choyke, schibler- prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective

51

Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective:Research in Central Europe

Alice M. ChoykeAquicum Museum, Hungary

Jörg SchiblerIPNA, Universität Basel, Switzerland

Introduction

Bone tool studies have come a long way since the1980s, when worked bone assemblage reports wererare and the methodology used depended exclusivelyon the whim of the individual archaeologist. The workof the researchers presented here represents abranch of bone tool studies derived from a commonbackground in archaeozoology. This is clearlyreflected in the way this work emphasizes rawmaterial and technology as opposed to formaltypology, only recently enhanced by the study of usewear. By using similarly structured typologies, itshould ultimately prove possible to compare coevalprehistoric bone tool assemblages in Switzerland andHungary, taking mutual advantage of the incrediblydetailed information from the Swiss wet-sites and thebroad chronological palette available from the drysites of Hungary (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Map of Europe with the Alpine foreland region ofSwitzerland and Hungary indicated in the oval areas.

Starting in the late 1970s, a number ofarchaeozoologists working in Central Europe beganto regularly study bone tools, especially fromprehistoric assemblages. This research mirroredparallel trends among archaeozoologists in Britainand the Netherlands. Somewhat later, scholarlyattention also began to focus on worked osseousmaterials from proto-historic and historic periods fromthe point of view of archaeozoology and thetechnological process (Deschler-Erb 1998, 2001) asopposed to traditional typo-chronological approaches(Biró 1994; Mikler 1997). Previous to that point, with

the exception of a few rare and influential studies andpublished proceedings (Backalov 1979; Campana1989; Camps-Fabrer 1974, 1979, 1982, 1985; Clarke1951; Semenov 1969), bone tools were primarilystudied by archaeologists who concentrated on theformal attributes of the tools, with less analytic rigorapplied to the feedback relationship between thecomposition of the pool of raw materials – animalbones, antler and teeth – and technical tradition interms of which skeletal elements are selected tomanufacture tools and ornaments. In practice, thissituation meant that it was the more complex,elaborated and unique objects that were published onan arbitrary basis at the back of site reports, a certainpath to obscurity, or in focused reports. The tools andornaments of everyday life remained largely under-represented and poorly described in thesepublications. This was the case in Hungary, forexample, with the well-known bone spoons of theEarly Neolithic (Nandris 1972) or more elaboratedobjects such as the Bronze Age bridle-cheek pieces(Bökönyi 1960; Foltiny 1965; Hüttel 1984; Mozsolics1962). A few studies from the Danubian region,mostly from the former Yugoslavia, attemptedoverviews, which were largely typo-chronological(Backalov 1979; Korosec and Korosec 1969; Periié1984; Uzelac 1975). In all these cases, impropersampling techniques during excavation andincompatible typologies have made inter-sitecomparisons difficult other than on a presence-absence basis. Bone tool studies where the entirematerial was systematically presented, somethingcommon with more culturally diagnostic ceramics orlithic materials, were virtually non-existent.

The situation in Switzerland was somewhat bettersince the spectacular nature of large bone toolassemblages, often in combination with well-preserved wooden handles, arrow shafts or bindingmaterials such as twine and pitch, preserved in thewater-logged conditions at Neolithic lake-dwellingsites, attracted more attention earlier on (Schibler1980, 1981; Strahm 1971; Suter 1977, 1981; Voruz1984). This intensive study of site materials,

chapter 4

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

52

sometimes comprising thousands of worked bone,antler and tusk objects from various Neolithic periods(4300-2500 BC cal) has largely been carried out atthe bio-archaeology laboratory at the University ofBasel.

In addition, because the post structures of theNeolithic houses can be dated within a few years ofeach other using the technique of dendrochronology,changes in the raw material and form of theseworked bones can be traced in chronological detail,impossible on dry-land sites. Furthermore, theenvironmental and economic contexts for these bonetools are now very well understood, especially for thearea around Lake Zürich (Schibler 1987a, 1987b,1987c, 1997). On the other hand, changes in lakelevel and variable rates of erosion both at the lakeedges and outside this environmental zone havemeant that less is known of later prehistoric periodsin the region. The relatively great number of artifactsavailable for study compared to comparable dry-siteselsewhere is related to both careful excavation andthe superior conditions of preservation characteristicof wet sites. Based on the few Bronze Age wet sitesit is known that the importance of bone and antlerraw material decreased with the use of bronze as araw material in tool production (Schibler 1998).

In the dry-sites of Hungary, the corpus of bone toolreports in the region has slowly grown. Material hasbecome available from different types of sites invaried environmental zones. The chronological rangeis also slowly broadening from the Neolithic (Beldiman1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Beldiman and Popusoi2001; Choyke in press c; Christidou 2001; Elster2001; Kokabi 1994; Makkay 1990; Marinescu-Bâlcuand Beldiman 1997) to the end of the Bronze Age(Choyke 1998, 2000, in press a; in press b; Choykeand Bartosiewicz 1999, 2000, 1999; Choyke et al.2004) and beyond (Becker 2003). Iron Age sites,especially Celtic sites in the region, also containobjects made from osseous materials, mostlydecorative in nature, which await analysis. Theincreased knowledge concerning this class ofprehistoric artifacts has occurred in parallel with anenhanced understanding of how choice of rawmaterial reflects availability, tool manufacturetraditions, the relative importance of the taskparticular tools were used in and, ultimately, variouskinds of group identities (Choyke et al. 2004).

In both Hungary and Switzerland, manufacturingsequences and experimental production of particulartypes, evident use wear, and the taphonomicsituation of individual artifacts have also become aregular part of bone artifact analyses. Unfortunately,only a very few scholars, outside of France within the

context of CNRS research programs, have the time,money or facilities for extensive experimentation andimplementing use wear studies requiring highmagnifications. It is fair to say that Central Europeanwork on bone tools tends to be formulated aroundthe cultural-biological aspects of these classes of rawmaterials. Thus, the archaeozoological perspective isespecially strong in Central Europe. Both authors ofthis paper, although trained as archaeozoologists,have been especially interested early on ininvestigating the relationship between the rawmaterial from which the tools are made and therefuse bone assemblage from which the raw materialwas selected.

Not surprisingly, these studies of bone tools sharedmany characteristics related to our attempts to find abalance between the biological aspects of bone toolsand purely culturally determined aspects includingmanufacturing techniques, function and style.Detailed studies of artifacts from a number of lake-dwelling sites on Swiss lakes in the Alpine Forelandwill be presented here, including some of the resultsrelated to the effects of over-hunting of red deer onthe production of antler sleeves in the Swiss Neolithic.Additional work on prehistoric materials from theCarpathian Basin will be reviewed especially withinthe context of the so-called (Choyke 1998)manufacturing continuum, which has proven useful asa way of comparing attitudes toward use of bonebetween disparate assemblages over time andspace.

