the extent that the latter allows freedom from the most restrictive anatomic constraints? It is expected here that the answer will have direct implication when seeking for a "catalyst" of the artistic process during Paleolithic (Delporte 1992), that could involved communication systems based on stylistic codes (Gamble 1980; 1989, 322-331; Marshack 1979). Our revisiting of "artworks on pieces serving no utilitarian purpose" (Leroi-Gourhan 1983, 374) of (French) classical archaeological series hence emphasises an original form of art-expression for the Magdalenians: through his artistic representation the craftman materialized his special link with his staple game, the one that is also essential for his material culture.

Re-investigating old archaeological series Re-examining anatomic identifications and searching for works of fine art that only concern the bones led present author, with help of L. Filippi, to review the archaeological series in its entirety. Given the work this required, we only looked at the metapods stored at the the Musée d’Archéologie nationale (MAN, at Saint-Germainen-Laye) series. In this way, in 2006, the material from about 150 sites – mainly French – was quickly reviewed for two whole months.

The restrictive anatomic constraints of the metapods By its nature the metapod tends to provide material bases with plano-convex (lateral and medial faces of the

115

ÉVA DAVID On the other hand, these elements consist of other engraved and/or carved evidence, whether contemporary or not, whether they come from the same or other archaeological sites, or are indeed made from other raw materials. They have enabled to estimate the value of the corpus in terms of ranges of possibilities as concerns both the types of artistic representations encountered - types of motifs, modes of representation, engraving techniques – and the treatments given the anatomic parts considered here - same matrix used for the industry or not, technical modes employed for making the bone blanks – whatever the sites and chrono-cultural fields retained. At the end of this perusal and as far as the mammals are concerned, and without it being imputable to the series represented there, metapods have only been found engraved and/or carved on a quarter of the potential sites where, in France, engravings/carvings and /or hard materials of animal origin are recorded. Extended to other collections, the study should make it possible to determine whether, in the end, the specific use of metapods, compared with the other bones of the frame, for engraving and carving should be attributed to the whole or, on the contrary, to only a part of one of the Palaeolithic groups from which they originate. Re-examining old anatomic identifications Figure 1: Metapod’s terminology for ungulates - Equids (perissodactyl) and Bovids (artiodactyl). After Barone (1986, pl. 421 and associed text). C.A.D. É. David.

At the MAN, pieces hitherto considered as "bone", "limb bone", even "flat bone" have received a new identification as belonging precisely to the metapod. Besides a piece from the cave of La Vache (Ariège) already attributed by N. Pailhaugue (infra), the anatomic identification was carried out for the needs of this study by the author with help of S. Péan. The attributions of origin, therefore, at a species level, or even those indicating engravings, for pieces with only accidental marks, have been re-examined. Accordingly, from an initial list drawn up from the museum’s inventory only eight pieces correspond in all points to the definitive corpus.

Re-examining old archaeological collections I have made a point of only including the pieces I was able to inspect myself. My aim was to draw up an inventory of engraved and/or carved metapodial bones, while using the largest number of elements without limiting myself to only the best known pieces, as much for the purposes of identifying the pieces themselves as for interpreting the results. On the one hand, these elements are built up from the fauna of the sites where the corpus was found and precisely from its intrinsic components that concern mainly aspects of a taphonomic nature - surface conditions, types of fragmentation etc. Each palaeontological ensemble delivered as it were a "signifying" reference system enabling the diagnostic elements mentioned below to be corroborated. In this case, the species of the fauna themselves were also of use (Paillet 1998); considering them helped us understand both the potential anatomic attribution of the engraved and/or carved bones (not counting the use of the bone remains themselves taken as reference bones for the anatomic attributions) and the possible relationship between the species consumed and those having furnished materials for artwork.

Some of the pieces recorded as "metapod" or "canon bone" have even been given another attribution. For the diaphysis fragments, besides the other anatomic features, the conformation of the bone tissue – spongy and compact, quite specific to metatarsi for instance – has often allowed the exclusion of certain pieces more closely related in this case to other bones of the frame in that they showed, among other things, a richer and very invading diploë. For all the artworks concerned, the original anatomic base, and above all the anatomical orientation proximal versus distal - were more readily determined than the species. The majority of the original matrixis are still identifiable thanks, besides their dimensions, to the presence of at least some anatomic characters left unworked - imprint, median groove, or articulatory surface. Only the zones with the representation seem to have received a treatment ex modus operendi (David

116

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) 2008, 37), i.e. as a preparation to the engraving, and generally aimed at a regularisation of the surface through scraping. For all that, these bones may have received some other treatment leaving no other visible trace.

longer be associated with any artistic expression (d’Errico 1993; d’Errico and Villa 1997). The term "engraving" refers to the result of an act of human origin – carving or incising matter. For this reason, it is the strokes’ characteristics: intrinsic - aspect, form, and type – and extrinsic - location, orientation, extent, arrangement - and their relationships, with respect of the type of material concerned, that have been considered in each case. The preservation of the engraved surfaces is of such excellent quality that during observation the traces they bear could be analysed at low magnification (under a binocular glass) so as to reconstruct the "succession of events" (d’Errico and David 1993, 150) required to pick out a figuration or a motif. For each site yielding bone pieces suitable to be retained, the fashioned material - undeniably worked by man - has also been examined so as to constitute a repertoire of manufacture stigmata potentially necessary for grasping as well as possible the forms of the incisions on the bones. All these aspects, as it were, have come to form a bundle of diagnostic elements that enable the stroke to be interpreted as being of evidently human origin.

Metapod artworks - the MAN Palaeolithic corpus The corpus is yet represented by 22 objects (2 metacarpi and 20 metatarsi). According to the original publications, one piece is attributed to the Solutrean (Roc-de-Sers, Charente) and the 21 others to the Magdalenian, i.e. potentially between 15 000-11 000 BP (Sacchi 1990) four originals among them (see infra Figures 5-4, 5-5, 6-1, 6-2). As for the latter they come from 10 sites, all located in the south-west quarter: Le Chaffaud (Vienne), LaugerieBasse, Le Château des Eyzies, Malbarrat (Dordogne), Isturitz II (Grande salle) and Saint-Micheld’Arudy (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), Massat, La Vache (Salle Monique), and Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège) as well as Gourdan (Haute-Garonne). The Aurignacian and Gravettian, represented in the MAN collections, did not yield any art-metapod.

Some of the strokes left by man on the metapod were inscribed without any real intention of making art: they result from various cutting activities in the widest sense on or around the lower leg. Most often these strokes’ characteristics have been ascribed in our corpus to circumstantial marking (David and Pelegrin 2009) which was not the purpose of the cutting but its by-product. Thus, these activities do not just reflect cutting metapods for tool production (Figure 2-1 to 2-3) but also cutting up or "stripping" (Patou 1984) the lower leg (Figure 2-4 and 2-5), as well as using bones as "cutting board" and also, remarkably, "supports for art material" possibly needed for engraving (making art on) other bone pieces (Figures 2-6, 3-1 to 3-3). In this case, and whatever the technique used, the strokes evoke much more the intensity of the gesture, linked to the action (of cutting up) itself, than an intention of representation, even when the marks are regular; in other terms, the bones that retrace these cutting activities were incised independently of the cutting operation itself, even when, during the action, the use of the whole - lower leg still connected anatomically or part of the autopod - bone dismembered and used directly as board or support – cannot be separated from the activity itself.

No use was made of carnivore metapods here. Even when no species attribution is possible the pieces have always been attributed to large artiodactyls (large cervids and/or large bovids). The attributions concern red deer, reindeer, ibex, and equines (probably the horse); they were therefore exclusively large herbivore ungulates, over two thirds of which were reindeer. Recognising metapod art – a methodological exercise in its own right The depictions found on these bones are of two types (not exclusively): carving and engraving. Of the two, the first results from technical operations that profoundly modified the bone’s initial volume, the second from incisions on at least one of its anatomic sides. However, even if the arrangement of incisions evokes a motif, not every man-made or "intentional" mark necessarily constitutes art. Thus we are led right away to enquire as to what the bones from the lower leg were wanted for. The size, morphology, and structure of these bones are such that at first sight they may seem to be valuable for making portable goods. But this anatomic part also provides other constituents – the tendons, for instance potentially required for making useful articles, light and tough at the same time (Huguier and Poplin 1978). Identifying the factors that were the original cause of the traces on the lower legs bones is primordial in so far as they can generate ambiguous strokes and/or interfere with understanding the representations. Even, phenomena of a non-anthropic origine may independently have made an impression on the material, in some cases locally producing forms which, it is now well known, can no

In which case, how is it possible to know if the incisions was really art-intended? As the design is what expresses the art-form – whether figurative or not – the first step is to see if the strokes observed result from an engraving gesture: a mark, an incision, a series of incisions, etc and for each a discernible reading direction, mainly rendered by the accuracy and the way with which the bone material was carved, with an identifiable beginning and end to the stroke (David 2008, 52). Next - of these pieces - which ones clearly manifest an artistic intention? Often

117

ÉVA DAVID the "manner" of executing the line, i.e. halting the incision at a given point, of prolonging its course or continuing it in another direction, from or not far from the stopping point, as well as this organisation - expressible as a "chronology of lines" (Fritz 1999, 151) – is what tends to suggest a representation even if at times it can no longer be made out. Lastly, in this representational intention, it was more the "finished" character of these traces - the fact they were given a direction, a rhythm, an arrangement, a result of the intention to give life to all or part of the bone – and the relations between them, than their regularity, that enabled us to find the attribution of contours and reliefs produced long ago. Reproducing representations in graphic form (see note) has enabled us to grasp their original expression.

Oriented motives Among the pieces with figurative motifs there are animal "suites" from Gourdan, Massat, Le Chaffaud, and Le Mas-d’Azil showing an arrangement of deer bodies all along the main axis of the reindeer metatarsus (Figure 4). These engravings can be compared with another reindeer metatarsus from Le Mas-d’Azil that shows, along the same lengthwise axis, a line of decorated horses’ heads models all oriented towards the distal end (Figure 5-1). All these representations run along the diaphysis used as a plaque on which the frieze unrolls in the form of a repetition of elements (joined together by supplementary lines). It is even demarcated, for the equine head-forms on the edges of the median grooves, by a line of repetitive signs underlining each time this diaphyseal plane. At Le Mas-d’Azil also, two ungulate heads, this time oriented towards the bone’s proximal end, were depicted following the length of reindeer metatarsus as well (Figure 5-2). The engraved designs - bison, deer – on the Laugerie-Basse piece, also on reindeer metatarsus, respect the main anatomic axis as well (Figure 5-3). The fragment from Le Château des Eyzies, which shows an engraved extremity with a design that recalls the dorsal line of one of the Massat reindeer shown in the background, can probably be associated with this manner of representation on red deer or reindeer metacarpus (Figure 5-4). The flat surface of the reindeer metatarsus diaphysis was used in the same way - i.e. along its main axis – in the engravings from Laugerie-Basse that show, in one case, a body (of a fish?) oriented towards the proximal end (supra Figure 3-4), and, in the other, a horse oriented towards the distal end (supra Figure 3-5). Three last fragments, on reindeer metatarsi, can also be associated with the pieces that show contour oriented figurative motifs - at Les Eyzies (Figure 5-5), Gourdan (Figure 6-1) and Le Mas-d’Azil (Figure 6-2). There, even in a fragmentary state the engravings also seem to respect the bone’s main axis each time.

For a few pieces the question has even arisen whether the prehistoric artist may have been inspired by the form evoked by a network of patterns, and have added, intentionally this time, a few supplementary lines in order to create from this a form that had meaning for him (Figure 3-4 and 3-5). In spite of the care given to the analysis, the fractured state of the pieces sometimes prevented some artefacts from being irrefutably seen as art. This is especially the case when the design, being lighter and less affirmed in appearance than on the other pieces from the same site, brings out on engravings fortunately almost complete – rather than still unfinished, for instance – a certain variability in the art of the figuration (see infra Figure 7-4 the engraved ibex of La Vache). For all that, and even when we have found convergences of a stylistic order concerning the ways the stroke is applied or the engraver’s "personal touch" (manner of applying a technique) – between the engravings of Laugerie and Gourdan, or again those of Massat and Les Eyzies, as well as Brassempouy – a fine analysis still really has to be done on the whole of these series so as to bring out, as well as possible in the future, the originality of the pieces in this corpus.

As far as the non-figurative motifs (oriented) on metapods are concerned, the engravings executed on the anatomic face also run along the diaphysis axis at Rocde-Sers (Figure 6-3), Laugerie-Basse (Figure 6-4), Malbarrat (Figure 6-5) and Arudy (Figure 6-6). While at Roc-de-Sers and at Saint-Michel-d’Arudy the representations - both on reindeer metatarsi - are complex with several different motifs forming a composition, at Laugerie-Basse (on red deer metatarsus) and Malbarrat (on reindeer metatarsus) on the contrary, the representations are simple – respectively, barbed line or series of transversal notches.

The art-use of anatomic contours Prehistoric man obviously knew how to make the most of the metapods’ anatomic morphology. Either the morphology of the bone to be engraved gave the orientation of the representation - oriented motif – which is the case for the majority of the pieces (17), or the mode of representation exploited one, in general, or exceptionally several parts of anatomic contour - motif integrating contour (4 pieces). In a single case, the motif is independent of the anatomic contour naturally present on these bones (disjointed motif). Most of the compositions are figurative - 18 pieces; even if for some of them, being only small fragments, this is not evident at first sight - three of the newly found pieces here from Le Château des Eyzies, Gourdan, and Le Mas d'Azil. The other pieces are non-figurative (4 pieces).

Motives integrating contour On 2 pieces engraved on metatarsi, at Isturitz (Figure 7-1) and Gourdan (Figure 7-2), the edge of the dividing line by itself suggests in each case the horse’s cervical line, figured itself in the prolongation of this anatomic

118

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) convexity by the engraving. The same anatomic element the dividing line edge, on a reindeer metatarsus - was also used at Laugerie-Basse (Figure 7-3) this time to form the frontal line of an ibex, the rest of the head being engraved entirely on the anatomic face. Integrating the contour into the design in this way seems to indicate the bone support was not seen as merely a support for the image (Tosello and Sauvet 1998, 210).

for engraving representations of herbivore ungulates cervid, bovid, and equid - and particularly reindeer (18 out of 21 identified engraved or carved pieces). Indeed, the majority of the animals are represented on a bone support from their own species (12 out of 18 identified), or at least, their own family. For example, of the reindeer metapod figurative pieces 8 seem to show a reindeer (antlerless male or doe - see Lorblanchet et al. 1973; Nougier 1974). The same goes for the other pieces – with an ibex shown on the only ibex bone in the corpus, and also the equine bone for the carved horse head. It is a tendency; for representations of horses - 4 pieces – or ibex - 1 piece – can still be found on reindeer. The nonfigurative motifs only concern cervids - reindeer, red deer.

As far as carving is concerned, at Isturitz (Figure 7-5) the intermediate contour of an equine metatarsus was used to model the piece’s general allure, thereby giving it its central axis. In this case, this anatomic contour itself, freed of its articulatory condyles, had geometric motifs engraved on it arranged to highlight the horse’s head engraved above in champlevé on the diaphysis – recalling in this other known artworks – at Arudy (Piette 1907, pl. 88, n°1) and Le Mas d'Azil (Clottes et al. 1981). Here the metapod’s anatomic orientation corresponds to that of the animals represented on these pieces, i.e. the cranial anatomic face matches the horse’s frontal line.

As for the works on supports from animal fore- or rearquarters, mainly metatarsi were used. Where their laterality can be determined it turns out there was a preference for the right part of the metatarsi (7 pieces) - at Laugerie-Basse, Le Chaffaud and Le Mas-d’Azil – and also for the ibex metacarpus - at La Vache. The others are often small still unlateralised fragments showing nonfigurative motifs. The preference for the metatarsus is quite understandable, since it is the metapod that offers the widest and also longest workable surfaces. However, while this choice may have been made for only practical reasons, why the Magdalenians were so attracted by the right side is more difficult to explain.

Disjointed motif A single piece shows a motif disjointed from the matrix and comes from the site of La Vache (Figure 7-4). The engraving, showing an ibex (Clottes and Delporte 2003, 415; Fritz 1998, 112) is located at the knuckle of the metacarpus bones (of ibex), the dividing line – not very marked, it is true - not having been seen as a technical constraint. On the contrary, here there seems to have been an intention to represent the animal in the centre of the cranial face, and following its longitudinal axis. In this case centrality has been preferred to the figure’s orientation.

The use of art-metapods Looking at the engraved surfaces on artiodactyl metapods and the dulled appearance of their depictions it is obvious a certain time had gone by between their being engraved and being broken up – enough time to become indifferent, at least from a nutritive point of view, to its marrow. The representations or the scenes represented are incomplete. The pieces are damaged due to postdepositionnal factors (mainly transverse damaged end). Their axial sides correspond to the broken edges of the pieces and show cortical tearing and fracture planes left untouched, associated with at least one point of transversal impact. This indicates, although the bones were not structurally degraded, deliberate prehistoric percussion on these art-engraved metapods.

Magdalenian artworks to Magdalenian "standards" In most cases on the composition level the Magdalenians not only took account of the metapods’ morphology but also of their anatomic orientation – whatever the animal species used, or the animal and/or the motifs depicted. Except for 3 pieces (Figures 5-1, 5-2, 6-1) it is notable that the bottom of the figure always corresponds to the anatomic rear (caudal/palmar face) – no matter whether an engraving or a carving. The representation’s graphic orientation always follows the principal anatomic axis, i.e. the longitudinal axis, whichever the direction it is to be read in (motif oriented proximally or on the contrary distally), the species represented (deer/horse), or even the engraving technique used (even if it is not retranscribed here). This respect for the anatomic grain faithfully echoes the direction in which the engraving’s composition progresses on other contemporary works from the front (head, antler) to the rear (rump, tail) of the animals represented (Fritz 1999, 202 and 2006).

Art-engraved metapods deliberately broken up Fracturing was effected by using an intermediate piece applied (point of impact) transversally on the anatomic dividing line then struck (planes of fracture), by "wedgeand-splinter" (David 2004a, 121). A more effective technique, such as using a stone and striking the bone, by direct percussion on one of its sides - lateral or medial faces – i.e. the ones with the engravings – would have been more appropriate as it was, in a way, used to obtain other portable blanks (Tinnes 1995). This was never the case. The wedge-and-splinter was performed from the cranial or caudal face so as to reach the heart of the

At the conclusion of this analysis, we must admit that Magdalenians respected the natural anatomical sens and did used herbivore ungulates - especially from reindeer -

119

ÉVA DAVID dividing line in the diaphysis to initiate a sufficient truly axial fracture wave. So the destruction of the engraved supports was not sought so much as their division at the level of metapods III and IV.

also explore the hypothesis that the Magdalenians, by intentionally cleaving the engraved digit (metapod), may have expressed an ongoing relationship with their staple animal, via its representation on this support.

As no match between the engravings has been found, there is no knowledge of the configuration of the object in its state of origin; was the metapod engraved on both faces - medial and lateral - or one only (the one found)? Might this cleaving then be a synonym of reusing engraved bones? Might the missing halves have been used to make other portable pieces? The search for slightly altered pieces made from the same anatomic parts does not seem to yield – at MAN in any case – the expected pieces of evidence, i.e. pieces crafted on (previous) engraving. The fashionning may have prevented the original motifs from being recognised. Nevertheless, even on pieces entirely transformed or even re-engraved the traces of this crafting can hardly, every time, have entirely effaced the depth of the incisions from the initial engraving. Of the hundreds of pieces observed only one could correspond here. Still, we cannot exclude that the archaeological material has been so jumbled together that we are unable today to find more pieces witnessing to this possible recycling. Part of the bone asemblage, while yielded from very old archaeological collections (mainly from the transition 19-20th centuries), is eventually missing depending on the excavation’s type/extend. However, the material presented here comes mainly from the Éd. Piette’s collection wich remains one of the richest collections at least in terms of artefact types (worked and unworked). It is hoped then that the material of sites observed here can still be used as a representative sample of what was left by the Magdalenians. If the unworked parts of the the engraved-metapods have been used again for manufacturing other items, it would not be possible to figure out in the industry. However, unless it is technically too difficult to reshape an engraved part into another mobiliary piece, reasons why the art-sides of the metapods were not re-manufactured could be then related to the fact that the representations still had a meaning for those which have used art-metapods as a reserve of raw material. Supplementary data based on experimental archaeology are lacking here in order to figure out how long a bone can be usuable for manufacture after it has been first discarded.

Does fracturing metapods in this way have any connection with the figurative expression? As the latter is both diverse and varied, only those will be considered yielding animal "suites" - at Gourdan, Massat, Le Chaffaud and Le Mas d'Azil (supra Figure 4), all made on reindeer metatarsus and to the Magdalenian, when especially attributed, to the Upper Magdalenian ("André Leroi-Gourhan’s Late style IV" [Leroi Gourhan 1983, 277-281] - see Clottes 1989, for the chronological value of the Leroi Gourhan's style phases). For the pieces easier to interpret it is remarkable that the ends of the lower legs - digits/hooves – of the engraved animals (does/reindeer) are never depicted. In the graphic rendering of the animal this absence is not due to the atrophy of the limb, but to the intention of leaving the ends of the legs "open" as unfinished. The same can also be seen on similar figures, in cave art, especially at one of the sites we are concerned with, Massat, on the does in the frieze in the first room (Clottes and Gailli 1984, 395). But this is not necessarily the case for the other sites where the same animals are represented: on the walls of the Trois-Frères and the Grotte de la Mairie at Teyjat (Leroi-Gourhan 1965, 228, 281 and 398), on the basreliefs of the pillar of Isturitz (Laplace 1984, 281) and even on the painted ceiling of Altamira (Leroi-Gourhan 1965, 401), the toes/hooves are well depicted. The same is also the case on contemporary portable art – whether it comes from corpus sites or not, notably on a spearthrower from Mas d’Azil - the fawn with the birds (Clottes 1976, 1226) –, on some atlatl of Isturitz (Cattelain forthcoming), on a bone washer at Laugerie-Basse (White 1993, 88-89), and on litho-engravings of reindeer from the same site, as well as at Limeuil (Leroi-Gourhan 1965, 374-375). Furthermore, looking at these Magdalenian representations it becomes apparent that on the same animal the hooves can be shown in various possible ways; for example, the hooves are depicted on the fore legs only, the hind lower legs having none, as on the block engraved with reindeer at La Madeleine (Cleyet-Merle 1995, 104). Whatever the style, one would expect to find this diversity in depicting lower legs again on our pieces too, which is not the case. The Morin shelter (Gironde) has yielded a "suite" of reindeer treated as in our corpus, but in this case the anatomic base is taken to be a rib (White 1993, 15). Besides the representations of deer, several series on bone pieces concern other mammals, notably at La Vache (also probably on rib): the lioness "suite" that also shows these animals whole but without their dactyl extremities (ibid., 91). The pre-existing natural contours – whether bone or wall – were used to suggest the ground, even with slight vegetation, exactly where the legs’ extremities cannot be seen, and thereby better represent the living animal (Crémadès 1993b) in perspective (Aujoulat 1993b) and

A dialectic between Magdalenians and ungulates? The way these engraved metapods were deliberately broken up recalls, to a certain extent, the fate of other contemporary Magdalenian works of art, concerning other items (Fritz and Pinçon 1989; Martin 1927 cited by Laming-Emperaire 1962, 205; Mons 1986; Péquart and Péquart 1960, 333). There may be a connection – or dialectic – between the Magdalenian engraver and the artiodactyl ungulates, especially reindeer, perceptible through the fractured figurative art. While in no way rejecting the likelihood that engraved metapods were reused to serve as the bases for other portable goods, we

120

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) even in movement (Azéma 2005; 2006). To return to our corpus - as these extremities melt each time into the background on the metatarsi, this anatomic edge may have played this ground line role. Consequently, these dactyl extremities the engraver left open indicate a particular link with the "terrestrial world", symbolised, on the anatomic support precisely - the reindeer metatarsus – by the caudal dividing line, into which precisely they disappear. Unless again a technical constraint had led in a certain way to standardising the manner of representation on these bases with such peculiar contours that are metatarsi - and also the ribs as well, on which the median grooves are on the edge too, and as if joining the diaphyseal planes together.

thereby materially breaking the relation temporarily established between man and his prey-resource – the one engraved beforehand. It seems that it was precisely because the ungulate was, at the very least, the base of the group’s subsistence system – principally as a material resource for their portable objects and weapons – that the hunter certainly maintained a privileged link with it (Perlès 1983) and more generally with the hunted species he would have represented in the same way, without, for all that, this link being of an identical nature for each species represented (equid sp. on cervid bone). Conclusion Even though the engravings considered here seem themselves to refer to realistic representations, there is a possibility of a symbolical order the significance of which escapes us, but for which the link between man and the ungulate seems perceptible through the specific technical procedure observed for right reindeer metatarsi, and through a correspondence observed between the animal species of the engraving material and the motif, and the representation’s anatomic location and the anatomic features of the animal engraved. Even holding an informative and/or aesthetic value, the role of bone portable engraved art in these Magdalenian societies may thus involved various aspects, not only technical or magical (see Clottes 1995; 2003), but also spiritual, inscribing the own will of the craftman, not only his designs, into the historic course of the natural events.

It is difficult to admit the anatomic contour bordering the dividing lines technically constricted the manner of representation. On the Massat piece the engraving of the lower legs is extended into the dividing line’s concavity, just as for that of Gourdan. If there was a technical constraint it may have resided in the dimensions, all in all quite small, of the engravable surface. Besides the stylistic elements, there was a tendency to engrave these animals in considerable dimensions covering the whole of the usable surface, i.e. really the flattest and smoothest, and also, owing perhaps to this tendency, a concern to include numerous details - temple, coat, musculature, and signs. This had the effect of filling, as much as possible, the plane of the diaphysis – then seen during work as a "plaque" for engraving the bodies/heads properly speaking, and so intentionally leaving these animals’ extremities unfinished on the level of the toes but of the antlers too. Which confer on precisely these anatomic extremities – lower legs/antlers – a particular link with the deer represented and with their orientation on the anatomic blank – legs to the rear of the metatarsus, antlers to the front. It is to be noted, besides, these species rank at the bottom of the cave-wall "bestiary" (3.5% for the reindeer, for instance - Leroi-Gourhan 1992, 378), but often – in any case for the reindeer – at the top of the animal resources, even if this is subject to qualification if it is only considered as a food source (Bignon 2007; Costamagno 2005; Fontana 2000).

Note : - All scale subdivision in centimetres. - Except figure 7-2 made by the author, all anatomic representations are after Pales and Lambert (1971). The anatomic representation does not necesseraly fit the anatomic laterality of the art-metapod which determination is always mentionned in the figure captions. Acknowledgements Thanks to Stéphane Péan (Archaeozoologist, Institut de Paléontologie humaine, Paris) the anatomic identifications could be cheked; to Lucienne Filippi (amateur archaeologist, Paris) the corpus could be established; to Lucette Mons for inspiring this study; to Pierre Cattelain, for fruitfull comments; we wish to take this opportunity to express our gratitude and apreciation. We wish to thank the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale (MAN), the curator of the Palaeolithic department, Catherine Schwab, and the responsible of the Photo department, Chantal Dulos, for credit (MAN). This article is partly extracted from the original article made, in French, by Éva David, Lucienne Filippi and Clélia Dufayet "Os de l’autopode" in "Cahier Matières d’Art" (forthcoming).

A parallel could be drawn between not depicting toes/hooves and the technical act of breaking the anatomy of this bone, as in a symmetrical relationship (Poplin 1987). Splitting the metatarsus in the sagittal plane, as it is also the plane separating the living toes, would mean physically breaking the relation placed by these engravings between man and the resource animal, here the reindeer that precisely provided the material taken to be engraved. Used for a request, vow, or wish, the (right) metatarsus would be the symbolic link between two worlds - "terrestrial" (toes/hooves) and "celestial" (antlers/heads) - represented (anatomically) by its caudal and cranial anatomical sides respectively (Figure 8). Once the request was satisfied the bone would be split –

121

ÉVA DAVID

Figure 8: Theoretical diagram showing the symbolic representation of reindeer species expressed by the Upper Magdalenians (Magdalenian V or VI) when using its metapods for portable art. C.A.D. É. David.

Barrière, Cl. 1993. Les figurations animales. Tome II Les bovidés. L'Art pariétal Paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 108-122.

Éva David CNRS UMR 7055 « Préhistoire et Technologie » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l’Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

Bignon, O. 2007. L'autre "civilisation du renne"…pour une réinterprétation des stratégies cynégétiques au Magdalénien dans le Bassin parisien, in S. Beyries et V. Vaté (dir.), Les civilisations du renne d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, Approches ethnohistoriques, archaeological et anthropologiques. XXVIIe rencontres internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. Antibes, Editions APDCA, 223-241.

References cited Aujoulat, N. 1993a. Les figurations animales. Tome I Les équidés. L'Art pariétal Paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 97-108.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H. et Peyrony, D. 1906. Les gravures de la grotte des Eyzies. Revue d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1906, 429-441.

Aujoulat, N. 1993b. La morphologie. Tome I La perspective. L'Art pariétal Paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 281-288.

Capitan, L., Breuil, H. et Peyrony, D. 1924. Peintures et gravures murales des cavernes paléolithiques. Les Combarelles aux Eyzies (Dordogne). Paris, Masson et Cie.

Azéma, M. 2005. La décomposition du mouvement dans l'art pariétal : et si…les hommes préhistoriques avaient inventé le dessin animé et la bande dessinée ? Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, t. LIX, 55-69.

Capitan, L. et H., Peyrony, D. 1928. La Madeleine, son gisement, son industrie, ses œuvres d’art. Publications de l’Institut International d’Anthropologie, 2.

Azéma, M. 2006. La représentation du mouvement au Paléolithique supérieur. Apport du comparatisme ethographique à l'interprétation de l'art pariétal. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 103(3), 479-505.

Capitan, L. et H., Peyrony, D. et Bourlon, M. 1906. Gisements nouveaux du rocher des Eyzies. Congrès Préhistorique de France, Compte rendu de la 1ere Session, Périgueux, 1905. Paris, Schleicher frères, 70-73.

Barone, R. 1986. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques, Ostéologie. Paris, Vigot Éditeur.

Cartailhac, E. 1889. La France préhistorique, d'après les sépultures et les monuments. Paris, Félix Alcan.

122

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) Champagne, F. et Espitalié, R. 1981. Le Piage, site préhistorique du Lot. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française, 15.

l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 289-296. David, É. 2004. Transformation des matières dures d'origine animale dans le Mésolithique de l'Europe du Nord, in D. Ramseyer (dir.), Fiches de la Commission de Nomenclature de l'Industrie Osseuse, Cahier XI "Matières et Techniques", Industrie de l'Os Préhistorique. Paris, Éditions de la Société Préhistorique Française, 113-149.

Cheynier, A. 1949. Badegoule, station solutréenne et proto-magdalénienne. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire 23. Chollot, M. 1964. Musée des Antiquités Nationales Collection Piette. Art mobilier préhistorique. Paris, Éditions des Musées Nationaux.

David, É. 2008. Principes de l’étude technologique des industries osseuses et critères de diagnose des techniques mésolithiques. Cours de trois heures du Séminaire de technologie osseuse de l’Université Paris X Nanterre (HMEPR202), Cours en ligne Archives-Ouvertes CELSHS du Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe CCSd du CNRS [en ligne], http://cel.archivesouvertes.fr/cel-00129410, version 1, 2007, 150 p., version 2, 2008, 169 p.

Cleyet-Merle, J.-J. 1995. La province préhistorique des Eyzies. 400 000 ans d’implantation humaine. Paris, CNRS Éditions. Clottes, J. 1976. Les civilisations du paléolithique supérieur dans les Pyrénées. La Préhistoire française. Paris, Éditions du CNRS, 1214-1231. Clottes, J. 1989. L’art pariétal du Magdalénien récent. Colóquio international de Arte Pré-historica, Nos 25 Anos da descoberta da Gruta do Escoural, ALMANSOR, Revista de cultura, 7, 1989. Câmara Municipal de Mentemor-O-Novo, 37-94.

David, É. et Pelegrin, J. 2009. Possible Late Glacial bone "retoucher" in the Baltic Mesolithic: the Contribution of experimental tests with lithics on bone tools, in M. Street, R.N.E. Barton and Th. Terberger (eds.), Humans, environment and chronology of the Late Glacial of the North European Plain. Proceedings of Workshop 14 (Commission XXXII) of the XVth Congrès de l'Union internationale des Sciences pré- et protohistoriques UISPP, Lisboa, 4th-9th of September 2006. Mainz, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Tagungsbänder 6 des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 155-168.

Clottes, J. 1995. Changements thématiques dans l’art du Paléolithique supérieur. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, 50, 13-34. Clottes, J. 2003. De "l’Art pour l’art" au chamanisme : L’interprétation de l’art préhistorique. La Revue pour l’histoire du CNRS, 8, 44-53.

Delporte, H. 1979. Le Mas d'Azil : ses industries d'après la collecte Piette, étude préliminaire, in D. de SonnevilleBordes (dir.), La fin des temps glaciaires en Europe, Chronostratigraphie et écologie des cultures du Paléolithique final. Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la Recherche scientifique n°271. Paris, Editions du CNRS, 1979, 615-621.

Clottes, J. et Delporte, H. (dir.) 2003. La grotte de La Vache (t. II). Paris, Éditions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Clottes, J. et Gailli, R. 1984. Grotte de Massat. L’art des cavernes. Atlas des grottes ornées Paléolithique française. Paris, Ministère de la culture, 395-399.

Delporte, H. 1981. L’objet d’art préhistorique. SaintGermain-en-laye, Musée des Antiquités nationales, Réunion des Musées nationaux.

Clottes, J., Alteirac, A. et Servelle, Ch. 1981. Œuvres d’art mobilier magdaléniennes des anciennes collections du Mas d’Azil. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique de l’Ariège, t. XXXVI, 37-70.

Delporte, H. 1987. Édouard Piette, Histoire de l’art primitif. Précédé de Piette, pionnier de la Préhistoire. Paris (Les classiques français de l’histoire de l’art), Picard.

Costamagno, S. 2005. Stratégies de Chasse et Fonction des Sites au Magdalénien dans le Sud de la France. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bordeaux I.

Delporte, H. 1990. L’image des animaux dans l’art préhistorique. Paris, Picard Éditeur.

Crémadès, M. 1993a. Les figurations animales. Tome III Les cervidés. L'Art pariétal paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 137-150.

d’Errico, F. 1993. Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l'art mobilier en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire, in P.C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson (eds.), Traces et fonctions, les gestes retrouvés. ERAUL nº 50, t. 1, 177-188.

Crémadès, M. 1993b. La morphologie. Tome I L'animation. L'Art pariétal paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur

123

ÉVA DAVID d’Errico, F. et David, S. 1993. Analyse technologique de l’art mobilier. Le cas de l’abri des Cabônes à Ranchot (Jura). Gallia préhistoire 35, 10-176.

Huguier, D.F.-F. with collaboration of Poplin, F. 1978. La couture, le fil et les aiguilles, in A. Leroi-Gourhan (dir.), Travail et Société au Paléolithique et au Mésolithique. Documentation française, La documentation photographique, Préhistoire 1, n°6037 (52 p. et 12 diapositives), p. 22, PL. II-8, diapositives 8 et 9.

d’Errico, F. and Villa, F. 1997. Holes and grooves: the contribution of microscopy and taphonomy to the problem of art origins. Journal of Human evolution 33, 131.

Laming-Emperaire, A. 1962. La signification de l'art rupestre paléolithique. Méthodes et applications. Paris, Éditions Picard & Cie.

de Saint-Périer, R. 1930. La grotte d’Isturitz I. Le Madgalénien de la salle de Saint-Martin. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire 7.

Laplace, G. 1984. Grotte d’Isturitz, L’art des cavernes. Atlas des grottes ornées paléolithique françaises. Paris, Ministère de la culture, 280-282.

de Saint-Périer, R. 1936. La grotte d’Isturitz II. Le Madgalénien de la Grande salle. Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire 17.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1965. Préhistoire de l’art occidental. Paris, Éditions d’art Lucien Mazenod.

Fontana, L. 2000. Stratégies de subsistance au Badegoulien et au Magdalénien en Auvergne : nouvelles données, in G. Pion (dir.), Le Paléolithique Supérieur récent : nouvelles données sur le peuplement et l'environnement, Actes du Colloque de Chambéry 12-13 Mars 1999. Paris, Société préhistorique française, Mémoire XXVIII, 59-65.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1966. Réflexions de méthode sur l'art paléolithique. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 63(1), 35-49. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1983. Le fil du temps. Paris, Fayard. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1992. L’art pariétal. Langage de la préhistoire. Grenoble, Éditions Jérôme Million.

Fritz, C. 1998. Sociétés magdaléniennes et techniques de gravure sur os, in G. Tosello (coord.), Art et Société dans le Magdalénien pyrénéen, Rapport triennal 1996-98 de Projet Collectif de Recherche, 109-118.

Lorblanchet, M. with collaboration Delpech, F., Renault, Ph., Andrieux, Cl. 1973. La grotte de Sainte-Eulalie à Espagnac (Lot). Gallia préhistoire, 16(1), 233-325.

Fritz, C. 1999. La gravure dans l’art mobilier magdalénien, du geste à la représentation. Contribution de l’analyse microscopique. Paris, Édition de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Documents d’Archéologie française 75.

Lorblanchet, M. 1993. Les figurations animales. Tome IX Les poissons. L'Art pariétal paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 181-188.

Fritz, C. 2006. La aproximación técnica al arte mobiliar: a la búsqueda de un model social, in P. Arias Cabal and R. Ontañón Peredo (eds.), La materia del lenguaje prehitórico. El arte mueble paleolítico de cantabria en su contexto. Cantabria, Liébana, 127-140.

Marshack, A. 1979. Upper Palaeolithic Symbol systems of the Russian Plain: Cognitive and comparative analysis. Current Anthropolgy 20, 2 June 1979, 271-311.

the

Marshack, A. 1990. L'évolution et la transformation du décor du début de l'Aurignacien au Magdalénien final, in J. Clottes (dir.), L'art des objets au Paléolithique, t. 2, Les voies de la recherche. Colloque international de FoixMas d'Azil, 16-21 Novembre 1987, Actes des colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, Ministère de la Culture, 137-162.

Gamble, C. 1989. The Palaeolithic settlement of Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Martin, H. 1928. La frise sculptée et l’atelier solutréen du Roc (Charente). Archives de l’Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Mémoire 5.

Girod, P. et Massénat, E. 1900. Les stations de l’Âge du renne dans les vallées de la Vézère et de la Corrèze, Laugerie-Basse, industrie, sculptures, gravures. Paris, J.B. Baillière et fils.

Mascaraux, F. 1910. La grotte Saint-Michel d’Arudy, Basses-Pyrénées. Fouilles dans une station magdalénienne. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1910, 357-378.

Fritz, C. et Pinçon, G. 1989. L’art mobilier paleolithique valeur d’instant, de la création à la destruction, in J.-P. Mohen (dir.), Le temps de la préhistoire, t. 2. Dijon, Société préhistorique française Édition Archéologia, 161163. Gamble, C. 1980. Information Palaeolithic. Nature 283, 522-523.

exchange

in

124

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) Mons, L. 1986. Les statuettes animalières en grès de la Grotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) : Observations et hypothèses de fragmentation volontaire. L’Anthropologie, 90, 701-712.

Actes des colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, Ministère de la Culture, 13-29. Sacchi, D. 1993. Les figurations animales. Tome II Les Bovidés. Les Caprinés, Antilopinés, Rupicaprinés. L'Art pariétal paléolithique. Techniques et méthodes d'étude réunis par le Groupe de Réflexion sur l'Art Pariétal Paléolithique, Documents Préhistoriques 5. Paris, Éditions du CTHS, 123-136.

Nougier, L.-R. 1974. L'Aventure humaine de la préhistoire. Paris, Hachette. Paillet, P. 1998. L'art paléolithique : tradition, modernité. Bulletin de la Société préhistoriques française, 95(1), 1721.

Sauvet, G. 1990. Les signes dans l'art mobilier, in J. Clottes (dir.), L'art des objets au Paléolithique, t. 2, Les voies de la recherche. Colloque international de FoixMas d'Azil, 16-21 Novembre 1987, Actes des colloques de la Direction du Patrimoine, Ministère de la Culture, 83-99.

Pales, L. et Lambert, Ch. 1971. Atlas ostéologique pour servir à l’identification des mammifères du quaternaire. Herbivores, Carnivores. Paris, Éditions du CNRS. Patou, M. 1984. La faune de la Galerie Rive Droite du Mas d'Azil (Ariège) : données paléoclimatiques et paléthnographiques. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 81(10), 311-319.

Sauvet, G. 1998. L'utilisation des formes naturelles dans l'art mobilier sur support lithique de Bédeilhac, in G. Tosello (coord.), Art et Société dans le Magdalénien pyrénéen, Rapport triennal 1996-98 de Projet Collectif de Recherche, 173-186.

Péquart, M. et Péquart, St.-J. 1960. Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariège) : Une nouvelle galerie magdalénienne. Annales de Paléontologie, extraits 46-49 [t. 46, 127-194; t. 47, 157-250; t. 48, 197-286; t.49, 3-97]. Paris, Masson et Cie Éditeurs.

Servat, J.-M. et Servat, R. 1937. Les grottes de Massat (Ariège), 12e Session du Congrès préhistorique de France, 1936, Toulouse-Foix. Paris, Société préhistorique française, 403-411.

Perlès, C. 1993. L'art paléolithique, miroir d'une culture. Sciences Humaines 31 Aout-Septembre 1993, 32-35.

Tymula, S. 2002. L'art solutréen du Roc de Sers. Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme Documents d'Archéologie française 91.

Piette, E. 1873. La grotte de Gourdan pendant l’Âge du renne. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 8, 384-425.

Tinnes, J. 1995. Die Geweih-, Elfenbein- und Knochenartefakte der Magdalenienfundplätze Gönnersdorf und Andernach. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Köln.

Piette, E. 1874. La grotte de Gourdan pendant l’Âge du renne. Matériaux pour l’Histoire primitive et naturelle de l’homme, Xe année, 2e série, t. V, 53-79.

Tosello, G. et Sauvet, G. 1998. Les utilisations de reliefs naturels dans l'art pariétal magdalénien pyrénéen, in G. Tosello (coord.), Art et Société dans le Magdalénien pyrénéen, Rapport triennal 1996-98 de Projet Collectif de Recherche, 209-228.

Piette, E. 1887. Équidés de la période quaternaire d'après les gravures de ce temps. Matériaux pour l'Histoire primitive et naturelle de l'homme, 3e Série, 21(4). Piette, E. 1907. L'Art pendant l'Âge du renne. Paris, Masson et Cie Éditeurs.

Valoch, K. 1996. Le Paléolithique en Tchéquie et en Slovaquie. Grenoble, Éditions Jérôme Million.

Poplin, F. 1987. Symétries dans l'Art préhistorique et l'expression actuelle. Le cas du ou des deux bouquetins (résumé). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 84(10-12), 420-421.

Vialou, D. 1986. L'art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne. 22e Supplement to Gallia préhistoire, Paris, Éditions du CNRS. Welté, A.C. et Lambert, G. 1992. L'art mobilier de l'abri de Fontalès, nouvelles observations. L'Anthropologie, 2, (3), 245-318.

Regnault, F. 1881. La grotte de Massat à l’époque du renne. Off-print from a collection of Publications préhistoriques des Pyrénées. Durand, Fillous et Lagarde, Toulouse.

White, R. 1993. Préhistoire. Luçon, Éditions Sud-Ouest. Sacchi, D. 1990. Bases objectives de la chronologie de l'art mobilier paléolithique dans les pyréennées septentrionales, in J. Clottes (dir.), L'art des objets au Paléolithique, t. 2, Les voies de la recherche. Colloque international de Foix-Mas d'Azil, 16-21 Novembre 1987,

Worsaae, J. J. A. 1875. Séance du soir, Mardi 31 Août, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et d’Archéologie Préhistorique, Compte rendu de la 4e Session, Copenhague, 1869. Copenhague, Thiele, 113-114.

125

ÉVA DAVID Figure 2-1: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 53863 "Rear quarters of a vaguely drawn animal, on bone blade. Aurochs? Magdalenian period (G. de Mortillet)" (Girod and Massénat 1900, pl. 21, fig. 7). Waste from working a reindeer metatarsus (face, more likely lateral) showing, on the outer surface, the stigmata of a grooving slip with an axial-oblique axis. A groove is noticeable on the anatomic dividing line and the vestiges of another on the left side, before beeing axial fractured. C.A.D. É. David.

stroke, an oblique stroke, a transversal stroke etc, transversal and oblique strokes made (outer surface) with strong pressure. They are "printed" more than "engraved" in that their edges are abrupt in an identical way, which appears less often when there is an intention of graphic depiction. The latter case also implies – whatever the state of the bone material when worked – the presence of "directional stigmata" (see Fritz 1999, 36, tab 2) produced by the aspect of the micro-reliefs left by the passage of the lithic cutting tool. On the contrary, here the walls have an aspect suggesting a forcing in of the material, similarly visible in any case all along each of the grooves, themselves nearly all having the same depth. Their spread/disposition also shows a fortuitous character, i.e. an effect that is regular but accidentally produced, as when, for example, leather is stamped out so as to extract similar pieces without being moved. The composition so produced is transferred in a certain way onto the bone at the base of the work, as though this anatomic piece was used as a "cutting board" without that necessarily meaning that the bone had been engraved intentionally for artistic purposes. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 2-2: La Madeleine (Dordogne), MAN n° 83132 (see Capitan and Peyrony 1928). Waste from working a reindeer metatarsus (medial side). More than the strokes’ regularity (outer surface), their position on the piece and the fragment’s anatomic location – just as the strokes’ direction and their "unfinished" character evoke, in part, the successive incision slips from an axial grooving visible on the internal face. C.A.D. É. David. Figure 2-3: St.-Michel-d’Arudy (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), MAN n° 49113 (see Mascaraux 1910). Waste from working a reindeer metatarsus (cranio-medial end). The fragment’s anatomic location - as well as the direction and concentration of the strokes – seems to indicate these incisions result from a cutting slip from a groove probably made from the top to the bottom of the piece along the cranial anatomic dividing line. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 3-1: Badegoule (Dordogne), MAN n° Bad SIII "Middle Solutrean, level III. Cleaved horse canon, broken at the point, scored, along and across (ornamental)" (Cheynier 1949, 87, fig. 31, n° 2). Fragment (lateral) of reindeer metatarsus (right) showing transversal strokes made on the outer surface with slight pressure. The way they are arranged, regularly spaced apart, suggests that at least one series of small elements a little more than a centimetre long from a strip lying on the bone was cut along the length of the diaphysis. From the superposition of these light strokes it appears that the sectioning-action was done with repeated gestures (gesture repeated at a given place and time) or on the contrary several strips were cut by respecting approximately the same spacing each time (action repeated respecting about the same spacing, i.e. by making incisions at about the same places each time). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 2-4: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 47785 (see Chollot 1964, but here the same number refers to several other objects). Scattered transversal or longitudinal strokes, quite deep, visible on a fragment (caudal) of reindeer metatarsus, mixed with vascular groove prints (plotted in black). As these strokes do not have, what is more, clearly identifiable beginnings or ends, as would be expected in the case of a deliberate representation, they seem to suggest such accidental traces as can occur on the bone’s outer surface when elements - skin, tendons – are detached from it; the configuration of the ligaments on the autopod implies that the cortex may be marked by a passing lithic cutting tool. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 3-2: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 47578 "Bone flake. Upper Magdalenian. Geometric engraving (…) Cutting grooves on a side" (Chollot 1964, 319). Fragment (laterocaudal) of reindeer metatarsus (right) showing longitudinal incisions over-ridden in places by transversal-oblique incisions. The presence of several longitudinal grooves (prolonging the black points) suggests the starting intention was probably to extract a piece corresponding to an axial quarter of the motherbone. The oblique incisions more or less regularly arranged on the lateral convexities occurred subsequently. Their superposition and arrangement seem to refer to a fortuitous disposition relating to a rapidly repeated action aimed at deeply cutting (material from/on the bone?). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 2-5: Gourdan (Haute-Garonne), MAN n° 48570 (see Piette 1873; 1874). Quite deep longitudinal strokes visible on a fragment (medial) of reindeer metatarsus (left), mixed with transversal imprints of vascular grooves (plotted in black). With the aim of exploiting the bone and tendon material, the configuration of the ligaments on the autopod implies that the cortex may be marked by a passing lithic cutting tool. Seen in this light, accidental traces can be observed here evoking a tool slipping on the bone that in passing scraped it as well as incising it. The direction of the strokes could be related to changes in posture during the operation, and their width, finer and finer - towards the distal end – and also their development (curve of the stroke) to the speed with which they were made. Notice, besides, the evidence for recent accidents shown by the presence of micro-fissures running transversally nearly right across the piece (plotted by black lines) and which, in addition to the crumbling already started in a few spots and on surface (square bracket), lead inevitably to the piece’s fragmentation (the felt-pen marks on the piece were not made by us). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 3-3: Fontalès (Tarn-et-Garonne), MAN n° 12047 (bas) (see Welté et Lambert 1992). Proximal fragment of reindeer metatarsus showing, on its outer surface, incisions in "étoilures (star percussion marks)". Large in size and quite deep, they recall those on an entirely shaped and engraved piece from the same site (n°12063, top, shaped piece on a blank taken from long deer bone). This raises the question whether the incisions visible on this bone may not be owing to it having been used as a "support-bone" for supporting the piece to be engraved. It would have been positioned on the bone that would have been used both to rest it (resting in this case along or on the lip of the median groove) and as a block to allow the bone to be engraved with a single blow strongly and deeply – and also in a less risky way than if simply held in the hand. So the "étoilures" on the piece would correspond to "off frame" evidence of this gesture and would not originate from a deliberate intention, since they

Figure 2-6: Le Piage (Lot), MAN n° 3696 "Cut bone, reindeer or red deer metacarpus fragment (…) thirteen organised strokes (…) symbolic signs [or] simple decoration" (Champagne and Espitalié 1981, 138, fig. 87, n° 7). Fragment (caudal) of red deer metapod showing, arranged repeatedly - a transversal

126

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS)

127

ÉVA DAVID

128

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS) would result from the lithic tool’s impact at the end of its trajectory; the incisions are located "off frame" on the supportbone in the continuation (theoretical) of those made intentionally on the worked portable piece. In fact, the way the action is transferred can explain why the incisions that form a series – which concern the motif to the right of the animal head (ibex) – all stop in a line before the piece’s edge as though they had been abruptly halted by a "mask". It should be made clear that this side was not fashionned after the piece was engraved. In the case of a gesture made without the aid of a support-bone one would expect, on the contrary, these incisions to be more varied in size and/or becoming shallower towards the end (as is the case on the other side of the piece). In the light of these elements, it may be envisaged that whole bones were used as supports for helping to engrave both finely and above all deeply other bone pieces. C.A.D. É. David.

period" (Regnault 1881, 12 off text) (Cartailhac 1889, 70, fig. 29; Clottes and Gailli 1984; Servat and Servat 1937). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (left medial or right lateral face), axially fractured as afterthought, representing a "suite" of (three) reindeer (seen in profile and going towards the proximal anatomic end). C.A.D. É. David. Figure 4-3: Le Chaffaud (Vienne), MAN n° 30361 "Bone fragment from a cavern on the Charente (Department of Vienne) discovered in 1852 by M. Joly Leterme. Engraving (…) recalling those from the caverns of Perigord" (Worsaae 1875, 113-114). Magdalenian engraving made on outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (lateral face), axially fractured as afterthought, representing a "suite" of (two) does (seen in profile and towards the proximal anatomic end) with, in front of their breasts, what recalls the salmons in the stone frieze of Lortet (Piette 1907, 74) – a large motif (slender grooved form with open base) oriented obliquely towards them. One of them also has two strokes on its coat evoking arrows (see Marshack 1990, 158). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 3-4: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 53900 "Bone blade with coarse strokes depicting an indeterminate animal form (G. de Mortillet)" (Girod and Massénat 1900, pl. 30, fig. 3). Engraving (Magdalenian?) made on a (outer surface) reindeer metatarsus fragment (probably medial face). The presence of taphonomically different strokes suggests they were not all made at the same time. Despite an uncertain arrangement, among other strokes a representation in the form of a fish(?) can be made out (head towards the bone’s proximal end and animal seen in right profile) (see Lorblanchet 1993). It is to be noted that the representation seems in part to follow the fragment’s shape and that it may, therefore, have been made after the piece was broken (unlike the other engravings represented in the corpus). Indeed, the fragment’s contours and strokes of an earlier origin (the less well inscribed) may have suggested this composition to its author. Regardless of this, the marks visible on the inner face - lighter in colour with rough edges and no sediment at the bottoms of the cuts – lack the patina of the rest of the piece and, with their gradual and systematic repetition in addition to their appearance and width, suggest a recent origin in relation to its unearthing by the excavator whose tool seems to have damaged the surface before it was discovered. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 4-4: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 74984 "Two animals following each other [of which one] reindeer head [of which the] muzzle [is] underlined by two strips of hatching" (Delporte 1990, fig. 62). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (medial face), probably fractured axially as afterthought, representing a "suite" of (two) reindeer (seen in profile and going towards the distal anatomic end) with partially depicted antlers, to which (at least) two extra transversal signs or notations (Marshack 1990; Sauvet 1990) from one side to the other of each head are associated (partly burnt piece). C.A.D. É. David. Figure 5-1: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 47076 "Horse’s head with the noose (right bank), Reindeer period" (Piette 1907, 71, pl. 61, fig. 4 et pl. 63); "Fragment of rear reindeer canon. Magdalenian IV. Engraving (…)" (Chollot 1964, 301). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (medial face), subsequently transformed as afterthought by wedge-and-splinter (see David 2004a, 121), representing - decorated on each anatomic contour with a series of geometric motifs – a frieze of at least two complete and linked models of horses’ heads (seen in profile and going towards the distal anatomic end). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 3-5: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 53879 "Bone blade covered with criss-crossed lines in diamonds. On these diamonds an animal form can be made out having a head with long wide ears. Crude figure. Magdalenian (G. de Mortillet)" (Girod and Massénat 1900, pl. 24, fig. 5). Magdalenian engraving (outer surface) made on (right) reindeer metatarsus (lateral face). Among the prints of the vascular network naturally arranged on the surface (some of which are plotted in black) a horse profile is recognisable (head towards distal end and animal in profile) with legs merging with natural prints. C.A.D. E. David.

Figure 5-2: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 77571 "Engraved deer (young?, female?) (…) occupying half the surface [and] another engraved sign. Lengthened deer metatarsus fragment" (MAN inventory-list with a schematic drawing probably made by H. Delporte. Unpublished Péquart excavations (1935-39). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (medial face), probably fractured axially as afterthought by wedge-and-splinter (see David 2004a, 121 - see black dot showing where impact occured), representing a suite of (two) overlying heads of herbivores (seen in profile and going towards the proximal anatomic end), one of which perhaps a reindeer at least, going by the ear and neck (see Crémadès 1993a). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 4-1: Gourdan (Haute-Garonne), MAN n° 47307 (see Piette 1873 et 1874); "Reindeer canon flake. Magdalenian V or VI. Fragmented engraving. Part of reindeer body (…) Behind the animal a (…) regular interlocking herring-boneform" (Chollot 1964, 67). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (medial face), transformed as afterthought by wedge-and-splinter (see David 2004a, 121 - see black dots showing where impacts occured), representing a reindeer body (seen in profile and going towards the proximal anatomic end) followed by a large herring-boneform motif (oriented in the same direction). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 5-3: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 53858-A "Representation of a deer on bone blade (…) above which an aurochs head in profile can be made out. Magdalenian period (G. de Mortillet)" (Girod and Massénat 1900, pl. 21, fig. 1). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (right or left lateral face), probably fractured axially as afterthought, representing a deer (seen in profile

Figure 4-2: Massat (Ariège), MAN n° 31717 "A reindeer preceded and followed by two other similar animals. Reindeer

129

ÉVA DAVID

130

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS)

131

ÉVA DAVID "swimming" towards the anatomic extremity) and a bovine head (see Barrière 1993) on the level of the deer’s rear-quarters (seen in profile looking transversally). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 7-1: Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), MAN n° 84658 "Canon bone splinter with engraving of equine, perhaps ass, head" (de Saint-Périer 1930, 76, pl. 7, fig. 3). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a metatarsus, probably reindeer (medial or lateral side) representing the top of an equine head with raised ears – seen in profile looking towards the caudal face – more likely an onanger (see Aujoulat 1993a; Capitan et al. 1924, 167; Piette 1887, 359; Vialou 1986, 112 and 146). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 5-4: Le Château des Eyzies (Dordogne), MAN n° 60083 unpublished (see Capitan et al. 1906). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right red deer (shown here) or reindeer (cranio-medial face) metacarpus representing a motif recalling the coat (dorsal) of the Massat reindeer (here evoked in the background). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 7-2: Gourdan (Haute-Garonne), MAN n° 47300 "Ass engraved on bone (Course of simple engravings and harpoons)" (Piette 1907, 96, fig. 110). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a large deer metatarsus (elk or megaceros), representing an equine head (horse?) with raised ears (towards the distal anatomic end) and nostrils touching the cranial median anatomic groove. It prolongs the engraved neck cut off at its base by a transversal stroke. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 5-5: Le Château des Eyzies (Dordogne), MAN n° 60084 "Bone flake with design of leaping deer, Peyrony Collection" (Capitan et al. 1906, fig. 138, n° 2). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (craniomedial end) representing (at least) one animal stylised with horns (seen in profile and going towards the distal end). C.A.D. É. David. Figure 6-1: Gourdan (Haute-Garonne), MAN n° 48575 unpublished (see Piette 1873; 1874). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (medial face), representing a motif strangely reminiscent of the stylised lower legs of one of the does engraved on a bone disc at Laugerie-Basse (see White 1993, 88). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 7-3: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 47144 "Fragment of an engraving of equine head (my collection)" (Piette 1907, pl. 30, fig. 5). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (medial face) suggesting – to the eye at least - a female ibex head (Sacchi 1993, 125) stretching forwards, pointing towards the distal anatomic end and with the muzzle corresponding to the cranial contour. Here the anatomic convexity, though regularised, substitutes the animal’s muzzle completely. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 6-2: Le Mas-d’Azil (Ariège), MAN n° 51321 unpublished (may be read 81321) (no not related to the marking of the Piette excavations, see Delporte 1987; see Péquart and Péquart 1960). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a right reindeer metatarsus (medial side) representing at least one stylised motif recalling a horned animal seen face on. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 7-4: La Vache (Ariège), MAN n° 83641 M78 "Right front ibex canon fragment. The decoration represents a schematic ibex (…) engraved (…) damaged by longitudinal fracture. Final Magdalenian" (Clottes and Delporte 2003, 415). Magdalenian engraving (outer surface) made on a (right) metacarpus from an ibex - Capra pyreneica - attribution N. Pailhaugue (ibid.), and representing the top of a stylised horned animal; head seen in face –towards the bone’s proximal anatomic end – and the rest of the body in profile – on the diaphysis mesial. The horns, very large and spreading, are those of an ibex (Fritz 1998, 112). Two ears (two pointed motifs) can be seen on either side of the base of the horns. One of the horns merges with the incisions representing the animal’s fleece. The representation seems to follow the same "graphic model" as the other ibex representations from the La Vache site (Fritz 1999, 153). The piece was then damaged, fractured axially. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 6-3: Roc-de-Sers (Charente), MAN n° 75062 (Martin 1928, fig. 11, n° 5); (Tymula 2002, fig. 30, n° 46). Solutrean engraving made on the outer surface of a left reindeer metatarsus (medial face), showing a non-figurative composition made of "barbed lines" (David 2004b), zigzag and open field of small parall strokes grouped together. C.A.D. É. David. Figure 6-4: Laugerie-Basse (Dordogne), MAN n° 53851 "Bone debris with deep incisions – one longitudinal, against which four oblique lines lean. Magdalenian period (G. de Mortillet)" (Girod and Massénat 1900, pl. 19, fig. 8). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a red deer metatarsus (cranial end) showing, pointing the distal anatomic end, at least one "barbed line" (David 1999, 296, 372). C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 7-5: Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques), MAN n° 84726 "Perforated stick (…) engraved, having a quite strong relief for the contour, with a fine open-mouthed massive head - with a projecting muzzle – of a horse seeming to neigh [middle Magdalenian]" (from de Saint-Périer 1936, pl. 6, n° 8 and fig. 57, n° 3). Magdalenian sculpture in the round made on equine metatarsus representing a piece lengthened at the end in “wheel” form, the latter worked on the intermediate anatomic relief. Engraved in raised relief (champlevé) and on one face of the diaphysis a horse’s head is arranged (pointing towards the cranial face and the distal anatomic end) continuing a longitudinal strip - repeated symmetrically on the caudal face – comprising a series of incisions developed right up to this relief (wheel). The zone with the animal figure is quite differentiated from this distal anatomic end, thinned by cutting away its articulatory condyles, by a transversal band, also engraved in raised relief, going round the diaphysis and inserting on the reverse of the horse a series of regularly distributed fine axial bands of oblique incisions. Perforations might be either of secondary use or post-depositionnal. C.A.D. É. David.

Figure 6-5: Malbarrat (Dordogne), MAN n° 3073 unpublished (see Capitan et al. 1906). Magdalenian engraving made on the outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (lateral face, showing a series of notches arranged transversally and very regularly along the anatomic cranial contour. C.A.D. É. David. Figure 6-6: St.-Michel-d’Arudy (Espalungue), (PyrénéesAtlantiques), MAN n° 47100 "Bone fragment on which various decorations have been engraved (course of carvings in bas relief)" (Piette 1907, 87 and pl. 85, fig. 8). Magdalenian engraving made on outer surface of a reindeer metatarsus (lateral face), representing a composition in delimited band (Sauvet 1990) and with non-figurative dominant motifs; elements arranged in parallel (series of rounded shapes with single base suggesting horns, axial incision with short barbs and strip formed of a series of parallel or in chevron incisions). C.A.D. É. David.

132

PALAEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART AND ITS RELATION TO UNGULATE BONES (METAPODS)

133

ÉVA DAVID

134

Mesolithic Zoomorphic Perforated Antler Staff Heads from Central Russia and Eastern Urals: Ceremonial Weapons or Shaman’s Staves? Mikhail ZHILIN Moscow, Russia Abstract Three perforated elk antler figurines were discovered at late Mesolithic sites in the interfluves of the Volga and Oka rivers in Central Russia. Two of them come from the site of Zamostje 2. They come from the Mesolithic levels of the site, dated to the early Atlantic period by pollen and to about 7400 – 7300 BP uncal. by 14-C. Both represent heads of fantastic creatures, combining mammalian and avian features. The third figurine was found in the late Mesolithic layer at the site of Ivanovskoye 7 dated to the early Atlantic period by pollen and to about 7500 – 7300 BP uncal. by 14-C. This artifact represents a fantastic creature combining features of various animals, birds and, probably, reptiles. The final object comes from the famous Shigir collection at the Sverdlovsk regional museum. It is a stray find discovered during gold mining in the Shigir peat bog in the late 19th century. Stylistic characteristics and some other data indicate it most probably may be dated to the Mesolithic. It also represents the image of a fantastic creature combining the features of a wild boar and wolf or other beast of prey. All these objects have perforations for a handle suggesting their uses as staff heads. Most probably they served as heads of ceremonial weapons or “shaman’s” staves, reflecting the social status of their owners. Introduction

Perforated antler staff heads.

Antler staff heads are rare finds at Mesolithic sites in Eurasia. They can be divided into two groups. The first one includes staff heads made from a single piece of elk (Alces alces) antler in the shape of an elk (moose) head with a long neck, terminating into a rod without any hafting hole for a wooden handle (cf. Figure 5). The pronounced polishing on the rod indicates that it was probably used as some kind of a handle. They can best be described as short intact staves. The other possibility is that they may have been attached to some sort of wooden handle like massive spearheads, probably bound with some cords etc, made from plant or animal materials. In any case, no hafting hole was needed. The best preserved of these artifacts come from a late Mesolithic cemetery at Olenii Ostrov on Onega Lake in Southern Karelia. They have been published several times since 1947 (Gurina 1947), are more or less well known and are not the subject of the present paper.

Four such artifacts made from elk antler have been found in the Volga-Oka interfluves and Eastern Urals area (Figure 1). Two of them were found in the Mesolithic levels of the site of Zamostje 2 (Lozovski 1996, 76-77). The first one, 26cm long, has a well defined head with protruding eyes and large horizontal ears; one of the latter is broken off (Figure 2). The nose, represented as a sharp beak, starts just from the eyes, symmetric in plan and asymmetric in profile. The oval hafting hole (2.5 x 4cm) is made in the upper part of the artifact, in the middle of the forehead. The design of the second one is similar to previous, but the ears are shorter, the eyes are less pronounced and the nose (or a beak?) is curved in profile. The pointed lower part of the nose is broken off. The breakage scar runs from the dorsal to the ventral face of the artifact (Figure 3). The original exact length of the figure is hard to establish, but if we continue the sides of the nose (Figure 3b) until they cross, it would have been approximately 20cm. The hafting hole is almost round, about 2cm in diameter. It is also located in the upper part of the artifact, in the middle of the forehead. This artifact is richly adorned (Figure 3): three horizontal parallel zigzag lines run along both sides of the nose from its tip to the eyes. Each of these lines on the left side of the nose comprises parallel lines. Single zigzag lines run from eyes to ears along both sides of the head. These lines are very fine and engraved with a tool with a delicate and very sharp point, most probably a broken flint blade. Both dorsal and ventral faces are covered with lines of very shallow cuts, composing adjacent triangles from the end of nose to the forehead and parallel rows on the forehead.

The other group includes figurines made from elk antler that have a hafting hole to fix a wooden handle near the middle or in their upper sections, suggesting their use as staff heads (cf. Figure 10-3, 10-4) These objects were mounted on a handle with a round or oval cross-section. The handle diameter ranged from 2 x 2cm to 2.5 x 4cm in diameter similarly to Neolithic elk-headed stone staff heads (Bjorck 2003; Zhulnikov 2006) or battle axes of the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age.

135

MIKHAIL ZHILIN curved profile resembles the second of the Mesolithic antler staff heads from Zamostje 2 (cf. Figure 3). The slot for flint inserts along the concave side of the Neolithic artifact, filled with glue, and the deeply carved ornamentation along sides separate this tool from Mesolithic ones. The use of this and similar tools appears obscure to researchers who have studied it. The objects have been called “sickles” although no traces of agricultural activities have ever been found at Zamostje 2 (Lozovski 1966; Lozovskaya, 2001). Artifacts, similar to the three pieces described above, but made from bronze and later iron were used as heads of special pointed battle axes during the Bronze and Iron Ages over vast territories. Heads of similar weapons with hafting holes made from elk antler are known in the interfluves of the Volga and Oka rivers since the Early Mesolithic from the sites of Stanovoye 4 and Ivanovskoye 7 (Zhilin 2001; Zhilin et al. 2002), but they are ordinary weapons without any zoomorphic details or ornamentation. The pointed antler insets of such weapons have also been found, some with slots for flint inserts along one or both sides (Zhilin 2001, 116-117).

Figure 1: Sites with perforated antler staff heads.

Figure 2: Perforated staff head from Zamostje 2. Late Mesolithic (after Lozovski 1996).

Figure 3: Perforated staff head from Zamostje 2. Late Mesolithic (after Lozovski 1996).

Comparison of these two staff heads with another piece, also made from elk antler and found in the early Neolithic layer at the site of Zamostje 2 (Figure 4). In plan it looks much like the first of the described staff heads from Zamostje 2 (cf. Figure 2): the two pieces have the same general design in plan, with large horizontal ears and, a short head terminating in a long pointed beak. The shape, size and placement of hafting hole are also the same. The main difference is that eyes are not shown. However, the

V.M. Lozovski treats both Mesolithic staff heads from Zamostje 2 as elk head images, but it is a very surrealistic way of depicting elk – an animal, which elk hunters would have been perfectly familiar with. Contemporary specimens from Oleneostrovsky cemetery in Southern

136

MESOLITHIC ZOOMORPHIC PERFORATED ANTLER STAFF HEADS FROM CENTRAL RUSSIA AND EASTERN URALS

Figure 4: Perforated antler artifact from Zamostje 2. Early Neolithic (after Lozovski 1996).

Figure 5: Objects with elk heads from Oleneostrovski cemetery. Late Mesolithic (after Gurina 1956).

Karelia are perfect examples of recognizable elk heads made from bone and antler (Figure 5). Several stone neolithic elk-headed staff heads from Northern Europe reflect the same idea (cf. Figure 10). Comparison of them with staff heads from Zamostje 2 shows that the latter do not represent elks. To my mind they are images of some fantastic creatures, combining some mammalian and avian features. The long pointed nose of the first (cf. Figure 2) resembles a beak of a raven, while the curved nose of the second is more like a beak of some bird of prey. Large ears on both, placed horizontally, are shown in a way mammalian ears are not normally depicted (cf. Figures 5 and 10) deserve special attention. Probably, these are not ears but rather wings. At the very least, they are shown in the same manner as on the figurine from Ivanovskoje 7, described below, where they are surely not ears.

forked tail. The head is carved from the pedicle part of an elk skull while the body – from the antler beam with the crown removed. The original surface of the antler was preserved, and the tail – carved from the transitional part between the beam and a flat part of the elk antler rack. A deep groove was cut with a knife to divide the tail parts into wings. The dorsal surface of the wings was obliquely planed with an adze. Their ventral surface was also planed with a polished adze or a chisel. The oval hafting hole (4cm long and 2cm wide) for a handle is cut through the middle part of the figurine. A round depression, 3mm deep and about 3cm in diameter, was carved with a polished stone chisel in the lower part of the figurine between the forked tail and the hafting hole, nearer to the latter (Figure 7d). It is possible to reconstruct, with more or less certainty, the following operational sequence during the manufacture of this figurine: 1) chopping off the blank from the elk skull and removing excess antler segments; 2) removing the antler crown and shaping the preform with a polished adze; 3) carving the face and tail with a knife; 4) carving the hafting hole; 5) final careful scraping of the face; 6) ornamentation. Adze cut marks indicate that the antler was softened before being worked. As our experiments showed, the easiest way to soften fresh elk antler is to soak it in water for two or three days. This artifact represents a fantastic creature combining features of different animals, birds, reptiles, but not depicting any real living creature. When I brought it to Paleontology Museum and Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences specialists dealing with various mammals, birds and fish gathered together to study it. Although they found resemblances in some details with some animals, they unanimously said that nothing like that ever actually lived. One of my colleagues firmly called it wild goose; another claimed it was a lizard and the third colleague saw it as a rat. Perhaps it was designed

One more staff head, clearly with a hafting hole, comes from cultural layer IIa at the site of Ivanovskoje 7, excavated by the author in 1997 (Zhilin, 2001; 2006; 2007; Zhilin et al. 2002). Pollen data indicate formation of this layer during the early Atlantic period while 14-C dates place it in the interval between about 7500-7300 BP uncal. (Figures 6 and 7). The figurine is 32cm long. The elongated head with a pointed nose and protruding eyes is carefully carved; the surface is carefully scraped, but not polished. The mouth is indicated by deep lines cut with a burin on both sides which do not meet each other. This gives the impression of a tightly shut mouth. The edges of the protruding eyes are crossed by short narrow cuts along their perimeter. Two low ridges run from the tip of the nose across the forehead to the eyes, and two similar ribs run from the tip of the nose to the eyes along the cheeks. All these ribs are crossed by short transversal cuts as on the eyes. The elongated body terminates in a flat

137

MIKHAIL ZHILIN in such way to show the transformative aspects of the depicted creature from one animal form into another. When mounted upon a wooden shaft the figurine was in a flying position (Figures 6a, 6c, 7a, 7c). The original white color of the carved bone of the pedicle and natural brown color of elk antler created a sharp contrast between the head and the body of the figurine. No traces of use were observed when the artifact was studied under a stereomicroscope.

The last perforated staff head comes from the Shigir collection of Sverdlovsk regional museum. During gold mining in late 19th – early 20th centuries a lot of ancient artifacts made from wood, antler, bone and other materials were collected (Chairkina et al. 2001; Savchenko 1999). These artifacts range in date from the Early Mesolithic until the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, it is impossible to assign most these artifacts to definite sites or layers and dating must be based mainly on typological, technological and stylistic data. A staff head made from elk antler with a hafting hole was among these finds. It is 23.6cm long and depicts a fantastic zoomorphic creature (Figures 8 and 9). The microscopic study showed that this artifact was made only using stone tools. Its elongated nose is made from antler beam, the eyes, protruding from each side are almost in the middle of the figurine where the beem develops into the flat part of antler. The forehead and upper part are flat. Unlike the other staff heads described above, the nose of this one is cut flat with two nostrils distinctly indicated as shallow depressions (Figure 9a). Jaws are indicated by two parallel grooves about 2-3mm wide and deep, cut with a flint burin. The grooves meet at the nose of the figurine under the nostrils creating the impression of slightly open jaws. The tongue is shown between the jaws. Deep vertical notches, running in a transverse direction to these grooves, represent the teeth. It is worth noting that the front teeth are smaller than the molars, which hide the tongue (Figures 8a-b, 9b-c, 9e). This makes the jaws very impressive. The ventral face of the lower jaw is underlined by a pair of grooves running parallel to sides of the jaw (Figures 8d and 9e). The dorsal face of the upper jaw is ornamented with a row of shallow rhomboid shapes, longitudinally cut from the tip to the bridge of the nose. Sub parallel wavy lines longitudinally run from the eyes to the end of the nose of the figurine along its upper part; two groups of oblique sub parallel wavy lines run from longitudinal lines at sides to the central row of rhomboids (Figures 8c and 9d). The eyes are carefully modeled as small but pronounced protuberances. The forehead is flat, preserving the natural antler surface on the dorsal face. The perforation in the shape of irregular oval (about 2.5 x 2cm) is cut in the middle of the forehead just above the eyes. The rear part of the staff head is flat without any ornamentation. It was carefully smoothed by scraping and polishing on the dorsal face, though some deeper scraping marks have been preserved (Figures 8c and 9d). Flat accurate cut marks left by a polished adze are visible on the ventral face of the rear part of the figurine (Figures 8d and 9e). The front part of the staff head including the eyes was carefully polished (Figure 8).

Figure 6: Perforated staff head from Ivanovskoje 7, layer II a. Late Mesolithic.

The operational sequence for the production of Shigir staff had can be reconstructed as follows: 1) obtaining a blank - detaching a beam and nearby flat part from the antler rack, removing extraneous antler; 2) rough shaping of a perform with a polished stone adze; 3) smoothing the surface with a chipped stone scraper; 4) cutting deep grooves at the sides of the jaws and on the ventral face

Figure 7: Perforated staff head from Ivanovskoje 7, layer II a. Late Mesolithic.

138

MESOLITHIC ZOOMORPHIC PERFORATED ANTLER STAFF HEADS FROM CENTRAL RUSSIA AND EASTERN URALS with a burin; 5) marking teeth as deep notches with a whittling knife or a chisel; 6) making the central row of rhomboid-shaped shallow notches with a whittling knife or a chisel; 7) engraving the ornamentation of the dorsal part with a very sharp burin; 8) scraping out of the nostrils; 9) cutting of the hafting hole; 10) careful polishing. Cut marks, left by a polished adze and a knife or a chisel indicate that antler was softened by soaking before treatment.

Figure 9: Perforated staff head from Shigir peat bog, stray find.

Figure 8: Perforated staff head from Shigir peat bog, stray find.

It is rather difficult to determine what animal species comprise parts of this image, but the long jaws with sharp teeth of different sizes with a tongue between them may be indicative of some beast of prey like a wolf. However, the abruptly cut nose with its prominent nostrils (Figure 9a) suggests the snout of a wild pig. This staff head was mounted on a wooden shaft in a horizontal position (Figures 8a-b, 9b-c) and must have looked very impressive when mounted. No traces of use were observed when the artifact was studied under a stereomicroscope.

Figure 10: Stone elk-headed staff head from Alunda, Sweeden and a selection of rock carvings from Scandinavia depicting humans with elk staves (after Bjorck 2003).

similar. Ornamentation by very fine engraving may be encountered not only on staff heads, but on many artifacts, especially weapons from the Mesolithic layers of Zamostje 2 (Lozovski 1996; Lozovskaya 2001), Ivanovskoje 7, Ozerki 5 and some other Mesolithic sites in the Volga-Oka interfluves (Zhilin 2001; 2006; 2007). This suggests a Mesolithic dating for the Shigir staff head and probably indicate contacts between populations of the Urals and Eastern Europe. The latter contact is also supported by the analysis of Mesolithic bone projectile points from Shigir peat bog and their analogies from Eastern Europe (Savchenko 2006). Significant difference in details, observed between these staff heads is not

Discussion and conclusions The syncretism of image and general design of the Shigir staff head is similar to late Mesolithic antler staff heads from the sites of Zamostje 2 and Ivanovskoje 7. In general, the technology of their manufacture is also

139

MIKHAIL ZHILIN surprising if we take into consideration distances of more than 1500km between Zamostje 2 and Ivanovskoje 7 sites on the one hand and the Shigir peat bog on the other. All four described artifacts were used as heads of staves, most probably mounted on a long wooden handle, as shown on neolithic rock carvings from Scandinavia (Bjorck 2003; Zhulnikov 2006). There, humans are depicted wielding elk-headed staves (Figure 10) although the principle of hafting is the same. Two persons hold curved staves of the Oleneostrovski type (Figure 10-1, 10-2), which are not discussed in the present paper. Three others just stand with staves with the heads of the latter fixed transversally to the shaft (Figure 10-3, 10-5). The last example shows how such staff heads would have been mounted on the staves. Four persons hold such staves with both arms raised over their heads as if about to strike (Figure 10-6, 10-9). The last example corresponds well with one staff head from Zamostje 2 and illustrates how it might have been used as a weapon. This brings us to the conclusion that the perforated antler staff heads described in this paper were used as ceremonial or ritual objects, symbols of the special status of their owners. Some may have been ceremonial weapons, others – heads of “shaman’s” staves (or both). Each of them is individual. All these staff heads depict fantastic creatures. They were not intended to represent an actual living creature.

Lozovski, V.M. 1996. Zamostje 2. Treignes, Editions du CEDARC. Lozovskaya, O.V. 2001.Vkladyshevyje orudiya stojanki Zamostje 2 Composite tools from the site Zamostje 2, in Kamennyi Vek Evropeiskih Ravnin: objekty iz organicheskih materialov I struktura poselenii kak otrazhenije chelovecheskoi kultury Stone Age of European lowlands, Sergiev Posad, 273-291. Oshibkina, S.V. 1989. The Material Culture of the Veretye-type Sites in the Region to the East of Lake Onega, in C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University, 402-413. Savchenko, S.N. 1999. Drevnosti Shigirskogo torfyanika Antiquities of the Shigir peat bog. Uralski sledopyt, 9, 13-18. Savchenko, S.N. 2006. Mezoliticheskije nakonechniki strel vostochnoevropeiskih tipov v Shigirskoi kollekcii Sverdlovskogo Oblastnogo Kraevedcheskogo Muzeja, Mesolithic arrowheads of East European types in the collection of Sverdlovsk regional museum, in I.N. Chernykh (ed.), Tverskoi arheologicheskii sbornik, Tver archaeological publications, 6, vol. 1, 214-223. Zhilin, M.G. 2001. Kostyanaja industrija mesolita lesnoi zony Vostochnoy Evropy Mesolithic bone industry of the forest zone of Eastern Europe. Moskva.

Acknowledgements The research was supported by the Russian Humanitarian foundation, grant N°08-01-94658а/фр.

Zhilin, M.G. 2006. Das Mesolithikum im Gebeist zwischen den Flussen Wolga und Oka: einige Forschungsergebnisse der letzten Jahre. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 81-1 (2006/1), 1-48.

Mikhail Zhillin Planernaya street, 3-2-235 Moscow 125480 Russia [email protected]

Zhilin, M.G. 2007. Mesolithic wetland sites in Central Russia, in M. Lillie and S. Ellis (eds.), Wetland Archaeology & Environments. Regional issues, global perspectives. Oxford, Oxbow books, 65-78. Zhilin, M.G., Kostyleva, E.L., Utkin, A.V. and Engovatova, A.V. 2002. Mezoliticheskije I neoliticheskije kultury Verhnego Povolzhja. Po materialam stojanki Ivanovskoje VII, Mesolithic and neolithic cultures of the Upper Volga area. After materials of the site Ivanovskoje 7. Moskva, Nauka.

References cited Bjorck, N. 2003. The Neolithic Coastal Settlements – Cosmology and Ideology in a Baltic Sea Perspective, in C. Samuelsson and N. Ytterberg (eds.), Uniting Sea. Stone Age Societies in Baltic Sea Region. Uppsala universitet, Wikströms, 20-42.

Zhulnikov, A.M. 2006. Petroglify Karelii. Obraz mira I miry obrazov Petroglifs of Karelia. The image of the world and the world of images. Petrozavodsk, Scandinavia.

Chairkina, N.M., Savchenko, S.N., Serikov, Yu. B. and Litvyak, A.S. 2001. Arheologicheskije pamyatniki Shigirskogo torfyanika. Archaeological sites of the Shigir peat bog. Yekaterinburg. Bank for Cultural information. Gurina, N.N. 1947. Oleneosrovski Mogilnik. Materiali i Issledovanija po Arheologii SSSR Oleneostrovski cemetery. Materials and research on the archaeology of the USSR, 47, Moskva-Leningrad, Nauka.

140

Experiments on Manufacturing Techniques of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Slotted Bone Projectile Points from Eastern Urals Svetlana SAVCHENKO Yekaterinburg, Russia Abstract About 140 slotted projectile points dated to the Mesolithic – early Neolithic have been found in the Eastern Urals area. By studying these artifacts under a stereomicroscope it was possible to reconstruct how they were manufactured and follow the sequence of operational stages: coarse longitudinal or oblique scraping → longitudinal whittling → grinding → grooving the slot → sometimes fine whittling → engraving of ornamentation (if the projectile point was ornamented) → fine longitudinal or (and) transverse or chaotic polishing → bright smooth polishing. An experiment was carried out by the author to test these observations. A narrow flat slotted projectile point was produced from an elk (Alces alces L.) metapodial bone using flint tools. Experimental data, described in the paper, supported the observations and conclusions derived from the microscopic analysis and provided valuable information about the process of manufacturing slotted bone projectile points. of large mammals, mostly elk (Alces alces L.). Fragments of a convex outer or concave medullary surface of the cortical bone are visible on some of the projectile points. This is a well known manufacturing technique, many times described in literature (David 2003; Zhilin 1998, 2001; and others).

Introduction Bone projectile points with slots for microblades-inserts were wide spread over the forest zone of Eurasia during the Mesolithic – early Neolithic. Materials from the Eastern Urals area were used by the author to study the manufacture techniques used to make such projectile points. About 140 such artifacts have been found to date, all from sites in the western part of the region near the Urals mountain ridge. Composite bone projectile points with flint inserts have a piercing-cutting effect when they hit the target. They have sharp tip and one or two sharp cutting sides. Unbroken projectile points are all more than 15cm long and specimens of over 20cm in length are most numerous. Composite projectile points are similar in form to certain types of intact bone projectile points, spread within this territory but are supplemented with one or two slots for inserts. Such slots occur in a series of massive needle-shaped projectile points with round or oval cross-sections, narrow, flat, symmetric and asymmetric projectile points as well as single-shouldered projectile points with or without a barb at the end of the shouldering. Narrow flat asymmetric projectile points with a long slot running along the convex side of the blade and a wedge-like tang are most numerous (Figure 1). This form of slotted projectile points is specific to the Urals area. We produced a similar kind of projectile point during our experiment. Technological analysis of ancient projectile points The technology of the manufacture of slotted projectile points can be reliably reconstructed through studying them under a stereomicroscope. The analysis of projectile points from the Eastern Urals area was carried out together with M. G. Zhilin using a MBS-10 microscope. The studied projectile points were made from longitudinally cut splinters from the long bone diaphyses

Figure 1: Slotted bone flat asymmetric arrowheads from Shigir peat bog, Sverdlovsk region.

