Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop in Eastern Switzerland

207

Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop inEastern Switzerland

Sabine Deschler-Erb

In 2001 a rescue excavation by the cantonal archeological service took place in the late Romancastellum of Pfyn (canton Thurgau, Switzerland). More than 150 antler objects were found in asmall area set against the inner wall of the castellum. There was a lot of waste and semi-manufacturedobjects, but also finished bracelets which were exclusively produced in this part of the castellum.This has allowed us to reconstruct the “chaîne opératoire” in detail. A large pit and a fireplace mayhave been used as part of the workshop. The workshop is dated to approximately AD 320.

Sabine Deschler-Erb, Institute for Prehistory and Archaeological Science, University of Basel,Spalenring 145, CH-4055, Basel, Switzerland; sabine.deschler@unibas.ch

The northern region of present-day Switzerland has twice been on the frontier of the RomanEmpire: The first time was at the beginning of the Roman occupation of north-alpine Europe in theAD 1st century. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries the limes, a fortified frontier line, was built acrossthe southern and western part of what is today Germany. Switzerland falls into what would havebeen its hinterland. However, the so-called barbarians repeatedly overran the limes until it becameimpossible to defend it any longer. At the end of the 3rd century Switzerland became a borderlandonce more on the newly established Danube-Iller-Rhein limes.

During this time, many forts (castellum) were built to secure this frontier area and its inhabitants.One of them is located at Pfyn in northeastern Switzerland near the lake of Constance (Fig. 1)(Bürgi 1983). The word “Pfyn” originates from the latin “ad fines” and means “at the border”. Thisrefers to the fact that the castellum was built on the frontier between two Roman provinces:Maxima Sequanorum to the west and Raetia prima in the east. Pfyn can be found on a map fromthe 4th century, the tabula Peutingeriana, and is also mentioned in the itinerarium Antonini asa post in the Roman transport network.

The fort at Pfyn covered an area of approximately 15000 m2 (Fig. 2). It was surrounded by a hugewall with semi-circular towers. Even in modern-day Pfyn, the Roman wall is preserved to a heightof up to 5m in places. The wall of the fort seems to have been built around AD 300. Most of thecoins found in the castellum date from the 4th century. The latest coin dates from AD 426–455 butits origins are uncertain (Bürgi 1983, 156).

Typically for archaeology at military forts, the excavations in Pfyn during the seventies broughtto light only a few military objects such as a riding spur and caltrop (Bürgi 1983, 159, Fig. 15).The soldiers took care of their equipment and normally only damaged objects were left behindin the fort. The many hairpins, most of them made of bone (Bürgi 1983, 157), found everywherein the fort, indicate that not only the soldiers but also their families lived within the walls. Fromthe faunal analysis we know that the inhabitants were self-supporting to a certain degree. Theyprobably kept small animals such as pigs and chickens (Schäfer in preparation). This was aperiod when the big, rich Roman towns with their theatres, baths and temples were beingdestroyed and trade once more became a local matter.

208

Sabine Deschler-Erb

Fig. 2. Map of the Pfyn castellum (after Bürgi 1983). Star: Area of the excavation 2001.013.

Fig. 1. Map of late Roman Switzerland (after Drack 1980, 2).

Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop in Eastern Switzerland

209

1 Excavation number 2001.013. I must thank my colleagues at the archaeological service of Canton Thurgaufor allowing me to investigate the worked bone and antler material and for giving me permission to publish theresults in this volume. The unworked food remains have also been analysed at the IPNA of the University ofBasel by my colleague M. Schäfer (Schäfer in preparation). This proved to be of importance since it was shewho recognized some of the objects from the workshop among the food remains.