Comparative Typology

Neolithic bone, antler and tooth artifacts from lake-dwelling sites number in the tens of thousands due towonderful preservational conditions. The sample sizeis reflected in the great variability of formal types. Allthe basic types generally found in Europe are presenton these Swiss sites. Thus, in order to guaranteecomparability, some 15 years ago, Schibler’s (1981)typology was adapted to worked bone assemblagesfrom the Carpathian Basin. Suter’s (1981) antler tooltypology, developed at the same time and adoptedfor worked antler from the upper levels of the samesite by Furger (1981), is based on the particularcircumstances of Swiss Neolithic lake-dwelling sites.The specific nature of this typology makes itsomewhat less adaptable to other culturalcircumstances.

The bone tool typology is built around the followingvariables; 1) the size of the animal species; 2) theskeletal element or at least type of skeletal element(long versus flat bone, tooth, specific skeletal

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

53

element); 3) the form of the tool’s working end; 4) theform of the tool’s butt end; and 5) the position of thehafting hole relative to the long axis of burr and beamantler tools.

Any object, which does not fit directly into the Swisstypological scheme, can be added with attention paidto these five variables. The types are differentiatedand recorded although some types may later belumped or further sub-divided based on: skeletalelement, manufacturing wear, use wear and intra-type measurements . By following the sametypological structure, it is possibly to assesssimilarities and differences between Swiss andHungarian materials. It is problematic in Europe thatcomparisons between even closely related bone toolassemblages are difficult because the variables of thetypological structure differ greatly or are never madeexplicit.

Recently, such problems have been encountered inthe analysis of a small Early Neolithic site in Hungary.Although bone tools have been studied from anumber of Körös culture sites in the area (Makkay1990) as well as Cris culture sites in Romania(Beldiman 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Beldiman andPopusoi 2001; Marinescu-Bâlcu and Beldiman 1997)it was very difficult to compare type proportionsbetween sites because the latter reports used totallydifferent typologies largely based on the formalaspects of the tools with some attention paid tomeasurements as well. This means that some of thetypes thus introduced in Hungary were lumpedtogether in these previous formal typologies whileother types in Schibler’s typology were split up. Aregular problem has also been that some researchersdo not recognize that certain formal differences usedto define their types are related to curation or animalsize rather than real stylistic differences. Furthermore,measurements on bone tools must be treatedcarefully, especially length and tip measurementsbecause as tools are used, broken and repaired theyare continually remodeled. These changes inmeasurements have no important significance interms of either style or function, but relate to thelength and intensity of their use.

Swiss Neolithic Lake Dwelling Sites

In Switzerland, many village sites from the Neolithicand, to a lesser extent, the Bronze Age becameknown around larger lakes such as Bienne,Constance, Neuchâtel, Zug and Zürich (fig. 2). Therewere also lake dwellings built around smaller lakesand in or near peat bogs (Schibler 2001a: 52). Manyof the lacustrian sites were excavated in conjunction

with various building and highway projects around thecountry beginning in the 1980s. Lakeshoresettlements are less common around the lake ofGeneva. The reasons are not understood butdifferences in topography, preservation, andenvironment as well as less survey work may bepossible explanations.

Figure 2: Map of Neolithic and Bronze Age lake dwelling sites anddry sediment sites from Switzerland in which animal bones and boneand antler tools were recovered and analyzed.

The houses of lake dwellings found today in Africaand elsewhere around the world are mostlyconstructed on high wooden posts because ofseasonal variations in river levels. This might also bewhy prehistoric lake dwellings were sometimes builtabove the ground, although ground level houses alsoexisted. However, each site is different and unstableground may explain the use of these long posts sunkdeeply into the earth.

Villages of various sizes, ranging in size between 500and 10,000 m2, are characteristic of the 3rd, 4th andthe second half of the 5th millennium BC in this region.This means there could be hamlets with only 6 to 10houses but also villages with as many as 100 houses.If we calculate 6 to 8 persons per house, there mayhave been villages with populations as small as 50 oras large as 800 people. Larger villages tended tobecome more numerous over time as the populationgrew until the end of the Neolithic with even moreintense human impact on the environment.

Because most lake dwelling layers lie below the watertable, aerobic bacteria, which are responsible fordecay, cannot damage organic materials. Therefore,fruits, seeds, leaves and wood or even fragments oftextiles are frequently preserved. As at sites buried indry sediment, animal bones, flint or stone tools, andceramics are also present but are in much bettercondition. Tools made from animal bones or from reddeer antler, for example, are preserved with both theirmanufacture and use wears clearly visible. This has


54

made possible a range of experiments showing thatbone chisels were probably used to work wood andantler with the macro-wear exactly comparable tothose on experimental and archaeological specimens(Schibler 2001a: 50, 52). In addition, a number ofcomposite artifacts such as linen combs, antler pointswith their shafts, fish hooks with their lines andaxe/adzes with their shafts and stone blades havebeen found (fig. 3). Understanding where and howthese kinds of tools tend to co-occur allowresearchers to extrapolate to materials from less well-preserved contexts on dry land sites.

Antler, Hunting and the Economic “Crash”

Antler in the Swiss Neolithic was most often used toproduce sleeves, an intermediate piece between thevaluable wooden handle and the stone blades foraxes or adzes (fig. 4). The use of these sleevesmarked a technical innovation. Sleeves were intendedto absorb shock and protect the handle because theproduction of this part was time consuming and ashtrees used for the handles are more limited in terms ofavailability. The fact that all parts of the lake dwellinghouses were built with wood underlines theimportance of axes and adzes in these settlements.Clearing arable land required felling trees, whichwould then have to be processed. Axes or adzeswould have been indispensable for all work of thiskind.

Research on the increase of antler use in theNeolithic, set against the background of exploitationand raw material management of red deer byNeolithic artisans, comes from 42 uncontaminated,undisturbed occupation layers from Zürich. Theselayers have all been closely dated to within a fewyears using dendrochronology. The Neolithic levelsdate from between 4300 BC and 2571 BC and thereis a small Bronze Age complex dating from 19th and18th centuries BC (Conscience 2001). A total of 3,944bone artifacts and 4,687 antler artifacts wererecovered and analyzed out of 92,983 animal bonesof which 52,506 could be identified to species andskeletal element. All objects, whether finished, half-finished or cut-offs were taken into consideration(Schibler 2001b: 82).