141

SVETLANA SAVCHENKO Traces of various operational stages, preceding final treatment, overlap each other on several places on some artifacts. Such “technological stratigraphy” allowed me to establish with reasonable certainty the sequence of operations and reconstruct stages of production of slotted projectile points. The following operational sequence has been identified: coarse longitudinal or oblique scraping → longitudinal whittling → grinding → grooving the slot(s) → sometimes fine longitudinal whittling → engraving of ornamentation (if the projectile point was ornamented) → fine longitudinal or (and) transverse or chaotic polishing → bright smooth polishing. This operational sequence was sometimes changed. Thus, grooving of the slot could precede the longitudinal whittling or grinding. Some operational stages could be absent.

the angle of a broken flint blade or flake. Transversal cuts, made by sawing or whittling are sometimes encountered on various parts of narrow flat projectile points (cf. Figure 1-2). Microblade-inserts were mounted in the slot when bone slot was entirely ready. In most cases they were fixed in place with a dark glue which probably included coniferous pitch. The glue in the slot was evidently heated before the inserts were mounted as is the case for Mesolithic composite slotted projectile points from the forest zone of Eastern Europe (Zhilin 2001). Microblades-inserts could be fixed in narrow deep slots in bone settings without glue. For this purpose, the bone projectile point was made wet and heated. Afterwards, the bone was dried and shrinking, held the inserts firmly. It is worth noting that the inserts still found preserved in slots of projectile points are thin regular flint microblades obtained by pressure flaking. The microblades preserved in slots are not retouched; however, the inserts with unifacial and bifacial edge retouch, which fell off from projectile points, were found in the Mesolithic layer of the Lobvinskaya cave (Chairkin and Zhilin 2005, 262). Edge damage characteristic of projectile inserts is clearly seen on many inserts in projectile points.

Scraping, whittling and sometimes grinding were the main modes used in the primary shaping of preforms. Transformation of a blank – changing a bone splinter into a preform started with scraping. Traces of such scraping were preserved on parts of several projectile points. Longitudinal whittling or, more rarely, oblique grinding on a coarse abrasive slab, was then used to further transform the perform. First, the artifact received its general shape and afterwards details were executed. Slots were cut either after scraping, or after whittling, but before fine polishing. A flat surface about 2-3mm wide was produced by planing with a whittling knife along one of the sharp edges of the projectile point blade. Fragments of broken flint blades served as burins with a very sharp working edge for cutting slots. Cross-sections of some slots indicate that sometimes the cutting edge of a burin was formed by a very narrow burin scar. The burin was either moved in a single direction or rarely, also moved in the opposite direction.

The technical aspects of the manufacture of composite slotted projectile points from Eastern Urals area and Eastern Europe is generally rather similar (Zhilin 2001). Wide use of abrasive working techniques is a particular feature of technology in the Urals. This reflects a unique feature of the bone industry in the Urals area where many open outcrops of abrasive rocks are available. The experiment

The projectile point could be used after final stage of manufacturing was carried out using fine longitudinal planing with a knife. However, the majority of projectile points were further worked by fine transverse, oblique or chaotic polishing on a fine-grained slab following the longitudinal planing. Bright smooth polishing as a final step in the manufacture practice could also be documented on the majority of these artifacts.

An experiment was carried out in summer 2007 to test the observations described above. A flat asymmetric slotted arrowhead was produced by the author. A long metapodial bone of elk (Alces alces L.) diaphysis served as raw material. The bone came from an animal killed during the previous winter months about a year before the experiment. The epiphyses were removed. The bone was embedded for 2.5 months in a mass of crushed wood sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), an abundant plant in the taiga forest, to soften it.(such technology is known from ethnography – Semenov, 1968) It was hypothesized that keeping the bone for such a long period in acidic conditions would lead to chemical softening of the bone. But in the open air, the bone was quickly restored to its original hardness. During further working it was necessary to wet it periodically in water to make it softer. Thus, it appears that such chemical treatment was no more effective than just wetting in the water. Based on experimental data, already after one day of immersion in water, the upper bone layer became substantially softer and it was much easier to work with flint tools. After immersion in water for three days, bone became considerably softer although as it dried out during the

The wedge-like beveled tangs of narrow flat projectile points were formed by longitudinal whittling after fine polishing. If the point was polished, the convex sides of such beveled tangs display traces of fine polishing, entirely whittled away on both the flat dorsal and ventral surfaces of the bevelled tang. Engravings and ornamentation, observed on a substantial proportion of slotted projectile points, were usually engraved after whittling or grinding but before the fine polishing. This may be clearly read on the bone surface by the characteristic rounding and polishing of the edges of engraved lines. The ornamentation was engraved with a burin with a very sharp working edge, most probably

142

EXPERIMENTS ON MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES OF MESOLITHIC AND EARLY NEOLITHIC SLOTTED BONE PROJECTILE POINTS working process it was necessary to soak it again for some time (Savchenko 2006; Zhilin 2001, 50).

obtaining of one or several blanks of predetermined length, width and thickness from a long bone shaft minimizes the need for secondary working of artifacts, making working much easier.

All main technical stages, reconstructed on the basis of the microscopic study of slotted Mesolithic-Early Neolithic projectile points from the Eastern Urals area, were tested in this experiment. The operational sequence was also the same as described above. First, a part of the cortical long bone diaphysis most suitable for the making of the projectile point was selected. The periosteum was removed from the bone. As a result of soaking in the woodsorrel mass, the periosteum turned matt white and lost its elasticity. It was removed by scraping with unretouched flint flakes. While wet, the periosteum was removed easily as big chips. When it dried it became harder and could be removed as a fine powder. That is why the bone was again soaked for 5 - 10 minutes. Removal of the periosteum took 15 minutes of continuous work using two scrapers.

The preform of the projectile point was shaped by scraping, whittling and grinding. Longitudinal scraping was used in the first manufacturing stages (Figure 4-1a). An unretouched fragment of a flint blade (Figure 4-1b) was used as a scraper. Hard scraping aiming at removal of substantial volume of waste bone using hand held tools without any support beneath the splinter proved ineffective. When one end of the splinter was placed on a wooden support, the best effect was achieved by pushing the scraper with greater efforts. Hard pressure on the scraper resulted in the removal of rather coarse chips and damage to the scraper edge. When the effort was reduced, the scraper edge remained stabile and chips became fine (Figure 4-2a). As the working edge of the scraper became dull it demanded greater work efforts resulting in tiny flint chips being flaked off the scraper edge. Selfsharpening of the working edge and formation of the retouch from utilization (Figure 4-2b) was observed. Deep long subparallel scars are visible with the naked eye on the surface of a preform worked by a scraper. Scraping took 41 minutes. Sides of the preform were smoothed; it was reduced to the needed thickness, width and crosssection (Figure 4-2c). Bone was easy to scrape even after it dried out and no additional soaking was needed. However, it turned out that it was not convenient to scrape the ends of the blank where they remained thicker than necessary. The surface of the preform remained uneven and became undulating at some places (Figure 42c).

Two grooves were marked to detach a splinter. The line for the first groove was engraved by the angle of a broken blade pulled towards the worker. The line appeared curved and was corrected by engraving with the same instrument, but moving it in the opposite direction. After marking, the slot was worked by sawing with the side of a broken flint blade. After 20 minutes, the bone dried and sawing demanded more effort. After soaking it for 10 minutes the work continued. A groove 2mm wide and 1.5mm thick (Figure 3-1b) was created by sawing that required 35 minutes of continuous work. After this time sawing became ineffective and a burin was used instead of the saw. A fragment of a flint blade was used as a burin (Figure 3-1a). It was not hafted but hand held (Figure 2) and cutting demanded considerable efforts. As a result, after 1 hour 20 minutes, the groove was cut through the cortical bone wall in the middle part of the diaphysis and through about 0.9 thickness of the wall at its ends. The second groove needed to detach a splinter was also marked with a burin and deepened to 1.5mm by sawing. At that point, a burin embedded in a wooden handle (Figure 3-2) was used to deepen the groove further. Working with this burin was much more effective. The tool could be easily grasped making greater efforts possible. As a result, it took only 40 minutes to cut the second groove through the bone along its full length except at one end (Figure 3-1c). At this end the walls of the cortical bone were 1.5 time thicker than at the place of the first groove. Particles of wet bone stuck to the working edges of tools which demanded periodical cleaning of instruments. The splinter was separated from the body of the diaphysis with a wedge comprised of a fragment of an unretouched flint blade (Figure 3-4a). The wedge was placed in the beginning of the groove at an end of the bone (Figure 33), and hit with three weak blows with a dry birch stick 3cm in diameter. As a result, the wedge entered the groove and the splinter (Figure 3-4c) separated precisely along the grooves (Figure 3-4b). This manner of

Figure 2: The author is cutting a groove in an elk bone diathesis with a handless burin.

143

SVETLANA SAVCHENKO follows: the hands are placed on the worker’s hips with the knife held in the right hand. The preform was dragged towards the worker, the knife does not move but the blade is pressed on the preform (Figure 5-2). A long even flake was thus removed along the full length of the artifact. The whole surface of the preform was planed using the second mode. Whittling took 1 hour. During first minutes of work the edge of a knife intensively crumbled but later stabilized. Fine regular semi-abrupt utilization retouch was formed along the edge of a blade during work. The bone was dry during the whole process of forming the point, the blade and the tang of the projectile point (Figure 4-4).

Figure 3: Stages of obtaining a blank; 1) making grooves: a – flint burin, b – a groove on a dorsal face of a diathesis of an elk tubular bone, c – the same on ventral face; 2) a flint burin in a wooden handle; 3) a flint wedge ready to split the bone; 4) the blank is ready: a – wedge with a macrowear facet on the left side, d – bone diathesis, c – a bone splinter – a blank for an arrowhead.

The next operational stage involved longitudinal whittling, observed on surfaces of many of the projectile points under study. The whittling knife was made from a fragment of an unretouched flint blade, mounted in the same wooden handle used earlier for a burin (Figure 43b). The preform was soaked for 15 minutes after scraping before further treatment. Whittling carried out in two ways. In the first case, the knife was held in the right hand, which allows it to be moved in a direction away from the worker; the thumb of the left hand presses at the part of the handle near the blade of the knife, while other fingers of the left hand hold the preform (Figure 5-1). Cuts are short, about 2-3cm. Wet bone is planed easily. When it dries, the work becomes harder but still effective. The ends of the preform, where scraping was ineffective, were planed and a mass of waste bone removed. The point and base of the preform were planed using the first mode of whittling. The second mode of whittling was as

Figure 4: 1) An untreated blank seen from ventral face (a) and an unused flint blade fragment (b); 2) a preform of an arrowhead after 41 minute of scraping: a – bone waste chips, b – a flint scraper (the same blade fragment as 1b, but with pronounced macrowear), c – the bone preform worked with a scraper; 3) a whittling knife (an unretouched flint blade fragment) in a wooden handle (b) and bone waste chips (a); 4) the half-finished arrowhead after longitudinal whittling.

144

EXPERIMENTS ON MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES OF MESOLITHIC AND EARLY NEOLITHIC SLOTTED BONE PROJECTILE POINTS sharp angle of the broken blade, moving it away from the worker. The slot was deepened to 0.5mm over 6 minutes by sawing forth and back with the same sharp angle of the same blade. The bone projectile point was kept dry during marking and sawing of the slot. Afterwards, it was immersed for 10 minutes in water. The slot was cut through wet bone making the work easier. Cutting was done alternatively carried out from the point towards the base, i.e. towards the worker (Figure 7-1) as well as in the opposite direction. This creates a straight slot. After 30 minutes, the slot was 2.5-3mm deep, which corresponds to the depth of slots on ancient projectile points. Final fine planing of the arrowhead was carried out with the same knife that had already been employed (Figure 43b). The work was done with little effort. Traces of previous operational stages including traces of grinding were removed almost entirely; the surface of the projectile point was carefully planed. Following the final planning, the blade and tang of the projectile point were smoothed by polishing on a finegrained slab. Then the wedge-like bevel of the tang was formed by longitudinal whittling as on the ancient projectile points.

Figure 5: The process of planing of the arrowhead preform with a whittling knife (fig. 1, 3b); 1) the first mode; 2) the second mode.

Further smoothing of the surface carried out by grinding on a medium-grained sandstone slab. Grinding was done by non-regular movements as was most convenient for hands of the worker without adding any extra sand. During grinding, the projectile point was pressed to the slab with both hands (Figure 6-1). A considerable amount of bone could be removed and the half-finished projectile point smoothed quickly using circular and oblique movements.. In approximately 20 minutes, clear traces of grinding could be clearly seen with the naked eye on the surface of the artifact. Powder-like chips fill depressions on the surface of a grinding slab (Figure 6). Grinding is even more effective than scraping and demands fewer efforts. Bone was ground dry. Previous experiments showed that wet bone is slippery and not suitable for grinding (Savchenko 2006, 319). After 43 minutes of work the surface of the arrowhead was smoothed (Figure 6-2). The next step in the operational sequence was cutting the slot for inserts. A special platform was prepared for the slot. The sharp side of the projectile point blade was made flat by longitudinal whittling. The platform was 23mm wide. A fragment of a flint blade was used as a burin. First, the position of the slot was marked with a

Figure 6: 1) The process of grinding of the arrowhead on a sandstone slab; 2) the half-finished arrowhead after grinding.

145

SVETLANA SAVCHENKO Evidently, presence or absence of traces of one of the operational stages may: 1) reflect particular local technical traditions as seen from the example with grinding; 2) indicate that these traces were removed during further working; 3) reflect individual choice on the part of a craftsman who preferred one technique over another. The experiment showed that special stone tools with secondary working were not needed for the production of slotted bone projectile points. During this and similar experiments (Savchenko 2006; Zhilin 2006) flint blades and flakes with suitable edges were used as scrapers, whittling knives and burins. During the working process, utilization retouch was formed on these stone tools. After prolonged use this use wear could become quite regular and could easily be mistaken for intentional retouch. Acknowledgements The research was supported by the Russian Humanitarian foundation, grant №08-01-94658а/фр. Savchenko Svetlana Academicheskaya street, 19-6 Yekaterinburg, 620066 Russia [email protected]

Figure 7: 1) Cutting the slot for inserts with a handless burin; 2) the slot is ready.

Conclusions

References cited

This experiment demonstrated that the conclusions concerning modes of working and operational sequence for the manufacture of slotted projectile points derived from microscopic studies of ancient artifacts were correct. Typical traces of working bone with various stone tools, corresponding with traces, observed on ancient projectile points were obtained.

Chairkin, S.E. and Zhilin, M.G. 2005. Mezoliticheskije Materialy iz Peschernyh Pamyatnikov Lesnogo Zauralya, in M. G. Zhilin (ed.), Kamemmyi Vek Lesnoi Zony Vostochnoi Evropy I Zauralya. Moskva, Academiya, 252-273. David, E. 2003. The Contribution of the Technological Study of Bone and Antler Industry for the Definition of the Early Maglemose Culture, in L. Larsson et al., (eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. 6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm, 4-8 September 2000. Exeter, Oxbow books, 649-657.

The experiment showed that bone, soaked in water could be used for making bone tools. An attempt to soften bone in a mass of smashed woodsorrel was unsuccessful. The great effectiveness of all the main bone shaping operations – scraping, whittling, and grinding, observed during microscopic studies of bone slotted projectile points was demonstrated during the experiment. Any one of the operational stages in the manufacturing process could have been omitted or exchanged with another operational stage. For example, grinding, typical for projectile points from Eastern Urals area is almost never encountered in projectile points from Eastern Europe. Traces of some operations are often absent on studied projectile points. Thus, traces of a scraper which was used first in an initial stage were evidently removed by further working and preserved only on small surface areas of some projectile points. Grinding traces are also observed only on some artifacts. Traces of whittling were found on the majority of slotted projectile points.

Savchenko, S.N. 2006. Reconstruction of the Technique of “Shigirsky” Type Arrow-head Production, in A.Ya. Martynov (ed.), Prehistoric and Medieval History and Culture of European North: Problems of Study and Reconstruction. Solovki, 314-322. Semenov, S.A. 1968. Development of the technology in the Stone Age. Leningrad, Nauka. Zhilin M.G. 1998. Technology of the Manufacture of Mesolithic Bone Arrowheads on the Upper Volga. European Journal of Archaeology, 1/2, 149-175.

146

EXPERIMENTS ON MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES OF MESOLITHIC AND EARLY NEOLITHIC SLOTTED BONE PROJECTILE POINTS Zhilin, M.G. 2001. Kostyanaja industrija mesolita lesnoi zony Vostochnoy Evropy. Moskva, URSS. Zhilin, M.G. 2006. Experimental Reconstruction of Hunting and Fishing Instruments Used in the Forest Zone of the Eastern Europe in Mesolithic Age and their Production Techniques, in A.Ya. Martynov (ed.), Prehistoric and Medieval History and Culture of European North: Problems of Study and Reconstruction. Solovki, 304-313.

147

Ribs as a Raw Material in Roman Bone Artefacts from Virunum (Southern Austria) Kordula GOSTENČNIK Magdalensberg-Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Pischeldorf, Austria Abstract Out of the worked bone assemblages recovered during excavations in the Roman town Virunum in southern Noricum, a group of five implements is discussed in the present paper, possibly dating from the AD later 2nd or 3rd century. Their raw material, that is split bovine ribs, is rather unusual among Roman finds. As one represents half finished workshop waste, however, it is clear that ribs were certainly being processed in Virunum itself. Implements to some extend matching those from Virunum and made from split ribs as well have been found at Hellenistic and Roman sites in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, questions arise as to what extend eastern influences may be considered as there is no early Roman tradition of working ribs in southern Noricum and beyond. covering 400 years without further chronological subdivisions are of limited use. This limits the value of worked bones recovered from the topsoils or during survey works to a level of simple presence or absence of a type. As worked bones are less sensitive in terms of their chronology compared to pottery and brooches, we will always depend largely on sites or on contexts that only flourished within a very limited period of time. But when all the requirements are applicable, the results from studying the bone objects provide the best means to establish a solid foundation for further research and for more detailed studies. For this reason, our primary sources are assemblages recovered in Roman towns and town-like settlements like big villages (rural vici) or the canabae and vici of Roman military fortresses, etc. Based on these assemblages it is much easier to judge grave goods or sites where the quantities of bone artefacts are very small during the Roman period in Noricum. Furthermore, it becomes possible to compare them both regionally and supra-regionally, hopefully leading in the future to a better understanding of these small finds and their manufacture.

Introduction Research on worked bones from the Roman period in Noricum has never been much promoted and is therefore not nearly as advanced as the analyses of pottery, brooches, military equipment, and the like, which are, simply speaking, the main means of establishing a wellgrounded chronology. For that reason they will always be given preference above any other class of small finds. What has hitherto been published in detail are artefacts from Magdalensberg (approx. 50 BC – AD 50), in addition to some special inquiries on the processing of red deer antler in Roman Salzburg (approx. AD 1st – 4th centuries), or a preliminary assessment of the assemblages recovered in Virunum (2nd half of AD 1st – 4th/5th centuries) since the 19th century (Gostenčnik 2005a; 2005b; Lang 2008; cf. also the summaries in Gostenčnik and Lang 2010 on Ovilavis and Lauriacum). Despite the fact that worked bones have proven to be of pre-eminent value for investigations into a variety of aspects of daily life in the Roman period, their significance as a reliable source of information is still being completely underestimated. And this in spite of the fact that research into daily life is, for the time being, extremely fashionable in both Greek and Roman archaeological circles. The situation in archaeozoology is hardly better, as we still lack a detailed analysis covering the whole province in the Roman period; for the moment, data are available only for a rather small number of very selected find spots scattered all around Noricum, although they cover a period of almost 600 years.

Virunum (Figure 1) Noricum abuts the regio decima in the North-East of Roman Italy (for a short summary on the history of Noricum and Virunum cf. Gostenčnik 2005b). Therefore, the landscapes in the South of this region came much earlier under Mediterranean influence than the later frontier or limes in the North along the Danube River. By the mid AD 1st century, during the reign of Emperor Claudius (43-54 AD), the town at Magdalensberg, already known as Virunum, was abandoned completely after having served as the first administrative centre of the region before it actually became a Roman province. Both the inhabitants and the town’s name were transferred to a new town, which was constructed with rectangular structures (Figure 1) on the Zollfeld plains, some 10km as the crow flies to the South-West of the older town on the mountain. Noricum became a Roman

The total number of worked bones in smaller rural settlements, villas or graves is typically rather poor. Consequently, in order to achieve broader based results enabling us to generalize, although always with caution, it is important to start with assemblages recovered at a single site only where a large quantity of worked bones and bone waste is attested. A further basic requirement is a firm chronology, and, therefore, the best results will be attained when worked bones come from strata with a limited chronological range. Assemblages with contexts

149

KORDULA GOSTENČNIK province by the mid AD 1st century and Virunum was its first capital from the period of Claudius, until the end of the AD 2nd century, when the administrative centre shifted to Ovilavis in the North when Noricum received its only legionary fortress at Lauriacum on the Danube River. During Late Antiquity, hillforts in the vicinity of Virunum were set up and became the last places of refuge of the now Romanic peoples in the South of Noricum. At this time, around AD 600, Slavic tribes began to infiltrate the region and the final days of what was still a culture rooted in the Roman past of the region were over for good.

insulae on the Western fringes of the town were explored, and the contents of a former well used as a cesspit in the later second half of the AD 1st century added considerably to our understanding of the faunal remains from this Roman Imperial town (Galik 2003). Typology, chronology and raw materials During examination of the worked bones from Magdalensberg or ‘Old Virunum’, the immediate predecessor to Virunum, it very soon became obvious that there is a clear difference between Early Roman types – based on Magdalensberg, that is mid 1st century BC to AD mid 1st century or the latest Roman Republic and the Julio-Claudian period up to Emperor Claudius – and those objects that came to light in Virunum itself. Even the working techniques and also to some extend the preference in raw materials differ (cf. Gostenčnik 2005b; 2006) although the data for the latter are less well studied and should therefore certainly be regarded as preliminary. Bone-, antler- and horn-waste were already reported for Virunum in the late 19th century, but in quantities too small to be representative (cf. Gostenčnik 2005b, fig. 9; 2006, 63, diagram 1). However, as the two sites do not overlap chronologically, the great value of this situation is clear. It is possible to differentiate much more clearly between worked bones and bone working in the Early Roman period on one hand and the Roman Imperial and Later Roman periods on the other. Of course, the earliest assemblages from Virunum still contain one or the other early type, but that is only natural considering the longevity of implements for daily use. A particular tool might even have been carried along from Magdalensberg among the personal belongings of the first inhabitants. As to close dating, worked bones e.g. from Niederbieber in Germany (cf. Carnap-Bornheim 1994) too are essential in questions of dating Roman artefacts. This site has a very close chronological framework in between approximately AD 190 and AD 259/260. Virunum has not been as systematically excavated as the older town at Magdalensberg. This situation is also underscored by the number of worked bones recorded in the two towns: research on the Magdalensberg finds is based on 1087 artefacts, Virunum has hitherto produced approximately 210 objects, though there is a slight increase in the artefacts being recorded almost every year. The dots in figure 1 merely indicate where bone-, antlerand horn-waste has come to light although not a single structure has yet been identified which may be called a bone carver’s workshop. As bone wastes are usually mingled with those from metal processing, that is iron and copper alloys, and tools from a variety of woodworking professions, we may at least deduce that a variety of handicraft ateliers were located in the vicinity of our bone carvers; this situation was also noted at Magdalensberg (cf. mapping of wastes in Gostenčnik 2005a, Beilage 2).

Figure 1: Virunum, outlines of the Roman town (after Dolenz et al. 1999, fig. 1; with addenda).

The history of research in Virunum reaches back to the late 17th century, when a local historian, Johann Dominicus Prunner, mentioned crop marks in his monograph tracing the complete outlines of the Roman town (cf. Dolenz 2001, 130). The town’s centre was unearthed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries (Praschniker and Kenner 1948). Over the last few years, excavations in the amphitheatre of Virunum have produced some interesting assemblages of animal bones, which seem to be related to venationes for the entertainment of the inhabitants (Galik 2004; Gostenčnik 2008). Between 1992 and 2002, a group of

150

RIBS AS A RAW MATERIAL IN ROMAN BONE ARTEFACTS FROM VIRUNUM (SOUTHERN AUSTRIA) The results from more recent excavations have provided better data on what kind of raw material was used for bone working in Virunum. However, the number is still rather low so that using statistics on a mere twenty pieces of discarded refuse would be absurd and of no statistical significance. Even so, those wastes usually comprise red deer antler tines and bovine horn cores. Waste from manufacturing bone objects is rarely encountered in excavation, but it indicates that there was a local production of pins and probably handles. Most of the finished products recovered in Virunum, however, are made from bone, and the number of antler artefacts hitherto recorded is extremely small. This situation is similar to what was found at Magdalensberg. Ivory was not processed in Virunum itself; the six ivories were definitely imported from the Mediterranean as finished products (in addition to the four in Gostenčnik 2004, 286289, two further ivory objects were discovered only recently).

bottom so that the respective shapes of both artefacts and raw materials can be compared, especially in the side view. As the oblong tablet n° 1 with a circular “handle” is half finished (cf. Figure 7a-b), ribs were definitely being processed in local workshops or even a workshop specialised in the carving of implements made from ribs. Among the Early Roman finds, artefacts with an oblong shape were sometimes carved from flat bones like shoulder-blades or perhaps even pelvic bones of various species, for instance casket lids and casket mounts (cf. Gostenčnik 2005a, pl. 30, 4-6; 32, 1); couch fittings of the early AD 1st century from Northern Italy are reported to be possibly made from the shoulder-blades of horses (Nicholls 1979, 1). The most important raw materials for making early Roman bone artefacts, however, are bovid metapodials in addition to other long bones although in our local bone processing there is no continuity in the working of ribs between the two towns as they emerge only on one of these two places. Metapodials or other long bones from horses have not yet been recorded within the Magdalensberg bone waste (cf. Gostenčnik 2005a, 295-308 on the raw materials). According to Alice Choyke (personal comment), however, several slender pins with small round heads of AD 2nd/3rd centuries from Aquincum were definitely made from ribs, and a workshop of AD 3rd century in Rome processed ribs as well.

Artefacts made form ribs Ribs as a material for manufacture were never recorded at Magdalensberg, even among the ad hoc implements. The latter do not need much preparing for transforming them into implements. Nor are rib based implements found among the bone artefacts which are worked more elaborately. Therefore, processing ribs marks an innovation during the Virunum-period, compared to the material from the original town. The trouble is that all of the five finds were unearthed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and no matching types have been reported during more recent excavations. One hundred years ago, the archaeological context was not recorded properly. The find spots within the town are clear, nos 1-3.5 were recovered within the Bäderbezirk insula (cf. Figure 1), but in which layer is unrecorded which also means that it is impossible to date them precisely. Among finds of the La Tène- and Roman periods, ribs are known to be used mainly for a kind of comb with notches serrated into one of their long, curved edges. These artefacts are either dubbed as potter’s implements used to produce the so called comb-pattern decoration, a very common kind of embellishment for cooking-pots and the like and very fashionable during the final La Tène- and Roman periods, or as comb-beaters, used with looms for beating up the weft during weaving. Both attributions have been seriously questioned by the experts in both handicrafts, and use-wear has never been closely examined to find out more about how they were intended to be used. What is evident with those finds is the fact that, apart from the notches, these ribs are hardly worked at all (for artefacts of the final La Tène period cf. Píč 1906, pl. 42,1-2.10.15; from Roman Rottweil cf. Kokabi 1982, figs. 92; 94).

Figure 2: Virunum, nos 1-5; obverse sides; on top and bottom bovid ribs from recent excavations (photo: © K. Gostenčnik).

In figures 2 to 4, the artefacts are arranged in between two broken bovid ribs from Virunum on the top and

151

KORDULA GOSTENČNIK Catalogue N° 1: Virunum, insula Bäderbezirk, inventory-number missing; reference: Praschniker, Kenner 1947, fig. 139j; length: 10.25cm; width 2.7cm; colour: dull. N° 2: Virunum, insula Bäderbezirk, inventory-number 7102; reference: Praschniker, Kenner 1947, fig. 141, 7102; length: 15.9cm; width: 3.1cm; colour: dull. N° 3: Virunum, insula Bäderbezirk, inventory-number 7103a; reference: Praschniker, Kenner 1947, fig. 141, 7103a; length: 13.7cm; width: 1.95cm; colour: off-white. N° 4: Virunum, inventory-number not consistent with the piece (according to inventory: mosaic); reference: unpublished; length: 11.75cm; width: 2.1cm; colour: light brown. N° 5: Virunum, insula Bäderbezirk, inventory-number missing; reference: Praschniker, Kenner 1947, fig. 139a; length: 9.15cm; width: 1.6cm; colour: dark brown, spotted; burned. Workshop waste: half-finished tablet (N° 1) This artefact (Figures 2 and 6) is often recorded among Early Roman bone assemblages throughout the Empire, at least well into AD 2nd century (cf. Gostenčnik 2005a, 242-245, pl. 57, 3-4; 58, 1-3.). This type is comprised of a rectangular tablet and a suspension ring on one of the short sides, and its cross-section displays a straight back and a convex front. The diameter of the ring is usually less than half the width of the tablet’s short end, though in later periods (mid to later AD 2nd century onwards) the tablet becomes, more or less, a narrow strip and the ring turns into a circular handle with or without perforation, which is just as wide as the tablet itself (cf. Božič 2001; 2002; Božič and Feugère 2001; closely dated finds from Niederbieber in Carnap-Bornheim 1994, fig. 9, approximately first half of AD 3rd century). The early finds are made from metapodials or other long bones. Some typical features of those bones are still discernible on one or the other piece (cf. Figure 9). To produce a convex front, their surfaces were worked with a file so the natural bi-convex cross-section of ribs might facilitate shaping the artefact as less material has to be removed from its surface. However, what really caused this change in raw material preferences in favour of ribs instead of metapodials and the like is not really understood. Tablets like n° 1 are reported among writing equipment, that is, ink-pots and the like, though we do not yet understand their intended purpose. Some scholars consider them spatulae for smoothing the surface of Roman wax tablets, but how this would work with curved outlines is difficult to imagine. One example from Aquileia bears a pattern incised into the convex surface; one of its long sides has a notch, and in addition to the perforation of the ring more holes are drilled through the tablet (Cassani 1995, pl. 50h). I personally tried the finds from Magdalensberg out as weaving implements and found them quite suitable as beaters, but it is a commonplace that nearly everything works with looms as long as the shape is somehow

Figure 3: Virunum, nos 1-5: lateral sides (photo: © K. Gostenčnik).

Figure 4: Virunum, nos 1-5: reverse sides (photo: © K. Gostenčnik).

152

RIBS AS A RAW MATERIAL IN ROMAN BONE ARTEFACTS FROM VIRUNUM (SOUTHERN AUSTRIA) rectangular or blade-like, and this will be underscored by everyone who bides her or his time with loom work! However, we should always consider that these and several other objects may have had multiple functions. The past was not as intricate as we sometimes make it out to be and its artefacts were not limited to one single way of using them as we scholars prefer to think; but this obviously is another commonplace. N° 1 from Virunum is unfinished. A shallow hole is visible on both faces of the circular handle (Figures 5-1; 7a-b), where the drill just touched it although the perforation was never completed; the edge of the handle is only roughly cut and lacks a final smoothing, and the whole tablet still lacks finishing and polishing, something easily recognized when it is compared to the surfaces of nos 2-5. The original edges of the two long sides of the tablet n° 1 are damaged, but where they are preserved, they too are roughly cut and not smoothed and, in addition, the original surface of the bone on the front side is more or less untouched apart from a few filing traces. Nor had this object yet been polished, something clearly discernible when it is compared with the split ribs in figure 2. With the early finds from Magdalensberg (cf. Figure 9), though they are polished, file marks are still extant along the edges of the long sides, whereas the short ends bear traces of both saw and file. On the backside, spongy tissue can be observed over the whole length (Figures 4 and 7b), though it was partly removed and smoothed so that the reverse side appears concave in the cross-section. The short end too is left unaltered, meaning that it has not yet been straightened and the striations reflect the way it was worked with both file and knife. As for the tools used during the production process, the observable traces were produced by a saw, a file and partly also a knife. N° 1 was made from the lateral part of a split rib.

Figure 6: Virunum, nos 4-5; scale: approx. 2:5 (drawings: © K. Gostenčnik).

Figure 7: Virunum, details; n° 1: a) unfinished drilled hole and file marks on obverse side; b) unfinished drilled hole, smoothed spongy tissue and coarse marks from saw and file around the edges on reverse side; n° 2: c) spongy tissue at blunt end on reverse side; d) notch in the edge with sawing marks; e) smoothed spongy tissue at pointed end and oblique file marks on reverse side; f) striation on obverse side caused by beating weft (photos: © K. Gostenčnik).

As raw materials are usually referred to as “bone” without further specification in reports, it is nearly impossible to draw parallels made from ribs rather than long bones. In Mautern/Favianis by the Danube River, the above-mentioned later type with a slender body was

Figure 5: Virunum, nos 1, 2, 3; scale: approx. 2:5 (drawings: © K. Gostenčnik).

153

KORDULA GOSTENČNIK recognized by Günther Karl Kunst as having been made from a rib (context AD 130/40-170), a rare accurate identification among a variety of published parallels from all over the North-Western Roman provinces (Groh, Sedlmayer 2006, 1012, n° 636, pl. 154, 3/49; in Obmann 1997, 251, n° 1478, pl. 39, 1478, spongy tissue on the backside is mentioned, though the actual bone was not identified). Textile implements (nos 2-5) This group of four artefacts (cf. Figures 2 to 6), two of which are severely damaged, consist of an oblong body tapering towards one end into a sharp tip, whereas the opposite side is broad and cut differently each time, although it too ends in a kind of tip; the edges are smoothed and their spongy tissue is still visible on the reverse surfaces. In the side-view these implements (cf. Figure 3) are bent, following the natural shape of the raw material. These artefacts were definitely used for loom work, as striations caused from beating the weft can be discerned (cf. Figure 7f): the tip is very suitable for example for pulling a single thread out of either the warp or weft when they become entangled or when a thread breaks, the notches on n° 2 (cf. Figure 7d) facilitate handling a single thread, and both ends allow the implement to be inserted into the warp shed and to handle or beat a number of threads or a length of the weft at once, in addition to several other tasks. N° 2 shows signs of use-wear with the threads cutting a kind of striation into the surface (cf. Figure 7f), especially at the blunt end, which is easily distinguished from any other kind of mark such as those caused from filing during the production process of the implement (Figure 7e). Nos 3-4 show those file-marks rather than use-wear (Figures 8a-c), as the striation is oblique to the axis of their bodies, and the pattern is more irregular. This is especially so with their reverse surfaces (Figure 8d) and also with n° 5 (Figure 8e-f), which, by the way, is burned. File-marks are partly also extant along the edges (Figure 8f), though these are rounded and smoothed so that the working of threads was not impaired. All four pieces are polished. Their surfaces are still shiny. The spongy tissue on the reverse surfaces are still preserved and completely smoothed and polished, except for the blunt end of n° 2 (cf. Figure 7c), where it was left unaltered. Their tips display a secondary polishing related to use.

Figure 8: Virunum, details; n° 3: a) file marks on obverse side; b) smoothed spongy tissue on reverse side; n° 5: c) coarse file marks on obverse side; d) smoothed spongy tissue and oblique file marks on reverse side; n° 4: e) smoothed spongy tissue and oblique file marks on reverse side; f) smoothed edge with oblique file marks (photos: © K. Gostenčnik).

Nos 2-3 were cut from the medial part of a split rib, nos 45 from the lateral part (cf. Figures 5 and 6). The use of either ribs or split ribs does not occur at Magdalensberg. Early Roman sword-beaters were made from long bones, most likely from metapodials. Two roughly cut beaters from Augst, however, were identified as being produced from ribs, though not from split specimens. They seem rather to be ad hoc implements (Deschler-Erb 1998, 140, pl. 18, 383-384, the latter dated AD 150-230).

Figure 9: Virunum, n° 1, and matching type from Magdalensberg; top: obverse sides, bottom: reverse sides (photos: © K. Gostenčnik).

Hitherto I have mainly been able to find artefacts comparable to nos 2-5 in the Eastern Mediterranean, mainly from the Hellenistic, Roman and even earlier periods, for example: from Delos (Deonna 1938, early 1st

154

RIBS AS A RAW MATERIAL IN ROMAN BONE ARTEFACTS FROM VIRUNUM (SOUTHERN AUSTRIA) century BC, with a drilled hole in the centre); in the Levant from Samaria (Reisner et al. 1924, fig. 241 and pl. 83, Hellenistic and earlier periods), Gezer (Macalister 1912, 273-275, fig. 420, Hellenistic and earlier periods), Betsaida (Fortner and Rottloff 2003, fig. 245, Hellenistic, Roman and earlier periods) or Beirut (Hellenistic, T. Oueslati, personal comment); two finds from Egypt on display at the Louvre’s Egyptian collection (without references). As the bones are never specified, though ribs are easily identified with the finds from the Louvre and from a photograph and personal comments in the case of the Beirut find, the curved outlines of the side-view and cross-sections of the drawings published from Samaria make it certain that they must have been cut from ribs (Figure 10). G. A. Reisner identified the pieces from Samaria as “flat bone spatulae or styli”. However, he was not convinced that they were writing implements and after several decades their interpretation as textile implements seems to be generally accepted now (Reisner et al. 1924, 372, with reference to Macalister 1912, 274; cf. also Fortner and Rottloff 2003, 144, fig. 245, labelled as ‘beaters’). The finds from the East usually have one rounded end, whereas the other tapers towards a tip (Figure 10); one artefact from Betsaida has tips at both ends (Fortner and Rottloff 2003, fig. 245). Although the four pieces from Virunum do not match exactly, their intended purpose as weaving implements resulted in their bodies being shaped in a manner comparable to specimens from the East, and, what is more, with the same raw materials being used.

army or migration. It is also very possible that they may be known throughout the Empire and are simply never published. Considering Virunum, Mautern/Favianis and Aquincum to be sites with a military background – Virunum first housed the guard of the province’s governor, and a recently discovered military fortress was probably established no earlier than the AD 3rd century – this might be one probable reason for ribs to emerge as a material of manufacture, as artisans and/or working techniques and the preference for certain raw materials might have spread out widely as the Roman army and its entourage moved across the continents. Unfortunately however, our finds from Virunum lack any close chronology, so it is difficult to argue in any direction. We are not able to tell, whether or not the inhabitants of the insula Bäderbezirk at a certain period of time came from an Oriental background. However, as the half-finished implement n° 1 represents a piece of waste and is thus connected with a workshop, it seems most probable that the artefacts were not necessarily used in this insula, because workshops were situated on the fringes of Virunum and not close at all to the centre. What is more, a workshop-context would usually produce several pieces of waste from different stages in the production-chain and not one single piece only. Due to several construction works over the centuries, structures were often altered, and to raise floor-levels, soil from outside the town mixed with discarded refuse was used as fill. This was common at Virunum and even more so at Magdalensberg, and we always have to take this into account when we try to trace the events and processes that went on in- and around the structures in order to be able to discern the intended purposes of our sites. Thus, finds in no way define the purpose of a structure or the customs of its inhabitants simultaneously! Several loom-weights were unearthed around a fullonica, a workshop for fulling and Roman “dry-cleaning” on the northern fringes of Virunum in the late second half of the AD 2nd century. However, no further textile tools have been found (cf. Dolenz and Polleres in preparation; for the loom-weights cf. Gostenčnik in preparation). Beaters such as nos 2-5 were not found there.

The bent outlines of the implements (Figures 3; 5 and 6) are quite suitable for weaving, as it is easier to insert the tip between the threads; the spongy tissue on the backsides (cf. Figures 7 and 8) does not seem to impair the intended use. Nothing points at the possibility that they were straightened out e.g. by means of pressure to produce a completely flat implement. Considering their function with the animal body, ribs might simply be more pliable and were for that reason chosen for textile implements, which undergo certain stress when used with threads, etc.; the fractures of nos 3-5 did not necessarily result from their application during the weaving but rather they fell to the floor and thus broke into pieces. The tip of n° 5 was definitely damaged in the course of the excavations, while the tip of n° 2 had already broken in Antiquity; n° 3 is still pointed, n° 4 slightly damaged. Though basketry and leather-working might be considered as fields of application for nos 2-5, their usewear patterns should then be very different. Among textile implements from Aquincum (Budapest) in Pannonia, parallels to our finds nos 2-5 are now being studied more closely, so we will perhaps be able to tell more about them in due time (J. Pásztókai-Szeőke, personal comment). This type of artefact and/or the processing of ribs may have been introduced from the East, but we lack clues as to which way, that is, through commerce, the Roman

Figure 10: Samaria, a-e, implements made from ribs; scale: approx. 2:5 (after Reisner et al. 1924, fig. 241; selection).

155

KORDULA GOSTENČNIK Further observations

to thank: Dr. Sabine Deschler-Erb, Basel; Dr. Günther Karl Kunst, Wien; cand. phil. Tarek Ouselati, Lille; cand. phil. J. Pásztókai-Szeőke, Kopenhagen. And finally, I am much indebted to Dr. Alice Choyke, Budapest, for her corrections of my text.

Worked bones were often painted or dyed. Colours are still extant on a number of finds from Magdalensberg, where both the natural shades of the bones and worked bones and the colours applied to them are excellently preserved (Gostenčnik 2005a, 318-322, pl. 76-82). The town never again revived after it was abandoned, and the structures were partly covered with several meters of slope-wash caused by erosion and mud. As to Virunum, the landscape where the town once flourished was used as agricultural land for centuries. This might well be the reason that most of the worked bones from Virunum on Zollfeld are dull or brownish-grey (Gostenčnik 2005b, 60-62).

Mag. Kordula Gostenčnik Magdalensberg-Arbeitsgemeinschaft c/o Archäologischer Park Magdalensberg 9064 Pischeldorf Austria [email protected] References cited

Since the dating is not clear – n° 1 is already an Early Roman type, though this gives no clue to its actual chronology – it is hard to tell, whether or not they were produced contemporaneously, and, moreover, in a workshop specialised in the processing of ribs. I would prefer to consider this, as the working of ribs is, as was explained above, unusual among worked bones in the Roman period at least for implements which are elaborately shaped and therefore need a certain amount of time to be produced; having come from the same find spot within Virunum, this too might be an allusion. As the archaeozoological data for Virunum indicate, lack of availability of raw materials was not necessarily what might have caused the processing of skeletal elements that were generally rarely used and rather ‘unusual’ in our opinion and in light of what we know about worked bones and their raw materials. However, the main factors in choice of raw material remained the skills of both the artisans and the persons who used those implements because otherwise they would never have been invented. Nevertheless, though the data as regards the chronology of these finds remain poor, they still suggest they were manufactured and used towards the end of the later 2nd and 3rd centuries rather than an earlier period.

Bertrand, I. 2008. Le travail de l’os, du bois de cerf et de la corne à l’époque romaine: un artisanat en marge ? Actes de la table ronde instrumentum, Chauvigny, 8-9 décembre 2005. Montagnac, Monographies Instrumentum, 34. Božič, D. 2001. Su un bastoncello appiatito in osso da Aquileia (I). Instrumentum, 14, 23-24. Božič, D. 2002. A Roman grave with writing implements from Ljubljana (SI). Instrumentum, 16, 33-36. Božič, D. and Feugère, M. 2001. Les instruments de l’écriture. Gallia, 61, 21-41. Carnap-Bornheim, C. V. 1994. Die beinernen Gegenstände aus Kastell und Vicus Niederbieber. Bonner Jahrbücher, 194, 341-395. Cassani, G. 1995. Oggetti in osso, corno e avorio, in M. Buora (ed.), Aquileia romana nella collezione di Francesco di Toppo. Milano, 112-119. Deonna, W. 1938. Le petit mobilier. Paris, Exploration archéologique de Délos, 18.

Worked bones and bone waste are not so numerous among archaeological finds as might be expected. Statistics for the excavations within the insulae on the western fringes of Virunum refer to 13.5 pieces of terra sigillata, 104.5 pieces of coarse ware, 5.2 oil lamps, 2.1 finds in copper alloys, 9.7 finds in iron or 2.3 coins for each individuall worked bone (Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger and Gostenčnik 2003, 154; for Magdalensberg cf. Gostenčnik 2005a, 348). Considering this, it is clear that drawing conclusions on the basis of a mere five pieces is rather a risky business.

Deschler-Erb, S. 1998. Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Rohmaterial, Technologie, Typologie und Chronologie. Augst, Forschungen in Augst, 27. Deschler-Erb, S. and Gostenčnik, K. 2008. Différences et identités de la vie quotidienne dans les provinces romaines: l’exemple de la tabletterie, in I. Bertrand (ed.), 283-309. Dolenz, H. 2001. Prospektion eines wiederentdeckten suburbanen Tempelbezirkes im Norden des Municipium Claudium Virunum. Rudolfinum. Jahrbuch des Landesmuseums für Kärnten, 130-136.

Acknowledgements My grateful thanks go to Prof. Dr. Gernot Piccottini, Villach, for his generous help, and to “Verein der Freunde des Magdalensberges” for funding my stay at the conference in Nanterre. For additional comments I wish

Dolenz, H., Jernej, R. and Gugl, Ch. 1999. Wege nach Virunum. Archäologieland Kärnten, 1, Klagenfurt.

156

RIBS AS A RAW MATERIAL IN ROMAN BONE ARTEFACTS FROM VIRUNUM (SOUTHERN AUSTRIA) Dolenz, H. and Polleres, J. in preparation. Die Fullonica am nördlichen Stadtrand von Virunum. Klagenfurt, Kärntner Museumsschriften.

Groh, St. and Sedlmayer, H. 2006. Forschungen im Vicus Ost von Mautern-Favianis. Die Grabungen der Jahre 1997-1999. Wien, Der römische Limes in Österreich, 44.

Fortner, S. and Rottloff, A. 2003. Signale aus der Vergangenheit, in G. Fassbeck, S. Fortner, A. Rottloff and J. Zangenberg (eds.), Leben am See Gennesaret. Mainz, Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie, 138-146.

Kokabi, M. 1982. Arae Flaviae II. Viehhaltung und Jagd im römischen Rottweil. Stuttgart, Forschungen und Berichte aus Baden-Württemberg, 13. Lang, F. 2008. L’artisanat du bois de cerf à Iuvavum/Salzbourg, Autriche. Les manches de couteau, in I. Bertrand (ed.), 335-342.

Galik, A. 2003. Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen von zwei Sickerschachtverfüllungen einer Insula am Stadtrand von Virunum: Die zoologischen Funde. Rudolfinum. Jahrbuch des Landesmuseums Kärnten, 152161.

Macalister, R. A. St. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer, vol. 2. London.

Galik, A. 2004. Archäologische und kulturhistorische Aspekte der Tierknochenvergesellschaftungen aus dem Amphitheater von Virunum, in R. Jernej and Ch. Gugl (eds.), Virunum. Das römische Amphitheater. Die Grabungen 1998-2001. Klagenfurt, Archäologie Alpen Adria, 4, 395-494.

Nicholls, R. V. 1979. A Roman couch from Cambridge. Archaeologia, 106, 1-32.

Gostenčnik, K. 2004. Elfenbeinfunde vom Magdalensberg und aus Virunum in Kärnten. Carinthia I, 194, 273-291.

Píč, J. L. 1906. Le Hradischt de Stradonitz en Bohême. Leipzig.

Obmann, J. 1997. Die römischen Funde aus Bein von Nida-Heddernheim. Bonn, Schriften des Frankfurter Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 13, 41-263.

Praschniker, C. and Kenner, H. 1947. Der Bäderbezirk von Virunum.Wien.

Gostenčnik, K. 2005a. Die Beinfunde vom Magdalensberg. Klagenfurt, Archäologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem Magdalensberg, 15; Kärntner Museumsschriften, 78.

Reisner, G. A., Fischer, C. St. and Lyon, D. G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1920. Cambridge Mass.

Gostenčnik, K. 2005b. Worked bones from Virunum: Some preliminary typological and chronological aspects, in H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lõugas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th – 31st August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus, 15, 215-228.

Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. and Gostenčnik, K. 2003. Übersicht über das Fundmaterial der Grabung 2002 in Virunum. Carinthia I, 193, 146-155.

Gostenčnik, K. 2006. Beinfunde aus Virunum – ein Überblick. Carinthia I, 196, 41-66. Gostenčnik, K. 2009. Die Protagonisten einer venatio aus dem Amphitheater von Virunum. Rudolfinum. Jahrbuch des Landesmuseum Kärnten, 181-185. Gostenčnik, K. in preparation. Textilproduktion in Virunum: Die Webgewichte aus dem Umfeld der fullonica, in H. Dolenz and J. Polleres in preparation. Gostenčnik, K. and Lang, F. 2010. Beinfunde aus Noricum. Materialien aus Alt-Virunum/Magdalensberg, Iuvavum, Ovilavis und Virunum, in M. Meyer and V. Gassner (eds.), Standortbestimmungen. Akten des 12. Österreichischen Archäologentages vom 28. 2. bis 1. 3. 2008 in Wien, Wien, 197-213.

157

Antler Manufacturing in the Eastern Carpathian Regions in the Time of Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture (Late Roman Period) Sergiu MUSTEAŢĂ* and Alexandru POPA** *History Department, State University, Republic of Moldova ** Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Frankfurt, Germany

Abstract This paper describes the antler manufacturing in the time of Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture in the Eastern Carpathian regions. So, we tried to restore the working stages and techniques used by craftsmen, in special, on comb manufacturing. The Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlement is known as the most important site for antler manufacture with many well-organized workshops. Antler-working is a long process, which consists of two main stages: collecting the raw material and manufacturing antler objects. The presence in some settlements of a huge quantity of antler shows the importance of collecting this material for artisan work. Antler raw material was collected from the forest, from hunting and also through some kind of exchange of finished articles for raw materials. The second stage of antler-working, the most important and complex, followed further steps in the process of working: fractioning, splitting, softening, carving, adjusting, assembly (drilling, riveting), gauging, decorating, smoothing and polishing. In conclusion, according to the archaeological data, we can say that comb manufacturing is a handicraft brought to the Eastern Carpathian region by one of the migrating populations from Northern Europe. This group of people made a direct contribution to the formation and development of the cultural and ethnic aspects of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture.

been discussed in several articles by V. Palade (1966; 1969; 1971; 1981). In his papers, this Romanian archaeologist presented the results of excavations at Bârlad-Valea Seacă and Fedeşti (Vaslui county, Romania). Based on archaeological artefacts discovered during excavations, he also tried to analyse the working methods of antler craftsmen. Recent publications by Romanian scholars have focused in particular on the occurrence of this handicraft in the former Roman province of Dacia1 (Alicu and Nemeş 1982; Bejan and Pădurean 2005; Belidiman 1992; Bounegru and Ota 2006, Ciugudean 1997; Cociş and Alicu 1993; Gudea and Bajusz 1991; Timoc 2007), but a general study of this issue for the Carpathian area as a whole has been lacking until now (For more data on bone and antler handicrafts in other European regions during the Late Roman Period see: Béal 1983a; 1983b; 1984; Bíró 2002; Chmielowska 1971; Cnotłiwy 1963; 1996; Crummy 2001; Deschler-Erb 1998; 2001; 2005a; 2005b; Deschler-Erb and Gostencnik 2008; Gaitzsch 1980; MacGregor 1985; 1980; Petitjean 1995; Petković 1995; Roes 1963).

Introduction Antler manufacture in the distribution area of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture is well documented by archaeological artefacts. The abundance of bone objects found at Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture sites suggests that bone and antler working was widespread in the Late Roman Period. Analyzing the working techniques helps us to understand the level of economic development and also the reasons for producing and using the antler objects. The presence of a huge amount of antler artefacts in some settlements suggests the existence of that local specialized crafts community who produced these objects on a large scale. Hence, studying antler working during the Late Roman Period in the Barbaricum can help us to better understand some aspects of the economic, social and cultural life of the region (See more details about different aspects of dress customs in Barbarian society in the AD 4th and 5th c. in Pohl 1998, “Hairstyles and body signs”, 51-61; and in Rummel 2007, “Längere Haare Erscheinung”, 213-230). Most of the archaeological sites belonging to the Late Roman Period and located in the Eastern Carpathian area (Figure 1) have yielded numerous and various objects that demonstrate the existence of an extensive bone and antler processing. One of the best-developed handicrafts during this period in the area of the Sântana de MureşČernjachov Culture was antler-working. Evidence of this handicraft comes from archaeological artefacts (raw material; waste products, half-finished objects; and finished objects) attested in many settlements and cemeteries.

Among the diverse artefacts manufactured from bone and antler one could identify several categories of objects of varying uses: needles, needle cases, awls, polishers, spindles, weapons (bone projectile points), figurines, tool accessories, amulets, pendants2, beads, combs, decorative and dress objects, skates blades etc. (cf. Figure 6)3. The most numerous and representative category of antler objects found in settlements and cemeteries of the AD 4th century in the region are single-side composite combs, worked from three of superimposed plates fixed by bronze rivets. The quality of the products depended on the nature of the raw material and the craftsman’s ability,

The subject of antler manufacturing in some settlements of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture has already

159

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA the tools, techniques and technology used to process the antler objects. Hence, the skills of the craftsmen can be estimated from the quality of the final products.

antler manufacture (cf. Figure 1). The workshops from Valea Seacă and artefacts discovered inside them can help us to understand antler handicraft during the Late Roman Period, because an impressive number of workshops and antler material have been discovered there4. Most of the dwellings have a rectangular form and are oriented from East to West. In the NW corner of the buildings/structures we can usually see the remains of a hearth made from clay and stones (Palade 1969, 234) and in the central part one or two pits which were used as the “working place” (Palade 1981, 179). A lot of fragments of red deer antler were discovered inside the area workshops (Figures 2-5, 2-8, 2-9) (Palade 1969, fig. 12/1; 14; 15). For example, circa 250 fragments of various sizes in three concentrations were attested in dwelling n°2 (Palade 1966, fig. 1)5. The first group (ca. 50 fragments) lay in the NW corner of the workshop and contained many antler fragments. The second group (ca. 35 fragments) was discovered in the SE corner and contained already worked elements of antler for (teeth and comb) handles (Palade 1966, 265, fig. 6/3; 9/4; 7/1, 2, 4, 5). The third group was situated in the western part of the workshop and contained the most finished products: rectangular and semicircular elements with dimensions varying between 5 and 7cm. Near to these places and in two depressions, other small antler fragments were discovered, together with shavings and chips, resulting from antler working and which can be considered as debris (Palade 1966, 267, fig. 6/4 and 12/13). Further, a finished comb was discovered in workshop n°2, worked from many rectangular pieces, fixed with bronze rivets between two semicircular plates (Palade 1966, fig. 13 and 14). V. Palade calculated that, from all the materials discovered in this workshop, up to 400-500 rectangular and semicircular plates for comb-working and other antler objects could have been made. Concentration of the antler material in-and-around the areas of the two depressions suggest that they were linked directly with craft-working. The same situation is characteristic of dwellings nos3, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 16 (Figure 2) (Palade 1981, 212). We cannot tell how many workshops were active at the same time, but it is certain that local artisans produced a huge amount of antler objects.

In this paper we will not go into details about typology (For more details about the typology of antler combs in the Late Roman Period see: Böhme 1974, 122-126; Kokowski 1998, 655-656; Nikitina 1969; Petković 1995; Ščukin 1977, ris. 1; 2005, 173-177, Ris. 59; Šiškin 1999; Thomas 1960; etc.), but will focus more on the working stages and techniques used by craftsmen during the Late Roman Period in this area. The geographical framework for this approach is defined by the Eastern Carpathian Mountains and the Dniestr River, the region which is part of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture area (cf. Figure 1).

In most of the settlements from the Barbaricum in the Late Roman Period artisan work were not so clearly separated. However, the archaeological evidence discovered in the Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlement suggests that the inhabitants living and working in these dwellings were specialized in antler working and can be considered comb-makers6. A similar situation from close-by territories is attested in the Ukraine at Velika Snitinka7.

Figure 1: The location of sites mentioned in the article.

Mass production and crafts settlement Antler manufacturing was part of the economic development of a settlement, part of trade and exchange between different communities and finally it was part of the local culture. In the settlements of Bârlad-Valea Seacă (Palade 1966; 1969; 1981; 2004) and Fedeşti, (Vaslui county) (Palade 1971), located in the Eastern Carpathian area, raw materials are attested for manufacture and many well-organised workshops for

Comb elements In the Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlements most composite combs have a semicircular handle back, with a series of three superimposed plates attached by bronze rivets (Palade 1969, 239). The combs were made from 4-7

160

ANTLER MANUFACTURING IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN REGIONS rectangular pieces with dimensions of 5-7cm in which were cut circa 30 teeth (Palade 1981, fig. 14; 15; 24-28). The handle of the comb was formed from two semicircular plates into which the teeth were fixed with rivets (For general information about the combs see: Trifenbach 2000; Ulbricht 2000).

2006). Each type of bone has unique properties. Bones were available, in most cases, from domestic animals, hunted wild animals and collecting. One of the most important osseous materials used in ancient times was antler, which differs in its structure from one. Hence, antler is one of the most common organic materials found in Late Roman settlements and cemeteries in Europe. It is relatively easy to work and to manufacture into diverse categories of artefacts using simple hand tools. The character and scale of the handicraft depends on the antler material discovered in a settlement (abandoned raw material, unfinished pieces, and final products). The antler handicraft or so-called "antler-working industry" (A. MacGregor has already debated the question of "Handicraft or Industry", MacGregor 1985, 44-54) was also dependent on the availability of raw material. A large, mature red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) buck has complex antlers that can be over 120cm in length. The cross-section of the beam is sub-cylindrical in section and the rack may have three main tines and a crown with multiple points. The surface can be quite heavily guttered or it may be fairly smooth. Antler is porous and relatively soft when collected, because it is formed from the newest deposits channelled by the deer’s vascular system. Within a short time after it is shed antler becomes hard and needs to be softened for working (For the structure and morphology of antler see: MacGregor 1985, 9-14). During the AD 4th-5th century, most red deer antler came from shed racks collected from the forests, hillsides and a smaller amount from hunting, which during this period of time was not restricted by any regulation. The collecting of shed antlers is seasonal. The red deer cast their antlers over a two-month period in late winter or spring (MacGregor 1985, 35). In the early middle ages, in some parts of Europe, control of stag hunting was established and the hunting season took place between April and September. Presence of only he rose show us if the antler was separated from the skull naturally or it was cut after hunting the stag. In the Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlement, some antlers with the rose were discovered and but there is an also stags skull with saw cut marks through the pedicle confirming these antlers came from a hunted animal (Palade 1966, fig. 5/1,5; Palade 1969, 234, fig. 1/1-3; Palade 1981, 180, fig. 13). V. Palade considered that most of the antler was collected from the surrounding forests (Palade 1981, fig. 11; 13) and just 8-10% came from hunting (Palade 1981, 180).

Figure 2: Workshops from the Bîrlad-Valea Seacă settlement (after Palade).

Working stages and techniques One of the main problems when discussing antler working is the absence antler-working tools. Only a few objects have been found in circumstances which relate them directly with this craft. We can conjecture the craftsmen's tool kits and working methods only on the basis of large amounts of waste material, half-finished pieces and finished products8. Antler-working is a long process, which consists of two main stages: collecting the raw material and manufacturing antler objects.

The presence in some settlements of a huge quantity of antler shows the importance of collecting this material for artisan work. We have many questions surrounding the collected raw material: was it local or brought from other regions; was it collected or hunted, etc. But to get answers we need to have more comparative archaeozoological studies. It seems likely that during the Late Roman Period antler raw material was collected from the forest, from hunting and also through some kind of exchange of finished articles for raw materials. The

Collecting raw material People exploited animals, not only for their meat and skin, but their bones as well. Bone and horn working is one of the oldest attested human crafts. Because of its biological origin, bone is one of the best preserved materials in archaeological sites from prehistoric times onwards, including in the Eastern Carpathian area where soils are alkaline (Alaiba and Grădinaru 2006; Belidiman and Sztancs 2006; Brudiu 2006; Rotaru and Gheorghe

161

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA extent of this trade during the Late Roman Period remains an open question, but it is certain that the local craftsmen produced antler objects for a large area rather than for local community needs.

axe. However, actual finds of axes are rarely attested in the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture settlements and we cannot demonstrate the idea of widespread use of this tool in bone-working practices.

Manufacturing The second stage of antler-working, the most important and complex, followed further steps in the process of working: Fractioning The process of antler-working begins by sectioning the antler into small elements for different purposes. I. Ulbricht tried to establish a schematic representation of how the antler have been sectioned and used (Ulbricht 1978), but as A. MacGregor observed, the scheme is a generalised one, because not all antlers were removed until exhaustion and nor were all the elements for a single comb necessarily made from the same antler (MacGregor 1985, 69, fig. 42). The cylindrical beam and plate parts of the cut antler have different dimensions. So far, we have not discovered any tools for sectioning by cutting and splitting in the region under discussion. But we can see on the antler remains traces characteristic of discarded antler blanks resulting from detaching the antler itself or from nicks. The traces can be seen on many discarded antler burrs where they have been separated from the beam (Figure 3-5, 3-8, 3-9). Nicks show clearly how the material was rotated periodically or that the blade never became deeply embedded in antler fragments. The final separation was usually made by snapping (Figure 3-5, 38) (MacGregor 1985, 55, fig. 32; Palade 1969, fig. 7; Palade 1966, fig. 12/5; 1969, fig. 5, 6, 7). Fragments of antler have been discovered in the workshops from the Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlement, with special tools, which are supposed to have been the saw9 (Figure 4/1-5) (Ciugudean 1997, 13; Palade 1966, 261, fig. 6/1; 7/1; 265, fig. 5, 6, 7; 273, fig. 12/5; Palade 1981, fig. 4-9). The saw was usually used for perpendicular sectioning of the antler into small segments, but in some cases we can see longitudinal marks too (Figure 3-8) (Palade 1966, fig. 6/2; 12/5). When the stag was hunted, the antler was removed from the antler by sawing. There are examples of this at Bârlad-Valea Seacă (Palade 1969, 234).

Figure 3: Raw materials from the Bîrlad-Valea Seacă settlement (after Palade).

In Bârlad-Valea Seacă we observe only a few antler fragments with chopping marks, supposedly from an axe (Palade 1966, 274, fig. 5/1 and 12/1-3), but most of them were made by a knife. V-shaped traces in section indicate cutting with a knife (MacGregor 1985, 57). Knives are among the best-attested artefacts and include a variety of sizes and types (Figure 3-8). So, this makes it all to more certain that the antler was initially softened for the first and second stage sectioning).

Splitting The next step in antler processing was splitting. The basal segments were split in two parts and then prepared for comb handles. Depending on the thickness of the antler, the cylindrical beam parts were split into two-four or more plates (Palade 1966, 269, fig. 8). The splitting of smaller antler pieces was made before softening (Palade 1966, 269, fig. 7/5; 8/4; 9/1, 2, 3, 5; 10; 11). V. Palade demonstrated that splitting the antler fragments is more precise when the antler is hard rather than when it is soft (Palade 1981, 206). But, the antler was probably soften first and then allowed to dry out a bit and then re-softened by putting it back into water for a couple of hours. Some shaping operations seem to have been carried out with an

Softening Antler is a hard material and s more easily worked if it is softened. Lacking any written sources, we can only infer the softening methods used during the Late Roman Period on the basis of archaeological artefacts and by linking them with ethnographical data. Fractioning antler into small pieces was possible with a saw without softening, but more easy was firstly to soft antler, just put the antler in a pool of water for two weeks, and then to split. Carving the plates required that the antler be specially softened. V. Palade considered that the inhabitants of Bârlad-Valea Seacă softened the antler

162

ANTLER MANUFACTURING IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN REGIONS segments by using an alkaline solution obtained after boiling wood ashes (Palade 1966, 271; Palade 1981, 206209).

material in Bârlad-Valea Seacă we can see a lot of debris (Palade 1981, fig. 16/6; 18/9, 10) (cf. Figure 2-5, 2-8). At the end of the process, some of the comb elements needed to be polished. They were first scarped smoothed and then, after finishing, the objects were given a final polishing. Adjusting Most of the teeth plates have a rectangular form, but the comb handles are semicircular (Figure 5-13 to 5-16) (Palade 1981, fig. 19). The discovery of semicircular elements for comb handles which are bigger than the combs indicates that the craftsmen had a template for comb-making and that after measuring them they cut or chopped the pieces to obtain the correct size (Figure 3-1 to 3-4). Semicircular tools have been discovered in Bârlad-Valea Seacă which are thought to have been used as templates (patterns) for making semicircular comb handles (Such tools were discovered in workshops n°3, 5, 7, 10, 11. Palade 1969, 239, fig. 3/5; 4/2; Palade 1981, fig. 10/5; 17; 28/1). On some semicircular plates for comb handles we can see the template traces and the beginnings of carving. These traces confirm that the handles were marked by artisans for working into an exact form (Figure 5-13). This implies a degree of standardization which again demonstrates that these objects were produced industrially and intended for real markets.

Figure 4: Work tools. 1-5) knifes; 6-7) rivets; 8) chisel; 9) anvil (after Palade).

A. MacGregor demonstrated that it is enough to place the antler in hot water (MacGregor 1985, 64, fig. 40) and there is no need for boiling water, acids, sauerkraut pickle, sour milk and buttermilk or oil, as other scholars have claimed (Zurowski 1973; 1974). But, Jory Schibler showed that cold water is sufficient for softening if the antler is freshly gathered. In most of the workshops discovered in the Bârlad-Valea Seacă settlement we can see the remains of hearths and a lot of well-made hand shaped pottery (Palade 1966, fig. 2, 3, 4; 1969, fig. 13/13). This archaeological evidence (pottery, hearths) supports the idea that these craftsmen used the easiest method for softening, simple hot water (cf. Figure 2). Carving After splitting the antler fragments into small plates, the craftsmen carved them until they reduced to a thickness of between 1.5 – 3.0mm in thickness. For better and easier carving, the antler was from time to time placed in hot water (or simply water) to be make it soft again as it dried out. Some experiments have shown that after a long period of time in boiling water, the minerals in antler leach out and the antler becomes too soft and fragile (Palade 1981, 209). However, among the discovered

Figure 5: Unfinished products. 1-12) plates for teeth; 13-16) handles (after Palade).

163

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA Assembly The next step, after preparing all the comb elements, was assembly, by fixing the 4-8 rectangular teeth plates between two semicircular plates (Figure 5). Another small semicircular plate was placed in the empty upper space of the comb handle. In the examples with small handle plates, the teeth slates cover all lateral surfaces (Figure 6-4) (Palade 1981, 209, fig. 18/2, 5,8 ; 24/3, 4; 25/4; 26/3, 4; 27/3, 4; 28/2). To fix them, the artisans used both drilling and riveting techniques: -

Drilling

All elements of the comb for clamping together needed to be drilled, because the craftsmen used a riveting technique. The artisans made the holes for rivets through three layers of plates (Figure 6-4). MacGregor supposed that punches were used for perforating the antler (MacGregor 1985, 59-60). V. Palade considered that the craftsmen used a nail (Palade 1966, 274) to drill the antler or a borer with a diameter ranging from 1.5 – 2.0mm diameter (Palade 1981, 209; Ciugudean 1997, 14) (cf. Figure 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-15). -

Riveting Figure 6: Final products. 1-3, 5, 7) amulets; 4, 6) combs; 8) earring (after Palade).

The final assembly process for combs was riveting. All combs were assembled using this technique. Iron and bronze rivets were used to clamp all the elements of the comb. A. MacGregor considered that bronze rivets "remain uncommon until the beginning of the medieval period, when the rivets of combs, for example, are more frequently made from bronze" (MacGregor 1985, 62-63). But, in our case, most of the combs from the settlements and cemeteries under discussion are riveted with bronze rivets. Using a hard metal, such as iron, is more difficult for riveting and could split the comb, but bronze is softer and more suitable for a successful riveting10. Pieces of bronze plates and rods, from which the rivets were made, have been discovered in the workshops at Bârlad-Valea Seacă (Palade 1966, 267-268, 274, fig. 15/2-3; Palade 1969, 239, note 7 and 8) and Fedeşti (Palade 1971, 209). The rods are of different length and each has a diameter of approximately 2mm. The tubular rivets were made from bronze plating cut into a narrow piece from which the rivets were extracted (cf. Figure 4-6, 4-7). Also, the rivets were made from a cast bronze rod. The rivets were placed in a horizontal line across the middle of the comb in a straight line, and also in a semicircular pattern in the upper part of the comb handle. The number of rivets varies and probably depended more on the size of the comb and the number of elements than the individual artisan’s choice. However, usually there is one rivet for each rectangular teeth plate and three rivets in the upper part of the semicircular comb handle. The rivets were fixed by hitting the two ends. Nails with big “heads” have been discovered in workshops n°5, 7 and 16. These rivets supposedly were made on anvils placed in wooden supports used for riveting the combs (Palade 1981, 210, fig. 23/1-3) (cf. Figure 4-9).

Gauging The use of a gauge seems to be implied in the production of teeth plates for composite combs. The combs’ teeth were produced after the blanks had been riveted between side-plates (MacGregor 1985, 62), as we can see from some unfinished combs discovered in Bârlad-Valea Seacă, where general teeth length and traces are characteristic (Palade 1981, fig. 18/5). In most of the Bârlad-Valea Seacă workshops, the small teeth plates do not yet have the teeth cut into them. The thickness of the teeth and spaces between them depend on the quality of the shaping tool, which was a specific type of small saw. In our case, the distance between the teeth at BârladValea Seacă is approximately the same. The thickness of the teeth is between 0.5 and 1.0mm. In some cases, the teeth have different lengths. The lateral teeth are short and are about 1.0cm in length whereas the central teeth are longer, up to 2.5cm (cf. Figure 5-9 to 5-12). To avoid problems during the gauging process, the artisans tried to leave the space between the plates equal to the distance between the teeth11. This means that the process of making teeth was a difficult operation and small mistakes could ruin the work (cf. Figure 5-9, 5-12). V. Palade established that in Bârlad-Valea Seacă the artisans used three types of saw (Palade 1981, 210, fig. 18/1, 3, 4). After gauging, the assembled combs were scraped and then polished. Decorating Some of the combs and pendants have decorative elements but were not coloured or painted. The most decorated part of the comb was its handle. The

164

ANTLER MANUFACTURING IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN REGIONS characteristic ornament is inscribed ring-and-dot motifs, but we can also see straight and undulating lines, notches, dots and notches in parallel lines etc. (Palade 1981, 210211, fig. 24/1, 2, 4; 26/1-4). A. MacGregor argues that perfectly symmetrical concentric rings were executed with a special tool - the stradda (MacGregor 1985, 60, fig. 37). Equally, symmetrical double-ring-and-dot motifs show that some of these decorative elements had two or more scribing points with different radii, although two single-toothed implements of different dimensions could have been used successively with the same effect (Fig. 6/1, 3, 5, 8). But, comb handles were also decorated using other tools, such as a compass, a metal tool with a sharpened tip12, chisels, drills etc. (Palade 1981, 212. Awls from Illerup, Ådal, Denmark, Ilkjær 1989; Ilkjær 1993, Band 3).

attested in the area under discussion here, which shows a high level of development in the handicraft. This suggests that comb manufacturing is a handicraft brought to the region by one of the migrating populations from Northern Europe14. This group of people made a direct contribution to the formation and development of the cultural and ethnic aspects of the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov Culture. This conclusion is supported by the historical perspective of this phenomenon: during the next historical period antler working again largely disappeared. We do not believe that this situation is solely the result of basic changes in the fauna in the region. The most probable explanation comes from ethnic and political changes in the region during Late Antiquity and at the beginning of the Early Middle Ages. After the departure of the people of the Sântana de MureşČernjachov Culture, antler working is no longer attested in the Eastern Carpathian area. This is similar to the situation where antler combs have been used as an indicator of Germanic migration in other European regions (Deringer 1967; Kazanski and Laport 1995; Larrieu et al. 1985, 257-262; Rodet-Belarbi 2007, 34; Schach-Dörges 1994; Teuber 2005; Van Ossel).

Smoothing and polishing Judging from transverse parallel lines which may be detected on antler objects, some scraping was done with the aid of a knife blade held cross-wise and pulled along the surface, producing the characteristic "chatter mark". In the last stages of the working process, the craftsmen used a polishing method to give the objects a smooth and polished surface. Antler has the capacity to take a high polish. Otherwise, various minerals and organic substances were most probably used for smoothing and polishing (MacGregor 1985, 58). V. Palade supposed that grit or ash was used for polishing and then, in some cases, the surface of the combs, pendants and other objects was polished with fat and pieces of skin (Palade 1966, 271; Palade 1981, 209). Also, V. Palade considered that the polishing of the comb elements took place before assembly (Palade 1981, 209). We agree that preliminary smoothing took place after carving and preparing the comb elements, but the final polishing took place only at the end of the working process.

Note 1: We suppose that the archaeological evidence of antler working from Suceag, (Cluj county) are remains of itinerant craftsman then workshop as it was presented by C. Opreanu. Opreanu 1992. In Biharea, (Biharea county) are known workshops but from VI-VII c. (Dumitraşcu 1982; 1985). Note 2: Pyramidal, conical and ring pendants were made from the unused points of the antler. Pendants were produced from burrs (antler rosettes), considered to have been bracelets, an idea which we cannot support because the objects are too small for such purposes (Palade 1969, 239, fig. 4/1, 2, 4; Palade 1981, fig. 21). Note 3: Eg. Two elements from skates are known from the Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov settlement at Budeşti, Republic of Moldova (Vornic 2005, fig. 26/4 and fig. 45/2).

Perspectives Bone utilization and working is a field of active research for many scholars around the world. Given a lack of written sources mentioning bone working techniques and a lack of work tools, we need more interdisciplinary studies on antler working during all historical periods. Also, we need biochemical and zoological analyses to establish the origins of the raw materials and the fauna aspects characteristic of each region13.

Note 4: The settlement is located 1.5km N-NW from the modern city of Bârlad in the Valea Seacă valley. During the excavations, 25 dwellings and 7 open air manufacturing areas considered to be antler workshops were discovered. The workshops and dwellings with antler remains are concentrated in the southern part of the settlement with just a few in the northern part. Antler raw material, and finished and unfinished objects discovered in those buildings/structures, suggested that the inhabitants of this settlement were involved in antlerworking (Palade 1981, 179; 2004, 167).

Special attention has to be paid to the cultural interpretation of this kind of archaeological material. The development of the antler working and comb manufacturing in the region over a long period of time is not so well known. In the recently published article by A. Ganciu, we can see the extent of the comb-making in ancient times (4th BC- AD 1st) in the northern part of the Lower Danube region. But, for the time between the AD 1st and 3rd century No data exists on this craft. In the Late Roman Period, a huge number of antler finds are

Note 5: More than 300 fragments of antler were also discovered in workshop n°3 (Palade 1969, 239, fig. 12/1 and fig. 14). The same situation was attested in the remains of the workshop at Fedeşti (Palade 1971, 209).

165

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA Note 6: We have to take into account that the manufacturing of antler objects needs special skills and knowledge, which has to be applied during each stage of the working process (Šarygina 2006, 254).

Sergiu Musteaţă Associated professor History Department “Ion Creanga” State University Ion Creanga str., nr. 1 Chisinau, MD-2069 Republic of Moldova

Note 7: Over 20 clusters of cultural goods were attested over the excavated territory of settlement (400x100 m). Red deer debris were discovered In a fifth of them. In one of the constructions (14x8m), considered a main workshop, was a surface measuring 12m2 with a layer comprising a mass of antler debris, hundreds of combs elements, one finished comb and other artifacts. The total amount of antler debris discovered at Velika Snitinka comes to about 16,500 and 550 unfinished and finished objects. The combs, the handle and tooth plates are very well presented (Magomedov 1992; Magomedov 2001, 101, ris. 82/4-7, 9. I Goti 88-92, fig. I.131-135; 94-96).

[email protected] Alexandru Popa DFG-Projekt "Waldgirmes" Römisch-Germanische Kommission Archäologischen Instituts Palmengartenstr. 10-12 D - 60325 Frankfurt am Main Germany [email protected]

Note 8: A. Cuttler writes that during Late Antiquity, as later in medieval Byzantium, the carving of bone was technically similar to but often inferior to, that of dentine. But he also mentioned that the main problem of analyzing bone working techniques is the absence of any surviving tools that can be positively identified as having been used for this purpose. In this situation, Cuttler concluded that the working methods of craftsmen have to be deduced from the evidence of their products (Cuttler 1985).

des

Deutschen

References cited Alaiba, R. and Grădinaru, I. 2006. Unelte din corn de cerb descoperite în aşezarea Cârniceni-Holm II. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania I, 106-113. Alicu, D. and Nemeş, E. 1982. Obiecte de os descoperite la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca, Romania XIX, 345-365.

Note 9: Bronze saws have been discovered in some Viking Age settlements in Northern Europe, which are linked with comb manufacturing (Tempel 1969, 36, Abb. 11-13).

Ambrosiani, K. 1981. Viking Age Combs, Comb Making and Comb Makers in the Light of Finds from Birka and Ribe. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 2, Amsterdams Historisch Museum.

Note 10: Combs have been discovered in Bîrlad-Valea Seacă with iron rivets which means that local artisans used this metal too (Palade 1981, 209).

Béal, J.C. 1983a. Catalogue des objets de tabletrie du Musée de la Civilisation Gallo-romaine de Lyon. Centre d’études romaines et galloromaine de l’Université Jean Moulin III, N. S. 1.

Note 11: This example is given by V. Palade from artefacts discovered in the cemetery at Izvoare (Palade 1966, 272).

Béal, J.C. 1983b. Les ateliers gallo-romains de tabletterie à Lyon et Vienne. Latomus 42, 3, 607 ff.

Note 12: So-called Zirkelstichel are known in the Slavic settlements at Stare Mesto and Leva Hradec, which could be linked with bone-working (Hrubý 1957; Tempel 1969, 37, Abb. 14-15).

Béal, J.C. 1984. Les objets de tablettrie antique du musée de Nîmes 2, Nîmes. Bejan, A. and Pădurean, O.C. 2005. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în secolele IV-V d.Hr. în spaţiul fostei Dacii preromane. Tehnici de execuţie a obiectelor din os şi corn. Banatica. Muzeul Banatului Montan, Reşiţa, Romania 17, 247-260.

Note 13: The IKAZ-WBWG is one the most important international initiatives to develop bone working research and to facilitate inter-disciplinary studies. We hope that this network will be a lasting one and through it we will get answers to many debated questions on the bone and antler handicraft. WBRG - International Council for Archaeozoology - Worked Bone Research Group http://www.wbrg.net (last check 01.04.2009).

Belidiman, C. 1992. Piese de toaletă şi podoabă în secolul al IV-lea e.n. descoperite în estul Transilvaniei. SCIVA XLIII, 1, 71-80.

Note 14: For the spread of different types of combs by Germanic communities in Europe see Thomas 1960; Werner 1988, Abb. 10; Werner 1990; Ilkjær 1993; Šarygina 2006 etc. A similar situation is attested in the Viking Age. See: Ambrosiani 1981; Tempel 1969; Ulbricht 1978; 1980; etc.

Belidiman, C. and Sztancs, D.M. 2006. Obiecte de podoabă neolitice timpurii din materii dure de animale descoperite pe teritoriul României, brăţări de os. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania I, 48-63.

166

ANTLER MANUFACTURING IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN REGIONS Bíró, M. T. 2002. Combs and comb-making in Roman Pannonia: ethnical and historical aspects. Probleme der frühen Merowingerzeit im Mitteldonauraum (Brno, Archäologisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der Tschechischen Republik), 31-71, Abb.

Deschler-Erb, S. 1998. Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta raurica. Rohmaterial, Technologie und Chronologie. Forschunen in Augst 27/1-2, Augst: Römerstadt Augusta Raurica. Deschler-Erb, S. 2001. Do-it-yourself Manufacturing of Bone and Antler in Two Villas in Roman Switzerland, in A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (ed.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August-5 September 1999. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 31-40.

Bolomey, A. and Marinescu-Bîlcu, S. 2006. Industria cornului în aşezarea cucuteniană de la DrăguşeniOstrov. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania I, 82105. Bounegru, G. and Ota, R. 2006. Piepteni de os din aşezarea postromană de la Alba Iulia-Dealul FurcilorMonolit. Apulum, Acta Mvsei Apvlensis, Muzeul Naţional al Unirii, Alba Iulia, Romania XLII/1, 297-307.

Deschler-Erb, S. 2005a. Les peignes romains: une tradition germanique? in M.-P. Horard-Herbin and J.-D. Vigne (dir.), Animaux, environnements et sociétés. Paris 2005, 104.

Böhme, H.W. 1974. Germanische Grabfunde des 4. bis 5. Jahrhunderts: zwischen unterer Elbe und Loire. Studien zur Chronologie und Bevölkerungsgeschichte. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 19, München.

Deschler-Erb, S. 2005b. Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop in Eastern Switzerland, in H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th– 31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Munasaja Teadus, 207-214.

Brudiu, M. 2006. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în gravetianul oriental din spaţiul carpato-nistrean, resurse, repertoriu, ocupaţii. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania I, 45-47. Chmielowska, A. 1971. Grzebenie sredniowiecne z ziem polskich, Łódź.

starożytne

i

Deschler-Erb. S. and Gostencnik, K. 2008. Différences et identités de la vie quotidienne dans les provinces romaines : l'exemple de la tabletterie, in Isabelle Bertrand (ed.), Le travail de l'os, du bois de cerf et de la corne à l'époque romaine: un artisanat en marge ? Montagnac, Monographies instrumentum 34, 283-309.

Choyke, A.M. 2003. Backward reflections on ancient environments: what can we learn from bone tools? in J. Lászlóvszky and P. Szabó, (eds.), People and Nature in Historical Perspective, Budapest, 138-156. Ciugudean, D. 1997. Obiecte din os, corn şi fildeş de la Apulum, Alba Iulia: Muzeul Naţional al Unirii.

Deringer, H. 1967. Provinzialrömische und germanische Knochenkämme aus Lauriacum. Jahrbuch des Oberösterreichisches Musealverein 112, H. 1, 59-60.

Cnotliwy, E. 1963. Grzebnie rogowe i kosciane od I do V w. n.e. na Pomorzu Zachodnim. IMaterialy ZachodnioPomorskie, Szczecin, t. 9, 167-219.

Dobre, J. 2000. Meşteşuguri la Dunărea de Jos (sec. IVX). Analele Dobrogei S.N., Constanţa, Romania VI/1, 8192.

Cnotliwy, E. 1996. Der Herkunftsursprung der Kämme aus Bitola (Heraclea Lyncestis) in der Republik Makedonia. Studia Gothica 1, Lublin, 101-111.

Dumitraşcu, S. 1982. O locuinţă-atelier de lucrat piepteni (sec. VI e.n.) descoperită la Biharea. Crisia, Oradea, Romania 12, 107-121.

Cociş, S. and Alicu, D. 1993. Obiecte din os din Dacia Apulensis şi Dacia Porolisensis. Acta Musei Porolisensis, Zalău, Romania XVII, 113-149.

Dumitraşcu, S. 1985. Un atelier de lucrat piepteni descoperit la Biharea. Crisia, Oradea, Romania 15, 6196.

Crummy, N. 2001. Bone-working in Roman Britain: a model for itinerant craftsmen? L'artisanat romain. Montagnac, Éditions Monique Mergoil, 97-109.

Gaitzsch, W. 1980. Eiserne Römische Werkzeuge. Studien zur romischen Werkzeugkunde in Italien und den nordlichen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Oxford, BAR International Series 78.

Cutler, A. 1985. The craft of Ivory. Sources, Techniques, and Uses in the Mediterranean World: A.D. 200-1400. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Davidan, O.I. 1962. Grebni Staroj Archeologičeskij Sbornik 4, 95-108.

Ladogi.

Ganciu, A., 2002-2003. Piepteni din corn şi os din secolele IV a.Chr.-I p.Chr. de la Dunărea de Jos. SCIVA 52-53, 53-82.

In:

167

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA Gudea, N., Bajusz, I. 1991. Ace de păr de la Porolisum. Acta Musei Porolisensis, Zalău, Romania XIV-XV, 1990-1991, 81-126.