In 2001, a rescue excavation (Fundbericht Thurgau 2001) was conducted by the archaeologicalservice of Canton Thurgau1 with a small zone of about 25 m2 being excavated against the innerside of the northern wall. A fire place was observed just next to the wall. About 3 m away fromthe wall was discovered a big pit which probably contained a wooden vat. Only a few bone orantler objects – the identification of the raw material during the excavation was unclear – werefound in this pit. These had probably fallen in after the pit ceased to be used. Most of the bone

Fig. 3. The workshop material (photo by D. Steiner,Kantonsarchäologie Thurgau).

or antler objects (Fig. 3) were found in the 3 mzone between the wall and the pit. It soon becameobvious that these objects belonged to a formerworkshop dating to approximately AD 320(Deschler-Erb in preparation).

The raw material of many objects was identifiableas antler by eye. The remainder had to beanalyzed using a microsope (method descriptionin Deschler-Erb 1998, 27–55). Out of 163 objectsa total of 158 were made of antler (Table). Onlyred deer antler was used with one exeption. Fiveobjects were made from bone: three hairpins, aring and a handle.

Table. List of the antler objects.

Pfyn antler objectssawn off burrantler base fragmentbroken tinesawn off tinehalf diskangular rodoverworked rodbroad shavingnarrow shavingfinished bracelet fragmentindet. wastependant (?)handle (?)total

n11164

316

23697711

158

210

Sabine Deschler-Erb

None of the antlers found at the site were still complete. Either there was no storage of rawmaterial in the fort or it was not located within the excavation area. Two objects were made fromthe burr of shed antlers (Fig. 4). There is one broken and six sawn off tines, four half disks and31 angular rods (Fig. 5). The most common objects are shavings. These are both broad (Fig. 6)and narrow (Fig. 7). Six rods were carved with a knife and appear slightly bent (Fig. 8). And lastbut not least, the objects we think were produced on the spot: bracelets (Fig. 9). These objectswere completely polished and seem to be totally finished. One object displays remnants of abronze plate and two iron rivets, another is stained a green color at one end. It is likely thatthese are what was left of the fastening of the bracelet. Other such objects display two notchesat their ends which we think were used to fasten a metal sleeve and were not merely decoration.Perhaps the notched objects lacking traces of green staining represent unfinished bracelets.

Fig. 4. Sawn burr of shed antler. Greatest diameter71 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 5. Angular rod. Length 192 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 6. Broad shavings. Length of the longest object41 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 7. Narrow shavings. Length of the longest object35 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 8. Bent and overworked rods. Length of thelongest object 192 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 9. Finished bracelets. Length of the left fragment42 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop in Eastern Switzerland

211

We think that two of the antler objects were not directly related to the workshop. The firstobject may have been the handle of a knife (Fig. 10). Perhaps it was used by the craftsmanhimself. The other object is the only one made of roe deer antler (Fig. 11). Apart from a large holeat its base it is completely unworked. Perhaps it was used as an amulet. The craftsman mayhave fixed it on the wall as protection for his workshop against the evil eye.

Fig. 10. A knife handle made of antler.Length 30 mm (photo B. Stopp).

Fig. 11. Roe deer antler with a hole through the burr. Length250 mm (photo B. Stopp).

There are a many publications and much discussion on how best to cut and bend bone or antler,some experiments have been carried out without definite results. What we can say is that antlerhas physical qualities better suited to bending than those of bone. Some people haveexperimented with acid solutions to soften the antler. However, this is unnecessary: soakingantler in cold water for several days is enough to soften it. The length of time may depend onthe age of antler. A. MacGregor (1985, 63–65) soaked antler for 48 hours in cold water. Afterwards,

Fig. 12. Chaîne opératoire.

Due to the waste and half-finished objects it is possible to reconstruct the “chaîne opératoire”for bracelets at this workshop (Fig. 12). First, a large section was sawn off the complete antler.The resulting cylinder was cut into angular rods. After the rods had been whittled with a knife,they were then bent. Finally, the rods were polished and fastened together with metal sleeves.

212

Sabine Deschler-Erb

it was possible to detach long shavings with a knife. It could be cut with even greater ease byplacing the soaked piece of antler in boiling water for fifteen minutes. Bending is also much easierafter soaking in cold and then boiling in water. When the objects dried they kept their form. Thebig pit which was found during the course of excavations at Pfyn could have been used forsoaking the antlers which were later boiled over the fireplace near the wall. A work bench mayhave stood in the zone between the wall and the pit because most of the waste objects, mainlyshavings, were found here. The method used to clamp the bracelets is unknown. Perhaps woodenbench vices were used which have not survived.