The proportions of raw materials from earliersettlements (4300-3100 BC) were compared to thosefrom later levels (3100-1600 BC). Schibler (1987 a-c,1995, 1997; Schibler et al. 1997) discovered that, asat most earlier settlements, the proportion of bonetools was very high and stone blades were moreoften fixed directly to wooden handles. Antler seemsto have come as often from hunted stags as gathered

supplies. The later occupation levels, on the otherhand, contained over 50% worked, largely collected,antler. All assemblages from Corded Ware levels (ca.2750 BC) contained substantially more antlerartifacts.

Figure 3: Some examples of well preserved bone, tusk and antlertools from Neolithic lake-dwelling sites fromSwitzerland. a; fish hookmade of wild boar tusk with fish line from Arbon Bleiche 3, Lake ofConstance (Leuzinger 2002, Abb. 163). b; detail of the upper end ofa fish hook with notches for attaching the fish line. Arbon Bleiche 3(Deschler-Erb & al. 2002, Abb. 435,3). c; linen comb made fromhalved ribs of cattle or red deer, bound with bast fibers and fixedwith birch tar. Nidau BKW, layer 5 (lake of Bienne), length: 22cm(Hafner and Suter 2004: 46). d; pendants made of metapodialsfrom dogs and pig (right) from Twann (lake of Bienne), length: ca.4.5 – 6 cm (Hafner & Suter 2004: 44). e; Arrow heads made fromanimal bone with remains of birch tar from Twann (Lake Bienne),length: ca. 3 – 5 cm (Hafner & Suter 2004: 32). f; retoucher madeof red deer antler from Sutz-Lattrigen-Hauptstation-innen (LakeBienne), length: 8 cm and 11 cm. g; lighter from a handle made froma red deer antler tine and a piece of flint from Feldmeilen-Vorderfeld(lake of Zürich), length: ca 11 cm (Furger & al. 1998, fig. 123). h;axe made from the basis of a red deer antler beam with a woodenhandle from Arbon Bleiche 3 (Deschler-Erb & al. 2002, Abb. 471).

Antler sleeves represent a technological innovationdesigned to protect the valuable axe or adze ashwood shafts and handles from breaking by absorbingthe force of blows. In the 4th millennium BC, antlersleeves became tools of fundamental importance withmore parts of the antler rack exploited. The stylisticvariability of sleeve types also increased. By the endof the Neolithic throughout the Alpine Foreland the


55

use of antler for sleeves was maximized – all parts ofthe rack were used. By 3100 BC, antler tines wereincreasingly turned into sleeves for small stoneblades. In the Corded Ware period at 2800 BC, stoneblades were exclusively fixed in antler sleeves, shedantler was collected even more systematically andfewer unused bits of antler waste can be found inthese later levels. This is also the time when thelowest numbers of red deer bones are found in therefuse bone illustrating that antler was mostlyprocured by gathering rather than hunting. The stoneblades in all periods were continuously re-sharpened.The sleeves holding the blades became shorter asthey were ground away along with the blades.Curation of sleeves becomes ever more important inthe latest phase indicating that sleeves were usedmore intensively in this period (Schibler 2001b: 85-87). Curiously, antler sleeves were unknown oncontemporary sites in Hungary despite what wouldseem to be their obvious advantages.

Figure 4: Examples of antler sleeves from Vinelz-Hafen. a; LakeBienne (Hafner & Suter 2004: 41). B; reconstruction of the use ofthe sleeves (Hafner & Suter 2000, Abb. 102).

These changes in the Swiss Neolithic are thus relatedto both innovation and the deterioratingenvironmental situation resulting in apparentlycontradictory shifts in hunting patterns. There seemsto be a direct connection between deer hunting andthe use of antlers during the 4300-3500 period,related to availability through hunting. At the turn of4000 BC cal. to 3900 BC cal., as well as the secondhalf of 3700 BC cal., the proportion of red deer bonein the refuse bone material of settlements reaches60%. The period is, however, the time of the lowestpercentage of antler artifacts in the worked osseousassemblages in the region. There was a clearincrease in juvenile red deer in faunal assemblages,especially in 37th century BC cal., suggesting thatregional red deer populations were being over-hunted(fig. 5). This meant that fewer usable antler beams

from adult stags were available. The over-hunting wascaused most probably by an economic crisis inagriculture, related to climatic stress resulting in poorgrain harvests (high calorie fruits and seeds from wildplants became more common in the macrobotanicalassemblages; Hüster-Plogmann et al. 1999; Schibleret al. 1997: 178-179). Changes in antler use relatedto innovation and economic deterioration have beenconfirmed at other sites since the Zürich studies (deCapitani et al. 2002). Such a detailed understandingof the interaction between innovation, style andenvironmental factors would not be possible on dry-sites and in this way, the Swiss model will be usefulfor understanding contemporary sites in places suchas Hungary.

Figure 5: Proportion of bone and antler tools, the importance of bonefrom red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the proportion of bones fromjuvenile red deer in Neolithic villages from Zürich.

Hungary: A Gateway to Europe

Hungary is located in the center of the CarpathianBasin (see fig. 1). The flat eastern two thirds ofHungary are dominated by two major rivers: theDanube and the Tisza. The north and west of thelandscape are hillier, evolving into low mountainsalong the present political borders of the country.Before the river regulations of the 19th century, muchof the country was marshy and wet. This has resultedin the formation of tell settlements since the LateNeolithic, especially in the eastern Plain. Until therecent advent of large highway projects crosscuttinglong swathes of the landscape of Hungary,archaeological excavation has concentrated on thesemore obvious prehistoric sites, so that settlement


56

hierarchies are only now starting to be revealed. Overthe long run, this should also have implications for ourunderstanding of the compositions of bone toolassemblages.

From the Early Neolithic onwards small groups andnew ideas have flowed from the east and south intothis region and on into the rest of Europe. Within theregion, this mixture resulted in a highly variable set ofindigenous cultural groups with material culturesexhibiting both continuities and discontinuities overtime and across the landscape. Many of the technicalinnovations introduced and developed here such asagriculture and metal-working, would go on to be ofdecisive importance in the social and economicevolution of local populations throughout the rest ofEurope. It is therefore unfortunate that only oneresearcher has worked consistently on prehistoricbone tool material in the region, albeit for the last 20years. Choyke (1979, 1983, 1984, 1987, 2000, inpress a, in press b, in press c; Choyke andBartosiewicz 1999, 2000; Choyke et al. 2004) hasconcentrated most of her efforts on worked boneassemblages from the much neglected Chalcolithicand Bronze Age periods. Thus, a picture of rawmaterial and tool exploitation is slowly beginning toemerge. Fortunately, she has always had access tothe pertinent faunal materials as well, either as theprimary analyst or in close cooperation with otherarchaeozoologists. In these situations it is alwaysnecessary to check and double check that workedbone combined with other materials or spectacularpieces have not been stored apart from the piecesrecognized by the archaeologist in the field as havingbeen worked, thus falling through the analyticalcracks.