Mitrea, I. 2007. Contribuţia cercetărilor arheologice de la Bîrlad-Valea Seacă la cunoaşterea Culturii Sântana de Mureş. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania II, 7-11.

Hrubý, V. 1955. Staré Město, velkomoravské pohrěbiště Na valách. Monumenta Archaeologica 3, Praha.

Moszynski, K. 1967. Kultura Ludowa Slowian 1, Warsaw: Ksiazka i Wiedza.

Hrubý, V. 1957. Slovanske kostene predmety a jelich vyroba na Morave. Památky Archeologické, Poland 48, 118-217.

Musteaţă, S. 2006. Meşteşugul prelucrării osului şi cornului la nordul Dunării de Jos în sec. VIII-IX. Revista Arheologică, Chişinău, Moldova S.N. II, nr. 1-2, 128142.

I Goti, Milano 1994. Catalog of an exhibition held at the Palazzo reale, Milan, Jan. 28-May 8, 1994. Milano, Electa.

Musteaţă, S. 2005. Prelucrarea osului în aşezările medievale timpurii de la Măşcăuţi-Livada Boierului şi Măşcăuţi-Cetate, (Republica Moldova). Argesis. Studii şi comunicări. Muzeul Judeţean Argeş, Piteşti, Romania 14, 203-224.

Ilkjær, J. 1989. The Weapons Sacrifices from Illerup, Ådal, Denmark. The Birth of Europe: Archaeology and Social Development in the First Millennium A.D., Roma.

Müller, A. 1990.Die Gothen und die TschernjachowSantana de Mures Kultur in Siebenbürgen. Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgsches Landeskunde, Heidelberg, Germany 13/1, 84 Jh., 5-14.

Ilkjær, J. 1993. Illerup Ådal. Die Gürtel. Bestandteile und Zubehör. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXV, 3-4, Aarhus.

Nikitina, G.F. 1969. Grebni Černjachovskoj Kul´tury. SA 1, 147-159.

Kazanski, M. and Laport, J. 1995. Quelques documents du Ve siècle ap. J.-C. Attribuables aux Wisigoths en Aquitaine. Aquitania XIII, 195-202.

Opreanu, C. 1992. Date preliminare privind prelucrarea osului în secolul al IV-lea e.n. în aşezarea de la Suceag (jud. Cluj). Ephemeris Napocensis, Academia Română, Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei, Cluj-Napoca, Romania II, 158-168.

Kokowski, A. 1998. Die Masłomęcz-Gruppe. Ihre Chronologie und Beziehungen innerhalb des gotischen Kulturkreises - Ein Beispiel für den kulturellen Wandel der Goten im Verlauf ihrer Wanderungen. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany 78 (1997), 641-833.

Palade, V. 1966. Ateliere pentru lucrat piepteni din os din sec. IV e.n. de la Bîrlad-Valea Seacă. Arheologia Moldovei. Academia Română - Filiala Iaşi, Institutul de Arheologie Iaşi, Bucharest, Romania IV, 261-277.

Larrieu, M., Marty, B. and Crubezy, E. 1985. La Nécropole Mérovingienne de la Turraque, Beaucairesur-Baïse (GERS), Toulouse.

Palade, V. 1969. Noi ateliere de lucrat piepteni din corn de cerb în secolul al IV-lea e.n. la Valea Seacă Bîrlad. Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă, Bacău, Romania II, 233-252.

Luik, H., Choyke, A.M., Batey, C. E. and Lõugas, L. (eds.) 2005. From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Munasaja Teadus.

Palade, V. 1971. Un nou centru de prelucrare a cornului de cerb din secolul al IV-lea e.n. de la Fedeşti, com. Şuletea (jud. Vaslui). Carpica, Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă, Bacău, Romania IV, 207-214.

MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn. The Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. London-Sydney-Totowa, 1st ed. 1985; 2nd ed. 2001.

Palade, V. 1981. Centrul meşteşugăresc de prelucrare a cornului de cerb de la Bîrlad-Valea Seacă, datând din secolul al IV-lea e.n. Studii şi comunicări de istorie a civilizaţiei populare din România, Sibiu, Romania 1, 179215.

Magomedov, B.V. 1992. Velika Snitinka 2 - poselennja grebinniki III-IV st. n.e. Starodavne vyrobnictvo na territorii Ukrainy, Kiev, S., 94-116.

Palade, V. 2004. Aşezarea şi necropola de la BîrladValea Seacă (sfârşitul sec. al III-lea – a doua jumătatea a sec. al. V-lea), Bucureşti.

Magomedov, B.V. 2001. Černjachovskaja kul´tura. Problema etnosa. Monumenta Studia Gothica I Lublin. Marcu, M. 1971. Noi cercetări privind secolul al IV-lea e.n. la Hărman. Cumidava, Muzeul Judeţean Braşov, Romania V, 1971, 45-54.

Petitjean, M. 1995. Les peignes en os à l'époque mérovingienne. Évolution depuis l'Antiquité tardive. Antiquités Nationales 27, 145-191.

168

ANTLER MANUFACTURING IN THE EASTERN CARPATHIAN REGIONS Petković, S. 1995. Rimski predmeti od kosti i roga sa teritorije Gornje Mezije, Beograd.

Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Georg-Augustus-Universität zu Göttingen.

Plenderleith, H.J. and A.E.A Werner, 1977. The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art. Revised Edition, London, Oxford University Press.

Teuber, S.W. 2005. Die Einlagenkämme der Römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit im freien Germanien, in K.-H. Willroth (Hrsg.), Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 25, Neumünster, 167-310.

Pohl, W. 1998. Telling the difference: Signs of ethnic identity, in W. Pohl and H. Reimitz, (eds.), Strategies of Distinction. Leiden/Boston/Köln, the Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800, 17-70.

Thomas, S. 1960. Studien zu den germanischen Kämmen der römischen , in W. Coblemz (Hrsg.), Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur Sächsischen, Bodendenkmalpflege 8, Leipzig, 54-215.

Rikman, E.A. 1967. Pamjatnik epochi velikogo pereselenija narodov. Po raskopkam poselenija i mogil’nika Černjachovskoj kul’tury u sela Budešty, Kišinev: Kartja Moldovenjasca.

Tiefenbach, H. 2000. Kamm. Sprachliches. Berlin/New York, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 16, 200-201.

Roes, A. 1963. Bone and Antler Objects from Frisian Tepmounds. Haarlem.

Timoc, C. 2007. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în provincia Dacia, in D. Benea (ed.), Meşteşuguri şi artizani în Dacia romană, Timişoara, 171-188.

Rotaru, Gh. 2006. Unelte din os din aşezările Noua situate în partea de SE a jud. Vaslui. Acta Mvsei Tutovensis, Barlad, Romania I, 129-147.

Ulbricht, I. 1978. Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu, Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 7, Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.

Rummel, Ph. v., 2007. Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Berlin/New York.

Ulbricht, I. 1980. Middelalderling kamproduktio i Slesvig. Hikuin 6, 147-152.

Rusu, A.A. and Florin Mărgineanu 2005. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în Transilvania medievală (început de abordare tematică). Arheologia Medievală, Romania V, 141-158.

Ulbricht, I. 2000. Kamm. Archäologisches, in R. Müller, (Hrsg.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Alterumskunde 16. Berlin/New York, 201-206.

Rybakov, B.A. 1948. Remeslo Drevnej Rusi, Moskva.

Van Ossel, P. and Rodet-Belarbi, I. 2007. L'utilisation du bois de cerf durant l'Antiquité tardive: un marqueur culturel ? Abstracts of the 6th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group /ICAZ. Paris, August 27th-31st 2007, 34.

Schach-Dörges, H. 1994. Zu einreihigen Dreilagenkämmen des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts aus Südwestdeuschland. Fundberichte aus BadenWürttemberg 19, 1, 661-702.

Vornic, V. 2006. Aşezarea şi necropola de tip Sântana de Mureş-Černjachov de la Budeşti, Monografii ANTIM 3, Chişinău: Pontos.

Šarygina, M. V. 2006. K voprosu o proischoždenii zoomorfnych grebnej ėpochi Velikogo pereselenija narodov v Evrope. Arheološki Vestnik, Acta Archaeologica, Ljubljana, Slovenia 13, 254-263.

Werner, J. 1988. Dančeny und Brandgrup. Untersuchungen zur Černjachov-Kultur zwischen Sereth und Dniestr und zu den ´Reichtumszentren´auf Fünen. Bonner Jahrbücher 188, 241-286.

Šiškin, R.G. 1999. Klassifikacija i tipologija trechslojnych grebnej černjachovskoj kul’try. Sto rokiv vivčennja kul’tur poliv pochovan’ na Ukraijni, Kiyv, 4348.

Werner, I. 1990. Eiserne Wollkämme der jüngeren Kaiserzeit aus dem freien Germanien. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany 68, 2, 608-611.

Ščukin, M.B. 1977. Sovremennoe sostojanie gotskoj problemy i černjachovskaja kul’tura. Archeologičeskij Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža 18, 79-91. Ščukin, M.B. 2005. Gotskij put’. Goty, černjachovskaja kul’tura. Sank-Peterburg.

Rim

Wyss, R. 1973. Wirtschaft und Geselschaft in der Jungsteinzeit, Bern.

i

Zurowski, K. 1953. Uwagina temat obrobki rogu w okresie wczeno-sredniowiecznym. Památky Archeologické, Poland 9, 395-402.

Tempel, W.-D. 1969. Die Dreilagenkaemme aus Haithabu: Studien zu den Kaemmen der Wikingerzeit im Nordseekuestengebiet und Skandinavien. Dissertation zur

169

SERGIU MUSTEAŢĂ* AND ALEXANDRU POPA Zurowski, K. 1973. Methoden zum Weichmachen von Geweih und Knochen in frühslawischen Werkstätten. Berichten über den II Internationalen Kongres für Slawische Archäologie, Berlin, 483-490. Zurowski, K. 1974. Zmiekczanie porozy i kosci stosowane przez wytworcow w starozytnosci i we wczesnym sredniowieczu. Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, Archaeologia, Torun 4, 3-23. On-line Sources: International Council for Archaeozoology - Worked Bone Research Group: http://www.wbrg.net WBRG Knochenarbeit. Archaeozoology, taphonomy and worked bone: http://www.knochenarbeit.de Medieval Animal Database (MAD): http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/mad/resources/mad_conte nt.htm

170

Highland Tunes in the Lowlands: a Medieval Vulture Bone Flute from Northern Germany Hans Christian KÜCHELMANN Bremen, Germany Abstract A recent find of a medieval bone flute manufactured from a vulture ulna is presented. It was found at the site of the castle in the North German town of Vechta. Discrepancies between species identification, typology and find location are discussed. Benno 2nd of Osnabrück in the course of the construction of the so-called Rheinische Straße, an important merchant’s route between the cities Osnabrück and Bremen. Its location at a ford explains Vechta’s strategic importance for military as well as toll collecting purposes. The architecture of the castle was a simple circular structure surrounded by a ditch with two door houses (Figure 1a-b). The flute was found next to one of these (Figure 1). The castle was demolished between 1689 and 1698, when it was replaced by a state of the art citadel fortification. Although there were times when the castle was inhabited by members of the high nobility – e.g. from 1248 to 1251 by Jutta von Ravensberg, a close relative of the Staufer king Friedrich 1st – it was never one of the major noble courts in the region. Nevertheless Vechta was a wealthy merchant’s town until the 15th century (Fahl-Dreger 2005; pers. com. 4-5/2008). The city of Vechta is situated at an altitude of 37m above sea level about 90km from the North Sea coast in a flat marshy area dominated by extended peat bogs.

Introduction, archaeological context and historical background In this report a medieval bird bone flute from Northern Germany will be presented. It is an outstanding artefact in itself and, additionally, it possesses several peculiar features and circumstances. The flute was found during a rescue excavation in the summer of 2005 at the site of the medieval castle of Vechta, a county capitol in the north of the federal state of Niedersachsen (cf. Figure 2). It was retrieved by hand sorting of the filling material from the castle’s defence ditch. The flute was broken into two pieces that could be reassembled. The two pieces were not found associated with each other; instead different persons at different spots on different days excavated them. The castle of Vechta was mentioned in historic documents for the first time in 1221, the surrounding village in 1188. However, according to historic sources Vechta was probably founded as early as 1080 by Bishop

Figure 1: a) Drawing of the Vechta castle by P. B. von Smytz (between 1683 and 1689); b) archaeological site plan; c) detail of site plan with door house area; d) door house foundations. Arrows indicate the approximate location of the flute find (plan and photo: M. Wesemann).

171

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN Finds from the site include large amounts of pottery sherds, animal bones, metal and glass objects. The pottery was dated mainly to the 14th century; a few pieces date back to the 11th century (Fahl-Dreger, pers. com. 3/2007). Due to the coarse methods applied in the rescue excavation no detailed stratigraphic information is available. The bone material consists of 995 fragments, 706 of which could be identified to the species level. The species represented comprise the common spectrum of medieval domesticates (cattle, pig, sheep, goat, dog, hen, cat, goose, duck, dove in order of abundance) plus a few bones of wild mammals and birds (roe deer, hare, squirrel, mole, crow). Apart from the flute two pieces of handles made from red deer antler are the only worked bone objects found (Mahlitz-Frey 2006).

The bone could readily be assigned to a bird by its structure and morphology. The epiphyses are missing but the shape of the cross sections and the localisation of the vascular channel (foramen nutricium, Figure 3b-c) identify it as a right ulna. The remaining length of the bone is 266.9mm; some additional anatomical measurements are given in figure 3b. Species identification, however, turned out to be an unexpectedly complicated task. Identification difficulties were mainly due to some extraordinary features of the bone: the complete lack of quill knobs (papillae remigiales caudales) and its extraordinarily straight shape (in contrast to most bird ulnae which show at least a slight convex curvature of the caudal side). These features are due to the fact that the bird was juvenile. Quill knobs are the insertion points of the wing feathers and develop in reaction to muscle activity during flight. Also typical for juvenile bird bones are the rough texture of the bone surface (Figure 3) as well as the relatively large diameter of the foramen nutricium, which becomes narrower in adult birds (Figure 3b-c). Comparisons covered most large bird species (cranes, pelicans, storks, herons, swans, birds of prey, albatross, great bustard, eagle owl) before the bone could finally be assigned with confidence to a vulture (sub-family Aegypiinae). The length of the bone limits the range to two species, the griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) and the black vulture (Aegypius monachus). Discrimination of the two species would be possible using the morphological features of the epiphyses (Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 342-346), but these were removed by the craftsman. The same authors also give criteria for the separation of both species using the localisation of the foramen nutricium. In Gyps the foramen tends to be located more towards the proximal end of the ulna than in Aegypius. Compared to complete ulnae, approximately 13 - 15mm are missing to the defined measuring point at the proximal flute end (Figure 3b-c), resulting in an estimated value for the distance between the foramen nutricium and the proximal epiphysis (FP) of 91 - 93mm. This value is below the observed range of Aegypius and within the range of Gyps, therefore the bone belonged most probably to a Griffon vulture.

Bone flutes are principally not uncommon objects in medieval North German contexts. Usually they were manufactured from tibiae of sheep (Ovis aries) and goat (Capra hircus)1. Less common are flutes made of bird bones. Local medieval bird bone flutes were mainly made from goose bones (Anser sp.), with exceptional specimens from swan (Cygnus sp.), eagle (Accipitridae) or heron (Ardea sp.) (cf. Table 2). In most cases ulnae were employed (Brade 1975; 1978; Tamboer 1999, 1011; Ulbricht 1984, 40-41, 61-62, pl. 44).

Figure 2: Map showing the location of Vechta (black) in relation to the geographic distribution of the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) (dark grey). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Gyps_fulvus_dis.PNG).

The identification of a vulture is surprising since the North German lowlands have no vulture habitats and never had in historic times. Griffon and black vultures prefer mountainous habitats for breeding. Seacoasts and wetlands are not favoured. The present day European residential distribution of both vulture species includes the Iberian and Balkan Peninsulas, Southern France, Italy, Romania, Hungary and several Mediterranean islands (cf. Figure 2). Additionally historical distribution of the griffon vulture is known for 19th century Austria and for the Schwäbische Alb in Bavaria, Germany up to the 18th century. In the 13th century Albertus Magnus noted griffon vultures nesting in the German mountains of Hunsrück, Hochwald and Donnersberg today in the

Archaeozoology The archaeozoological identification of the flute from Vechta was accomplished morphologically with the aid of the osteological reference collections of the Archäologisch-Zoologische Arbeitsgruppe SchleswigKiel (AZA), Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schleswig, the Vogelsammlung (bird collection) of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (NMW VS/Sk) and the Labóratorio de Arqueozoologia, Instituto Português de Arqueologia (CIPA), Lisboa. For anatomical terminology Nickel et al. (2004) is applied.

172

HIGHLAND TUNES IN THE LOWLANDS

Figure 3: Vulture bone flute from Vechta with anatomical (black rectangle) and technical (black) measurements (mm); a) caudal aspect; b) cranial aspect; c) right ulna of griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus; CIPA 2083), cranial aspect; d) detail blow-hole; e) detail grinding marks; f) detail fracture (photos: J. Paulo Ruas).

173

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN federal state of Rheinland-Pfalz. Griffons recently resettled in the Austrian Alps. The black vulture is less common than the griffon and its distribution is declining. While griffons are gregarious and often breed in colonies the black vulture is more solitary. Both vulture species are long distance flyers and immature (1 – 6 year old) birds, in particular, migrate far from their breeding places2. They also appear frequently north of their breeding range. There are records of both species from England, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Finland (Bouchner 1976, 38, 40; Brohmer 1995, 473; Cramp and Simmons 1980, 73-75, 89-91; Fischer 1976, 383-388; Heinzel et al. 1972, 84). To conclude: although it is not completely impossible to see a vulture in Northern Germany, this is not their preferred region and the evidence of a juvenile individual places the origin of the bone in the vicinity of a breeding situation. Therefore the catch of a wild juvenile vulture in Vechta is extremely unlikely. The approximate distances from Vechta to the nearest historic and actual breeding areas are 300km to the Hunsrück, 450km to the Schwäbische Alb, 700km to the Alps and more than 1200km to the Pyrenees.

marks on the cranio-ventral edge of the proximal third of the bone (Figure 3e). Finally the breakage in the middle of the bone (Figure 3f) has to be discussed. The edges of the fracture are of the same colour as the surface of the flute. Since two different people found the pieces on different occasions, a fracture during recovery can be excluded. So far it is most likely that the fracture is an historic event after which the flute was discarded into the defence ditch. The fracture line runs through the two opposed holes, obviously the weakest point of the object. Therefore the question remains whether or not the fracture might have occurred during manufacture. If this were the case, it must have happened while drilling the very last existing hole (as it seems illogical to continue work on a broken object). This is unlikely, as both holes are finished and of a regular shape. If an object breaks during drilling it would break at the moment pressure is applied by the drill, leaving an unfinished drill hole, and not after the drill has completely penetrated the substantia compacta and the pressure is released.

As the length of the bone is approximately like that of an adult the vulture must have been a subadult but cannot have had much flight experience. Both species are fledged within 100 to 130 days (Bouchner 1976, 38, 40; Cramp and Simmons 1980, 79, 94) and therefore the bird was probably around this age when it died or was killed. As the hatching of nestlings begins in April, death probably occurred in late summer (August to October).

A detailed typological and acoustic analysis will have to be performed by scholars skilled in musical archaeology and musical science. Nevertheless some preliminary hypotheses can already be laid out here.

Preliminary typological and cultural assessment

Raw material selection As already pointed out in the introduction, the vast majority of local bone flutes were made from ovicaprid tibiae and even among the examples of bird bone flutes, the large species are rare finds. There are no vulture bone flutes known from the archaeological record of Germany, and with the exception of two Roman finds from Nijmegen, Netherlands (cf. Table 1-4, 1-5) there are none from any other North European country3. In contrast several flutes made from vulture bones are recorded from the Mediterranean region. So far there are 19 published specimens from France, twelve from Spain, two from Portugal and one each from Austria and Syria (Table 1)4. A question to be addressed is why this specific bone might have been chosen as a raw material by the craftsman. This may comprise functional reasons, availability or a deliberate choice related to some overlying cultural consideration. Numerous examples show that ulnae, radii and tibiotarsi of large birds like eagles, vultures, swans, storks, cranes or flamingos are suitable blanks for flutes, from the Palaeolithic until today5. We may assume therefore that the bones of large birds living in the vicinity of the site may have been chosen primarily for functional reasons (Table 2). A look at the zoogeographical and archaeozoological context, however, reveals that Vechta is neither a vulture habitat nor does the assemblage contain bones of vultures or any other bird of prey. The question of easy availability of vulture bones therefore can be negated. It is notable that

Artefact morphology and taphonomy The ulna has been cut at the proximal and distal ends right above the epiphyses, perpendicular to the bone axis (Figure 3a-b). The cut shows a very regular plane and was most probably performed with a saw. On the distal half of the caudal side of the bone six finger-holes were applied, all of which are circular with a diameter of ca. 3.0mm and have certainly been drilled (Figure 3a). While holes n°1 – 2 and 4 – 6 are set in a straight line, hole n°3 is slightly offset to the ventral side of the bone respectively the right side of the flute (Figure 3a). Hole n°6 is opposed by a thumb-hole on the cranial side (Figure 3b). The perimeter of the cranial hole is not exactly circular; it has a slight oval shape of 3.0 x 3.9mm. There is a straight axis through both holes, which is not exactly perpendicular to the axis of the bone; instead it runs in a slight angle from cranio-distal to proximocaudal. These features suggest that both holes were drilled in one action beginning from the cranial side. Situated near the proximal end is a square opening of 5.0 x 4.4mm side length used as blow-hole. Its distal side has an oblique bevelled shape used as labium (Figure 3d). For technical measurements of the flute see figure 3. Apart from drilling and cutting traces there are grinding

174

HIGHLAND TUNES IN THE LOWLANDS large birds of prey do have a specific meaning in various cultures, often related to status, prestige, magical or ritual beliefs. Powers assigned to an animal are believed to be transferred to the person dealing with parts of the animal. For a compilation about the historic relationship between man and vulture see Becker (2005, 334). Therefore a deliberate choice of a vulture bone as raw material for some deeper reason seems not completely unlikely.

while in the former local manners dominate the manufacturing process. Finger-holes are always circular and have been applied perpendicular to the bone surface, mainly by drilling, often with subsequent carving of the edge of the hole. The diameter of the finger-holes ranges from 2.2 – 6.2mm with a mean of 3 – 4mm. There is no correlation between the length of a flute and the diameter of the finger-holes. Thumb-holes appear on 20% of the finds (n = 25). There is no strict correlation between the existence of a thumb-hole and the number of fingerholes, but it seems that flutes with six or more fingerholes often possess a thumb-hole. The location of the thumb-hole in relation to the last finger-hole is in nearly all cases above the first finger-hole (high), only two Norwegian flutes possess a low thumb-hole6. Shape and size of the blow-hole and especially the labium (the distal edge of the blow-hole used to cut the air-current) are of importance for the acoustic character of a flute. Circular, D-shaped or square shapes are the dominant forms of medieval blow-holes. The size of the blow-hole ranges from 4 – 7mm in height and from 5 – 9mm in breadth. The blow-hole is in most cases situated between 10 and 30mm from the upper margin. There is a correlation between the number of finger-holes and the shape of the blow-hole: six finger-holes correlate always with square blow-holes. A straight-lined labium set perpendicular to the bone axis with an oblique sharpened edge has the best acoustic qualities, but only a minor number of medieval flutes show this feature (Brade 1975, 26-38, 45-48).

Functional considerations In order to produce a melodic tune, the air column in the corpus of a flute has to be set into vibration. There are four principal methods known to generate this vibration. In reed flutes a reed inserted in the upper end of the flute is set into vibration by the blower. Flutes of the Arabian nay-type have an oblique proximal edge over which the air-stream is divided. Transverse flutes have a closed upper end and the vibration is generated by blowing directly over the edge of a blow-hole situated in the proximal third of the flute. In duct flutes a block with a channel inside is inserted in the upper end through which the air is led onto the edge (labium) of a blow-hole. Table 1-6 to 1-9 and table 2 display features of comparative finds of medieval large bird bone flutes. To shed light on the question how the specimen from Vechta fits into the context of other contemporary flutes it is useful to widen the perspective on bone flutes in general6. In her elaborate work on medieval Middle and Northern European duct flutes Brade (1975) analysed 120 bone flutes from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Although several new finds have emerged since 1975, the general typological picture remains the same. The predominant size range of medieval Northern and Middle European flutes is 130 – 180mm; larger examples are rare and none exceed 240mm. This fact is related to the predominant choice of ovicaprid bones as raw material. The predominant number of finger-holes is three; four and five finger-holes are less common, only three flutes display six fingerholes, and one possesses seven. Surprisingly no correlation between length and number of finger-holes was found. Several flutes with four to six finger-holes are rather short and within the standard size range of 130 180mm. Most large bird bone flutes (> 200mm) have four to five finger-holes, but there is also one with two (Table 2-15) and one without finger-holes (Table 2-24). The location and the size of the finger-holes determine the length of the vibrating air column and thus the tone pitch of a flute. A separation of the finds into three types of finger-hole locations (high-, middle- and low-standing6) reveals a predominance of middle and low finger-hole locations in association with two to four finger-holes. In contrast, five to seven finger-holes are always located high. An analysis of the geographical distribution of the different types of finger-hole numbers and locations leads Brade to the hypothesis that the latter may be a widespread and general functional manufacturing principle

The Vechta flute belongs to the type “K h 6 + 1e”, where “K” stands for duct flute (in German Kernspaltflöte), “h 6” for six high-standing finger-holes and “+ 1e” for one thumb-hole located opposite (equal) to the last fingerhole. A comparison of the Vechta flute with regional finds shows that it is longer than any other regional example. The number of six finger-holes is a rare case. The size, shape and location of finger-holes and blowhole fits into the observed typological scheme. The shape of the blow-hole is typical for a duct flute. The diameter of the finger-holes is at the lower margin of the observed range, a fact that may be related to the slender shape of the juvenile bone. The edges of the finger-holes show no traces of working beyond the drilling process. The combination of six high-standing finger-holes with a square blow-hole is consistent with the regional observations but points into the direction of supraregional manufacturing principles. The existence of a thumb-hole opposite to the first finger-hole is a feature without regional comparison. The combination of a square blow-hole with a straight and sharpened labium, six finger-holes and one thumb-hole is an expression of an advanced manufacturing technique. There is no decoration. Geographical, cultural and chronological considerations As has been pointed out in the previous section, flutes with six finger-holes are exceptional in Middle and

175

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN Northern Europe, but they are common in the Mediterranean and Balkan region7. According to Moeck (1977, 14, 24-25, fig. 32, 60-61) and Brade (1975, 46-49) thumb-holes are in most cases located above the first finger-hole (high-standing). Examples with thumb-holes opposite to (equal) or below the first finger-hole are rare. Finds of the latter two types in combination with six finger-holes and a square blow-hole are restricted to the Mediterranean region8. Moeck and Brade associate them with Islamic influences.

melodic, yet very low sound. A whole scale can be played, but the intonation is not ‘spotlessly clean’. After tuning by the enlargement of finger-holes 2, 4 - 6 and the thumb-hole to a diameter of 3.5 – 4.0mm the intonation was clean with a pitch range covering one and a half octaves.

Focusing on the Middle Ages, there appears to be a preference for vulture ulnae as a favoured raw material for musical instruments in the Iberian Peninsula. Apart from the flutes from Del Val, Zaragoza and Alarcos (Table 1-6, 1-8, 1-9) there are nine drilled and decorated vulture ulnae that probably represent parts of musical instruments other than flutes9. It is noticeable that except the flutes from Vechta and Del Val (Table 1-6), all medieval finds are related to Islamic contexts. This is backed by the association of vultures with magical beliefs in the Islamic culture, as Becker (2005, 334) points out. A comparison between the instruments from Islamic contexts with the pre-medieval finds shows a significant difference and an advance in the accuracy of the manufacturing technique and efforts taken in decoration (Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 341-342). A reflection of this cultural affinity to vultures may be found in modern vulture bone flutes in Iberian folklore (Table 1-12 to 122). Worth mentioning in this regard are modern folklore flutes from Palestine10 and Turkey11 made from eagle bones, as they again point towards Islamic culture. The Vechta flute is not decorated but it is extraordinary in respect to its fine workmanship compared to other local flutes. This, combined with typological reasons, supports the hypothesis that the Vechta flute originally belonged to an Islamic context as well.

Figure 4: Replication of the Vechta vulture bone flute (photos: J. Paulo Ruas).

Historical settings What kind of conclusions can we draw at present from the facts outlined above? How does a bone flute made of a highland bird species reach a medieval North German marshland town? Of course all possible answers to this question are hypothetical but it might be interesting to sum up the imaginable options, to weigh them in light of the facts and to sort them into more or less probable assumptions. In principle, three options are possible:

Replication In January 2008, in Lisboa, Carlos Pimenta and the author built two metrically exact replicas of the flute from right ulnae of adult griffon vultures. Both ulnae were retrieved from vultures found dead by environmental staff in Portugal 2007. One was found in the Peneda-Gerês National Park (CIPA n°2083), the other in the Parque Ecológico de Monsanto, Lisboa (CIPA n°2041). The replicas were manufactured with modern tools (bench vice, handsaw, drilling machine, files, scalpel, sandpaper, Dremel-Mini-Tool) (Figure 4). One replica is now housed in the Museum im Zeughaus Vechta (n°2041), the other in the Labóratorio de Arqueozoologia Lisboa (n°2083).

-

-

Option A: The bone came to Vechta in the body of a living bird, either a wild migrating vulture or a captive animal. After its death a local craftsmen manufactured the flute from its ulna. Option B: The wing of a vulture was imported from abroad from which a local craftsman manufactured the flute. Option C: The finished flute was imported from abroad.

As discussed before, the appearance of a wild juvenile vulture in Vechta is highly unlikely. However, captive exotic animals were sometimes kept at aristocratic courts as status symbols. They were (and still are) used as diplomatic exchange gifts. Examples are the keeping of peacocks and fallow deer by the aristocracy since the Middle Ages. Wealthy people used parts of bird wings as fans. An argument against options A and B are the

The analysis of the replicas for their acoustic and musical capacities12 is not finished. The first preliminary results were produced by flute builder Edith Exo (pers. com. 46/2008). Exo equipped the replica with a block made of bee’s wax. This way it can be played as a recorder with a

176

HIGHLAND TUNES IN THE LOWLANDS typological differences between the Vechta flute and other local flute finds. For a North European background a vulture may not appear to be an adequate choice if the presentation of status is desired, but this may change if a foreign origin is taken into account. Most plausible to me seems option C. In addition to the zoological and typological arguments for an import of the finished artefact, there is historical evidence for contact between local nobles and the Mediterranean region. Earl Gerd der Mutige (Gerd the Brave) of Oldenburg, a neighbouring town, died in 1500 on his return from a pilgrim’s voyage to Santiago de Compostela. A local legend tells about the participation of another Earl of Oldenburg in a Palestinian crusade in the 13th century. The most convincing idea for me is that of a travelling musician from the Mediterranean region who brought his instrument and broke it in Vechta13.

Note 2: Spanish griffons were recorded up to 600km away from their breeding range (Cramp and Simmons 1980, 75); a griffon vulture ringed as a fledgling in the 1970s in France was recorded in the Lori-region of Armenia in the late 1980s, a distance of more than 3300km (Aghababian pers. com. 30. 4. 2008). Note 3: If anybody is aware of finds not mentioned in this paper, a note would be highly appreciated. Note 4: One additional Roman flute stored at the Landesmuseum Mainz, Germany (Mikler 1997, 32, 131, pl. 23.1; inv. n° R 2385) shall be mentioned here. It is not zoologically identified yet, but its size (L = 245mm) includes the option of another vulture bone flute. Note 5: Besides the examples mentioned in Table 1-2 see e.g. Ayalon and Sorek 1999, 46, fig. 57-58; Krenn 1996, 29, fig. 21; Mikler 1997, 32, 131, pl. 23; Moreno-Garcia 2005; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 337-341, fig. 8-9; Münzel 2004; Pimenta and Moreno-Garcia 2007; Schallmayer 1994; Serjeantson (in prep.); Tsvetkova 1970, fig. 22.22; Zhang et al. 1999.

Contrary to the evidence suggesting a Mediterranean origin, one historical fact has to be mentioned pointing towards Southern Germany: the aforementioned noble Jutta von Ravensberg married the Earl Wolfram von Monschau in 1251 and moved to his home in the Eifel mountains in the federal state Rheinland-Pfalz. She lived there until 1266 but kept contacts with Northern Germany and probably visited Vechta more or less frequently until her death around 1302. Monschau is situated less than 100km from the 13th century griffon breeding habitat in the Hunsrück mentioned by Albertus Magnus. Therefore a southern German origin cannot be completely ruled out, but the typology and the lack of comparable finds speak against this argument.

Note 6: Typological terms used here follow the definitions of Moeck (1977, 17-18) and Brade (1975, 33, 36, 61-62): numbering of finger-holes begins at the lowest hole as this defines the base pitch of the flute; location of finger-holes (fh): high = last fh above half of flute length, middle = last fh between 1/2 and lower 1/3 of flute length, low = last fh below lower 1/3 of flute length; location of thumb-hole: high = above last fh, equal = opposite to last fh, low = between last and 2ndto-last fh.

Summary

Note 7: Several examples are reported from Southern France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania; see Tables 1-6, 1-15, 1-17, 1-18; 2-1, 2-25 and Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417423; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 332-333; Moeck 1977, 21-23, fig. 37a, 41, 45-51.

The bird bone flute presented here, from a presumably 14th century deposit from Vechta, Niedersachsen, Germany, could be assigned to a right ulna of a vulture, most probably a griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus). The geographic distribution of this bird species does not correlate with the location of the find. A preliminary typological assessment highlights differences between the Vechta flute and regional flutes, making a local origin unlikely. The specific combination of functional features as well as the zoological analysis point towards a geographically Mediterranean and culturally Islamic origin. A review of the references on medieval large bird bone flutes shows that the Vechta flute is one of the best preserved examples of its kind. This allowed the possibility to produce exact replicas. An acoustic analysis of the replicas is under way and it may be possible for the original to be analysed acoustically in the future.

Note 8: One rare exception worth mentioning is a flute type from Scandinavia with 5 - 8 finger-holes plus one high or equal thumb-hole, but this type is always combined with a D-shaped blow-hole (Brade 1975, 4648, 76-77, pl. 11a, DK 7, 15; Moeck 1977, 22, 25, fig. 42). Note 9: Finds from Albarracin, Alarcos, Jaén, Spain and Mértola, Portugal (Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-419; 2006, 227-235, fig. 1-5, 7; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 334-341, fig. 5-9) Note 10: Ayalon and Sorek (1999, 46, fig. 58) present a mid 20th century Beduin reed flute from the Arad region, Israel; it is a double flute made of two eagle ulnae equipped with six finger-holes each.

Note 1: see for instance Assendorp 2008; Bischop 2005; Brade 1975; 1978; Erath 1996, 207; Grefen-Peters 2005; Lehmkuhl 1985; Lehnert 1997, 61-62, pl. 19.2; Moeck 1977; Rech 2004, 391-392, fig. 397.3; Tamboer 1999, 10-11; Ulbricht 1984, 40-41, 61-62, pl. 43, 91.

177

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN Note 11: The Cigirtma is a flute made from eagle ulnae played by Turkish herdsmen with six finger-holes and one thumb-hole: (http://www.discoverturkey.com/english/kultursanat/b-hcigirtma.html).

Ayalon, E. and Sorek, C. 1999. Bare Bones – Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones. Tel Aviv.

Note 12: For acoustic research about archaeological flute finds see for instance Brade 1975, 51-83; 1978; Hahn and Hein 1995; Hein and Hahn 1998; Hickmann et al. 2002; Lochner 2000; Oomen 1968; Paniagua 2007; Seeberger 2004; Zhang et al. 1999.

Becker, C. 2005. The sound of music over ar-Raqqa – on a rare find of a flute from an Islamic glassworks. Revue de Paléobiologie, vol. 10, 327-336.

Bartha, D. 1934. Die Avarische Doppelschalmei von Jánoshida. Budapest.

Bischop, D. 2005. Flötentöne am Flussufer. Archäologie in Deutschland 2/2005, 40.

Note 13: For notes about travelling musicians see e.g. Brade 1975, 49, 58; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 346.

Brade, C. 1975. Die mittelalterlichen Kernspaltflöten Mittel- und Nordeuropas, Neumünster, Göttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 14.

Acknowledgements Brade, C. 1978. Knöcherne Kernspaltflöten aus Haithabu. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 12, 24-34.

I would like to thank Ernst Bauernfeind (Vogelsammlung Naturhistorisches Museum Wien), Dirk Heinrich and Wolfgang Lage (Archäologisch-Zoologische Arbeitsgruppe Schleswig-Kiel), Marta Moreno-Garcia, Carlos Pimenta and Simon Davis (Labóratorio de Arqueozoologia, Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa) for the opportunity to use their reference collections and for valuable references and comments. Very special gratitude goes to Marta and Carlos for inviting me to Lisboa and providing me with otherwise inaccessible vulture bones for the replicas. Further comments and references were provided by Karen Aghababian, Etan Ayalon, Cornelia Becker, Eduardo Corona, Astrid Dingeldey, Erika Gal, Anthony Legge, Joris Peters, Francois Poplin, Wietske Prummel, Frank Salvadori, Dale Serjeantson, Ulla Steinklauber, Manuel Thomas, Tommy Tyrberg, Angela von den Driesch, Mikhail Zhilin and Petar Zidarov. Edith Exo shared her preliminary results in testing the replica. José Paulo Ruas and Frank Scheffka provided excellent photographs. Daniela Nordholz and Lena Wöhlke lectured the manuscript. And last but not least the good cooperation with the archaeological institutions should be mentioned, namely Axel Fahl-Dreger and Katja Mahlitz-Frey (Museum im Zeughaus Vechta) and Michael Wesemann (Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Referat Archäologie, Stützpunkt Oldenburg).

Brohmer, P. 1984. Fauna von Deutschland, Heidelberg, 16. Auflage. Bouchner, M. 1976. Taschenatlas der Greifvögel und Eulen. Hanau/Main. Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L. (eds.) 1980. Handbook of the Birds of Europe the Middle East and North Africa, The Birds of the Western Palearctic, volume II: Hawks to Bustards, Oxford. Czeika, S. and Ranseder, C. 2007. Knochen lesen: Tierknochen als Zeugen der Vergangenheit. Wien, Archäologisch 3. Erath, M. 1996. Studien zum mittelalterlichen Knochenschnitzerhandwerk: Die Entwicklung eines spezialisierten Handwerks in Konstanz, Dissertation Universität Freiburg. Online at: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/526/pdf/1_Textband.pdf

Fahl-Dreger, A. 2005. Die Burg Vechta von ihren Anfängen bis zur Demolierung. Vechta. online at: http://www.mittelalter-zentrum.eu/Publikationen/Burg.pdf

Fischer, W. 1976. Unterfamilie Altweltgeier in B. Grzimek (Hrsg.), Grzimeks Tierleben, Band 7: Vögel I, Zürich, 381-394.

Hans Christian Küchelmann Diplom-Biologe Konsul-Smidt-Straße 30 D-28217 Bremen Germany [email protected]

Gál, E. 2005. New data on bird bone artefacts from Hungary and Romania, in H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Munasaja Teadus 15, 325-338.

References cited Assendorp, J. J. 2008. Bardowick: eine untergegangene Stadt. Archäologie in Deutschland 2/2008, 44.

Grefen-Peters, S. 2005. Übung macht den Meister. Eine

178

HIGHLAND TUNES IN THE LOWLANDS Knochenflöte aus Rotenburg an der Wümme. Oldenburg, Archäologie in Niedersachsen 8, 54-56.

Mahlitz-Frey, K. 2006. Die Tierknochenfunde der archäologischen Ausgrabung der Burg Vechta im Sommer 2005. Vechta. Online at: http://www.mittelalter-

Hahn, J. and Hein, W. 1995. Eiszeitorchester. Experimentelle Nachbildung von Knochenflöten aus der jüngeren Altsteinzeit, in A. Scheer (Hrsg.), Experimentelle Archäologie, Eiszeitwerkstatt – Blaubeuren, Museumsheft 2.

zenrum.eu/Publikationen/(Tierknochenfunde%20der%20Ausgrabung%20der%20 Burg%20Vechta_Auswertung_205).pdf

Mikler, N. 1997. Die römischen Funde aus Bein im Landesmuseum Mainz. Montagnac, Instrumentum Monographies 1.

Hein, W. and Hahn, J. 1998. Experimentelle Nachbildung von Knochenflöten aus dem Aurignacien der Geissenklösterle-Höhle, in M. Fansa (Hrsg.), Experimentelle Archäologie in Deutschland – Bilanz 1997, Oldenburg, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft 19.

Moeck, H. 1977. Typen europäischer Kernspaltflöten. Celle. Moreno-García, M. 2005. Aerófono en ulna de grulla, in S. Quero Castro, A. Pérez Navarro, J. Morín de Pablos, and D. Urbina Martínez (eds.), El Cerro de La Gavia. El Madrid que encontraron los romanos. Catálogo de la Exposición del Museo de San Isidro. Madrid, 203-204.

Heinzel, H., Fitter, R. and Parslow, J. 1972. The Birds of Britain and Europe. London. Hickmann, E., Draffkorn-Kilmer, A. and Eichmann, R. 2002. Studies in Music Archaeology III. Rhaden.

Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. 2004. Arqueozoologia cultural: o aerofone de Conímbriga. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 7 (2), 407-425.

Kerig, T. 2004. Schwanenflügelknochen-Flöte – Vor 35 000 Jahren erfinden Eiszeitjäger die Musik, Stuttgart.

Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. 2006. Música através dos ossos?... Propostas para o reconhecimento de instrumentos musicais no al-Ândalus, in Al-Ândalus. Espaço de mudança. Balanço de 25 Anos de História e Arqueologia Medievais. Actas Seminário Internacional Homenagem a Juan Zozaya Stabel-Hansen, 226-239.

Kozák, J. 1997. Kettétört Csontsípszár a Bijelo Brdoi Avarkori Temetöben [Broken Bone Pipe from the Avar Period Cemetery of Bielo Brdo]. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1997, 195-203. Krenn, E. 1996. Führer durch das Museum und das Grabungsgelände von Flavia Solva. Graz, Sprechende Steine 10.

Moreno-García, M., Pimenta, C. and Gros, M. 2005. Musical vultures in the Iberian Peninsula: sounds through their wings, in G. Grupe and J. Peters (eds.), Feathers, grit and symbolism. Birds and humans in the ancient Old and New Worlds, Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of the ICAZ Bird Working Group in Munich. Rahden, Documenta Archaeobiologiae 3, 329-347.

Lawson, G. and d’Errico, F. 2002. Microscopic, experimental and theoretical re-assessment of Upper Palaeolithic bird-bone pipes from Isturitz, France. Ergonomics of design, systems of notation and the origins of musical traditions, in E. Hickmann, A. Draffkorn-Kilmer, R. Eichmann (eds.), Studies in Music Archaeology III. Rhaden, 119-142.

Münzel, S. C. 2004. Die Schwanenknochenflöte aus dem Geißenklösterle bei Blaubeuren. Entdeckung und Wiedergewinnung des ältesten Musikinstrumentes der Welt, in T. Kerig (Hrsg.), Schwanenflügelknochen-Flöte – Vor 35 000 Jahren erfinden Eiszeitjäger die Musik, Stuttgart, 22-25.

Lehmkuhl, U. 1985. Knöcherne Kernspaltflöten aus Mecklenburg. Ausgrabungen und Funde 30, pl. 23, 136144.

Nickel, R., Schummer, A. and Seiferle, E. 2004. Lehrbuch der Anatomie der Haustiere, Band 5: Anatomie der Vögel, Stuttgart, 3. Auflage.

Lehnert, S. 1997. Beinverarbeitung im mittelalterlichen Bremen. Unpublished master Thesis, University of Bamberg.

Oomen, H. C. J. 1968. Zwei römische Blasinstrumente im Rijksmuseum Kam in Nijmegen und ihre zoologische Interpretation. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 49, 57-60, pl. IV

Lochner, M. 2000. Knochenklang – Klänge aus der Steinzeit, CD, Wien. MacGregor, A., Mainman, A. J. and Rogers Nicola, S. 1999. Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn from Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York. York; The Archaeology of York, Vol. 17: The Small Finds, Fasc. 17.

Paniagua, E. 2007. Batalla de alarcos 1195, CD, Madrid. Pimenta, C. and Moreno-García, M. 2007. Ossos e música após séculos de siléncio… Uma nota solta de Estácio de Veiga, in XELB 7, Actas do 4e Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve, 357-364.

179

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN Rech, M. 2004. Gefundene Vergangenheit – Archäologie des Mittelalters in Bremen. Bremer Archäologische Blätter Beiheft 3, Bremen. Schallmayer, E. 1994. Die Verarbeitung von Knochen in römischer Zeit, in M. Kokabi, B. Schlenker and J. Wahl (Hrsg.), Knochenarbeit – Artefakte aus tierischen Rohstoffen im Wandel der Zeit. Stuttgart, Archäologische Informationen aus Baden-Württemberg 27, 71-82. Seeberger, F. 2004. Annäherungen an die, Schwanenflügelknochenflöte: Nachbau und Spielweise, in T. Kerig (Hrsg.), Schwanenflügelknochen-Flöte – Vor 35 000 Jahren erfinden Eiszeitjäger die Musik, Stuttgart, 38-39. Serangeli, J. 2004. Die Flöten von Isturitz, T. Kerig (Hrsg.), Schwanenflügelknochen-Flöte – Vor 35 000 Jahren erfinden Eiszeitjäger die Musik, Stuttgart, 30-31. Serjeantson, D. in preparation. Flutes, pipes and whistles. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology: Birds, Cambridge. Tamboer, A. 1999. Ausgegrabene Klänge – Archäologische Musikinstrumente aus allen Epochen. Oldenburg, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 25. Tsvetkova, I. K. 1970. Plemena ryazanskoy kul‘tury, 97153 [The tribes of Ryazan culture], in L. B. Grekhova, G. F. Polyakova, T. B. Popva, V. M. Raushenbakh and I. K. Tsvetkova (eds.), Okskiy basein v epohu kamnya i bronzy [The bassin of river Oka during the Stone and Bronze Age]. Moskva, Trudy Gosudarstvenogo Istoricheskogo Muzeia 44, 97-153. Ulbricht, I. 1984. Die Verarbeitung von Knochen, Geweih und Horn im mittelalterlichen Schleswig. Neumünster, Ausgrabungen in Schleswig - Berichte und Studien 3. Zhang, J., Harbottle, G., Wang, C. and Kong Z. 1999. Oldest playable musical instruments found at Jiahu early Neolithic site in China. Nature 401, 366-368.

180

HIGHLAND TUNES IN THE LOWLANDS functional features: flute type; length (L); finger-holes (fh) + thumb-holes (th) diameter (ø); blow-hole (bh); decoration (d)

N°

vulture species

location

dating, culture

1

griffon or black (Aegypiinae)

Isturitz, France

20000-35000 BP, Upper Palaeolithic

2

vulture

Veyreau, France

Chalcolithic

3

griffon (Gyps fulvus)

Conímbriga, Portugal

Roman

L 238mm; 5 high fh ø 5.0-7.7mm, carved

griffon, black or bearded (Aegypiinae)

Mook, Netherlands

Roman

2 flutes; L 260mm; 5 high fh; bh circular

black (Aegypius monachus)

Del Val Roman Villa, Madrid, Spain

6th - 8th century, HispanoVisigothic

L 257mm; 6 fh ø 4-5mm

griffon (Gyps fulvus)

ar-Raqqa, Syria

8th - 9th century, Islamic

duct or nay; fragment L 99mm; 4 fh ø 4.3-4.5mm, carved

griffon / black (Aegypiinae)

Caesar Augusta Roman Theatre, Zaragoza, Spain

11th century, Islamic

fragment L 82mm; 2 fh ø 4,95.0mm, drilled; d crossed + zig-zag lines

9

vulture (Aegypiinae)

Alarcos, Spain

1195, Islamic

duct; L 187mm; 6 high fh + 1 high th; bh rectangular

10

griffon (Gyps fulvus)

Vechta, Germany

14th century

duct; L 267mm; 6 high fh ø 3mm + 1 equal th ø 3.0 x 3.9mm, drilled; bh square 5 x 5mm

11

griffon (Gyps fulvus)

Kaiserebersdorf, Austria

Modern Time (Renaissance)

semi-finished flute: 3 unfinished fh; no bh

12

vulture

Torres Vedras, Portugal

17th century

fragment L 141mm; 5 fh ø 3.25.4mm

13

vulture

1880

2 fh + 1 th

14

vulture

1900 - 1935

transverse; 7 fh + 1 th; bh square

15

vulture

1980s

duct or nay; 6 fh + 1 th

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423

16

vulture

Alcaine, Spain

1990s

duct or nay; 7 fh + 1 th

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423

17

vulture

Maella, Spain

1990s

6 fh + 1 th

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423

18

vulture

Maella, Spain

1990s

6 fh + 1 th

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423

Muktinath, Nepal

end of 20th century

duct; L ca. 306mm; 6 high fh ø 6mm; bh square, block of wood

Becker 2005, 333-334; collection Von den Driesch

4+5

6

7

8

19

himalayan griffon (Gyps himalayensis)

20

vulture

21

vulture

22

vulture

Robleda, Spain Chequilla, Spain

Tordesilos, Spain

18 finds; fh carved; d linear scratches

duct; L 175 mm; 5 high fh ø 5-7mm, carved; bh square 6 x 8mm

reference, archive, inventory N°

Brade 1975, 17-18, pl. 1c-f; Lawson and d‘Errico 2002; Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-418; Serangeli 2004; Musée des Antiquités Nationales Saint-Germain-en-Laye Becker 2005, 332-333, fig. 4; MorenoGarcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-418 Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 330-344, fig. 2-3; Museu monográfico de conimbriga, a 57 Oomen 1968; Rijksmuseum Nijmegen, 62 Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-419; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 332-333; Museo Arqueológíco Regional Alcalá de Henares, 95 Becker 2005 Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-419; 2006, 232-233, fig. 6; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 334-346, fig. 5-6; Museo del Teatro Romano de Caesar Augusta Zaragoza, vi.2.6-07 Paniagua 2007; Parque Arqueológico de Alarcos Calatriva Museum im Zeughaus Vechta

Czeika and Ranseder 2007, 60-61 Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 417-419; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 341-342, fig. 11; Museu Municipal Leonel Trinidade Torres Vedras Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423 Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-423; Museo Nacional del Pueblo Español Madrid

present time

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-419

Huertahernando, Spain

present time

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-419

Señorío de Molina, Spain

present time

Moreno-Garcia and Pimenta 2004, 418-419

Cóccoles, Spain

Table 1: Flutes made of vulture ulnae from different chronological and cultural contexts*. * For typological definitions see note 6.

181

HANS CHRISTIAN KÜCHELMANN functional features: flute type; length (L); fingerholes (fh) + thumb-holes (th) diameter (ø); blow-hole (bh)

N°

species

location

dating

1

crane (Grus grus), tibiotarsus

Bielo Brdo, Croatia

6th century, Avar

reed; L 260mm; 6 high fh

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997; Arheolski Muzej Zagreb

2+3

crane (Grus grus), ulnae

Jánoshida, Hungary

6th - 8th century

double reed; A: L 169mm; 5 high fh; B: L 175mm; 2 middle fh; ø fh 4.0 – 5.5mm

Bartha 1934; Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.6, 3.1; Hungarian National Museum Budapest, 5/1933

4+5

crane (Grus grus)

Alattyán, Hungary

7th century, Avar

double reed; L 170mm; 5 high fh each

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.1; Hungarian National Museum Budapest

6+7

crane (Grus grus)

Alattyán, Hungary

7th century, Avar

double reed; L 160mm; 5 high fh each

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.2; Hungarian National Museum Budapest

8+9

crane (Grus grus)

Szegvár, Hungary

7th century, Avar

double reed; fragment; 4 high fh each

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.3; Móra Ferenc Múzeum Szeged

10 + 11

crane (Grus grus)

RácalmásRózsamajor, Hungary

7th century, Avar

double reed; L 185mm; 5 high fh each

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.4; Intercisa Múzeum Dunaújváros

crane (Grus grus)

Felgyö, Hungary

7th century, Avar

double reed; L 182mm; 5 high fh each

Gál 2005, 325; Kozák 1997, fig. 2.5; Koszta József Múzeum Szentes

Haithabu, Germany

9th - 10th century

fragment L 156mm; 4 fh ø 2.73.0mm

Brade 1975, 73-74, pl. 5e, D 12; 1978, fig. 1.1, 2.1; Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schleswig

12 + 13 14

sea or golden eagle (Buteoninae), ulna

reference; archive, inventory N°

15

large bird3, ulna

Haithabu, Germany

10th century

fragment L 213mm; 2 low fh ø 4.5mm, carved; bh D-shaped

Brade 1975, 74, pl. 5a, D 15; 1978, fig. 1.3, 2.3; Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schleswig

16

large bird

Huizum, Netherlands

medieval

duct; L 216mm; 4 low fh ø 4.0 – 5.5mm; bh inverse D-shape

Brade 1975, 29-30, 65, pl. 2d, NL 17; Moeck 1977, fig. 14; Fries Museum Leeuwarden, 15 A 76

17

swan (Cygnus sp.), ulna

Westerwijtwerd Netherlands

medieval

duct; L 212mm; 4 low fh ø 3.7 – 5.5mm; bh D-shaped

Brade 1975, 29-30, 63, pl. 2c, NL 5; Museum voor Stad en Lande Groningen, 1890/VI 11;

18

large bird

Hoogebeintum, Netherlands

medieval

duct; L 231mm; 4 low fh ø 4.0 – 5.7mm; bh D-shaped

Brade 1975, 29-30, 66, pl. 2b, NL 23; Fries Museum Leeuwarden, 28-669

19

large bird, ulna

Hatsum, Netherlands

medieval

duct; L 215mm; 5 high fh ø 4.0 – 5.0mm; bh circular

Brade 1975, 29-30, 68, pl. 2f, NL 32; Fries Museum Leeuwarden, 49 A 153

20

large bird

Ylst, Netherlands

duct; L 194mm; 4 low fh ø 4.0 – 6.0mm; bh D-shaped

Brade 1975, 69, pl. 2e, NL 39; Rijksmuseum van Oudheden Leiden, e 1953/8.1

21

large bird, ulna

Dokkum, Netherlands

medieval

duct; L 236mm; 4 low fh ø 5.0 – 6.5; bh square

Brade 1975, 70, pl. 2a, NL 44; Admiraliteitshuis Dokkum, 625

mute swan (Cygnus olor), ulna

York, England

11th - 12th century

duct; L 182mm; 1 fh, carved; bh D-shaped

MacGregor 1999, 1977-1978, 2021, fig. 935; York Archaeological Trust, 18366 sf3565

23

eagle (Accipitridae), ulna

Schleswig, Germany

11th - 14th century

duct

24

heron (Ardea sp.)

Oudkrabendijke, Netherlands

late medieval

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ulna

Visegrád, Hungary

16th century

duct; fragment L 149; 6 high fh ø 4.3-4.5mm + 1 low th ø 4.4mm

eagle (Accipitridae), ulna

Visegrád, Hungary

16th century

fragment L 105mm; 5 fh ø 4.14.7mm + 1 th ø 4.2mm

22

25

26

medieval

duct or nay; 0 fh; bh D-shaped

Ulbricht 1984, 40, pl. 44; Archäologisches Landesmuseum Schleswig Tamboer 1999, 10-11; Museum Boijmans van Beuningen Rotterdam Gál 2005, 328, 335, fig. 6; Visegrád Múzeum, 63.26.1 Gál 2005, 328, fig. 7; Visegrád Múzeum

1: Birds with bones longer than 200mm. 2: As has been regretted by others before (e.g. Lehmkuhl 1985, 138; Moreno-Garcia et al. 2005, 329-330, 346; Serjeantson in prep.) archaeologists often show only limited interest in the zoological data of these artefacts although they can reveal valuable additional information. No zoological details were available for the bird bone flutes from Westeremden, Jelsum, Blija, Hantum, Spannum, Witmarsum, Banter Teich, Skanör, Eketorp (Brade 1975, 65-69, 73, 79-80, pl. 3c, 6d, 7a, 8g, 11e, NL 14+15, 19, 25, 27, 34, 36, D10, S 10, 16). 3: According to Brade (1975, 74) swan (Cygnus sp.), according to Brade (1978, 29) sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) or golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).

Table 2: Medieval flutes made of large bird species except vultures (for typology see note 6).

182

Archaeological Evidence of Pre-Industrial Worked Bone Activity in 18th Century Seville, Spain Marta MORENO-GARCÍA,* Carlos M. PIMENTA,** Ana PAJUELO PANDO*** and Pedro M. LÓPEZ ALDANA*** * Instituto de Historia, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CSIC), Madrid, Spain ** Laboratório de Arqueozoologia, IGESPAR, I.P., Lisboa, Portugal *** Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain Abstract A rich bone debris assemblage derived from the manufacture of objects from this raw material was recovered from a blind drain in C/ San Luis (Plaza de El Pumarejo), Seville, Spain. The archaeological sequence of the site, represented in multiple structures, spreads from the 2nd century AD up until the present, with a hiatus between the 6th and 9th centuries. The worked bone waste, dated to the 18th century, attests to the occurrence of pre-industrial craft activity on the site. The morphological analysis of the discarded bone material indicates a high degree of standardisation - multifaceted cylindrical pieces were hand-carved from cattle metapodials that had previously been split in fine strips. The tiny perforation right in the centre that some of them have suggests the use of a lathe to produce the final objects – bone beads for rosaries. In spite of the volume of bone debris very few finished items were recovered. Written records from artisans’ guilds, archives, illustrations shown in historical works and occasionally detailed descriptions of particular craft activities are sources that offer an opportunity to visualize not only the social and economic circumstances in which different trades developed but also the various stages of the working process and even the tools used.

Introduction With the development of urban archaeology, bone remains associated with crafts have become more frequent (MacGregor 1985; 1989; Serjeantson and Waldron 1989). Multiple finds are described in the literature (Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Luik et al. 2005) but there are still geographical areas, like the Iberian Peninsula, or chronological periods, such as the Modern Age, for which archaeological data are very scarce. Thus, the material studied here aims to go some way to filling that gap.

The archaeological context Archaeological excavations were conducted by one of us (P.L.A.) in C/ San Luis nº 93, next to Plaza de El Pumarejo, Seville (Spain) between April and July 2004 (López Aldana 2007). The site is located 100m away from the city wall in an area known as the Historical Centre of Seville (Figure 1). These quarters were a marginal living area until the construction of the wall in the 12th century AD, under the rule of the Almoravid and Almohad peoples. After the Christian conquest in the 13th century the urban perimeter of the city was not altered. Buildings and structures were re-used and reoccupied without major modifications until the 15th century. By the 18th century Seville was in an advanced state of decadency worsened by the earthquake of Lisbon (1755) that caused the destruction of many buildings. As a result, important urban transformations took place at that time. The northern area of the city, although located within the city walls, was far away from the political and financial centre. The results from archaeological work done around Plaza de El Pumarejo over the last decade show that since the late medieval period this neighbourhood was dedicated to artisanal or preindustrial activities, such as silk processing, glass making and so on (Mejías García 2000; Bernad Gómez 2001).

Bone processing activities on a site can be identified not only by the recovery of objects such as combs, handles, pins, buttons, and so on (MacGregor 1989) but also by the occurrence of raw material to be worked, blanks and rough-outs, unfinished objects and/or faulty items that were discarded during different working phases. These remains can indicate where the town’s workshops were located, although it is not uncommon to find many of them in secondary deposits like fills and dumps, mixed with food refuse. More interesting than that is the fact that close examination of such bone debris enables us to: a) reconstruct the production techniques used in the manufacture of the final objects; b) identify the species and skeletal elements from which they were fashioned and c) assess how different manufacturing techniques evolved as the range of tools diversified. In sum, this kind of material, that at first sight appears rubbish, proves to be more informative than the finished products to understand the development of bone crafting over time. Finally, from medieval times onwards documentary evidence provides a corpus of data that should not be ignored.

183

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA, CARLOS M. PIMENTA, ANA PAJUELO PANDO

AND PEDRO M. LÓPEZ ALDANA

Figure 1: Map of the historical centre of Seville (Spain), enclosed within the walls. The arrow points to the location of C/San Luis nº 93.

The excavations at C/ San Luis nº 93 revealed a complex of regular, shaped pits of different sizes (between 60cm and 120cm deep), wells and blind drains (Figure 2) filled sometimes with abundant faunal remains (currently under study by A.P.P.) and fragments of storage, cooking and tableware pottery vessels dated to different chronological periods from the 2nd century AD onwards.

Group 1

From one of the blind drains (E.U. 28; Figure 2) came a rich animal bone assemblage derived from manufacture in this raw material. Hence, bone crafting would be another trade practised in these quarters. The pottery remains present in that context date the bone debris to modern historical times, from the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the 18th century.

This group comprises two chopped off distal ends of cattle metapodials and twenty-six additional shaft fragments that could also be identified as metapodial fragments (Figure 5). These meatless bones were traditionally favoured as raw material to be worked in a diversity of objects (i.e., skates (Küchelmann and Zidarov 2005), combs (Vretemark 1997), beads (Spitzers 1997), bone anvils (Moreno-García et al. 2006), and so on) probably due to the fact that they are robust and they present thick walls. Also, they were easily available as whole bones since they were generally separated at the first butchery stage in the slaughterhouse (Serjeantson 1989).

The material

Group 2

The total worked bone waste assemblage is constituted by 1050 pieces (Figure 3) and five partially finished objects three beads and maybe two pinheads (Figure 4). In order to understand how that debris was produced and what the final product(s) was/were the material was grouped according to morphological characteristics as follows:

Group 2 includes the un-worked ends of 135 rods (Figure 6) fashioned from the shaft of a long bone. The artisan held the rod by the un-worked end that usually corresponds to the spongy bone closed to the epiphyses. The remaining part was prepared by creating several straight, smooth facets. The resulting worked strip was then sawed transversally as evident by the flat surface on the opposite side. Obviously, the most appropriate part of the metapodials to be used was the thick, straight portion of the diaphysis.

184

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PRE-INDUSTRIAL WORKED BONE ACTIVITY IN 18TH CENTURY SEVILLE, SPAIN

Figure 2: View of the excavation area in C/San Luis nº 93, Seville (Spain) that shows several of the structures. The bone debris assemblage was recovered from the blind drain E.U. 28.

Figure 5: Bone debris included in Group 1. Distal ends of cattle metapodials and shaft fragments.

Figure 3: Bone waste material (1055 items) recovered from excavations at C/San Luis nº 93, Seville (Spain).

Figure 6: Bone debris included in Group 2. Un-worked ends of rods sawn from the shaft of a long bone that correspond to the spongy part closed to the epiphyses.

Group 4 Nearly 80% of the assemblage is classified in this group. It consists of 837 ends of bone faceted strips (Figure 7) that present one pointed edge and another transversally flat cut. Their length and width range from 7.2cm to 1cm and 1.6cm to 0.4cm, respectively.

Figure 4: Worked bone items recovered in C/ San Luis nº 93, Seville (Spain). Three of them were identified as unfinished perforated beads.

Group 5

Group 3

An additional 17 ends of bone faceted strips were considered as a separate group because they display one or two parallel, fine incision lines around their perimeter, a few millimetres away from the point where the strip was detached. Their mean length is 3.5cm.

This group includes two complete bone strips (Figure 7) of 11.8cm and 14.7cm length each. They have a faceted surface and roughly worked ends.

185

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA, CARLOS M. PIMENTA, ANA PAJUELO PANDO

AND PEDRO M. LÓPEZ ALDANA

Figure 7: Bone debris included in Groups 3 and 4. Two complete multifaceted bone strips to the left and several ends of others that present one transversally cut edge and another pointed.

Group 6 Group 6 comprises 10 cylinders with a diameter and height of approximately 1cm. They were sawn across the top and the bottom and present multifaceted sides (Figure 8). Group 7 Group 7 includes two cylinders of equal characteristics to those recorded in Group 6; the only difference is that they were pierced on one of the flat edges right in the centre (Figure 8). The size of the perforation in both cases is 1.5mm. The spongy bone tissue that is visible on the top and the bottom surfaces suggests that they came from the ends of bone strips. They were probably discarded because of this circumstance, as only the solid part of the strip was suitable for further work.

Figure 8: Bone debris included in Groups 6, 7 and 8. On top, ten cylinders that result from sawing the bone strips. In the middle, two cylinders of equal characteristics but that were pierced on one of the sides. At the bottom, 19 pierced through cylinders.

appear to have been the favoured raw material chosen to be worked, or at least these are the only skeletal elements that could be identified in the whole assemblage.

Group 8

Probably the first step, before the manufacturing process began, was to clean the bones by removing skin, tendons and fat. This operation was done either leaving the metapodials exposed to the elements to dry out for a period of time or by cooking them in water for few hours. Experiments show that the latter methodology is preferred since bones do not crack much (MacGregor 1985). After this treatment, the distal ends of the bones were transversally chopped off with a heavy chopper or axe at the level of the foramen, as suggested by the deep, crude cut marks on the fragments included in Group 1 (cf. Figure 5). Although there is no evidence that the same action occurred with the proximal ends, it seems the aim was to work the diaphysis, eliminating the spongy parts of the articulations. The shaft of the bone was then longitudinally split into rods with the aid of an adze or a knife. The marks of successive blows are clearly visible in the fragments included in Group 2 (cf. Figure 6). In

This group consists of 19 more cylinders similar to those described in the previous groups but that were pierced through. They present a double central perforation on both flat edges. Measurements of their diameter reveal that they are of conical shape. This fact is clearly visible in one of the four pieces that are broken in half (Figure 8). The manufacturing process Observation of the morphology of the waste products and the traces they display (often visible to the naked eye) allows us to recognize that the bone debris collected was produced at different working phases during the manufacturing process of a bone object fashioned repeatedly and in large quantities. Cattle metapodials

186

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PRE-INDUSTRIAL WORKED BONE ACTIVITY IN 18TH CENTURY SEVILLE, SPAIN turn, these rods were fashioned into multifaceted strips (Group 3 in Figure 7) using a metal tool, as their rough surface evidences. The next step was to discard the unshaped ends of the faceted strips. These are the fragments found in Group 4 - small pieces of bone with one unfinished end and another smooth flat surface (cf. Figure 7). The regular and parallel striations displayed on that side suggest the extremities of the strips were sawn transversally.

Interestingly, Spitzer (1997) accounts for a change in bead-working technology in the German town of Constance, spanning the fourteenth century which conducted a more standardised process and larger scale production. In the 13th century the beads were cut, using a bow-lathe, as rings rather than spheres, and along with cattle metapodials other less suitable bones (i.e., ramus verticalis of mandible) were also used. The process would be similar to that illustrated in the muchreproduced drawing of a German Paternosterer at work, from the Stadtbibliothek in Nürnberg, dated to 1425-1436 (Spitzers 1997, fig. 7). By the end of the 14th century, the whole practise became more efficient. Straight portions of the metapodials were used, and only spheres were drilled out of the strips of bone. Huge quantities of small beads, 4 - 5mm diameter, were produced, and a smaller number of larger beads with diameters of 6 to 12mm. At last, by the 16th century, the work was more systematized and probably split into standardized actions that were constantly repeated by the same person following regular patterns.

Measurements taken from the refuse fragments in Groups 2, 3 and 4 show that the mean diameter of the useful part of the strips was 8mm. Therefore, the finished object could not be larger than that. The tiny multifaceted cylinders with flat edges recorded in Groups 6, 7 and 8 suggest that the faceted strips were further transversally sawn into smaller pieces (cf. Figure 8). Finally, a longitudinal perforation was drilled right through their centre. What was the purpose of this perforation? Was it to allow mounting of these small bone objects on a lathe for final shaping? Was it because they were to be strung? Or are both these hypotheses right? The striations transversal to the longitudinal axis on three of the partially finished objects recovered among this waste assemblage indicate the outer faceted surface of the tiny cylinders was indeed smoothed down by turning them on a lathe (cf. Figure 4). Bone beads were the final product so the same perforation would be eventually used to pass a string through.

In France, two and a half centuries later, Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedia (1762-1772) volume 7, portrays such an organized professional bead manufacturing workshop (Figure 9). The “Patenôtrier” plate shows five individuals, each one performing a particular operation but curiously, none of them is shown drilling bone strips. According to the legend, one splits the bone into rods with a chisel on a log. Those are passed to worker B who creates faceted strips with a big knife on a three-legged bench while worker C saws them transversally into small portions. The task of individual D, to the right of the plate, is to perforate those pieces in the centre, and finally worker E, to the left, works them on the lathe for shaping. The lower part of the plate depicts a series of figures that show the aspect of a metapodial and what seems to be a radius with an attached ulna as they go through those working phases. Finally, several sorts of beads are depicted. The variety of tools employed in the different operations and raw materials other than bone (i.e., fruit seeds and coconut shells) used for bead manufacturing are also described.

Bead making techniques During the Late Middle Ages beads were mainly used in rosaries (prayer counting chains) or paternosters after the prayer for which they were mostly used (Picod 1999; Romero Mensaque 1998; Spitzers 1997, 158). Rosaries were in fashion among all social classes and beads were made of different materials, i.e., wood, metals, precious stones, glass and bone. Finds related to bone bead production are known from various medieval towns in the United Kingdom (MacGregor 1985), Hungary (Kovács 2005), Germany (Spitzers 1997) and France (Meyer 1979; Picod 1999) among others. They usually date from the 13th to 18th centuries. It is remarkable that with the exception of the French cases the refuse items recovered reflect different processing techniques from those described here. They namely consist of long bone strips or ringlets repeatedly perforated with holes. MacGregor (1985, 101) notes that “the profile of the holes shows that they were drilled first from one side of the bone and then the other (…) The implement used was evidently a centre-bit with a curving profile and with an extended central point which, when it had penetrated the bone from one side, allowed the drill to be aligned on the same spot from the other”. The same technique would have been used for making buttons, with the difference that the discs cut would have been both larger in diameter and thinner than those produced for beads.

In conclusion, we have here the same bead making technique that was practised in Seville (Spain) at the end of the 17th century. This was also the method followed by the bead-makers from Saint-Denis (Paris, France) as evidenced by the bone debris recovered from excavations in a rubbish pit dated to the late 15th or early 16th centuries (Meyer 1979), at present exhibited in the Art and History Museum of this locality. Does the archaeological evidence suggest that this particular technique was preferred by craftsmen from France and Spain? If so, why was that? Also, can we say it was a more efficient method, since the diaphysis of a long bone such a metapodial or a radius was cut in many thin strips? Does thorough utilization indicate lower availability of raw material (i.e., cattle long bones) in those countries compared to other European regions? To answer these

187

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA, CARLOS M. PIMENTA, ANA PAJUELO PANDO questions more bone debris assemblages of this kind are needed.

AND PEDRO M. LÓPEZ ALDANA

Final remarks According to the documentary evidence (Romero Mensaque 1998; 2000), by the end of the 17th century there was a popular movement of opposition to the static religion practised in churches and chapels in Seville (Spain). The citizens created informal associations of devotees or brotherhoods in different quarters of the city that dedicated much of their time to penitence and praying of the Holy Rosary, which was understood as an exercise of piety and devotion towards the Virgin Mary. “Popular Rosaries” were celebrated in the streets at several times during the day and there were usually two processions, one at dusk and another two hours before dawn, in which men and women participated separately. Praying of the Rosary marked the religious life of the neighbourhoods of the city with a regular dynamism. It became also an identity sign for each neighbourhood, an element of early social configuration around religion that was more evident in marginal quarters. Within this historical background it is not surprising that workshops dedicated to the manufacture of beads for rosaries proliferated in the city of Seville at this chronological period until the end of the 18th century. Then, the French Revolution opened up a period of liberation of religious ideals and consequently a decrease in the kind of ritual manifestations or symbols that previously were so much in fashion.

Figure 9: The “Patenôtrier” plate in Diderot and d’Alembert’s Encyclopedia (1762-1772) that portrays an organized professional bead manufacturing workshop.

The finds discussed probably constitute the occasional refuse from a local artisan whose work was orientated to the production of these tiny items. An interesting question that remains unanswered is if the beads were strung together into rosaries in that workshop or if on the contrary they were sold to other craftsmen who were specialised in that trade. Commercialisation and distribution of the final products could have been done in other quarters of the city far from the production place. Finally, it is hoped that as the number of urban excavations in the Iberian Peninsula increases, more bone processing waste assemblages will turn up, allowing better understanding and assessment of the economic and social roles bone crafts had in the daily life of late medieval and modern cities, aspects not always recorded in the documentary evidence.

How many rosaries? From the bone refuse recovered in Constance (Germany) dated to the end of the 14th century, Spitzers (1997, 162) calculates that a man in a period of 10 years with 250 working days would have produced 200 beads per day, or one bead in three to four minutes. In our case study from Seville, it was clear that the technique used was different, and that more than one person would have been involved in the job. Although there are no data to estimate the bead daily production in such a workshop one can try to estimate how many beads and rosaries could have resulted from the bone waste assemblage recovered in C/ San Luis nº 93. For that purpose, we will use the strips’ ends. Since we do not know if those pieces are the proximal or distal part of the strip their total number of 989 needs to be divided by two. That results in a minimum number of 494.5 strips. Adding the two complete strips described as Group 3 one ends up with 496.5 strips. From the length of the latter it may be estimated that these strips measured approximately 12-15cm. But since the spongy ends were to be discarded it can be concluded that the useful central part was just around 10cm long. The length of the blank cylinders is about 1cm. Hence, from each strip 10 cylinders could have been cut. In this case that means 4965 cylinders to be shaped as beads. Since a Rosary has 59 beads it is easy to conclude that from 4965 beads at least 84 rosaries can be made.

Acknowledgements We are thankful to our colleague José Paulo Ruas for the excellent photographs that illustrate this paper. Marta Moreno-García Instituto de Historia Centro de Ciencas Humanas y Sociales (CCHS), CSIC C/ Albasanz 26-28 28037 Madrid Spain. [email protected]

188

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF PRE-INDUSTRIAL WORKED BONE ACTIVITY IN 18TH CENTURY SEVILLE, SPAIN Carlos M. Pimenta Laboratório de Arqueozoologia, IGESPAR, I.P. Av. da Índia 136 1300-300 Lisboa Portugal. [email protected]

Luik, H., Choyke, A. M., Batey, C. E. and Lõugas, L. 2005. From hooves to horns, from mollusc to mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from Prehistoric times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus.

Ana Pajuelo Pando Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Universidad de Sevilla C/ Palma del Río 24 41008 Sevilla Spain. [email protected]

MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, antler, ivory and horn. The technology of skeletal materials since the Roman period. Croom Helm, London & Sydney. MacGregor, A. 1989. Bone, antler and horn industries in the urban context, in D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Diet and crafts in towns. The evidence of animal remains from the Roman to the Post-medieval periods. Oxford, BAR British Series 199, 107-128.

Pedro M. López Aldana Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Universidad de Sevilla C/ Palma del Río 24 41008 Sevilla Spain. [email protected]

Mejías García, J. C. 2000. Informe Técnico Preliminar. Intervención arqueológica de urgencia en el solar s/n de la prolongación de c/ Relator, esquina a c/ Arrayán. Parcelas 1 y 2, U.A. 2, P.E.A.R. San Luís (Sevilla). Sevilla, Unpublished report. Meyer, O. 1979. Archéologie urbaine à Saint-Denis. Saint-Denis, Maison des Jeunes.

References cited Bernad Gómez, E. M. 2001. Análisis Preliminar. Intervención arqueológica de urgencia c/ Peral nº 25-29 (Sevilla). Sevilla, Unpublished report.

Moreno-García, M., Esteban Nadal, M., Pimenta, C. M., López Gila, M. D. and Morales Muñiz, A. 2006. Los yunques en hueso en la Península Ibérica: estado de la cuestión, in Animais na Pré-história e Arqueologia da Península Ibérica. Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, 14-19 Setembro de 2004. Promontoria Monográfica 3, 247-262.

Choyke, A. M. and Bartosiewicz, L. 2001. Crafting bone: skeletal technologies through time and space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 Aug - 5 Sept, 1999. Oxford, BAR International Series 937.

Picod, C. E. A. 1999. Examen de perles en os tourné des XVIème et XVIIème siècles et expérimentation, in La Tournerie. Mémoire et créations. Rencontres européennes de la tournerie. Lons-le-Saunier, Lavans, Centre Jurassien du Patrimoine, 31-37.

Kovács, E. 2005. Remains of the bone working in medieval Buda, in H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.E. Batey and L. Lõugas, (eds.), From hooves to horns, from mollusc to mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from Prehistoric times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus, 309-316.

Romero Mensaque, C. J. 1998. Cotidianidad, dinamismo y espontaneidad en la religiosidad popular: el fenómeno de los rosarios públicos en la Sevilla del Barroco. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie IV, Hª Moderna, 11, 215-238.

Küchelmann, H. C. and Zidarov, P. 2005. Let's skate together! Skating on bones in the past and today, in H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.E. Batey and L. Lõugas, (eds.), From hooves to horns, from mollusc to mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from Prehistoric times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus, 425445.

Romero Mensaque, C. J. 2000. La conformación popular de la religiosidad sevillana en el Barroco y la Ilustración: la importancia del vecindario. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie IV, Hª Moderna, 13, 113-131. Serjeantson, D. 1989. Animal remains and the tanning trade, in D. Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Diet and crafts in towns. Oxford, BAR British Series 199, 129146.

López Aldana, P. M. 2007. Memoria Científica. Intervención arqueológica preventiva en la c/ San Luís nº 93 (Sevilla), Sevilla, Unpublished report.

Serjeantson, D. and Waldron, T. (eds.) 1989. Diet and crafts in towns. The evidence of animal remains from the

189

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA, CARLOS M. PIMENTA, ANA PAJUELO PANDO Roman to the post-medieval periods. Oxford, BAR British Series 199. Spitzers, T. A. 1997. Late medieval bone bead production: socio-economic aspects based on material from Constance, Germany. Anthropozoologica, 25-26, 157-164. Vretemark, M. 1997. Raw materials and urban comb manufacturing in Medieval Scandinavia. Anthropozoologica, 25-26, 201-206.

190

AND PEDRO M. LÓPEZ ALDANA

Functional Signature

Reconstructing the “Chaîne Opératoire” of Skin Processing in Pavlovian Bone Artifacts from Dolní Věstonice I, Czech Republic Michaela RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ Institute of Anthropology, Faculty of Science, Brno, Czech Republic Abstract The article deals with the technological and socio-cultural strategies of the Moravian Pavlovian culture. Based on the industry from hard animal tissues, a possible “chaîne opératoire” of the skin processing practiced in Dolní Věstonice I is reconstructed. Using ethnographical analogies, tools are matched to a concrete phase of the process and their probable functions are described. The presence of different tools, considering their positions in the process, also provides ideas about the final products. Completing this information with other analysis from the site, a more complex picture of the life strategies of the Pavlovian people will be given. Introduction

deposited in Anthropos Institute, the Moravian Museum, Brno. General information about bone, antler, and ivory artifacts was previously published by K. Absolon (Absolon 1938a; 1938b; 1945) and B. Klíma (1963; 1981; 1983). However, less attention has been paid to the techno-economical and socio-cultural aspects.

Bone industry plays an important role in the material culture of the Pavlovian. Since the time of the first excavation in the 1920s, it has been obvious that the utilization of hard animal tissues was an important feature of this Upper Palaeolithic culture. The composition of the assemblage in the context of the site provides interpretative possibilities for the technological and socio-cultural strategies of Pavlovian hunters-gatherers. The archaeological site of Dolní Věstonice I (southern Moravia, Czech Republic) belongs to the complex of Pavlovian settlement extending to the east from the municipality of Dolní Věstonice on the arched slope above the road to Pavlov, 180 – 230m above sea level. The first excavations were coordinated in the 1920s by K. Absolon (Absolon 1938a; 1938b; 1945) and are connected with the discovery of a famous statue - the Venus of Dolní Věstonice. During World War II excavation was carried out under the leadership of A. Bohmers (1944). Crucial damage was done to many of the finds by the Nazi army transferred from Mikulov in 1945. The army burned down the castle where a large part of the collection was deposited. Fortunately the mobiliary art and the bone industry were at that time housed in Brno. The aim of post war excavations, mainly conducted by B. Klíma (1963; 1983), was to compensate for the great loss.

The structure of the artifacts informs us about the main activities performed on the site. In a further study we will focus on one of these pursuits. The abundant presence of bone tools probably related to skin processing gives us the opportunity to reconstruct the “chaîne opératoire” of this skill. Using ethnographic analogies we will evaluate the position of various bone tools in the “chaîne opératoire” and, on the basis of represented tools, considering their functions, we will try to determine the probable final products. Reconstructing the “chaîne opératoire” of skin processing The strategic position of the site in the context of hunting game gave the Pavlovian people a stable source of animal raw materials which had to be processed. In the time of the Pleistocene glaciation, Moravia was situated in the most narrow part of the periglaciated zone, which permitted the connection between periglaciated areas in the east and the west. In warmer periods, Moravia created a passage from northern European lowlands to the south. This north-south path facilitated movement of the typical glacial fauna (Ložek 2002). Osteological analysis of faunal remains from the site (Musil 1958) has documented the abundant presence of fur animals as reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), hare (Lepus sp.), both species of fox (Alopex lagopus, Vulpes vulpes), wolf (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gulo gulo), rarely also remains of lion (Panthera spelaea), lynx (Lynx lynx) and bear (Ursus spelaeus). The use of a woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) as a fur animal can be also presumed. Hunting of these animals can be indirectly documented by the presence of projectile points,

Dolní Věstonice I is a rich and a complex site bearing evidence of Gravettian life strategies. The site is divided into the lower, middle, upper, and the uppermost parts. The lower part of the settlement belongs to the early Pavlovian stage dated 30 – 27 000 BP. The middle and the upper part belongs to the evolved Pavlovian which is dated 27 – 25 000 BP (Svoboda et al. 2002). Material and methodology The studied collection, consisting of more than 400 pieces, originating from excavation years 1924 – 1952, is

191

MICHAELA RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ interestingly a foliaceous projectile point also was identified. This type, on the basis of ethnographical analogy, was classified as a hunting device intended for hunting of fur animals and birds. The foliaceous, nonpointed shape avoided fur damage (Brühl and Svoboda 2003). Studies based on analysis of dental cementum microstructures from the neighboring site Dolní Věstonice II show that the majority of fur animals were killed in the transition period summer-autumn (Nývltová Fišáková 2007), when summer fur is changing to higher quality winter fur. Skinning is documented by the presence of typical cut marks on the faunal remains. Precise and careful skinning is evidenced by cut marks found on reindeer phalanges, which are on the basis of ethnographical sources (Binford 1978; 1981; David et al. in press) related to boot production.

a bevel is convex and worn-down. From this morphology the applied movement can be deduced. With regard to the convexity, thrown percussion (Leroi-Gourhan 1971) applied on a hide stretched in the frame can be presumed. This kind of movement should be quick and steady, almost perpendicular to the hide (Beyries 1999). Elbow-shaped scrapers, so called antler “pronghoes” (Figure 1-5), which were originally considered by B. Klíma (1955; 1963; 1981; 1983; 1987; 1994; 1997) as tools for digging soil, can be possibly matched to the second category of the fleshing tools. Shed reindeer antler was used for the manufacture of Pavlovian “pronghoes”. The bez tine was shaped to a functional unifacial bevel with a convex edge, while the main beam was conserved as a handle (Figure 1-1). All the useless tines were, for comfortable handling and manipulation, separated by nicking. Although some “pronghoes” show strong alteration of the functional tine, well preserved pieces have extensively smoothed bevels (Figure 1-7), which can indicate contact with a fine abrasive material such as hide. From the morphology of the functional part the applied movement and probable positioning of the processed material can be deduced. Morphologically identical ethnographical elbow-scrapers (Figure 1-2) are used for dry scraping (Wiederhold 2004), when a hide is processed stretched on a frame. The working motion consists of downward strokes (Figure 1-3), the longer, the better (Belitz 1973) and the contact spot is again in the middle of the tool. With regard to the morphology of antler “pronghoes” combination of thrown percussion and pulling motion can be presumed.