Taphonomic Biases

The sites in this region virtually all consist of drysediments, with the rare exception of wells.Nevertheless, the fact that most of the soils arealkaline means that bone, antler and tooth preservesrelatively well, although often with surfaceconcretions. Sites may be found near marshes, byrivers, in foothill areas and many other environmentalcontexts. The increase in highway developmentprojects in the last 10 years has made it clear thatpeople in the past occupied areas previously thoughtto have been uninhabited. As such, Hungaryrepresents a broad prehistoric stage with importantimplications for technical and cultural changeselsewhere in Europe. The worked bone, antler andtooth assemblages also mirror aspects of all thesedevelopments. Since the principal author of thispaper for all intents has been virtually the only

researcher in this class of prehistoric raw material inHungary, progress has been slow in terms ofunderstanding variability between assemblages.

In addition to the loss of data resulting from poorpreservation compared to wet-sites, other difficultiesexist related to generally coarser excavationtechniques. Nowhere has this been better highlightedthan in the comparison of results from two recentexcavations with other coeval sites. The site ofSzázhalombatta-Földvár was excavated in the 1960sand late 1980s and is now being excavated by a jointteam from the Matrica Museum in the town ofSzáhalombatta and from the University of Gothenburgin Sweden. When materials are compared from thethree excavations at this site, it is immediatelyapparent that there is a sharp increase in theproportion of worked specimens made from animalbones in the dog/hare size range, particularly smalldouble points and perforated metapodials, especiallywith regard to the excavations from the 1960s. Thesite of Százhallombatta-Földvár is part of a larger andunusually well defined cluster of sites termed theVatya culture in the Hungarian literature (fig. 6). Thisculture is characterized by numerous small hill-fortsand a ring of large hill-forts at the entrance of shallowvalleys (Nováki 1952), as well as a relativelyhomogeneous material culture (Choyke et al. 2004:177-178). Material from recent excavations atSzázhallombatta-Földvár has turned up anomaloustypes simply unknown at other Vatya sites but it isdifficult to say whether this is because of the finerexcavation methods or because of the individualnature of this settlement.

Another dramatic example of the effect of taphonomicbias comes from the Early Neolithic Körös culture siteof Ecsegfalva 23 located east of the Tisza River inHungary, near the center of the Great HungarianPlain. The people of the Körös culture complex werethe first farmers in the region, living in small hamlets,apparently occupied throughout the year, in a marshyenvironment. In a recently submitted article, Choyke(in press c) has shown that compared to the relativelylarge assemblages of worked bone, antler and tuskfrom the Körös culture sites of Endrod 35, Szarvas23, and other neighboring Körös sites (Makkay 1990),the typological variability within and between toolclasses is lower at Ecsegfalva 23. From a statisticalpoint of view, this greater variability would beexpected because the sample size at Ecsegfalva 23 isrelatively small (N=98). Makkay (1990) describes over600 objects from the neighboring sites of Endrod 35and 119, as well as Szarvas 23, more than six timesgreater than what was found at Ecsegfalva 23.However, his excavations on these sites were muchmore extensive and long-lasting so that, in fact,


57

proportionally far fewer worked bones were broughtto light than what might be expected based on theEcsegfalva 23 recovery rate. A very low rate ofrecovery may be presumed for worked bone fromCris sites (Beldiman 2000a; 2000b; 2002; Marinescu-Bâlcu and Beldiman 1997), some of which wereexcavated for around thirty years (1964-1996) butwhich produced bone tool assemblages of only about100 specimens. Such differences reflect theexceptionally careful and fine excavation techniquesemployed at Ecsegfalva 23, especially the beneficialeffect of screening and water sieving. Such samplingproblems mean researchers must exercise extremecaution when drawing conclusions about the meaningof tool type compositions based on inter-sitecomparisons.

Figure 6: Map of the distribution area of Vatya culture sitesmentioned in text (after Kovacs 1982).

The Manufacturing Continuum

One way of looking at worked osseous materials is interms of the effort put into the manufacture ofindividual objects. This has been termed elsewhere acontinuum of quality (Choyke 1997a; 2001). Acontinuum of quality reflects cultural attitudes towardsthe bone objects themselves and, possibly, attitudestoward the tasks they were used in. Objects areassessed in terms of; 1) the regularity in the choice of

the species and skeletal element used in theirmanufacture; 2) the number of stages used in theirmanufacture; 3) whether they have been curated(related to the intensity of their use); and 4) theirexploitation index (Choyke 2001: 63), whichmeasures the degree of working (the proportion ofsurface covered by manufacturing marks) relative tothe degree of use (the proportion of surface coveredby use wear, handling wear and degree of curation).

Class I tools are carefully planned according to astandardized template, made from selected rawmaterials and with at least a modicum of workinvested in their manufacture. Worked antler,however, is by definition a selected raw materialalthough the objects made from it also tend to be wellmade and therefore these tools usually fall well withinthe Class I range of the manufacturing continuum.These are the tools that encompass the notion of“repetition, habituation, familiarity and repetition”(Stark 1999: 28) as a reinforcement of socialsolidarity. Long-term maintenance of a technical styleinvolves just these kinds of social messaging. It isassumed here that prehistoric bone tools fromHungary generally reflect activities carried out on thehousehold levels and are thus slower to exhibitchange related to stylistic fashions. Thus, whenchanges start to be observed in their form orcomposition, they should represent a wake-up call tothe analyst that some kind of movement has occurredin the social fabric of the settlement or culturalhinterland of the settlement. Class I tools wereintended for specific long-term, repeated tasks suchas hide preparation and were often repaired (curated)as they broke during use (fig. 7).

Figure 7: Curated Class I awl made from small ruminant metatarsal.

At the other end of the manufacturing continuum arethe Class II tools representing objects generally madein an ad hoc manner, often from bones which brokein a lucky way. They are used rather than worked.Such Class II objects give the impression of tools,which were made for individual short-term tasks andmostly abandoned thereafter. The proportions ofsuch tools in artifact assemblages from sites also


58

reflect a kind of technical style, which can becompared on a general level between sites and timeperiods (fig. 8). In reality, tools from particularassemblages not only cluster at the extremes of themanufacturing continuum but also tend to clustertowards one end or the other (Choyke 2001: 59).Finally, there is a third category of objects, whichhave a strong tradition of being made from specificbones and intensively used but were not modified atall. Such tools have only recently been brought to theauthors’ attention from ethnographic contexts andmight be termed Class I-Class II tools. Examplesinclude objects such as the 20th century unmodifiedcalf mandible and domestic pig tusk, traditionallyused to flatten lace-work in Norway (Noss 1976: 1-4).How one differentiates these tools from soil-polishedbones is a question for another day.

Figure 8: A schematic representation of the manufacturing continuumin the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

An interesting long-term trend in the use of osseousmaterials for manufacturing tools and ornamentsreveals itself in this study of quality of manufacture. Inearlier periods of the Neolithic, bone tools clearly forman integral and valued part of the tool inventory. Mosttools are planned in terms of raw material choice,some degree of multi-stage manufacturing, andintensive use. Thus, large proportions tend to scatteralong the Class I end of the manufacturing continuumwith a smaller number clustering at the Class II end(fig. 9). However, by the middle of the Chalcolithicperiod in Hungary the use of bone, antler and teethas raw materials seem to have become muchreduced in importance so that most objects fallsomewhere along the Class II end of themanufacturing continuum, with a few objects that arethoughtfully made clustering at the Class I end.Among these emerged a class of objects, probablymade by specialists and most often part of multi-media objects such as harness elements, elaborateprojectile points, skates etc. (fig. 10 and 11). Thistendency continues, so that by the Celtic-Romanperiod, most bone objects seem to be produced inworkshop environments by specialists, sometimeseven using imported materials (fig. 12).

Figure 9: Typical Class II bevel-ended tools found together in a pitfrom the Middle Chalcolithic site of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in thenorthwest corner of Hungary.

Figure 10: Late Bronze age elaborate projectile points from theupper levels at the fortified Vatya tell settlement of Százhalombatta-Földvár.

Continuity over Regions

Objects manufactured from osseous materials suchas bone, antler and teeth were mostly produced andused during household activities. As has beenpointed out elsewhere in the literature (for exampleHodder 1982; Stark 1999: 27), objects lacking cleariconographical information vary in their degree ofclosure compared to highly decorative items. Assuch, the character of such assemblages, and


59

especially everyday tools, tends to be moreconservative and long-lived within localized regions.On the other hand, it may be expected that complexornaments and objects such as projectile points,which may be associated with an individual’s socialstatus within a larger community or cultural setting,need to be recognizable over wider geographicaldistributions and are therefore more standardized intheir form and decoration. Such objects are thusmore impacted by style (Weissner 1984; Wobst 1972,1999; etc.). These variable distributions of themundane versus decorative objects are preciselywhat one finds in Middle Bronze Age settlement areasin Hungary. The aforementioned west HungarianVatya culture area is generally characterized by theregular use of rib scrapers for leather working (fig. 13)as well as heavy duty antler tools with squared-offbases (fig. 14) (Choyke 1984: 31-32; Choyke et al.2004). On the other hand, contemporary MiddleBronze Age tell sites in the north and central part ofthe Great Hungarian Plain are instead characterizedby the use of sheep/goat tibia scrapers for scrapinghide or leather, large ruminant mandible smoothers,and ruminant astragali and proximal phalanges withfaceted surfaces (fig. 15 and 16) (Choyke 1984: 32,Choyke in press a and b; Choyke and Bartosiewicz1997: 65). The greater the number of workedosseous site materials analyzed, with their distributionareas cross-cutting the pottery type distribution areasused to define archaeological cultures in Hungary, theeasier it will be to trace the degree of interactionbetween settlements or groups of settlements(Choyke in press a).

Figure 11: Late Bronze Age (Urnfield) skate pair found in a pit duringrescue highway excavations near Budapest.

On the other hand, it is the ornamented pieces, thefamous horse harness elements, fishing equipment,projectile points, boar tusk ornaments, and drilledbear canines that can be found on all contemporaryMiddle Bronze Age sites in Hungary. Although theseobjects, especially the harness elements with theirAegean derived meander designs (see above) havebeen most written about in the literature, they are farless evocative of the details of everyday life and socialinteraction on a local or regional scale in this period.

Figure 12: AD first century ivory comb from the grave of a youngRoman girl from the territory of Aquincum.

Figure 13: Cattle rib scrapers from Százhallombatta-Földvár arecharacteristic hide or leather-working tools in the worked osseousassemblages of Vatya culture sites.

Continuity through Time

It was argued above that the technical style markedby the species/skeletal elements chosen to makeparticular tools tends to be conservative. Thus, it isstriking that certain tool types mostly come to light insite materials which are chronologically quiteseparated in time. Of course, it is possible that tooltypes were re-invented or re-introduced into places,but it seems even more likely that there was a degreeof continuity in populations despite significant socialand economic changes which apparently took placein the Carpathian Basin. It seems certain that theregion was effected by a stream of new ideas andeven, increasingly, small groups of people as timeprogressed. This tendency was to culminate in theRoman and Migration periods where life was


60

transformed by population movements from both theeast and the west after the Roman period. TheHungarians themselves consistuted one of the last ofa series of nomadic populations who moved in fromCentral Asia. For this reason, Hungarian scholarshiphas tended to see prehistoric cultures as a series oflargely discontinuous entities. However, the ‘life-span’of a number of mundane tool types makes it clearthat in prehistoric times at least we are not looking attotal changes in the population. Certain technicalstyles for production on the household levelcontinued to be passed down from parent to childuntil the onset of the Iron Age (tab. 1).

Figure 14: Heavy duty hafted burr and beam tools made from reddeer antler display the characteristic square cut end of such toolsfrom Middle Bronze Age Vatya culture sites. This specimen is fromSzázhallombatta-Földvár.

Figure 15: This cattle mandible smoothing tool is characteristic ofworked bone assemblages from Middle Bronze sites in the northernhalf of the Great Hungarian Plain.

One trend, which is quite interesting, is the intensiveuse of hafted heavy duty burr and beam toolsbeginning in the Late Neolithic (fig. 17). T-shapedantler axes are important into the Chalcolithic inwestern Hungary. Heavy duty antler hammer/axetools made from the burr and beam of red deer antleron the other hand begin to be intensively usedthroughout Hungary in the Late Neolithic. Theseobjects continue to be an important part of everydaytool kits of people up until the end of the Bronze Agealmost 3000 years later, although some of thetechnical details may vary from region to region. Smallharpoons made from red deer antler tine tips display

a parallel chronological distribution, althoughfrequencies in various periods may differ dramatically.Biel (1994: Abb.3) describes such objects from theMiddle Bronze Age of Southern Germany.

Figure 16: These ruminant astragali and first phalanges arecharacteristic of worked bone assemblages from Middle Bronze sitesin the northern half of the Great Hungarian Plain.