Fleshing The first step in the process of skin dressing is the removal of the hypodermal layer, including muscles, fat, and membrane from the interior surface of the skin. In the ethnographical literature three main categories of tools made of hard animal tissues are described – beveled tools (sometimes equipped with serration), elbow-shaped scrapers (Schultz 1989) and “beamers”. All these tool types are considered as very efficient and much safer than lithic tools for avoiding accidental perforation of the processed skin. Beveled tools are, in general, considered as suitable for fleshing hides which are still “green” or damp (Schultz 1989). A typical beveled tool is a flesher from moose metapodial (Beyries 1999; Schultz 1992; Steinbring 1966; Wiederhold 2004). Its distal end is shaped to an acute angle and equipped with serrations. These tools are used with one hand and often have a thong for the wrist, which increases the power of the operator by keeping the worker´s hand from slipping on the tool during the action (Wiederhold 2004). The contact spot with the processed material is in the middle of the tool (Beyries 1999; Beyries et al. 2002).

A 32.5cm long artifact (medio-distal part) from a horse rib (Figure 2-6) was marked as a probable “beamer”. The rib was modified into a dulled tip and one part is missing due to postdepositional breakage. On the natural convex edge (crista costae), 21 transverse serrations were created. Teeth were made by convergent cutting in regular spacing and the serration area of the edge is rather straight. The use of ribs as “beamers” is known from ethnographical sources (Mooney 1910). These tools are held by both hands, and the motion consists of pushing the tool downward across the hide placed on the beam (Figure 2-1) so the membrane is pushed down (Wiederhold 2004). Teeth could help in grabbing the tissue to pull it off. The artifact was recently interpreted as a “batten” intended for textile production (Soffer and Adavasio 2004), in the context of evidence of the textile and basketry crafts practiced at the site. Nevertheless, its function has to be verified by a use-wear analysis. In the collection there are two similar tools.

Within the studied collection, several artifacts can be hypothetically placed into the category of fleshing tools. Whole horse ribs were utilized for the manufacture of simple beveled tools. Selection of the raw material for the production of these tools seems to follow two principles. Besides the morphological suitability of the original bone shape, the mechanical properties of the material could be important. Experiments show that beveled scrapers made from ribs wore out at a slower rate than those made from long bones (Christidou and Legrand 2005). Because of the raw material selection, the tool´s production schema is rather simple. Ribs were shaped only by an oblique to transversal abrasion into the unifacial bevel. Although these artifacts are strongly damaged by weathering, their probable function can be determined from the morphology of the distal parts. The distal edge as well as

Longitudinally split ribs with totally smoothed cancellous bone (segments with polish - McComb 1989/smoothers lissoirs - Leroy-Prost 1975; de Sonneville-Bordes 1960), could be used for the fleshing of small skins (cf. Figure 5-1, 5-3). A cancellous bone could have an abrasive function, while bone marrow could (even though not very abundant) serve as a processing additive at the same time.

192

RECONSTRUCTING THE “CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE” OF SKIN PROCESSING IN PAVLOVIAN BONE ARTIFACTS A. Villon (1889) noticed that skins processed with marrow are 35% more durable than those processed by vegetal oil. Ethnographical analogy can be found in pebbles used in British Columbia for cleaning the hypodermal layer and softening the hide of squirrels at the same time (Beyries et al. 2002).

it is necessary to resharpen the blade time after a time, which means the longer blade at the beginning, the longer usable life (Belitz 1973).

Figure 2: Processing hide on a beam; 1) processing hide on a beam with „beamer” from reindeer metapode. Nganassanes (after Popov 1948, fig. 33, 77); 2) Kedere. Dolganes (after Popov 1937); 3) Mara (51cm). Nganassanes (after Popov 1948, fig. 31, 75); 4) “beamers” from ulna and metapodium (after Beyries 1999, fig. 2 (4), 120); 5) recent draw (skiving) knife (43 cm); 6) horse rib with serration from Dolní Věstonice I. Figure 1: Dry scraping; 1) raw material for manufacture of elbow- shaped scraper; 2) elbow-shaped dry scraper (after Riggs 1982, 38); 3) scraping motion and technique (after Riggs 1982, 47); 4) wahintke, Cat. N° 62.31.43. Courtesy Wyoming State Museum (©windriverhistory.org); 5) antler “pronghoes” from Dolní Věstonice I; 6) experimentally used replica of antler “pronghoe” for dry scraping; 7) fragment of “pronghoe´s” bevel from Dolní Věstonice.

In the collection from the neighboring Pavlovian site Pavlov, where antler “pronghoes” are more abundant, a large metrical variability of functional tines can be seen (Klíma 1987; 1994; 1997). This variability can reflect different “life stages” of tools — a gradual shortening of tine because of the resharpening.

Hair removal

Drying

Unlike fleshing, not all skins require hair removal to be further processed (Wiederhold 2004). Nevertheless, it is necessary to obtain hide without hair for some purposes. The process with which the epidermal layer is scraped down can be done with the same tools suitable for fleshing (Beyries et al. 2002). In Dolní Věstonice, as mentioned, beveled tools from horse ribs and antler “pronghoes” could be used. Direct analogy to the Pavlovian “pronghoes” can be seen in wahintke (cf. Figure 1-4), a tool used by Sioux to perform dry hair and grain scraping. Wahintke is usually made from deer or elk antler with a 45° working edge made from metal (Belitz 1973).With regard to the contact material – animal hair –

Before the process of softening begins, hide has to be almost completely dry. Although direct evidence of skin drying is hard to find, this activity can leave traces in the archaeological record (Beyries et al. 1999; 2002; Debout 2007). Considering the climate of the Gravettian, utilization of special fireplaces intended for hide drying has to be taken into account. In British Columbia, the Athapaskan and the Salish construct a quadrangular frame over a sunken fireplace. The hide is stretched over the frame and exposed to intense heat with a minimal amount of smoke for several minutes (Beyries et al. 2002).

193

MICHAELA RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ In Dolní Věstonice dished sunken fireplaces surrounded by smaller holes were recovered (Klíma 1983). Frames could be fixed through the use of hollow bones of very large mammals, such as mammoth. This type of artifact was firstly described in the Gravettian settlement in Předmostí by K. Valoch (1982). According to K. Valoch (1982; 1987; 1988) these hollowed bones of different sizes could serve as support for the fastening of dwellings and other constructions when stuck to the soil. As such structures could also have other functions such as cooking or smoking places, the interpretation of these fireplaces is hypothetical.

split horse ribs with a unifacial bevel and convex edge could be useful (Figure 3-1, 3-2). These artifacts are also known from Russian Gravettian sites Kostenki I and Avdeevo as “bone burnishers” (Semenov 1964). S. A. Semenov (1964) noticed: “Sometimes during the Palaeolithic period burnishing would have been combined with greasing, that is rubbing fat into the pores of the skin to make it elastic and impermeable….” (Semenov 1964, 178). The same author reconstructed the method of their use (Figure 3-3) on the basis of contemporary rubbing machines: “The compression of the skin and the polishing to a sheen on its outer face is only possible by concerning the pressure on limited areas, and then moving the instrument over the skin at such the pressure.” (Semenov 1964, 178-179). The contact angle of beveled tools from Dolní Věstonice can point to this kind of movement. Moreover, the smoothness of the beveled part shows contact with greasy and fine abrasive material. This process is usually, according to ethnographic sources, accomplished on the ground, with the hide fixed by pegs (Beyries et al. 2002; David et al. 1998).

Softening A phase of softening has cardinal importance for production of quality hide or fur. Three kinds of softening could be hypothetically used in Dolní Věstonice I — simple physical manipulation, vegetal- or bark-tanning, and brain softening. The vegetal-tanning is based on the tannin’s astringent properties reducing the water content, imparting thermal stability to the fiber network. Tannins give waterresistance and durability to the hide (Wiederhold 2004). Palynological analysis show the presence of trees which include tannins (Svoboda et al. 2002) in the vicinity of the locality, but no direct evidence of this method was found. In contrast, the method using fat as a softening agent can be probably indirectly documented by several bone tools. A large variety of mixtures of fats (brain, liver, marrow, fish head oil, eggs etc.) applied in a variety of ways is known from ethnographical sources (Beyries et al. 2002; David et al. 1998; Mason 1895; Villon 1889; etc.). While smaller hides with removed hair could be immersed in a mixture (Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1969), on larger hides the mixture had to be manually applied. Beside hand applying (for example, Tchouktches, David et al. 1998), the use of tools is also ethnographically documented.

Figure 3: 1-2) Bevelled tools from longitudinally split horse ribs from Dolní Věstonice I; 3) method of use of “bone burnishers” (after Semenov 1964, fig. 93 (4), 178); 4) experimentally used replica of beveled longitudinally split horse rib for rubbing hide.

In Dolní Věstonice I the mixture may have been rubbed into a flesh side using longitudinally split mammoth ribs with smoothed cancellous bone (segments with polish/smoothers/lissoirs) (Figure 5-1, 5-3). A cancellous bone may have had the function of an abrader (Figure 55). The contact with fat material can be also documented with the smoothness of the upper side (a compact bone) which can be caused by holding in greasy hands (McComb 1989). An analogy can be found in smooth stones called “slickstones” which are used as embrocating tools (Abbott 1881; Mason 1895; Schultz 1989). The function of “slickstones” could have been performed by flat to oval shaped “tools” from cancellous bones recovered in Předmostí (Valoch 1982). The smoothness of these bones may indicate their embrocating function. During the process of embrocating and scraping down the mixture of fat, beveled bone tools from longitudinally

Physical manipulation Skins and thin hides could be also softened by simple physical manipulation such as pulling the skin across a twisted rawhide cable, a thin semi-sharp object (Schultz 1989), or by simple tumbling with hands and legs (Beyries et al. 2002; David et al. 1998). If the pelt was allowed to dry without physical manipulation, it would dry stiff even though adequate penetration of the softening agents was done. The fiber network has to be open, the fibers separated when the pelt is drying to obtain soft and flexible results (Wiederhold 2004).

194

RECONSTRUCTING THE “CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE” OF SKIN PROCESSING IN PAVLOVIAN BONE ARTIFACTS The physical softening in Dolní Věstonice I may have been accomplished with spatula-like tools with a convex edge from longitudinally split mammoth ribs and rhinoceros shoulder-blades (Figure 4-3, 4-7). These artifacts were made mostly from straight and wide ribs from the cranial-thorax range, and they were extensively modified from an internal part of the bone by smoothing the cancellous bone layer. Collum costae and caput costae were used as a natural handle, while the blade embodies a lenticular cross section ended by a convex beveled edge. One spatula-like artifact from Dolní Věstonice I was also made from a baby rhinoceros shoulder blade. To produce the blade the fossa supraspinata including spina scapulae were taken out and the handle was modified by taking out the tuberculum supraglenoidale and processus coracoideus. Based on ethnographical analogies, these artifacts can be associated with wooden “staking tools” (Figure 4-2) used for physical softening – “stripping” (Schultz 1989) – which includes squeegeeing off the fat mixture and fluid remaining in the hide (Figure 4-1) when the hide is stretched in a frame (Riggs 1982).

The abrasive efficiency of a cancellous bone was already mentioned. For this purpose “smoothers” as well as “grainers” from mammoth molars (cf. Figure 5-4) could be utilized. In Dolní Věstonice these were found with totally worn out and smoothed crowns, probably after contact with finely abrasive material. Contact with hide is also presumed for the above-mentioned flat and oval artifacts from cancellous bone. Utilization of the joint end of a large bone as a hide grainer is documented for American Indians. Usually a large leg bone of a bison was trimmed or abraded, whereby a large flat area of the cancellous bone was exposed. This flat surface was used as an abrader to rub and smooth the hide surface (Bell 1980). In the Plains, cancellous portions of bones were also used as paint applicators. These artifacts are smaller in size and more carefully shaped (Bell 1980). In recent hide tanning, porous stones (Schultz 1989) such as pumice are useful for removing bits of membrane from the flesh side and eventually also grain from the grain side (Edholm and Wilder 1997).

Figure 5: 1-3) Smoothed split ribs from Dolní Věstonice I; 4) smoothed mammoth molar from Dolní Věstonice I; 5) experimentally used replica of smoothed rib for greasing; 6) experimentally used replica of smoothed rib for graining.

Smoking The final step – smoking – plays a very important role in the whole process, because while unsmoked hide will dry out and become stiff after wetting, smoked hide will dry out and stay soft (Wiederhold 2004). Another reason for smoking could be to color the hide. Different types of fuel produce different shades of color, and the darkness of a particular shade can be also adjusted by time spent in smoke (Albright 1984; Wiederhold 2004). The main character of smoking fires is a lot of smoke, but low heat. Therefore these fireplaces are countersunk (20-30cm deep) to avoid danger of burning a hole in the hide from sparks. Special constructions are placed around the fireplaces (Albright 1984; Beyries et al. 1999; 2002).

Figure 4: 1) Stripping/staking a hide (after Riggs 1982, 74); 2) staking tool from wood (after Riggs 1982, 70); 3) spatula-like tool from Dolní Věstonice I; 4-6) fragments of spatula-like tools from Dolní Věstonice I.

One of the finishing operations, following stripping, is “graining” (Schultz 1989), when the hide is grained to smooth any rough spots and give an overall smoothness to the hide (cf. Figure 5-6). In the collection from Dolní Věstonice I several artifacts could be useful for graining.

195

MICHAELA RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ Hypothetically some of the fireplaces from Dolní Věstonice I could be connected with smoking, but clearer evidence will require further analysis of fireplaces.

After simple fleshing and air drying, the hide became fairly stable, ready to be stored or transported without damage (Thorstensen 1985). Certain qualities suitable for special functions (production of sacks, ropes, lassos etc. David et al. 1998) are possessed by “rawhide” produced after the process of hair removing. Wet scraping results in softer, extremely flexible, thicker skin, easily manipulated and thus more desirable for winter clothing (Edholm and Wilder 2001), while dry scraping produces thinner, harder skin with less stretch, more suitable for summer clothing (Ladd 1999).

Utilization of ochre The position of ochre in the process of hide tanning is often a subject of discussion (Audoin and Plisson 1982; Debout 2007; Philibert 1993; 1994). The astringent, antiseptic, and deodorizing properties of iron salts are well known from natural medicine (Wilcox 1911). W. J. Sollas (1924) noticed that ochre could have performed the function of a subsidiary agent for better conservation and, as an insect repellent, it could avoid insect egglaying which causes spoilage of the skin. C. Peabody (1928) speaks about the impermeability which ochre gives to hide.

The manner of use of different kinds of hide can be found in the ethnographical literature. Fur can be used for covering settlement structures, for interior furnishing, or bedding. The favorite utilization of fur is for clothing and shoe production. In Siberia, children’s clothing is often made from hare or fox killed in November. Underwear or the liner for coats also can be made from these fine hides (David et al. 1998). On the basis of recovered skinning traces on reindeer phalanges the use of kamous (skin from the limbs) for boot production can be inferred. The nomad says “putting my feet in the boots of reindeer, I can go where it goes” (David et al. in press).

A large number of colored bone tools can be found in the archaeological record. Ochred bone tools are, for example, known from Altamira (Breuil and Cartailhac 1906). Some authors actually identified spatulae as tools intended for ochre application on the skin (Dechelette 1908). S. A. Semenov (1964) noticed that ochre mixed with animal or plant fats applied on a skin make the hide impermeable and more lasting. According to his opinion bone “burnishers” were ochred because of their probable contact with a previously colored skin or utilization for rubbing the mixture to the skin (Semenov 1964). The role of ochre in the process of hide tanning was experimentally tested by F. Audoin and H. Plisson (1982) who demonstrated its antiputrefaction, repellent, and drying function, but no direct role within the hide dressing process was proved. By contrast, S. Philibert (1993; 1994), who analyzed Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic lithic tools, found that ochre was not used in the tanning process itself but played a part in the finishing process.

Various sacks or containers (from rawhide) can be produced from fur or hide. An indirect evidence of rope production can be seen in flat mammoth bones, especially shoulder blades; the surface of which is covered with continual cut marks. These could originate from cutting a hide into strips. In the process of rope production, cutting is usually followed by softening and twinning of strips together (David et al. 1998). In Dolní Věstonice knowledge of twinning is documented by the presence of negative impressions in fired clay (Adavasio et al. 1997; 1999; Soffer and Adavasio 2004; etc.). Although the authors point out that the imprints from Dolní Věstonice I originated from plants rather than animal fibers (Soffer and Adavasio 2004), the twinning of hide cannot be excluded.

In Dolní Věstonice I most of the tools related to skin dressing are ochred, so it is not possible to distinguish in which phase ochre entered the process. With regard to the amount of ochre found on the site, the possibility of postdepositional coloring has to be taken into account. Mostly red ochre, hematite, of local origin was processed, but pieces of white calcified slate and deep-grey hematite also were found. The processing of hematite to ochre powder is documented by colored stone plates and pebbles which were used for rubbing iron ores after rapid oxidation by calcination or burning in the fire (Klíma 1983).

Conclusions Based on preliminary research of the industry from hard animal materials, one part of the daily life of the Pavlovian people was reconstructed. The rich presence of tools related to skin processing (Table 1) points to the importance of this craft in the socio-cultural context. From the recovered faunal remains and projectile points the intentional hunting of fur animals can be presumed. The presence of specific cut marks found on faunal remains bears evidence for the skinning of hunted animals. The representation of various hide dressing tools informs us about the possible organization of this skill (Figure 6). Simple unifacial beveled tools from horse ribs as well as antler elbow-shaped scrapers were probably used for fleshing hide stretched in a frame. Serrated horse rib can bear evidence of processing hide on a beam. The morphology of elbow-shaped tools from reindeer antler

Final products The application of every single phase of the whole process and the additives used result in products of different qualities and properties. By summarizing possible intermediate and final products, an important feature of Pavlovian life can be discovered.

196

RECONSTRUCTING THE “CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE” OF SKIN PROCESSING IN PAVLOVIAN BONE ARTIFACTS

Position in „chaîne opératoire“

fleshing

hair removal

Process

defleshing

wet scraping dry scraping

rubbing

softening

stripping

graining

Placing of a hide

Artefact type

Raw material

Representation

frame

bevelled ribs

horse rib

15

frame

antler "pronghoes"

reindeer antler

7

beam

serrated horse rib

horse rib

1 + 2?

frame

bevelled ribs

horse rib

15 1 + 2?

beam

serrated horse rib

horse rib

frame

antler "pronghoes"

reindeer antler

7

ground?

cancellous bones

1+?

ground?

smoothed split ribs

ground?

bevelled split ribs

mammoth bone mammoth/horse long bones/ribs horse ribs

frame

spatula-like tools

mammoth rib/rhino scapula

28 6 21

grainers

mammoth molar

5

cancellous bones

mammoth bone

1+?

smoothed split ribs

mammoth/horse long bones/ribs

28

Table 1: Representation of tools and its probable position in „chaîne opératoire“.

Figure 6: Schema of possible hide processing performed in Dolní Věstonice I. (pictures of hide positioning after Beyries 1999 – drawing M. Ballinger; pictures of tools after Klíma 1981, 1983).

197

MICHAELA RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ points to the utilization of a sort of a dry-scraping method. The evidence of usage of a fat as a softening agent can be seen in smoothness of some tools such as „smoothers“ or „bone burnishers“, which could be possibly used for rubbing the mixture of fat into the hide. Stripping of a hide could be accomplished by spatula-like staking tools and for final graining mammoth molars as well as tools from cancellous bone could be utilized. Presence of probable dehairing tools can show evidence of the production of buckskin and thus also other skin products, such as ropes or underwear. With regard to the possible utilisation of tools with smoothed cancellous bone for graining, its abundant representation can point to production of hight quality hides. Important feature of the studied collection is its coloring with ochre, which can indicate important position of hematite within process of skin dressing. While important data from the field of taphonomy, pollen analysis, use-wear analysis and spatial distribution has to be completed, it is already possible to say that skin dressing performed in Dolní Věstonice I was deliberate process indicating high level of work organisation and ilustrating cognitive abilities of the Upper Palaeolithic people.

Absolon, K. 1938b. Die Erforschung der diluvialen Mammutjäger-Station von Unter-Wisternitz in Mähren. Arbeits Bericht über die zweite Jahr 1925. Brünn. Absolon, K. 1945. Výzkum diluviální stanice lovců mamutů v Dolních Věstonicích na Pavlovských kopcích na Moravě. Pracovní zpráva za třetí rok 1926. Brno. Adavasio, J. M., Hyland, D. C. and Soffer, O. 1997. Textiles and cordage: A preliminary assesement, in J. Svoboda (ed.), Pavlov I – Northwest. The upper paleolithic burial and its settlement context. Brno, The Dolní Věstonice studies, Vol. 4, 403-424. Adavasio, J. M., Soffer, O., Hyland, D. C., Klíma B. and Svoboda, J. 1999. Textil, košíkářství a sítě v mladém paleolitu Moravy. Archeologické rozhledy, 51, 58-94. Albright, S. L. 1984. Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology. Simon Fraser University, Department of Archaeology, Publication N°15. Audoin, F. and Plisson, H. 1982. Les ocres et leurs témoins au Paléolithique en France : enquête et expériences sur leur validité archéologique. Cahiers du centre de recherches préhistoriques, 8, 33-80.

Aknowledgements Belitz, L. 1973. Step-by-step brain tanning the Sioux way. Hot Springs.

I would like to thank Martin Oliva and all scientists from Anthropos Institute, the Moravian Museum Brno. My thanks also belong to Isabelle Sidéra, Alexandra Legrand, Aliette Lompré and Nejma Goutas for all what they tought me and to Francine David and Claudine Karlin for friendly consultations. My thanks also belong to my husband for his patience. This project was supported by scholarship of French government, grant GAUK no252179 and by a special scholarship of Masaryk university Brno no1237.

Bell, R. 1980. Oklahoma Indian Artifacts Contributions from the Stovall Museum. University of Oklahoma, N°4. Beyries, S. 1999. Ethnoarchaeology: A Method of Experimentation, in L. R. Owen, M. Porr (eds.), Ethno – Analogy and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Artefact Use and Production. Tübingen, Mo Vince Verlag, Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte, 14, 117-130. Beyries, S., Vasilev, A., David, F., D´Iachenko, V., Karlin, C. and Chesnekov, Y. 1999. Ui I, a Paleolithic site in Siberia: an ethnoarchaeological approach, in S. Beyries and P. Pétrequin (eds.), Ethno-Archaeology and its Transfer. Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologist. Fifth Annual Meeting in Bournemouth 1999. Oxford, BAR International Series 983, 9-21.

Michaela Rašková Zelinková Institute of Anthropology Faculty of Science, Masaryk University Vinařská 5 603 00 Brno Czech Republic [email protected]

Beyries, S., Vasilev, A., David, F., Karlin, C., D´Iachenko, V. and Chesnekov, Y. 2002. Tentative Reconstruction of Prehistoric Skin Processing (based on the materials of the Upper Paleolithic site Ui I on the Enisei River and ethnoarchaeological data). Archaeology, Etnology and Anthopology of Euroasia, 2(10), 79-86.

References cited Abbott, C. C. 1881. Primitive Industry: Illustrations of the Handwork in Stone, Bone, and Clay, of the Native Races of the Northern Atlantic Seaboard of America. Salem, Massachusetts, George A. Bates.

Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York, Academic Press.

Absolon, K. 1938a. Výzkum diluviální stanice lovců mamutů v Dolních Věstonicích na Pavlovských kopcích na Moravě. Pracovní zpráva za první rok 1924. Brno.

Binford, L. R. 1981. Bones: ancient men and modern myths. New York, Academic Press.

198

RECONSTRUCTING THE “CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRE” OF SKIN PROCESSING IN PAVLOVIAN BONE ARTIFACTS Klíma, B. 1981. Střední část paleolitické stanice u Dolních Věstonic. Památky archeologické, 72, 5-92.

Bohmers, A. 1944. Die Erfoschung des altsteinzeitlichen Lagerplatzes Unterwiesternitz. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1939 bis 1942. Brno (Institute Anthropos MZM), Anthropos-Forschungen.

Klíma, B. 1983. Dolní Věstonice: tábořiště lovců mamutů. Praha, Academia, Památníky naší minulosti, 12.

Breuil, H. and Cartailhac, E. 1906. L´ocre rouge dans les gisements, sa préparation, ses usages, in La caverne d´Altamira à Santillana près de Santander (Espagne), 115-121.

Klíma, B. 1987. Paleolitická parohová industrie z Pavlova. Památky archeologické, 78, 289-368. Klíma, B. 1994. Die Knochenindustrie, Zier- und Kunstgegenstande, in J. Svoboda (ed.), Pavlov I, Excavations 1952 – 1953. Liege, The Dolní Věstonice studies, Vol. 2, Published as ERAUL, N°66, 89-151.

Brühl, E. and Svoboda, J. A. 2003. Zu dem Elfenbeinspitzen vom mitteljungpaläolitischen Mammuthjägersiedlungsplatz Pavlov I in Südmähren, in H. Müller-Beck (ed.), Erkenntnisjäger. Kultur und Umwelt des frühen Menschen, Veröffentlichungen des Landesamtes für Archäologie. Halle (Saale), Kultur und Umwelt des frühen Menschen, Band 57, Festschrift Dietrich Mania, 91-101.

Klíma, B. 1997. Bone industry, decorative objects and art, in J. Svoboda (ed.), Pavlov I, Northwest. The upper paleolithic burial and its settlement context. Brno, The Dolní Věstonice studies, Vol. 4, 227-286. Ladd, B. 1999. The Complete Brain Tanner. West Lafayette, Indiana, Wildwoods Wisdom Productions.

David, F., D´Iachenko, V., Karlin, C. and Tchesnekov, V. 1998. Du traitement des peaux en Sibérie: Dolgans et autres nomades du Nord. Boréales, 74-77, 111-137.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1971. Evolution et techniques IL´Homme et la matière, 2nd édition. Paris, Albin Michel.

David, F., Karlin, C. and D´Iachenko, V. in press. Slaughter and carcass processing of reindeer in Siberia, Patterns and distribution of tasks. Between prehistory and ethnoarchaeology.

Leroy-Prost, C. 1975. L´industrie Osseuse Aurignacienne, Essai Régional de Classification: Poitou, Charentes, Périgord. Gallia Préhistoire, 18, 65-156.

Debout, G. 2007. Un atelier de peausserie il y a 12 000 ans à Pincevent?, in S. Beyries and V. Vaté (eds.), Les civilisations du renne d´hier et d’aujourd´hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques et anthropologiques. Actes de rencontres 19-21 octobre 2006. Antibes, Éditions APDCA, 439-455.

Ložek, V. 2002. Vývoj přírody a podnebí, in J. Svoboda (ed.), Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. Brno, The Dolní Věstonice studies, Vol. 8, 38-47. Mason, O. T. 1895. Aboriginal skin dressing. A study based on material in the U.S. National Museum. Report of U.S. National Museum (as cited in Audoin – Plisson 1982).

Dechelette, J. 1907. La peinture corporelle et le tatouage. Revue Archéologique, 4ème série 9, 38-50.

McComb, P. 1989. Upper Palaeolithic osseous artifacts from Britain and Belgium, an inventory and technological description. Oxford, BAR International Series 481.

Christidou, R. and Legrand, A. 2005. Hide working and bone tools: experimentation design and applications, in H. Luik, A.M. Choyke, C.E. Bartey and L. Lougas (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, From Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone artifacts from prehistoric times to the present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, 26-31 August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus, 15, 216-227.

Mooney, J. 1910. Skin and Skin Dressing. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Washington D. C., Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin N°30, Smithsonian Institution, 591-594.

Edholm, S. and Wilder, T. 1997. Wet-Scrape Braintanned Buckskin. A Practical Guide to Home Tanning and Use. Boonville, California, Paleotechnics.

Musil, R. 1958. Poznámky k paleontologickému materiálu z Dolních Věstonic. Anthropozoikum, 8, 73- 81.

Klíma, B. 1955. Přínos nové paleolitické stanice v Pavlově k problematice nejstarších zemědělských nástrojů. Památky archeologické, 46, 7-29.

Nývltová-Fišáková, 2007. Sezonalita gravettských lokalit na základě studia mikrostruktur zubního cementu savců. Přehled výzkumů, 48, 13-23.

Klíma, B. 1963. Dolní Věstonice, výsledky výzkumu tábořiště lovců mamutů v letech 1947- 1952. Praha, NČSAV.

Peabody, C. 1928. Red paint. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris, nouvelle série, 19, 207-244. Philibert, S. 1993. Quelle interprétation fonctionnelle pour les grattoirs ocrés de la Balma Margineda (Andorre)?, in P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H.

199

MICHAELA RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ Svoboda, J. Havlíček, P., Ložek, V., Macoun, J., Musil, R., Přichystal, A., Svobodová, H. and Vlček, E. 2002. Paleolit Moravy a Slezska. Brno, The Dolní Věstonice studies,Vol. 8.

Plisson (eds.), Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Colloque international de Liège, Éditions ERAUL, vol. 50, Liège, 131-137. Philibert, S. 1994. L´ocre et le traitement des peaux: révision d´une conception traditionnelle par l´analyse fonctionnelle des grattoirs ocrés de la Balma Margineda (Andorre). L´Anthropologie, 98, no 2-3, 447-453.

Thorstensen, T. C. 1985. Practical Leather Technology. Malabar, Florida, Robert E. Krieger. Valoch, K. 1982. Die Beingeräte von Předmostí in Mähren. Antropologie N.S., 20, 57-69.

Popov, A. 1937. Техника у Долґан, Советская Этнография/Technika u Dolgan. Sovetskaja etnografia, 1, 91-136.

Valoch, K. 1987. Contribution to the Architecture of Upper Paleolithic Dwellings. Anthropologie, XXV/2, 115-116.

Popov, A. 1948. Нганасаньі, 1, Материальная культура/Nganasany: material'naja kul'tura. MoscowLeningrad, Trudy Instituta Etnografii Akademii Nauk SSSR, n.s., 3(1).

Valoch, K. 1988. Mamutí kosti jako konstrukční prvky paleolitického obydlí. Památky archeologické, LXXIX, 241-247.

Riggs, J. 1982. Blue mountain buckskin – a working manual. Dry-scare, brain-tan. Second edition 1982, Wallowa.

Villon, A. 1889. Traité pratique de la fabrication des cuirs et du travail des peaux. Paris, Baudry et Cie éditeurs.

Ritzenthaler, R. E. and Ritzenthaler, P. 1969. The Woodland Indians of the Western Great Lakes. Garden City, New Jersey, The Natural History Press.

Wiederhold, J. D. 2004. Toward the standardization of use-wear studies constructing an analogue to prehistoric hide work. M.A. Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. London, Cory, Adams, and McKay.

Wilcox, R. X. 1911. Pharmacology and therapeutics. Blackiston, Philadelphia.

Soffer, O., Adavasio, J.M., Hyland, D. C., Klíma, B. and Svoboda, J. 1998. Perisshable Technologies and the Genesis of the Estern Gravettian. Anthropologie, XXXVI (1-2), 43-68.

Zelinková, M. 2006. Kostěná a parohová industrie ze sídliště Dolní Věstonice I. M.A. Thesis, Institute of archaeology and museology, Masaryk University, Brno. Zelinková, M. 2007. Industrie z tvrdých živočišných materiálů z Dolních Věstonic I. Acta Musei Moraviae. Scientiae Sociales XCII, 9-51.

Soffer, O. and Adavasio, J. M. 2004. Textiles and Upper Paleolithic lives. A focus on the perishable and the invisible, in J. Svoboda and L. Sedláčková (eds.), Gravettien along the Danube. Proceedings of the Mikulov Conference, November 2004. Brno, The Dolní Věstonice Studies, 11, 270-282. De Sonnevile-Bordes, D. 1960. Le Paléolithique Supérieur en Périgord. Bordeaux, Delmans, Vols. 1, 2. Schultz, J. M. 1989. Prehistoric Bison Hide Processing on the Plains. Unpublished Master‘s Thesis. University of Oklahoma, Norman (as cited in Wiederhold 2004). Schultz, J. M. 1992. The Use-Wear Generated by Processing Bison Hides, Plains Anthropologist, 37(141), 333-351. Sollas, W. J. 1924. Ancient Hunters and their modern representatives. London, MacMillan. Steinbring, J. 1966. The Manufacture and the Use of Bone Defleshing Tools. American Antiquity, 31(4), 575581.

200

Sewing With or Without a Needle in the Upper Palaeolithic? Penelope AMATO CNRS UMR 7055 - Préhistoire et Technologie, MAE, Nanterre, France Abstract This paper introduces a different approach to the topic of sewing in the Upper Palaeolithic by questioning the functional potential of bone needles and awls. It examines the technical dimensions of sewing and reconsiders the “evolution” of sewing techniques. Furthermore, this paper proposes to develop considerations of the topic by analysing archaeological implements from a functional point of view through the application of experimental use-wear criteria. In order to establish such criteria it is necessary to focus on ethnographic data. By doing so, it is possible to build up a large frame of reference for assessing sewing tools, with regard to the ways in which they were used and to the large number of materials they were used to modify. The present methods should allow for a different light to be cast on a question that seeks to understand more than just fashion in prehistoric times. Introduction Assuming that sewing was done with the aid of an eyed needle in the Upper Palaeolithic raises problems with regard to chronology and geography, or at least, such an assumption would be valid only for a certain time and for a certain cultural group: the Solutro-Magdalenian. Needle distribution corresponds to the Magdalenian expansion through Western Europe. Earlier human populations from the Upper Palaeolithic also had to protect themselves from very harsh climatic conditions, although they apparently did not use needles. Groups contemporaneous to the Magdalenian (i.e. the Epigravettians from Italy) had very creative and complex decoration on clothing that can be seen in funerary context, without requiring needles to achieve it, as it seems (Giacobini 2006; Palma di Cesnola 2001). Therefore, in archaeology, preconceptions about sewing techniques must be reassessed by asking new questions. For instance, does one really need a needle to sew and what does the appearance of the eyed needle in Western Europe mean?

The above question might sound strange, as needles1 carry with them the very idea of sewing. Sewing is done by using needles and needles are for sewing. Moreover, it is universally accepted that bone eyed needles used during the Upper Palaeolithic were made for this purpose. This preconception, that eyed needles are necessary for sewing, is so prevalent that the act of sewing is always drawn into interpretations of archaeological sites if needles are in fact present. Traditionally, in the archaeological literature, sewing as we conceive it today is confirmed by the appearance of the eyed needle, which, in Western Europe, takes place around the late Solutrean and early Magdalenian2 (Stordeur-Yedid 1979, 27). Nonetheless, assembling of soft materials was surely undertaken during earlier periods of the Upper Palaeolithic (Stordeur-Yedid 1979, 21). For instance, pointed artefacts such as awls, which are associated with hide assembling, have been found in Gravettian, Aurignacian and Châtelperronian contexts (Camps Fabrer et al. 1990; D'Errico et al. 2003; Leroy-Prost 1975). However, when one talks about manufactured clothing and other sewn products in the early Upper Palaeolithic, these tasks are traditionally thought to have been roughly executed before the creation and use of the eyed needle (Gilligan 2007; Mellars 1989; Pettitt 2007).

In this paper I will discuss these questions by focusing on different possible sewing methods, how these activities can be identified archaeologically, what methods can be used for analyzing sewing instruments, and how these assessments can be strengthened by incorporating ethnographic data.

By considering the eyed-needle as the main sewing tool, by focusing on its function instead of its functioning (Sigaut 1991), the knowledge we have of Palaeolithic sewing activities is likely to be dramatically truncated. As a result, on one hand the functional category of the eyed needle is reduced to sewing only (obscuring evidence of other possible assembling activities such as embroidery, crocheting, netting, basketry, etc.) and on the other hand, the possible ways of efficiently sewing complex products without a needle are not taken into consideration. However, a few authors do mention the possibility of using eyed needles for a large number of domestic activities in the ethnographic record3.

Sewing can be defined as the act of assembling or joining together soft materials with a thread (Leroi-Gourhan 1943, 263). Those practices are generally thought to have been done with the help of a pointy instrument: an awl, which partly penetrates the soft material, or a needle, generally eyed4, which passes entirely through the material. Embroidery, other netting techniques and basketry are related to sewing and as such, have to be taken into account for analyses (Balfet 1952; Mason 1902; Miles 1963; Turner 1999). In the Upper Palaeolithic, we can presume sewing was used to create clothing of course, but also facilitated other

201

PENELOPE AMATO domestic handicraft work necessary for subsistence. Functional analyses of Upper Palaeolithic needles and awls do exist within the archaeological literature. However, specific research does not appear to have been undertaken yet, as this topic is generally not questioned. In the past, sewing tools were studied typologically and technologically (Camps Fabrer et al. 1990; Mons 1980, Stordeur 1977; Stordeur-Yedid 1979). More rarely, technological studies were coupled with functional ones (Bouchud 1977; D'Errico et al. 2003; Peltier 1986). They tested the use of potential sewing implements on different soft materials (raw hide, tanned hide), and the different forms of use-wear produced on the tools were observed by these researchers. But until now, those experiments were done quite mechanically. I propose to further develop the functional analysis of prehistoric sewing activities by reincorporating the final outcome of sewing into research design. Since sewing implies complex skills, traditional knowledge and interaction with the environment, this is fully justified.

is totally adapted to the craft and a needle is not necessary. The awl effectively perforates skin or fur. Then the sinew joins together the two parts of the soft material. In effect, nce dry, the tip of the sinew has the property of being used just like a needle (Bebbington 1982, 15; Burnham 1992, 27).

Some principles of sewing in ethnographically documented Northern societies

In both cases, sinew is the preferred material for thread, although fish skin was sometimes used in Siberia (Buijs 1997), instead of plant fibers. The reason for this is that sinew swells in contact with humidity. It then fills the stitch holes so that exposure to coldness is hindered (Buijs 1997; Issenman 1988). Horse hair was not considered an adequate thread in comparison to sinew because the hair would rip the stitch. However, all kinds of hairs were preferred for embroidered ornamentation (Black and Liapunova 1988; Capture and Capture 2001; Fitzhugh et al. 1988; Nöel 1979).

A review of sewing techniques in traditional societies, known to have had comparable environments and lifeways to Upper Palaeolithic humans in France, is a good way to imagine the possible different uses of archaeological artefacts and such a review is necessary to build up an experimental protocol (Audouze and Perlès 1980; Beyries 1997; Owen 1993). Indeed, a close look at modern hunter-gatherers’ ways of sewing leads us toward new perspectives. Although cultural variances and needs have to be taken into account for analyses and considered with some caution, extreme climate conditions and therefore climate constraints are incontrovertible actors (Binford 2001). Thus, these factors must be given a high priority. Inadequate protection against cold, humidity and wind could mean danger and even death (Buijs 1997; Issenman 1997, 37). Thus, sewing techniques and tools are a function of those constraints.

Needles became mostly popular in North America among Natives once contact with Europeans was established. Natives swapped the traditional porcupine quillwork made with awls for glass bead embroidery done by needles (Capture 2001, 19; Thompson 1995). Needles were certainly very useful for this activity. On the other hand, Inuit groups were known to use thin bone or ivory needles very similar to the Magdalenian needles, although it is not known if Inuit from West Greenland ever used eyed needles or fine awls for their clothing production (Birket-Smith 1924). They are known to have sewn hide, furs, bird skin and fish skin5. Awls were occasionally used in the case of a very thick leather hide prior to the use of needles (Issenman 1988).

In this ethnographic context, if sewing activities can be accomplished with either an awl or an eyed needle for the same purpose, which modalities determine the choice of the tool? A few important questions should now be addressed. Is the choice cultural? One tool might be preferred to another because of traditional implications. Could the choice be technical? A tool could replace another because it can perform a task better than the one that it is replacing, or the purpose of a task might change as a result of new needs. Or is it a question of environment? A particular type of tool could also be used depending on the climate and the degree of protection one might need from the elements; in the same way, the choice could depend on the available game and therefore, on the type of skin or fur.

The first comment one can make about sewing techniques in past Northern societies is that there are two tendencies in sewing: 1) groups that preferentially used the awl, and 2) groups that preferentially used the eyed needle. The eyed needle that we generally assume to be the mark of sewing is not so generalised. For most Northern groups (e.g. Native Americans and Siberians), the main sewing tool used was an awl (Bebbington 1982, 14; Burnham 1992, 27; Clayton-Gouthro 1994, 15; Turner 1955, 30). Eyed needles were scarcely found in North America. Those found were mostly on the West coast. In North America, other perforated bone tools of many different shapes, sizes and thicknesses were also sometimes used but generally for other domestic craftwork such as basketry, mat making, (Densmore 1979; Newman 1974) or fishing and could even be toys (Miles 1963, 206; Owen 2006, 164). The combination of an awl plus sinew

The evidence From the questions that ethnographic data might raise, what can be interpreted as belonging to sewing activities, and what can be included in our reflexion of this matter? Sewed craftwork and clothing were most definitely part of Upper Palaeolithic groups’ everyday life. But unfortunately for archaeologists, almost nothing is left of the manufactured items because of their perishable nature.

202

SEWING WITH OR WITHOUT A NEEDLE IN THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC? According to the ethnographic data, items can be made from many kinds of raw materials available in the environment, such as hide, fur, feathers, and shells. Along with plants, trees, nuts, etc (Owen 1993). Nonetheless, there is both direct and indirect evidence of sewing and sewn products in the archaeological record which can reveal details about prehistoric fashion and clothing technology.

the garment along the stitches (Issenman 1997, 47). It is entirely possible that ornaments were similarly created and used in prehistoric times (this research is currently in progress). The hypothesis that ornaments were sewn onto clothes has been validated in other archaeological contexts through use-wear analyses. Such analyses allowed for the identification of rubbing or polish on beads which occurred as a result of extended contact with a soft material (Bonnardin 2004; D'Errico 1993; Taborin 1993b).

First, the most obvious archaeological evidence is bone tools. The bone industry in the Upper Palaeolithic context is largely represented by pointed tools and at some sites dozens of these pointed tools (awls or eyed needles) are found. As an example, among French Magdalenian sites, the numerous needles and awls from the caves of Isturitz, le Placard and la Garenne (Figure 1), which are currently under study, appear to vary greatly in shape, length and thickness. As for the eyed needles, they can be as thin as 1mm in diameter or as large as 5mm. The length can vary from a few centimetres to more than 20cm. The eye holes can be very small or very large as well. Some are very finely produced, while others show little investment in their production and were used without any specific shaping. Awls are extremely diverse as well, with differences in anatomical element selected, investment and in length, but most of all, in shaft diameter. This diversity indicates a large number of possible tool-type applications. It suggests that tools were meant to be used for specialized techniques and that they belonged to different functional categories. In addition, mechanical deformations of the initial volume (Sidéra 1993, 106), (e.g. the short length of needles, breaks and traces of grinding) clearly show both intensive and long-term use (Choyke 2006). When looking at such diversity, it does not appear that all implements were designed to sew, but some of them clearly were used for that purpose. The most significant examples of Upper Palaeolithic sewn products are those found on bodies buried with what appears to have been clothing (Binant 1991, 125; Dunning and Rast-Eicher 1992). The most obvious examples are negative prints in funerary contexts at the Sungir site (Bader and Lavrushin 1998), Grimaldi and Arene Candide cave sites (Giacobini 2006) or La Madeleine (Capitan and Peyrony 1928; Vanhaeren and D'Errico 2001). At these sites there is evidence for full designs of clothes, parkas, hoods, trousers and even boots, which are visible because the deposition of beads follows the original garment profile (Figure 2). The contexts in which the beads were found indicate that they were sewn to particular parts of the clothing and show excellent skills in embroidery. The ornaments had cultural and symbolic functions (Taborin 1993a; Vanhaeren 2002; White 2007). However, like many other elements in clothing, they would have served functional needs as well. For example, on the garments of ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers, ornaments were used to hide seams (Capture and Capture 2001, 18). Ornaments were also useful for straightening seams or to better protect against humidity because they could be sewn to

203

Figure 1: A sample of possible sewing implements made from bone. These artefacts, from the site collections of Grotte de La Garenne, Grotte du Placard and Grotte d’Isturitz, were studied as part of the research reported here (photos: P. Amato; map copyright IGN).

Anthropomorphic representations are another form of evidence for clothing in Upper Palaeolithic times. Clothes and ornaments are visible on figurines and stone or bone plaquettes (Dunning and Rast-Eicher 1992; Soffer et al. 2000a). Some striking examples of such representations are “La Dame à l’anorak” from le Gabillou (Gaussen and Pales 1964, pl.19), the well-known Venus of Lespugue, Buret, Malta (Soffer et al. 2000a), the women from Gönnersdorf (Bosinski et al. 2001), or from the site of La Garenne (Allain 1984) (Figures 3; 4; 5). These artefacts depict assembled clothes that are elaborate and even patterned. The examples are more numerous than one could otherwise guess. There is also indirect evidence which has to be taken into account when analyzing such artefacts and other

PENELOPE AMATO contextual data. The identification of hide-working on an archaeological site is a good preamble for considering further clothing assembly activities. Even if in the ethnographic context hide-working and sewing were not always executed in the same place, the latter cannot exist without the former when assembling hides. Identification of the working of plant fibers prior to weaving and then assembling, or the use of plant fibers as thread, can be another indicator of sewing activities (Soffer 2004). Negative prints of weaving in Pavlov can be taken into account, although this is currently debated (Soffer et al. 1998; Soffer et al. 2000b; Valoch 2007).

Faunal remains can also indicate the type of exploited hide and even more so, the variations in Palaeolithic taste! For instance, faunal remains found in archaeological sites are often predominantly those of reindeer and horse but small mammals and/or birds are sometimes mentioned in great number, with the most popular ones being the arctic rabbit and the snowy owl (Fontana 2004; Laroulandie 2004). Importantly, some of these animals could not have been exclusively hunted for their meat; they represent the procurement of secondary products. The stripping marks on the bones establish this, by showing that furs were carefully taken off. It can be reasonably hypothesised that their choices corresponded to functionality6 and to aesthetics in terms of the fashioning of clothing. Other artefacts that could indicate the practice of sewing activities are the remains of reindeer legs and horse tails in archaeological deposits, even more so when they are found near perforating tools. They might have been exploited in order to collect sinew and thread (Allain 1950; Rigaud and Marleau 2004).

Figure 2: Sungir. Example of the richness of the ornamentation which can be presumed as sewn on the clothes (after Bader and Lavrushin 1998).

Figure 5: The anthropomorphic dancing figures of La Garenne, bone pendant (after Allain 1984).

Figure 3: “La Dame à l’anorak” from the cave of Gabillou, cave art (after Gaussen 1964).

An indispensable know-how As it is the case with any other field of activity, sewing or assembling requires know-how. It cannot be improvised and, as seen in ethnographic contexts or even in our societies, the necessary skill results from long learning and cultural and technical traditions. It requires knowledge of how to use the tools, knowledge of the principles of different raw materials (assembled material and thread), and, of course, knowledge of the environment one lives in. The environment provides people with animal and plant resources, but it can also create adverse conditions for human populations because of harsh climates. The indispensable skills of sewing and assembling were undoubtedly a large part of human subsistence practices for various reasons. They allow for protection from environmental constraints (i.e. with clothing, dwelling, bedding), transportation (i.e. gathering and storage solutions: bags, nets, boats) and cultural, in

Figure 4: The dressed women of Gönnersdorf, stone plaquette (after Bosinski 1970).

204

SEWING WITH OR WITHOUT A NEEDLE IN THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC? addition to personal, ornamentation).

needs

(i.e.

decoration,

substantiating the co-use of, or co-existence of, awls and eyed needles for various types of soft material processing.

Considering these factors, it appears that an understanding of how clothing and other products were made will allow for better interpretations and determinations of Palaeolithic life-ways from an anthropological perspective. Nonetheless, modern and stereotypical conceptions of sewing have been persistently projected upon past human cultures and therefore, new perspectives or approaches are necessary.

Methodology In order to investigate the question of using different tools for different types of sewing, methods consist of two main tasks. First, ethnographic data of sewing techniques must be compiled. This should focus on documented hunter-gatherer societies whose environmental and climatic conditions were very close to the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe. Groups included should be those who inhabited regions such as North America, the Arctic, North Pacific and Siberia. Relevant subcategories of this database should include the types of tools used and their possible co-use, the types of soft materials and threads, the types of stitching, the types of ornaments or the manufactured products, and the seasons when the activities took place.

The question of sewing “evolution”: a general outline In the archaeological literature, the following interpretations have been predominantly applied to tools that have been attributed to soft material processing: 1. awls are used to perforate a hide while bringing along a thread (Leroi-Gourhan 1943, 235; Stordeur-Yedid 1979, 191);

The second task involves an analysis of use-wear traces on a culled sample of archaeological tools and elaboration of an experimental frame of reference for comparison. As mentioned above, very few experiments with awls or needles have been carried out in the last three decades. They were generally done a random way, such as perforating a raw hide or a tanned hide one hundred times to test the efficiency of perforation, to examine the smoothing of the tool and to identify different use-wear traces created by use with the different types of hide. Although all of those methods do work, they did not take into consideration the skill dimension of sewing.

2. awls are used to make a hole in a soft material and then eyed needles pass through the hole with a thread (Collectif 1978; Lartet 1870, 359); 3. eyed needles are used to perforate the hide and draw the thread through the hole (Jourdan and Leroy 1987; Stordeur-Yedid 1979, 191). These interpretations indicate the same purpose or outcome: assembling two edges of a soft material together by creating stitches. However their method of execution differs dramatically by implying the use of two different tools, in different scenarios. According to many authors who consider this topic, possible sewing methods must be one of the three listed above, depending on the authors’ ideas of how sewing can be undertaken. Besides, the generally accepted criteria of sewing technique “evolution” do not take into consideration an important part of this question. Archaeological literature has generally held that the evolution of sewing is traditionally thought to have begun with the use of awls. Use of the eyed needle then followed during the Solutrean through to the Magdalenian, until it disappeared with the onset of the Mesolithic where it was replaced with the awl. Actually, the appearance of the eyed needle and its intensive use is a Western European phenomenon, bound in space and time. Furthermore, during the period when the eyed needle was used, awls never disappeared and were used as well. Additionally, perishable materials could have been used for perforation just as well as needles in earlier times. Indeed, both tool-types are often found in the domestic areas of archaeological deposits. Thus, the persistent idea that « needles replaced awls » should be substituted with the understanding that « needles were used along with or as well as awls when they did appear ». Below, I propose a methodology for

Currently, I am undertaking an experimental project in order to study the interactions between gesture and soft materials according to method and purpose. The project involves establishing reference criteria based upon on a large number of needle and awl replicas with varying parameters. Tool replicas were shaped to represent the different sizes and shapes found in the archaeological record. The experimental work includes using the tools for different purposes (traditional sewing but also weaving, knitting, netting, embroidery…), creating different types of stitching, exploring the associations of different tools used for different tasks, and also using the tools on a diverse sample of animal and plant soft materials (Figures 6 and 7). The duration of use and therefore the degrees of use or “chaîne d’usure” (Sidéra and Giacobini 2002) are being taken into account. Finally, this project seeks to analyse and compare experimental and archaeological implements on a macroscopic and microscopic scale (using the criteria developed by Christidou 1999; Legrand 2005; Semenov 1964; Sidéra 1993). Macroscopic observations will be used to identify and classify use-wear stages along with point, shaft and eye deformations. Microscopic analyses will be used to identify the nature of the raw materials used for fabrication and the gestures of the craftsmen.

205

PENELOPE AMATO Conclusions Although sewing techniques in the Upper Palaeolithic are still not well understood, it is now unquestionable that sewing played very important roles in the ways of life and subsistence practices of Palaeolithic societies. Here lies the importance of beginning new studies with specific approaches focusing on the different possible uses of awls and needles. Ethnographic data reveals new perspectives on functional problems, which in turn allows for the development of experimental and use-wear analyses. These investigative tools may broaden current understandings of the contexts in which the eyed needle may or may not have been used during the Upper Palaeolithic. If we assume that eyed needles appear to have been an innovation of the middle Upper Palaeolithic, it is necessary to determine whether they were tools created based on old sewing traditions or if they were a cultural response to the same outcome . It will also be important to explore the possibility that eyed needles represented the arrival of new techniques developed to accommodate new needs. So, why are there awls and why are there needles? Can one tool replace the other? Were both tool-types used for the same purpose? Were they morphologically adapted to other domestic activities? Were raw materials assembled differently according to their different properties? The investigation has only just begun.

Figure 6: Assembling a mitt. The experiment followed an Inuit mitt pattern (after Wilder 1976). The soft material was a tanned sheep hide of average thickness (1.5mm). Stitching was undertaken with two bone eyed-needles measuring 52mm (shaft diameter 2mm) and 62mm (shaft diameter 3mm). Sinew was used for thread and an overcast stitch, the most common known, was also used. The stitching was done from right to left and the hide was perforated by an up to down motion, as this is the most convenient way to perforate both edges simultaneously. Both tools were held nearest to their points. It was quickly evident that for the type of hide used in this experiment, a needle alone was sufficient and that stitch holes did not require preperforation. The first assembling attempt was done with the fine eyed-needle, which was extremely good for passing the thread through the hide. However, it broke after one hour of use. The second eyed-needle was thicker, but it was not as effective as the finer one because the stitch holes were unfavourably large. Thread and wear create stress on the holes, thus, large stitch holes are disadvantageous because they are more likely to become rips (photos: P. Amato).

Note 1: As a convenience, I decided to use the term of “needle” when writing about eyed needles. Note 2: There are some records of eyed needles in the Gravettian of Central and Oriental Europe (N. Goutas, personal communication). Note 3: L. Owen rightly exposes the different uses of eyed needles in the ethnographic context (Owen 2005, 164). Also, some recent researches have connected the use of eyed needles in prehistoric context to the work of plant fibers (Legrand 2007; Soffer 2004) and this connection is presently the focus of a PhD by E. A. Stone (personal communication). Note 4: Other ways of fixing the thread on a needle do exist (Stordeur 1979, 16) but their efficiency has still to be tested. Note 5: For these types of soft materials, needles were preferred when they had acute edges (Issenman 1988). The acute section enables the needle to perforate the skin while also allowing the edges of the hole to recover after the needle and thread pass through. The advantage of this is that cold air is less able to enter the hole and thus the garment. For the same reason, needles were also extremely effective for creating waterproof stitches. Note 6: Fur has been used in ethnographic contexts for protection against cold, but has also been used to protect

Figure 7: The nearly finished mitt, before applying ornamentation (photo: P. Amato).

206

SEWING WITH OR WITHOUT A NEEDLE IN THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC? against wind and humidity. For example, as the sweat evaporates from the hood of the parka, it crystallizes and becomes trapped by the long hairs that are in contact with cold air, and is easily drawn away from the body (Issenman 1997, 38).

Beyries, S. 1997. Ethnoarchéologie : un mode d'expérimentation. Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes, 6, 185-196.

Acknowledgements

Binford, L. 2001. Constructing frames of references: an analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Binant, P. 1991. La préhistoire de la mort : les premières sépultures en Europe. Paris, Editions Errance.

This research is being conducted as part of PhD. I am very grateful to Catherine Perlès and Isabelle Sidéra, my advisors, and would like to thank them for their guidance and valuable advice. My thanks also go to Catherine Schwab from the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Coralie Bay from the Musée d’Argentomagus in Saint-Marcel for allowing me to study the bone collections of Le Placard, Isturitz and La Garenne. Many thanks to François-Xavier Chauvière who kindly communicated me some precious informations. I am also extremely grateful to Elizabeth Blake and Alexandra Legrand who reviewed this paper.

Birket-Smith, K. 1924. Ethnography of the Egedesminde district. New-York, AMS Press. Black, L. T., Liapunova, R. G. 1988. Aleut: Islanders of the North Pacific, in W. W. Fitzhugh and A.Crowell (eds.), Crossroads of continents: cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. Bonnardin, S. 2004. La parure funéraire du néolithique ancien en Bassins Parisien et Rhénan : matériaux, techniques, fonctions et usage social. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris 1.

Penelope Amato CNRS UMR 7055 « Préhistoire et Technologie » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l’Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

Bosinski, G. 1970. Magdalenian anthropomorphic figures at Gönnersdorf (Western Germany), preliminary report on the 1968 excavations. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici, 5, 57-97. Bosinski, G., D'Errico, F., Schiller, P. 2001. Die gravierten Frauendarstellungen von Go nnersdorf. Stuttgart, F. Steiner.

References cited

Bouchud, J. 1977. Les aiguilles en os. Etude comparée des traces laissées par la fabrication et l'usage sur le matériel préhistorique et les objets expérimentaux, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Deuxième Colloque International sur l’Industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 9-12 juin 1976. Paris, Editions du CNRS, 257-267.

Allain, J. 1950. Un point de technique magdalénienne. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 57(7), 305-307. Allain, J. 1984. Figurations féminines multiples sur une pendeloque de la Garenne à Saint-Marcel (Indre), Eléments de pré et protohistoire européenne, hommages à Jacques-Pierre Millotte, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon, 299, Les Belles Lettres, 195202.

Buijs, C. 1997. Ecology and the principles of polar clothing, in C. Buijs and J. Oosten (eds.), Braving the cold: continuity and change in Arctic clothing. CNWS Publications, Leiden University, 11-33.

Audouze, F., Perlès, C. 1980. L'ethnoarchéologie. Nouvelles de l'archéologie, 4, 7-10.

Burnham, D. 1992. To please the caribou. Painted caribou-skin coats worn by the Naskapi, Montagnais and Cree hunters of the Quebec-Labrador peninsula. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum.

Bader, N. O., Lavrushin, Y. A. 1998. Upper Palaeolithic site Sungir (graves and environment). Moscow, Scientific World. Balfet, H. 1952. La vannerie, essai de classification. L'Anthropologie, 56, 259-280.

Camps Fabrer, H., Ramseyer, D., Stordeur, D. 1990, Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique. III : Poinçons, pointes, poignards, aiguilles. Aix-enProvence, Publications de l'Université de Provence.

Bebbington, J. M. 1982. Quillwork of the Plains / Le travail aux piquants des Indiens des Plaines. Calgary, Glenbow Museum.

207

PENELOPE AMATO Capitan, L., Peyrony, D. 1928. La Madeleine, son gisement, son industrie, ses œuvres d'art. Paris, Librairie Emile Nourry.

internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes. Antibes, Editions APDCA, 297-312. Gaussen, J., Pales, L. 1964. La grotte ornée de Gabillou (près Mussidan, Dordogne). Bordeaux, Institut de préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux.

Capture, J. D. H., Capture, G. P. H. 2001. Beauty, honor, and tradition: the legacy of Plains Indian shirts. Minneapolis, Smithsonian Institute, University of Minnesota press.

Giacobini, G. 2006. Les sépultures du Paléolithique supérieur : la documentation italienne. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5(1), 169-177.

Clayton-Gouthro, C. M. 1994. Patterns in transition: moccasin production and ornamentation of the Janvier band Chipewyan. Hull, Canadian Museum of civilization.

Gilligan, I. 2007. Neanderthal extinction and modern human behaviour: the role of climate change and clothing. World Archaeology, 39(4), 499-514.

Collectif, 1978. La couture. Fiche n°10, Travail et société au Paléolithique, le geste et l'outil. Paris, Documentation photographique, la documentation française, 22-23.

Issenman, B. 1988. Ivalu : traditions du vêtement inuit. Montréal, Musée McCord d'histoire canadienne.

Choyke, A. M. 2006. Bone tools for a lifetime: experience and belonging, in L. Astruc, F. Bon, V. Léa, P.-Y. Milcent and S. Philibert (eds.), Normes techniques et pratiques sociales de la simplicité des outillages préet protohistoriques, XXIVe Rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes. Antibes, Editions APDCA, 49-60.

Issenman, B. 1997. Sinews of survival, the living legacy of Inuit clothing. Vancouver, UBC Press. Jourdan, L., Leroy, J.-P. 1987. Des peaux de rennes, du fil et une aiguille. Essai de reconstitution d'un habitat magdalénien. Paris, Editions du CNRS. Laroulandie, V. 2004. Exploitation des ressources aviaires durant le Paléolithique en France : bilan critique et perspectives, in J.-P. Brugal and J. Desse (eds.), Petits animaux et sociétés humaines : du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires, XXIVe Rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes. Antibes, Editions APDCA, 163-172.

Christidou, R. 1999. Outils en os néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce : études technologiques. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris X. D'Errico, F. 1993. La vie sociale de l'art mobilier paléolithique. Manipulation, transport, suspension des objets en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 12(2), 145-174.

Lartet, E. 1870. Sur l'emploi des aiguilles à coudre dans les temps anciens. Paris, Matériaux pour l’Histoire primitive et naturelle de l’Homme, t. 6, 349-367.

D'Errico, F., Julien, M., Liolios, D., Vanhaeren, M. and Baffier, D. 2003. Many awls in our argument. Bone tool manufacture and use in the Châtelperronian and Aurignacian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-surCure, in J. Zilhaõ and F. d'Errico (eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the transitional technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the 14th Congress of the UISPP, Lisbon, Instituto Portugęs de Arqueologia, 247-270. Densmore, F. 1979. Chippewa Minnesota Historical Society Press.

customs.

Legrand, A. 2007. Fabrication et utilisation de l'outillage en matières osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre : Khirokitia et Cap Andreas-Kastros. Oxford, BAR International Series 1678. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943. Evolution et techniques. L'homme et la matière. Paris, Albin Michel. Leroy-Prost, C. 1975. L'industrie osseuse aurignacienne. Essai régional de classification : Poitou, Charente, Périgord. Gallia Préhistoire, 18, 65-166.

St-Paul,

Dunning, C., Rast-Eicher, A. 1992. Le vêtement dans la préhistoire. Helvetia archaeologica, 23(90), 71-80.

Mason, O. T. 1902. Aboriginal American Indian Basketry, Studies in a textile Art Without Machinery. New Mexico, Rio Grande Press.

Fitzhugh, W. W., Crowell, A. 1988. Crossroads of continents: cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.

Mellars, P. 1989. Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans. Current anthropology, 30(3), 349-385.

Fontana, L. 2004. Le Statut du lièvre variable (Lepus timidus) en Europe occidentale au Magdalénien : premier bilan et perspectives, in J.-P. Brugal and J. Desse (eds.), Petits animaux et sociétés humaines : du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires, XXIVe Rencontres

Miles, C. 1963. Indian and Eskimo Artifacts of North America. New-York, Bonanza Books.

208

SEWING WITH OR WITHOUT A NEEDLE IN THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC? Mons, L. 1980. Essai d'analyse et de classification des poinçons des gisements solutréens et magdaléniens du Placard (Charente), de Laugerie-Basse et de la Madeleine (Dordogne). Bulletin de Société préhistorique française, Etudes et travaux, 77 (10/12), 317-327.

préhistoire : bilan et perspectives, Rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes, 11. Juan-les-Pins, Editions APDCA, 21-34. Soffer, O. 2004. Recovering perishable technologies through use wear on tools: preliminary evidence for Upper Palaeolithic weaving and net making. Current anthropology, 45(3), 407-413.

Newman, S. C. 1974. Indian basket weaving: how to weave Pomo, Yurok, Pima and Navajo baskets. Flagstaff, Northland Press.

Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. M., Hyland, D. C., Klima, B. and Svoboda, J. 1998. Perishable technologies and the genesis of the eastern Gravettian. Anthropologie, 36(1-2), 43-68.

Nöel, M. 1979. Art décoratif et vestimentaire des Amérindiens du Québec, XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Ottawa, Leméac.

Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. M., Hyland, D. C., Gvozdover, M. D., Habu, J., Kozlowski, J. K., McDermott, L., Mussi, M., Owen, L. R., Svoboda, J. and Zilhão, J. 2000a. The Venus figurines: Textiles, basketry, gender and status in the Upper Palaeolithic. Current anthropology, 41(4), 511-537.

Owen, L. R. 1993. Materials worked by hunter and gatherer groups of northern North America: implications for the use-wear analysis, in P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson (eds.), Traces et fonction : les gestes retrouvés, Actes du colloque international de Liège (8-10 décembre 1990). Editions ERAUL, 50, 3-12.

Soffer, O., Adovasio, J. M., Illingworth, J. S., Amirkhanov, H. A., Praslov, N. D. and Street, M. 2000b. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. Antiquity, 74(286), 812-821.

Owen, L. R. 2005. Distorting the past: gender and the division of labor in the European Upper Palaeolithic. Tübingen, Kern Verlag.

Peltier, A. 1986. Etude expérimentale des surfaces osseuses façonnées et utilisées. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 83, 5-7.

Stordeur, D. 1977. La fabrication des aiguilles à chas. Observation et expérimentation, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Deuxième Colloque International sur l’Industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 9-12 juin 1976. Paris, Editions du CNRS, 251-256.

Pettitt, P. 2007. The ghosts of the Palaeolithic: individual agency and behavioural change in perspective. Antiquity, 81(314), 1083-1085.

Stordeur-Yedid, D. 1979. Les aiguilles à chas au Paléolithique. XIIIème supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Paris, Editions du CNRS.

Rigaud, A., Merleau, J. 2004. Les fils du temps : le rôle des liens au Paléolithique supérieur, in J. Despriée and S. Tymula (eds.), Le coteau de La Garenne. Projet collectif de Recherches. Etudes 1999-2001, Archéologie du val de Creuse en Berry. Bulletin de l'Association pour la Sauvegarde du Site Archéologique d'Argentomagus et Amis du Musée, Saint-Marcel, n° spécial, 47-49.

Taborin, Y. 1993a. La parure en coquillage au Paléolithique. XXIXème supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Paris, Editions du CNRS.

Palma di Cesnola, A. 2001. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Italie. Collection "L'Homme des origines", série "Préhistoire d'Europe" n°9, Grenoble.

Taborin, Y. 1993b. Traces de façonnage et d'usage sur les coquillages perforés, in P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson (eds.), Traces et fonction : les gestes retrouvés, Actes du colloque international de Liège (8-10 décembre 1990). Editions ERAUL, 50, 255-267.

Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric technology. Londres, Bath, Adams & Dart.

Thompson, J. 1995. From the Land: Two Hundred Years of Dene Clothing. Hull, Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Sidéra, I. 1993. Les assemblages osseux en Bassin Parisien et Rhénan du VIe au IVe millénaire B.C. : histoire, techno-économie et culture. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris 1.

Turner, G. 1955. Hair embroidery in Siberia and North America. Oxford, University Press.

Sidéra, I., Giacobini, G. 2002. Outils, armes et parures en os funéraires à la fin du Néolithique, d'après Val-de-Reuil et Porte-Joie (Eure). Gallia Préhistoire, 44, 215-230.

Turner, N. J. 1999. Plant technology of the First Peoples in British Columbia. Vancouver, Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook series, UBC Press.

Sigaut, F. 1991. Un couteau ne sert pas à couper, mais en coupant. Structure, fonctionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets, 25 ans d'études technologiques en

Valoch, K. 2007. Textile in the Upper Palaeolithic? Some notes on the matter. Archeologické rozhledy, 59, 143-154.

209

PENELOPE AMATO Vanhaeren, M. 2002. Les fonctions de la parure au Paléolithique supérieur : de l'individu à l'unité culturelle. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bordeaux I. Vanhaeren, M., D'Errico, F. 2001. La parure de l'enfant de la Madeleine (fouilles Peyrony). Un nouveau regard sur l'enfance au Paléolithique supérieur. Paléo, 13, 201237. White, R. 2007. Systems of personal ornamentation in the Early Upper Palaeolithic: methodological challenges and new observations, in P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef and C. Stringe (eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New behavioural and Biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 287302. Wilder, E. 1976. Secrets of Eskimo skin sewing. Anchorage, Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.

210

Technology and Use-wear Analysis of the Non-utilitarian Bones Objects from the Russian Upper Paleolithic Site of Byki-7(I) Natalia AKHMETGALEEVA State regional organization of culture, Kurchatov, Russia Abstract This work is dedicated to the analysis of the manufacture technology and use-wear of the non-utilitarian bones (ornamented artifacts, beads) from the Late Upper Paleolithic site of Byki-7(I). This site is located on left bank of the Seim river in the Desna basin (Russia). The date of Byki-7(I) was generated through the analysis of horse and reindeer bones by L. Sulerzhitsky: 17 000 ± 90 BP. The article is devoted to the first truly figurative artifact from this location: a large ivory ring with a sculptural top shaped like a horse’s head. The zoomorphic figurine is significant in that it may provide certain information concerning the beliefs of the seasonal camp’s dwellers. In the sites of the Desna basin of this period, works of figurative art are rare. The large ivory ring from Byki-7 with a top shaped like a horse’s head is unique for the Upper Paleolithic of Europe. The uniqueness of this zoomorphic figurine reflects the uniqueness of the flint industry, with geometrical microlithics, of Buki-7. The site of Byki has three cultural layers: Ia, I and II. The report is devoted to the materials of the most studied cultural layer, I.

Introduction This work is dedicated to the analysis of the manufacture technology and use-wear of the non-utilitarian bones (ornamented artifacts, beads) from the Late Upper Paleolithic site of Byki-7(I).

Unlike camps of mammoth hunters in this region, Byki-7 is a seasonal camp for horse, reindeer and fur game hunters (Akhmetgaleeva and Burova 2001-2002). The origin of this site is dated to about 17 000 years ago. This cultural layer has been substantially transformed by geological factors. The old occupation surface was virtually destroyed; in the dwelling area the occupation surface is made evident by a sand lamina (5-15cm thick) containing small lenses and inclusions of brown loamy sand. Outside the dwelling area, the cultural layer is absent.

The complex of Upper Paleolithic sites at Byki is located on a promontory of the left fluvial second terrace of the Seim (Desna basin), 3km south of its modern mouth and 2km south of the village Byki, in the Kursk region (Figure 1). Excavations of Buki-7 conducted since 2000 have revealed a lithic industry with geometrical microlithics dissimilar to those previously found in the central Russian plane (Akhmetgaleeva 2004).

In 2004, excavations of the dwelling were completed. Its base is round, with 25 pits located around its perimeter and the remains of two ash-areas situated in its center. Analysis of archaeological remains from cultural layer I demonstrate that the site functioned as a seasonal hunting camp, where initial butchering of animals and their partial utilization took place. The quantity and variety of functional types of flint and bone tools make us think that domestic operations were connected with the maintenance of the site and skin processing, possibly for use at the base camp. The faunal collection includes about 1000 identifiable bones. According to the species composition and quantity of bone remains hare, arctic fox, reindeer, and horse were the primary prey of ancient hunters throughout the existence of the camp. Bones of birds and various rodents were also found at the site. Bear and wolf bones are found rarely. The considerable weathering of mammoth bones and the fact that they occur rarely indicate that the mammoth bones and tusks were taken from natural cemeteries. Whole tusks are absent from the collection. During the period of the site’s excavations, 127 bone artifacts were found, including 52 whole specimens and their

Figure 1: Location of Byki among other Upper Paleolithic sites.

211

NATALIA AKHMETGALEEVA fragments. Most of them are tools, 50% of them are points, 37% of worked bone wares are non-utilitarian. The main feature of the artifacts’ spatial distribution is the concentration of flint and bone pieces in the pits. Beads Ornamented artifacts include 15 pipeshaped beads made of long bones of small animals (bird, hare, artic fox). The length of these artifacts varies from 1.8 to 2.4cm (Figures 2-2, 3, 4-3, 4-4). The diameter varies from 0.6 to 0.9cm. One bead has a length of 3.1cm and the smallest diameter is 0.35cm. The surface of some beads displays many transversal scores, which can be defined as decoration. Only the narrow stripes on the edges of the beads are polished (Figure 5). These use-traces are fatty, indicating that the artifact had contact with skin. The polish covers the edges and extends out to the external side. The internal surface of the holes is not polished. The character of use-traces cannot tell us about the function of this artifact, but it may be that strips of skin were used for connecting the beads (Figure 6).

Figure 4: Technological traces of processing of a bone.

Figure 2: Ornamented bone fragments, Byki-7(I).

Figure 5: Use-traces on the bead, Byki-7(I). Figure 3: Beads, Byki-7(I).

212

TECHNOLOGY AND UE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF THE NON-UTILITARIAN BONES OBJECTS sawing, another is broken off. The function of this piece is not clear. The analogues of ornamental fields with parallel lines have not yet been found.

Figure 6: Reconstruction of use-traces on beads.

Ornamented artifacts Ornamented artifacts include fragments of bones with various cuts (cf. Figure 2-1, 2-3, 2-6).

Figure 7: Ornamented bone fragments, Byki-7(I).

Two fragments of tubular bones were found. On the surface of the first fragment, which is the thinner one (length 1/7cm and width 0.2cm), there are 4 perpendicular scores at a distance of 0.1cm from each other (cf. Figures 2-4, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5). The second fragment is 1.1cm long and 0.3cm wide, with a thickness 0.1cm (Figure 7). Its surface has been smoothed by a firm abrasive. The precise scores made by sawing have a length of 0.15cm and are distributed on the surfaces of this artifact (cf. Figures 4-2, 4-4, 4-5). On the first side of this artifact there are four of them and on the other one there are five. Two parallel sawed lines are perpendicular to the axis of the artifact and situated at a distance of 0.4cm on the external surface. Both ends of the object were broken after transversal sawing.

Figure 8: Ornamented rib fragments, Byki-7(I).

Other artifacts were made from horses and reindeers’ ribs (cf. Figures 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 4-1, 4-4). The raw surfaces of two other fragments of ribs are covered with perpendicular traces of sawing. On the external surface of the first fragment there are 21 perpendicular lines from 0.2cm to 0.5cm long. The edges of this rib are also covered with short scores. The series of 25 lines covers half of the second rib (Figure 8).

Figure 9: Ornamented rib fragments, Byki-7(I).

The most interesting longitudinal knapped fragment of horse rib is 5.5cm long and 2.2cm wide (Figure 9). The exterior surface of this fragment has been completely smoothed by abrasion. The ornamental fields with precise parallel cuts with a length about 2cm are located on a surface of this fragment. They are cut by the tip of a stone tool. The lines have been expanded by a bone or wooden point (Figure 10). Concerning the orientation of the decoration to the axis of the artifact, the ornamental fields are located longitudinally, but they do not form a pattern. You can see thin longitudinal scratches from cutting on the edge of the tool. Ornamental fields are limited by thin perpendicular cuts and by scraped zones in other cases. One end of the rib is limited by lines of

Figure 10: Traces of cutting on the ornamented rib fragments, Byki-7(I).

213

NATALIA AKHMETGALEEVA The typical ornamental motif from the site of Byki-7 of short perpendicular scores can be found in many other Upper Paleolithic sites. The geometrical ornamentation on bone objects is widespread in the Late Upper Paleolithic sites of the Desna basin. That it is absent on bone artifacts found at the site of Byki-7 is very important, because this fact reflects once again the uniqueness of the material culture of Byki and its difference from other sites of the region considered here.

In 2002, in the cultural layer, near the northern wall of pit 12, a third small fragment of this ivory figurine was found. The presence of the third fragment, found approximately 3m from the main part of the base of figurine, supports the supposition that the artifact was disintegrated before final deposition. The zoomorphic ivory figurine may have been discarded due to the fact that it was damaged. The upper part of surface of all three fragments is covered with black pigment (evidently a deposit of manganese salt).

A zoomorphic ivory figurine Archeological context and taphonomic characteristics In 2004, the site’s first figurative artifact, a large ivory ring with a sculptural top shaped like a horse’s head (Figure 11), was excavated (Akhmetgaleeva 2005). The ring is significant in that it may provide certain information concerning the beliefs of the seasonal camps’ dwellers.

Figure 12: Location of the figurine in the dwelling associated with cultural layer I at Byki-7 (area excavated in 2000-2004).

Figure 11: Zoomorphic figurine (photo: E. Yu. Girya).

The figurine was found broken into fragments (Figures 12 and 13). Two major fragments lay in the upper level of pit 22A on the periphery of the dwelling. This part of the site is characterized by the presence of frost wedges deforming, or, in some places dissecting, the manmade pits. The main part of the figurine was located vertically along the pit’s wall with its top downward. The second fragment was exfoliated along the natural circular layer of the tusk from which it was made, and lay horizontally at the level of the figurine’s main section. It was exfoliated from the opposite site of the top! Exfoliated fragments of the figurine have been covered by soil without cultural fill. This fact can be interpreted in two ways: this figurine may have been intentionally covered by soil taken from outside the site or the ground covering of the figurine could have been formed later as a result of natural processes. Probably the figurine was left by humans in an intentionally prepared place, but we cannot confidently confirm that.

Figure 13: A) Section of the baulk through pit 22A; B) plan of pit 22A; C) the fragmented figurine. 1) Destroyed heterogeneous sediment; 2) loess-like heavy loamy sand of grayish-brown color; 3) brown loamy sand; 4) grayishyellow fine-grained sand with small lenses of white coarsegrained and brown fine-grained sand; 5) laminated loamy sand and dark yellow and brown sand; bur. – burrow. Sub-layers of cultural layer I: a) pinkish-gray sand saturated with rare inclusions of ocher and coaly mass; б) grayish-pink sand saturated with rare inclusions of coaly mass; в) vinous-gray sand saturated with rare inclusions of ocher and coaly mass; г) coaly mass; д) cultural layer outside the pit; е) fine grained pinkish-yellow sand without elementary cultural fill.

214

TECHNOLOGY AND UE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF THE NON-UTILITARIAN BONES OBJECTS That is, the coloration is natural, rather than artificial, as the colors of the three fragments do not match. This, too, indicates that the fragments were conserved separately. It appears that one more part of the figurine, associated with the horse’s muzzle, is missing!

protruded 3mm forward and followed the shape of the main part. Judging from the artistic features of both surfaces of the artifact, the missing part could hardly have had any distinct figurative elements. Three lines, possibly delimiting the head, were cut on both surfaces perpendicular to the lower portion of the «mane». These lines were produced by several cutting movements to make the relief deeper. One surface has a barely visible line around the periphery of the ring.

The surface of the figurine was deformed by calcareous sinter. The most damaged part was the top, which turned out, after removal of the crust, to be eroded. Traces of roots are visible on its surface (the central part is the most damaged).

The hole was cut out (Figure 15). Since the interior surface is slightly convex, the ring may have been trimmed on both sides. Each side displays about 50 short scores of sawing located 1-4mm from each other. As the artifact was damaged, it is impossible to precisely define the number of scores.

The surface of the figurine was deformed by several types of cracks. While some followed the natural structure of the tusk, others, which were longer and affected the thickest parts, were a result of drying. Also, there were very small cracks associated with the cutmarks.

The rib of the artifact in the lower part of the «mane» and the adjoining area of the ring reveal a polished strip (Figure 15). This polish reaches the layer beneath the most superficial levels. It is fatty and more yellow than other surfaces. All this proves that this part of the artifact contacted the skin. This, however, does not allow us to make any conclusion about its function. We can only presuppose that it was used for some ritual purposes, because the location of the contact area is hardly compatible with a utilitarian function.

Technique of manufacture and the main characteristics of the figurine The shape of the artifact is unique. Its length is 12.25cm; its thickness is 1 cm; the maximum width is 5.6cm. The exterior diameter of the ring is 8.5cm; the width varies from 1.8 to 2.1cm; dimensions of the hole are 4.3 4.0cm. A large blade, or longitudinal blade flake, 13cm in length and 2cm thick, may have been used as a blank for the figurine (cf. Figures 4-5, 4-7, 4-9, 14). Judging from the contours of growth cones, the blank was extracted from a rather thick part between the tusk’s center and its end, since the flat surface of the artifact reveals telescopic cones. The upper layer (cement) was not preserved. An ancient artisan, using old tusks, could have known the qualities of the drying material, and may have capitalized on the combination of exfoliation and longitudinal breakage of the tusk.

Unlike many Western European horse figurines with carved details such as eyes, nostrils, etc., the specimen in question, as mentioned above, is rather schematic. The carver’s high skill proves that he made the realistic representation of the horse’s image schematically on purpose. That makes us think about the symbolic character of this artifact. Z. A. Abramova, one of Russia’ major experts in prehistory art, noted that Paleolithic horse representations are rather numerous (Abramova 2001). In Western and Central Europe, the animal figures are mostly engraved. But in the Russian Plane, on the contrary, only figurines are known, both at the early stage of Upper Paleolithic (Sungir, ivory), and at the middle stage (Kostenki-4 and 1, marl, and Avdeevo, ivory) (Abramova 2001, 6).

The technological traces from the early shaping of the figurine’s core had been completely smoothed by subsequent scraping and grinding. Traces of scraping can be seen in the lower portion of the ring. On the artifact’s surface, mostly on the horse’s mane, numerous scratches are visible.

In the late Upper Paleolithic of Europe, horse figurines, like ivory tops, are only known in the French Magdalenian, and a singular tip of a bone rod was found at Oberkassel, Germany. In the sites of the Desna basin of this period, works of figurative art are rare (Abramova 1995, 20).

The figurine’s most distinct artistic detail is the horse’s mane, deliberately sculpted on both sides. A series of operations were used to form it: grooving, cutting the edges of that grooves at an angle using a flint tool’s blade, and scraping in order to finish it (cf. Figures 4-5, 4-6, 4-8). Thin, transverse lines were sawn on both sides of the mane: six lines on one surface and approximately 16 lines on the other (cf. Figure 11).

The analogues of the large ivory figurine from Byki-7 have been not found yet in the other Upper Paleolithic sites of Europe. The uniqueness of this zoomorphic ivory figurine reflects the originality of the bone and flint industry of Byki-7.

The horse head was rendered schematically; eyes and nostrils were not shown. The missing fragment probably

215

NATALIA AKHMETGALEEVA References cited Abramova, Z.A. 1995. Osobennosti syuzhetnogo iskussyva v paleoliticheskikh pamyatnikakh verkhnei Desny, in Desninskie drevnosti: sbornik materialov mezhgosudarstvennoi nauch. Konferetsii «Istoriya I arkheologiya Podesenya, posvyaschennoipamyati F.M.Zavernyaeva. Bryansk, gos. obl. ist.-kraeved. Muzei, 18-20. Abramova, Z.A. 2001. Ob odnom zabytom otkrytii P.I. Boriskovskogo. In Kamennyi vek Starogo Sveta (k 90letiyu P. I. Boriskovskogo). St. Peterburg, IIMK RAN, 57.

Figure 14: Reconstruction of extraction of a figure from an ivory blade.

Akhmetgaleeva, N.B. and Burova, N.D. 2001-2002. Osobennosti obrabotki kosti I analiz osteologicheskogo materiala verkhnepaleoliticheskoi stoyanki Byki-7 (predvaritelnoe soobschenie. STRATUMplus (St. Petersburg, Kishinev, Odessa), N 1), 538-551. Akhmetgaleeva, N.B. 2004. Kremnevyi kompleks stoyanki Byki-7, in Problemy kamennogo veka Pusskoi ravniny. Moscow, Nauchnyi mir, 285-298. Akhmetgaleeva, N.B. 2005. A zoomorphic ivory figurine from Byki-7, in Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia. Novosibirsk 4(24), 70-76.

Figure 15: Hole and traces of polishing on the zoomorphic figurine (photo: E.Yu. Girya).

Acknowledgements The author thanks for long-term cooperation and consultations Dr. H.A. Amirkhanov; the geographer, Dr. Yu.N. Gribchenko; the zoologist N.D. Burova; the technologist, Dr. E.Yu. Girya. This work is executed with support of the Russian fund of fundamental research, project N° 06-06-80103а. Natalia Borisovna Akhmetgaleeva State regional organization of culture "Regional state museum of Kurchatov town" Molodeznaya street, 12 Kurchatov, Kursk’ region, 307251 Russia [email protected]

216

Testing Functional Hypothesis of Late Holocene Bone Bipoints from the Lower Parana Wetands (Argentina) Natacha BUC Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract Bone bipoints are tools found in archaeological contexts from throughout the entire world; accordingly, different authors propose different functional hypotheses, varying from fish gorges to projectile points. Several bone bipoints were recovered from Late Holocene hunter-gatherer-fisher archaeological sites from the lower Paraná wetlands (Argentina). Given the characteristics of the archaeological record analyzed, the different functional alternatives proposed for bipoints are relevant here. For that reason, we encourage the functional study of the bipoints of La Bellaca 2 site, testing the main hypotheses through various analytical lines of evidence. First of all, we present the assemblage’s morphological and metrical data related to its physical structure, discussing bone raw material selection in terms of availability and mechanical properties. We then present possibly the most crucial data: that resulting from experimentation and microscopic analysis. Linking these different lines of analysis, we conclude that the main function of bipoints would have been as projectile points. We discuss the associated weapon system, that is, whether they were part of an arrow or spear. Introduction In our study, each functional alternative for bipoints is crucial since lithic points are scarce.