Another tool which was used over wide areas of theCarpathian Basin was the spatulae made from splitcattle ribs, with one rounded and one pointed end.This tool continues to be used through the MiddleChalcolithic but disappears towards the end of theperiod. Nevertheless, the use of this type of objectcontinues for a good 300 years after the official end ofthe Late Neolithic. Another interesting tool type withthe same life-span as the pointed rib spatulae arebeamers, mostly made from the complete metatarsalbones of adult red deer or cattle. These tools arecharacterized by continuously renewed, concave andsharp-edged facets, sometimes along the length onall four diaphysial surfaces. Their use is inferred byanalogy with similiar objects from ethnographic andhistorical contexts used to clean the back side ofhides pinned to tree trunks. Such tools appear inconsiderable numbers on Late Neolithic sites in thenorth of the Great Hungarian Plain (fig. 18). Thesesites have many connections with contemporary sitesin the west of Hungary. Although no worked osseousassemblages have yet been analyzed from the LateNeolithic in this part of the country, a bone beamerhas been reported from a coeval Neolithic (Lengyelculture) site in Austria (Günther Karl Kunst, personalcommuniction 2004). Analogous beamers have been


61

found on Chalcolithic sites in western Hungary (fig.19). Thus, bone beamers were used for at least 1000years.

Another unique Hungarian prehistoric bone tool wasmostly made from the mandible of sheep or goat andmore rarely cattle. The premolars were extracted anda soft material pulled over the surface of the emptyalveolars, smoothing and rounding their edges. Thesemay have been some kind of a leather strapprocessor. These tools were first found in the MiddleChalcolithic (Choyke in press b) (fig. 20) but are alsoknown from an Early Bronze Age Bell-Beaker culturesite near Budapest (fig. 21) and are found consistentlyat Middle Bronze Age Vatya sites in particular(Choyke 1984).

Figure 17: Early Bronze Age heavy duty hafted burr and beam toolfrom the Bell-Beaker Csepel –Háros site at Albertfalva in theoutskirts of Budapest.

Finally, there seems to be both chronological andgeographical continuity in the use of cattle and horserunners/skates. The first known runners made fromhorse radii, drilled through the distal end in amediolateral direction and faceted on the dorsalsurface, come from the Bell-Beaker culture sitesfound along the Budapest section of the Danube anddate to the Early Bronze Age (2800 BC). Some 1400years later, very similar objects, also made oncomplete horse and cattle radii were still being usedat a relatively close-by Middle Bronze Age fortifiedsettlement of Százhalombatta–Földvár, also located

on the Danube. These tools have been singled outbecause they are relatively unique, with apparentlyfew parallels outside Hungary. It seems most likely

that the technical traditions surrounding theirmanufacture continued in temporally contiguoussocieties on a household level, irrespective of othersignificant changes in broader social structures.

Figure 18: Late Neolithic beamers made from cattle metatarsal (hereonly the distal half remains) from the site of Öcsöd-Kovahalom onthe Great Hungarian Plain.

Figure 19: Middle Chalcolithic beamer made from a red deermetatarsal with the joint still intact. This specimen comes from thesite of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in the northwest corner of Hungary.

Conclusions

The research on worked osseous materials is a studyin contrasts and possibilities for the future. On the

Table 1: Some important mundane tool types exhibiting continuity between periods

End of the Neolithic to theChalcolithic

End of the Neolithic to end of theBronze Age

Chalcolithic to the endof the Bronze Age

Beginning of the Bronze Ageto the Middle Bronze Age

Bevel-end/pointed spatulae Mandible with worn-down oral part

Skates or runners made fromcattle or horse radii

T-shaped antler axes Antler tine-tip harpoon

Long bone beamer Hafted heavy duty antler hammer/axehaft from rose and beam


62

one hand, the detailed study of huge toolassemblages has permitted development of aconsistent typology which can easily be adapted toother archaeological contexts. Comparability betweenfar-flung assemblages will be increased by usingtypologies structured in a similar manner, even ifimportant differences in preservation and samplingremain a stumbling block. The worked bone, antlerand tooth assemblages from the Neolithic and BronzeAge lake-dwelling sites in Switzerland exist in aprecisely identified temporal and environmentalcontext. Much more can be said about on-sitedistribution of tools and various daily activities. Dry-sites, with poorer preservation of organic material, aremuch more problematic in this regard. Nevertheless,analogy with the detailed Swiss information shouldprove useful in understanding material culturalpatterning at sites of the same techno-cultural levelelsewhere in Europe. Worked bone material fromHungary, on the other hand, comes from a widevariety of sites and environmental zones. Comparableinformation on these assemblages from Hungary mayhelp fill in lacunae (by way of analogy) in the Swissmaterial resulting from changing lake levels orerosion.

Figure 20: Middle Chalcolithic mandible with smoothed oral section.This specimen comes from the site of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in thenorthwest corner of Hungary.

Figure 21: Early Bronze Age cattle mandible with smoothed oralsection from the Bell-Beaker Csepel –Háros site at Albertfalva in theoutskirts of Budapest.

The fabulous preservation of the Swiss material haspermitted work to be carried out integratingenvironmental data on an economic crisis occuring in

the Neolithic. Failing agriculture lead to the over-hunting of red deer. In parallel, there was a technicalinnovation in the use antler sleeves to protect valuableash wood hafts from breaking when the axes andadzes were in use. It can be seen that there musthave been an increased reliance on organizedgathering of shed red deer antler towards the end ofthe Neolithic and afterwards in the region.

Such integrated studies of tools made from osseousmaterials in terms of continuity in time, space andmanufacturing is made possible only with the multi-disciplinary and international cooperation of scholarsspecialized in this unique class of artifacts.

References Cited

Backalov, A.1979 Predmeti od kostii roga u preneolitu I neolitu

Srbije. Beograd: Archaeologia Jugoslavica.

Becker, C.2003 Bone Artifacts and Man – An Attempt at a

Cultural Synthesis. In Decyphering AncientBones: The Research Potent ia l ofBioarchaeological Collections, ed. G. Grupe andJ. Peters, 83-124. Documenta Archaeobiologiae.Rahden/Wesf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.

Beldiman, C.1998 L'industrie des matières dures animales dans le

site de la civilization Starcevo-Cris Trestiana,dép. de Vaslui. Un exemple d’étude: lesspatules. Acta moldaviae Meridionalis; vol. 15-20, No 1: 82–115.

2000a L'industrie des matières dures animales dans lesite Néolithique Ancien de Dudest II Vechi, dép.de Timis. Anales du Banat; vol. 7-8: 75–92.

2000b Objets de parure en matières dures animales duNéolithique ancien de Roumanie: bracelets enbois de cerf. Bulletin du Musée départementalTeohari Antonescu; vol. 5-7: 31–45.