The Lower Paraná wetlands (South America, Argentina) (Figure 1) in the Late Holocene were occupied by societies based on hunting, gathering and fishing. The archaeological sites studied by the project directed by A. Acosta and D. Loponte include a great quantity of bone tools and a small amount of lithic material (i.e., local quarries are not only absent but there are also few lithic archaeological tools) (Acosta 2005; Loponte 2008). Among the bone tools, there are many points, some of which were defined as bipoints (Buc and Loponte 2007). This morphotype is well known in archaeological contexts from the entire world, but its function is extremely controversial. While some authors define these tools as hafted implements used as spears, others believe they represent fishhooks, fish gorges or elements of composite toggling harpoons (cf. “Morphological Structure and functional hypotheses”).

There are different types of bone points and, despite the great number of fish remains, archaeological hooks are absent. For that reason, the aim of this paper is to test the different hypotheses through various lines of evidence using the assemblage of La Bellaca 2 site (Figure 1). We present the morphological and metrical data in relation to bone raw material selection. We then discuss these results with those of microscopic analysis. Archaeological background The Pampas region is a great grass plain located in the East-Central portion of Argentina. This region includes most of R. O. del Uruguay and the southern area of the Río Grande do Sul State, in Brazil (Cabrera and Willink

Figure 1: Study area. Localization of LB2 site in Lower Paraná wetland.

217

NATACHA BUC 1973). The Lower Paraná River is located in the middle of this large plain, sectioning the Pampas in two parts (cf. Figure 1). The environment of this area (cf. Burkart et al. 2000) is characterized by a flood plain along the Paraná River and several islands, which constitute a delta. Fluvial banks are the highest elevations regularly left by the periodic flooding and are the primary locations where archaeological sites are found.

the mesial portion of the piece (cf. Figure 2; in LB2 61 and LB2 59 the designation was arbitrary). This segmentation became indispensable to the metrical and especially to functional analysis.

Among these sites, La Bellaca 2 (LB2) shows the greatest proportion of bone bipoints. This deposit has a C14 date of 680 ± 80 years (Mammalia, LP-1263) (Loponte 2008) and was created by groups with a subsistence based on hunting, gathering and fishing. Archaeological materials are clumped in the A horizon which is approximately 50cm thick. This soil had a neutral to slightly acidic pH and is affected by a low energy environment with significant vegetal cover. These conditions probably led to rapid burial of the archaeological assemblage and allowed for good post-depositional preservation (Acosta 2005).

Figure 2: LB2 Bipoints and their analytical division.

The archaeofaunal sample is composed mainly of fishes (primarily Prochilodus lineatus and Pterodoras granulosus), rodents (Myocastor coypus and Cavia aperea) and marsh and pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus and Blastoceros dichotomus). This site was excavated in 1998 and 2000 by the team directed by A. Acosta and D. Loponte. In the 28m2 excavated we recovered more than 15,000 fragments of pottery, the majority plain. Lithic artifacts are extremely rare (as in most hunter-gatherer sites of the Lower Paraná wetlands): the assemblage is composed of two little flakes (less than 15mm), five micro-flakes, five modified rocks and two projectile points (Buc and Silvestre in press). By contrast, the assemblage has a great quantity of bone and antler tools and the byproducts of their manufacture (mainly bones serrated on their epiphyses). This assemblage is composed for the most part of indeterminate or pointed tools, but there are also drilled points, harpoon heads, needles, grooved bones, pin-like tools, one awl, one projectile point and the bipoints (for a synthesis of the site, cf. Acosta 2005 and Loponte 2008).

Morphological structure and functional hypotheses This bipoints’ morphotype is reported all around the world; therefore, functional hypotheses vary according to the analytical context. Several authors associate bipoints with fishing technology, describing them as gorges (Campana 1989; Lyman 1991; Rick et al. 2001; Smith 1929; Tyzzer 1936), composite hooks (Lyman 1995; Fontana 1881 [1977]) or harpoons (Fontana 1881 [1977]; Lyman 1991; Pokines and Krupa 1997). Other authors treat bipoints as hafted points and associate them with either arrow or spear technology linked mostly to terrestrial hunting (Campana 1989; Chauviere 2002; Lothrop 1932; Newcomer 1974; Tyzzer 1936). As a variant of this hypothesis we must mention Lahren and Bonischen (1974) and the reworking of their idea by Lyman and O’Brien (1998). They suggest that these pieces could have functioned as intermediaries in lithic point hafting. Other less common hypotheses include awls (Tyzzer 1936), net needles (Højte 2005) and husking pins (Gates St-Pierre 2007). For bipoints in Lower Paraná wetlands, Loponte stated that the projectile point hypothesis is the most plausible, with the artifacts working either as arrow or spear tips (Loponte 2008). He pointed out that there is a difference between bipoints made on antler and those made on bone in their size and profile and suggests that these differences could be associated with specific weapon systems. Most robust and large antler bipoints would be spear tips while shorter bone ones meet the arrow’s requirements. In this sense, Loponte discusses the possibility that antler/spear bipoints were thrown not only by hand but with the atlatl, because their weight would balance the atlatl system. However, as this author remarked, although we found atlatl hooks in some archaeological sites of the study area, they are completely absent in LB2 site (Loponte 2008).

Assemblage under study Ten items of the 106 tools of the LB2 assemblage were defined as bipoints or double pointed following Campana (1989, 46) (Figure 2) (Buc and Loponte 2007). Almost every bipoint shows morphological differences between the two ends: in the majority we can see scars of flaking just in one end; in some cases, one end is rectangular while the other is rounded; and in two cases, one end is heat-altered. There are only two exceptions (LB2 61, LB2 59) where no distinction can be made. As an analytic strategy we named sector 1 the end rounded, burnt or not flaked; sector 2 refers to the opposite end (flaked or quadrangular); and sector 3, to

218

TESTING FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF LATE HOLOCENE BONE BIPOINTS FROM THE LOWER PARANA WETANDS In support of this idea, local chronicles affirm that natives “have a great quantity of different points and of different materials” (Paucke 1944, 160). In the archaeological record, however, not only bone stemmed points but also lithic points are exceptions: while we found only one stemmed bone point and two lithic points in LB2, we counted ten bipoints and a lot of point fragments that could be remnants of this same morphotype. In this regard, the aim of this paper is to evaluate the idea suggested by Loponte (i.e. that bone bipoints function as projectile points) (Loponte 2008), presenting in detail the metrical, physical and microscopic structure of LB2 bipoints.

around 11mm and a standard deviation of 2.26. Length variability may be due to a point’s reutilization/ reactivation or to raw material selection but also, as Loponte suggests, it may reveal differences in tool design which respond to specific launching systems: the larger may be part of spear equipment while the shorter may be linked to bow and arrow devices. Following this idea we separate the assemblage into medium and small bipoints according their length as above or below 70mm. If we consider both assemblages individually and examine the width values more carefully: Medium bipoints are made on antler, with a medial weight of 9g (cf. Loponte 2008) and width values above 10mm. Small bipoints are made on bone, with a medial weight of 6g (cf. Loponte 2008) and width values smaller than 10mm. In spite of this separation, bipoint thickness remains constant, particularly in medial sector (sector 3) with values ranging from 5 to 7mm (Table 1).

Physical structure As most bipoints are completely modified, it was not always possible to identify the bone raw material. As table 1 shows three bipoints are made on antler; five are made on mammalian bone - O. bezoarticus and B. dichotomus are the most plausible taxa because of the bone size and the archaeofaunal assemblage - and two could not be identified.

As thickness is the crucial variable determining the penetration capacity and resilience of bone points, both medium and small bipoints can be associated with projectile equipment according to Guthrie’s parameters (Guthrie 1983). Therefore, length, width and weight differences may respond to different weapon systems (cf. “Discussion”).

Bone is a flexible and resilient material; hence it is useful for impact activities in general. Antler is the most flexible material found in our study context (Guthrie 1983) and can be compared to a cetacean clavicle in that it has great elastic absorption of energy (cf. Scheinsohn and Ferrreti 1995); thus, antler is the optimal material for impactmediated penetration such as the action involved in fixed or detachable projectile points (Scheinsohn and Ferrreti 1995).

Microscopic structure Considering the above functional hypothesis, we can expect three different microscopic patterns according to the use of the tool (Figure 3).

Metrical structure Fish gorges must be tied in midsection. So, both active points (sectors 1 and 3) should have the same microwear pattern that will be different from the midsection pattern (sector 2, in contact with the ligature) (Figure 3a).

Table 1 shows the great variability in bipoint length with values ranging from 110 to 42.5mm (X= 69.43; s= 20); conversely, width seems more constant with values

Lenght

Widht

Thickness 1

Thickness 3

Thickness 2

Raw material

LB2 6

101

15

6

9.7

4

antler

LB2 228

99

14

4

9

6

antler

LB2 30

74

12

5.4

7

4.6

antler

LB2 7

70

11.6

5

7

4.6

Indet.

LB2 36

54.3

7.7

3

3

2.5

Indet.

LB2 52

78

11

4

5

5

bone

LB2 54

64.4

9.4

4.6

5.8

3

bone

LB2 59

42.5

9.2

2

4.3

2.6

bone

LB2 61

44.1

9.5

2

4

3

bone

LB2 5

67

12

4

6

3.2

bone

59.43

11.14

4

6.08

3.85

19.98

2.26

1.35

2.15

1.17

Table 1: LB2 bipoints. Metrical and physical structures.

219

NATACHA BUC

Figure 3: Functional hypothesis and the microwear expectations: fish gorges; intermediaries in points’ hafting; composite hooks, harpoon heads and projectile points.

Intermediaries are tools set with the projectile tips as part of the hafting device. In that case, we expect the same microwear pattern in all areas of the tool (sectors 1, 2 and 3). Differences will be seen between the internal face (in contact with the lithic point) and the external one (in contact with the ligature) (Figure 3b).

In the case of bipoints, we replicated the morphology of the archaeological items but using Ovis aries (sheep) bone and Cervus elaphus (red deer) antler instead of O. bezoarticus or B.Dichotomus1. Although our aim was not to replicate the prehistoric manufacture techniques, we needed a record of the initial surface. The tools were analyzed before use utilizing different microscopes and varying magnifications (binocular and incident-light metallurgical microscopes at 50, 100 and 200x) (Figure 5a). We inserted the points in common pine shafts (with V shaped housing) and tied them with Teflon tape (cf. Figure 4).

Projectile points (arrow/spear/harpoon tips) and composite hooks perform in the same way: one end is hafted while the other is the active point. This mechanism will leave three distinct microwear patterns: one in each of the two points (sector 1; sector 3) and a third one in the midsection (sector 2) (Figure 3c).

We performed two tests with a trained archer, Marcelo Morales, who used a short bow of 62in and 40lbs. In both cases we used a fresh pig carcass (Sus scrofa) as a target. In the first test, the carcass was placed at a distance of 8m approx. and lifted 45º from the grass with wood to avoid severe impacts. One of the bipoints missed, but the remaining three struck the carcass, hitting in between one and five shots (Table 2). For the second test, the carcass was put in a grass bundle at 12m distance to avoid losing the points2. We re-used one of the bipoints, which achieved 21 shots on this occasion.

Experimental data To generate a pattern of microwear, breakage or damage of projectile tips to compare with the archaeological sample, we carried out an experiment using bone and antler bipoints as arrow points (Figure 4). We also wished to test the performance capabilities of the items as part of this weapon system. At the same time, we performed another experiment with antler harpoon heads and antler and bone fixed points (spear hand points; cf. Musali and Buc in press; Silvestre and Buc 2007). Despite differences in point morphology, the three experiments were carried out under similar mechanical and material conditions with the intention of enlarging our comparative base of impact marks.

All the bipoints remained intact after the tests; as many authors have noted, bone and antler points have high capacity for penetrating soft tissue without breaking (Arndt and Newcomer 1986; Pétillon 2006; Pokines 1998; Rozoy 1992; Tyzzer 1936). Additionally, the points were analyzed with microscopes but we could not record traces other than rounding (Figure 5b). Rounding is the most common trace mentioned as result of impact activities (Arndt and Newcomer 1986; Pétillon 2006; Pokines 1998; Tyzzer 1936) but is a very weak proxy for past activities because it can be created by multiple factors. In the other experiments with fixed and harpoon heads, we achieved more impacts (around 100 with harpoons and 50 with fixed points). In one of these cases, we could also note some transversal and deep striations located transversally in the apex (Figure 6). Following Arndt and Newcomer (1986), we can suggest that this is

Figure 4: Experimental bipoints used as arrow points.

220

TESTING FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF LATE HOLOCENE BONE BIPOINTS FROM THE LOWER PARANA WETANDS

Figure 5: Experimental bipoints before (A) and after use (B). Metallurgical microscope. 50X.

Raw material

Action

Material

State

Time span

E07-11

antler

lost

lost

lost

lost

E07-12

antler

impact

bone/soft tissue

wet

1 impact

E07-13

bone

impact

bone/soft tissue

wet

21 impacts

E07-14

bone

impact

bone/soft tissue

wet

5 impacts

Table 2: Experimental synthesis.

Figure 6: Experimental fixed point before (A) and after use (B). The quadrant show deep and short striation running transversally to the axe. Metallurgical microscope. 50X (A) and 100X (B).

Every bipoint shows at least one of these patterns3.

the result of apex compression removing small fragments of material.

In Sector 1 bipoints show short, deep and isolated striations running transversally to the point’s axis (Figure 7). In Sector 3 bipoints show no use wear (Figure 8); some items are just rounded or have manufacture traces without modification (deep, wide and coarse striations cf. Buc 2008; Le Moine 1991). In Sector 2, three cases show narrow and superficial striations grouped and running transversally to the axis (Figure 9). In the remaining tools, the surface is only rounded or shows the manufacture traces.

Archaeological analysis Despite the problems with the experimental sample, we carried out the microwear analysis of the archaeological pieces. Based on our suppositions, the patterns recorded will let us test the functional hypothesis. As can be seen in table 3, we could define a particular microwear pattern for each sector (for the descriptions we follow mainly Le Moine 1991; for an extensive analysis see Buc 2008).

221

NATACHA BUC Sector 1

Sector 3

Sector 2

LB2 5

rounding

no traces

no traces

LB2 6

deep striation

manuf.

no traces

LB2 7

varnish

varnish

varnish

LB2 28

rounding

indet

fine striations

LB2 30

indet

no traces

round.

LB2 36

deep striation

no traces

no traces

LB2 52

deep striation

no traces

fine striations

LB2 54

deep striation

manuf

manuf

LB2 59

rounding

rounding

fine striations

LB2 61

rounding

rounding

short striations

Table 3: LB2 bipoints. Microscopic structure.

Figure 9: Archaeological bipoint (LB2 52). Sector 2 shows fine, superficial, aggregated and transversal striations. Metallurgical microscope. 100X.

Discussion Reconsidering the above hypotheses, we can reject the use of bipoints either as fish gorges or as intermediaries in lithic projectile points. We record three different patterns in each sector. This does not match with our expectations of the same pattern along the length of the tool for intermediaries and different patterns in each point plus no midsection use wear in fish gorges. For this last option, moreover, we would expect smaller sizes such as those presented by Rick et al. (2001) (3cm length approximately) (cf. Figure 2). Otherwise, consistent with the morphological division, each point shows different microscopic patterns. This microscopic structure can be associated with expectations for composite hooks, harpoons, and projectile points. Pokines and Krupa (1997) define “bi-points” as harpoon heads based on their oblique profile (the same as the harpoons found in our research area), but the profile of Parana’s bipoints is not oblique but straight. As we consider in Musali and Buc (in press), the bipoint design is clearly not specialized for fishing; so we can argue that, if any use in this way, it was occasional and complementary (cf. Loponte 2008).

Figure 7: Archaeological bipoint (LB2 52). Sector 1 shows deep, short, isolated and transversal striations. Metallurgical microscope. 200X.

Consequently, as Loponte (2008) initially suggested, the physical, morphological, metrical and microscopic structure of the LB2 bipoint assemblage indicates that the projectile point’s hypothesis is the most plausible. The morphology is consistent with Guthrie’s idea that medial thickening has better penetration capacity than the cylindrical design (Guthrie 1983). Moreover, the shape is not very acute, which is consistent with Knecht’s suggestion that if cross-sectional shape is the same along the entire length of the object, force trajectories remain uniform, maximizing tensile load (Knecht 1997). As

Figure 8: Archaeological bipoint (LB2 52). Sector 3 shows no use wear traces. Metallurgical microscope. 100X.

222

TESTING FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF LATE HOLOCENE BONE BIPOINTS FROM THE LOWER PARANA WETANDS Knecht pointed out, expanding cross section is needed in bone projectile points because it opens the wound once inside the prey, something unnecessary in lithic points which act by cutting.

In future work we must test the efficiency of the medium bipoints used as arrow or spear points. However, our experiment confirms the idea that small bipoints (either made on bone or antler) can be arrow points used with a bow (Silvestre and Buc 2007). Indeed it is consistent with Lower Paraná’s context where historic chronicles make specific reference to the use of bows and arrows for hunting (Dobrizzhofer 1947 [1967]; Fontana 1881 [1977]; Paucke 1944). While in our archaeological context there are few lithic projectile points; bipoints’ profiles are parabolic like the wood points of modern day Amazonian fishers (see Loponte 2008). We cannot discard the connection of bipoints with fishing equipment, as Loponte (2008) suggests, but the ethnographic data shows that tips used for fishing are mostly made on wood given the high risk of losing the projectiles in water (Ellis 1997; Greaves 1997; also they are used with lines, Alvarsson 1988).

In this sense, the microscopic pattern recorded in most bipoints apices (isolated deep and short striations transversally oriented) is similar to those recorded also in other archaeological items such as drilled points and most harpoon heads (Musali and Buc in press). In the light of these ideas, absence of use wear in the bipoints’ sector 3 can be explained because this area did not perform any abrasive work and, in its place, manufacture traces were obliterated by penetrating soft tissue. Besides, the pattern registered in sector 2 would be the result of the contact with the ligature. Indeed, these fine, superficial and aggregated striations conform to a similar pattern that Tankersley recorded in the channel flake scars of an obsidian Clovis point and interpreted as hafting (cf. Tankersley 1994, fig. 3). In fact, in LB2 bipoints, this sector is frequently flaked which can be explained as basal thinning. As Knecht points out, this technique is necessary in bone point hafting where a bulge must be eliminated at the level of the shaft (Knecht 1997). In future work we must reanalyze the general point assemblage microscopically to test if they have this microwear pattern consistent with hafting. As Ardnt and Newcomer indicate, in asymmetrical points like these ones, fracture occurs just on the bevel and the basal end remains attached to the shaft (Arndt and Newcomer 1986). We should consider that points could have entered the campsite as a result of replacing a broken tip with a new one; therefore, it is possible that some items termed as “general points” were the basal parts of these bipoints.

In spite of the relationship between middle sized bipoints as spears and small bipoints as arrows, we cannot reject their use as interchangeable tips: given raw material availability and low manufacture costs bipoints would have been a low investment solution to both weapon systems (Loponte 2008). Nevertheless, bearing in mind the knowledge that these societies had of bone technology, they would have selected raw materials by relating their properties to the functional requirements. The higher flexibility and precision of the bow and arrow system relax the requirements on the tip’s raw material and hence, lithic, bone or even wood can be used (just varying the tip morphology in relation to the material properties). Antler, which is a more flexible and relatively less available material than bone, would have been maximized. A spear system is less precise than that of the bow and arrow and requires a shorter distance to the prey (see Churchill 1993; Loponte 2008) so the higher probability of failure must be counteracted using a tip of better quality material.

Conclusions As we said, although we cannot assert that LBS bipoints were projectile points without any doubt, morphological, physical and microscopical structures support the projectile hypothesis suggested by Loponte (2008) as the most plausible one. But this author also poses the issue of the launching system used. He proposed that while the small bipoints meet arrow points’ requirements, the medium ones would have been used as spears. If we consider Ratto’s (2003) model for lithic tips, LB2 bipoints show perfect aerodynamic parameters because of their biconvex profile, in spite of their size. According to her work, one of the critical variables necessary to associate point type with a weapon system is the hafting area: smaller widths than 10mm should be associated with light shafts and, hence, with arrows; while hafting areas bigger than 10mm must be designated to heavier shafts, associated with fixed or launched spears. In the LB2 assemblage, medium bipoints have more than 10mm thickness while the small ones are thinner, supporting Loponte’s argument.

Undoubtedly, the bipoint morphotype is a generalized design that could have served different functions according to the context all around the globe; with little morphological variations it can fit different metrical values. In other words, with very low energetic cost these bipoints meet high mechanical requirements, including those that other authors suggest for projectile points. Note 1: O. bezoarticus is a protected taxa in Argentina and it is hard to find B. dichotomus bones. Ovis aries is a taxa structurally similar to O. bezoarticus. Note 2: The experiment was performed in the University Archery Club of Buenos Aires. Note 3: There is only one exception that could not be analyzed (LB2 7) because it has some kind of varnish, probably post depositional.

223

NATACHA BUC Buc, N. and Loponte, D. 2007. Bone tool types and microwear patterns: Some examples from the Pampa region, South America, in C. Gates St-Pierre, R. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 143-157.

Acknowledgements The interactions with colleagues were much appreciated. In particular, thanks to Daniel Loponte for the comments and revision of the manuscripts. With Javier Musali, Romina Silvestre, Alejandro Acosta, and Vivian Scheinsohn we also shared important discussions. The experiments were made with the collaboration of Javier Musali, the archer Marcelo Morales, and Roberto Musali and Norma Onidizian who gave us places to make the collections and the performances.

Buc, N. and Silvestre, R. in press. Distribución de artefactos líticos y óseos en el Humedal del Paraná Inferior. Relacionando los conjuntos del Norte y Sur del Paraná Guazú. In Actas del 1º Encuentro de Discusión Arqueológica del Noreste Argentino. Arqueología de cazadores recolectores en la Cuenca del Plata.

I thank Pam Cabtree, Isabelle Sidéra and Alexandra Legrand for the revision of the manuscript. I am grateful also to Elisabeth A. Stone, Mikhail Zhilin, Darko Komso, Georgia Stratouli, Steven Churchill, Laura Perez Jimeno for their ideas and bibliography. Elisabeth A. Stone revised the English version of this paper.

Burkart, R., Bárbaro, N., Sánchez, R., Gómez, D. 2000. Eco-regiones de la Argentina. Programa Desarrollo Institucional Ambiental. Administración de Parques Nacionales. Cabrera, A. and Willinik, A. 1980. Biogeografía de América Latina. Organización de Estados Americanos (AEO). Serie Biología. Monografía 3.

Microwear analysis was carried out at CITEFA (Instituto de Investigaciones científicas y técnicas de las Fuerzas Armadas Argentinas) with the assistance of Alejandro Reynoso. Interpretations and errors, however, are my sole responsibility.

Campana, D. 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Oxford, BAR International Series 494. Chauviere, F.X. 2002. Industries et parures sur matières dures animales du Paléolithique supérieur de la grotte de Caldeirão (Tomar, Portugal). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueología 1, 5-28.

Natacha Buc Guemes 117 Avellaneda (1870) Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected]

Churchill, S. 1993. Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection, and Hunting Methods in Modern HunterGatherers, Implications for Hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 4 (1), 11-24.

References cited Acosta, A. 2005. Zooarqueología de cazadoresrecolectores del extremo nororiental de la provincia de Buenos Aires (humedal del río Paraná inferior, Región Pampeana, Argentina). Unpublished PhD Thesis, FCNyM, Universitad Nacional de La Plata. MS.

Dobrizzhofer, M. 1947 [1967]. Historia de los Abipones, in R. Furlong (ed.), Universidad Nacionál del Nordeste. Resistencia.

Alvarsson, J. 1988. The Mataco of the Gran Chaco: an ethnographic account of change and continuity in Mataco socio-economic organization. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology 11, Diss. Uppsala.

Ellis, C. 1997. Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips, in H. Knetcht (ed.), Projectile Technology. New York, Plenum Press, 37-74. Fontana, L. J. 1881 [1947]. El Gran Chaco. Buenos Aires, Solar Hachette.

Arndt, S. and Newcomer, M. 1986. Breakage Patterns on Prehistoric Bone Points: An Experimental Study, in D. Roe (eds.), Studies in the Upper Paleolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe. Oxford, BAR 296, 165-173.

Gates St-Pierre, C. 2007. Bone Awls of the St.Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis, in C. Gates St-Pierre, R. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 107-118.

Buc, N. 2008. Análisis de microdesgaste en tecnología ósea. El caso de punzones y alisadores en el noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires (Humedal del Paraná inferior). Tesis de Licenciatura del Departamento de Ciencias Antropológicas II, M. Woods (ed.). Fac. Filosofía y Letras- UBA. CDROM

Greaves, R. 1997. Hunting and multifunctional use of bows and arrows, in H. Knetcht (ed.), Projectile Technology. New York, Plenum Press, 287-320.

224

TESTING FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF LATE HOLOCENE BONE BIPOINTS FROM THE LOWER PARANA WETANDS Guthrie, D. 1983. Osseous Projectile Point: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design Among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples, Animals and Archaeology: 1, in J. Clutton-Brock, C. Grigson (eds.), Hunters and their Prey. Oxford, BAR International Series 163, 274-294.

Pétillon, J.M. 2006. Des Magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervidé du Magdalénien Supérieur de la Grotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Treignes, Editions du CEDARC, Artefacts 10. Pokines, J. 1998. Experimental Replication and Use of Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian Antler Projectile Points. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 875–886.

Højte, J. 2005. The Archaeological Evidence for Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region, in T. J. BekkerNielsen (ed.), Ancient Fishing and Fish Processing in the Black Sea Region. Aarhus Universitetsforlag, 133-166.

Pokines, J. and Krupa, M. 1997. Self-barbed antler spearpoints and evidence of fishing, in H. Knetcht (ed.), Projectile Technology. New York, Plenum Press, 240262.

Knecht, H. 1997. Projectile Points of Bone, Antler and Stone. Experimental Exploration of manufacture and use, in H. Knetcht (ed.), Projectile Technology. New York, Plenum Press, 191-213.

Ratto, N. 2003. Estrategias de Caza y Propiedades de Registro Arqueológico en la Puna de Chaschuil (Dpto. de Tinogasta, Catamarca, Argentina). Unpublished PhD Thesis. FFyL. Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Kroeber, A. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology 78, 474-543. Lahren, L. and Bonnischen, R. 1974. Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southwestern Montana. Science 186 (4159), 147-150.

Rick, T., Erlandson, J. and Vellanoveth, R. 2001. Paleocastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66 (4), 595-613.

LeMoine, G. 1991. Experimental Analysis of the Manufacture and Use of Bone and Antler Tools among the Mackenzie Inuit. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Calgary.

Rozoy, J-G. 1992. Le propulseur et l’arc chez les chasseurs préhistoriques. Techniques et démographies comparées. Paléo 4, 175-193.

Loponte, D. 2008. Arqueología del Humedal del Paraná inferior (Bajios Ribereños Meridionales). Buenos Aires, Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Secretaría de Cultura de la Nación, Arqueología de la Cuenca del Plata, Vol.1.

Scheinsohn, V. and Ferretti, J. 1995. Mechanical Properties of Bone Materials as Related to Design and Function of Prehistoric Tools from Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 711717.

Lothrop, S. 1932). Indians of the Paraná Delta River. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences XXXIII, 77-232.

Silvestre, R. and Buc, N. 2007. ¿A dónde apuntan las puntas? Cabezales y sistemas de armas en el humedal del Paraná inferior. Paper presented at XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina.

Lyman, L. 1991. Archaeology of Umpqua/Eden. Prehistory of the Oregon coast (the effects of inquiry). New York, Academic Press.

Tankersley, K. 1994. Clovis Mastic and its Hafting Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 21,117124.

Lyman, R. and O’Brien, M. 1998. A Mechanical and Functional Study of Bone Rods from the Richey-Roberts Clovis Cache, Washington, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 887-906.

Tyzzer, E. 1936. The “Simple Bone Point" of the ShellHeaps of the Northeastern Algonkian Area and Its Probable Significance. American Antiquity 1 (4), 261279.

Musali, J. and Buc, N. in press. El uso de armas vinculadas a la pesca entre los aborígenes que habitaron el humedal del Río Paraná inferior. Una aproximación experimental, in J. Martínez and D. Bozzuto (eds.), Armas prehispánicas: múltiples enfoques para su estudio en Sudamérica. Newcomer, M. 1974. Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology 6, 138-153. Paucke, F. 1944. Hacia allá y para acá (una estada entre los indios Mocovíes 1749-1767). Instituto Cultural Argentinogermano, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

225

Early Neolithic and Chalcolithic Crude Adzes. A Technological and Use-wear Focus on an Unknown Artefact Type from Near-East to Western Europe Isabelle SIDÉRA CNRS UMR 7055 - Préhistoire et Technologie, MAE, Nanterre, France Abstract This paper aims to make known an unusual type of artefact made of a long broken bone whose epiphysis is used as a handle, and the break as a cutting edge. Because no further shaping generally occurs, its aspect does not differ from a faunal remain. For this reason, it has rarely been considered an artefact. The first items were identified in Syrian (at the end of PPNA), Jordanian, Anatolian and Iranian (PPNB) collections. Some were found in the south eastern Early European Neolithic and many in the Early Chalcolithic from Bulgaria. Others have also been discovered in the western European Neolithic (Linear Pottery Culture). Because of their extraordinary distribution and the length of their existence, which follow the Neolithic diffusion, these artefacts deserve to be described in detail so as to help researchers identify them and further document their chronological and geographic distribution. This article also addresses the question of their manufacture, whose simplicity contrasts strongly with the other very elaborate artefacts within the assemblages in which they are found. Their function, for which several hypotheses have been suggested, is also investigated. All these questions will be treated here based on an illustrated description of this artefact type. study), always composed of a whole extremity of big cattle femuri, radii or humeri (Figure 2). Others, from various periods of the continental Neolithic, were later identified.

Morphological description and history of research In the early eighties, Danielle Stordeur, who helped determine the principles of bone technology analysis, detected some unusual and previously unknown artefacts in four Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) assemblages from Syria (Mureybet) (Stordeur 1980), Anatolia (Cafer Höyük, Cheikh Hassan) (Stordeur 1988; 1994, 259) and Iran (Stordeur 1994, 257-259). She described them as follows: "these objects are integrated in a homogenous whole […] and are very numerous (121). Their definition is almost entirely expressed in the name attributed to them [flensers]. They are composed of [long] broken bones whose fracture zone is located on variable points of the diaphysis and affects roughly the morphology of short bevels, entirely retouched " (Stordeur 1994, 257) (Figure 1-11 to 1-15).

The strong recurrence of these artefacts with the same morphology shows that we indeed have a real class of objects, with dimensional and morphological variation according to the species and skeletal parts that were chosen in making them. Some are large and heavy. In Drama for instance, one of these objects, made from a cattle proximal humerus, weighs 355 grams. Other objects, from sheep or goat tibias, are small and light (Figure 1). The items which are described here are from recent studies of mine, principally those from Kovacevo, Drama and Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes and Reichtett, with references to the published ones.

Recently, while sorting bones from Kovacevo - an Early Neolithic assemblage of Bulgaria - to look for artefacts related to the Near East, several similar items to the ones described by Danielle Stordeur were found (Sidéra 1994) (Figure 1-1 to 1-13). Entire proximal or distal extremities of metapodials, femuri, humeri, radii and tibias from sheep, goat and cattle were used in making these artefacts, giving variable morphologies and dimensions from one piece to another (Figures 1 to 3). Bibliographical research showed that several others, from a PPNB assemblage of Iraq (Jarmo), could also relate to this type (Sidéra 1998). "Five objects that were possibly bone fleshers were found, but unfortunately not one of them has the working edge intact. All were broken in antiquity at some point below the condylar surface, which probably served as the handle" (Watson 1983, 356).

Figure 1: South-Eastern Europe and Near-East. 1 to 10) Kovacevo (photo: M. Lichardus); 11 to 13) Ganj Dareh (from Stordeur 1994, fig. 14); 14) Mureybet (from Stordeur 1988, fig. 1); 15) Cafer Höyük (from Stordeur 1998, fig. 1).

Many other items of this type were discovered in an Early Chalcolithic site (Drama, Bulgaria – Sidéra, unpublished

227

ISABELLE SIDÉRA Technology: artefacts or not? The most striking feature is their rough appearance which does not differ from a faunal remain. "They all have in common a weak degree of elaboration to a complete lack of shaping" (Stordeur 1988). Minimal technology is needed to create these objects: breaking and sometimes abrading. No other technical transformation is required. Nevertheless, the manner of producing the break on the diaphysis requires care and experience. An examination of less worn items suggests that a twisted morphology is sought after the break. An angled break is indeed necessary to make it easier to use, the working edge, which is apparently used as is, without any further modification. As Danielle Stordeur and Patricia Watson wrote (see above), the conservation of the epiphysis is an important design feature, as the latter is used as a handle. Shaping which would result from a hafting apparatus is not apparent on this part of the artefacts. At least from a technological and morphological point of view, few criterion allow to ensure that these are manufactured objects. These objects are characterized by their crude appearance, due to rapid technical actions like percussion, which leave traces that are often difficult to interpret. The identification of the objects as artefacts can be called into question because of their proximity to rough bones, broken to extract marrow (Figure 4).

Figure 2: Items from Drama (Bulgaria) (photo from the archives of the Bulgarian/German Archaeological Mission in Drama’s Microregion (Direction I. Lichardus†).

Figure 3: Items from Western Europe: Linear Pottery Culture. 1) Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (France); 2) Reichtett (France) (photo: S. Oboukhoff).

Figure 4: Simple faunal remains from Reichtett (Alsace, France) (photo: S. Oboukhoff).

228

EARLY NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CRUDE ADZES Use-wear analysis: the proof

(Figure 7-3, 7-4). They border the active part and the removal edges.

The only way to demonstrate whether or not we dealing with an artefact is to investigate use-wear, focusing on the so-called “working edge”. A stereomicroscope, with magnification from 5x to 80x, was used for scrutinizing and taking microphotographs. Use-wear is very seldom described in publications about these objects.

What do these items consist of? If they are indeed artefacts, what is their function? How should they be classified? Considering the large amount of attrition, Danielle Stordeur decided that she was looking at flint or obsidian retouchers. Nevertheless, to be used on flint, retouchers must be an accurate tool for efficiency and experimental tests definitely showed this function did not fit (1980). Stordeur also thought that they could have been used to chop plants or crush seeds, but that does not fit with archaeological use-wear (1994). Patricia Watson sees them as fleshers (1983). But use-wear linked to leather making is well-documented and very different from what is observed on these tools’ retouched edge. Removals are inconsistent with fleshers, which need smooth surfaces. If we gather all the functional information and order it, we find the following: 1) Points B, C, D and E prove the link between removals’ formation and use, not shaping. 2) Points A, B and C indicate the action of the item, which is a percussion implement. It works with a natural edge, only formed by breaking and its use mainly consists of removals which tend to result in a sharp, bevelled cutting edge tool (Figure 8). 3) Points C, D and E show that the worked material is capable of crushing and flaking the bone and also producing smoothing, gloss, polish and striations. These points suggest the nature of the worked material: resistant but not hard and made of compounding fibres. Polish and gloss suggest that additional chemical elements like grease or resin are included. Stone can be excluded. Wood and bark are the most capable of leaving such use-wear. Thus, what I propose as a functional hypothesis for most of these tools, is that they are adzes, used to peel wood. A question remains unanswered: do they contain a haft or not? While no trace of hafting is available, the use-wear of the edges suggests that a strong proportion of them were strongly and heavily thrown on the worked material by means of a haft. Part of the objects would thus correspond to adzes, while the others were perhaps hand-adzes. If we consider the simplicity of their technology and conception, this explains the chosen term of crude adzes.

A) The first attribute which allows identification of potential artefacts is the repetition of removals lining their distal edge. Danielle Stordeur remains prudent about their interpretation. From her point of view, they may result from the technical shaping of the working edge as well as its use (Stordeur 1994, 259) (cf. Figures 1 to 3). On the studied examples, removals are numerous and result in different shapes and dimensions. Some are short, deep and hinged. They line the edge. Others, thin and long, invade the body of the tool. Both are located on each side of the “active edge”, external and internal, thus creating a stepped bevelled profile (Figure 5). B) The retouched edge is always flat, except for a few cases (Figure 5). Flatness is due to use, resulting from a process linked to axial percussion. The bone fibres separate one by one during work, forming transversal fissures (Figure 5-5). This produces removals which shape the working edge step by step untill it reaches a balance. The same result is obtained when the edge of a flint is knapped with a stone or a wooden hammer (personal experience). Repetitive percussion causes a flattened retouched edge. At the very least, we can say that flatness and removals are linked by a causal relationship to axial percussion. This unusual object is shaped through removals. It becomes a sharpened double bevel through use. Other manifestations of use appear through the stereomicroscope. C) Smoothing and crushing, which are always associated with removals and fissures, are observed. They can be more or less developed. They are present in the first millimeters of the bevel formed by the removals (Figure 5-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6). Smoothing can also be located below, bordering the outline of the removals and invading the intact part of the diaphysis (Figure 5-3).

Archaeological context: in which assemblage? We can now try to place this particular production into a general context.

D) Gloss and polish have varied forms. They are associated with striations, smoothing or micro-removals. They can be very local and occur on a ridge or appear as small spots (Figure 6-1). They line the edges more or less deeply (Figure 6-2, 6-3). Sometimes, they invade the edge and display uniform smoothness (Figure 6-4).

If we look at the Kovacevo assemblage, an early Neolithic site in southern Bulgaria, which contains crude adzes, and more generally to Karanovo I and II assemblages (Georgiev 1967; Hiller and Nikolov 1988), we see a strong contrast between well-shaped decorated and sophisticated spoons, hooks, rings, chisels, awls, etc. and the much simpler production of tubes, crude handadzes, splinter awls and scrapers (Sidéra 1997). This contrast is one trait of the Near Eastern Neolithic culture: a sophisticated production neighbouring a similar simpler one.

E) Different kinds of striations appear under higher magnification. They can be short, long, large (Figure 71), thin (Figure 7-3), deep (Figure 7-1), superficial (Figure 7-4), rare (Figure 7-2) or numerous (Figure 7-4), straight (Figure 7), separate (Figure 7-1) or crossed

229

ISABELLE SIDÉRA

Figure 5: Smoothing and crushes on various items (photos: I. Sidéra).

Figure 6: Polish and gloss on various items (photos: I. Sidéra).

230

EARLY NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CRUDE ADZES

Figure 7: Different types of striations on various items (photos: I. Sidéra).

The Linear Pottery culture bone production doesn’t show such a large difference between artefact classes. It is much simpler than that of the Bulgarian Early Neolithic (Sidéra 1989). The coexistence between the most common tools and crude adzes fits better. But even here, crude adzes stand out because of their contrast with the more traditional tools shaped before fulfilling any function.

They begin to be seen in Syria, Anatolia, Jordan and Iran, then Bulgaria, France (Alsace and Paris Basin) and, very recently, some have been discovered in Austria by Daniela Fehlmann and Günther Karl Kunst (pers. com.). This large spread fits with the theory of a long existence. They are attested from the 9th millenium (BCE) in the Near East (end of PPNA in Syria), to the 4th millenium in Bulgaria (Karanovo VI-Gumelnitza), for the youngest pieces (Figure 9).

If we admit that cultural behaviour explains this contrast within bone production, it probably has further significance. In addition to cultural behaviour, are social practices at the origin of these two contrasting manners of making bone artefacts? This idea is in need of further exploration.

Another interesting point is that these artefacts link the Near East to the Balkans and to Western Europe. They are part of the tool kit that accompanied the Neolithic diffusion. For that last reason crude adzes should not be ignored. They necessarily fulfil a strong economic and functional role, perhaps also a social one, and their simple technology may be the explanation for their success.

Geographical and chronological dispersion The huge geographical and chronological dispersal of crude adzes is an intriguing and uncommon phenomenon that deserves to be investigated.

231

ISABELLE SIDÉRA

Figure 8: Schema of the tool’s action and results on items (drawing and photos: I. Sidéra).

232

EARLY NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC CRUDE ADZES

Figure 9: Crude adzes geographical and chronological distribution. 1) Ganj Dareh (7th mill. BC); 2) Jarmo (6th mill. BC); 3) Mureybet (9th mill. BC); 4) Cafer Höyük (7th mill. BC); 5) Cheikh Hassan (7th mill. BC); 6) Kovacevo (6th mill. BC); 7) Drama (4th mill. BC); 8) Asparn (5th mill. BC); 9) Reichtett (5th mill. BC); 10) Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (5th mill. BC) (photo: I. Sidéra).

Isabelle Sidéra CNRS UMR 7055 « Préhistoire et Technologie » Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21 Allée de l’Université 92000 Nanterre France [email protected]

d'Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes. Liège, ERAUL 85, 215-239.

References cited

Stordeur, D. 1988. L'industrie osseuse de Cafer dans son contexte anatolien et proche oriental. Note préliminaire. Anatolica 15, 203-213.

Stordeur, D. 1980. Tell Mureybet (vallée de l'Euphrate) : quelques indications chronologiques et culturelles fournies par l'étude des os travaillés. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 5, 55-60.

Georgiev, G. I. 1967. Beiträge zur Erfoschung des Neolithikums und der Bronzezeit in Südbulgarien. Archaeologia Austriaca 42, 90-144.

Stordeur, D. 1994. Outils et parures en os de Ganj Dareh (Iran, VIIIe millénaire B.C.). Cahiers de l'Euphrate 7. Paris, Edition Recherche sur les civilisations, 245-296.

Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. 1988. Tell karanovo 1988. Salzburg, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Alte Geschichte und Altertumskunde der Universität Salzburg.

Watson, P-J. 1983. Jarmo worked bone, in L. S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, A. C. Reed and P. J. Watson. Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros flanks. Oriental Institute publications, 105, University of Chicago, 347-367.

Sidéra, I. 1989. Un complément des données sur les sociétés Rubanées, l'industrie osseuse de Cuiry-lèsChaudardes. Oxford, BAR International Series 520. Sidéra, I. 1994. L'assemblage osseux, mémoire procheorientale, genèse des cultures occidentales, in J.-P. Demoule et M. Lichardus-Itten (eds.), Rapport des fouilles franco-bulgares de Kovacevo (Bulgarie) 9, 3956. Sidéra, I. 1998. Nouveaux éléments d'origine procheorientale dans le Néolithique ancien balkanique. Analyse de l'industrie osseuse, in M. Otte (ed.), Préhistoire

233

The Complete and Usable Tool: Some Life Histories of Prehistoric Bone Tools in Hungary Alice M. CHOYKE* and Márta DARÓCZI-SZABÓ** * Aquincum Museum, Budapest, Hungary ** Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary Abstract Bone objects come to light in a variety of conditions. Sometimes these tools and ornaments are fragmented, sometimes half-finished. Rarely, they are deliberately broken and redistributed. They often display a roughened surface indicating that at one point they lay abandoned or lost on the ground, exposed to weathering. Other times their hard, clear surface indicates rapid burial. From time to time a small number of well-made, planned or even special objects are found that appear to have been buried quickly while they were still eminently usable. Such phenomena, although relatively rare in bone tool assemblages, occasionally suggest patterned disposal in certain prehistoric periods in Hungary. Possible explanations may include the resistance of well-polished surfaces to weathering. However, deliberate burial of still useful objects may also be related to personalization of material objects, that is, objects taking on some personal aspect of the people who used them over long periods. Tools strongly associated with an individual may well be buried as offerings or removed from active use when the person associated with them leaves the community or dies. The surface condition of bone tools will also be discussed as a useful methodological approach to the analysis of settlement formation processes. morphology and properties of the osseous material these objects were made from. Also, bone artifacts rarely fragment into many usable pieces. Probably of even greater importance is the fact that, except in France, archaeologists and archaeozoologists have paid little attention to re-fitting either waste material from ‘bone’ object production or bits of objects whose integrity has been deliberately destroyed and the resulting fragments re-distributed as heirloom-like objects (the one possible exception in my experience will be discussed later in this paper).

Introduction The life histories of bone, tooth and antler (hereafter referred to as ‘bone’ objects) differ in fundamental ways from other classes of material culture such as ceramics. Since John Chapman’s book on deliberate fragmentation of archaeological materials appeared in 2000, there has been much discussion of how the life histories of these objects relate to the ways people negotiated their multiple social identities in the past (Chapman 2000; Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; Fowler 2004) Although academic discussion mostly concentrates on ceramics with their complex cycle of production, use, and re-use touching on many aspects of social life, some attempts have also been made to consider metal objects and lithic materials, especially in the context of re-fitting fragments. ‘Bone’ tools, despite numerous articles on the operational sequences (chaînes opératoires, for example, Averbouh 2001; Dobres 2000; Pelegrin et al. 1988) have been largely left out of the English language discussion. One exception is the case of beads including bone and tooth beads in burials or hoards, as parts or fragments of ornaments which may be considered fractal objects and heirlooms (Chapman and Gaydarska 2007; Choyke 2001; Fowler 2004). This trend is understandable. ‘Bone’ objects and to a lesser extent ornaments, begin their life histories like any other object – with a choice of raw materials and variable but patterned production sequences. However, their biography then deviates somewhat from objects made from other kinds of materials. This is because repair and re-use as well as the continual transformation of these artifacts is built into their very nature. As opposed to ceramics or lithics, the changes in form are also constrained by the original

Thus, because of their physical properties and research history, ‘bone’ objects do not lend themselves very well to fragmentation studies. In this paper, I intend to explore the reasons why complete, still usable or repairable tools may often be found at archaeological sites. Reasons cannot be taken for granted and, as Chapman and Gaydarska (2007) rightly point out, the assumptions that all depositions of archaeological material are refuse from accident, discard and abandonment is indeed questionable. The intention here is to call attention to potential causes of patterning in deposition of complete ‘bone’ objects found at archaeological sites. Discarded complete tools will first be discussed in terms of tool kit or depot taphonomy, whole objects that were left behind for a variety of reasons. Examples from site materials of what appears to have been deliberate burial of special ‘bone’ objects will also be taken from a broad range of chronological contexts including: Early as well as Late Neolithic, Middle Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age contexts in both Hungary (Figure 1) and Turkey (Figure 2).

235

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ

Figure 1: Map of Hungarian sites mentioned in text: including Early Neolithic, Final Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Middle Bronze Age settlements.

Figure 2: Map showing location of Arslantepe, a Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age tell site in Eastern Anatolia.

normally broke and were transformed by re-use and curation in patterned ways related to the natural mechanical properties of the hard osseous raw material and the intensity of the gestures with which they were used in various activities. Depending on the particular circumstances, they may also have been renewed (or not) and this resulted in predictable transformations in the shape of the objects – part of their life histories that, in the case of personal tools and ornaments, paralleled the lives of the people using them. At some point in this chain of manufacture and use these objects were removed from daily life in the form of rubbish, lost or deliberately abandoned. Their regular production, transformations and disposal was part of the way people negotiated and secured their various social identities within the habitus, the regularity and familiarity of everyday activities

Agency and ‘bone’ objects The old reflexive way of seeing artifacts as simple mirrors of social activity often ignores the way objects may also be actively used by individuals in defining and refining their various social persona in strictly encoded forms of traditional life. ‘Bone’ tools, although commonly tied closely to simple household or village craft activities, were simultaneously used to manipulate and signal both traditional identities as well as the small shifts and discords between individuals within social units. Such inter-actions were also part of everyday life and the stuff of social transformation over time. From new, made-for-a-single-purpose objects found in graves or shrines to tools from daily life, ‘bone’ objects

236

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL described by Bourdieu (1977) as one source of social stability (Stark 1999, 28).

discarded whole or still in a useable condition. Obviously, ‘bone’ objects may come to light in a range of conditions. Sometimes these objects are new, sometimes used but still whole, sometimes broken or sometimes half-finished. Rarely (as far as we know), they may even have been deliberately broken and redistributed.

Social enchainment processes may take various forms in terms of complexity and length. Why were special worked ‘bone’ objects such as ornaments deliberately passed on as heirlooms and, in contrast, why were such ‘complete’ objects sometimes removed from circulation, still in a useable condition? It is becoming increasingly clear that bone, antler and tooth tools/ornaments, unlike most ceramics or even textiles and leather, have the potential to ‘out-live’ their owners, settlements (place) and be passed down from generation to generation connecting the living and the dead in ways that may have been very meaningful to the individuals using them, a source of their authentication and social value (Choyke 2001; 2006a; 2007).

Often the surfaces of discarded ‘bone’ objects display a roughened cortical surface indicating that at one point they lay abandoned or lost on the ground, exposed to weathering, other times their well-preserved, hard, clear surface modifications indicates they were deposited rapidly. The stages of surface decay have been clearly outlined by Behrensmeyer (1978). From time to time, a small number of carefully made, planned or even special objects are found with well preserved surfaces indicating rapid burial while they were still eminently usable. Soils in Hungary are extremely alkaline so that surface etching from acidity, root marking, etc. are rarely encountered and clearly distinguishable from weathering damage. Such phenomena, although not common in ‘bone’ object assemblages, occasionally display regular patterning in the way ‘bone’ objects of various types were disposed of in certain prehistoric periods in Hungary.

Thus, ‘bone’ objects in the past may also have served to connect people, in some instances for short intervals only and sometimes over generations. As noted above, it has not been recognized that ‘bone’ objects have the potential to be used over lifetimes and inherited as what Mills (2004, 239-240) has called heirlooms or inalienable possessions, objects made to be kept (not exchanged). They have a symbolic and economic power that cannot be transferred through their strong association with an individual person or with the persons allowed to use them. Furthermore, many such tools were used to make other objects more directly tied to social enchainment networks such as ceramic vessels, idols (Chapman and Gaydarska 2007) or even perishable goods such as textiles and leather goods, few traces of which remain in the archaeological record.

Methodology and variables to be considered Raw material Each class of artifacts has its own set of variables that need to be considered when researching the objects as part of a larger assemblage. Generally, ‘bone’ object manufacture, use and discard created social enchainments between animal owners, animals chosen for slaughter, practitioners of traditional primary and secondary butchery and manufacturers and users of the object. Sometimes the ‘bone’ objects were produced from special skeletal elements selected after secondary butchering, strictly for the manufacture of certain tools or ornaments and destined for selected users.

Objects made from hard osseous materials derive from animals whose hunting or maintenance were very much tied up in traditional inter-personal and social relationships. The patterning in raw materials observable in many ‘bone’ object tool types were certainly also bound up with special meanings attached to the animal and skeletal element. Birtalan (2003) showed this convincingly in her linguistic analysis of old Mongolian meanings of skeletal elements from a variety of animal species. This additional layer of meaning in turn may have conferred extra authenticity on objects being manufactured, used and later, perhaps many years later, deposited whole and still usable in carefully chosen locations in a particular part of the settlement. I suspect this latter behavior would have been related to what Mauss (1950, 57) described as the ‘fairy-like’ potential of material culture to take on the spirit of the user. After the death of the owner or after special objects were used in a particular ritual these inherent qualities would have had the potential to cause great harm to the living or uninitiated.

Other ‘bone’ objects seem to have been part of a longer and less clear cut enchainment process. Acquisition of the final raw material was more closely linked to food processing and consumption. The variability of resulting fragments may have been limited but semi-predictable in shape owing to strict food processing rules. Alternatively, they may have had quite variable forms because rules of meat consumption were much looser. Both chains of production connecting a series of individuals re-converged in the tool or ornament makers (except for specialist tool and ornament producers where these forms of social enchainment differ in prehistoric contexts in Hungary) at the point when a particular skeletal element or bone fragment was selected for manufacture. The chain of production between individuals continued between the user of the ‘bone’ object user and the person or persons who decided when

Surface wear and interpretation of disposal patterns At the same time, it is important to remember that there may also be more mundane reasons for objects to be

237

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ and how the tool should eventually be discarded. The social enchainment processes with antler would ultimately have linked people assigned to gather this raw material in the early spring to the antler object. In the Bronze Age, antler may even have been traded (Choyke 1987; 2005) further widening social connections between groups through procurement of antler and the people bartering for it. Red deer antler also connected the gatherers of the shed antler racks to manufacturers of special objects such as harness ornaments, subtly enchaining horse and red deer mythologies and the people manufacturing and those using such antler products. Finally, antler objects would have been used, curated and finally disposed of in various ways depending on the social context and the nature of the antler object itself.

‘bone’ objects were categorized by their location along what has elsewhere been termed the manufacturing continuum (Choyke 1997). The location of artifacts along this continuum roughly measures the quality of individual ‘bone’ objects based on the degree of selection of their raw material and the percentage of their surface covered by manufacturing wear. In well made, more elaborate, planned Class I tools at one end of the continuum, the degree of manufacture wear(s) tends to be significantly greater than the percentage of their surface covered by use wear. At the other end of the continuum, are the ad hoc that is Class II objects which display great variety in raw material selection with little or no effort put into their manufacture as expressed by a low percentage of their surface being covered by manufacturing wear. Such tools have a tendency to be relatively more used than carefully manufactured. However, although well made, carefully thought out Class I tools tend to be re-worked more often and used more intensively, the degree of use wear depends mostly on the point in its life history an object was discarded.

As noted previously, bone, tooth and antler elements from certain species would likely have had special meanings for the makers and users of the tool and there may even be sets of local beliefs about the magical and practical qualities of individual skeletal elements (Birtalan 2003).

Placing ‘bone’ objects tentatively along the manufacturing continuum is a quick way of assessing the importance of objects in manufacturing traditions as this is reflected in the effort put into their manufacture including raw material selection, production and curation. Proportions between assemblages with more Class I than Class II tools or a majority of tools falling into different sections of the Class I- Class II range varies by period and the tool-making traditions of the particular society (Choyke 2006a, 51; 2007, 642-643).

In fact, there are many ways to skin a cat and numerous bones from a variety of species can and were used to make tools that functioned in broadly similar ways in different archaeological cultures. If cattle ribs were used in one place to make scraping tools for leather, in another place proximal segments of tibia diaphyses from caprinae (sheep or goat) might be favored for tools functioning in similar ways (Choyke 1983). There is no intrinsic mechanical reason why one skeletal element would be ‘more efficient’ than another or make better tools, simply that the makers and users of these tools believed they did. Patterned selection of raw material reiterated over many years together with the repeated stories about animals and their parts in the intimate setting of the household and village would have served as a source of social stability through what Bourdieu (1977) called habitus and familiarity. In the same way, shifts in the species and raw material used to make a particular object may well be an indication of change at the deepest, most intimate level of society – the household (Choyke 1997; 2006a). Beliefs about how certain skeletal elements should be best used, (especially teeth since they are intimately connected with the way animals eat and defend themselves), might well have been reinforced by beliefs in the mythical qualities of particular animals (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 2006, 110). The specifics of this part of the social equation will, however, probably always evade archaeologists studying worked ‘bone’ from prehistoric periods.

Manufacturing and use wear(s) All tools presented here were examined under magnifications of 10, 15 and 20x. Even these lower magnifications permitted the authors to say whether the tools had been used on hard or soft materials or even whether they had been used at all and what, if any, curation had been carried out on individual objects. Such investigations permit much of the manufacture and use histories of each ‘bone’ object to be worked out. Thus, if manufacturing traces are clear, the striations from manufacturing work will have sharp, unrounded edges and it may be reasonably surmised that the object is virtually new. If the manufacturing traces are mostly obscured by use wear and the shape of the original object vastly transformed by use, breakage and curation, then it may be surmised that the tool was intensively used, sometimes even for many years. This is of particular importance when the use wear (or lack thereof) on elaborate objects is at variance with expectations based on parallel finds from other collections of ‘bone’ artifacts. If unexpected results are repeated with such objects in special contexts at a number of different but contemporary sites within an area or even a broad region, even if the numbers of such objects remains low, they permit formation of sensible hypotheses about why they might have been deliberately abandoned.

The quality of manufacture As part of this particular study, little detailed attention was given to the operational sequence in the manufacture of individual pieces although this is undeniably important in the study of worked osseous objects. Instead, the

238

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL Condition

separate weft threads when making textile designs (Choyke 1999). These important, traditional weaving tools are today made from llama metapodials, neatly split down the median line through the diaphysis and distal epiphysis in the modern case (Figure 3a-b). Today, newer ones may still be used with bits of skin and dried flesh remaining on them. The woman using these modern versions of ancient artifacts was a traditional weaver, originally from Paría, a village in Oruro Province in the highlands of Bolivia. László Bartosiewicz (pers. comm. 2007), interviewed her specifically on manufacturing and use attitudes to such artifacts. Women may use several of these tools with different tip thicknesses for the same piece of weaving as described above. If they need another, such tools can be easily made from bone retrieved from the food refuse. There is little sense of personal attachment connected with these tools except that they should be made from camelid metapodials more or less at the household level. Interestingly, archaeological specimens from the pre-conquest/conquest period in the sixteenth century, made without the benefit of metal tools, were much more carelessly produced (Choyke 1999) (Figure 3a) reflecting this ‘expedient’ character even more clearly. It seems likely that many of the ‘bone’ tools found on archaeological sites in Hungary would have been manufactured in such short and informal production pathways and used in comparable ‘anonymous’ multiples.

Finally, bone as an organic material, although very enduring, does begin to degrade rapidly if left exposed to rain, sun and extremes of temperature on the ground surface (Behrensmeyer 1978). Furthermore, bones also require burial in alkaline or at least neutral soils for good preservation, luckily common in Hungary. Extremely polished objects also seem to be more resistant to chemical erosion of this kind, perhaps because high polish reduces the capillarity the bone surface, thereby limiting exposure to destructive factors during fossil diagenesis. High polish may have a number of causes including handling and some kinds of use wear, scraping with chipped stone tools, deliberate polishing or heating the object to harden it. The latter process need not change the color of the bone (Sénépart 1991; Sidéra 2001). The degree of erosion on the surface of a tool or ornament, is nevertheless very revealing about the speed with which the object was buried. ‘Bone’ objects that were interred quickly, for example in graves, caches or pits in alkaline soils will be very well preserved while objects tossed on the ground and only swept into secondary refuse deposits sometime later will display variable degrees of surface damage. In other words, the condition of the surface of a ‘bone’ object can reveal something of the intent, the deliberateness of the act of abandonment or discard. Archaeological context The worked ‘bone’ objects discussed in this study come from a variety of archaeological contexts. Some of them were found in graves. Others came to light from areas closely associated with house features, caches or pits but where the somewhat closed context has a slightly more ambiguous character due to the associated presence to be ordinary household rubbish. Finally, some of the complete, special objects discussed here seem to have been randomly buried in settlement layers, or at least in places where the feature, if it ever existed, is no longer obvious archaeologically. Tools discarded, left behind or simply lost Sometimes tools are simply thrown away when they are still usable because they are easily replaceable and are only loosely linked to individual persons. As Chapman and Gaydarska point out (2007, 8), the connections between persons and things vary according to what stage in their mutual life histories they meet, that is, the relationship between persons and objects cannot be separated from the act of their transformation. Thus, objects with very short lives – made, used and discarded after a single act – are often treated differently from objects with long, complex and diversified biographies. A pertinent example comes from fine and dull weaving tools from Bolivia used both as pin-beaters and to

Figure 3: Bolivian weaver using metapodial-based weaving tools, employed in multiples and with low linkage to the weaver despite their importance (main photo: E. Bauer, inset photo: A. Choyke).

The prehistoric form of these Bolivian weaving tools have parallels in the simple, slightly modified objects from Hungary clustering around the Class II and I–II (central section) of the manufacturing continuum. Little

239

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ energy or planning went into such objects. The selection of skeletal element for manufacturing also depended somewhat on serendipitous bone fragmentation during carcass processing, although traditions during this manipulation probably produced reasonably predictable standardized fragment shapes. Nevertheless, such tools exhibit a wider variability in raw materials since the determining feature would have been the shape of the bone splinter, something that would have distanced the tool somewhat from local, traditional beliefs in the accepted qualities of particular osseous materials. Usually, any manufacturing focuses on some enhancement of the working bevel or point (Figure 4, Class II tools Gyor-Szabdret-domb).

presumably without personal connections, would tend to be quite variable (ranging from quickly buried and well preserved to slow burial resulting in high erosion), reflecting the more casual way the tools were handled, used and stored. Cost of transport As has been pointed out (Jean-Marc Petillion pers. comm. 2008) small-scale societies or those based on some degree of mobile pastoralism live in less permanent settlements (Choyke 2006b). The Körös culture people lived in small farming groups that spread over the eastern part of Hungary, then a marshy plain criss-crossed by rivers and their small tributaries. Their small settlements were not long-lived, perhaps abandoned as nearby pasture lands became depleted. Some complete bone tools were left behind. Among these, abandoned in the habitation levels, are not very elaborate split rib caprinae double points (Figure 5a, rib double point; Choyke 2007, 651; Makkay 1990). They were only occasionally curated and may represent another type of object that might have been used in multiples and not personalized. Not surprisingly, these artifacts were left behind when the group changed settlement location. More ambiguous are the wellplanned split metapodial awls, frequently curated down to pencil stub size specimens with re-sharpened, intact points (Figure 5b). All the ‘pencil-stub’ examples from Ecsegfalva 23 and many of the other examples of intensively curated split medapodial points from other coeval Körös sites such as Szarvas 23 and Endrőd 119 have intact points (Choyke 1997; 2007, 647-48; Makkay 1990, fig. 7, 10). The same phenomenon was observed at related Criş sites in Romania (Beldiman 1999-2000, fig. 2). These objects have a more personalized appearance, usually with good surface preservation implying the probability of rapid burial after they were abandoned. Care had certainly been taken to re-sharpen and keep them in use as they repeatedly broke. Nevertheless, they were left behind as the site was abandoned, still useful but just at the end of their “working life” because they had become so short. In this case, transport cost needs to be considered as an explanation for why such tools were left behind, especially for groups living in short term settlements of just a few years, groups practicing seasonal pastoralism moving between winter and summer pastures, or hunter and gathers following a seasonal round after game or plant resources. It would have been easier to leave them behind and manufacture new ones at the new abode.

Figure 4: The Class II ‘bone’ tools from a pit at the site of Middle Chalcolithic settlement Győr–Szabadrét-domb. The morphology of the skeletal element was largely retained during their manufacture with only limited modifications (photo: A. Choyke, Choyke in press).

Included in tools that might also have been used in multiples with low personal association would be simple ad hoc as well as mass-produced ‘bone’ objects, their contribution ever increasing in later prehistory. Their raw material might even have been carefully selected by skeletal element but only slightly modified. Typically, tools made from astragali, phalanges and ribs fall into this category. Very little modification would have been necessary to produce effective tools. Furthermore, since these skeletal elements contain little marrow, it was not likely that their essential shapes would be badly damaged or modified during butchering and food processing. The tasks for which such simple bone tools were used could be quite important but lacked any personal associations. Plentiful supplies of raw material meant such tools could easily be replaced so there would have been little reason to keep careful track of their location. The surface preservation of simple tools, used in multiples,

Finally, when settlements are completely abandoned many complete objects, both valuable and commonplace may be left behind. It may be that as places lose their significance so do the objects made and used in them. This may also account for the numerous metapodial points found in settlement layers at the Late Neolithic site of Öcsöd–Kováshalom.

240

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL The small Early Chalcolithic (4th millennium BC) site of Vésztő–Bikeri is characterized by a deep fortification ditch surrounding a small habitation area of just a few dwellings that had been destroyed in an intense conflagration (Parkinson et al. 2002, 619). A small pit dug into the floor contained the calcified remains of projectile points (Figure 6). The marks of manufacture were clearly visible on the less badly burned pieces suggesting that these points represented a weapon cache and thus, another way complete objects may enter the archaeological record.

New tools, newly repaired tools Certain classes of artifacts are more likely to be found new (or almost new) and whole or used and freshly curated in settlement materials. The marks of manufacture and repair are fresh on their generally well preserved surfaces, suggesting that they were abandoned

Figure 5: Tools, probable used in multiples, left behind from the short-lived Early Neolithic site (Körös Culture) of Ecsegfalva 23 including; a) rib double point ; b) ‘pencil-stub’ metapodial distal aw (photo: A. Choyke). Figure 6: Burned bone and antler projectile points at the fortified Early Chalcolithic (Tisza Culture) site of Vésztő–Bikeri also showing location of depot (map and photo with kind permission of W. Parkinson).

while in storage. However, it must be acknowledged that some objects that appear unused at low magnification may in fact be barely used, something that is not detectable without examination of the objects under high magnifications. Whether new or barely used, tool types represent equipment that would have been used offsettlement, in activities such as warfare, hunting and fishing. Thus, if objects such as projectile points, harpoons and fish hook were broken during use the prey may have escaped with them, or they would have been simply lost and never returned to the settlement.

The shouldered flaked bone projectile point from the Middle Chalcolithic site of Győr–Szabadrét-domb (Figure 7c) and the three delicate bone projectile points with tangs and split hafting bases from the late Middle Bronze Age levels at Százhalombatta–Földvár (Figure 7a-b) were also found intact (except for recent shovel breaks), with clear marks of manufacturing and well preserved surfaces suggesting that these projectiles were also stored in protected places prior to use.

‘Bone’ projectile points, at least those with shouldering and stemmed hafting, are not characteristic of most prehistoric cultural assemblages in Hungary. However, they do appear in some time periods. There are examples of projectile points from the Early Chalcolithic site of Vésztő-Bikeri in eastern Hungary and the Middle Chalcolithic site of Győr–Szabadrét-domb in northwestern Hungary and the late Middle Bronze Age site of Százhallombatta–Földvár on the Danube, some 30km south of Budapest (for all these sites cf. Figure 1).

Bone and boar tusk fish hooks and antler harpoons are characteristic of Final Neolithic settlement materials from both western and eastern Hungary (Zalai-Gaál 1983; 2004). The examples from the sites of Öcsöd– Kováshalom and Polgár 6 were all found intact (Figure 7d). There are also examples at Öcsöd–Kováshalom of unfinished specimens as well as fragments representing unsuccessful attempts to produce these hooks, all of which were made from boar lower canine teeth. Boar tusk

241

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ must have been considered a special and not easily acquired raw material since wild boar is a formidable game and individuals of a size to produce large enough tusks for manufacturing must have been truly dangerous prey. Furthermore, the technique of drilling holes to produce the perforated outline of the hook and then snapping, carving and abrading the hook to its final shape would have been quite labor intensive. These are not objects lightly set aside or lost. Antler harpoons are usually found intact as well although their raw material would have likely come from shed i.e. gathered antler and would have been much easier to acquire. However, their manufacture also involved multiple steps and they seem to have been retrieved and repaired when possible. It may be that such valuable intact equipment found in habitation levels represents both stored tools as well as refuse from the time the settlement was finally abandoned.

Well-used tools, incorporated into reiterated socially embedded routine practices (Pfaffenberger 1988, 148) become part of the continual reinterpretation and renegotiation that goes on within even the most conservative of social collectivities. Pfaffenberger (1992, 505) has called this a technological drama, implying a degree of conscious action among people using tools where these artifacts are used and conserved over time. The case studies discussed here may well have been objects deeply embedded in their own particular ritual and mythic narrative, a dramatic narrative that was amplified and authenticated by age, length of use, and continuous but predictable remodeling of the objects as they were used, broken and repaired (Choyke 2006a; 2009). The Early Neolithic (6th millennium) spoons of the Starčevo-Körös-Criş cultural sphere, made from cattle or wild cattle metatarsals, are among the best known bone artifacts found at sites of this period. They are objects found consistently on almost all sites of these cultures over a broad region and are also the bone tools most likely to be reported in archaeological site reports for this period (Bačkalov 1979, pl. XXIV9/13, XXV/8-10; Beldiman 1999-2000, figs. 6-8; Beldiman and Popuşoi 1993-1998; Kisléghi Nagy 1911, 148; Makkay 1990, 2428; Nandris 1972). The curated spoon from Ecsegfalva 23 was made from a domestic cattle or small aurochs metatarsal (Figure 8, Choyke 2007, fig. 29.7b, 655, 663). Such spoons are almost always found re-worked. They break and their form transforms in predictable patterned ways (Makkay 1990). The V-shape of the spoon bowl always seems to have been preserved, probably deliberately; even when the bowls were eventually whittled down to lance-shaped points. The final form and all the re-working on the edge of the bowl and end of the handle was carried out over many years of use and reuse. Such special objects were made strictly from wild or domestic cattle metatarsals that may have had their own meaning associated with both the animal and the skeletal element. The spoons could easily have lasted for the lifetimes of the people in the household where they were used. They are often found complete in these short-lived settlements with very glossy, well-preserved surfaces indicating rapid burial. Could their deliberate abandonment have been related to the death or departure of the people they were associated with, the burial of these transformed spoons tying them to the last place they were used?

Figure 7: Tools that tend to be found new or newly curated at prehistoric sites in Hungary; a) Late Bronze Age projectile point from Százhallombatta–Földvár; b) two late Middle Bronze Age projectile points from Százhallombatta–Földvár; c) an antler harpoon, newly re-worked from the Final Neolithic village of Polgár 6 and d) a boar tusk fish hook from the Final Neolithic village of Öcsöd–Kováshalom (photos: A. Choyke).

Removal of objects from incorporation into place

the

social

sphere,

Biographies of objects may be intimately related to lifehistories of human beings. Radley (1997) has pointed out that since mundane objects may be closely tied to memory, people inevitably used them to establish links with both personal and constructed group past. This use of material culture served to reinforce and sustain both personal and group identity. By deliberate burial of special objects used by particular individuals this identity may also have been linked to a particular settlement or place. As individuals aged, individual ‘bone’ objects, employed repeatedly by them in households or larger settlement contexts became increasingly associated with their personal memories and the memories of people close to them. Thus, these the objects themselves became imbued with that Maussian “fairy-like spirit” of the people that used them.

A pair of extremely worn handles or grips discovered together during early excavations at SzázhalombattaFöldvár (Kovács 1969) were found in the late Middle Bronze Age levels (around 1500 BC) of the settlement outside of any clear feature (Figure 9). Their very glossy surface bears witness to their rapid burial (Choyke 2009; Choyke et al. 2004). These beautiful grips are made from complete sheep metatarsals with separate bone peg insets to fix something like a leather strap inside. Their surfaces and edges have an almost melted appearance related to

242

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL the intensity of their use and the length of time they were probably in active life, probably decades. Indeed, the level of wear is so extreme that it is not hard to imagine that these objects may have been passed down between two or more generations (Choyke 2009). Why would equipment which had been carefully preserved for so long be deliberately abandoned when still eminently useable? Certainly burying such heirloom-like objects would have identified the living members of that family with their family history and its social setting within this large central settlement.

Figure 10: Deliberately broken-up and stored ‘bone’ object fragment from late Middle Bronze Age settlement at fortified settlement of Százhallombatta–Földvár. Glossy, brownish-gold surface testifies to rapid, probably deliberate burial (photo: A. Choyke).

There is another unique object from the late Middle Bronze Age levels at Százhalombatta–Földvár, this time a fragment of an object displaying signs of long-term use.

Deposition of apotropaic or other magical objects

Figure 8: Early Neolithic (Körös Culture) cattle metatarsal spoon from Ecsegfalva 23 (Choyke 2007), an individual ‘bone’ object probably closely linked to its user (photo: A. Choyke).

Sometimes, bone objects seem to have been deliberately made as apotropaic or amulet-like artifacts used in ceremonies, ultimately ending up buried within closed features in settlements. Falling within this category would be collected or accumulated objects which are meant to effect a certain result such as success in hunting or protection against danger or illness. These objects will often be made from special materials that would have enhanced the meanings given to their form and deliberate burial in significant places. Such finds tend to have well preserved surfaces related to their rapid burial. They will either display NO use wear or have use wear inconsistent with what one expect if they had actually been used in the “normal”, daily activities suggested by their formal attributes. What follows are two case studies of this sort of deposition.

Figure 9: Pair of late Middle Bronze Age sheep metapodial based bone ‘grips’ found carefully buried together at fortified settlement Százhallombatta–Földvár, possibly used over more than one generation. Another example of an individual ‘bone’ object probably closely linked to its user (photo: A. Choyke, after Choyke 2004).

The large tell site of Arslantepe is located near the town of Malatya, eastern Turkey on the Anatolian plateau (cf. Figure 2). Its earliest layers begin in the Middle Chalcolithic with an extensive habitation sequence through the end of the Early Bronze Age towards the end of the third millennium BC. A small heavily fortified town surrounded by massive walls marks the very end of the Early Bronze Age sequence. A small depot of projectile points in various degrees of elaboration were found in a pit buried beneath the floors of one of the structures (Choyke 2000) (Figure 11). What makes this depot particularly interesting is that this hunting equipment is all otherwise made from bezoar goat (Capra aegagrus) horn core. This wild goat species was the main game animal in that period at the settlement. Projectile points of this simple elongated type found in the settlement layers are all made from antler – a much more resilient raw material than the brittle, spongy bone of horn core that is hard to work. Points made from this poor quality raw material are unlikely even to have been effective as hunting equipment. In addition to the elongated points and half-finished pieces, the buried depot also contains extremely elaborate fine forms with shoulders shaped from drilled holes with no

The surface of this small piece of bone shows signs of deliberate fragmentation as well as a high degree of handling polish. This amorphous object looks like part of some kind of tool or ornament that was kept in a pouch or soft container, rounding all the worked surfaces and obscuring the manufacturing striations (Figure 10). Perhaps bits of it were distributed after the object was broken up as a form of social enchainment as suggested for Chalcolithic ceramic material from Bulgaria (Chapman 2000, 226).

243

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ morphological parallels among the normal points from the settlement material. The burial of these objects, the fact that they are absolutely new as well as their unique raw material all point to their use in some kind of magic, perhaps designed to bring success in hunting the bezoar goat itself. Frazer (1911, 54) has described hunting magic as a form of sympathetic magic, or more specifically ’contagious magic’ connecting an operator and subject through the image of the subject or the use of objects once in contact with the subject. Best documented ethnographically are accumulations of certain parts of the prey animal through repeated deposition in ritual places (McNiven and Feldman 2003, 171). Examples of using parts of prey animal during rituals aimed at aiding its capture are relatively common in the ethnographic literature and it is not a far step to see this deposit containing unusable projectiles made from the spectacular horns of the prey targeted as part of hunting magic.

on the southwest shore of Lake Balaton, assigned to the Proto-Boleráz Culture. All these objects were found intact (except for modern shovel damage) in pits within the sites. They are well thought out, complexly planned objects. They are covered by absolutely fresh manufacturing marks and their surfaces well preserved indicating rapid burial in the pits they were found in. None of the objects appear to have been broken and curated since the marks of manufacture are equally well preserved over their surfaces. However, all these points appear made-for-the-purpose at both sites. The two specimens from Győr-Szábadrétdomb have very heavy handling polish and a golden brown color suggesting that before they were deposited whole they were also carried for a number of years in a pouch or worn in a way that they would have come in intensive daily contact with leather surfaces (Choyke in press). The lance and one of the projectile points from Balatonkeresztúr-Réti-dúlő also have a light polish on the blades. The burial of these projectile points suggests a ritual with something of an individual flavor. The fact that these objects appear to be imitations of what would have been valuable metal projectiles suggest that they were symbolically ‘sacrificed’. Hopefully, as more sites are excavated and their ‘bone’ tool assemblages examined more of these objects will be recovered enabling researchers to establish true patterning in their deposition.

Figure 11: Ritual hunting deposit from below house floor in the (VID) end of the Early Bronze Age town occupation at Arslantepe in Eastern Anatolia (photo: R. Ceccacci). Figure 12: Deliberately buried ‘amulet’-like projectile points and lance-form with clear manufacturing traces over-laid with handling polish linking them to individual use. The good surface preservation reflects their rapid deposition in pits and suggests ritual behavior (photo: A. Choyke).

The second case study is harder to assess, mostly because we possess too few examples at present to see whether there is true patterning in the way these ‘bone’ objects were deposited. The objects include projectile points and a larger “lance head”, freshly carved from bone which appear to be imitations of metal equipment (Pape 1982) (Figure 12a-b). To date they have been found at two Middle Chalcolithic (4th millennium BC) sites in western Hungary (cf. Figure 1) Győr–Szabadrét-domb assigned to the Boleráz Culture (Choyke in press; Figler et al. 1997) and the slightly earlier site of Balatonkeresztúr–Réti-dúlő

Complete objects and mortuary rituals Another place complete ‘bone’ objects are found archaeologically is in mortuary contexts. These might represent burial equipment designed to be used by the deceased in the afterlife and would probably have been

244

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL quite emblematic of the dead person’s multiple social identities. Here, however, I would like to very briefly mention beaded objects given to the dead and, in particular, the special case of the imitation deer canines presented to females below the age of menopause in the form of necklaces and hair ornaments (mixed with spondylus and dentilium shells and marble beads) and the real deer canines presented to males and one woman over child-bearing age in necklaces at the Final Neolithic horizontal settlement of Polgár 6 in northeastern Hungary (cf. Figure 1). Fowler (2004) has pointed out that beads in necklaces represent parts of whole objects and in this sense may be considered ‘fractal’ in that they extend out of other things. Elsewhere (Choyke 2001; 2008), it has been suggested that the differential wear on the imitation and real deer canines composing these complex necklaces (Figure 13a-b) shows that these beads could not have been made at the same time for a particular necklace or hair ornament. It looks very much as if the wear on some of the beads must have taken many years to develop suggesting they may even have been handed down over generations. Giving these beads to the dead would have been a form of enchaining the world of the living to the world of the dead, linking the ancestors with the living and the deceased.

Conclusions A number of characteristics of ‘bone’ objects that have proved useful in distinguishing between and understanding various forms of discard behavior for complete ‘bone’ tools found at prehistoric sites have been presented in this paper. The most important variables include recognizable patterning in: 1) Raw material – Is the raw material appropriate for the nominal function of the tool? Is it easily available or exotic? 2) Location and find contexts – in the fill; on living surfaces; in pits or houses; associated with special features such as burials or found together with special finds in other classes of artifacts. 3) Surface preservation of the ‘bone’ object (speed of burial) – well preserved surfaces indicate rapid and perhaps intentional burial. 4) Degree of elaboration along the manufacturing continuum (Class I to Class II tools) – How much energy was put into the production of the tool? Does specialized work seem to be involved? 5) Degree of congruence between actual and expected use wear – Is an object polished when it should be chipped? Is it new or extremely used? Is it inappropriately polished given its formal characteristics? Clearly, there are always a number of practical as well as taphonomic reasons why some ‘bone’ objects will be found complete and reusable on archaeological sites. Tools may be simply lost or easily substituted for replaced and therefore not cared for. Hunting and fishing implements tend to be broken off-site, only to be found in settlement materials if they are new, being repaired or destroyed while still in storage. For groups that move around from settlement to settlement more frequently it may not be worth carrying easily made or almost used up tools which were then abandoned. There would be little patterning in the find locations of such objects.

Real red deer canine beads have been found accumulated in necklaces at the Chalcolithic sites of Varna (Ivanov 1991) and Durankulak (Vajsov 1992). Large accumulations of imitations (this time given to men) and real red deer canines (given to women) also appear at contemporary Neolithic graves from in Southern Germany (Spatz 1999) showing what a widespread burial phenomenon this was in this period. Accumulations of complete, unmodified but complete red deer canines have also been found on sites of the Romanian Cucuteni Culture as well as in Moldavia (Choyke 2001, 254; Ursachii 1990, 332, 377-384) and parts of Ukraine (Seegheev 1982) in this same period in askos-type jars as buried hoards – they must certainly also have represented accumulated wealth of some kind.

Other ‘bone’ objects may be placed whole in the ground as part of mortuary or other ritual behaviors. Such special objects may well display unusual, made-for-the-purpose forms sometimes produced from exotic raw materials. They will have well-preserved surfaces with clear traces of manufacturing and little evidence of use wear. Perhaps the most important variable effecting how and why ‘bone’ objects were ultimately discarded, however, is how closely they were associated with individuals. Some objects may have been used (or stored) in multiples possibly for several different purposes – general tools for general use. Examples of such tools might range from the classic, well made, small ruminant metapodial awls found on most prehistoric sites to the slightly modified (as described above Class II types) objects used on an ad hoc basis. Such ‘bone’ objects would be most likely to be thrown away while still usable. They are useful but not embedded with any kind of deeper meaning or symbolic value.

Figure 13: Series of bone beads imitating red deer canines given to females below the age of menopause from the site of Polgár 6 displaying different degrees of wear. Mortuary behavior potentially linking ancestors with the living and the deceased (Choyke 2001, photo: K. Kozma).

On the other hand, objects closely associated with individuals or generations of individuals as heirlooms, perhaps over many years, such as the Early Neolithic

245

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ bone spoons, the very worn Middle Bronze Age bone grips or heavily handled fragment of a bone tool as well as the Late Neolithic deer canine imitation beads buried with young girls or women may become associated or actually imbued with some aspect of the identity of their user/owners in the minds of other people close to them. Such objects would have been carefully disposed of. They would have been removed from circulation because of the dangers of coming in contact with goods associated with the ‘spirit’ of the deceased. They could also be hidden because objects used in ritual practice and mythic narrative had to be protected from being touched by inappropriate people in the settlement. Each heirloom or ritual type ‘bone’ object embodied a palimpsest of different social and practical meanings. These objects also serve to link individuals or social units with each other or to a place by removing the ‘bone’ object from circulation.

Birtalan, Á. 2003. Ritualistic use of livestock bones in the Mongolian belief system and customs, in A. Sárközi and A. Rákos (eds.), Altaica Budapestinensia MMII, Proceedings of the 45th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC), Budapest, Hungary, June 23-28, 2002, 34-62.

Thus, there are many potential reasons why complete, still usable ‘bone’ objects may be discarded or abandoned deliberately. In all likelihood a number of alternative reasons may still be added to those described in this short paper. Hopefully, the discussion will encourage researchers to think in a more complex way about the sources of the condition of the ‘bone’ objects found at archaeological sites.

Choyke, A.M. 1982/1983. An analysis of bone, antler, and tooth tools from Bronze Age Hungary. MitArchHung, vol. 12-13, 13-57.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London and New York, Routledge. Chapman, J. and Gaydarska, B. 2007. Parts and Wholes. Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Choyke, A.M. 1987. The exploitation of red deer in the Hungarian Bronze Age. Archaeozoologia, vol. 1, n° 1, 109-116. Choyke, A.M. 1997. The bone manufacturing continuum. Anthropozoologica, vol. 25-26, 65-72.

Alice M. Choyke Aquincum Museum Záhony u. 4 1031 Budapest Hungary [email protected] or [email protected]

Choyke, A.M. 1997. Polgár-Csőszhalom-dűlő lelőhely csont-, agancsés agyartárgyainak vizsgálata (Investigations of the bone, antler and tusk objects from the site of Polgár-Csőszhalom-dűlő), in P. Raczky, T. Kovács and A. Anders (eds.), Utak a Múltba: Az M3-as Autópálya Régészeti Leletmentései. (Paths into the Past: Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway). Budapest, the Hungarian National Museum and the Archaeological Institute of the Eötvös Loránd University, 157-159.

Márta Daróczi-Szabó Institute of Archaeology, Eötvös Loránd Univ. Múzeum körút 4/b 1088 Budapest Hungary [email protected]

Choyke, A.M. 1998. Bronze Age red deer: case studies from the Great Hungarian Plain, in P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W. Meid (eds.), Man and the Animal World. Studies in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Budapest, Archaeolingua Kiadó, 157-178.

References cited

Choyke, A.M. 1999. Camelid bone implement from Incarracay, Cochabamba Valley, Bolivia, in J. Gyarmati and A. Varga (eds.), The Chacaras of War. An Inca site estate in the Cochabamba Valley, Bolivia. Budapest, Museum of Ethnography, 111-113.

Averbouh, A. 2001. Methodological specifics of the techno-Economic analysis of worked bone and antler: Mental refitting and methods of application, in A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone – Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 111-122.

Choyke, A.M. 2000. Bronze Age antler and bone manufacturing at Arslantepe (Anatolia), in M. Mashkour, A.M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East IVA. Groningen, ARC Publication 32, 170183.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology, vol. 4, 150-162. Beldiman, C. 1999-2000. L’industrie en matières dures animales dans le site Néolithique ancien de Dudeşt II Vechi, Dép. De Timiş. Anales du Banat, vol. 7-8, 75-92.