2002 Sur la typologie des outils en matières duresanimales du Néolithique ancien de Roumanie: lepoinçon sur demi-métapode perforé. In Atelierset techniques artisanales. Contributionsarchéo log iques , ed. C. Gaiu, 7-31. SérieHistorica 6. Cluj-Napoca: Musée départementalBistrita: Nasaud, Bibliotheca Musei Bistrita.

Beldiman, C. and E. Popusoi2001 L’industrie des matières dures animals dans le

site néothlique ancien (culture de Starcevo-Cris)de Trestiana, dép. de Vaslui, Roumanie: aiguillesà chas. Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta MuseiPetrodavensis; vol. 22: 351–402.

Biel, J.1994 Bronze- und Eisenszeit. In Knochenarbeit, ed. M.

Kokabi, 57-82. Stuttgart: LandesdenkmalamtBaden-Württemberg.


63

Biró M.1994 The Bone Objects of the Roman Collection.

Budapest: Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici.

Bökönyi, S.1960 Reconstruction des mors en bois de cerf et en

os. Acta Archaeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae; vol. 12: 113–122.

Campana, D.1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone tools. The

Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in theZagros and the Levant. Bar International SeriesNo 494. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed)1974 Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de

l’os dans la préhistoire. Aix-en-Provence:Éditions de l’Université de Provence.

1979 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant leNéolithique et l’Age des métaux: Premièreréunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industriede l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS.

1982 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant leNéolithique et l’Age des métaux: Deuxièmeréunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industriede l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS.

1985 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant leNéolithique et l’Age des métaux: Troisièmeréunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industriede l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS.

de Capitani, A., S. Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E. Marti-Grädel and J. Schibler2002 Die Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon

Bleiche 3. Funde. Archäeologie im Thurgau,Band 11. Frauenfeld: Veröffentlichung desAmtes für Archäeologie des Kantons Thurgau.

Choyke, A. M.1979 A Classification of the Bone and Antler Tools

from the Bronze Age Hill-fortress of Pákozdvár.Alba Regia; vol. 17: 9–21.

1983 Elozetes jelentés a tiszaug-kéménytetoi ásatáscsontszerszámairól. Archeológiai Értesíto; vol.109, No 1: 35–41.

1984 An Analysis of Bone, Antler and Tooth Toolsfrom Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen desarchäologischen Instituts der ungarischenAkademie der Wissenschaften; vol. 12/13: 13-–57.

1987 The Exploitation of Red Deer in the HungarianBronze Age. Archaeozoologia; Vol. 1, No 1:109–116.

1997 The Bone Manufactur ing Continuum.Anthropozoologica; No 25-26: 65–72.

1998 Bronze Age Red Deer: Case Studies from theGreat Hungarian Plain. In Man and the AnimalWorld. Studies in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi,ed. P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W.Meid, 157-178. Budapest: Archaeolingua Kiadó.

2000 Refuse and Modi f ied Bone f romSzázhalombatta–Földvár: Some PreliminaryObservations. In Százhalombatta Archaeological

Expedition Annual Report 1, ed. I. Poroszlai andM. Vicze, 97-102. Százhalombatta: MatricaMuseum.

2001 A Quantitative Approach to the Concept ofQuality in Prehistoric Bone Manufacturing. InAnimals and Man in the Past, ed. H. Buitenhuisand W. Prummel, 50-66. Groningen: ARC-Publicatie, 41.

in press a Bronze Age Bone and Antler Working at theJászdózsa-Kápolnahalom Tell. Muinasajateadus. Tallinn: History Institute of the EstonianAcademy of Sciences.

in press b Continuity and Discontinuity at Gyor-Szabadrét-domb: Bone Tools from a ChalcolithicSettlement in Northwest Hungary. InProceedings of the WBRG, Basel 2001.Archaeologie International.

in press c Objects for a Lifetime – Tools for a Season: TheWorked Osseous Material from Ecsegfalva 23.Excavations at Ecsegfalva 23 University ofCardiff, Department of Archaeology.

Choyke A. M. and L. Bartosiewicz1999 Bronze Age Animal Keeping in Western Hungary.

In Archaeology of the Bronze Age and Iron Age:Experimental Archaeology, EnvironmentalArchaeology, Archaeological Parks, ed. E. Jeremand I. Poroszlai, 239-249. Budapest:Archaeolingua Series Major.

2000 Bronze Age Animal Exploitation in the CentralGreat Hungarian Plain. Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae; vol. 51:43–70.

Choyke, A. M., M. Vretemark and S. Sten2004 Levels of Social Identity Expressed in the Refuse

and Worked Bone from the Middle Bronze AgeSzázhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya Culture,Hungary. In Behaviour Behind Bones: TheZooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status andIdentity, ed. S. J. O'Day, W. van Neer and A.Ervynck, 177-189. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Clark, J. G. D. and M. W. Thompson1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working

Antler in Upper Palaeolithic and MesolithicEurope. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society;vol. 19, Part 2: 148-160.

Conscience, A.-C.2001 Frühbronzezeitliche Uferdörfer aus Zürich-

Mozartstrasse - eine folgenreiche Neudatierung.In Mit einem Exkurs von Eduard Gross: Einkritischer Blick zurück, 147-157. Basel: Jahrbuchder Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- undFrühgeschichte, Bd. 84.

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

Forschungen in Augst 27/1.2001 Do-it-Yourself Manuacturing of Bone and Antler

in Two Villas in Roman Switzerland. In CraftingBone: Skeletal Technologies through Time andSpace, ed. A. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 31-


64

40. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports.

Deschler-Erb, S., E. Marti-Grädel and J. Schibler2002 Die Knochen-, Zahn- und Geweihartefakte. In

Die Jungsteinzeit l iche SeeufersiedlungArbon/Bleiche 3: Funde, ed. A. de Capitani, S.Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E. Marti-Grädel andJ. Schibler, 277-366. Archäeologie im Thurgau,Band 11. Frauenfeld: Veröffentlichung desAmtes für Archäeologie des Kantons Thurgau.

Elster, E.2001 Middle Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Bone Tools

from Sitagroi, Greece. In Crafting Bone: SkeletalTechnologies through Time and Space, ed. A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 355-370. BARInternational Series No 937. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

Foltiny, S.1965 Bronze- und urnenfelderzeitliche Hirshhorn- und

Knochentrensen aus Neiderösterreich.Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaftin Wien; vol. 95: 243–249.

Furger, A.1981 Die Kleinfunde aus den Horgener Schichten. Die

Neolithischen Uferseidlungen von Twann 13.Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.

Furger, A., C. Fischer and M. Höneisen1998 Die Ersten Jahrtausende: Die Schweiz von den

Anfänen bis zur Eisenzeit. Archäeologie undKulturgeschichte der Schweiz, Band 1. Zürich:Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Hafner, A. and J. P. Suter2004 5000 Jahre Aufgetaucht, 1984-2004. Bern:

Archäologischer Dienst des Kantons Bern.