Choyke, A.M. 2000. Refuse and modified bone from Százhalombatta-Földvár. Some preliminary observations,

246

THE COMPLETE AND USABLE TOOL in I. Poroszlai and M. Vicze (eds.), SAX: Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition. Annual Report 1 - Field Season 1998. Százhalombatta, Matrica Museum.

Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion. Status and Identity. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 177-189. Dobres, M.-A. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford, Blackwell.

Choyke, A.M. 2001. Late Neolithic Red Deer Canine Beads and Their Imitations, in A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone – Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 251-266.

Figler A., Bartosiewicz L., Füleky Gy., and Hertelendi E. 1997. Copper Age settlement Settlement and the Danube Water System: a case study from North Western Hungary, in J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.), Landscapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Colloquia Pontica 3, Oxford, Oxbow books, 209-232.

Choyke, A.M. 2006a. Bone Tools for a Lifetime: Experience and Belonging, in L. Astruc, F. Bon, V. Léa, P.-Y. Milcent and S. Philibert (eds.), Normes Techniques et Pratiques Sociales: De la simplicité des outillages préet protohistoriques, XXVI Rencontres Internationales et d’Histoire d’Antibes. Antibes, Editions APDCA, 49-60.

Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood. An Anthropological Approach. London and New York, Routledge.

Choyke, A.M. 2006b. Shadows of Daily Life and Death at the Proto-Lengyel Site of Gór-Kápolnadomb. Var Megyei Múzeumok Értesítője, Savaria 30, 93-105.

Frazer, J. 1911 (1976 re-print). The Golden Bough. vol. 1, 3rd Edition, London, Macmillan.

Choyke, A.M. 2007. Objects for a Lifetime – Tools for a Season: The Worked Osseous Material from Ecsegfalva 23, in A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Budapest, Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XXI, Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, vol. II, 641-666.

Ivanov, I. 1991. Der bestattungsritus in der chalkolithische Nekropole von Varna, in J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kuperzeit als historische Epoche, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 55. Saarbrücken, Saarbrucker Museum, 125-150. Makkay J. 1990. Knochen, Geweih und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolithischen KörösKultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (1990), 23-58.

Choyke, A.M. 2008. Shifting Meaning and Value through Imitation in the European Late Neolithic, in P. F. Biehl and J. Rassamakin (eds.), Import and Imitation in Archaeology. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes vol. 7. Langenweissach, Verlag Beier & Beran.

Mauss, M. 1950. The Gift. 2002 Edition. London and New York, Routledge.

Choyke, A.M. 2009. Grandmother’s Awl: Individual and Collective Memory Through Material Culture, in I. Barbiera, A. Choyke and J. Rasson (eds.), Materializing Memory Archaeological Material Culture and the Semantics of the Past. Oxford, BAR International Series 1977, 21-40.

McNiven, I. and Feldman, R. 2003. Ritually Orchestrated Seascapes: Hunting Magic and dugong Bone Mounds in Torres Straits, NE Australia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 13-2, 169-194. Mills, B. 2004. The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist, vol. 106, n° 2, 238-251.

Choyke, A.M. in press. Continuity and Discontinuity at Győr–Szabdrét-domb: Bone Tools from a Chalcolithic Settlement in Northwest Hungary, in J. Schibler (ed.), Bone, Antler, Teeth. Raw Material for Tool Production in Prehistoric and Historic Periods. Proceedings of the 3rd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group. Basel, Augst, 4-8 September 2001. Internationale ArchäologieInternational Archaeology rbeitgemeinschaft, Symposium, Taging, Kongress, Verlag Maria Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.

Pape, W. 1982. Au sujet de quelques pointes de flèches en os, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L'Industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l'Âge des Métaux 2. Paris, Editions CNRS, 135-172. Parkinson, W, Gyucha, A. and Yerkes, R. 2002. The Neolithic-Copper Age transition on the Great Hungarian Plain: Recent excavations at the Tiszapolgár site of Vésztő-Bikeri. Antiquity, vol. 26, n° 293, 619-620.

Choyke, A.M., Vretemark, M. and Sten, S. 2004. Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary, in S. Jones O'Day, W. van Neer, and A. Ervynck (eds.), Behaviour Behind Bones. The

Pelegrin, J., Karlin, C. and Bodu, P. 1988. Chaînes Opératoires: un outil pour le préhistorien, in J. Tixier (ed.), Journée d’études technologiques en Préhistoire.

247

ALICE M. CHOYKE AND MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ Paris, Centre de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherches Archéologiques, 55-62.

Karpatenbeckens. Prähistoriche Zeitschrift, vol. 79, n° 2, 133-144.

Pétrequin, A-M. and Pétrequin, P. 2006. Objets de Pouvoir en Nouvelle-Guinée. Catalogue de la donation Anne-Marie Pétrequin and Pierre Pétrequin. Paris, Musée d’Archéologie Nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Pfaffenberger, B. 1988. Fetishized Objects and humanized nature: Towards an anthropology of technology. Man, vol. 23, 236-252. Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 21, 491-516. Radley, A. 1997. Artefacts, memory and a sense of the past, in D. Middleton and D. Edwards (eds.), Collective Remembering. Sage, London, 46-60. Sénépart, I. 1991. Industrie osseuse et traitement thermique. Compte rendu de quelques expérimentations. Archéologie aujourd’hui, Actes du Colloque International Expérimentations en Archéologie : bilan et perspectives. Editions Errance, vol. 2, 49-55. Sergeev, G. 1963. Rannetripolskii klad u s. Karbuna (Early Tripolye hoard from Karbuna). Sovietskaya Arkeologiya, 135-149. Sidéra, I. 2001. Feu et industrie osseuse. Un marqueur d’identité culturelle. Paléorient, vol 26-2, 1-59. Spatz, H. 1999. Das mittleneolithische Gräberfeld von Trebur, Kreis Gross-Gerau. Materialian zur Vor-und Frügeschichte von Hessen 19. Weisbaden. Stark, M. 1999. Social dimensions of technical choice in Kalinga ceramic traditions, in E. Chilton (ed.), Material Meanings. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2443. Ursachii, V. 1990. Le dépôt d’objets de parure Énéolithique de Brad, Com. Negri, Dép.de Bacău, in V. Chirica and D. Monah (eds.), Le Paléolithique et le Néolithique de la Roumanie en contexte européen. Iaşi, Bibliotheca Archaeologicia iassiensis, vol. IV, 335-386. Vajsov, I. 1992. Anthropomorphe Plastik aus dem prähistorischen Graberfeld bei Durankulak. Studia Praehistorica, vol. 11-12, 95-113. Zalai-Gaál, I. 1983. A Mórágy-tűzkődombi horog. A neolitikus "aktív" halászat kérdései a Kárpát-medencében (The fish hooks of Mórágy-tűzkődomb. Problems surrounding ‘active’ Neolithic fishing in the Carpathian Basin). Archaeologiai Értesitő, vol. 110, 231-242. Zalai-Gaál, I. 2004. Die Geweihharpunen Harpunenfischerei im Spätneolthikum

und des

248

Hafted Points and their Functional Interpretation on the Basis of their Horizontal Distribution at the Neolithic Site of Arbon Bleiche 3 (3384 – 3370 BC), Switzerland Jörg SCHIBLER, Elisabeth MARTI-GRÄDEL, Sabine DESCHLER-ERB and Thomas DOPPLER IPAS, Basel University, Switzerland Abstract Hafted points made of animal bone or red deer antler are found regularly in Neolithic lake dwelling sites from Switzerland. The site of Arbon Bleiche 3 has yielded 223 hafted points which belong to three different types: points with a flat smoothed base made of long bones (type 1/10), double-points made of long bones (type 2/1) and double-points made of ribs (type 2/2). Because of the excellent preservation of the single occupation layer and its very precise dating to only 15 years (3384 - 3370 BC) the double-points’ spatial distribution and statistical analysis allow some interpretation of their use. Specimens of the types 1/10 and 2/1 with a length below 70mm were used as arrow heads. The ones over 70mm more likely represent tools. Type 2/2 artefacts were mostly used as fish hooks. Exploratory procedures such as correspondence analysis corroborate these interpretations. Introduction The Neolithic lakeside settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3, located on the Swiss side of Lake Constance, was excavated between 1993 and 1995 (Leuzinger 2000) (Figure 1). According to dendrochronology, the lacustrine village was occupied between 3384 and 3370 BC, exactly during the transitional period between the two wellknown archaeological cultures: “Pfyn” and “Horgen”. The excellent preservation of the archaeological material, which includes wood, seeds, fruits, bones, and antler, is due to two main factors: a) the site formation processes in ideal waterlogged conditions, and b) the presence of only one undisturbed anthropogenic layer, which, according to sedimentological, archaeobotanical, and archaezoological analyses, has been preserved in situ (Jacomet et al. 2004). The excavated area, which includes twenty-five 6x4m and two 2x2m houses, covers one third (possibly a half) of the entire village. The whole excavated surface yielded about 70,000 animal bones (Deschler-Erb and MartiGrädel 2004) and c. 3000 bone and antler artefacts (Deschler-Erb et al. 2002). The above-mentioned in situ preservation of the cultural layer allowed us to analyse the spatial distribution of single artefact types, such as hafted points made of animal bone as well as red deer antler. The spatial distribution of hafted points in relation to other find categories is essential for functional analysis and differentiation of this type of artefact. The functional interpretation of hafted points is not yet clear. The following different interpretations are suggested (Schibler 1997; Winiger 1992): -

Figure 1: Location of the Neolithic lakeside settlement Arbon Bleiche 3.

Typological definitions and selected raw material of hafted points Following the typological system of Schibler 1981 we can distinguish four different types of hafted points (see also Schibler 1997 and Deschler-Erb et al. 2002): - points with a flat smoothed base made of long bones (type 1/10: Figure 2-1). Arbon Bleiche 3: n=44, - double-points made of long bones (type 2/1: Figure 2-2). Arbon Bleiche 3: n=169, - double-points made of ribs (type 2/2: Figure 2-3). Arbon Bleiche 3: n=10, - asymmetric double-points made of antler or long bones (type 2/3: Figure 2-4). This type is not found in Arbon Bleiche 3.

arrow head or spear head, pointed tool, fish hook.

The precise archaeozoological identification of the selected raw material of the first two points (1/10 and 2/1) is very difficult because of the narrow splinters that were intensively smoothed.

249

JÖRG SCHIBLER, ELISABETH MARTI-GRÄDEL, SABINE DESCHLER-ERB AND THOMAS DOPPLER Evidences of functional use of hafted points Single finds of points with a flat smoothed base (type 1/10) were used as arrowheads, as the birch tar utilized to secure the point to the arrow shaft is still preserved (cf. Figure 2-1; Bleuer 1988, tabl. 3B). The possibility that other kinds of tools with handles made of wood or antler were also constructed cannot be entirely excluded. For the double-points (type 2/1) there is evidence of three different ways of use. There are finds which prove their use as hunting weapons, like the short double-point found stuck in the sacrum of a red deer (Winiger 1992, 77). There are also finds of double-points together with handles made of antler or long bones (Schibler 1997, 155; Winiger 1971, tabl. 46). These examples can only be interpreted as tools. Finally, thin and short double-points with a rill in the middle of the shaft were used as fish hooks for catching big carnivorous fish, such as pike. This use is proven by an in situ finding of such a point together with the bones of a pike and a bait fish (Torke 1993, fig. 6-2, 6-3). Double-points made of halved ribs (type 2/2) can be interpreted as fish hooks (Schibler 1997, 155). This interpretation is based on their narrow and short forms, and on the fact that very often these “rib double-points” (type 2/2) show a rill in the middle of the shaft.

Figure 2: Examples of the hafted bone points from Swiss Neolithic lake shore sites (1, 2: Arbon Bleiche 3; 3: ZürichMozartstrasse; 4: Sutz-Lattrigen). 1) Type 1/10: point with a flat smoothed base made of long bone (length: 84mm; 2) type 2/1: double-point made of long bone (length: 141mm); 3) type 2/2: double-point made of rib (length: 71mm); 4) type 2/3: asymmetric double-point made of antler or long bone (length: 100mm).

The asymmetric double-points (type 2/3) were used as arrowheads which is demonstrated by finds of a lot of such points that still were attached and fixed to the arrow shafts (Schibler 2000, 103).

For most specimens of these two types their straight form and their thickness make it most probable that metapodials of cattle or red deer were selected as raw material. Red deer antler was used, but very rarely. The length of the 37 measurable points with a flat smoothed base varies between 24.8mm and 83.1mm. The minimal length of the 80 measurable double-points (type 2/1) is 28.2mm and the maximal length is 209.2mm. For the third type (2/2), ribs of big ruminants like cattle or red deer were selected as raw material. Because the ribs were cut in half along their cancellous bone layer the precise distinction between cattle and red deer was impossible. For the 5 measurable double-points of type 2/2, the length varies between 30.1mm and 48.9mm.

For all these hafted points we can list three different usages: - arrowheads, - pointed tools, - fish hooks. Frequencies and metrical results For the Neolithic site of Arbon Bleiche 3 only the three types 1/10, 2/1 and 2/2 were found. Among these three hafted point types, the double-points made of long bones (type 2/1) are much more numerous than the other two (Figure 3). Out of 1636 typologically-determinable bone artefacts, a total number of 223 hafted points were found (Deschler-Erb et al. 2002, fig. 396). 169 were doublepoints (type 2/1), 44 were points with a flat smoothed base (type 1/10) and only 10 were double-points made of ribs (type 2/2).

The asymmetric double-points are mostly made of red deer antler and long bones, mostly metapodials, of cattle and red deer. This fourth type (2/3) is typical for Neolithic villages of the late 4th and early 3rd Millennium BC of the western part of Switzerland (Lake Neuchâtel and Lake Bienne) and was therefore not found at Arbon Bleiche 3. All specimens of the double-point types show traces of cutting with flint blades or flint knifes. This means that as a first step, small splinters of long bones – mostly metapodials of big ruminants – were produced by cutting them with a flint knife. In a second step these raw splinters were smoothed with sandstone. This procedure can be seen by the longitudinal striations which all run in the same direction. Depending on their intensity of use certain double-points show a polished, bright surface (Deschler-Erb et al. 2002, 295ff.; Schibler 1997, 154ff.)

The metrical analysis of the length of the three different types shows that the double-points (type 2/1) are, on average, the longest points and show the greatest variation. The two other types are clearly shorter (Figure 4). A clear separation of two different size groups is obtained by classifying different length classes of the double-points (type 2/1). We can easily separate these

250

HAFTED POINTS AND THEIR FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION two length groups by a value of about 70mm. (Figure 5). The short form of the double-points obtained is the same size as the points with a flat smoothed base (type 1/10), which were thought to be used as arrowheads. On this basis we advance the hypothesis that most of the short double-points (type 2/1) were also used as arrowheads. This is more logical because short arrowheads are more stable and longer arrowheads would have a higher risk of fragmentation.

Horizontal distribution of the of hafted points Before the horizontal distribution of the different hafted point types is analysed, it is important to mention that the preservation condition of the occupation layer of the settlement Arbon Bleiche 3 is one of the best examples in the whole area of lake-dwelling settlements north of the Alps. A very detailed analysis of the formation history of the settlement layer shows insignificant secondary lateral movements of the finds. Therefore, we can state that most of the finds are in situ. All finds were deposited under the water table and therefore also the uncharred organic material is preserved (Jacomet et al. 2004). The entire surface was excavated between 1993-1995 during three campaigns, which were carried out with the same technique and accuracy. According to the results of a coring program, a third or half of the settlement was excavated.

 

12

10.3

10 8 6 4

2.7

2

0.6

If we now look at the horizontal distribution of the two metrical groups of double-points, we see a clear predominance of the shorter points in the northern part of the settlement. Only a few short double-points were found in the lakeside part of the village (Figure 6). The same distribution pattern can be found for the points with a flat smoothed base (type 1/10 - Figure 7). These points were twice as numerous in the northern part as in the southern part of the village. If we compare the horizontal distributions of the two types of bone points with the distribution of bones from hunted animals, we find a very high correlation. Most wild animals are better represented in the northern part of the village than in the part closer to the lake (Figure 8-1). This is particularly true for red deer, which is by far the most important game in Arbon Bleiche 3. Special accumulations of red deer bones occur in an area comprising two houses (n°8 and 20) in the north-eastern part, and in a house (n°24) in the southern part, indicating an elevated consumption of game. The accumulation of bones in the middle of the village (around house n°3) is, on the other hand, the result of a well-preserved heap of refuse, and it includes all animal species. The spatial distribution of the foot bones – primary refuse when animals are slaughtered – of red deer (especially those with cut marks) indicates that butchering of red deer mainly occurred in the houses 8 and 20, situated in the northern part of the village (Figure 8-2). This shows that their inhabitants hunted frequently. In house 24, located in the southern part of the village, foot bones of red deer are much less numerous. The people living there – perhaps members of the same family – most probably received only parts of the butchered red deer. As there is a high consistency between the horizontal distributions of the shorter points and the bones of red deer, it is possible that small double-points and points with a flat smoothed base are strongly connected to hunting and were therefore both used as arrowheads.

0 Type 1/10: points with a flat smoothed base

Type 2/1: double points

Type 2/2: double points made of ribs

Figure 3: Importance (%) of the different types of hafted points in the Neolithic site of Arbon Bleiche 3. 10 9 8

Count

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

25

50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Length (mm) of double points (Type 2/1)

225

Figure 4: Metrical analysis (mm) of the length of the three different hafted types from Arbon Bleiche 3. 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Type 1/10

Type 2/1

Type 2/2

The horizontal distribution of the double-points made of ribs (type 2/2), mostly used as fish hooks, is concentrated in the central region of the excavated part of the settlement (cf. Figure 7). In house 5, where six specimens

Figure 5: Histogram of the length of the double-points (type 2/1) from Arbon Bleiche 3.

251

JÖRG SCHIBLER, ELISABETH MARTI-GRÄDEL, SABINE DESCHLER-ERB AND THOMAS DOPPLER

Figure 6: Horizontal distribution of the short (< 70mm) and the long (> 70mm) specimens of the double-points (type 2/1) in Arbon Bleiche 3.

Figure 7: Horizontal distribution of the short (< 70mm) doublepoints (type 2/1), the points with a flat smoothed base made of long bones (type 1/10) and the double-points made of ribs (type 2/2) in Arbon Bleiche 3.

Figure 8: 1) Horizontal distribution of wild animal bones; 2) horizontal distribution of foot bones with cut marks in Arbon Bleiche 3.

252

HAFTED POINTS AND THEIR FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION (of total 10) of these rib double-points (type 2/2) were found, a concentration of the bones from catfish was recovered (Hüster Plogmann 2004, Abb. 327). Therefore this house could be interpreted as a house of fisherfolk where dwellers were possibly specialised in catching bigger carnivorous fishes. In house 5, beside the six rib double-points, only one complete (cf. Figures 6 and 7) and one fragment (Deschler-Erb et al. 2002, 297) of a type 2/1 double-point were found.

significantly separated from each other. This could be an indication that the use of the short (70mm) ones.

If we compare the frequencies of arrowheads made of flint with those made of bone (type 1/10 and 2/1 short specimens) we can see that the bone arrowheads are three times more frequent. This may be due to the fact that bones, especially metapodials of cattle or red deer were much more accessible than flint, or that bone arrowheads had a lower value than flint arrowheads. The fact that so many arrowheads were needed in the settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3 may mean that hunting had a substantial importance for daily subsistence. Around 40% of the identifiable bone fragments come from wild animals, mainly red deer. Estimates of meat weight suggest that hunted animals contributed 50% of the meat consumed. Exploratory methods In order to investigate the functional use of hafted bone points (e.g. arrowheads), the data available were integrated in a correspondence analysis. Within this statistical explorative method it is possible to analyse the correlation of different variables. This statistically tested correlation can be explored in a multidimensional area but is usually plotted in a two dimensional graph. The nearer two points are, the closer is their correlation. This correlation can be subsequently interpreted along with the archaeological background (for further information about correspondence analysis, see Shennan 1997, 308-341). In our case study we analysed the number of hafted points of the types 1/10, 2/1 (short) and 2/1 (long) together with the number of bones from different animal species. The basic unit of these data are the different houses. Because of several special analyses (see above), we know that most of the houses are closed-find units (Jacomet et al. 2004). In the first graph (Figure 9-1), it can be seen that the first dimension (axis) explains 50% of the variance in the data and the second one a further 18%. These high values indicate that the illustrated correlations are statistically very much supported. The graph shows a close correlation between all hafted bone point types and the wild animal species. All these points lay together in the upper left quadrant. This result illustrates connections between hafted bone points and wild animal species. All of them could be used for hunting or processing wild animals. The third dimension of the correspondence analysis explains a good 10% of the variance in the data (Figure 9-2). If we plot the first together with this third dimension it can be seen that the two size classes of the double-points (type 2/1) are

Figure 9: Dimension (axis) 1 and 2 (1) and 1 and 3 (2) of a correspondence analysis on the basis of the numbers of different types of hafted bone points and bones of the different animal species in the house units. 1/10: points with a flat smoothed base made of long bones; 2/1K double-points 70mm. Black dots: wild animal species (BosP = aurochs; MelesM = badger; CastorF = beaver; MartesM = pine marten; SusS = wild boar; CervusE = red deer; CapreolusC = roe deer; UrsusA = brown bear; Aves = birds), White dots: domestic animal species (CanisF = dog; SusD = pig; BosT = cattle; OvisA = sheep; CapraH = goat; OviCap = sheep/goat).

Summarized Results Hafted bone points were used for several different purposes during the Neolithic period in Switzerland. In order to prove the different usages of the hafted points, 223 such artefacts found on the settlement of Arbon Bleiche 3 were selected. The metrical distribution of the

253

JÖRG SCHIBLER, ELISABETH MARTI-GRÄDEL, SABINE DESCHLER-ERB AND THOMAS DOPPLER lengths of the double-points shows a clear separation at around 70mm. Several single findings of shorter doublepoints (type 2/1) and points with a flat smoothed base (type 1/10) prove their use as arrowheads. The horizontal distributions of these shorter versions of double-points and the points with a flat smoothed base show a clear correspondence with the distribution of the bones from hunted animals, mostly from red deer and confirm the interpreted use as arrowheads. A statistical exploration analysis using correspondence analysis based on house units corroborates a very high correlation between double-points and hunted animals, allowing a differentiation between the short and the long forms of type 2/1 double-points. This method therefore supports the possible interpretation of short double-points as arrowheads. Higher availability of animal bones caused the flint arrowheads to be replaced by those made of bones. This leads to the assumption that bone and flint were of different values.

Deschler-Erb, S. and Marti-Grädel, E. 2004. Viehhaltung und Jagd. Ergebnisse der Untersuchung der handaufgelesenen Tierknochen, in S. Jacomet, U. Leuzinger and J. Schibler (eds.), Die jungsteinzeitliche Siedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Frauenfeld, Archäologie im Thurgau, Band 12, 158-252. Hüster Plogmann, H. 2004. Fischfang und Kleintierbeute. Ergebnisse der Untersuchung von Tierresten aus den Schlämmproben, in S. Jacomet, U. Leuzinger and J. Schibler (eds.), Die jungsteinzeitliche Siedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Frauenfeld, Archäologie im Thurgau, Band 12, 253-276. Jacomet, S., Leuzinger, U. and Schibler, J. 2004. Die jungsteinzeitliche Siedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Frauenfeld, Archäologie im Thurgau, Band 12. Leuzinger, U. 2000. Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3, Befunde. Frauenfeld, Archäologie im Thurgau, Band 9.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Francesco Menotti and Sandra Pichler who helped us with the English version of the text.

Schibler, J. 1981. Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Bern, Bd.17.

Jörg Schibler [email protected] Elisabeth Marti-Grädel [email protected] Sabine Deschler-Erb [email protected] Thomas Doppler [email protected]

Schibler, J. 1997. Knochen und Geweihartefakte, in J. Schibler, H. Hüster-Plogmann, S. Jacomet, C. Brombacher, E. Gross-Klee and A. Rast-Eicher (eds.), Ökonomie und Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee. Zürich, Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 20, Zürich und Egg, 122-219. Schibler, J. 2000. Spätneolithische Knochengeräte, in A. Hafner and P.J. Suter (eds.), 3400 v. Chr. - Die Entwicklung der Bauerngesellschaften im 4. Jahrtausend v.Chr. am Bielersee aufgrund der Rettungsgrabungen von Nidau und Sutz-Lattrigen. Bern, Ufersiedlungen am Bielersee - Band 6, 95-107.

Institute for Prehistory and Archaeological Science (IPAS) Basel University Spalenring 145 CH-4055 Basel Switzerland

Shennan, S. 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. Edinburgh. Torke, W. 1993. Die Fischerei am prähistorischen Federsee. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23, 4966.

References cited Bleuer, E. 1988. Die Knochen- und Geweihartefakte der Siedlung Seeberg, Burgäschisee-Süd, in E. Bleuer and B. Debuis (eds.), Seeberg, Burgäschisee-Süd 7. Die Knochen- und Geweihartefakte und die ergänzte Keramik. Bern, Acta Bernensia II/7, 13-178.

Winiger, J. 1971. Das Fundmaterial von Thayngen-Weier im Rahmen der Pfyner Kultur. Basel, Monographien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Schweiz 18. Winiger, J. 1992. Beinerne Doppelspitzen aus dem Bielersee. Ihre Funktion und Geschichte. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 75, 65-99.

Deschler-Erb, S., Marti-Grädel, E. and Schibler, J. 2002. Die Knochen-, Zahn- und Geweihartefakte, in A. de Capitani, S. Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E. Marti-Grädel and J. Schibler (eds.), Die jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon / Bleiche 3: Funde. Frauenfeld, Archäologie im Thurgau Band 11, 277-366.

254

Tracing the Function of the Antler “Points” from the Late Bronze Age Fortified Settlement of Asva in Estonia Heidi LUIK Institute of History, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia Abstract About ten tine tips and tines with traces of spiral use-wear have been found from the Late Bronze Age fortified settlement of Asva on Saaremaa, Estonia. All these points are made from elk antler. The other, thicker end of these objects may be almost unworked, cut smooth or gouged, as if the object had been hafted. Such antler points with spiral use-wear traces are typical only to Asva; they have not been found from other sites of the period in Estonia, neither have they been discovered from the Bronze Age settlements of Latvia or Lithuania, even though bone and antler artefacts of the period were quite similar throughout the eastern Baltic region. The function of these objects is not known. Since the spiral traces are grooved rather deep in the antler surface, the tools were evidently used on some rather tough matter, probably containing or consisting of strong fibres. The settlement of Asva was located on the seashore and sea played an important role in its economic activities. Presumably these antler points were used for making cord or rope, used in water-related activities – fishing, seal hunting or seafaring. Late Bronze Age fortified settlement of Asva, which are characterised by peculiar spiral use-wear traces at the tip. It is not clear what these artefacts were used for. From the Bronze Age sites of Estonia such artefacts have not been found anywhere but Asva. The aim of the present article is to find material for comparison and discuss the possible use of these artefacts.

Introduction Artefacts can have both a utilitarian as well as a social or symbolic function. The function of an artefact itself is also a form of meaning (Hodder and Hutson 2003, 162 ff.; Caple 2006, 6 ff.). Although in the case of many objects it is rather easy to guess their practical purpose – the comb is used for combing, the needle for sewing, the spindle whorl for spinning, the handle is for a more convenient grip on the implement, etc. – there are also artefacts the function of which is not at all easy to perceive. These are implements used for work or activities, which are not practised any more, or which are done in a completely different way. Objects of similar shapes could also be used for different purposes. Finding out about the fields of use of objects, one may obtain information on the activities and customs in the communities that produced these objects. Artefacts with an unknown purpose most likely become more numerous with the increasing distance in space and/or time from our own. A small group of antler points is found from the

Late Bronze Age in Estonia While the Early Bronze Age in Estonia was poor in finds (e.g. only 14 bronze artefacts of the period have been found: Lang 2007a, 27), a small number of settlements are known and graves of the period have not been discovered yet (Lang 2007b, 19 ff.), the situation in the Late Bronze Age, dated to c. 1100–500 BC in Estonia (Lang and Kriiska 2001; Lang 2007a, 22; 2007b), seems different, especially in coastal areas and island Saaremaa: stone cist graves and fortified settlements appear. Although the latter are infrequent (Figure 1), and the term

Figure 1: Late Bronze Age fortified settlements in Estonia.

255

HEIDI LUIK “fortified settlement” is also conditional – natural defence possibilities were exploited and settlements were surrounded by plain wooden fence – such settlements were, nevertheless, a new phenomenon in Estonia (Lang 2007a, 39-41; 2007b, 55-57). One of such fortified settlements was Asva, where the antler points under discussion were found. Open settlements of the period have been poorly investigated up to now, they are small, with slight cultural layers poor in finds. Obviously they are not settlements but single farmsteads (Lang 2007b, 49 ff.); the scanty find material recovered from such sites does not include any bone artefacts.

between 900-500 BC (Lang 2007b, 60-63, fig. 21). Finds comprise mainly pottery (e.g. Lang 2007b, 127 ff, fig. 5859) and bone and antler artefacts. Bronze objects are few but clay moulds for casting bronze objects are numerous (over a thousand moulds and fragments), suggesting the great importance of bronze-casting in Asva (Jaanits et al. 1982, fig. 97; Lang 2007a; 2007b, 63; Vassar 1955, 126, fig. 40). The location of Asva on the coast, not on a territory suitable for tillage, indicates that seafaring and foreign contacts, along with acquirement and working of valuable bronze were more important than agriculture (Lang 2007a, 44-45). The considerable number of pieces of raw amber (78 fragments) were also found from Asva, indicating trade contacts with the Southern Baltic region (Ots 2006, 43, tabl. 4; Sperling 2006, 118-119). Apparently Asva was an important centre in Estonia in its time. The main subsistence of the inhabitants of Asva was animal husbandry together with some tillage, but fishing and hunting were also practiced. The overwhelming majority of the recovered animal bones belong to domestic animals. Goat/sheep bones are most numerous, followed by cattle, pig and horse bones (Lang 2007a, 72-73; 2007b, 110-111, tabl. 1; Lõugas 1994; Maldre 1999; Sperling 2006, 124-127). Seal bones are also quite numerous; harpoon heads of bone and antler also indicate seal-hunting (Lang 2007b, fig. 80: 1, 2, 8; Lõugas 1994; Sperling 2006, 105-106, 121, 127-128). Nearly 800 bone and antler artefacts have been found from Asva, and so the site is the richest in bone artefacts among the Late Bronze Age settlements in Estonia. Although bone artefacts are more numerous, various antler objects also occur in rather large numbers (besides the points under discussion, ploughshares or hoes, harpoons, cheek-pieces, spoons, double buttons have been found), as well as antler-working refuse (Indreko 1939, fig. 7, 8, 19, 20; Jaanits et al. 1982, fig. 99, 102, 108, 128-1, 128-2, 4-5, 8-9; Lang 2007a; 2007b, 63, fig. 48, 51, 80, 81; Luik 2006; 2007; Luik and Ots 2007; Sperling 2006, 101 ff., pls. XLV ff.; Vassar 1955, fig. 35, 36, 41: 1-7, 42: 2, 3, pl. XXIII: 1-4, 7).

Fortified settlement at Asva The fortified settlement of Asva is located in Eastern Saaremaa (cf. Figure 1), on a narrow north-south moraine ridge. The distance from the present-day seashore is 5km but in the Late Bronze Age the ridge was a narrow strip of land between the sea and a coastal lake (Figure 2a-b). Even nowadays the surroundings of the settlement are often flooded in spring (Jaanits et al. 1982, fig. 93). The area of the settlement is 3500 sq. m, about one sixth of which has been excavated (Figure 2c) (Lang 2007b, fig. 22-24). At least three stages of the settlement of Asva belong to the Late Bronze Age: the settlement without fortifications and Asva I and II fortified settlements. The calibrated 14C date of the charcoal samples from Asva is

Antler points with spiral use-wear from Asva While studying the assemblage of bone artefacts from Asva, an interesting group of finds was identified, which consists of about ten artefacts made from tine tip or tine, with spiral use-wear at the tip (Figures 3 and 6). Compared with the whole amount of bone and antler artefacts from Asva the number of such antler tines is considerably small. All these points have been made from elk antler. Some of them are almost whole, others have preserved only as small fragments (Figures 4 and 5). The length of the wholly preserved artefacts is 13.7-18.2cm. The diameter of the artefacts at the outermost traces of use-wear is 1.9-2.9cm; use-wear traces end at 3.7-8.7cm from the tip (Table 1, Figure 6). On some artefacts the other, thicker end is unworked, in some cases it has been smoothed by cutting; and in some cases it has been

Figure 2: Fortified settlement of Asva: a) Asva is located on a narrow north-south moraine ridge (photo by Richard Indreko, 1931, Archives of Institute of History); b) in the Late Bronze Age the ridge was a narrow strip of land between the sea and a coastal lake (after Indreko 1939, fig. 4); c) the area of the settlement is 3500 sq. m, about one sixth of it has been excavated (after Jaanits et al. 1982, fig. 92).

256

TRACING THE FUNCTION OF THE ANTLER “POINTS” FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT OF ASVA

Figure 4: Antler points with spiral use-wear from Asva (AI 4366: 1755, 1163, 1883, 1772, 1823).

Figure 3: Spiral use-wear on tips of antler points from Asva (AI 4366: 1772, 1823).

Figure 6: The diameter of the artefacts at the outermost traces of use-wear is 1.9–2.9cm; use-wear traces end at 3.7–8.7cm from the tip (AI 4366: 1772, 1883, 1755, 1823). Figure 5: Fragments of antler points with spiral use-wear (AI 4366: 327, 3307: 301, 3994: 1217, 3799: 794, 3658: 612, 4366: 1946, 891, 3658: 352).

Find number

Length of artefact

Diameter at the outermost traces

Width of the zone of use-wear

AI 4366: 1772

13.7 cm

2.4 cm

5.1 cm

AI 4366: 1883

16.3 cm

2.1 cm

6.6 cm

AI 4366: 1823

16.9 cm

1.9 cm

3.7 cm

AI 4366: 1755

–

2.5 cm

8.7 cm

AI 4366: 1163

18.2 cm

2.9 cm

7.5 cm

Table 1: Measurements of better preserved artefacts. The other artefacts of the type were preserved only fragmentarily and thus it is impossible to include them in the table.

257

HEIDI LUIK gouged out to form a socket, which could be used to attach the object to a haft or handle (cf. Figure 4). In some cases it can be presumed that the tine with spiral use-wear has been used secondarily as raw material for making some other artefact, and the remaining small tip is just refuse (Figure 7). Spiral wear on antler tips seems more likely to be use-wear than traces left in the manufacturing process. These traces are not regular but infrequent, some are shallow and delicate and some are deep and heavy. It seems that they are not left on the surface of the object during a brief action but in the course of some long-run process.

Smuszewie these points are mostly made from red deer antler, or, in some cases, of roe deer antler (op. cit., pl. 59-9, 59-11); some tines with such use-wear are rather long (op. cit., pl. 60-3, 60-4). Some of the specimens there are also gouged out (op. cit., pl. 56-8). Among the finds there a bone point has also been depicted, apparently having spiral use-wear (op. cit., pl. 50-1). Looking for analogies I found one tine tip, which seems to have spiral use-wear, among the finds of another Polish Lausitz Culture settlement site, Komorowo (Malinowski 2006, fig. 13-6), but I cannot be sure about it, as I am relying only on the drawing. What could be the function of antler points? The possible use of such points is not yet known. Considering the slight processing of these antler artefacts they probably have been utilitarian objects, tools, which did not possess complicated symbolic meaning. But the practical function of an artefact has a meaning of its own, allowing us to draw conclusions about the occupations of the society or community which used it (e.g. Caple 2006, 6 ff.; Hodder and Hutson 2003, 162 ff.). As Claude LéviStrauss has remarked, only the observer able to understand an artefact’s use can decipher the meaning of an artefact in any given context (cited in Lemonnier 1993, 8). As no experiments for using such artefacts have been done so far, one can only speculate about possible functions of these ambiguous objects. Dobromir Durczewski has regarded the socketed antler points of Smuszewie as spearheads (Durczewski 1985, 92, pl. 56-1, 56-7, 56-8, 56-21, 56-22); some of these also display spiral use-wear. The question still arises why and how such spiral marks should appear on spearheads? One of the possibilities is that the original spearhead has been later used for some other purpose, which produced such spiral traces on the tip. But perhaps these artefacts are not spearheads at all – their tip seems to be too blunt for a spearhead. The socket for a haft or handle could have been meant for more comfortable use of the artefact.

Figure 7: In some cases the tine with spiral use-wear has been used secondarily as raw material for making some other artefact, and the remaining small tip is just refuse (AI 3994: 1217).

Analogous finds from other districts As has been mentioned already, such antler points in Estonia are characteristic only to the fortified settlement of Asva, none of them has been hitherto found from other settlement sites of the period. Neither are they found in the graves of the period, but Estonian Late Bronze Age graves are generally poor in finds (e.g. Lang 2007b, 155 ff.). Such points are also unknown in the find material of Latvian and Lithuanian Bronze Age settlements1, although bone and antler artefacts of the Late Bronze Age are generally quite similar in all Baltic countries (e.g. Luik and Maldre 2007). Numerous bone points, finer or thicker, have been found from the Bronze Age settlements of all Baltic countries, but such spiral usewear has not been observed on them.

The earlier researchers who excavated the Asva settlement mentioned bone and antler awls and points but they did not pay special attention to points with spiral use-wear, neither did they speculate on the subject of the uses of these particular points. Richard Indreko (1939, 30) has presumed that bone awls could have been used partly in connection with textiles, but “they are so common everywhere and in every culture that a longer discussion of them would be completely useless”. Artur Vassar (1955, 123) has expressed an opinion that the numerous bone awls of varying size were used for leather working. Vello Lõugas (1970) wrote in his dissertation that the largest group of bone finds from Asva consists of various pins, awls and points, whereby the awl was one of the most essential tools throughout the whole prehistoric period. Recently Uwe Sperling, who analysed the finds from Asva in his MA dissertation completed in 2006, also regarded these artefacts as awls, writing about

The only analogous artefacts known to me at the present come from Smuszewie, Poland, which is a settlement of the Lausitz Culture (c. 1300-500 BC) (Durczewski 1985, pls. 50-2; 55-31, 55-32, 38; 56-1, 56-8; 59-3, 59-4). In

258

TRACING THE FUNCTION OF THE ANTLER “POINTS” FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT OF ASVA their uses: “Besides the usual cutting and sawing traces some tines bear spiral grooves around the tip, which may be caused by a screwing or drilling motion” (Sperling 2006, 104). About awls or points in general Sperling has expressed an opinion that as they are artefacts found in large numbers, they must have been widely used, for example for leather, bark and textile working and for making various artefacts, as well as for making pit decoration on pottery (Sperling 2006, 78, 120). So the question – what were antler points with spiral use-wear used for, which material was pierced or pitted with them – still remains.

Which fibre could it be? Linen thread is obviously strong enough to wear grooves into antler or bone by prolonged motion. An example of this can be found from an ethnographic yarn-winding tool of historic times, which was used to protect the hand when winding linen thread. Thread passes through holes at each end of a stick-shaped tool, running along the side of the tool between the holes and, by prolonged use, wearing a groove into it. Such tools were usually made of wood but bone specimens also occur (Dijkman and Ervynk 1998, fig. 29-3; Viires 2000, 174). It is possible that the tools with the function analogous to the antler artefacts under discussion were also usually made of wood and therefore have not survived. By a prolonged motion in a fixed direction sometimes even hair has engraved fine lines upon the teeth of antler combs (e.g. comb-shaped pendant from Pada, Luik and Maldre 2005, fig. 21; double simple combs from Otepää and Lehmja, Luik 1998, figs. 30, 44). As for some antler points bearing particularly fine spiral lines, it seems possible that the fibre worked with them could have been horsehair. Were these presumably used materials available for the inhabitants of Asva? If the usewear on these antler artefacts was caused by linen thread or fibre, the question arises of whether the inhabitants of Asva of that period did cultivate and use flax? Pollen diagrams cannot be used to draw conclusions about flax growing since flax pollen does not spread easily (Lang 2007b, 112). But the use of flax is indicated for example by the textile-impressed pottery found from Asva. Relying upon the clearly outlined relief traces of the textile impressions it has been presumed that the used textile was coarse plain-woven linen (e.g. Indreko 1939, 27-30, figs. 12-4, 12-5; Vassar 1955, 120). Some tools have also been related to flax-working. For example the artefacts with dented edges, made from scapula (Figure 9, above; see Indreko 1939, 27 ff., fig. 8; Vassar 1955, 120, fig. 36-7), have been regarded as tools for processing flax. Some researchers, however, have expressed an opinion that they might have been used as sickles for cutting grain (Lang 2007b, 111, fig. 51). Some plaques made from split ribs have been also found, which, when tied together, could have formed a flax comb (cf. Figure 9; Indreko 1939, 28; compare e.g. Choyke and Schibler 2007, fig. 3c). Regarding the other suggestion – the use of horsehair – it should be mentioned that horse bones make up about 10% of animal bones recovered from Asva (Lang 2007b, 110, tabl. 1; Lõugas 1994, 75; Maldre 2008, 265-266). Consequently, both flax and horsehair could have been used in Asva. Presumably the material processed with these antler points was used for making cord or rope, used when seafaring, fishing or seal hunting. As was mentioned already, seal-hunting harpoons were found from Asva and seal bones were numerous among the faunal remains. Stone netsinkers suggest the use of fishing nets (Vassar 1955, 118, pl. XXIII: 6), and fish bones have been also found (Indreko 1939, 24; Maldre 2003, 145, 149, fig. 4-5). The settlement of Asva was located on the seashore and the sea played an important role in its economic activities. The idea that the uses of antler points might be connected

Antler points with spiral use-wear are obviously too blunt to be used as awls. But could they have been used for making pit decorations on pottery? In the composition of the coarse pottery of the period coarse sand and rock temper can be found, which perhaps might leave traces on the surface of an antler artefact? Round pits are very typical of the pottery from Asva (Lang 2007b, 127, fig. 58): 59-64% of the ornamented pottery is decorated with pits (Sperling 2006, 77). Still it seems that clay is too soft a substance and the coarse particles of sand or stone would sink deeper into the clay rather than leave such impressions on antler, which is harder than clay. The antler points with spiral use-wear would also be too thick for making such pits (the pits on pottery usually have a diameter of 0.5-1cm: Sperling 2006, 78); moreover, the use-wear traces on the points extend too far – the pits on pottery are not so deep (and could not be, considering the thickness of the walls of vessels). Considering the diameter of the points at the outermost traces of use-wear, the diameter of the pits made by such points should be 23cm; if the pits were not pierced through, their depth must be 4-9cm, considering the width of the zone of usewear traces. But perhaps these artefacts were not meant for making pits or holes. On all antler points under discussion the spiral traces run in the same direction – an anticlockwise rotating motion had taken place. The other possibility is that the tool was not turned in the course of working but worked material slid along the surface. The traces seem to be left by some fibres. Since the spiral lines are deeply grooved into the antler surface, they must have been made by some material containing or consisting of strong fibres (e.g. flax, tow). Studying the spiral traces on antler artefacts it seems that their use must have been connected with the change of direction of some thread or fibres pulled from somewhere (Figure 8). Probably there must have been more than one thread or fibre, which in the course of work ran around the tip of the antler artefact – which probably was meant to tauten them – after which these threads or fibres ran together and were twirled into a thicker cord. Probably the use of such tool was necessary to make a cord of even strength and spin as well as to avoid the ravelling of threads. The occurrence of such marked use-wear on the surface of artefacts undoubtedly suggests contacts with strong material as well as their very intensive and prolonged exploitation.

259

HEIDI LUIK with sea (or, more generally, water-bound activities) seems to be supported by the fact that such artefacts with spiral use-wear have not been found from Lithuanian fortified settlements, which are far from the sea and have no larger rivers or lakes in their immediate neighbourhood. The ethnographic record contains information about the use of both linen and horsehair cord for making fishing nets and also for fishing line. I also tried to find analogies to the antler points with spiral use-wear from Estonian ethnographic material, but although bone tools have sometimes been used to make nets, the ethnographic tools do not resemble the antler points of Asva. Naturally the ethnographic material belongs to a time more than two thousands years later and during such a length of time, tools and methods of work, undoubtedly, have developed and probably changed.

Abbreviations: AI – Archaeological collections of the Institute of History, Tallinn University. Acknowledgements The research was financed by Targeted Financing of Research Theme no SF0130012s08 and the Estonian Science Foundation (grant no 6898). I would like to thank Liis Soon, who translated the text, and Kersti Siitan, who prepared and elaborated the illustrations. Heidi Luik Institute of History, Tallinn University 6 Rüütli St. 10130 Tallinn Estonia [email protected] References cited Caple, C. 2006. Objects. Reluctant Witnesses to the Past. London, New York, Routledge. Choyke, A. M. and Schibler, J. 2007. Prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective: research in Central Europe, in C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 51-65. Dijkman, W. and Ervynk, A. 1998. Antler, Bone, Horn, Ivory and Teeth: The Use of Animal Skeletal Materials in Roman and Early Medieval Maastricht. Maastricht, Archaeologica Mosana, I.

Figure 8: The use of antler artefacts was probably connected with the change of direction of some thread or fibres pulled from somewhere.

Durczewski, D. 1985. Gród ludności kultury łuźyckiej z okresu halsztackkiego w Smuszewie woj. pilskie, 1. Poznan, Biblioteka Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses, 6. Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, Third edition, Cambridge University Press. Indreko, R. 1939. Asva linnus-asula, in H. Moora (ed.), Muistse Eesti linnused. 1936.-1938. a. uurimiste tulemused. Tartu, Õpetatud Eesti Selts, 17-52. Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. and Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Tallinn, Eesti Raamat.

Figure 9: Probable tools for processing flax from Asva (AI 4012: 94, 3994: 1358).

Lang, V. 2007a. Baltimaade pronksi- ja rauaaeg. Tartu, Tartu University Press.

Note 1 : I have personally checked bone artefacts from three Lithuanian Bronze Age fortified settlements and found no such antler points with spiral use-wear there (Luik and Maldre 2007). Concerning the rest of Lithuanian finds as well as Latvian finds, the conclusion is based on the available publications.

Lang, V. 2007b. The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia, Estonian Archaeology, 3. Tartu, Tartu University Press.

260

TRACING THE FUNCTION OF THE ANTLER “POINTS” FROM THE LATE BRONZE AGE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT OF ASVA Lang, V. and Kriiska, A. 2001. Eesti esiaja periodiseering ja kronoloogia. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 5(2), 83-109.

and Technical Cooperation for the Cultural Heritage. Rixensart, PACT, 57, 319-323.

Lemonnier, P. 1993. Introduction, in P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological Choices. Transformation in Material Cultures since the Neolithic. Material Cultures. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Material Construction of Social Worlds. London, New York, Routledge.

Maldre, L. 2003. Asva koerte koproliitide arheozooloogiline analüüs. Journal of Estonian Archaeology, 7(2), 140-149. Maldre, L. 2008. Karjakasvatusest Ridala pronksiaja asulas, in L. Jaanits, V. Lang and J. Peets (eds.), Loodus, inimene ja tehnoloogia, 2, Interdistsiplinaarseid uurimusi arheoloogias. Tallinn, Tartu, Muinasaja teadus, 17, 263276.

Luik, H. 1998. Muinas- ja keskaegsed luukammid Eestis. Muinasaja teadus, 6, Tallinn. Luik, H. 2006. For hunting or for warfare? Bone arrowheads from Late Bronze Age fortified settlements in Eastern Baltic. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 10(2), 132-149.

Malinowski, T. 2006. Komorowo, stanowisko 1: Grodzisko kultury Łużyckiej – faktoria na szlaku bursztynowym. Rzeszów, Collection Archaeologica Resoviensis, 1.

Luik, H. 2007. Dazzling white. Bone artefacts in Bronze Age society – some preliminary thoughts from Estonia, in A. Merkevičius (ed.), Colours of Archaeology. Material Culture and Society. Papers from the second theoretical seminar of the Baltic archaeologists (BASE) held at the University of Vilnius, Lithuania, October 21-22, 2005. Vilnius, Helsinki, Riga, Tartu, Interarchaeologia, 2, 4964.

Ots, M. 2006. Merevaiguleiud Baltimaade kivi- ja pronksiaja muististes. Unpublished MA Thesis, Tallinn, (Manuscript in the Institute of History, Tallinn University and in the University of Tartu). http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/10062/190/1/otsmi rja.pdf Sperling, U. 2006. Die Spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Siedlung von Asva in Estland. Unpublished MA Thesis, Berlin (Manuscript in the Freie Universität Berlin and in the Institute of History, Tallinn University).

Luik, H. and Maldre, L. 2005. Bone and antler artefacts from Pada settlement site and cemetery in North Estonia, in H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and Lõugas L. (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja teadus, 15, 163-176.

Vassar, A. 1955. Ukreplennoe poselenie Asva na ostrove Saaremaa, in H. Moora and L. Jaanits (eds.), Muistsed asulad ja linnused. Arheoloogiline kogumik. Tallinn, Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus, 113-137. Viires, A. 2000. Eesti rahvakultuuri leksikon. Tallinn, Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus. Second edition.

Luik, H. and Maldre, L. 2007. Bronze Age bone artefacts from Narkūnai, Nevieriškė and Kereliai fortified settlements. Raw materials and manufacturing technology. Archaeologia Lituana, 8, 5-39. Luik, H. and Ots, M. 2007. Bronze Age double buttons in Estonia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology, 11(2), 122140. Lõugas, L. 1994. Subfossil vertebrate fauna of Asva site, Saaremaa. Mammals, in V. Lang (ed.), Stilus 5. Tallinn, Eesti Arheoloogiaseltsi Teated, 71-93. Lõugas, V. 1970. Eesti varane metalliaeg (II a.-tuh. keskpaigast e.m.a. - 1. sajandini m.a.j.). Tallinn, Diss. kand., (Manuscript in the Institute of History, Tallinn University). Maldre, L. 1999. Osteological evidence for the introduction of farming in Estonia, in U. Miller, T. Hackens, V. Lang, A. Raukas and S. Hicks (eds.), Environmental and Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region: Journal of the European Network of Scientific

261

Use-wear or Butchery Marks: a Borderline Case. Bone Objects from Roman Carnuntum, Lower Austria Günther Karl KUNST VIAS Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science, Vienna, Austria Abstract Three small bone fragments of pig and sheep/goat from substructures underneath a Roman city street in Carnuntum, Lower Austria are described in this paper. The items exhibit serial marks on fracture edges and modified surfaces. It is suggested that these notches and incisions rather represent signs, possibly for mnemonic purposes than functional parts of a working edge or butchery marks. There is no apparent use-wear, the resulting working edges do not appear functional, and the marks were cut into parts of the bones already broken or altered. Thus interpreting them as the remains of a butchery process, makes little sense. Nevertheless, some effort was put in setting them apart from each other and in not completely damaging any of these bones. An alternative explanation would be that these objects were used not as proper tools themselves, but rather served as some kind of support or anvil, upon which other substances were cut. Such activities could likewise produce the serial marks present along the edges. occurring around the middle of the AD 4th century, attested by destruction layers found repeatedly throughout the site. With two excavated amphitheatres, a standing monument (the so-called Heidentor) and two local museums, Carnuntum is undisputedly the most important archaeological site from the Roman period in Austria north of the Alps. More detailed archaeological and historical information on the site is summarized in Kandler (2004), whereas Gassner et al. (2002) present an overview of the Austria Romana in general.

Introduction The Roman civilian town of Carnuntum developed alongside a military fortress on the Danubian limes, on the right bank of the Danube River, close to the modern border of Slovakia and Austria. The archaeological area encompasses parts of the territories of the modern communities of Petronell and Bad Deutsch-Altenburg (province of Lower Austria), about 60km east of Vienna and just 15km west of the Slovak capital, Bratislava. The name indicates a pre-Roman origin and is usually linked to one of the nearby Iron-age hilltop fortified settlements or oppida. Presumably, the site was chosen by the Roman military for strategic reasons, as east-west and northsouth trade and traffic routes meet nearby: the Danube River on one hand and the “Amber Road” from the Baltic along the Morava river and the Little Carpathian mountain chain on the other. The origin of the legionary fortress can be traced back to the early Claudian era, the middle of the AD 1st century, which would eventually lead to the development of further military and civilian structures. There was a secondary agglomeration (cannabae) in the immediate surroundings of the fortress, an auxiliary fort and a civilian town in the westernmost part of the whole settled area. Carnuntum became the capital of the Roman province of Pannonia Superior, when the province of Pannonia was split in two under the reign of Emperor Traian (AD 98-117). In the time of Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), the settlement was granted the state of a municipium. In Carnuntum, a decisive stage in urban development, involving a lot of building activity and investments in public infrastructure, was reached in the Severian Period (first half of the AD 3rd century) when the town became a colonia. During that period, it had an estimated population of 50,000 people. Apparently, the civilian structures of the Carnuntine area were largely abandoned in Late Antiquity. One cause may have been a serious earthquake

Archaeological setting In the military area of Carnuntum, archaeological investigations already began in the 19th century, and the legionary fortress has been largely excavated. In the course of more recent rescue excavations, the result of urban development and private building activity, large parts of the cannabae and the auxiliary fort, amongst other sites, have been investigated (Kandler 2004). Comparatively little is known about the civilian town. The organization of some parts of the northern area, including the forum, have recently been revealed by geophysical investigations (Hinterleitner et al. 2007). Mostly in the early post-war period, two settlement terraces in the south-eastern part of the town, gently sloping towards the Danube River to the north, were superficially investigated. The northern terrace, delimited by four urban streets, represents a classical insula. Inside the area of this so-called insula VI, public and private buildings, including a bath and adjacent structures, could be identified. This area is now open to the public and forms the core part of an open-air museum, administrated by the Archaeological Park Carnuntum (APC). Ongoing research is organized and financed in the form of a public-private partnership by the APC. As part of one such recent project, the area of the “old” post-war

263

GÜNTHER KARL KUNST excavations is being studied anew, and thorough excavations are being carried out in the area of the whole insula, including the subsequent reconstruction of some of the buildings. In 2002 and 2003, the so-called Weststraße, the paved, northwards sloping street delimiting the insula on its western edge, was the focus of comprehensive archaeological investigations. The excavations yielded a wide array of archaeological features dating from the end of the AD 1st century to middle of the AD 5th century. Features excavated in the area of the Weststraße mainly belong to two different types: construction, repair and occupation or use layers of the street itself, and substructures related to the sewage system. These latter structures encompass a subset of two sewers as well as a freshwater system including a water basin and the supply system for the public bath. Construction, repair and abandonment of these substructures mirror certain stages of urban developments in the adjacent living area. Most of the archaeological material derives from the construction layers of the street or accumulated when the sewers were allowed to fill up with all kinds of urban rubbish. In the case of the second sewer, which yielded one of the largest samples, a whole sedimentary sequence could be documented. In the course of its abandonment, an assemblage of animal bones, pottery fragments, building debris and other types of cultural waste, was sealed by a mudflow marking the final abandonment of the town. As no further cleaning measurements of the system were undertaken, the remnants of this last use cycle became preserved in toto. Nin and Leguilloux (2003, 136ff.) have written about the role of public sewers as receptacles for urban waste in Roman Aix-en-Provence.

of which could be identified to species or species group (Kunst in preparation). The main domesticates, cattle (Bos primigenius f. taurus), sheep (Ovis orientalis f. aries), goat (Capra aegagrus f. hircus) and pig (Sus scrofa f. domestica) form the core elements in most layers, whereas domestic mammals not used for human consumption, like equids (Equus sp.), dog (Canis lupus f. familiaris) and domestic cat (Felis silvestris f. catus) are comparatively rare, sometimes occurring as associated bone groups or partial skeletons. In many horizons, the remains of domestic fowl, wild birds and fish form a considerable part of the respective assemblages, and there is also the constant presence of bones of brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Fragmented skeletal elements frequently encountered comprise rib segments, choppedthrough vertebral corpora and diaphyseal splinters of domestic artiodactyls. Along with the skeletal part representation of the main domesticates and the high frequency of cut and chop marks, this species composition mostly reflects consumption refuse in the strict sense. In some contexts, such as the second sewer, the influence of primary butchery waste is indicated by the heavy representation of head and distal limb parts of cattle. Likely, most of the bone remains derive either from tabernae in the area of the public baths, or from private households and workshops in insula VI or from similar structural units in the adjacent western, unexcavated quarters. The strong “structuring” of the bone assemblages regarding element representation, fragment types and butchery marks reflects typical urban bone refuse, generated by the everyday activities of local residents in a densely populated area and their waste disposal needs. Conceivably, most of the animal bones and the associated artefacts were deposited there deliberately, entering the respective horizons either through the sewer system or as backfill during the course of repair works on the roadbed.

Animal bone assemblages from the western street (Weststraße) Generally, both the street layers and the backfill of the sewage system represented a protected environment for all finds, permitting good preservation of the fragile bones of small and juvenile mammals, birds and fish. Likewise, the bone surfaces remained largely intact, with even fine marks remaining visible. Sieving and flotation samples were taken from most backfill of the freshwater pipes and the sewers. The hand-collection of material was carried out in a diligent manner and by a trained crew. Thus, the bone samples retrieved can be regarded as representative of the entire sample. Sample size varies depending on both the vertical thickness and the horizontal extent of the strata. The periods best documented are the first reconstruction stage of the street (Hadrianic period, 1st half of AD 2nd century), the abandonment and backfill of the first main sewer (Severan period, end AD 2nd /beginning 3rd century), the abandonment of the second, larger sewer in the last third of the AD 3rd century and the coeval or slightly later backfill of the remaining freshwater system (Humer and Radbauer 2004; Radbauer and Humer 2004). Altogether, over 18,000 faunal remains were collected, about 12,000

Anthropogenically modified bones Normally, bone surfaces of the animal remains from the Weststraße are well enough preserved to allow recognition of all types of modifications, including both chop and cut marks and possible traces of use wear like polish. Given the widespread presence of anthropogenic butchery and consumption marks and their high potential in interpreting the assemblages, much effort was put into recognizing and recording all modifications. More than one quarter of the remains of the main domestic mammals exhibit some kind of anthropogenic modification caused by a metal tool. Among bones from domesticates 36% of cattle bone, 19% caprinae bones, and 21% pig bones display such marks, clearly related to activities like the partitioning of carcasses and the preparation of meat portions, with rib chops and longitudinally split vertebrae being some of the most commonly observed examples. Among the bone artefacts proper, only hairpins appear in greater numbers. Fragments of this particular object group are commonly

264

USE-WEAR OR BUTCHERY MARKS encountered in water-sieved samples. Conceivably, the pins were lost in the public bath and became trapped in the sewer system. Other types of worked bone, like fragments of tools or implements and gaming pieces and dice, as well as manufacture debris, tend to be limited to particular contexts. The same holds true for sawn-off horn cores of cattle and sheep. Apparently, bone and horn working was not an important craft in the adjacent insulae, or the remains indicating such activities are totally overshadowed by the heavy influx of food refuse and other types of cultural waste. Several objects, often not recognized as worked bones initially in the field, exhibit use wear, polish, perforations or other types of surface modifications only. Sometimes it is not easy to draw a line between marks made during consumption, damage caused by the sedimentary environment and actual worked objects. This holds especially true for local surface polish which might be related to some kind of food preparation, such as the differential exposition of certain bone surface areas in the cooking or curing process, as well.

caprinae form a major element of many samples from the western street, this piece does not stick out from similar bone fragments from the same context except for a series of marks on one of its lateral edges. Although, under the given circumstances, the way the original bone was fragmented may be referable to human intervention, these marks on the lateral edge of the bone are the only unequivocal artificial manipulations on the object. They are located on an edge formed between one fracture surface and the outer cortex, close to the elongated, distal end of the fragment. The marks themselves consist of a series of about nine transversal indendations, cut from the edge into the cortical bone to a maximum depth of about 2mm (Figure 3). It is not easy to give their exact number, as most of the marks consist of a set of parallel fine incisions. On the proximal end, they dissolve into a loose group of cut marks. Especially on this proximal limitation with a clear-cut surface, it is obvious that the marks have been produced at least initially by a sharp metal blade with the force directed slightly distally in the proximal area and more strictly transversally in the distal part. Between the indentations, sections of compact bone about 2-3mm in length have remained intact, forming the contour of what remains from the unmodified edge and now appearing as its “protruding” parts. On the proximal end of the series, one “tooth” was either lost or deliberately cut off. From their common, irregularly curved outline when viewed from aside, it becomes clear that some abrasive action must have affected the “tooth row” either during or after the incisions were made. Generally, the indented edge does not appear more worn or polished than any other area of this object. Due to its surface conditions, however, it is not easy to recognize any kind of micro-wear, but at least the deeper, concave areas of the indendations, apparently, remained unaffected by any abrasive process. Under low magnification, they still reveal their internal structure characterized by the multiple cut marks already mentioned (Figure 4). Undoubtedly, they result from repeated, deliberate actions when the bone may have been in a softened or rather fresh condition. Conceivably, the edge of the bone splinter may have been used as a support or anvil for some kind of (repeated) cutting activity1.

Bone fragments with serial marks A special group of such ambiguous objects easily escaping the archaeologists’ notice shall be presented here in more detail. The items in question exhibit serial tool marks not easily explained in terms of butchery, or at least they make little sense in activities concerned with meat preparation and/or consumption practices. On the other hand, their surfaces display no unequivocal traces of use wear that would permit their identification as artefacts. In some instances, the internal structure of the marks reflects some kind of a repeated action, leaving little doubt that these were produced on purpose. In the course of recording the butchery marks, the following four fragments, coming from various contexts in the Western street, were identified: Object A (1042/02) (Figures 1 to 4); backfill of freshwater pipe, late AD 3rd century: Diaphyseal fragment with an oblong shape, from a middle-sized mammal, length 78mm, maximal breadth 15mm. The thickness of the compact bone decreases towards its smaller, tapering end. Based on its its surface texture and morphology, it can be attributed to the dorsal diaphysis of a right tibia from a pig, with the “tip” pointing from the distal part of the tibia (Figures 1 and 2). Laterally, the item is delimited on both sides by a series of two or three straight fracture surfaces corresponding to the longitudinal type (Lyman 1994, 318ff.) and an irregular notch at the larger end. Presumably, these fractures were produced when the bone was split in the course of food preparation and still in a fresh state. The breakage pattern at both ends appears less easy to define. On the larger end, the fragmentation may have occurred when the bone was already dry. The fracture edges converge towards the opposite end where they may have formed a broad tip which is now broken. As shaft splinters of pigs and

Figure 1: Shaft fragment of tibia from pig (object A; 1042/02), exterior aspect; edge with notches on bottom right side.

265

GÜNTHER KARL KUNST to butchering or meat portioning appear on either longitudinal sides, cutting into the fracture surfaces in a transversal direction (Figures 6 and 7). There are five incisions on the distal part of one side. The most proximal and the most distal marks, which are very fine, cross the medullary cavity and reappear on the corresponding opposite edge. The deeper marks are Vshaped in cross-section, placed at about 3mm intervals and cut 2mm or slightly deeper into the compact bone (Figure 8). As the inside bases of the marks exhibit a fine striation, the metal blade used was thin and sharp. Thus, while cutting, considerable pressure must have been applied, as a heavy blow from a chopping tool would certainly have destroyed the bone. Controlled force is also indicated by the wedge-like cross-section, possibly implying a two-step process, just as when a notch is cut into wood. The notch situated most proximally exhibits two converging incisions with two sub-parallel cut marks on the inside base set slightly apart, implying that the blade was indeed used two times, and set at an acute angle. Because the outline of the intact edge was rather irregularly curved, unlike object A, no comb- or tool-like shape is produced in the side view. Given the deep notches and the regular distances between them, some kind of purposeful action can be presumed as well. Bone surfaces and edges remained otherwise intact in this specimen, with no indication of use-wear or polish.

Figure 2: Object A, interior aspect.

Figure 3: Object A, detail of fracture edge with notches.

Figure 5: Shaft fragment of tibia from sheep or goat (object B; 8018/03), exterior aspect; edge with notches on bottom left side.

Figure 4: Object A, detail of fracture edge with notches and incisions, orientation as in fig.3; length of detail 17mm.

Object B (8018/03) (Figures 5 to 8), backfill of first sewer, late AD 2nd century: Diaphyseal fragment of irregular-rectangular shape, from a middle-sized mammal, length 56mm, breadth 12mm. Morphology and circumstances permit the fragment to be identified as the mid-shaft area from a left caprinae tibia. This shaft splinter is delimited by spiral fractures on all sides, (Figures 5 and 6). A fissure appearing on the broader, proximal end further indicates that the tibia was deliberately broken when still in a fresh state. The distal end appears somewhat elongated by the converging edges, tapering into an irregular point. Again, diaphyseal fragments from the smaller domesticates form an important part of the faunal samples from the sewage system of the civil town. The artificial marks not related

Figure 6: Object B, interior aspect.

266

USE-WEAR OR BUTCHERY MARKS aspect of the processus spinosus, the edge is only interrupted by a gap of 10mm in its lower part, where more bone substance was removed, resulting in an irregular surface in this area. Located just dorsally (based on the anatomy of the skeletal element) from this gap, a series of about 12 transversal fine cut marks and small notches can be discerned. They are positioned between 2 and 7mm apart and are strictly limited to the cranial edge. They do not continue into the cut marks present along the side of the dorsal spine (Figure 10). For the most part, they are neither by-products of the creation of the edge, but rather postdate it. For two or three of the deeper marks, a connection with the initial carving process cannot really be ruled out. As in object B, these marks have an asymmetrical, V-shaped cross-section. Thus, they were cut from two sides and appear as interruptions in the otherwise even, outer bone contour. However, it seems more likely that these notches were carved into the preformed surface as well. When viewed from one side, it becomes apparent that the blade was orientated in a moreor-less dorso-caudal direction when the single incisions and the principal cuts of the V-shaped carvings were produced. This may indicate that both the planning of the cranial edge and the carving of the marks belonged to a single or short-termed process, probably carried out with the same blade. Again, no surface wear or polish can be detected, neither on the cranial edge nor elsewhere.

Figure 7: Object B, detail of fracture edge with notches, interior aspect.

Another thoracic vertebra from pig with five cut marks on the anterior, partly manipulated aspect of the processus spinosus was found in context 51/02. In this case, the marks continue well onto the left surface of the dorsal spine and appear related to the filleting of muscle from the carcass.

Figure 8: Object B, detail of fracture edge with notches, orientation as in fig.7; length of detail 16mm.

Object C (10035/03) (Figures 9 and 10), posthole, AD first half of 2nd century: Spinous process and superior parts of the neural arc from an anterior thoracic vertebra from pig (possibly third thoracic vertebra); length 120mm, maximal breadth 22mm. This dorsal fragment of a pig vertebra has been exposed to a butchering process, as indicated by unspecific damage, including the partial separation of a bone splinter, on its lower end. There are also a few fine cuts on both sides of the processus spinosus, and a single cut mark on the caudal edge, possibly connected to the cuts on the left side (Figure 10). Like diaphysis splinters, vertebra fragments from the major domesticates with or without tool marks form a recurrent element in many assemblages from the Weststraße. More intriguing, the cranial aspect of the dorsal spine was planed by a series of continuous cuts, following, along its entire length, the original bone contour (part of the dorsal tip is missing). The blade involved was moved in a dorsal direction, as can be seen from fine scar lines appearing in the dorsal part (Figure 9). In the course of this process, a narrow, regular edge with a transversal width of about 1mm was created. Along its dorso-ventral extension on the anterior (cranial)

Figure 9: Spinous process of thoracic vertebra from pig, cranial aspect (object C; 10035/03); left ventral, right dorsal.

267

GÜNTHER KARL KUNST percussion” (Druckperkussion; Kunst 2006). In the first case, associated with heavy cleaver-type tools, the contact between the blade and the bone tissue is taken into account or, even one of the aims of the activity was to actually split the bones. Knives or similar tools were used for cutting. Although contact with the bone may be taken into account, it was generally avoided as far as possible, as it blunted the blade. In principle, chopping and cutting as a concept are not necessarily linked to a specific type of tool, although Seetah (2006) seems to find a close association between Roman type cleavers and knives and the marks left on bones. In the material from Carnuntum, both cut and chop marks are present on the bones of pigs and caprinae. Cut marks, also appearing as series of parallel, successive incisions, are frequently observed on rib fragments, and on the various processi of vertebrae, whereas chop marks prevail on long bones and vertebral corpora. Thus, both types of marks may appear on the same specimen. Especially in the smaller domesticates, cut- or chop marks rarely cross-cut fracture edges, as fracturing itself is normally caused by this very chopping activity. Clearly, a superficial axe blow may eventually develop into fracture surface, but in this case, the causality is obvious. On the other hand, superficial modifications, as from the skinning process, may antedate subsequent fragmentation. Given the smaller size of the bones, evidence for a two-stepped butchering procedure is rarely exhibited on the bones of pigs and caprinae compared to cattle bone. In objects A and B, the marks clearly cut into the already made fracture surfaces, implying some other kind of human intervention on already broken bones.

Figure 10: Object C, cranio-lateral aspect.

Discussion The three objects presented above were identified during recording the butchery marks. They were singled out because the marks identified on them did not seem compatible with features normally observed on bones when the animal carcasses were processed and consumed. Given the raised frequency of modifications, indicative of meat processing and consumption among the animal remains from the Weststraße, it still needs to be demonstrated whether an interpretation in this context can be ruled out, and if an alternative interpretation does make sense. Equally, if they are artefacts, it appears questionable if all of them served a common or similar purpose. As regards common features, it can be argued that the three items result from bones which 1) were part of a consumption process, 2) exhibit incisions or notches on fracture or other artificial surfaces, 3) lack use wear or polish, are 4) comparatively small and that 5) the modifications present are neither unequivocal butchering nor consumption marks, nor 6) readily permit identification as worked objects due to the good preservation of their surfaces. Object A may exhibit some use wear or polish.

A “simple” explanation of the modifications in terms of butchery marks can definitely be excluded for these reasons for object A. A sequence of incisions on the fracture surface of a long bone makes no sense in partitioning, filleting or even consuming. Furthermore, much attention was paid to their regular arrangement. Furthermore, the marks have been reworked by repeatedly using the knife, focussing on a defined bone area. Things may look less straightforward on object B. However, what could the aim of such a cutting sequence be on an already broken part of a bone on the interior side where no adhering muscle tissue can be expected? Again, the cutting force was concentrated on a fracture surface which must have been visible for the actor who created a regular arrangement of notches. Surely, many activities related to separating soft tissue from the bones may result in the production of serial marks, but they are either superficial or “progressive”, aiming at either fragmenting the bone or following the outer surface. That is why the serial marks on object C cannot easily be related to the filleting of the dorsal musculature. In this case, the dorsal spine might have been touched involuntarily. The cut marks would either have been cut deep into the bone or continue on either side of the processus spinosus. The levelling of the cranial aspect of the dorsal spine may indeed be related to the partitioning of the rump, but a

Can the marks be explained in terms of butchery? The butchering process, especially in the Roman period, is controlled by tradition, the state of the meat (fresh or salted/cured), the goals and needs of the butcher and the consumers, their respective social background, the availability of tools and market forces (see Lauwerier 1988; Lignereux and Peters 1996; Maltby 1989; Seetah 2006 for regional syntheses concerning butchery in the Roman period). In the given situation, an urban consumers’ site, marks linked with food preparation proper must also be taken into account. Generally, Roman butchery marks either take the form of chop marks using “momentum percussion” (Schwungperkussion), or to cut marks using “pressure

268

USE-WEAR OR BUTCHERY MARKS heavy chopping mark would be expected in this case. In short, the V-shaped notches in objects A and B, and to a lesser extent in object C, do not correspond to the butchering marks otherwise present in the faunal assemblage. They very much look like marks carved into wooden edges, and may have been produced with an intention not related to butchery work at all. If a comparable force, corresponding to the one which produced the notches in these objects, is used against a bone surface, their aim is normally to break the bone by using a chopping tool – which was definitely avoided in all three cases.

marks, then, might have fulfilled a mnemonic purpose, such as a single tally stick, where notches may represent monetary values, debts or any other kind of transaction (Rixson 2000, 127ff.). The simple recording of repeated actions or events might also make sense in the context of gaming and gastronomy. As the street lay within the public sphere of the town with its shops, restaurants and baths, a lot of interaction between the members of the urban population possibly entailing “taking notes”, can be assumed.

Can the objects be interpreted as tools?

-

The indented outline of the modified fracture surface of object A bears some resemblance to a comb-like tool. However, the protruding “teeth” appear rather blunt, and no effort was made to make the ‘teeth’ more pointed. Furthermore, only the distal half of the fracture surface bears incisions, and the edge itself is not very regular. In object B, two or three of the bone areas left between the incisions taper into tips, but their position on the bone fragment on an irregular fracture, does not provide an ideal working edge. On object C, the marks appear at least on a regular flat surface, but are much too small to be used effectually. At the most, given the lack of usewear, these three objects could have been used as a comb scraper or garnisher in the structuring or decorating of very soft substances, like certain types of food or wax. For object A, use in some type of textile working, or in another situation where running threads were involved, might be suggested. The notches, then, would have served to separating threads in the weft, and the parallel incisions on their bases might correspond to use-wear. Still in the technical realm, a function as some kind of ruler or measuring tool, transferring or copying distances and measurements, might be another option, especially for object C, given its straight outline. As already suggested for object A, the three bone fragments with their notched edges may have been items that were not used actively as tools, but rather represented working surfaces or some kind of support or anvil, upon which other substances were cut or partitioned. In this case, the solid character of the bones would have served as an area of support for the treatment of some material with soft texture, or which had to be worked with accuracy, like in a mitre box. Another option would be a honing tool for the sharpening of knives, which should be tested by experiment2. At least, this would explain the repeated cutting actions visible in object A. Certainly all these interpretations do not exclude the use of the objects within the culinary realm.

Note 1: I owe this suggestion to Alice Choyke, Budapest.

Certain features of the objects could favour an interpretation in this direction: some care was taken in setting the marks apart from each other, thus rendering them visible; the lack of a real working edges, handles and use-wear in the three objects; the obvious force (cutting pressure) used in the production of certain notches; a technology conceivably used in carving wood, not in butchery, was used, resulting in V-shaped notches. The preservation potential of wooden objects of this type would, of course, be minimal. It was not possible to find data in the literature of real analogues for the items described above. The suggested “calendar bones” pictured in Peters (1986, 174) bear some superficial resemblance to these from Carnuntum. In many instances, objects like these, because of their inconspicuous appearance, are likely to remain within the animal bone assemblages and go unrecognised. Still, a simple culinary explanation cannot be ruled out for items B and C.

Note 2: Again, the author is indebted to Alice Choyke for suggestions concerning the function of these objects. Acknowledgements Grateful thanks go to Franz Humer, the director of the Carnuntum project, and to Silvia Radbauer for providing contextual and stratigraphic information, and to Kordula Gostenčnik for providing literature. The author is indebted to Alice Choyke for the reviewing of the language and her suggestions concerning the function of the objects described within this paper. Günther Karl Kunst VIAS Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science c/o Department of Palaeontology Althanstr.14 A-1090 Vienna Austria [email protected]

Alternative interpretations In a different approach, the notches and incisions could be interpreted not in technical, but in semiotic terms. The

269

GÜNTHER KARL KUNST References cited

Radbauer, S. and Humer, F. 2004. „Die Ausgrabungen an der Weststraße in der Zivilstadt von Carnuntum. Vorbericht über die Untersuchungen in den Jahren 2002 und 2003“. Fundberichte aus Österreich, 43, 903-906.

Gassner, V., Jilek, S. and Ladstätter, S. 2002. Am Rande des Reiches. Die Römer in Österreich. Österreichische Geschichte 15 v. Chr. – 378 n.Chr. Wien.

Seetah, K. 2006. “Multidisciplinary Approach to Romano-British Cattle Butchery”, in M. Maltby (ed.), Integrating Zooarchaeology. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference Durham 2002. Oxford, Oxbow, 109116.

Hinterleitner, A., Ertel, C., Ferschin, P., Kandler, M., Löcker, K., Melichar, P., Neubauer, W. and Seren, S.S. 2007. Das Forum des Municipium Aelium Karnuntum, in F. Humer (ed.), Legionsadler und Druidenstab. Vom Legionslager zur Donaumetropole. Sonderausstellung aus Anlass des Jubiläums „200 Jahre Carnuntum“, 280295. Bad Deutsch-Altenburg. Humer, F. and Radbauer, S. 2004. Die Ausgrabungen an der Weststraße in der Zivilstadt von Carnuntum. Archäologie Österreichs 15(2), 40-44. Kandler, M. 2004. Carnuntum, in M. Šašel Kos and P. Scherrer (eds.), The Autonomous Towns in Noricum and Pannonia - Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien: Pannonia II, 11-66. Ljubljana, Situla 42. Kunst, G. K., 2006. Tierreste aus ausgewählten Befunden der Grabungen 1997-1999 im Vicus Ost von Mautern a. d. Donau, in St. Groh and H. Sedlmayer (eds.), Forschungen im Vicus Ost von Mautern-Favianis. Die Grabungen der Jahre 1997-1999, 637-708. Wien, Der römische Limes in Österreich 44. Lauwerier, R. C. G. M. 1988. Animals in Roman times in the Dutch eastern river area. Nederlandse Oudheden, 12. Lignereux, Y. and Peters, J. 1996. Techniques de boucherie et rejets osseux en Gaule Romaine. Anthropozoologica 24, 45–98. Lyman, R. L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge. Maltby, M. 1989. Urban-rural Variations in the Butchering of Cattle in Romano-British Hampshire, in D. T. Serjeantson and T. Waldron (eds.), Diet and Crafts in Towns, 75–106. Oxford, BAR British 199. Nin, N. and Leguilloux, M. 2003. „ La gestion des déchets à Aix-en-Provence dans l’Antiquité“, in P. Ballet, P. Cordier and N. Dieudonné-Glad (eds.), La ville et ses déchets dans le monde romain: rebuts et recyclages. Archéologie et histoire romaine 10. Montagnac, M. Mergoil Edition, 133-163. Peters, B. G. 1986. Le travail aux os dans les etats antiques sur la cote septentrionale de la Mer Noire (in Russian, French summary). Academie des Sciences USSR, Institut d’Archeologie. Moscow. Rixson, D. 2000. The history of Meat Trading. Nottingham.

270

Pierced Metapodials from al-Ândalus: Some Observations Towards their Understanding Marta MORENO-GARCÍA* and Carlos M. PIMENTA** * Instituto de Historia, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CSIC), Madrid, Spain ** Laboratório de Arqueozoologia, IGESPAR, I.P., Lisboa, Portugal Abstract The Iberian Peninsula archaeological record contains metapodials, mainly of cattle, that feature a variable number of perforations on the posterior side of the diaphysis. They have been recovered singly or in small assemblages together with other faunal remains. So far they have never been studied from a contextual or functional point of view. The observation of 40 examples from Portuguese and Spanish sites, all dated to the Islamic period, allowed us to characterize their typology. Traces from use (the position, number and differential external and internal wear of the holes) suggest that these bones were elements of a complex device in which spinning axes were involved. Introduction

isolated finds of unknown purpose. Thus, the aim of this paper is to bring to light these bone artefacts and to present the observations made on the positioning, morphology and wear of the holes located on the posterior side of the diaphysis. It is believed that these remarks are the only means to put forward some working hypotheses regarding their origin and consequently the use of these pierced long-bones.

The use of bone as a raw material is widely recognised in the archaeological record. Throughout millennia people have used the hard parts of animals (i.e., bone, horn, antler and ivory) to produce a wide variety of implements, from ornaments to tools (Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Luik et al. 2005; MacGregor 1985). However, their study is often treated as an ancillary subject. Unfortunately, it is also still a common practice to exclude such finds from the zooarchaeologist’s bench! As MacGregor (1985, 30) writes: “for the most part, the species involved were identical with those generally exploited for food or motive power”. As a result, many worked bone objects remain unpublished and stored for years (or even decades) in museum collections. Only the most stunning are exhibited but even then they fail to be correctly identified to taxon and part of skeleton or remain ‘functionally’ undetermined. In particular, there is a need to study bone artefacts from the more recent past, i.e., historical periods, with the same thoroughness and technological resources as those from earlier times. They not only attest to the extended use of such a raw material, but their analysis also allows us to recognize the origins of cultural traditions that are sometimes still practised.

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of pierced metapodials in the Iberian Peninsula. 1. Silves (Portugal); 2) Aljezur (Portugal); 3) Palmela (Portugal); 4) Lisbon (Portugal); 5) Mértola (Portugal); 6) Seville (Spain). Squares indicate samples described in the literature or known by personal communication (Paderne and Alcoutim in Portugal; Calatayud, Alicante and Valencia in Spain).

Following our request to Portuguese archaeologists to let us know of any musical instruments fashioned from bone (Moreno-García and Pimenta 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2007; Moreno-García et al. 2005a), we were presented with some cattle metapodials from Lisbon and Palmela (Figure 1) whose dorsal side displayed a variable number of perforations (Figures 2 and 3). Different stages of wear were clearly evident on the internal borders of some of them. This excludes their being interpreted as wind musical instruments. In a short period of time, we recorded 32 examples recovered from Portuguese sites and eight more from Spain in our database (Figure 1; Table 1), all of which were considered as scattered or

The archaeological context All 40 finds are associated with the medieval Islamic culture in the Iberian Peninsula. The Portuguese examples (Moreno-García et al. 2006) were recovered from the following localities: Lisbon, Palmela, Mértola,

271

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA AND CARLOS M. PIMENTA Alcoutim, Aljezur, Paderne and Silves (cf. Figure 1). They are dated to the period from the 10th to 13thcenturies AD. Also we had the opportunity to study 2 examples from Seville (Spain) dated to the 11th-12thcenturies AD and know of 6 more Spanish finds from Calatayud (Cebolla et al. 1997), Paterna (Mesquida García 1989), Denia and Benipeixcar (Mª Dolores López Gila, pers. comm.) (cf. Figure 1).

Osteological and taxonomical identification The metapodials of ungulates have traditionally been favoured as a raw material to be worked into a diversity of objects (i.e., skates (MacGregor 1975), bone anvils (Benco et al. 2002; Esteban Nadal and Carbonell Roure 2004; Moreno-García et al. 2005b; Moreno-García et al. 2007), beads (Spitzers 1997) and so on) due probably to the fact that they are robust, present thick walls and have a hollow medullar cavity. They do not represent a meat value, although their medullary content is of some nutritive appeal.

In all cases they have been found isolated or in small numbers (with the exception of those recovered in the Silves Arrabalde; Table 1) together with other faunal materials identified as domestic and artisanal refuse.

Once the animal is slaughtered, the skinning process begins from these bones. Thus, they are usually associated with primary butchery waste. As shown in table 1 there seems to have been a preference for metacarpals rather than metatarsals (28 of the former and 8 of the latter). It seems likely that the semi-circular section of the metacarpal shaft (flat posterior surface and convex anterior surface) made them easier to use than the metatarsals with their square shaft section. Most are derived from cattle (Bos taurus), two from donkey (Equus asinus) and one from sheep (Ovis aries). Curiously, these latter ones were recovered from two different places, an Almohad Arrabalde and castle, both in the city of Silves, Algarve. Observations No previous preparation of the bones is evident. Only some cut and chop marks related to the skinning of the animal and from the process of disarticulation from the upper limb bones are visible in some examples. The perforations are always located on the dorsal, flat side of the bone. This shows a clear preference for the use of this surface. Of those that are complete, it is possible to recognize specimens with one (Figure 4), two (Figure 5) or three holes (Figure 2). Although the number of perforations varies, there is always one placed at the midpoint of the diaphysis. Apparently this is the area initially chosen to make the object work. Such central perforation and any of the others present at the top and bottom were originally circular (Figure 5). It seems that in the course of their use, the borders of the holes tended to wear away towards one or both (medial and lateral) sides. This progressive wear provoked a shape change in the perforations making the central one oval. Thus, in the most advanced stages, the loss of cortical bone resulted in the breakage of the bone across its shaft and consequently, the end of its use life (Figures 6 and 7). The example from Palmela shows an extreme situation in which several of the perforations meet one another (cf. Figure 3). Perhaps the most interesting example is the complete metacarpal from Lisbon that was pierced three times. As figures 2 and 8 show, the hole closest to the proximal articulation area is deviated towards the lateral side while the third one, placed near the distal end, is worn oppositely, towards the medial side. The same pattern might have been exhibited in those examples

Figure 2: Pierced cattle (Bos taurus) metacarpals recovered from excavations at Fundação Ricardo Espírito Santo (Lisbon, Portugal). In the complete example, on the left, three perforations are visible on the posterior surface. While that in the centre appears oval-shaped, those at the top and bottom show that the original round perforation suffered progressive wear towards opposite sides, towards the lateral and medial surfaces of the diaphysis.