Hodder, I.1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies

of Material Culture. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hüster-Plogmann, H., J. Schibler and K. Steppan1999 The Relationship Between Wild Mammal

Exploitation, Climatic Fluctuations, andEconomic Adaptations: A TransdisciplinaryStudy on Neolithic Sites from Lake ZurichRegion, Southwest Germany and Bavaria. InHistoria Animalum Ex Ossibus: Festschrift fürAngela von den Driesch, ed. C. Becker, H.Manhart, J. Peters and J. Schibler, 189-200.Studia Honoraria 8. Rahden: Verlag Marie LeidorfGmbh.

Hüttel, H.-G.1981 Bronzezeitliche Tensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa.

München: Prähistorische Bronzefunde.

Kokabi, M. (ed.)1994 Knochenarbeit. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt

Baden-Württemberg.

Korosec, P. and J. Korosec1969 Fundgut der Pfahlbausiedlungen bei Ig am

La ibacher Moor . Ljubl jana: CatalogiArchaeologici Sloveniae, Editi Cvra MuseiNationalis Labacensis III.

Kovacs, T.1982 Befestinungsanlagen um die Mitte des 2.

Jahrtausends v.u. Z. in Mittleungarn. In Beiträgezum bronzlezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa,ed. B. Chropovsky and J. Herrmann, 279-291.Berlin: Nitra.

Marinescu-Bâlcu and C. Beldiman1997 L'industrie des matières dures animales

appartenant à la civilisation Néolithique deStarcevo-Cris en Roumanie. Le site deGrumâzesti, dép. de Neamt. M e m o r i aAntiquitatis. Acta Musei Petrodavensis PiatraNeamt; vol. 21: 273–296.

Makkay J.1990 Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstände

der f rühneo l i th i schen Körös-Ku l tu r .Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae;No 38: 23–58.

Mikler H.1997 Die römiscen Funde aus Bein im Landesmuseum

M a i n z . Monographies instrumentum 1.Montagnac (France): Éditions Monique Mergoil.

Mozsolics, A.1962 D ie He rkun f t f r agen de r ä l t e s t en

Hirshgeweihtrensen. Acta ArchaeologciaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae; vol. 12:125–135.

Nandris, J.1972 Bos primigenius and the Bone Spoon. Bulletin

No. 10. London: Institute of Archaeology,University of London.

Noss, A.1976 Før Strykejernet, Slikjejake og Mangletre. Oslo:

Norsk Folkemuseum.

Nováki G.1952 Féjér megye oskori földvárai. Archaeológiai

Értesíto; vol. 79: 3–17.

Periié, S.1984 Predmeti od Kosti, Roga i Kamena. Katalog XIII.

Beograd: Muzej Grada Beograda.

Poplin, F.1974 Deux cas particuliers de débitage par usure. In

Premier colloque international sur l’industrie del’os dans la Préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer,85-92. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions de l’Universitéde Provence.


65

Ramseyer, D.1987 Delley-Portalban II. Contribution á l’étude du

Néolithique en Suisse occidentale. Archéologiefribourgeoise 3. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires.

Semenov, S. A.1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study

of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces ofManufacture and Wear. (Translated, and with aPreface by M. W. Thompson). London: Cory,Adams and Mackay.

Schibler, J.1980 O s t e o l o g i s c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g d e r

cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. D i eneolithischen Uferseidlungen von Twann Band 8.Bern: Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion desKantons Bern, herausgegeben vomArchäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern,Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.

1981 Typo log i sche Un te r suchungen de rcortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Dieneolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Band17. Bern: Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektiondes Kantons Bern, herausgegeben vomArchäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern,Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.

1987a Osteoarchäologische Untersuchenen derneolithischen Knochenkomplexe. In Zür ich“Kleiner Hafner”: Tauschgrabungen 1981-1984,ed. P. Suter, 167-179. Monographien 3. Zürich:Berichte der Züricher Denkmalpflege.

1987b Die Knochenartefakte. In Zürich “Mozartstrasse”,ed. E. Gross, E. Bleuer and B. Hardmeyer, 167-176. Neolithische und bronzezeit l icheUfersiedlungen, Bände 1-3 . Zürich: Orell FüssliVerlag.

1987c Die Hirschgeweihartefakte. In Z ü r i c h“Mozartstrasse”, ed. E. Gross, E. Bleuer and B.Hardmeyer, 156-166. Neolithische undbronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen, Bände 1-3.Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag.

1997 Knochen und Geweihartefakte. In Ökonomieund Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicherUfersiedlungen am Zürichsee, ed. J. Schibler eta l . , 122-219 . Monograph ien de rKantonsarchäologie Zürich 20, Zürich und Egg.

1998 Knochen- und geweiartefakete. In Die Schweizvom Palälithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter, SPMII Neolithikumt, W. E. Stöckli et al., 142-151.Basel: Schweizerische Gesellshaft für Ur- undFrühgeschichte Verlag.

2001 Experimental Production of Neolithic Bone and

Antler Tools. In Crafting Bone: SkeletalTechnologies Through Time and Space, ed. A.M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 49-60. BARInternational Series No 937. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

2002 Red Deer Antler Exploitation and Raw MaterialManagement in Neolithic Lake Dwelling Sitesfrom Zürich, Switzerland. In Animals and Man inthe Past, ed. H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, 82-94. Groningen: ARC-Publicatie 41.

Schibler, J., S. Jacomet, H. Hüster-Plogmann, C.Brombacher1997 Economic Crash in the 37th and 36th Century

BC cal. in Neolithic Lake Shore Sites inSwitzerland. Anthropozoologica; Nos 25-26:553-570.

Stark, M.1999 Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga

Ceramic Traditions. In Material Meanings: CriticalApproaches to the Interpretation of MaterialCulture, ed. E. Chilton, 24-43. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

Suter, P.1981 Die Hirschgeweihartefakte der Cortaillod-

Schichten. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen vonTwann: Band 15. Bern: Staat l icherLehrmittelverlag.

Uzelac, J.1975 Objets en os et en corne de vatin dans la

collection du Musée de Vrsac. Revue de l’InstitutArchéologique; Nouvelle Série 26.

Wiessner, P.1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A

Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology; vol. 3, No 3:190–234.

Wobst, M. H.1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In

For the Director: Research Essays in Honor ofJames B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland, 317-342.Anthropological Papers No 61. Ann Arbor:Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

1999 Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style.In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to theInterpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. S.Chilton, 118-132. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

choyke, schibler- prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective

Documents