Figure 3: Right cattle (Bos taurus) metacarpal recovered from Castle of Palmela (Portugal). The perforations on the posterior face of the diaphysis meet one another and the anterior side has also been perforated.

272

PIERCED METAPODIALS FROM AL-ÂNDALUS

Metacarpal

Metatarsal

Donkey (Equus asinus) Metacarpal

12 -

4 1 -

2 -

1

-

18 1 1

Alcoutim (Catarino 1997/8) * Castelo Velho

1

-

-

-

1

2

Aljezur Ribat da Arrifana

-

1

-

-

-

1

Paderne (Catarino 1997/8) * Castelo

1

-

-

-

1

2

3

-

-

-

-

3

Palmela (Fernandes 2004) Castelo

1

-

-

-

-

1

Lisboa (Moreno-García et al. 2006) Fundação Ricardo Espírito Santo

3

-

-

-

-

3

Total Portuguese finds

21

6

2

1

2

32

-

1

-

-

-

1

Alicante * Fortí de Denia

1

-

-

-

-

1

Valencia * Alqueria de Benipeixcar Paterna (Mesquida García 1989)

1 -

1 -

-

-

2

2 2

Seville C/San Luís nº93

2

-

-

-

-

2

Total Spanish finds

4

2

-

-

2

8

Total Iberian finds

25

8

2

1

4

40

Cattle (Bos taurus) PORTUGAL Silves (Moreno-García et al. 2006) Arrabalde Teatro Gregório Mascarenhas Castelo

Mértola (Moreno-García et al. 2006) Alcáçova

SPAIN Calatayud (Zaragoza) (Cebolla et al. 1997)* Rua de Dato-C/San Miguel

Sheep (Ovis aries)

Unknown*

Total

Metacarpal

Table 1: Bone and species identification of pierced metapodials recovered from Portuguese and Spanish sites dated to the Islamic period. *Examples that have not been observed by us.

Figure 4: Three cattle (Bos taurus) metacarpals recovered from Alcáçova de Mértola (Portugal). They all present a single oval perforation on the posterior side of the diaphysis.

273

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA AND CARLOS M. PIMENTA

Figure 5: Twenty pierced metapodials recovered from excavations in the Arrabalde, Castle and Theatre Gregorio Mascarenhas in Silves (Portugal). From the left, the third complete example and the first proximal half are identified as metacarpals of donkey (Equus asinus). The last example on the upper row represents the only find fashioned from a sheep (Ovis aries) metacarpal.

broken at their mid-shaft that have one of these secondary perforations still visible (cf. Figure 5). Understanding how that happened may shed some light on how these bones were used. The borders of the holes are rounded and looked polished. From broken examples it was possible to observe that the wear of bone tissue is not limited to that area. The internal side of the diaphysis, coincident with the hole, also contains a rounded and abraded depression (Figure 9). In some cases, the loss of cortical bone from inside the medullary cavity is such that the bone becomes very thin and small perforations are produced on the anterior face (Figure 9). Additionally, in some cases this internal depression appears covered by a thin black layer. Micro X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis of that dark deposit showed that iron was the principal component (Figure 10) (Lopes et al. 2007).

Figure 7: Two distal halves of pierced cattle (Bos taurus) metacarpals recovered from excavations at C/ San Luis nº 93 (Seville, Spain).

Figure 6: Distal half of pierced cattle (Bos taurus) right metatarsal recovered from excavations at Ribat da Arrifana (Aljezur, Portugal). The loss of cortical bone by the oval central perforation resulted in the breakage of the artefact at the mid-shaft.

Figure 8: Detail of one of the cattle (Bos taurus) metacarpals recovered from excavations at Fundação Ricardo Espírito Santo (Lisbon, Portugal). Note how the lateral original round perforations suffered progressive wear towards opposite sides while that in the centre appears oval-shaped.

274

PIERCED METAPODIALS FROM AL-ÂNDALUS Islamic period were related to textile manufacture there might not have been direct contact between the edge of the perforations and the spinning axis working inside them. Fibres wrapped around the rotating axes could have produced the kind of smooth wear observed. Equally, the deposition of fibre residues inside the holes could have worked as a velvety abrasive material responsible for the polished aspect of the inner medullary cavity. Figure 9: Internal view of two of the pierced metacarpals recovered from Silves Arrabalde (Portugal). Note that the wear of bone tissue is not limited to the border of the perforations. The internal side of the diaphysis, opposite the hole, presents a rounded and abraded depression which could have been caused by the continuous action of spinning axes, as suggested by the arrows.

Based on the wear pattern observed in the central perforation we suggest, as a working hypothesis, that these bones may have been used lying on one of their sides. Thus, the weight of the spinning axis would wear down the original round internal border of the perforation towards that side (cf. Figure 8). Once it was close to the edge of the diaphysis the bone was turned over and wear towards the opposite direction occurred, causing the perforation to change from circular to oval. Such a pattern appears to be confirmed by the metapodials that display more than one central perforation, as in the complete metacarpal from Lisbon (cf. Figure 2). In those cases, two parallel rotating axes – one in the central perforation and another in one of the additional holes – were probably working simultaneously. Once the borders were worn towards the side on which the bone was set, it was turned over and the axes were rearranged. Presumably, one was introduced again in the central hole and the other went into a new, third perforation that would begin to wear in the opposite direction to that shown by the second hole which had been previously employed. In conclusion, the top or bottom holes could have both been utilised with the central perforation, sequentially or in alternation.

Figure 10: Results of the micro X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis of the black layer present inside the medullary cavity. Note that iron was the principal component.

Some interpretations of the use of these pierced metapodials

Conclusion

The above observations suggest that the wear of the borders of the perforations and the internal depression of the medullary cavity were caused simultaneously by the continuous and progressive attrition of an external element in contact with those surfaces. Such a situation is compatible with the action of one or several spinning axes inside the holes located on the dorsal face of the diaphysis (cf. Figure 9). Thus, these bones may not represent artefacts on their own but may have been elements of a sophisticated mechanism assembled into a complex piece of equipment.

The archaeological record has brought to light a whole range of bone artefacts used by our ancestors. However, in many occasions we are just dealing with isolated items or components of more complex mechanisms that are difficult to recognise as such. In this paper, we have presented an assemblage of bovine and equine metapodials from different regions of the Iberian Peninsula dated to a chronological period that extends from 10th to 13th-centuries AD, associated with the Islamic culture. After the observation of nearly all the Portuguese finds recovered up until now, and some of the Spanish specimens, we were able to note a series of characteristics common to all of them. Independently of the complexity of the actions responsible for the traces that we have tried to decipher, it seems that all these artefacts were related to similar uses probably associated to the processing of fibres. They represent a technological solution that was abandoned or was substituted by a new one once the Christian re-conquest happened.

Ethnographic records from different cultures reveal a wide number of devices that have single or multiple rotating axes as functional components – drills, lathes and many of the implements used in textile manufacturing (i.e., spindle, spinning wheel, and so on). Since the internal and external borders of the holes are rounded and polished and no sharp scratches are evident it appears the attrition was caused by an agent that was as soft as, or softer than, the bone itself. While processing fibres (i.e. wool, linen, cotton, silk) it is a common procedure to wind them around one or several axes. Hence, it could be argued that if the Iberian perforated metapodials from the

The recovery of 18 examples from the Silves Arrabalde, a neighbourhood dedicated to artisanal activities, suggests that they were possibly related to one of the trades

275

MARTA MORENO-GARCÍA AND CARLOS M. PIMENTA practised there (Moreno-García et al. 2006). This craft could have also taken place in the domestic environment, perhaps on a smaller scale, as evidenced by some of the other finds. For this reason, one can expect that as more animal bone assemblages from the Islamic period are studied more examples will turn up.

Choyke, A. M. and Bartosiewicz, L. 2001. Crafting bone: skeletal technologies through time and space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group 937, Budapest, 31 Aug - 5 Sept. Oxford, BAR International Series 937. Esteban Nadal, M. and Carbonell Roure, E. 2004. Sawtoothed sickles and bone anvils: a medieval technique from Spain. Antiquity, 78, 637-646.

Finally, in order to confirm the working hypothesis put forward here use-wear analyses of the perforations will be carried out in the near future.

Fernandes, I. C. 2004. O Castelo de Palmela: do islâmico ao cristão. Colibri, Lisboa. Acknowledgements Lopes, F. M. P., Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. 2007. Estudo arqueométrico de artefactos ósseos do Gharb al-Ândalus. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 10 (2), 295-304.

We are very grateful to all the Portuguese and Spanish archaeologists who provided information on, or access to, the pierced metapodials presented in this paper: Mª J. Gonçalves and A. Medeiros Rodrigues (Silves), H. Catarino (Alcoutim and Paderne), M. Varela Gomes (Ribat da Arrifana and Silves), L. Rafael & S. Gómez (Mértola), A. Gomes and A. Gaspar (Lisbon), I.C. Fernandes (Palmela), P. López Aldana and A. Pajuelo (Seville), Mª D. López Gila (Valencia and Alicante), J. Ortega (Calatayud). Filipa Lopes is acknowledged for the micro X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis.

Luik, H., Choyke, A. M., Batey, C. E. and Lõugas, L. 2005. From hooves to horns, from mollusc to mammoth. Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from Prehistoric times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th31st of August 2003. Tallinn, Muinasaja Teadus. MacGregor, A. 1975. Problems in the interpretation of microscopic wear patterns: the evidence from bone skates. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2, 385-390.

Marta Moreno-García Instituto de Historia Centro de Ciencas Humanas y Sociales (CCHS), CSIC C/ Albasanz 26-28 28037 Madrid Spain [email protected]

MacGregor, A. 1985. Bone, antler, ivory and horn. The technology of skeletal materials since the Roman period. London & Sydney, Croom Helm. Mesquida García, M. 1989. La ceràmica de Paterna al segle XIII. València, Ajuntament de Paterna, Servei d'Arqueologia.

Carlos M. Pimenta Laboratório de Arqueozoologia, IGESPAR, I.P. Av. da Índia 136 1300-300 Lisboa Portugal [email protected]

Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. M. 2004. Arqueozoologia cultural: o aerofone de Conimbriga. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 7, 407-425. Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. M. 2006a. Música através dos ossos?... Propostas para o reconhecimento de instrumentos musicais no Al-Ândalus. Al-Ândalus. Espaço de Mudança. Balanço de 25 anos de História e Arqueologia Medievais, Mértola, 16-18 maio, 2005. Campo Arqueológico de Mértola, 226-239.

References cited Benco, N. L., Ettahiri, A. and Loyet, M. 2002. Worked bone tools: linking metal artisans and animal processors in medieval Islamic Morocco. Antiquity, 76, 447-457.

Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. M. 2006b. O aerofone de Cacela. Notas sobre a identificação osteológica e taxonómica de um instrumento musical. O Arqueólogo Português, 24, Série IV, 401-410.

Catarino, H. 1997/1998. O Algarve Oriental durante a ocupação islâmica. Povoamento rural e recintos fortificados. Al-Uluyã. Revista do Arquivo Histórico Municipal de Loulé, 6.

Moreno-García, M. and Pimenta, C. 2007. Comentarios arqueo-zoológicos sobre el aerófono de la Necrópolis de Afligidos, Villa Romana del Val (Alcalá de Henares, Madrid), in J. Morín De Pablos (ed.), La investigación arqueológica de la época visigoda en la Comunidad de Madrid. (Zona Arqueológica. Revista del Museo

Cebolla, J. L., Royo, J. I. and Rey, J. 1997. La arqueología urbana en Calatayud. Datos para una síntesis. Calatayud, Zaragoza, Ayuntamiento de Calatayud, Centro de Estudios Bilbitanos.

276

PIERCED METAPODIALS FROM AL-ÂNDALUS Arqueológico Regional de la Comunidad de Madrid; 8 (3)), 796-803. Moreno-García, M., Pimenta, C. M. and Gros M. 2005a. Musical Vultures in the Iberian Peninsula: sounds through their wings, in G. Grupe, J. Peters (eds.), Feathers, grit and symbolism. Birds and humans in the ancient Old and New Worlds. Rahden/Westf., Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. (Documenta Archaeobiologiae; 3), 329-347. Moreno-García, M., Pimenta, C. and Gonçalves, M. J. 2006. Metápodos perfurados do Gharb al-Ândalus: Observações para a sua compreensão. Actas do 3º Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve, Silves, 20-22 Outubro 2005, Xelb, 6, 155-164. Moreno-García, M., Pimenta, C., López Aldana, P. and Pajuelo Pando, A. 2007. The signature of a blacksmith on a dromedary bone from Islamic Seville (Spain). Archaeofauna, 16, 193-202. Moreno-García, M., Esteban Nadal, M., Rodet-Belarbi, I., Pimenta C. M. and Morales Muñiz, A. 2005b. Bone anvils: not worked bones but bones for working. Poster presented at the 5th International Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, 29th August-3rd September 2005. Veliko Turnovo, Bulgaria. Spitzers, T. A. 1997. Late medieval bone bead production: socio-economic aspects based on material from Constance, Germany. Anthropozoologica, 25-26, 157-164.

277

PART II — Bone Raw Material Exploitation in South America - ICAZ

Late Pleistocene Technology in the New World: Bone Artifacts from Cueva del Medio and Other Sites in the Southern Cone of South America Hugo G. NAMI CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract Cueva del Medio is a large cave, almost 100m long by 40m wide, located in the Benitez Hill, about 1km from Mylodon cave (Bird 1988) in Southern Patagonia. Its first human occupation, (Paleoindian), was restricted to the front and concentrated in the central section of the cave. Among the most significant finds was a lithic assemblage consisting of diverse unifacial and bifacial artifacts, including two “fishtail” pieces associated with extinct and extant fauna (Nami 1987a; 1987b; 1996; in preparation). CM yielded 14 radiocarbon dates, mostly (n = 11) ranging from 10.3 to 11.0 kya (Nami and Nakamura 1995; Nami 2007). Faunal remains include Felis onça, Mylodon sp., Dusicyum avus, horse (Hippidion saldiasi), Lama guanicoe, Lama gracilis and a large Lama sp. previously identified as Lama cf. owenii (Menegaz and Nami 1994; Menegaz et al. 1994; Nami 1993; Nami and Menegaz 1991; Nami and Miotti in preparation). The existence of sawed, burned, and broken fragments of bone, some of them with cut marks (observed under a scanning electron microscope) provides clear evidence that Pleistocene fauna was consumed by humans. Indeed, the above-mentioned fauna not only was exploited for food consumption: their bones were employed as raw material for making diverse tools as well. Introduction

Archaeological Excavations in Cueva del Medio

In the field of First American studies, Patagonia has played an important role. In the 1930s, a few years after Clovis and Folsom discoveries in North America, Junius Bird (American Museum of Natural History) excavated Fell and Pali Aike caves in the southern tip of the continent, near the Strait of Magellan (Bird 1938; 1946). There, he found “fishtail” or Fell projectile points associated with remains of extinct fauna. Fifty years later, next to the famous Mylodon cave, Cueva del Medio site (Ultima Esperanza, Chile) yielded similar evidence, becoming a significant place for terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene archaeology (Nami 1987a; 1987b; 1996; etc.). Since then, a number of other archaeological finds in the region have deepened knowledge of the diverse environmental and cultural contexts of early huntergatherers from southern Patagonia in particular, and the southern cone of South America in general. Most of the evidence from these sites has focused on subsistence and lithic technology, without considering the very well made bone artifacts (e.g. Borrero and Franco 1997; Orquera 1987). However, their particular morphology and technology makes bone artifacts from Cueva del Medio (CM, hereafter), and other sites with early archaeological remains in the region, worthy of careful attention. This category of artifacts sheds new light on the possible relation between the early traditional technological knowledge in southern South America and other parts of the world during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene.

CM (51° 35´ S, 71° 38´ W, [Figure 1]) is a large cave, almost 100m long by 40m wide, located in the Benitez Hill, about 1km from Mylodon cave (Bird 1988). The fieldwork performed between 1985 and 1993 yielded a remarkable archaeological level that provides much information on the paleoenvironment and the Paleoindian way of life. Excavations at the entrance, middle and back sectors revealed stratigraphic differences (Nami in preparation). At both the entrance and the central part, sediments are composed mainly of sand and cobbles originating from the conglomerates that formed the cave. The Paleoindian level was restricted to the front and concentrated in the central section. Among the most significant finds was a lithic assemblage consisting of diverse unifacial and bifacial artifacts, including two “fishtail” pieces associated with extinct and extant fauna (Nami 1987a; 1987b; 1996; in preparation). CM yielded 14 radiocarbon dates, mostly (n = 11) ranging from 10.3 to 11.0 kya (Nami and Nakamura 1995; Nami 2007). Faunal remains include Felis onça, Mylodon sp., Dusicyum avus, horse (Hippidion saldiasi), Lama guanicoe, Lama gracilis and a large Lama sp. previously identified as Lama cf. owenii (Menegaz and Nami 1994; Menegaz et al. 1994; Nami 1993; Nami and Menegaz 1991; Nami and Miotti in preparation). The existence of sawed, burned, and broken fragments of bone, some of them with cut marks (observed under a scanning electronic microscope) provides clear evidence that Pleistocene fauna was consumed by humans. One of the Paleoindian hearths contained an intentional and well made pile of bones and artifacts (one of them, a bone flaker) with an infant Hippidion saldiasi jaw at the

279

HUGO G. NAMI bottom, suggesting that this animal was probably subject of some type of symbolic treatment.

Bone artifacts from Cueva del Medio and other sites in the Southern Cone.

CM studies led to the hypotheses that in the Southern Patagonia during the late Pleistocene (Menegaz and Nami 1994; Menegaz et al. 1994; Nami 1993; Nami and Menegaz 1991) there was high faunal diversity, including the presence of extant and extinct fauna, and that the Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers had a diet exploiting this faunal diversity. Different opinions have been expressed about the status of extinct fauna (i.e. Borrero 1986; Borrero et al. 1988; Lynch 1990; Orquera 1987) and particularly about the exploitation of Hippidion saldiasi, a small horse living in the region during Paleoindian times (Borrero 2005). In my opinion, the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene hunter-gatherers had a generalized diet with regional variations, having extinct fauna and Hippidion saldiasi as a resource (Nami 1993; 1994). Current research on early sites reveals that a broad range of animals was consumed by the early hunters living in southern South America at that time, as is maintained by archaeologists with first hand experience in excavating reliable terminal Pleistocene sites (Massone 2004; Massone and Prieto 2004; Miotti and Salemme 2004; Paunero et al. 2007a; 2007b). The abovementioned fauna not only was exploited for food consumption; their bones were employed as raw material for making diverse artifacts and tools as well.

A few bone artifacts were recovered at the top of level 4 (Paleoindian) in the middle part of the site, which is situated a few cm under the surface near the entrance of the cave and about 50cm in the middle (Nami 1987a; 1987b; 1989-90). As illustrated in figure 2a, among them there are: a flaker made on a splinter of a diaphysis with an abraded tip similar to other artifacts found in Patagonia (Nami and Scheinsohn 1997); a tube carefully made on a diaphysis fragment with both extremes finely abraded and polished (Figure 2b); a broken tip of a flaker; and, most interesting, a fragmented piece of bone with an engraved design carefully made around its perimeter (Figure 2c).

Figure 2: Artifacts from the Paleoindian level of Cueva del Medio; a) flaker; b) tube; c) engraved artifact (Instituto de la Patagonia collection, photos: H.G. Nami).

Southern cone Late Pleistocene sites. In this section, only sites with well defined archaeological records dating ~11 000 and 10 000 uncalibrated years BP (~11-10 kya) are considered. During the past two decades, this region has yielded a number of reliable sites with evidence of Terminal Pleistocene-Early Holocene hunter gatherers, consistently dated at that time. Several of these have “fishtail”, “Fell´s cave” or just “Fell” projectile points, which are widespread from Central America to the southern tip of South America, where they are particularly well represented. Other sites without this sort of artifacts were part of the same system, reflecting Paleoindian inter-site variation (Nami 1996). A number of these early sites yielded artifacts showing that bone was a raw material also utilized to manufacture diverse

Figure 1: Location of the sites mentioned in the text; 1) TaguaTagua; 2) El Trébol; 3) Piedra Museo; 4) Cueva del Minero 1; 5) Cueva del Medio and Cueva del Lago Sofía; 6) Fell and Pali Aike caves; 7) Tres Arroyo Rockshelter (map taken from http://saltleadership.org/dpsalt/modules/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=86).

280

LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY IN THE NEW WORLD tools of different degrees of complexity in design and manufacture (Figures 3 and 7).

the foreshafts used in the Ginsberg experiment by Callahan (1994). During his excavations in the lower level, John Fell found a number of bone artifacts of unknown function (Figure 6a-c) and others that are clearly flakers (Figure 6d-f). The second period still containing Pleistocene fauna was defined mainly by the presence of bone projectile points of varying forms and sizes and scraping tools (Bird 1988, fig. 13). However, several archaeologists working in southern Patagonia have questioned the existence of this period in the regional sequence. In fact, since the early 1980s, Chilean archaeologist Mauricio Massone (1981) unified periods I and II in the “early cultural unit” corresponding to the latest Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, recently called “Fell I Cultural Modality” by Massone (2004). Beyond names, I agree with this opinion, and I think that those bone artifacts are Paleoindian tools manufactured by the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene human groups. This is because the highest standard of bone technology reached by Fell hunter-gatherers is compatible to the extremely delicate bone points used to define the second period. Probably, these kinds of artifacts are part of the weaponry system of the people who used “fishtail” projectile points. With different basal treatments, pieces depicted in figures 4 and 5 are probable “bone points” that show a delicate manufacture. Remarkably, the beveled bases with incised marks are very similar to contemporary bone points from other parts of the world (see below and figure 4)

Late Pleistocene-early Holocene sites in Chile and Argentina have yielded delicate and very well made artifacts. Lago Sofía cave site (Prieto 1991), eight km north of CM, has similar archaeological remains. Large stones have fallen from the ceiling of the cave and a layer of sand was trapped between them and the rock floor of the cave. A level of human occupation identified in this layer included the remains of the same species identified in CM. Many of the bones show signs of having been exploited by humans. A hearth surrounded by broken bones of extinct fauna has been dated with two radiocarbon dates, placing the occupation during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Bifacial and unifacial flakes, other lithic debitage, and a bird bone awl were also found at this hearth, as well as extinct fauna, mainly Hippidion saldiasi and diverse stone tools. Currently, Tierra del Fuego is an island separated from continental Patagonia by the Strait of Magellan. During the time under consideration, however, a land bridge connected it to the continent. Evidences of the earliest human settlers were found at Tres Arroyos rockshelter, a site that also yielded data on bone technology, including a bone awl found in the lower level (Massone 1987; 2004; Massone and Prieto 2004). Bone specimens were also found in the Strait of Magellan by Junius Bird and other researchers in Fell and Pali Aike caves. For the purpose of this paper, it is significant to recall that the North American archaeologist defined five “cultural periods” numbered I to V (Bird 1938; 1946). The oldest was characterized by the presence of extinct fauna, “fishtail” projectile points, bone awls and flaking tools. In the lowest level (layer V) of Fell cave, Bird recovered four bone fragments (Bird 1988, fig. 60 5-8). Further excavations conducted by John Fell in 1959, recovered several additional bone artifacts, among them a fragment that perfectly fitted with the artifact found by Bird (1988, fig. 60 8-9). Furthermore, the French expedition carried out by Emperaire and colleagues (1963) exhumed a similar specimen (Figure 3a). Bird suggested that they must be the basal sections of some sort of flaking tool and also that both pieces appear to have been made from sloth bones. The outer surface of the worked basal fragment excavated by John Fell shows some longitudinal scratches. Finally, a bone awl was also found in layer V (Bird 1988, 150-152, fig. 12 in ch. 2). I had the chance to study Pali Aike and Fell´s archaeological collection at the Museo Regional de Magallanes (Punta Arenas, Chile) and the American Museum of Natural History (New York, USA). Based on their morphology, and in comparison with experimental specimens, I suggested that the artifact illustrated in figure 3a might be a foreshaft (Nami 1998). In fact, due to its morphology, the basal portion is comparable with

Figure 3: a) Three views of the basal portion of a bone tools found by the French expedition at Fell´s cave (From Bird 1988, fig. 61); b) artifact found by Bird and its cast with the fitted piece recovered by John Fell (American Museun of Natural History collection, photo: H. G. Nami).

Figure 4: Broken bone point with incised beveled base from Fell´s cave (from Bird 1988, fig.13).

281

HUGO G. NAMI During the field seasons conducted in the 1990s at the Tagua-Tagua 2 site, a bone artifact with excellent decoration was recovered, associated with crystal quartz Fell projectile points (Nuñez et al. 1992; 1994). This piece is an extraordinary well made artifact on mastodon ivory blank, carefully finished showing an exceptional engraved decoration (Nuñez et al. 1992, fig. 8). Also in the same locality, at Tagua Tagua 1 site, Montané (1968) found an interesting bone tool with a rounded and abraded tip, probably a flaker, associated with remains of Pleistocene fauna -mainly horse- and stone tools (Figure 7b)

Figure 5: a) Three views of one bone point from the lower levels of Fell´s cave; b) close-up of the basal treatment with incisions (American Museum of Natural History collection, photo: H. G. Nami).

Figure 7: a) Awls from El Minero 1 cave (Paunero et al. 2007a); b) flakers from Tagua Tagua 1 site (Montané 1968)

Figure 6: Bone artifacts from Fell´s cave lower level recovered by John Fell; a-c) undetermined function; d-f) flakers (American Museum of Natural History collection, photo: H. G. Nami).

Discussion and conclusion The artifacts found in the above mentioned sites leave no doubt that bone was an important raw material used by hunter-gatherers that lived in the Southern Cone during the ~11-10 kya time span and that bone tools were a significant part of their material culture. Probably many bone tools were made out of blanks obtained from extinct fauna. These Paleoindian bone products include the following tools and probably ornaments: a) projectile points, b) shafts, c) awls, d) flakers, e) beads, and f) engraved plaques. In some cases, tools were very simple, consisting of splinters used as blanks and finished by abrasion on their ends, such as the awls from El Trebol, Cueva del Minero 1, Piedra Museo, Lago Sofía and Tres Arroyos sites and the flakers from CM, Fell cave, Cueva del Minero 1 and Tagua Tagua 1 sites. Other pieces deserve special attention due to their form, design, manufacture and very carefully made decoration. This is the case of points and incised pieces from Fell, CM and Tagua Tagua 2 sites. From the perspective of bone technology, these objects suggest that Late Pleistocene hunters from southern Patagonia and other places in the Southern Cone had sophisticated and refined technological knowledge. A careful observation shows that some artifacts have strong similarities to the bone artifacts of contemporaneous Paleoindian huntergatherers in North America. Especially remarkable are the similarities between some bone points and the incised

North of the Strait of Magellan in central Santa Cruz province in Argentina, a number of sites recently yielded evidence of bone tools from levels dated at ~11-10 kya. During the past decade, research performed by Miotti in Piedra Museo area also yielded a very well made polished awl on a piece of long mammal bone from the level dated at ~11 kya (Miotti and Cattáneo 1997, 64). Near that site, Paunero excavated several caves with evidence of latest Pleistocene hunter gatherers. The lower level (Unit 4) of Cueva del Minero 1 site, dated at 10 967 ± 55 (AA 37208) and 10 999 ± 55 (AA 37207), yielded interesting bone tools. As illustrated in figure 7a, there are two awls and one awl-flaker made out of a camelid diaphysis (Paunero et al. 2007a; 2007b, 580, fig 6). In the northern forest of northwestern Patagonian, near Bariloche city in the Río Negro province, El Trébol cave has also yielded two bone awls associated with burned Mylodon remains in the level 5, the lowest stratum, dated at 10 570 ± 130 BP (AA-65707; Hajduk et al. 2004; 2006). Across the Andean Cordillera, on the Chilean side of the border, Tagua Tagua site has been yielding a remarkable archaeological and paleontological record since 1960s.

282

LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY IN THE NEW WORLD beveled bases from Fell cave and those from Clovis sites, such as Anzick (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974), Sheridan cave (Tankersley 2002, 171-172) and other sites in North America (Pearson 1999; Haynes 2002). Particularly, both size and shape are very similar, especially the beveled incised bases (Figure 8a). Such pieces are common in the Upper Paleolithic in the Old World (i.e. Bordes 1968; Gailli 1978). An interesting similarity also exists between the engraved bone plaque (probably an ornament) recovered in CM and a Folsom piece from the Lindenmeier site in northern Colorado (Figure 8b; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). Finely engraved bones like those found in Fell cave, CM and Tagua Tagua 2 also occur in other North American Clovis and Folsom sites. These similarities make the bone artifacts and manufacturing techniques in Patagonia and other parts of the southern cone relevant to discussing the origins of the Pleistocene populations of the region (Nami 2005).

and despite differences, several technological features shared by Clovis in North America and the Old World Upper Paleolithic have been pointed out by several authors (i.e. Bradley and Stanford 2004; Hardaker 2001). These similarities led Haynes (2002) to propose the existence of an American Upper Paleolithic and to suggest that some kind of relationship must have existed among the Upper Paleolithic and Clovis hunter-gatherers from the Old and New World respectively. According to this author, the existence of so many corresponding traits in both hemispheres should signify that Clovis is one member of a global family of contemporaries sharing abilities, experiences, and historical traditions (Haynes 2002, 169). Resemblances in bone artifacts, discussed in this paper, indicate that this suggestion also applies to those huntergatherers that used “fishtail” or Fell projectile points in the Southern Cone of South America, mainly in Patagonia. In fact, from a technological viewpoint, they share several Paleolithic technological features with Clovis and other Paleoindian groups, including bifacial thinning strategies, fluting, unifacial stone tools made from blanks obtained from prepared cores, heat treatment, well developed bone technology and use of red ochre. As with Clovis, it is important to bear in mind that the artifactual diversity and richness are modest when compared to European Upper Paleolithic record. Despite important differences between the North and South American Paleoindians and the Europeans huntergatherers, Late Pleistocene Old and New World technologies shared many similar traits, as shapes of bone tools, stone working strategies, and an apparent reliance on large animals for subsistence. In my opinion, there is no doubt that Paleoindians from North and South America share an Upper Paleolithic technological knowledge and information. In this sense, I think that a great part of Paleoindian technological knowledge in the Americas (not only Clovis) is a manifestation of the Upper Paleolithic technology.

Figure 8: a) Bone artifacts with incised beveled bases from Anzick (from Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974); b) Folsom engraved bone artifact from Lindenmeier site (National Museun of Natural History collection, photo: H. G. Nami).

In summary, despite notable differences between North and South American Paleoindian projectile point reduction sequences (Nami 1997; 2005; 2008), as well as other features of the Upper Paleolithic, there are sufficient shared technical features to consider that they shared a common traditional technological knowledge. One of them is bone manufacturing techniques. In the South American case, similarities between North and South American Paleoindian artifacts suggest that huntergatherers who made the “fishtail” projectile points might belong to a global Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer family living in the Old and the New World. In the particular case presented here, the shared attributes and shapes imply a historical or social relationship among the first foragers that participated in the peopling of the Americas (Nami 2005). Other shared technical attributes suggest that the South American Paleoindians who used

Most scholars now believe that the Americas were peopled more than once by several migration waves (Bonnichsen 2000; Dillehay 2002, 70; Goebel et al. 2008) and that these colonization events produced the remarkable technological and adaptive diversity in South America during the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Dillehay 1999; 2002; Roosevelt et al. 2002; Stanford et al. 2006). Goebel and colleagues (2008) suggest that Clovis was the second of these events. Radiocarbon dates from Fell occupations overlap with Clovis and Folsom, as well as with other Paleoindian contexts from North America. From a general perspective

283

HUGO G. NAMI Bordes, F. 1968. The Old Stone Age. New York-Toronto, World University Library, MCGraw Hill Book Company.

Fell projectile points represent another member of a global family sharing Upper Paleolithic technological knowledge used in their previous homeland.

Borrero, L. 1986. Cazadores de Mylodon en la Patagonia Austral, in A. Bryan (ed.), New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Orono, Center for the Study of the Early Man, 281-294.

Acknowledgements I am indebted to: CONICET for supporting my archaeological research, Instituto de la Patagonia and the Universidad de Magallanes for having sponsored my research in Ultima Esperanza. Diverse institutions financially supported the excavation of Cueva del Medio, mainly the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and National Geographic Society; Fellowships and grants from the following organizations have allowed me study Paleoindian collections: Fulbright Commission, Council for International Exchange for Scholars, Fundación Antorchas, Smithsonian’s Office of Fellowships and Grants and American Museum of Natural History. I am grateful to Dennis Stanford (Smithsonian Institution) for his continuous support of my Paleoindian research; Rafael Paunero and Laura Miotti for their kindness and information; Dennis Stanford and Peggy Jodry for highly stimulating comments on several subjects of this paper; Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History for permission to conduct my research in their collections; Dennis Stanford, †John Hyslop, †Craig Morris, Sumru Arincali were extremely kind and helpful during my stay in those institutions. Betty Meggers and the editors were very kindly helpful during the editing of the paper.

Borrero, L. A. 2005. Comment to Caballos fósiles de América del Sur. Una historia de tres millones de años. María Teresa Alberdi and José Luis Prado. Intersecciones en Antropología, 6, 231-233. Borrero, L. A., Lanata, J. L. and Borella, F. 1988. Reestudiando huesos: Nuevas consideraciones sobre sitios de Ultima Esperanza. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Serie Ciencias Sociales), 18, 133-156. Borrero, L. A. and Franco, N. 1997. Early Patagonian hunter-gatherers: Subsistence and Technology. Journal of Anthropological Research, 53, 219-239. Bradley, B. and Stanford, D. J. 2004. The North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor: A Possible Palaelolithic Route to the New World. World Archaeology, 36 (4), 459-478. Callahan, E. 1994. A Mammoth Undertaking. Bulletin of Primitive Technology, 7, 23-39. Dillehay, T. 1999. The Late Pleistocene Cultures of South America. Evolutionary Anthropology, 7, 206-216. Dillehay, T. 2002. The Settlement of the Americas. A New Prehistory. New York, Basic Books.

Hugo G. Nami CONICET Instituto de Geofísica Daniel A. Valencio (INGEODAV) Dpto. Ciencias Geológicas, FCEN, UBA. Ciudad Universitaria, Pab.II, (C1428EHA) Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected]

Emperaire, J., Laming, A. and Reichlen, H. 1963. La grotte de Fell e autres sites de la region volcanique de la Patagonie chilienne. Journal de la Société des Américanistes, 52, 167-255. Gailli, R. 1978. L′aventure de l′os dans la préhistoire. Paris, Editions France-Empire. Goebel, T., Waters, M. R. and O´Rourke, D. H. 2008. The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas. Science, 319, 1497-1502.

References cited Bird, J. 1938. Before Magellan. Natural History XVI, 1, 16-28.

Hajduk, A., Albornoz, A. and Lezcano, M. 2004. El “Mylodon” en el patio de atrás. Informe preliminar sobre los trabajos en el sitio El Trébol, ejido urbano de San Carlos de Bariloche, Provincia de Río Negro, in Contra Viento y Marea. Arqueología de Patagonia, Actas de las Quintas Jornadas de Arqueología de la Patagonia.

Bird, J. 1946. The archaeology of Patagonia, in J. Steward (ed.), Handbook of South American Indians. Washington D.C., 17-24. Bird, J. 1988. Travels and Archaeology in South Chile. Iowa, Iowa University Press.

Hajduk, A., Albornoz, A. and Lezcano, M. 2006. Levels with Extinct Fauna in the Forest Rockshelter El Trébol (Northwest of Patagonia, Argentina). Current Research in the Pleistocene, 23, 55-57.

Bonnichsen, R. 2000. Comment, in the future of New World Archaeology. Scientific American, 72-75.

284

LATE PLEISTOCENE TECHNOLOGY IN THE NEW WORLD Hardaker, C. 2001. Towards Resolving Clovis Origins. Mammot Trumpet, 16, 3, 14-16.

Nami, H. G. 1989-1990. Nuevos Antecedentes sobre Investigaciones Arqueológicas en el Area de Cerro Benítez (Ultima Esperanza, Magallanes). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 19, 125-132.

Haynes, G. 2002. The Early Settlement of North America. The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press.

Nami, H. G. 1993. Las excavaciones arqueológicas y los hallazgos de fauna extinta en el Seno de Ultima Esperanza, Chile, in J. L. Lanata (ed.), Explotación de Recursos Faunísticos en Sistemas Adaptativos Americanos. Arqueología Contemporánea, 4, 123-133.

Lahren, L. and Bonnichsen, R. 1974. Bone foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Northwest Montana. Science, 166, 147-150. Lynch, T. F. 1990. Glacial-Age Man in South America? A Critical Review. American Antiquity, 55(1), 12-36.

Nami, H. G. 1994. Reseña sobre los avances de la arqueología finipleistocénica del extremo sur. Chungará, 26, 2, 145-163.

Massone, M. 1981. Arqueología de la región volcánica de Palli Aike (Patagonia Meridional Chilena). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 95-124.

Nami, H. G. 1996. New assessments of early human occupations in the southern cone, in T. Akazawa and E. J. E. Szathmáry (eds.), Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals. Oxford University Press, 254-269.

Massone, M. 1987. Los cazadores paleoindios de Tres Arroyos (Tierra del Fuego). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Serie Ciencias Sociales), 17, 47-60.

Nami, H. G. 1997. Investigaciones actualísticas para discutir aspectos técnicos de los cazadores-recolectores del tardiglacial: El problema Clovis-Cueva Fell. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Serie Ciencias Sociales), 25, 152-186.

Massone, M. 2004. Los Cazadores después del Hielo. Santiago, Centro de Investigaciones Diego Barros Arana. Massone, M. and Prieto, A. 2004. Evaluación de la modalidad cultural Fell 1 en Magallanes. Chungara, 36, 303-15.

Nami, H. G. 1998. Technological observations on the Paleoindian artifacts from Fell’s Cave, Magallanes, Chile. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 15, 81-83.

Menegaz, A. and Nami, H. G. 1994. Late Pleistocene Faunal Diversity in Ultima Esperanza (Chile). Further Data from Cueva del Medio. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 11, 93-94.

Nami, H. G. 2005. Primeros pobladores: Arqueología y experimentos para explorar los comienzos de la diversidad socio-cultural americana, Diversidad Cultural. Múltiples miradas del presente. Buenos Aires, Colección Temática I, Centro de Estudios Argentino Canadienses, 19-41.

Menegaz, A. N., Nami, H. G. and Senatore, M. X. 1994. Alteraciones de los restos faunísticos óseos de Cueva del Medio: Un análisis preliminar, Actas y Memorias del XI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina. Resúmenes. Revista del Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael, XIII, 1/4, 35-36.

Nami, H. G. 2007. Research in the Middle Negro River Basin (Uruguay) and the Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Cone. Current Anthropology, 48, 164-176.

Miotti, L. and Cattáneo, R. 1997. Bifacial/unifacial technology ca. 13 000 years ago in southern Patagonia. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 14, 62-65.

Nami, H. G. 2008. Experiments to understand North and South American Late Pleistocene Lithic Reduction Sequences: An Actualistic and Comparative Study, in H G. Nami (ed.), Experiments and Interpretation of Traditional Technologies: Essays in Honor of Errett Callahan (in press).

Miotti, L. and Salemme, M.C. 2004. Poblamiento, movilidad y territorios entre las sociedades cazadorasrecolectoras de Patagonia. Complutum, 15, 177-226. Montané, J. 1968. Paleo-Indian remains from Laguna de Tagua Tagua, Central Chile. Science, 161, 1137–1138.

Nami, H G. in preparation. Arqueología y análisis morfotecnológico de Cueva del Medio: consideraciones para conocer la organización tecnológica Paleoindia en Patagonia.

Nami, H. G. 1987a. Cueva del Medio: Perspectivas Arqueológicas para la Patagonia Austral. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, Serie Ciencias Sociales, 17, 71-106.

Nami, H. G. and Menegaz, A. 1991. Cueva del Medio: Aportes para el conocimiento de la diversidad faunística hacia el Pleistoceno Holoceno en Patagonia Austral. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 23, 117-132.

Nami, H. G. 1987b. Cueva del Medio: A Significant Paleoindian Site in Southern South America. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 4, 157-158.

Nami, H. G. and Nakamura, T. 1995. Cronología radiocarbónica con AMS sobre muestras de hueso

285

HUGO G. NAMI procedentes del sitio Cueva del Medio (Ultima Esperanza, Chile). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 23, 125-33.

colonization of the New World. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 27, 159-235. Stanford, D., Bonnichsen, R., Meggers, B. and Steele, D. G. 2006. Paleoamerican origins: Models, evidence, and future directions, in R. Bonnichsen, D. Stanford, B. Lepper and M. Waters (eds.), Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Austin: Center for the Study of the First Americans, 313-354.

Nami, H. G. and Scheinsohn, V. 1997. Use-Wear Patterns of Bone Experimental Flakers: A Preliminary Report, in L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham (eds.), Occasional Publication Nº 1. Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference. Sioux Falls, Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, 256-264.

Tankersley, K. 2002. In Search of Ice Age. Salt Lake City, Gibbs Smith Publisher.

Nami, H. G. and Miotti, L. (in preparation). Observations on a Bone Sample from Cueva del Medio, Ultima Esperanza, Chile.

Wilmsen, E. N. and Roberts, Jr, F. H. 1978. Lindenmeier, 1934-1974. Concluding Report on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 24.

Nuñez, L., Casamiquela, R., Schiappacasse, V., Niemeyer, H., and Villagrán, C. 1992. Mastodon Kill site in Chile Central, paper presented at Prehistoric Mongoloid Symposium (Tokyo), MS. Nuñez, L., Casamiquela, R., Schiappacasse, V., Niemeyer, H., and Villagrán, C. 1994. Cuenca de Taguatagua en Chile: El ambiente del Pleistoceno y ocupaciones humanas. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 67, 503-519. Orquera, L. A. 1987. Advances in the Archaeology of Pampa and Patagonia. Journal of World Prehistory, 1, 333-413. Paunero, R. S., Albertengo, P., Cueto, M., Dávila, A., Frank, A. and Olivera, A. 2007a. Sitio Casa del Minero 1, localidad arqueológica La María: nuevas evidencias sobre ocupación humana pleistocénica en Santa Cruz, in F. Oliva, N. de Grandis and J. Rodríguez (eds.), Arqueología Argentina en los inicios de un nuevo siglo, Tomo I, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, 337-344. Paunero, R. S., Frank, A. D., Skarbun, F., Rosales, R., Cueto, M., Zapata, G., Paunero, M., Lunazzi, N. and Del Giorgio, M. 2007b. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en sitio Casa del Minero 1, Estancia La María, Meseta central de Santa Cruz, in F. Morello, M. Martinic, A. Prieto, G. Bahamonde (eds.), Arqueología de FuegoPatagonia. Levantando piedras, desenterrando huesos... y develando arcanos. Punta Arenas, Chile Ediciones CEQUA, 1, 577- 588. Pearson, G P. 1999. North American Paleoindian BiBeveled Bone and Ivory Rods: A New Interpretation. North American Archaeologist, 20(2), 81-103. Prieto, A. 1991. Cazadores tempranos y tardíos en la Cueva Lago Sofía 1. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia. (Serie Ciencias Sociales), 20, 75-100. Roosevelt, A. M., Douglas, J. and Brown, L. 2002. The migrations and adaptations of the First Americans: Clovis and Pre-Clovis viewed from South America, in N. Jablonski (ed.), The First Americans: The Pleistocene

286

Functional Analysis of Prehistoric Bone Instruments from the Uruguayan Atlantic Coast Federica MORENO RUDOLPH* and Ignacio CLEMENTE CONTE** * Museo Nacional de Historia Natural y Antropología, M.E.C., Montevideo, Uruguay ** Departamento de Arqueología y Antropología, Institución Mila y Fontanals, CSIC, Barcelona, España Abstract In this paper we present the results of the microscopic analysis on a set of working tools made of hard animal tissue raw materials (bone and antler). These artifacts were found in La Esmeralda, a prehistoric shell midden settled in the Uruguayan Atlantic Coast. This work is the first attempt to use microscopic techniques to detect and interpret use and technological traces on bone tools recovered in Uruguay. Even though not every tool was analyzed with these techniques, in some cases we have obtained interesting results, which open new perspectives and expectations regarding to this subject. manufacture processes, is essential to evaluate the different uses of animals and their relative importance in animal management, as well as to recreate those activities involved in tools manufacture. The functional approach, with the objective of determining the kind of materials and the ways in which bone tools were used, is the only way to determine the productive processes involved.

Introduction The presence of tools made from animal raw materials is common in prehistoric archaeological sites in Uruguay. Despite their abundance, these tools have been rarely studied scientifically, and the information currently available is very fragmentary. The studies that have been carried out have focused mainly on typological features, without exploring the functions these tools served (Pintos 2001). Based on those studies, Pintos proposed a relationship between the anatomical element and the tool’s shape due to the frequency of sharp bone tools made from metapodials of pampas deer (Ozotocerus bezoarticus). The choice of this bone as a blank would have been conditioned by its shape, size and resistance. Since these variables would have been related to the tool’s use, this work also dealt indirectly with the functionality of tools (Pintos 2001).

In order to undertake this dual approach (technological and functional) it is necessary to implement an experimental program which examines the manufacture as well as the use of tools. The replication of manufacture activities allows us not only to understand the processes involved, but also to evaluate time and manufacture costs, and to understand why certain anatomical elements were used. The experimental use of these replica tools shows the diversity of use traces left by different materials and movements (twisting, pressure, scraping, etc). By analyzing these traces we can interpret the patterns found in the archaeological assemblage.

In our work, we are proposing an approach that enables us directly to recognize the past use of tools, in order to start exploring aspects such as the poli-functionality, shape versatility in relation with function, the opportunistic use of minimally shaped tools, and also the taphonomic issues that influence this type of analysis.

Methodology Except for some authors, such as D’Errico (1993; D’Errico et al. 1995) and LeMoine (1994; 1997), who use the scanning electron microscope (SEM), the observation devices used by the majority of specialists to analyze use traces in tools made on bone, litic and other materials, are generally the same (Astruc 2002; Christidou 1999; Clemente 1997; Clemente et al. 2002; Stordeur and Anderson-Gerfaud 1985; Keeley 1980; Legrand and Sidéra 2007; Maigrot 2003; MansurFranchomme 1983; Plisson 1985; Semenov 1964; Sidéra 1993). Commonly, using a binocular magnifiers (stereoscopic microscope), with a magnification between 5 and 90x, the active parts of tools can be identified and certain diagnostic macroscopic traces can be analyzed such as, for example, impact fractures left on points used as thrown weapons (Dockall 1997; Fischer et al. 1984; Stodiek 2000; Palomo and Gibaja 2003; Pétillon 2004; 2008; Pétillon and Letourneux 2003). With the metallographic microscope (a.k.a. reflected light

Tools made from animal raw materials in the production system. Animals provide a range of resources, and tools made from their raw materials are related to production processes in two main ways. On the one hand, bone tools are the result of the exploitation of faunal resources. On the other hand, they can be used to produce such materials as pottery, vegetal materials, and other goods. The double nature of bone tools requires a two-phase archaeological approach in order to understand the way in which these artifacts are articulated with the whole productive process. The techno-typological approach, including the identification of species, anatomical elements and

287

FEDERICA MORENO RUDOLPH AND IGNACIO CLEMENTE CONTE microscope) and magnifications between 50 and 500x, polished surfaces can be analyzed in detail and the specific traits can be characterized as products of particular worked materials. These traits include: striations, pecking, depressions or holes, etc. that give to surfaces an appearance that is more or less rough or even, of different brightness, etc. Modern replicas of prehistoric tools allow us to create a comparative base in order to deduce the function of prehistoric artifacts based on the reproduction of the traces of use. We base the analysis of bone materials on the study of a wide experimental collection at the Laboratory of Traceology and Experimental Archaeology “S.A. Semenov”, of the Institute of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Science, Saint Petersburg1. This collection of several hundred experimental tools made on bone and antler encompasses a variety of morphologies and a wide range of worked materials (non-woody plants, wood, bark, fur, leather, pottery, etc.). It is the result of several years of experiments carried out by a large group of students and researchers headed by G.F. Korobkova (Korobkova and Shapovskaia 2001). The observation of this experimental work has enabled us to gain a valuable training in the recognition and characterization of the wear traces in these materials2. In fact, as use traces are always the same, functional analysis then can be applied to bone materials from any geographical and chronological context. When analyzing an artifact, we must bear in mind all those process it could have gone through, from the raw material acquisition, its transformation into the final product, its use or consumption, and its subsequent abandonment, since all can be reflected in the surface, even more in a material such as bone. In order to distinguish technological traces from those caused by use or taphonomic processes – including excavation and/or manipulation traces made by the researching team –, we must know how the tool was manufactured (Clemente 1997). The microscopic observation of bone tools poses some difficulties. Commonly, taphonomic processes affect bone surfaces. For example, dragging and pressure from sediments with abrasive elements can cause the development of polishes and deep striations; in the same way, roots and temperature alterations (produced by the contact with fire) can leave marks on bone surfaces. Many times, these taphonomic modifications threaten the microwear analysis, and sometimes make it impossible to be carried out.

lithic materials and pottery, while bone is very rare or absent. This is due to those processes related to site formation, location and the post-depositional processes. In some sites mollusk (Amiantis purpurata) tools were recovered, which have been analyzed from a morphlogical point of view (Mañosa 2005) but not analyzed with microscopic techniques yet as there is no experimental reference collection. The bone tool assemblage we analize here comes from La Esmeralda, a prehistoric location on the Uruguayan Atlantic coast (Figure 1). The site presents unique preservation conditions for bone material from the coastal (Moreno 2006). As a result, the deposit offered the posibility of studying the first bone tool assemblage recovered in the coast. La Esmeralda is composed of various shell middens with different states of erosion and preservation. Radiocarbon dates place the occupation of this site around 3000-3200 years BP (Bracco 2001; Bracco et al 1999; López et al 1997; López et al 2002). Shell middens are mainly formed by accumulation of the cockle valve (Donax hanleyanus), which constitutes more than the 90% of the mollusk species present at the site (López and Villarmarzo 2003; Villarmarzo 2007). The excavations carried out in the main shell midden (Estructure A) allowed us to recover a quite well preserved bone assemblage (Moreno 2005; 2006) composed by marine (fishes, marine mammals, turtles) as well as terrestrial species (pampas deer, armadillos, ñandú, undetermined canines), penguins (Sphenicus magallanicus) and other unidentified birds. The recovered bone remains are, in the majority of the cases, the material result of subsistence activities related to feeding, as cut marks, thermo alteration, and intentional fracture of bones confirm (Moreno 2005). Some unidentified attritional agent caused the concentration of small animal remains, particularly birds, in specific zones of the shell midden (Moreno 2005). A third subset of remains is composed by tools manufactured on bone and antler materials. In total, 11 fragments of tools made of antler and metapodials of pampas deer were found.

In this research, we used the microscopic observation equipment of the Archaeology and Anthropology Department of the Institution Milá y Fontanals (CSIC). We used a stereoscopic microscope Olympus SZX7, up to 90X and a metallographic microscope Olympus BX51 (100-400X). Materials The Uruguayan Atlantic coast has a rich archaeological record, but not all sites offer conditions good enough for bone tool preservation. In general, sites are composed of

Figure 1: site location map.

288

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC BONE INSTRUMENTS FROM THE URUGUAYAN ATLANTIC COAST Instruments made on antler LE509: a fragment broken in one end but that maintains the point intact and the complete cortical surface (Figure 4a). The piece is burnt (black in color), but the point is charred. On the exterior convex surface, we found perpendicular striations running obliquely to the longitudinal axis, which can be attrinuted to use (Figure 4b). This piece also shows another group of longitudinal and oblique striations, but they are more shallow, some of them light and other ones dark (Figure 4c). In the external face, near the broken edge, there are wide bright bands visible to the naked eye. Under the microscope, we can see that these bands are composed of striations oriented parallel to the axis of the piece, probably technological in origin (Figure 4d). On the internal concave face, in addition to striations, we also record rough surfaces, polishes and depressions. This kind of traces could be due to the use of the tool on leather (Figure 4e).

Eight items made from antler were found. Among them, five are antler points and the three remaining are fragments without the apical end. Four fragments of tools made on antler show alterations potentially resulting from technological or use activities: LE276: a black and white burnt fragment, broken on both ends, that preserves the cortical surface in the 50% of the piece (Figure 2a). At the thinnest end, it has an even surface that is very bright with random striations which are very heterogeneous in width. This variability in the traces could indicate that the piece was used on different materials (Figure 2b). Around 8-9mm from the end, we recorded one sector with larger and thinner grouped striations, which do not show so much size variability and are arranged in a parallel way. These striations could correspond to technological traces (Figure 2c; Le Moine 1997).

LE538: a fragment broken on both ends, burnt and charred, that maintains the entire cortical surface (Figure 5a). We found striations arranged in a random way, depressions and bright surfaces. These features can be due to post depositional processes, manufacture or use activities, or either a combination of these causes (Figure 5b).

LE236: a burnt fragment, broken on both ends, that has lost its cortical tissue (Figure 3a). The surface shows striations probably caused contact with sediment grains (Figure 3b), as they are located in the elevated topography areas on the fracture zone. Another kind of striations was also recognized. They are longitudinal and bright, probably of technological origin. Lastly, we identified a worked surface, where the polish is placed above the previous traces (Figure 3c).

Figure 2: a) LE276; b) smoothed area in the thinnest end next the distal fracture with grooves of no preferential direction, with a predominance of those transverse to the longitudinal axis of the piece (100x); c) larger grooves arranged at 8-9mm from the previous ones that probably indicates a rotation movement (100x).

Figure 3: a) LE236; b) grooves caused by sediment grains, post-depositional disturbance in the fracture edges (400x); c) probable use traces superimposed to technological grooves of the surface polishing (400x).

289

FEDERICA MORENO RUDOLPH AND IGNACIO CLEMENTE CONTE LE604: a fragment of a burnt tool. Manufacture traces can be easily observed with the naked eye and at low magnifications.

Figure 4: a) LE509; b) grooves crossed and oblique to the longitudinal axis, which can be assigned to use (400x); c) longitudinal and oblique grooves that are more shallow, some with a light background and others with a dark background (200x); d) wide bright bands probably made during manufacture by (200x); e) traces due to the use of the instrument working on skin (400x).

Figure 5: a) LE538; b) undeterminated traces (400x).

Instruments made on metapodials Only three fragments of tools made on metapodials were recovered, and none of them showed use traces when observed at high magnifications. At low magnifications and naked eye, technological traces are observed in the three cases.

These striations are parallel and longitudinal in relation to the tool axis. Above them, we can observe a posterior polishing which gives brightness and a soft texture to the piece.

LE141: a fragment of a sharp instrument that preserves only the distal part (Figure 6). Even though we could not observe traces at high magnifications, at low magnifications and naked eye the surface appears bright and with a flat texture that appears to be the result of final polishing. On one side, the tool shows a negative of flake detachment; then, the point was reactivated. LES/N: a fragment with a high degree of manufacture and root marks concentrated in only one face of the piece. It is broken on both ends, and has a type of fracture that corresponds to an impact against something hard, suggesting that this piece may have been used as a projectile point (Figure 7; Pétillon 2006).

Figure 6: LE141, fragment of a sharp instrument made on pampas deer metapodial.

290

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC BONE INSTRUMENTS FROM THE URUGUAYAN ATLANTIC COAST Federica Moreno Instrucciones 948 Montevideo Uruguay [email protected] Ignacio Clemente Egipiciaques 15 Barcelona España [email protected]

Figure 7: LES/N, fragment of a probable projectile point (impact fracture?) made on pampas deer metapodial.

Conclusion

References cited

Even though the results obtained are partial and non conclusive, and only in one case traces could be interpreted in functional terms so that we could deduce the use of the tool (LE 509), this analysis allowed us to advance the technological and functional characterization of tools and to test the consequences of the taphonomical conditions on them. In this particular case, we must emphasize the role of taphonomic modifications (thermal alterations, contact with grains of sediments) played on remains’ surfaces, which have prevented us from conducting a more thorough study and obtaining more conclusive results.

Astruc, L. 2002. L’Outillage lithique taillé de Khirokitia: analyse fonctionnelle et spatiale. Paris, CRA monographies 25, CNRS Editions. Bracco, R. 2000. Aproximación al registro arqueológico del sitio La Esmeralda (“conchero”), desde su dimensión temporal. Costa atlántica del Uruguay. Anales de Arqueología y Etnología, 54-55, 13-27. Bracco, R., Panario, D. and Ures, C. 1999. Dataciones C14 y efecto reservorio para el litoral del Uruguay. Trabajo presentado en las Primeras Jornadas del Cenozoico de Uruguay.

This is the first high-magnification analysis performed to observe traces on prehistoric bone tools in Uruguay, and it is interesting as a way of initiating a new line of analysis and testing its limits and possibilities, not only in terms of the raw material but also regarding the type of sites and the specific processes of site formation. For the moment, functional studies are being conducted on bone tools from continental archaeological sites which, because of their better preservation, are providing more conclusive results than those achieved in La Esmeralda. The continued application of this analysis on other assemblages from other contexts will be very usefull for the study of functionality in the bone industry in general, in order to integrate bone tools within the whole production process and to know more in depth the variability in the use of animals in the Uruguayan prehistory.

Clemente, I. 1997. Los instrumentos líticos de Túnel VII: una aproximación etnoarqueológica. Madrid, Treballs d’Etnoarqueologia 2, CSIC. Clemente, I., Gyria, E.Y., Lozovska, O.V. and Lozovski, V.M. 2002. Análisis de instrumentos en costilla de alce, mandíbulas de castor y caparazón de tortuga de Zamostje 2 (Rusia), in I. Clemente, J. F. Gibaja and R. Risch (eds.), Análisis Funcional: su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas. Oxford, BAR International Series 1073,187196. Clemente, I. and Gyria, E.Y. 2003. Анализ орудий из ребер лося со стоянки Замостье 2 (7 слой, раскопки 1996-7гг.) (Análisis de los instrumentos en costillas de alce del sitio Zamostje 2 (Nivel 7, excavaciones de los años 1996-7). Археологические Вести н. 10,c 47-59, Сант Петерсбург (Archaeological News, nº 10, 47-59).

Note 1: Our thanks to G.F Korobkova † and T.A. Sharovska for letting us the access and study of this vast experimental collection; and the constant help of E.Y. Girja during the stays (2000; 2005) in the Institute of History of the Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg.

Christidou, R. 1999. Outils en os néolithiques du nord de la Grèce: étude technologique. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris X. D’Errico, F. 1993. Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l’art mobilier en os, bois de cervidé, ivoire, in P.C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson (eds.), Traces et fonctions, les gestes retrouvés. ERAUL nº 50, t. 1, 177-188.

Note 2: Then we continue to conduct experiments with bone tools and canines in order to resolve isolated questions (Clemente et al. 2002; Clemente and Gyria 2003).

D’Errico, F., Giacobini, G., Hather, J., Power-Jones, A.H. and Radmilli, A.M. 1995. Possible bone treshing tools

291

FEDERICA MORENO RUDOLPH AND IGNACIO CLEMENTE CONTE from the Neolithic levels of the Grotta dei Piccioni (Abruzzo, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 537-549.

Paulo, publicación electrónica en Cd. Mansur-Franchomme, M.E. 1983. Traces d'utilisation et technologie lithique: exemples de la Patagonie. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Burdeos I.

Dockall, J.E. 1997. Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 24, 321331.

Maigrot, Y. 2003. Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de l’outillage en matières dures animales: La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I.

Fischer, A., Hansen, P.V. and Ramussen, P. 1984. Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points. Experimental Results and Prehistoric Examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 3, 19-46.

Mañosa, C. 1995. Utilización prehistórica de moluscos en Pta. La Coronilla (Rocha, Uruguay), in M. Consesn, J.M. López Mazz and C. Curbelo (eds.), Arqueología del Uruguay. Montevideo, Editorial Surcos, 116-122.

Keeley, L.H. 1980. Experimental determination of stone tool uses. A microwear analysis. Prehistory, Archaeology and Ecology Series, The University of Chicago Press.

Moreno, F. 2005. Estudio arqueofaunístico (vertebrados) del Sitio arqueológico La Esmeralda (Litoral Atlántico Uruguayo). Trabajo de Investigación de Doctorado, Departamento de Prehistoria, Facultad de Letras, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.

Korobkova, G.F. and Sharovskaia, T.A. 2001. “Експериментальное изучение костяных орудий каменного века” (Estudio experimental de instrumentos óseos de la edad de piedra), Каменный век Европейской Равнина (La Edad de Piedra en la Llanura Europea). Museo Sergiev Posad (Ed.), 182-191.

Moreno, F. 2006. Arqueotafonomía costera: la conservación de restos óseos en yacimientos del litoral Atlántico uruguayo. Revista Atlántica Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arqueología Social, 8, 71-85.

Legrand, A. and Sidéra, I. 2007. Methods, means and results when studying European bone industries, in C. Gates St. Pierre and R. B. Walker (eds.), Bone as tools: current methosds and interpretations in worked bone. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 67-80.

Palomo, A. and Gibaja, J.F. 2003. Anàlisi tecnomorfològica/funcional i experimental de les puntes de fletxa, La Costa de Can Martorell (Dosrius, El Marcéeme). Mort i violencia en una comunitat del litoral català durant el tercer mil.leni A.C. Laietana 14, 179- 214.

LeMoine, G.M. 1994. Use Wear on Bone and Antler from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity, 59(2), 316-334.

Pétillon, J.M. 2006. Des Magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervidé du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d’Isturitz (PyrénéesAtlantiques). Treignes, Artefacts 10, Editions du CEDARC.

LeMoine, G.M. 1997. Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. Oxford, BAR International Series 679.

Pétillon, J.M. 2008. First evidence of a whale-bone industry in the western European Upper-Paleolithic: Magdalenian artifacts from Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France). Journal of Human Evolution, 54, 720-726.

López Mazz, J.M., Piñeiro, G., Castiñeira, C. and Gascue, A. 1997. Ocupación humana en el litoral atlántico de Uruguay, aproximación paleoambiental al conocimiento de los sitios costeros: sitio La Esmeralda. Jornadas de Antropología de la Cuenca del Plata, Tomo III. Rosario, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Facultad de Humanidades y Artes, 28-34.

Pétillon, J.M. and Letourneux, C. 2003. Observations expérimentales concernant les impacts sur le gibier, la récupération et la maintenance des projectiles dans le Magdalénien supérieur d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes, 12, 173-188.

López Mazz, J.M., Gascue, A., Moreno, F. and Villarmarzo, E. 2002. Informe del Proyecto “Arqueología de los Cerritos del Litoral Atántico”. Documento interno, Universidad de la República, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica, Montevideo, Ms.

Pintos, S. 2001. Puntas, puntos y apuntes acerca de la industria ósea en la R.O.U. Arqueología uruguaya hacia el fin del milenio (I). Asociación uruguaya de arqueología, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Montevideo, 223-239.

López Mazz, J.M. and Villarmarzo, E. 2003. Explotación intensiva de recursos marinos: el caso del Este de Uruguay, in J.L. Morais, A. M. Coutinho, D. C. Martins (eds.), Arqueologías da América Latina, Anais do XII Congresso da Sociedade de Arqueología Brasileira. São

Plisson, H. 1985. Étude fonctionnelle d'outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l'analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I.

292

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC BONE INSTRUMENTS FROM THE URUGUAYAN ATLANTIC COAST Semenov, S.A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. London, Cory, Adams and Mackay. Sidéra, I., 1993. Les assemblages osseux en Bassins parisien et rhénan du VIème au IVème millénaire B.C., histoire techno-économie et culture. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I. Stodiek, U. 2000. Preliminary Results o fan Experimental Investigation of Magdalenian Antler Points, in C. Bellver, P. Cattelain and M. Otte (eds.), La chasse dans la Préhistoire. Anthropologie et Préhistoire, 111, 70-78. Stordeur, D. and Anderson-Gerfaud, A. 1985. Les omoplates encochées néolithiques de Ganj Dareh (Iran). Étude morphologique et fonctionnelle. Cahiers de l´Euphrate 4, 199-313. Villarmarzo, E. 2007. Recursos costeros y emergencia de complejidad: Análisis arqueomalacológico del Sitio La Esmeralda (Rocha, Uruguay). Taller de Arqueología II, Licenciatura en Ciencias Antropológicas, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación, UdelaR, MS.

293

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Prehispanic Harpoon Heads from Beagle Channel, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia, Argentina) Vivian SCHEINSOHN Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, CONICET, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract Hunters-gatherers have inhabited Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (in the southern tip of South America) since 10 000 years BP. From 6000 years BP they depended heavily on coastal resources and developed specialised technologies to exploit them. Pinnipeds were the main staples and Fueguian inhabitants developed special techniques to hunt them. Age structure, sex and death season of pinnipeds found in archaeological sites at the Beagle Channel, coupled with contemporary behaviour, suggest that most seals were hunted at sea. In light of this, in this work I will evaluate the archaeological and ethnographic record of harpoon heads used to hunt seals, in terms of the answers they provide for specific mechanical problems and evaluate how they evolved in Tierra del Fuego. 1972) show a continuity with continental Patagonia. Borrero (1989-1990) has postulated that a vicariance process occurred at the island, following the formation of the Magellan Strait (around 8000 years BP) that lead to the development of a divergent population at Tierra del Fuego. At around 6000 years BP specialized maritime hunter-gatherers could be recognized at MagellanFueguian Channels (West and South of the island as in the Beagle Channel) while terrestrial hunter-gatherers were identified in the North (Figure 1).

Introduction Many papers in the archaeological literature have dealt with efficiency and optimization of lithic tools (Bamforth 1986; Bleed 1986; Bousman 1993; Saraydar and Shimada 1971; Walker 1978 among others). Those works normally sustained an adaptationist explanation suggesting that tool adaptation improves with time. This view was also expressed in the motto “form follows function” posited by the American architect Louis Sullivan (1896). But science historian Henry Petroski (1994) has suggested that the evolution of tools is best explained by attempts to overcome their design failures. All designs are failures in some degree, either because they flout any of the requirements or because they are compromises that imply a degree of failure (Pye 1978 cited by Petroski 1994, 26). In other words, for Petroski “form follows failure” (Petroski 1994, 22-33 and 86). In this work I intended to analyse bone tools, specifically those used in Tierra del Fuego (Patagonia, Argentina) for seal hunting, from this point of view. I framed this analysis following Petroski’s arguments and considering a definition of cultural evolution as a selectionist system. A selectionist system is one in which a population undergoes repeated operations of blind variation and selective retention to evolve into another (cf. Ziman 2000) and should not be confused with selectionism as is understood in archaeology In light of this, in this work I will evaluate harpoon heads as a response to specific problems and evaluate how this response has evolved in Tierra del Fuego.

Figure 1: Map of Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego and the sites mentioned in this paper; 1) Túnel I, Lancha Packewaia and Tunel VII sites; 2) Bahía Valentín 1 (BVS1) site; 3) Rockshelter I (Navarino Island); 4) Bahía Crossley I site (Staten Island).

The importance of marine resources for hunter-gatherers in this environment is probably related to the high ratio of coastal ecotones to terrestrial areas at the Southern portion of the continent (Muñoz 2002). According to Orquera and Piana (1987; 1999; 2000; Orquera 2005), people that inhabited the Magellan-Fueguian Channels, from 6000 years BP on, depended heavily on coastal resources and developed specialised technologies to

Tierra del Fuego: habitat, subsistence and technology Hunters-gatherers have inhabited Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (in the southern tip of South America) (Figure 1) since 10 000 years BP. Sites that record the initial occupation of the island (Tres Arroyos see Massone 1983; 1987 and Marazzi see Laming-Emperaire et al.

295

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN exploit them (Orquera and Piana 1999; Orquera 2005). With the arrival of European colonizers, MagellanFueguian Channels inhabitants were known as “canoe people” or “canoeros”, after their bark canoes and intensive exploitation of marine littoral resources. Ethnographically these canoe Indians were divided in two peoples: Alakaluf (West of Magellan-Fueguian Channels) and Yamana o Yaghan in the Beagle Channel (in the southern part of the Magellan-Fueguian Channels, see Gusinde 1986). Indigenous groups exploited pinnipeds, mainly Arctocephalus australis (Southern fur seal) and Otaria flavescens (Southern sea lion). Orquera and Piana argued that their exploitation is explained by the high body volume and caloric value of their edible parts. Guanacos (Lama guanicoe, a South American camelid) may have provided an alternative source of meat, although they had a considerably lower fat content and were costly to hunt (Orquera and Piana 1999). With the appropriate technology (i.e. canoes and detachable harpoons), pinnipeds were easier to capture and transport (Orquera and Piana 1999; Orquera 2005). But, in times of necessity, molluscs were also exploited. They were easy to catch and localize but their caloric contribution was poor (the caloric equivalent for one Arctocephalus australis would be approximately 50,000 mussels, see Orquera and Piana 1999). For that reason, they were consumed in large quantities, (mainly mussels and limpets) resulting in the formation of characteristic shell middens (Orquera 1987; Orquera and Piana 1983; 2000). Then, pinnipeds were the main staples and Fueguian inhabitants developed special techniques to hunt them. Following Lanata and Winograd (1985) those techniques can be classified as: a) Sea hunting: with canoes and harpoons. This is the specialized kind of hunt observed ethnographically from groups such as the Yámanas or Yaghans inhabiting Beagle Channel (Gusinde 1986). b) Land hunting: a more opportunistic hunting technique which could be subdivided into: 1) Terrestrial hunt: pinnipeds are hunted with different types of weapons such as bow and arrow, clubs, stones or even non-detachable harpoons. 2) Coastal hunt: the prey is attracted to the coast by the hunter with decoys and trapped with nets, as documented by ethnographers. Age structure, sex and death season of pinnipeds found in archaeological sites at the Beagle Channel, coupled with contemporary behaviour, suggest that most seals were hunted at sea (Orquera and Piana 1999). Consequently, it has been concluded that there was an early development of navigation technology which has been confirmed by early radiocarbon dates (around 6000 BP) obtained from Navarino Island (Legoupil 1994 cited by Orquera and Piana 1999). Schiavini (1990; 1993) established that the majority of animals consumed from two archaeological sites at Beagle Channel were male and juveniles. He

296

suggested that the Beagle Channel could have been peripheral in terms of pinniped distribution, a place where only the widest-ranging juvenile males could probably reach, but not females. If this was the case, then predation by local peoples at the Beagle Channel did not affect the reproducing females. Given the polygamist behaviour of pinnipeds, killing a male did not affect the overall population. Hence, this way of exploitation was effective in terms of not affecting seals population. But when Europeans arrived to this area, they predated pinnipeds in an industrial way, provoking an abrupt decline in their numbers. Orquera and Piana (1999; Orquera 2005) have suggested that for hunting pinnipeds on sea, detachable harpoons are a requirement. In order to reach the vital organs on pinnipeds, given the thick layer of blubber they got, it would be necessary to deliver a powerful, penetrating blow, only achieved by means of a large mass (i.e. a harpoon with a heavy shaft). Harpoons with a fixed head are prone to break as the animal invariably struggles to free itself. Harpoons with detachable heads can penetrate vital parts of the prey and prevent the escape. In a detachable harpoon, the head is tied loosely to a heavy, long shaft. Once the harpoon was blown onto the prey, the detachable head penetrates deeply into the seal, but the shaft separates, staying linked to the harpoon head by a leather cord. Water friction, created as the animal attempts to escape, prevents it from sinking. The shaft acts as a floating device and signals the location of the prey to the hunter. Eventually, the shaft will be tangled up with sea weeds or the animal will become exhausted. In either case, the hunter can approach and finish off the prey. This type of hunting activity places specific requirements on the harpoon head; a rigid material (such as camelid bone) is more likely to break, allowing the prey to escape. A degree of flexibility is required. As shown by Scheinsohn and Ferretti (1995) cetacean bone was the only bone material available in Tierra del Fuego which had the energy absorbing capacity and low elasticity modulus to meet these demands. Bone tools in Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego One of the main characteristics of the archaeological record from Tierra del Fuego is the abundance and variety of bone tools. In contrast, on Continental Patagonia, bone tools are scarcer and less varied, the majority being flakers or awls. A regional model has been proposed (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002; 2010) which explains the exploitation history of this raw material. Elaborated from an evolutionary archaeology standpoint, specifically the Punctuated Equilibria Theory (Eldredge and Gould 1972; Dunnell 1980; 1989) and complexity studies (Arthur 1990; Kauffman 1995) that model proposed three stages for bone raw material exploitation: 1) experimentation; 2) exploitation and 3) abandonment. Researches concluded

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: PREHISPANIC HARPOON HEADS that the data fit model expectations but the experimentation stage did not occur at the start of the archaeological sequence. Experimentation with bone raw materials occurred separately or prior to the peopling of Isla Grande. Therefore, people that populated Isla Grande had knowledge of bone raw materials from the onset. The first part of the sequence was identified as an exploitation moment. The last part, situated from around 1500 BP to ethnographic times, was identified as an experimentation moment. Higher diversity of bone tools and lack of standardization in most types of tools indicate that human populations were searching for new and more competitive ways of dealing with the environment (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002; 2010) right before Europeans’ arrival. Harpoon heads: classification and chronology In the context of bone tool industry in Tierra del Fuego, several types of harpoon heads were identified (Figure 2): 1) Single-barbed: made out of cetacean or camelid bone. In the first instance, two further groups could be differentiated based on barb and base morphology. A. The first type (SBA, Figure 2) was the oldest one found on the island and had a barb with a curvilinear profile, cross-shaped base and a shaft with a lenticular cross-section. This older design had a cross-shaped tang (Orquera et al. 1977) consisting of two laterally opposed protuberances. The barb, observed from the base, is made by thinning lateral sides, converging to form a bevelled barb. The barb section is triangular but the shaft cross section is lenticular (see Figure 2 SBA). Some were decorated with engravings (Fiore 2006). Miniature examples of this type of harpoon heads have also been recovered archaeologically (apart from the more recent ones which were attributed to canoe models made for exchange at 19th century missions, see below and Scheinsohn 1990-1992) leading some researchers to speculate that they were toys since they were too small to be used effectively (Piana and Estevez Escalera; see also Politis 2005)

3) Opposed two-barbed: made out of camelid or cetacean bone and shaped like a spear point. They are characterised by having two barbs opposing one another. On the Argentinean side of Isla Grande this type of harpoon has only been noted in ethnographical collections and was attributed to the west portion of the Magellan-Fuegian channels (Lothrop 1928). 4) Multi-barbed: made out of cetacean or camelid bone, with many barbs in one side only. Varied explanations have been offered on how these harpoons were utilized. Some of them, such as the multibarbed harpoon heads and the single-barbed type ‘B’ made out of camelid bone, were ethnographically recorded as weapons to hunt fish and birds (Gusinde 1986) being fixed heads tied to a shaft and used as spears. The others were utilized as detachable harpoon heads to hunt pinnipeds (cf. Bridges 1978, 93; Gusinde 1986, 498500; Hyades 1885, 536-537; Hyades y Deniker 1891, 353, among others). The rest of this paper will be focused on detachable harpoon heads found at Beagle Channel, namely SBA, SBB and VS types (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Single-Barbed harpoon head A type (SBA), SingleBarbed harpoon head B type (SBB) and V-Shaped barb harpoon head (VS). SBA and VC types were the oldest and contemporaneous. SBB is the more recent harpoon type (drawings: D. Alonso).

B. The second pattern (SBB) (Figure 2) had a barb with a triangular cross section, a shaft with a D-shaped cross section and a tang with a unilateral protuberance and a shield-like base. This was a more recent and widespread variant, present from 4000 BP to historical times. This kind of harpoon was made from two raw materials: cetacean and camelid bone. The latter were mostly found in the Northern part of the Isla Grande, inhabited by pedestrian hunters, ethnographically known Selknam or Ona people.

Method and Materials For this paper, archaeological collections listed on table 1, with examples of these designs of harpoons, were studied along with one ethnographic collection (SBet) that has been studied separately. Only a small sample of V-shaped harpoon heads (VS), from one site (Túnel I), could be included in this study given its antiquity. The ethnographic sample was composed of SBB harpoons but in order to differentiate one from the other was denominated SBet (see below).

2) V-shaped barb (VS), called "vulpicéfalas" by Piana (1984): made out of cetacean bone. This type of harpoon also has engravings (VS, Figure 2) and has been recovered in association with single-barbed – type A – harpoon heads.

297

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN For each harpoon head a set of variables were studied (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002). These variables were chosen in order to record the mechanical performance of each group, comparing their means and internal variability, measured in terms of standard deviation (S) and variable dispersal, presented here as Box plots graphs in figures 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Box plots are based on percentile comparison. They allow us to clearly observe variable dispersal within each group in terms of percentiles. The three horizontal lines of the box represent percentile 25º, 50º, and 75 º. Values under 25º and over 75º are represented as a line and outliers as points. Percentile 50º is the median. Since it was posited in previous works (Scheinsohn 1997; 2002) that high internal variability could be attributed to an experimental stage, then, what I am looking for is, on one side, a certain lack of dispersal frequency in variables to evaluate if there is some sort of standardization; and for the other side, the mechanical performance of the different groups, evaluated by metrical variables. Harpoon heads studied (different types)

References

120

22

Orquera and Piana 1987; Piana 1984

200

1

5 (from surface)

Vidal 1985

970+90

?

3

J. Bird. Not published

4215+305 (MC 1068) 4900+70 (CSIC 307) 1080+100 (MC 1065) 280 +85 (CSIC 1064)

64

11

Orquera et al. 1977

Sites

dates (maximal and minimal for each site)*

Tunel I (TuI)

6980+ 110 (CSIC 310) 450+60 (Beta 4388)

Bahía Valentín (BVS1) Rock Shelter 1(RS1) Lancha Packewaia (LP) Tunel VII (TuVII) Bahía Crossley I (BCI) La Plata Museum (MLP)

Excavated surface (m2)

100+45

68

10

Orquera pers com.

2730+90 (BETA 25701) 1527+58 (INGEIS 0874)

11

1

Horwitz 1990

XIX/XX century

-

34

Ethnographic collection

Figure 3 presents a box plot of active end angle values for the different harpoon heads. Frequency dispersion is more restricted for SBA and SBet with a similar median. SBA and VS, contemporaneous harpoons heads, are very heterogeneous in terms of active end angle.

Figure 3: Active end angle Box plot. Frequency dispersion is more restricted for SBA and SBet (Single-Barbed harpoon head - Ethnographic collection) with a similar median. SBA and VS, contemporaneous harpoons heads, are very heterogeneous in terms of active end angle.

In figure 4, barb angle (the inner angle formed between the barb and the shaft) box plot is presented. SBet is the most homogeneous group; SBA and VS show a degree of overlap, but VS has more variability. SBB tend to have a more open-angled active end than the other harpoon types.

Table 1: Archaeological sites characteristics and harpoon samples.

Results: Mechanical performance and standardization In Table 2, the main characteristics of harpoon heads are presented.

SBA VS SBB SBet

X S X S X S X S

Active End Angle 10.92 4.5 11.5 4.39 13.33 4.7 11 4.35

Barb Angle 35.38 9.75 35.6 17.42 46.63 11.81 39.45 5.88

Total. Length 162.8 22.73 165.5 9.50 165.1 31.22 278.2 101.1

Shaft Length 57.71 13.21 57.75 23.20 61.36 22.98 78.22 20.64

Active End Length 89.5 23.7 66.60 39.7 72 16.67 160.96 86.06

RI

BRM

0.83 47.41 0.3 36.65 1.19 30.23 0.15 35.37 0.80 16.19 0.45 49.59 0.74 155.47 0.21 126.7

Figure 4: Barb angle Box plot. SBet is the most homogeneous group; SBA and VS show a degree of overlap, but VS has more variability. SBB tend to have a more open-angled active end than the other harpoon types

Table 2: Characteristics of harpoon heads from Beagle Channel. Notes: The following formula was used for calculation of the indexes: RI: Resistance index: Shaft width x Shaft thickness/ Total length (Camps-Fabrer 1977). BRM: Barb Resistance Modulus (Herbst and Scheinsohn 1991): (Barb Base x Barb Height)2 24

Figure 5 shows the total length of detachable harpoon heads. The widest dispersal is showed by the ethnographic collection (SBet). This is because actually SBet represents two populations, one of “normal” size, which overlaps with the rest, and other, oversized (see

298

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: PREHISPANIC HARPOON HEADS Scheinsohn 1990-1992 and below for explanation). SBA is quite restricted, while SBB is more varied. VS is not present because the sample consisted of only two complete pieces, whose total length, in fact, were similar in rank to SBA and SBB (Table 2). Figure 6, showing Resistance Index, sets the resistance to breakage for each type of harpoon heads. From this graph it is clear that although SBet have the longest pieces, they do not show high resistance. In fact, many of the analysed pieces were found broken in their boxes, due to mere handling. On the contrary, SBA, while shorter, has a mean higher index than SBet and it has, again, a more restricted dispersion than SBB. VS, with only two cases for this variable represented, is not presented graphically, although its mean value is the highest (Table 2).

Figure 7: Barb resistance modulus Box plot. SBet demonstrated higher values and variability, probably due to the both populations mentioned while SBB and VS recorded lower values showing a lower barb resistance than SBA

In the case of Barb Resistance Modulus (Figure 7), SBet demonstrated higher values and variability, probably because it represents two populations (see above); SBB and VS recorded lower values showing a lower barb resistance than SBA.

Discussion There are no clear differences in metrical variables for the different harpoons heads. All of them maintain approximately the same size except SBet. This sample, as noted, actually represents two distinct populations: one normal and the other oversized, which makes the mean of this sample higher than the rest (cf. Table 2) and length frequency values were more dispersed (cf. Figure 5). But, significantly, this size increment resulted in harpoon heads that were unsuitable for hunting pinnipeds because they were fragile (see Scheinsohn 1990-1992). Then, it is clear that the SBet oversized sample represents a population of detachable harpoon heads where mechanic properties were unimportant. In other work, it has been postulated that these larger pieces probably functioned as exchangeable goods for trading with European travellers (Scheinsohn 1990-1992).

Figure 5: Total length Box plot. The widest dispersal is showed by the ethnographical collection (SBet), that actually represents two populations, one of “normal” size, and other, the majority, oversized. SBA is quite restricted, while SBB is more varied. Small sample (N=2) hinder VS presentation.

Also, the metric analysis allows us the argue that the more recent archaeological harpoon head type, SBB, is more “experimental” than the others, given its variability. In every variable considered, the range of dispersion was the highest, except in the Barb Resistance Modulus. In addition, considering their Barb Resistance Modulus median values, SBB did not reach values higher than the previous design as expected, but lower (in comparison with SBA). In order to explain that, and being posterior to SBA and VS designs, we have to consider which failures the SBB design should have solved. We can achieve this by considering the broken harpoon heads, namely, the record of failures of the different harpoon heads designs. Failures in harpoon heads: the good, the bad and the ugly

Figure 6: Resistance index Box plot. Although SBet illustrates the longest pieces, they do not show high resistance. SBA, while shorter, has a mean higher index than SBet and it has a more restricted dispersion than SBB. VS, presenting only two cases for this variable, is not showed.

Most SBA broken pieces have fractures on the shaft. Actually, it is impossible to determine whether a broken proximal end belongs to type SBA or VS since both share the same base (cross-like, see Figure 2 SBA and VS).

299

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN Although VS has a higher Resistance Index, we may assume, from the fact that we do not have any other record of broken VS harpoons, that both harpoon heads follow a similar breakage pattern. The fracture pattern for SBB is different: pieces with detached barbs (occasionally reformed) or barbs themselves are found in many sites. For instance, in BVS1 (Figure 1-2) a number of this type of harpoon head were found, but most of them had their barb broken and lost. Also a certain number of broken barbs belonging to this kind of harpoon (but unfortunately, not refitting with any of the broken harpoons) were found.

generally finds the local optimum, not a global one (Ziman 2000). Beagle Channel harpoon heads seem to fall into this trap: solutions for one failure provoked a new one. When trying to manufacture a stronger shaft than in SBA and VS, failures in barbs were forced. The newest harpoon head (SBB) seems to be more easily manufactured than the ancient ones with a standardized process and no decoration. Then SBB design could be considered a local optimum. Probably, with time, the SBB failures could have found a solution. But the inhabitants of Beagle Channel did not have that time. By the sixteenth century, European expansion had reached the coast of Tierra del Fuego. Everything changed radically. Given the scarcity of pinnipeds due to the impact of whalers, their hunt lost its edge. So, as an exaptation (Gould and Vrba 1982, see in Scheinsohn 1997; 2010 in reference to archaeological application of this concept), the local groups transformed some of their harpoon heads (SBet oversized population) into exchangeable goods. Eventually, Europeans occupied all the available spaces on the island (Borrero 2001) and this process, along with the spread of new illnesses, resulted in the disappearance of the Beagle Channel hunter-gatherers.

Then, both SBA and VS shared a similar failure: they have fragile shafts. The design of SBB harpoons solved this problem by changing the shape of the cross-section to a D-shaped. And this change was effective since there are few pieces fractured at the shaft. This shaft cross-section, in turn, required a new shape of barb cross-section (Figure 2 SBB) making this part of the piece more fragile, given its lower Barb Resistence Modulus. VS (apparently the more ancient harpoon head) and SBA were discontinued given the flaws in shaft design. In addition, VS demanded more work, because it required the manufacture of two barbs, instead of one. Actually both harpoon heads present more difficulties for manufacture, as the cross-shaped tang allows us to assume, implying higher costs than SBB. Its standardized shape, probably obtained from drop-shaped preforms (recorded as bone points in Scheinsohn 1997; 2010), and its shield-like tang allow for a more rapid and easy manufacturing process. The SBB case represents a compromise solution: a shaft improvement that caused a new failure. As in the famous case of the San Marco spandrels that Gould and Lewontin (1979) discussed, constructions constrictions provoked that what was a solution for SBA and VS failures (shaft cross-section shape) forced another flaw in SBB harpoons (a weaker barb).

Acknowledgements A previous version of this paper was originally written in 2005 when K. Seetah and B. Gravina invited me to contribute to the book co-edited. I would like to thank K. Seetah for all the valuables suggestions and comments he did in that occasion. Also my acknowledgement goes to Diana Alonso who kindly drawn these harpoon heads for my Ph. D. Thesis and to Isabelle Sidéra and Natacha Buc for the many suggestions made to the draft. Finally, thanks to the American Natural History Museum that with a Study Collection Grant allow me to study Rockshelter I tools recovered by Junius Bird. Vivian Scheinsohn Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano 3 de Febrero 1370 (1426) Capital Federal, Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected]

Conclusions Contemporary cognitive science and complexity theory have adopted the evolutionary concept of “fitness landscape” (Perkins 2000) that suggests that all possible forms can be represented as points in an abstract space. Within such space some forms are more fit than others. The degree of fitness is then represented by a height above the corresponding point on the map. Evolutionary change is thus viewed as a process of traversing this landscape in search of such peaks. Perkins (2000) has characterized fitness landscapes that pose difficulties for searching ‘peaks’ as “Klondike spaces”. This implies that, in many occasions, gaps or traps, which prevent recognition of optimal solutions to a problem, thwart the search for adaptive forms. Adaptation by selection is beneficial when searching Klondike landscapes, but it

References cited Arthur, W.B. 1990. Positive Feedbacks in the Economy. Scientific American, 92-99. Bamforth, D.B. 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity, 51(1), 38-50.

300

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: PREHISPANIC HARPOON HEADS Bleed, P. 1986. The optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Realiability. American Antiquity, 51(4), 737-747.

Horwitz, V. D. 1990. Maritime settlement patterns in Southeastern Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Kentucky.

Borrero, L.A. 1989-1990. Evolución cultural divergente en la Patagonia Austral. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 19, 133-40.

Hyades, M. 1885. La chasse et la pêche chez les fuégiens de l'archipel du Cap Horn. Revue d'Ethnographie, 4, 51453.

Borrero, LA. 2001. El Poblamiento de la Patagonia. Toldos, Milodones y Volcanes. BuenosAires, Emecé.

Hyades, P. and Deniker, J. 1891. Anthropologie et Ethnographie. Mission Scientifique du Cap Horn (18821883). Paris, Gauthier Villars et Fils, T. VII, 338-80.

Bousman, C.B. 1993. Hunter-gatherer adaptations, economic risk and tool design. Lithic Technology, 18(12), 59-86.

Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe. The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York, Oxford University Press.

Bridges, L. 1978. El último confín de la tierra, Marymar, Buenos Aires.

Laming Emperaire, A., Lavallée, D. and Humbert, R. 1972. Le site de Marazzi en Terre du Feu. Objets et Mondes, XII, 2, 225-44.

Camps-Fabrer, H. 1977. Compte rendu des travaux de la Commission de Nomenclature. Problème du lexique, des fiches. Deuxième Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Méthodologie appliquée a L'industrie de l'os préhistorique. Paris, CNRS, 19-26.

Lanata, J.L. and Winograd, A. 1988. Gritos y susurros: aborígenes y lobos marinos en el litoral de la Tierra del Fuego. Paper delivered at 45 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas.

Dunnell, R. 1980. Evolutionary theory and archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 3599.

Lothrop, S. 1928. The indians of Tierra del Fuego. New York, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation.

Dunnell, R. 1989. Aspects of the application of evolutionary theory in archaeology, in C. LambergKarlovsky (ed.), Archaeological Thought in America. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 35-49.

Massone, M. 1983. 10.400 años de colonización humana en Tierra del Fuego. Infórmese, 3(14), 24-32. Massone, M. 1987. Los cazadores paleoindios de Tres Arroyos (Tierra del Fuego). Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia, 17, 47-60.

Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism, in T.J. Schop (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco, Freeman, Cooper and Co, 82-115.

Muñoz, A. 2002. La Explotación de Mamíferos por Cazadores-Recolectores Terrestres de Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Buenos Aires.

Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205, 1161, 581-598.

Orquera, L.A. 1987. Advances in the archaeology of the Pampas and Patagonia. Journal of World Archaeology, 1(4), 333-413. Orquera, L.A. 2005. Mid-Holocene littoral adaptation at the southern end of South America. Quaternary International, 132, 107-15.

Gould, S.J. and Vrba, E. S. 1982. Expatation; a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8 (1), 4-15. Gusinde, M. 1986. Los Indios de Tierra del Fuego, Los Yámana. Buenos Aires, Tomo II, CAEA-CONICET.

Orquera, L. and Piana, E. 1983. Prehistoric maritime adaptations at the Magellan-Fuegian littoral. Paper delivered at 48th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology.

Fiore, D. 2006. Puentes de agua para el arte mobiliar: la distribución espacio-temporal de artefactos óseos decorados en Patagonia meridional y Tierra del Fuego. Cazadores-Recolectores del Cono Sur. Revista de arqueología, 1, 137-147.

Orquera, L. and Piana, E. 1987. Human littoral adaptation in the Beagle Channel region: The maximum possible age. Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula, 5, 133-62.

Herbst, G. and Scheinsohn, V. 1991. Introducción al estudio mecánico de los instrumentos óseos provenientes del Canal Beagle: los dientes de las puntas de arpón. Shincal, 3(3), 165-70.

Orquera, L. and Piana, E. 1999. Arqueología de la región del Canal Beagle (Tierra del Fuego, República

301

VIVIAN SCHEINSOHN Argentina). Buenos Aires, Publicaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.

de la Prov. de Bs. As. (UNCPBA), INCUAPA, Serie Teórica N°1, 187-206.

Orquera, L. and Piana, E. 2000. El extremo austral del continente, in Nueva Historia de la Nación Argentina, Tomo I. Buenos Aires, Academia Nacional de la Historia-Editorial Planeta, 233-57.

Scheinsohn, V. 2010. Hearts and Bones. Bone Raw Material Exploitation in Tierra del Fuego. Oxford, BAR International Series 2094. Scheinsohn, V. and Ferretti, J.L. 1995. Mechanical properties of bone materials as related to design and function of prehistoric tools from Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 71117.

Orquera, L., Sala, A., Piana, E. and Tapia, A. 1977. Lancha Packewaia. Arqueología de los Canales Fueguinos. Buenos Aires, Huemul. Petroski, H. 1994. The Evolution of Useful Things. New York, Vintage Books.

Schiavini, A. 1990. Estudio de la Relación entre el Hombre y los Pinnípedos en el Proceso Adaptativo Humano al Canal Beagle, Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Buenos Aires.

Piana, E.L. 1984. Arrinconamiento o adaptación en Tierra del Fuego, in AAVV Ensayos de Antropología Argentina (año 1984). Buenos Aires, Editorial de la Universidad de Belgrano, colección Premios “Coca-Cola en las Artes y las Ciencias”, 7-110.

Schiavini, A. 1993. Los lobos marinos como recurso para cazadores-recolectores marinos: el caso de Tierra del Fuego. Latin American Antiquity, 4, 346-66.

Piana, E. and Estévez Escalera, J. 1995. Confección y significado de la industria ósea y malacológica en Túnel VII, in J. Estévez Escalera and A. Vila Mitjá (eds.), Encuentros en los Conchales Fueguinos. Treballs d’Etnoarqueologia I. Madrid, CSIC, 239-59.

Sullivan, L. H. 1896. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine. Vidal, H. 1985. Los conchales de Bahía Valentín. Licenciatura Thesis, University of Buenos Aires.

Politis, G. 2005. Children's Activity in the Production of the Archaeological Record of Hunter-Gatherers: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, in P. Funari, A. Zarankin and E. Stovel (eds.), Global Archaeological Theory Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts. Basel, Birkhäuser-Springer, 121-145.

Walker, P.L. 1978. Butchering and Stone Tool Function. American Antiquity, 43(4), 710-715. Ziman, J. 2000. Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, D. 2000. The evolution of adaptative form, in J. Ziman (ed.), Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 159-71. Rindos, D. 1984. The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York, Academic Press. Saraydar, S. and Shimada, I. 1971. A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency between a Stone Axe and a Steel Axe. American Antiquity, 36(2), 216-217. Scheinsohn, V. 1990-1992. El sistema de producción de los instrumentos óseos y el momento del contacto: un puente sobre aguas turbulentas. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, XVIII, 121-38. Scheinsohn, V. 1997. Explotación de materias primas óseas en la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Buenos Aires. Scheinsohn, V. 2002. Un modelo evolutivo en Argentina. Resultados y perspectivas futuras, in G. Martínez and J.L. Lanata (eds.), Perspectivas Integradoras entre Arqueología y Evolución. Teoría, Método y Casos de Aplicación. Olavarría, Universidad Nacional del Centro

302

Linking Evidences: from Carcass Processing to Bone Technology. The Case of the Lower Paraná Wetlands (Late Holocene, Argentina) Alejandro ACOSTA, Natacha BUC and Leonardo MUCCIOLO CONICET-INAPL, Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract In this paper, we consider that technological and archaeofaunal studies are two integrated and dependent analytical spheres. From the technological point of view, bone raw material acquisition is embedded in strategies of prey acquisition and processing. From that of archaeofaunal studies, faunal analysis, in a general sense, implies considering its raw material value. In this sense, the archaeological assemblage of Paraná’s wetland hunter-gatherer groups is an interesting case study given the presence of a great quantity of well defined morphological bone groups with a standardised physical structure (i.e. skeletal element and taxa). To analyse the criteria involved in raw material selection, we test their variability in the morphological, metrical, physical and functional structure. As result, we think that the best scenario for these hunter-gatherer groups is that bone elements were selected because of their mechanical properties. These behaviours would have been intertwined with the intensive processing of certain taxa (fishes and cervids). From this perspective, it is possible that those skeletal parts transformed into tools and/or used as stored raw material would have been separated during the initial processing of preys. Environmental and human general properties of the Lower Paraná wetland

Introduction Analyses of bone tools have a long tradition in archaeology (Camps-Fabrer 1966; Newcomer 1974; Olsen 1979; Poplin 1974; Semenov 1964). Currently, there are a number of specialized methodological approaches ranging from morphological (e.g. CampsFabrer 1966; Julien 1986) to mechanical (Guthrie 1983; Knecht 1997; Scheinsohn 1997) to functional aspects (e.g. Campana 1989; Le Moine 1991; Maigrot 2003; Sidéra and Legrand 2006) of tool assemblages. These works point out the importance of analysing bone tools in relation to faunal structure; however, such studies are not abundant in the archaeological literature (Choyke 2003; Loponte and Buc 2006; Scheinsohn et al. 1992; Sidéra 1989; 1991; 2000).

The LPW is located between 32º 05` LS and 34º 29` LS, in the central-west portion of Argentinean Pampean Region (Figure 1). Despite its geomorphic and ecological variability, the majority of the landscape is part of the Delta and Paraná Islands unit (Bonfils 1962; Malvárez 1999). In ecological terms, this wetland is one of the most productive systems in the world because of its extension and biodynamics (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986; Neiff 1999). The modern biocenosis would have been established between 1.6 and 2 ka years 14C BP (Cavallotto 2002; Cavallotto et al. 2005). The high productivity of the environment has yielded a great variety of vegetables and animal resources that are very significant to human populations. Among the most important animals there are fishes (mainly of the Siluriform and Characiform orders), deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus and Blastocerus dichotomus) and rodents (Cavia aperea, Myocastor coypus and Hidrochaerys hidrochaerys), along with other small mammals, reptiles, birds and molluscs. There is also a great variety of wild vegetables with edible fruits. Regarding other resources, lithic quarries (primary and secondary) are absent in some areas (e.g. Bajíos ribereños; see Loponte 2008 for a detailed synthesis of the environment and resource base). Archaeological studies in the area, which began in the late 19th and early 20th century, pointed out the high development of bone technology as part of the economic organization of hunter-gatherer societies that inhabited the area, explaining it as a consequence of the absence of local lithic quarries (e.g. Lothrop 1932).

In this paper we consider both bone technology and subsistence as parts of the faunal exploitation continuum, bone raw material being a link in the chain of acquisition and integral part to the processing of prey. In this sense, we evaluate the faunal processing behaviours, emphasizing the importance of certain taxa as part of a technological strategy. Our aim is to test the material, geometrical and structural properties1 of those bones used as raw materials and their relationship with the mechanical requirements posed by the tool function. For that reason we analyse the bone tool assemblages of six archaeological sites in the Lower Pananá’s wetland (LPW), dated between 700 and 1100 years 14C BP (Figure 1): Anahí (A), Garín (Ga), Guazunambí (Gz), Las Vizcacheras (LV), La Bellaca 1(LBI) and La Bellaca 2 (LBII). They are located in a small portion of the continental LPW named “Bajíos ribereños meridionales” (southern alluvial plain see Loponte 2008).

Recent archaeological studies based on different lines of evidence (technology, archaeofauna, isotopic data, among others) and other aspects related to evolution and environmental structure, give us a better image of the

303

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO

Figure 1: Map of the study area (taken and modified from Malvárez 1999).

lifestyle of the human populations that inhabited the LPW during the last 2 ka 14C BP. The analyses suggest the presence of hunter-gatherer systems with low residential mobility and small home ranges, probably more extended in the fluvial zones because of the use of canoes. The diet was mainly based on fish (Silurids and Characiforms) and vegetables, besides systematic and intensive exploitation of cervids (O. bezoarticus and B. dichotomus) and rodents. Vegetal use would have implied different stages of manipulation possibly including incidental domestication (sensu Rindos 1984) and/or small scale production (sensu Smith 2001) of some taxa. Additionally, there was a well developed technological package composed not only by a great variety of bone and stone tools, but also by a large quantity of ceramic vessels. The techno-functional properties of these assemblages suggest different techniques of prey capture and processing, including storage and delayed consumption of certain resources. These properties linked to the high residential stability, the high dependency on fishing and the formation of small productive patches - suggest an intensification process in the exploitation of the environment and the existence of high density human populations. It is very probable that these conditions led to situations of landscape circumscription and the presence of active defence of the exploited territories. In addition, the presence of sumptuary objects and foreign lithic raw materials imply that there were extensive networks of information and exchange in the Paraná-Plata basin and neighbouring areas.

Acosta (2005), Buc and Loponte (2007); Loponte (2008), Loponte and Acosta (2008), Loponte et al. (2005). The archaeofaunal record and bone raw material acquisition in the LWP As will be shown, anatomical units selected for bone tools came from those taxa that formed a main part of the diet: fish (Siluriforms) and cervids (B. dichotomus and O. bezoarticus). Anatomical profiles of the last two taxa suggest they were transported complete to the final consumption locations. The high fragmentation level, the high frequency of impact scars, and the type of fractures observed in bones containing marrow and/or bone grease, suggest the intensive processing of their carcasses (Acosta 2005). This situation would have implied different processing and cooking techniques (e.g. boiling) in order to maximize the extraction of nutrients from low and high utility anatomical segments and/or units (Acosta 2005; Loponte 2008; Loponte and Acosta 2008). Evidently, intensive processing of these resources was one of the main factors that entailed the transport of complete carcasses to the campsite. But this behaviour would have been closely related to bone raw material procurement. In this sense, it must be pointed out that, in spite of the high levels of fragmentation observed in cervid assemblages, certain bones, most of them of low food utility, have been preserved complete (or almost complete) to be used in artefacts manufacture. Under these circumstances, it is possible that, previously to the final consumption, certain elements would have been separated attending to technological purposes (Sidéra 2000).

In sum, on the basis of these behaviours, the groups inhabiting the LPW during recent Holocene can be considered as “aquatically oriented hunter-gatherers” (sensu Binford 2001) with some properties of complex socio-economic organizations (Ames 2005; Binford 2001; Kelly 1995; Rowley-Conwy 2001). For more details of the analyses, results and interpretations of the different lines of evidence that support these ideas, see

Moreover, it is remarkable that part of the weapon system used to capture these preys was made using the elements from their own skeletal systems; this is particularly remarkable in the case of cervids (see below). It constitutes a clear example of the integral exploitation of these taxa, taking in account their importance not only in

304

LINKING EVIDENCES: FROM CARCASS PROCESSING TO BONE TECHNOLOGY nutritional terms, but also because they were one of the main sources of raw material. These characteristics warn us about the close relationship that would have existed between subsistence and technological strategies developed by the human groups under study.

used in the manufacture of awls and drilled points (Buc and Loponte 2007) (Figure 2). In the case of awls, the complete bone was selected, using the epiphysis as a handle. For the drilled points, instead, just the bone shaft was used, discarding both epiphyses by at least two manufacture techniques. One of them consisted in drilling the proximal end and discarding the distal epiphysis by sawing or direct fracture. The second one involved the same mechanism but inverted (with the bone upside down): the distal epiphysis was sawed using the bone’s natural hollow cavity and removing the proximal end by direct fracture. As a result of these procedures, we recovered a great quantity of the distal metapodial epiphysis of O. bezoarticus with sawing marks3 (Acosta 2000; Loponte and Buc 2007) (Figure 2B).

Methodology The bone assemblage was anatomically and taxonomically identified on the basis of modern samples and osteological guides (Altamirano Enciso 1983; Loponte 2004). As a main methodological issue, we analyzed the bone mechanical properties and the functionality of the morphological groups from the aforementioned archaeological sites2. Tool assemblages of the different sites were considered as a unit; the specific properties of inter-site variability can be seen in Buc and Silvestre (2006) and Loponte (2008).

According to Scheinsohn and Ferretti (1995)4, metapodials show high modulus of elasticity (E: high stress/strain curves) and stiffness (Wy/dy). Because of both characteristics these elements are ideal materials to perform penetration activities without impact. Moreover, because of their geometry, metapodials have good general properties as a high moment of inertia (Ix) and thickness (WLR), which make them elongated and resilient elements, suited for pressure activities (Scheinsohn and Ferretti 1995, 714-715). Moreover, as they do not exhibit sigmoid torsion, their fracture tends to be longitudinal, contrary to the humerus and femur, where it is helicoidal (Johnson 1985; Miotti 1990-92). Because of the straight shape of metapodials, a direct impact results in a longitudinal fragment, which only needs to be abraded (with limestone, for example) to obtain a pointed tool like an awl (Buc and Silvestre 2006).

We decided to exclude those morphologically indeterminate tools and bones (i.e. calcaneous) segmented by sawing (sensu Acosta 2000) that cannot be associated with a specific morphological group. In order to analyse the material, geometrical and structural properties of each bone used, we followed the data published by Currey (1984), Guthrie (1983), Knecht (1997) and Scheinsohn (1997; Scheinsohn and Ferretti 1995). For the metrical structure we considered the following variables: total length, width and thickness; and the active sector’s length, width and thickness (according to the particularities of each morphological group; Buc 2007; in press; Buc and Silvestre 2006). Given that the aim of this paper is to test the different anatomical units used as bone raw material in relation to the mechanical requirements of the tools (see Sample Analysis), it was important to discuss the functionality of the different morphological groups. In this sense, we use the microscopic analyses detailed in other papers which were performed to evaluate ethnographic hypotheses on the basis of our experimental assemblages and the data published by other authors (see more details in Buc 2007; 2008; in press; Buc and Silvestre 2006; Loponte 2008). It is important to highlight that the analyzed samples have a very good integrity. In this sense, none of the pieces show weathering stages above 1 (sensu Behrensmeyer 1978); and no modifications resulting from other biotic or abiotic processes can be seen. The archaeofaunal assemblages present similar properties. Moreover, in this case the differential representation of the anatomical units would not be related to intrinsic factors like their mineral density (Acosta 2005; Loponte 2008). This would suggest that the recovered tool assemblages are mostly a result of the technological strategies developed by human groups under study.

Figure 2: Metapodials and the morphological groups associated; A) drilled points; B) bones with sawing marks in their perimeter; C) awls.

Sample Analysis

Despite the morphological group, the metrical structure of the tools made on metapodials shows a high variation in their length (Figure 3), which can be result of the reactivation episodes related to tools’ maintenance and/or

Metapodials Metapodials of B. dichotomus and O. bezoarticus were

305

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO repairing (Buc 2007; Buc and Silvestre 2006). In fact, the only artefact – made on a metapodial of O. Bezoarticus – that has manufacture traces without use-wear modifications, maintains the average length of these units in this specie (Loponte 20045) (Figures 3 and 4a). The variables that are not affected by these activities are maximum width and thickness; and they remain relatively constant in the analyzed sample, despite the taxa used. On the other hand, microscopic analyses suggest that drilled points could have been employed as soft material drillers but also as spears heads, in that case being part of the prey capture system (for more details see discussion in Buc 2007; Loponte 2008; Musali and Buc 2008). The awls were used to drill soft materials such as leather, and perhaps some plants in activities related to basketry (Buc and Silvestre 2006). As result of these activities, the micro-wear is highly developed in most awls’ active sectors, which can be interpreted as a proxy for the intensive use of these tools (Figure 4b). This last feature reinforces the idea of considering the awls’ longitudinal variation as an outcome of their consecutive reactivations, because of wear and/or fracture of their active sectors. Briefly, their material, structural and geometrical properties make metapodials the best materials to make tools meant for drilling activities that are not very stressful, which is consistent with both morphological groups discussed in this section. In the same vein, metapodials are used in different parts of the world not only to make awls (Camps Fabrer 1966) but also as drilled points classified as fixed spear heads (Olsen 1981).

Astragalus The astragalus of B. dichotomus was used exclusively to make atlatl hooks or “tacos” (Loponte 2008) (Figure 5). Despite the fact that some pieces are broken, the metrical structure shows some regularity in their maximum length, width and thickness (Figure 6). Certainly it might be a consequence of the natural regularity of these elements, but we do not reject the idea that there was a size preference that implies selection of adult deers. In ungulates, the astragalus is characterized by its high mineral density (Lyman 1994). Contrary to the idea that this property could make the astragalus a relatively brittle material (with a low flexible reaction under stress conditions), its rectangular shape makes it behave in a homogeneous manner when static loads are applied (Currey 1984). This mechanical property is very similar to the one required by the hook of a spearthrower which acts as a stop, absorbing the static load developed in this arm system (Buc and Loponte 2007; Loponte 2008).

Figure 5: Astragalus and the morphological groups associated; A) atlatl hook; B) HAP, up: detail of sawing mark.

Figure 3: Metapodials. Physical structure (maximum measurements, expressed in mm).

Figure 6: Astragalus. Metrical structure (maximum measurements, expressed in mm).

Figure 4: A) LBI 6 - 50X; B) A9 - 50X.

306

LINKING EVIDENCES: FROM CARCASS PROCESSING TO BONE TECHNOLOGY Ulna This sample is composed of a total of six pieces. Three of them are flat points made from ulnae of B. dichotomus: two are fractured in their base and one conserves the epiphysis as a handle (Figure 7). The other three pieces are ulnae sawed in the oleocranon’s base. The diaphysis would have been used to produce a tool (like the flat points mentioned below) leaving these elements as manufacture by-products (Acosta 2000; 2005) (Figure 7). In regards to the metrical structure, although the sample length is sensitive to the reactivation of tools and to morphologic variation, the width of the active sector could indicate some kind of regularity. As can be seen in figure 8, this variable remains constant, showing that there was a selection for a certain bone size as raw material. As the ulna of ungulates is a long but flat bone, it presents a considerable thickness with two flat surfaces of straight edges and compact tissue. Selecting this bone there was a choice for a regular, resilient surface, with a high degree of mineralization and a high modulus of elasticity (Guthrie 1984). These properties make the ulna one of the most stiff, and therefore brittle, bones. As Loponte (2008) stated, this makes the ulna more similar to lithic raw material and, in case that these flat points were used as projectiles, their design of acute edges is suited to open a wound on the prey6.

Figure 8: Ulna. Metrical structure (maximum measurements, expressed in mm, width taken in active sector - in bones with sawing marks, the sawed sector was measured).

Antler The antlers of O.bezoarticus and B. dichotomus provide many distal points that can be easily modified into artefacts (Guthrie 1983). Because of its function in cervids’ attack/defence behaviour, antler must face particular stress forces, different from those that other skeletal bones have to meet. Its low mineralization degree confers it a low modulus of elasticity that tolerates a more flexible behaviour, which can even be plastic (Currey 1984; Guthrie 1983; Knecth 1997). Due to these properties, antler is a suitable material to make tools designed to face stressful activities. In our context of study, antler was exclusively employed to produce critical tools with a reliable design (sensu Bleed 1986) such as heads of different weapons. Almost 50% are detachable harpoons heads, undoubtedly associated with fishing activities (Buc 2007; Musali and Buc 2008). The remaining artefacts are drilled points, bipoints and general points, in that order (Figure 9). The last group included many apex fragments (most of them conical points) that can be potentially assigned to harpoon heads and/or drilled points. Drilled points and bipoints would have been part of either spear or bow and arrow systems, although we cannot reject other possible uses (for a detailed discussion see Buc in press; Loponte 2008; Musali and Buc 2008). As figure 10 shows, in this case the high variability of the metrical structure suggests that antler selection, beyond its natural pointed shape, was fundamentally determined by the aforementioned material properties. Ossified fins of Silurids The single skeletal element of fish used as a raw material is the ossified fins (pectoral and dorsal) of Silurids from Doradidae and Pimelodidae family. Given the absence of manufacture traces in these pieces, we think they were not intentionally modified; in this case, bone modification results from use. These artefacts could be classified as

Figure 7: Ulna and the morphological groups associated; A) plate point with epiphysis; B) plate point without epiphysis; C) HAP.

307

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO high variability in their maximum length and width, mostly responding to the morphometric heterogeneity of this skeletal unit (Acosta et al. 2004), but also to the high fracture of the pieces. On the contrary, the width and thickness measured in the active sector present a lower variation. Taking into account the variability these bones show in their natural distribution and the absence of tool manufacture, we can suggest that there was some bone element selection related to their size (Figure 12). As a consequence of their geometry, ossified fins of silurids offer: 1) a naturally pointed and small apex; 2) a compact, stiff, plated surface in their faces; and 3) an articular end in the base. This design was used in different ways according to the functional requirements. In the case of smoothers, the functional and experimental microscopic analyses confirm that their face was used to smooth ceramic artefacts and leather (Buc and Silvestre 2006; Loponte 2008). Because of the fragility of the apex (the main sector involved in pin-like tools and needles) we suppose that they could have been used to pierce soft materials (that do not imply a great mechanic load). Moreover, the microscopic patterns in these three morphological groups show an expedient and versatile use (sensu Nelson 1991; Buc and Silvestre 2006) coherent with the high availability and frequency of ossified fins in ichthyoarchaeological assemblages (Acosta 2005). Figure 9: Antler and the morphological groups associated; A) arpón heads; B) HAP; C) drilled point; D) bi-point.

Figure 10: Antler. Metrical structure (maximum measurements; expressed in mm).

needles (tools with a perforation in their basal end7) (Camps Fabrer 1966), pin-like tools (thin tools with their apical end rounded; Campana 1989) and smoothers (tools modified in one of their faces; Buc and Loponte 2007) (Figure 11). The metrical structure of these tools shows a

Figure 11: Rays of Silurids and the morphological groups associated; A) smoothers; B) needles; C) pin-like tools.

308

LINKING EVIDENCES: FROM CARCASS PROCESSING TO BONE TECHNOLOGY in the case of canids, and felids to a lesser extent, the recovered remains show clear evidence of anthropogenic action. At any rate, these findings may not be related to subsistence activities, given that most of them were used as artefactual raw materials or are associated with burials, as suggested by the presence of cranial and/or maxilar dog remains associated with human inhumations (see details in Caggiano 1984; Gatto 1939; Petrocelli 1975). Among the former, the use of dog remains was basically oriented to the manufacture of ornamental items. That is the case of one of the sites under study (Anahí) where several canines were found perforated and transformed into beads which, based on their morphology, were assigned to dog, albeit some could be from small felids. Clearly linked to the technological system we also identified a sawed distal femur of “aguará guazú” (Chrysocyon brachyurus). Finally, although carnivores are not prey usually taken by hunter-gatherers as food, we are aware that, under certain conditions, some species can be obtained because of their skin or bones to make artefacts. As an example, we must mention that these kind of behaviours related to Ch. Brachyurus have been recorded among the mocovíes and abipones inhabitants of the Argentinean Chaco (Dobrizhoffer 1967; Paucke 1944).

Figure 12: Rays of Silurids. Metrical structure (maximum measurements and the width of the active sector, expressed in mm).

Other taxa Birds The LPW is one the most important avian regions in South America (Bó 1995; Cabrera and Willnik 1973). However, in archaeological terms, we only have two tools made on bird bones. Although no microscopic analyses were performed to evaluate the function of these artefacts, we can ascribe these artefacts to the morphological group of bird-points (Pérez Jimeno 2007), characterized by the drilling.

Discussion and Conclusions It is evident that the bones used as raw materials came from those species that were systematically exploited by hunter-gatherers groups in the LPW during Late Holocene. This not only highlights the strong relationship between subsistence and technological activities, but it also suggests that the main strategy of bone raw material acquisition was the direct capture of prey for consumption. On the other hand, we must underline a correlation between the low number of tools made on certain other taxa (carnivores and birds) and their poor or null importance as food resources. This suggests the development of capture strategies different form those oriented to the main exploited resources (deer and fish), like occasional hunting and/or opportunistic gathering of carcasses or bones naturally deposited in the landscape. These behaviours could be related to some ideological factors which prohibit the capture of certain species or pose a number of restrictions, such as consumption taboos (Bolton 1972; Colding and Folke 1997; Ross 1978; Terashima 2001, among others).

In the archaeofaunal assemblage, bird remains are also scarce and, despite some exceptions, the identified elements do not present traces associated to human consumption (Acosta 2005). The exclusion of birds from the diet may due to different factors such as the high obtainment costs, the very low return rate or even ideological reasons (for a detailed discussion see Acosta 2005; Loponte 2008). Similar situations were recorded in other archaeological sites of the Paraná-Plata basin because of the minimal importance of birds not only as food resources but also as tool raw material (Miotti and Tonni 1991; Paleo et al. 2002; Pérez Jimeno 2007). This is surprising because the high modulus of elasticity makes bird bones very stiff materials given their small size8, suitable to perform low impact piercing activities (Scheinsohn 1997). This would explain, at least partially, why bird bones are among the raw materials most used for tools in other contexts, as for example among huntergatherers from Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Scheinsohn 1997).

Generally, no stress in bone material availability can be seen. Fishes are the most obvious case, taking into account the small proportion of the ossified fins transformed into artefacts in relation to the high number of this anatomical unit in the ictyoarchaeological assemblages (Acosta et al. 2007). Deer pose a different situation. First of all, their MNI is substantially lower than fishes’, in coherence with their natural offering and eto-ecologic properties (Acosta 2005; Loponte 2008). Secondly, as Loponte (2008) remarked, we can observe a

Carnivores In the archaeological sites of LPW the presence of carnivores is extremely low and, possibly, some bones could have been incorporated into the archaeological sites as a result of natural processes (Acosta 2005). However,

309

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO temporal tendency toward the reduction of deer skeletal systems as an outcome of the intensive processing of these preys. This would have resulted in a depression of the capture return rates and/or in a situation close to the sustainable hunting threshold, given the spatial circumscription and the population increment of those groups that inhabited the LPW during the last portion of Late Holocene (Loponte 2008). In this case, we can postulate that bone raw material availability would have been affected by this process involving some kind of stress; further research should consider the hypothesis. On the other hand, we observed that most bones used as raw material belong to those anatomical units with low or null energetic value (metapodials, antler, ulna, astragalus; Metcalfe and Jones 1988). This preference would have been a factor that entailed the transport of complete carcasses to the campsites. Surely the history of these bones was very different from those used solely as food (for a similar statement, Sidéra 1991; 1998; 2000). Probably they would have been separated after the primary processing and “saved” for later manufacture. As Sidéra proposes (2000), in certain contexts, bones require this kind of procedures not only because bone as raw material is better in a fresh state, but also because the physic and chemical alterations during cooking would weaken it, turning it less efficient to be used as a tool. We also noted that, in spite of their low economic utility, the elements were selected because of their natural shape and material properties in relation to the mechanic requirements posed by the different morphological groups. The combination of all these features suggests an efficient management of the bone raw material, the consequence of a long process of cultural transmission (Boyd and Richerson 1985) among the hunter-gatherer societies of the Paraná basin. This would have resulted in a diverse bone tool assemblage that allowed, among other behaviours, incrementation of the efficiency in obtaining resources and minimization of the potential risks of loss (Bousman 1993). Intensive and integral processing of prey (mainly deer), because of their food and bone raw material value, suggests the existence of a complex system with a strong feedback between subsistence activities, technological organization and the environment. In this sense, it is evident that the development and complexity of bone technology cannot be explained solely as result of the low availability of lithic raw material (Buc and Silvestre 2006; Loponte 2008); instead, it must be understood as part of economic and social behaviours developed as consequence of the interaction between human populations and the environmental selective pressures (Bleed 1986; Jochim 1981; Nelson 1991, among others).

and the material properties are those intrinsic to the material, regardless its shape (Scheinsohn 1997, 69). Note 2: In these sites, the archaeological material is distributed in the A horizon. In spite of the average archaeological potential being distributed between 50 and 60cm depth, the main density of the materials is between 20 and 35cm. We have neither identified superimposed features nor sedimentary hiatus that could be interpreted as temporarily dispersed occupational events. Contrarily, the pottery techno-stylistic continuity and fragments refitting from different extraction levels suggest relatively synchronic discard events. The high density of archaeological remains could be attributed to prolonged occupations as a result of low residential mobility, which, in turn, could be related to the multiple activities identified in every site (Loponte 2008). Note 3: Discarded proximal ends of metapodials were registered in low number as, in comparison to distal ends, they have less mineral density (which imply less preservation) and are less conspicuous because of their shape (Lyman 1994). Note 4: Measurements were originally taken for Lama Guanicoe (guanaco) but they can be applied to deer because they share morphological and densitometry features with other ungulates (Lyman 1994). Note 5: LBI 6, maximum length (proximal end not included) = 106mm; O. bezoarticus metapodial average length (proximal end included) = 150mm, cf. Loponte 2004. We must mention that B. dichotomus metapodials were used from young individuals with unfused epiphyses; while O. bezoarticus metapodials were taken from adult individuals. Note 6: Projectiles made on brittle materials, as stone, act by cutting; while more flexible materials like antler are efficient because of their penetration capacity (Knecht 1997). Note 7: In this case, the hole is natural, made from pectoral fins. Note 8: “As this is a material property, is not related to geometry and bone structure. Therefore, the high modulus of elasticity means that it is a relatively stiff material given its size. This stiffness could not be obtained with other raw materials (i.e. wood), maintaining the same size and morphology” (Scheinsohn 1997, 189, our translation). It is important to mention that this analysis was carried out using the humerus of cormorant (Phalacrocórax sp.). To discuss the presence of this behavior in the birds from the LPW might require a more detailed analysis.

Note 1: Structural properties are the mechanical properties of the bone as a whole; they depend both on geometry and the material’s mechanical quality. Geometrical properties are determined by the distribution of bone material within the whole element;

310

LINKING EVIDENCES: FROM CARCASS PROCESSING TO BONE TECHNOLOGY Behrensmeyer, A. 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology, 4, 150162.

Acknowledgements This paper was presented in the X Meeting of the International Council of Archaeozoology (ICAZ) in Mexico City, so we thank its organizers. The evaluators of this publication, Vivian Scheinsohn and Isabelle Sidéra, have made interesting observations which help to clarify and discuss our main ideas. Moreover, this paper is the result of discussions with other colleagues, especially with Daniel Loponte. We thank Alice Choyke, Sandra Olsen and Isabelle Sidéra for their bibliographical help. However, concepts expressed in this paper are all our sole responsibility.

Binford, L. 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley, University of California Press. Bleed, P. 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity, 51, 737-748. Bó, R.F. 1995. Diagnóstico de Fauna Silvestre en el área de influencia de la Hidrovía. Ecoregión Delta del Paraná. Laboratorio de Ecología Regional, Dpto. de Ciencias Biológicas, FCEyN, UBA.

Alejandro Acosta [email protected] Natacha Buc [email protected] Leonardo Mucciolo [email protected]

Bolton, J. 1972. Food taboos among the Orang Asli in West Malaysia: a potential nutritional hazard. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25, 789-799. Bonfils, C. 1962. Los suelos del Delta del Río del Paraná. Factores generadores, clasificación y uso. Revista de Investigación Agraria, INTA, 6, 3.

Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano 3 de Febrero 1370 (1426) Capital Federal, Buenos Aires Argentina

Bousman, C. 1993. Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology, 18, 1/2, 59-86. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

References cited Acosta, A. 2000. Huellas de corte relacionadas con la manufactura de artefactos óseos en el nordeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Relaciones, 25, 159-178.

Buc, N. 2007. Ser o no ser: arpones y “arpones B” en el humedal del Paraná inferior, in C. Bayón, A. Pupio, M. I. González, N. Flegenheimer and M. Frère (eds.), Arqueología en las Pampas. Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, Buenos Aires, Tomo I, 325-342.

Acosta, A. 2005. Zooarqueología de cazadoresrecolectores del extremo nororiental de la provincia de Buenos Aires (humedal del río Paraná inferior, Región Pampeana, Argentina). Unpublished PhD Thesis, FCNyM, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. MS.

Buc, N. 2008. Análisis de microdesgaste en tecnología ósea El caso de punzones y alisadores en el noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires (humedal del Paraná inferior). in M. Woods (ed.), Tesis de Licenciatura del Departamento de Ciencias Antropológicas II. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, UBA.

Acosta, A., Loponte, D., Musali, J. and Olub, J. 2004. Estimaciones de tamaño de Pterodoras granulosus (armado) recuperados en sitios arqueológicos del humedal del Paraná inferior. Trabajo presentado en XV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina, Río Cuarto.

Buc, N. in press. Bone Bi-points: Testing Functional Hypothesis, in this volume.

Altamirano Enciso, A. J. 1983. Guía osteológica de cérvidos andinos. Universidad Nacional de San Marcos, Lima.

Buc N. and Loponte D. 2007. Bone tool types and microwear patterns: Some examples from the Pampa region, South America, in C. Gates St-Pierre and R. Walker (eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford, BAR International Series 1622, 143-157.

Ames, K. 2005. Intensification of Food Production on the Northwest Coast and Elsewhere, in D. Duer and N. Turner (eds.), The Northwest Coast, Foragers or farmers? Seattle, University of Washington Press, 64-94.

Buc, N. and Silvestre, R. 2006. Funcionalidad y complementariedad de los conjuntos líticos y óseos en el humedal del nordeste de la Pcia. Buenos Aires: Anahí, un

311

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO caso de estudio. Intersecciones en Antropología, 7, 129146.

Jochim, M. 1981. Strategies for survival: Cultural behavior in an ecological context. New York, Academic Press.

Cabrera, A. and Willink, A. 1973. Biogeografía de América Latina. OEA, Serie Biología, Monografía N° 13, Secretaría General de los Estados Americanos, Programa Regional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, E. 1985. Current Developments in Bone Technology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 8, 157-235. Julien, M. 1986. La fonction des outils d´os peu élabore de Telarmachay (Pérou). Outillage peu élabore en os et en bois de cervidés II, Editions du C.E.D.A.

Caggiano, M. 1984. Prehistoria del NE. Argentino. Sus vinculaciones con la República oriental del Uruguay y Sur de Brasil. Pesquisas Antropología, 38, 1-109.

Kelly, R. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum:Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press.

Campana, D. 1989. Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Oxford, BAR International Series 494.

Knecht, H. 1997. Projectile Points of Bone, Antler and Stone. Experimental Exploration of manufacture and use, in Knetcht H. (ed.), Projectile Technology. New York, Plenum Press, 191-213.

Camps-Fabrer, H. 1966. Matière et art mobilier dans la préhistoire Nord-Africaine et Sahariene. Paris, Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques Préhistoriques et Ethnographiques.

LeMoine, G. 1991. Experimental Analysis of the Manufacture and Use of Bone and Antler Tools among the Mackenzie Inuit. PhD Thesis, University of Calgary.

Cavalloto, J. 2002. Evolución Holocena de llanura costera del margen Sur del Río de la Plata. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina, 57, 4, 376-388.

Loponte, D. 2004. Atlas osteológico Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Cervidae). Ms.

Cavalloto, J., Violante, R. and Parker, G. 2003. Sea levels fluctuations during years in the la Plata River (Argentina), Quaternary Internacional, 114 (1), 155-165.

Loponte, D. 2008. Arqueología del Humedal del Paraná inferior (Bajios Ribereños Meridionales). Buenos Aires, Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Secretaría de Cultura de la Nación, Arqueología de la Cuenca del Plata, Vol.1.

Choyke, A. M. 2003. Backward Reflections on Ancient Environments: What can we learn from bone tools? in J. Laslovszky, P. Szabo (eds.), People and Nature in Historical Perspective. Central European University Press, 139-156.

Loponte, D. and Acostas A. 2008. El registro arqueológico del tramo final de la cuenca del Plata, in D. Loponte and A. Acosta (eds.), Entre la tierra y el agua: arqueología de humedales de Sudamérica. Buenos Aires, Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, 125-164.

Colding, J. and Folke, C. 1997. The relations among threatened species, their protection, and taboos, Conservation Ecology, 1, 1-6. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art6/

Loponte, D, Acosta, A. and Musali, J. 2006. Complexity among hunter-gatherers from the Pampean region, South America, in C. Grier, J. Kim and J. Uchiyama (eds.), Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. Oxbow Books, 106-125.

Currey, J. 1984. The mechanical adaptations of bones. Princeton University Press. Dobrizzhofer, M. 1947 (1967). Historia de los Abipones. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Resistencia.

Loponte, D. and Buc, N. 2006. Don’t smash those bones! Anatomical representation and bone tool manufacture in the Pampean region (Argentina, South America), in K. Seeta and B. Gravina (eds.), Bones for Tools, Tools For Bones: The Interrelationship of Lithic and Bone Raw Materials. McDonald Institute Monograph Series, University of Cambridge. in press.

Gatto, S. 1939. El paradero cementerio de Brazo-Largo (Delta del Paraná). Phycis, 16, 365-376. Guthrie, D. 1983. Osseous Projectile Point: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design Among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples, Animals and Archaeology: 1, in J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson (eds.), Hunters and their Prey. Oxford, BAR International Series, 163, 274-294.

Lothrop, S. 1932. Indians of the Paraná Delta River. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 33, 77-232. Lyman, L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

312

LINKING EVIDENCES: FROM CARCASS PROCESSING TO BONE TECHNOLOGY

Maigrot, Y. 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l’outillage en matières dures animales. La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Paris I.

Paucke, F. 1944. Hacia allá y para acá (una estada entre los indios Mocovíes 1749-1767). Instituto Cultural Argentino-germano, Universidad Nacional de Tucúman. Pérez Jimeno, L. 2007. Investigaciones arqueológicas en el sector septentrional de la llanura aluvial del Paraná margen santafesina-: La variabilidad del registro arqueológico. Unpublished PhD Thesis, FCNyM, Universidad Nacional de La Plata. MS.

Malvárez, A. 1999. El delta del Río Paraná como mosaico de humedales, in A. Malvárez (ed.), Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de Sudamérica. Universidad de Buenos Aires, 35-54. Metcalfe, D. and Jones, K.T. 1988. A reconsideration of animal body-part utility indices. American Antiquity, 53, 486-504.

Petrocelli, J. 1975. Nota preliminar sobre hallazgos arqueológicos en el Valle del Río Luján (Población Río Luján, Campana, Provincia de Buenos Aires), Actas I Congreso Arqueología Argentina. Rosario, 251-270.

Miotti, L. 1990-92. La experimentación simulativa de fracturas y marcas óseas y sus implicancias arqueológicas. Arqueología contemporánea, 3, 39-61.

Poplin, F. 1974. Principes de la détermination des matières dures animales, in H. Camps-Fabrer (ed.), L'industrie de l'os dans la préhistoire. Aix en Provence, 15-20.

Miotti, L. and Tonni, E. 1991. Análisis faunístico preliminar del sitio El Ancla Punta Indio pcia. de Buenos Aires. Boletín del Centro, 3, 137-150.

Rindos, D. 1984. The origin of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective. New York, Academic Press.

Mitsch, W. and Gosselink, J. 1986. Wetlands. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Ross, E. 1978. Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy: the adaptation to animals in Amazon cultural ecology. Current Anthropology, 19, 1-36.

Musali, J. and Buc, N. 2007. El uso de armas vinculadas a la pesca entre los aborígenes que habitaron el humedal del Río Paraná inferior. Una aproximación experimental, Paper presented in XVI Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina, S. S. de Jujuy.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 2001. Time, change and the archaeology of hunter-gatherers: how original is the ‘Original Affluent Society’?, in C. Panther-Brick, R. Layton and P. Rowley-Conwy (eds.), Hunter-Gatherers: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 39-72.

Neiff, J. 1999. El régimen de pulsos en ríos y grandes humedales de Sudamérica, in A. Malvárez (ed.), Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de Sudamérica. Universidad de Buenos Aires, 97-146.

Scheinsohn, V. 1997. Explotación de materias primas óseas en la Isla grande de Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, FFyL, Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires. MS.

Nelson, M. 1991. The Study of Technological Organization, in M. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, 3, 57-100.

Scheinsohn, V., Di Baja, A., Lanza, M. and Tramaglino, L. 1992. El aprovechamiento de la avifauna como fuente de materia prima ósea en la isla grande de Tierra del Fuego: Lancha Packewaia, Shamakush I y Túnel I. Arqueología, 2, 135-148.

Newcomer, M. 1974. Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology, 6, 138-153. Olsen, S. 1979. A study of Bone Artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo AZ P: 14: 1. The Kiva, 44(4), 341371.

Scheinsohn, V. and Ferretti, J. 1995. Mechanical Properties of Bone Materials as Related to Design and Function of Prehistoric Tools from Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 711717.

Olsen, S. 1981. The bone and antler artefacts: their manufacture and use, in N. Field and M. Parker Pearson (eds.), Fiskerton: An Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and Roman Votive Offerings. Oxford, 92-110.

Semenov, S. 1964 (1981). Tecnología prehistórica. Madrid, Akal Universidad.

Paleo, M., Paez, M. and Perez Meroni, M. 2002. Condiciones ambientales y ocupación humana durante el Holoceno Tardío en el Litoral fluvial bonaerense, in D. Mazzanti, M. Berón and F. Oliva (eds.), Del Mar a los Salitrales, Diez mil años de Historia Pampeana en el Umbral del Tercer Milenio, 365-376.

Sidéra, I. 1989. Un complément des données sur les sociétésrubanées, l’industrie osseuse à CuirylèsChaudardes. Oxford, BAR International Series 520.

313

ALEJANDRO ACOSTA, NATACHA BUC AND LEONARDO MUCCIOLO Sidéra, I. 1991. Processus économiques, choix technologiques et culturels dans l’exploitation des faunes protohistoriques des VIe au IVe millénaires en France septentrionale. État de la documentation. Revue Archéologique de Picardie, nº 1-2, 3-19. Sidéra, I. 2000. Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg. De l’économie aux symboles, des techniques à la culture. Gallia Préhistoire, 42, 107-194. Sidéra, I. and Legrand, A. 2006. Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matières osseuses : une méthode. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, 103(2), 291-304. Smith, B. D. 2001. Low Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9, 1-43. Terashima, H. 2001. The relationships among plants, animals, and man in the African tropical rain forest. African study monographs, 27, 43-60.

314

Bone Technology and Archaeological Interpretation in Prehispanic Colombia Elizabeth RAMOS-ROCA Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia Abstract In Colombian Archaeology, the role of bone technology studies in the interpretation of cultural patterns of pre-Hispanic societies has been marginal, in spite of their potential. This article presents the results of two investigations: one is bibliographic in nature and the other a study of the bone artifacts collection in the Gold Museum. Together they demonstrate the interpretive potential of these kinds of studies and provide an overview of contemporary best practice in bone tool studies. We argue that in order to succeed in strengthening the position of the examination of bone technology in Colombia, concurrent with being able to get more and larger samples, in better defined spatial and temporal contexts, it is necessary to standardize methodologies and analytical techniques. More importantly, we argue for the redefinition from a theoretical perspective of the scope of the study of bone artifacts for archaeological interpretation. symbolic elements that many of them possess. In this sense, bone artifacts also become important markers of socio-cultural change, given that an evolutionary study of bone technologies can supply important elements for us to approach adaptation of human populations.

Introduction The subject of bone technology in the context of Colombian Archaeology has been effectively limited to mere mention and sometimes to formal descriptions of the bone artifacts in some archaeological site reports, contrary to the current trends in other global and Latin American contexts (Camps-Faber 1981; Gates and Walter 2007; Scheinshon 2002; Walter 1992), where their potential role today for steering us toward an understanding of adaptation of human populations is central.

Since the majority of the artifacts in the sample studied came from the Tairona area in the northern Colombian coast (Figure 1), for the purposes of the discussion in this article we will concentrate on the information from this archaeological zone.

The information we discuss in this text is based on a broader inquiry into bone artifacts in pre-Hispanic Colombia (Ramos 2008). Based on the assumption that the elements of material culture that have been most used to interpret cultural patterns include ceramic, lithic and gold work, it was necessary first to organize and characterize the available information on bone artifacts in order to highlight the analysis of bone technology as an important aspect in the study of pre-Hispanic societies in Colombia. We began with archaeological reports that record bone artifacts. Subsequently, we studied a sample of 325 bone artifacts in the Gold Museum. This sample offered an opportunity to take an in-depth approach to technological and cultural analysis, owing to its size and diverse cultural and geographic make-up. We looked into aspects such as iconographic interpretation, manufacturing techniques and the selection of raw material.

Figure 1: Map of Colombia with the location of archaeological areas cited in text.

Bone artifacts in Colombia’s archaeological literature

The study showed that some societies invested a considerable amount of energy to produce these types of artifacts, suggesting that their technological processes and manufacture techniques reflected not only function, but also the social and cultural context in which they were produced (Gnecco and Bravo 1994). Outstanding in these latter dimensions are the wealth of iconographic and

The thorough bibliographic study was conducted on over 250 references, including reports, articles and books. Of these, only 44 contain some sort of information related to bone artifacts (descriptions, context of the finding, associations, images, etc.). This information was organized into a database for analytic purposes, with

315

ELIZABETH RAMOS-ROCA fields such as geographic area, cultural affiliation, chronology, and manufacturing techniques.

1996; Groot 1992; Pradilla et al. 1992; Reichel-Dolmatoff and Dussan 1956).

The reports cover an extended period of time (from 1933 to present day), which hampered our intention to precisely determine the cultural affiliation of recorded artifacts in every case, as the cultural denominations and chronological sequences have been modified, refined and exacted over time. For that reason we use more inclusive categories and divide the information into four large geographical areas (Cundinamarca-Boyacá Highlands, Atlantic Coast, Santander and Southwest)1, rather than attempt to adjust the reports to the current classification models.

Studies specialized in the iconographic description of the pieces comprise the second approach, which do not correspond to exclusive studies of bone industry but include artifacts in this material (Legast 1980; 1987; 1993; 1995; Rodríguez 1992). Finally, there are reports that mention the occurrence of bone artifacts but without the intent to analyze them. In general, these are preliminary reports or reports of research in which few pieces were recovered; in some cases they include a brief description and/or an image, either a photograph or a drawing (Angulo 1981; 1983; Silva 1943).

From a geographical point of view, it is clear that the Cundinamarca-Boyacá Highlands (Preceramic to Muisca periods) with 21 records, and the Atlantic Coast area (spanning various periods) with 15 records, represent the greater part of the references (Table 1). The Santander and Southwest regions have very few associated registers (3 and 2 respectively). The fact that the sample is biased toward the Cundinamarca-Boyacá Highlands and the Atlantic Coast may be explained for the most part, more by the fact that preservation of this type of materials requires special environmental conditions (dry climates and/or low acid soils, as found in these regions), than by the absence of the use of bone material to fabricate artifacts in other regions of the country. We established this from contemporary ethnohistoric and ethnographic documents, which show that the use of osseous tools has been common among indigenous populations. Also relevant are other factors related more to the history of the discipline itself and the political history of the country, as pointed out by various researchers (Botero 2007; Jaramillo and Oyuela 1994; Langebaek 2004).

Another piece of evidence which became clear with the review of bibliographic sources – and directly linked to the lack of systematic descriptions – is that in the Colombian archaeological literature, we do not observe the use of a clear hierarchical model to classify bone artifacts. This is opposed to what we usually see in areas such as the analysis of lithic industry, even though lithicists may face similar problems, as discussed later. The case of lithic analysis is relevant as a common reference point for analyzing bone artifacts – especially tools – while gold work and ceramic are the reference points for other artifact categories. Categories of bone artifacts The bibliographical study identified 44 categories of artifacts. In Table 1, we see that the categories needle, awls, necklace bead, scraper and object, contain most of the objects. The others show frequencies that fluctuate between 1% and 9%. Of these categories, object and indeterminate tool are the most ambiguous since they include a series of elements that defy definition; and to some extent in agreement with what has been discussed in the previous paragraphs, they would not even correspond to a “category” as such. The indeterminate tool category, however, includes objects where the description contains sufficient analytical elements to indicate that the artifact was employed as a tool, or that the authors consider them as such. For instance, Correal and Pinto (1983, 124) and Correal (1990, 59), mention “bone points”, which are not projectile points, but they do bear marks that indicate hafting.

Independent from these considerations, the sample allows us to identify three basic approaches to the study of bone artifacts: 1) description of the artifacts from a form-function vantage point; 2) iconographic description of the artifacts referring to function but not emphasizing this aspect; and 3) inventory of the artifacts present with no intent to categorize or undergo a technological, functional or iconographic analysis of them. In this type of study, the artifacts are described in the sections of the research reports headed: “Bone Instruments”, “Bone artifacts”, “Bone Objects”, “Bone Industry” or simply contained in the “Miscellaneous Objects” section. The first style encompasses the majority of the bone artifact descriptions in Colombia’s archaeological reports. Within these, each artifact “category”, “group” or “type” (i.e. pendants, awls, spindle whorls, knives, etc.) is supplemented by a description of the raw material used in its fabrication, and in some cases, taxonomical information on class; occasionally an indication of species and element (bone) used in its production is specified. We also find information on manufacture technique, dimensions and possible function (Angulo 1988; Correal 1990; Enciso

In the objects category we included elements that the authors named as such (objects) or elements that simply appear described in their essential features (generally very small fragments with few diagnostic elements beyond the presence of unequivocal signs of intentional modification). The percentage of these two categories, however, is not large enough to compromise the others’ relevance where the discussion turns to other technical dimensions. In this

316

BONE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN PREHISPANIC COLOMBIA sense, it is worth pointing out that the analysis of the references shows that there is inconsistency in the use of certain terms/categories to name some types of artifacts, since among various authors – and oftentimes in a same author – they do not consistently use the same definition for the same objects. Likewise, it is evident that there is not a precise definition in all cases of what is understood by a determined term (needle, awls, etc.), which is to say, there is a given number of artifacts under said category without a technical description of the category as such. Examples to illustrate this situation are the cases of the categories awl, perforator, knife and blade.

(underline emphasis ours). Upon comparing this definition with the fact that other authors speak of knives, as is the case of Correal in various of his works, we see however that this author (Correal 1990, 62) when describing the laminar bone knives, declares that “These blades show very lustrous surfaces”. Rivera (1992, 78) uses the term knives in the descriptions but uses blades in frames 7 and 8. Consequently, we argue that the categories knife and blade are taxonomically confused. Given that an artifact can have multiple uses, and that in many cases formal differences are not sufficient to determine artifacts’ main function, the previous examples indicate the importance of undergoing studies that allow standardization and defining classification criteria2 in the short term. This, however, requires working directly with artifacts, and employing appropriate techniques and methods. Thus, the direct analysis that we conducted of the artifacts in the Gold Museum collection (not the bibliographic or reference study) makes complete sense as an analytic approach to identifying and evaluating the aforementioned ambiguities, and allowed us to discover another series of regularities or special interest cases in terms of the production of bone artifacts, as we shall discuss.

According to Correal (1990, 54-55), the technical data to distinguish awls from perforators is the presence of “wear lines, parallel to the axis of the artifact”, in the former, and the presence of “transverse spiral lines” and /or “parallel circular lines” (Correal 1990, 59) in the latter. This author, in the same work (Correal 1990, 55), when referring to awls with epiphysis, states, “similar elements were described previously as associated with all the zones of the Tequendama 1 occupation site” (Correal and Van der Hammen 1977, 98, photo 44). Notwithstanding this affirmation, the photo footnote says “sharp bone splinters with epiphysis”. In this same work (Correal and Van der Hammen 1977, 97) we can see the description of the category “bone splinters with sharp end”, where it says “eventual utilization as perforating instruments”. On the same page, however, 36 bone awls are titled “Bone Perforators”. In summary, the difference between these categories is unclear.

Raw material, technology and representations: Bone artifacts in the Tairona cultural context In Colombian archaeology, the region located in the Magdalena province, which encompasses the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the adjacent coastal zone is known as the Tairona archaeological area (cf. Figure 1). This zone has been occupied since pre-Hispanic3 times by societies whose cultural manifestations have strongly caught the attention of fans and scholars, in particular the so-called Taironas. The area currently shelters diverse indigenous populations – some of which, such as the Kogi, are recognized as descendents of the Taironas (Langebaek 2005; OyuelaCaicedo and Fisher 2006).

An equally ambiguous situation is the case of Pradilla et al. (1992, 120), when defining pins, they affirm that they were used as awls. In this case, there is no technical description of what would be understood by pin, whereas there is one for the needle category in this work: “Punching elements with a hole” (Pradilla et al 1992, 120). Likewise symptomatic of this precision or nomenclature problem, is the case with Rivera (1992, 78) who describes perforators, indicating that some “have a tip which curves toward one of the borders reminiscent of the ones named by Correal (1987), Vista Hermosa awls”. Another situation that perhaps has to do with the ambiguity in the use of both terms is the one recorded in Ardila (1984, 62): while they are mentioned here among the artifacts identified as perforators, in figure 22 they mention awls. The ambiguity in these two artifact categories is coupled by the fact that according to Cortes (1990, 64 and note 8, 65), many of the artifacts classified as awls could be Wichuñas, which is to say, combs or weaving awls used in textile manufacture in the Central Andes.

Archaeological research – as well as guaquero (looter) findings –, have enabled the documentation of the importance of animals in this culture, not only in terms of diet but also and particularly in what regards the mythological field. Both areas of study are fields that still require much more detailed study. Indeed, in spite of the fact that many deposits show – given the abundance and diversity of the remains- that fishing and sea resources were essential in the diet of the inhabitants of the Tairona area, we do not possess detailed studies that allow us to evaluate, in the different sub regions and periods, the relative importance of the great spectrum of available species in such a rich and varied ecosystem. Given that the presence of bones of certain species in the archaeological sites does not necessarily mean their consumption as food, only more detailed studies will allow

As regards the categories knife and blade, according to Ardila (1984, 63) “blades are obtained by hitting the border of an epiphysis to produce a type of wedge or cutting splinter. All the artifacts thus obtained are blades, but they are also found on diaphysis, with a cutting edge, normally parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bone”

317

ELIZABETH RAMOS-ROCA us to learn which of these species actually formed part of the diet and which were selected for other uses.

already pointed out the possibility that the fauna representations are not related to diet and that representation of felines, serpents, birds of prey, etc. may be attributed to reasons totally different from subsistence.

From the point of view of raw material used to fabricate bone artifacts4, it is meaningful that of the total sample analyzed and classified as Tairona (180 artifacts), all the pieces identified taxonomically were made with mammal bones5 and that within these, the most selected elements were long bones; among them the humerus and femur were the most used (Figure 2). Furthermore, in some artifact categories (mainly bone tubes and flutes) we find a clear trend of using the same species in their manufacture, the same bone and the same side, which indicates an intentional selective process, and the implications of which we will return to6.

Figure 3: Tairona artifact representing a serpent.

Figure 4: Final end of batons with bird shape. Museo del Oro collection. Banco de la República (photo: C. M. Rodríguez).

This argument, however probable, is difficult to assess from the current perspective of the examination of subsistence patterns for the Tairona area. However, the analysis of the bone material in the sample used would seem to corroborate this hypothesis, given that there is no evidence of bird and serpent consumption, which are the most represented classes, in a realistic manner or by way of icons7. In contrast, fish, which apparently constitute the principal source of animal origin food, and are abundant in the domestic record, are very seldom represented.

Figure 2: Artifacts made on long bone diaphyses. Museo del Oro collection. Banco de la República (photo: C.M. Rodríguez).

On the other hand, it is important to consider the fact that in this sample, even though birds are one of the most iconographically represented classes, there is no piece crafted with bird bones. Given their bone structure, bird bones were commonly used in pre-Columbian cultures for artifact manufacture, since their long bones possess less spongy osseous tissue than mammals’ and consequently are “easier” to work with (less tissue to remove), which is why they have been especially employed in the manufacture of necklace beads. Notwithstanding the absence of artifacts made with bird bones, we do know of the importance carried by their feathers in the crafting of personal adornments.

Where there does seem to exist a clearer correlation is between the type of material used in the making of artifacts and their function. Bone seems to have been a material for making objects that were more ritual than utilitarian; among the most common artifacts are the staff heads, bone tubes and flutes. The staff heads, for example, seem to have been more common in bone and shell than in gold work, especially the ones in zoomorphic forms of birds and felines (Figure 5). In a similar sense, Legast (1987, 22) has mentioned “Associations between humans and animals are crafted only in gold work, ceramic and bone”.

Another type of correlation we believe relevant to explore is the one between the species selected for subsistence and the ones represented in the bone artifacts. In bone, the most represented classes are reptiles (mainly snake) (Figure 3), birds (Figure 4) and mammals (felines). In contrast, fish and amphibians are rarely represented. In this sense, and referring in general to the zoomorphic representations in Tairona pieces in different materials, Legast (1987, 109) has

The possible explanations for the differential use of raw material, for the emphasis in the representation of some classes and species in particular, and for the recurrent use of some icons /decorative designs (Figure 6), might be found in the mythological, symbolic field, and in the relations of individuals and groups with their physical and social environment. Even though we know of the

318

BONE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN PREHISPANIC COLOMBIA limitations of the use of the analogy in archaeological interpretation, the work of Reichel-Dolmatoff on the Kogi is of particular importance since it provides us with valuable elements for this analysis, given the historic connection that is assumed between Taironas and Kogis.

important factor in this sense. Indeed, as stated by ReichelDolmatoff (1951, 27): “Marriage rules are based on the concept that each patrilineal clan (Tuxe) represents a male animal, while each matrilineal clan (Dake) represents a female animal, but of another zoological specie, and which commonly serves as food for the male animal. Thus, a man that belongs to the jaguar clan, must marry a woman of the boar clan; a fox man marries an armadillo woman; a puma man, a deer woman”. The previous quote speaks of males and females and of different species, each one representing a Tuke or Dake; this could explain the difference in the representations made, depending on the different materials used, and why, for example, the staff heads were above all made in bone and shell. Even though the previous propositions on the positive correlations between raw material and types of representations, as well as with aspects of social organization, are hypothetical (warranting being made the object of more specific studies), we are convinced that it is in these aspects of social organization and of the symbolic field, that the explanation for the observed patterns lies, with regard to the selection of raw material and the representations between the communities of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta.

Figure 5: Final end of batons with faunal shape. Museo del Oro collection. Banco de la República (photo: C. M. Rodríguez).

Conclusions The bibliographic analysis, as well as the study of the sample of bone artifacts in the Gold Museum, have provided us with important information regarding the study of the bone technology of Colombian pre-Hispanic societies.

Figure 6: Decorated flute with serpent designs. Museo del Oro collection. Banco de la República (photo: C. M. Rodríguez).

It is unmistakable that as a result of new theoretical frameworks and approaches to the study of socio-cultural change processes in pre-Hispanic societies, Colombian archaeology is beginning to pay heed to the study of archaeological materials that traditionally have occupied a second place in terms of cultural interpretation, such as shell and bone industries. This tendency is reflected in increased formalization of analysis, foregoing simple description for a detailed study that includes different facets of analysis. An interest in going beyond formal description (function, manufacturing technique, decoration), delving into aspects such as the selection of raw material (taxa, element, etc.) and the use of microscopic techniques, as a fundamental basis for the analysis of these materials (Enciso 1993; Pradilla et al. 1992), are key for beginning to consider socio-cultural models.

Since the zoomorphic and anthropozoomorphic representations are the most common, and since the raw material itself is also of animal origin, it is noteworthy to stress the importance of animals among the Kogi. In this sense, Reichel-Dolmatoff (1951, T.I., 265) has pointed out that “there are three animals in the Kogi world deeply engrained in their imagination: the jaguar, the frog and the snake. These animals which symbolize basic factors and conflicts and therefore dominate the mind of each individual, no matter his or her age, sex, status or function... Jaguar, frog and snake are frequent motives in the region’s archaeology and representations in ceramic, lithic or gold are common”8. Another dimension that should be explored in order to determine the importance of animals among the Taironas is related to social organization. Referring back to the example of the Kogi, we know that they are organized based on totemic animals and plants, which indicates that the representations go beyond being mythological animals and can represent identity markers. In addition, the raw material with which they made the artifacts could be an

Clearly an urgent task is to revisit, and insofar as possible, standardize analytic categories, which, as we have observed, are not always mutually exclusive or precise in their definitions. The carrying out of experimental replication and studies of micro-wear, as

319

ELIZABETH RAMOS-ROCA practiced with lithic industry (Nieuwenhuis 1993; 1998), surely offer another line of work that will be necessary in the short term. This type of study allows us to evaluate arguments around the multifunctional use of some artifacts or of the interpretative slants that on occasion lead us to infer function from form.

necessary, on the one hand, to analyze information on the Tairona sequence in general and in a detailed fashion; and on the other, to carry out detailed zooarchaeological analyses that consider the multiple uses of fauna within the socio-cultural context of these groups. In our perspective, only a comprehensive analysis of the economic and symbolic aspect of the fauna can be productive.

The use of specialists to carry out taxonomic classifications and the detailed analysis of the biologic aspects of bone as raw material (element, portion, etc.), is another aspect archaeologists should emphasize when undergoing their analysis. As we have seen, there are strong arguments supporting the proposal that at least among the Taironas, the production of bone artifacts was not an act of taking “any bone” to produce “any artifact” (an opportunistic use of a type of raw material). Instead, ritual and symbolic aspects could be determining the selection of the species and/or elements and portions for crafting different classes of artifacts. With imprecise information on this matter, cultural reconstructions will be deficient.

The manner in which human groups interact with the physical environment is a fundamental aspect for understanding biological and cultural evolutionary processes. From this perspective, the selective process of faunal appropriation responds to, and in turn has enormous repercussions on, the socio-cultural sphere. It is evident that in pre-Hispanic communities, as in the contemporary ones, not all the existing local fauna is selected as food and/or as raw material with utilitarian or ritual purposes. In fact, the process itself of extracting the raw material constitutes an important aspect to analyze. In other words, neither the technological process of appropriation, nor the selected species, nor the animal parts used, among other things, are factors that can be set aside when we approach the study of bone materials, even if our research focuses on aspects of the material culture that “in appearance” do not have a direct relation with the previous aspects, as could be the case of the bone artifacts.

Concretely, the analysis of the Tairona sample indicates that there is a trend, where depending on the type of material used (shell, bone, gold, ceramic, lithic), some pieces are more common than others; in other words, there is a correlation between the type of raw material and the categories of artifacts made. There is also a correlation between the fauna represented and used as raw material, which is evident particularly in some sets where the same type of representations are made in artifacts crafted with bones of the same species, generally using the same bones and possibly the same side of the animal.

We trust that this work serves as a starting point for developing this line of research in the near future. This way, the moment we possess more representative samples and more standardized research strategies, we will hold an adequate perspective for understanding the production of bone artifacts in the Colombian pre-Hispanic context in general.

If we should consider it in any way valid to establish some type of relation among the ancient inhabitants of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Kogi, some possible explanations for the patterns or trends identified emerge. The first is that the selection of the species relates to kinship groups and that if, for example, the artifacts belong to a determined social group that identifies with a determined species, the bones of animals of this species will be the raw material.

Note 1: An analytic resource such as this one, of course, necessarily has important repercussions when making inferences on particular cultural patterns, but not to take it on implied not being able to consolidate a sweeping perspective on the subject. Note 2: In spite of the problems mentioned before, it is evident that the works of Correal and Van der Hammen (1977), Correal (1990) and Correal and Pinto (1983) are the clearest in the descriptions from a technical classifying perspective. In this sense we should indicate that in addition to the care in presenting the characteristic elements of each class of artifacts, these works are also wide in discriminating the different classes within each category, as long as the volume of materials allows this to be so. Because of this, it is not surprising that the majority of the authors working in the Cundinamarca-Boyacá Highlands, take up again the categories proposed by these researchers for their analyses (Groot 1992; Rivera 1992). In the case of the Atlantic Coast, the works of Reichel-Dolmatoff (1954a; 1954b; 1954c) and Reichel-Dolmatoff y Dussan (1956) are in turn the mandatory reference points, due to these

The second is that the “raw material/representation” ratio has to do with the symbolic relation among species, i.e. the jaguar represented in artifacts made with deer bones (the jaguar is a deer predator) or the serpent represented in artifacts made with feline bone (the serpent is a symbol of death and the jaguar of life energy). In the particular case of artifacts such as bone tubes, if these effectively correspond to feline bones as we believe the union of two of the most important mythological animals (felineserpent) is interesting, by way of the union of raw material -decorative elements that represent the serpents as are the triangle and circle designs. To summarize, we suggest that in order to venture out and propose possible answers to these questions it is

320

BONE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN PREHISPANIC COLOMBIA researchers’ detail and consistency when describing the materials found.

[email protected]

Note 3: A common periodization distinguishes the Neguanje (1st to 7th century AD), Buritaca (7th to 10th century AD) and Tardio (10th to 16th century AD) periods (Langebaek 2006).

References cited Angulo, C. 1981. La Tradición Malambo. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Note 4: For reasons of space, we can only note here that the techniques employed in the Tairona zone were cutting, carving, polishing and perforation technique.

Angulo, C. 1983. Arqueología del Valle de Santiago Norte de Colombia. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Note 5: Even though mollusks were widely used as food and raw material for artifacts, they were not an object of analysis in this study since they were not bone, but we did consider Ferreira’s study (1994).

Angulo, C. 1988. Guájaro en la Arqueología del Norte de Colombia. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Note 6: On the other hand, the presence of representations of bones like the femur and the humerus made in lithic materials, for example, corroborate this proposal and makes us wonder about the meaning and symbolic and ceremonial use of these bone elements in particular.

Ardila, G. 1984. Chia: un sitio precerámico en la Sabana de Bogotá. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República. Barandiarán, I. 1967. Sobre la tipología y tecnología del instrumental óseo paleolítico. Caesaraugusta 29-30, 779.

Note 7: The decoration was executed mainly by way of incisions, polishing, carving and incrustation techniques. Geometric decoration is the most common. Serpents, even though in some cases represented realistically, are manifested mainly through icons (triangle designs), which are the most common in all the pieces.

Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Bordeaux, Publications de l’Institut de Préhistoire, mémoire 1, 2 vol. Botero, C. I. 2007. El redescubrimiento del pasado prehispánico de Colombia: viajeros arqueólogos y coleccionistas 1820 – 1945. Bogotá. Uniandes – ICANH.

Note 8: However, it is important to note that in this bone sample, the jaguar and the snake are profusely represented, but not the frog.

Camps-Fabrer, H. 1974. Premiers résultats concernant les méthodes d'analyse et le traitement en ordinateur des objets en os de quelques gisements du Midi méditerranéen. Premier Colloque Internationaux sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire. Aix-en-Provence, Editions Universitaires, 135-141.

Acknowledgements To the Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales del Banco de la República for financing the research from which this article stems. To all the people in the Museo del Oro de Bogotá who collaborated providing the study material and in the logistics of the research with the museum sample, especially Luz Alba Gómez, Clara Isabel Botero and Clemencia Plazas. At the Universidad de los Andes, to Claudia Lorena Ramírez and Alejandro Morris, Anthropology students for their collaboration in preparing the manuscript. To Vivian Scheinhson of the INAPL/CONICET, Buenos Aires for both inviting me to participate in the symposium on “Explotación de materias primas óseas en Sudamérica”/Bone Raw Material Exploitation in South America” and in this publication. To Luis Gonzalo Jaramillo for his comments and to Claudia Espinosa for the translation into English.

Camps-Fabrer, H. 1981. Research on prehistoric bone industries: a progress report. Current Anthropology, 22(4), 458-459. Correal, G. 1987. Excavaciones Mosquera. Arqueología, 3, 13-17.

Arqueológicas

en

Correal, G. 1990. Aguazuque: Evidencias de cazadores, recolectores y plantadores en la Altiplanicie de la Cordillera Oriental. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República. Correal, G. and Pinto, M. 1983. Investigación Arqueológica en el Municipio de Zipacón, Cundinamarca. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Elizabeth Ramos-Roca Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de los Andes Carrera 1ª 18A -10 Piso 5 Bogotá Colombia

Correal, G. and Van der Hammen, T. 1977. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en los Abrigos Rocosos del Tequendama.

321

ELIZABETH RAMOS-ROCA Bogotá, Fondo de Promoción de la Cultura del Banco Popular.

Legast, A. 1993. La Fauna en el Material Precolombino Calima. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Cortés, E. 1990. Mantas Muiscas. Boletín Museo del Oro, 27, 61-75.

Legast, A. 1995. Iconografía animal prehispánica en el suroccidente de Colombia, in C. Gnecco (ed.), Perspectivas Regionales en la Arqueología del Suroccidente de Colombia y Norte del Ecuador. Popayán, Editorial Universidad del Cauca, 263-297.

Dobres, M.A. 1995. Gender and Prehistoric Technology: on the Social Agency of Technical Strategies. World Archaeology, 27(1), 25-49. Enciso, B. 1993. El Ocaso del Sol de los Venados: Arqueología de Rescate en la Sabana de Bogotá. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, XXX, 149-182.

Nami, H.G. and Scheinsohn, V.G. 1997. Use-wear patterns on bone experimental flakers: a preliminary report, in L.A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R.P. Winham (eds.), Proceedings of the 1993 bone modification conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Sioux Falls, Occasional Publication, 1, Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, 256-264.

Enciso, B. 1996. Fauna Asociada a tres asentamientos Muiscas del Sur de la Sabana de Bogotá Siglos VIII-XIV D.C., in B. Enciso and M. Therrien (eds.), Bioantropología de la Sabana de Bogotá Siglos VIII-XVI D.C. Bogotá, ICAN-Colcultura, 41-58.

Nieuwenhuis, C. 1993. Use-wear analysis on preceramic Colombian artefacts of the Abriense toolclass. Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia, 26, 199-206.

Ferreira, M. 1994. Clasificación y Estudio de los Adornos de Concha Arqueológicos. Tesis de Pregrado, University of Colombia, Bogotá.

Nieuwenhuis, C. 1998. Unattractive But Effective: Unretouched Pointed Flakes as Projectile Points? A Closer Look at the Abriense and Tequendamiensa Artefacts, in M.G. Plew (ed.), Explorations in American Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Wesley R. Hurt. University Press of America, 133-163.

Gnecco, C. and Bravo, M. 1994. Análisis Sintáctico de la Tecnología de Reducción Bifacial en San Isidro. Boletín Museo del Oro, 37, 79-96. Groot, A. 1992. Checua: Una secuencia cultural entre 8500 y 3000 años antes del presente. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Oyuela-Caycedo, A. and Fischer, M. 2006. Ritual paraphernalia and the foundation of religious temples: The case of the Tairona-Kágaba/Kogi, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Beassler-archiv, 54, 145-161.

Jaramillo, L. G. and Oyuela-Caicedo, A. 1994. Colombia: A Quantitative Analysis, in A. Oyuela-Caicedo (ed.), History of Latin American Archaeology. Avevury Worldwide Archaeology Series, 49-68.

Pradilla, H., Villate, G. and Ortiz, F. 1992. Arqueología del Cercado Grande de los Santuarios. Boletín Museo del Oro, 32-33, 21-147.

Johnson, E. 1985. Current Developments in Bone Technology. Advances in Archeological Method and Theory. New York, Academic Press, 8, 157-235.

Ramos, E. 2008. Más allá de la forma y función: Artefactos de hueso en el contexto de la arqueología de Colombia. Bogotá, Ms.

Langebaek, C. 2003. Arqueología colombiana: ciencia, pasado y exclusión. Bogotá, COLCIENCIAS, Colección Colombia Vol. 3.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1951. Datos histórico-culturales sobre las tribus de la antigua gobernación de Santa Marta. Bogotá, Publicaciones del Instituto Etnológico del Magdalena, Banco de la Republica.

Langebaek, C. 2005. Poblamiento prehispánico de las bahías de Santa marta. Contribución al estudio del desarrollo de los cacicazgos del norte de Colombia. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburg, Latin American Archaeology Reports, 4, Universidad de los Andes y Universidad de Pittsburgh.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1954a. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Partes 1 y 2. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, II (2), 147-206. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1954b. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Parte 3. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, III, 141-170.

Legast, A. 1980. La Fauna en la Orfebrería Sinú. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1954c. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Parte IV. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, IV, 191-245.

Legast, A. 1987. El Animal en el Mundo Mítico Tairona. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República.

322

BONE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION IN PREHISPANIC COLOMBIA Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. and Dussan, A. 1956. Momil, Excavaciones en el Sinú. Revista Colombiana de Antropología, V, 109-333. Rivera, S. 1992. Neusa: 9.000 años de Presencia Humana en el Páramo. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República. Rodríguez, E. 1992. Fauna Precolombina de Nariño. Bogotá, Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales, Banco de la República. Scheinsohn, V. 1997. Explotación de materias primas óseas en la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Buenos Aires. Scheinsohn, V. 2002. Un modelo evolutivo en Argentina. Resultados y perspectivas futuras, in G. Martínez and J.L. Lanata (eds.), Perspectivas Integradoras entre Arqueología y Evolución. Teoría, Método y Casos de Aplicación. Buenos Aires, Serie Teórica, Vol 1, INCUAPA, UNC, 187206. Sidéra, I. 1989. Un complément des données sur les sociétés rubanées: l'industrie osseuse à Cuiry-lèsChaudardes. Oxford, BAR International Series 520. Silva, E. 1943. Arqueología Chibcha. Instituto Etnológico Nacional. Ms. Stordeur, D. 1977a. La fabrication des aiguilles à chas. Observation et expérimentation. Deuxième Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Méthodologie appliquée à L'industrie de l'os préhistorique. Paris, CNRS, 251-256. Stordeur, D. 1977b. Classification multiple ou grilles mobiles de classification des objets en os. Deuxième Colloque International sur l'Industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, Méthodologie appliquée a L'industrie de l'os préhistorique. Paris, CNRS, 235-238. Stordeur, D. 1978. Proposition de classement des objets en os selon le degré de transformation imposé à la matière première. Bulletin Société Préhistorique Française, 75, 20-23. Stordeur, D. 1981. La contribution de l'industrie de l'os à la délimitation des aires culturelles: l'exemple du Natufien. Colloque International du CNRS. Préhistoire du Levant, 433-437. Walker, K. 1992. Bone artifacts from Josslyn Island, Buck Key shell midden, and cash mound: a preliminary assessment for the Caloosahatchee area, in W. Marquardt (ed.), Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Gainesville, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, 229246.

323

ELIZABETH RAMOS-ROCA Artifactual Classes Needle Needle (?) Pin Harpoon Spatulate Tool Antler with incision Chisel Pendant Necklace of beads Blade Knife Perforated knife Bead Modified Teeth Hoop Spatula Mirror (?) Anthropozoomorph figure Zoomorph figure Flute Sculpted fragment Spearthrower Hook Pounder Undetermined tool Spear Spear shaft Pin-like awl Razor end Object Earring Driller Thin slate Polished slate Possible flute Polisher Dagger Projectile point Awl Awl with epiphysis Scratcher Scraper Baton end Spindle “Wichuña”

TOTAL 18 2 5 2 2 1 2 2 6 1 8 1 12 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 2 2 8 1 2 4 1 12 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 18 2 2 10 1 3 1

Table 1: Number of artifacts in each class mentioned in the archaeological reports.

324

Contributors ACOSTA Alejandro – Argentina AKHMETGALEEVA Natalia – Russia AMATO Penelope – France BUC Natacha – Argentina CAMPANA Douglas V. – United States CHAOUI-DERIEUX Dorothée – France CHOYKE Alice M. – Hungary CLEMENTE CONTE Ignacio – Spain CRABTREE Pam – United States DARÓCZI-SZABÓ Márta – Hungary DAVID Eva – France DESCHLER-ERB Sabine – Switzerland DOPPLER Thomas – Switzerland FEHLMANN Daniela – Austria GÁL Erika – Hungary GATES ST-PIERRE Christian – Quebec GOSTENČNIK Kordula – Austria KÜCHELMANN Hans Christian – Germany KUNST Günther Karl – Austria LANG Felix – Austria LAZNICKOVA-GALETOVA Martina – Czech Republic LE DOSSEUR Gaëlle – France LEGRAND-PINEAU Alexandra – France LOPEZ ALDANA Pedro M. – Spain LUIK Heidi – Estonia MARTI-GRÄDEL Elisabeth – Switzerland MORENO RUDOLPH Federica MORENO-GARCÍA Marta – Spain MUCCIOLO Leonardo – Argentina MUSTEAŢĂ Sergiu – Republic of Moldova NAMI Hugo G. – Argentina PAJUELO PANDO Ana – Spain PIMENTA Carlos M. – Portugal POPA Alexandru – Germany RAMOS-ROCA Elizabeth – Colombia RAŠKOVÁ ZELINKOVÁ Michaela – Czech Republic RIJKELIJKHUIZEN Marloes – Netherland SAVCHENKO Svetlana – Russia SCHEINSOHN Vivian – Argentina SCHIBLER Jörg – Switzerland SIDERA Isabelle – France VASS Lóránt – Romania ZHILIN Mikhail – Russia