It seems that only antler bracelets were produced at this workshop. Many similar bracelets werefound all over the fort. Most of them were also made from antler, some being decorated with a fir-treemotif. It seems quite likely that all these objects were produced in the workshop. Similar braceletsmade of ivory, probably from elephant tusk, were also found in Pfyn. During Roman times, ivory wasnot processed north of the Alps. All ivory products found in the northwestern provinces must havebeen imported from the Mediterranean region where they were manufactured (Béal 2000, 112–113).The women of Pfyn possessed both imported bracelets made of ivory and similar locally producedones made from antler. How can this be explained? To answer this we have to take a look at thehistory of the Roman bone and antler processing in the northern provinces. The map (Fig. 13)shows all Roman bone and antler workshops known in present-day Switzerland.2

Fig. 13. The bone and antler workshops of Roman Switzerland. Map by L. Pernet modified from© Bundesamt für Landestopographie DU 022019.

2 The map is an outcome of the Swiss working group CRAFTS which is member of the European researchproject called “CRAFTS – Structures, rôle économique et position sociale de l’artisanat à l’époque romaine enItalie et dans les provinces occidentales“ (Amrein et al. 2003).

Borderline production: A late Roman antler workshop in Eastern Switzerland

213

From the first to the third century, bone workshops were much more widespread than antlerworkshops. In the Mediterranean region, bone working was a specialized and fully developedcraft which the Romans introduced to the provinces. Antler working, however, was not verycommon in the southern regions. Therefore, antler objects found in Roman settlements from the1st to the 3rd century came out of the local Celtic tradition (Deschler-Erb 1998, 90). The numeroustraces of antler working in the legionary fortress of Vindonissa at Königsfelden seems to havebeen influenced by Celtic traditions, too. In the 4th century, the situation changed: Nearly nobone, but many antler workshops existed. At the end of the 3rd century, when Switzerland onceagain became a frontier zone, not only were the great cities destroyed but also the economicsystem. Many villas which produced food for the towns were abandoned or carried on in a veryreduced manner. The remaining settlements such as Pfyn, became by necessity more self-sufficient.The supply of fresh bone for working was now more difficult to acquire. Antler seems to have beenbetter suited as a raw material for the requirements of a reduced and more local economic system.

However, in my opinion there is another, even more important factor, which caused craftspeopleto favour antler over bone in the 4th century: At that time, more and more soldiers of Germanicorigin joined the Roman Army. Their influence in daily frontier life all along the limes was quiteimportant. They brought with them a traditional Germanic handicraft: antler working (Deschler-Erb 1998, 92, 216–219; Dijkman & Ervynck 1998, 77–79; Bíró 2002, 67–69). The production of antlercombs was a typical Germanic handicraft. A comb workshop was found in the Roman watch towerof Rheinau/ZH near Pfyn (Hedinger 2000) (Fig. 14). The production methods and the productswere quite similar to those seen in a workshop at Oberpleichfeld, once Germania libera, and todayBavaria (Steidl 1998). It is probable that both craftspeople were Germanic. Perhaps the Rheinaucraftsman was a soldier who produced antler objects in his free time to earn extra money. It was asmall scale production compared to the outstanding workshops that M. Bíró postulates for thePannonian region (Bíró 2000, 171).

Fig. 14. Comb workshop of Rheinau (after Hedinger 2000).

214

Sabine Deschler-Erb

For the Pfyn bracelets, however, there are no similar archetypes in Germanic settlements. Thearchetypes were most likely the ivory bracelets. Ivory has a larger diameter than bone whichenables the craftsman to cut bracelets big enough to fit a wrist. A Germanic craftsman probablysaw Roman women wearing such bracelets and was inspired to imitate them in antler. He knewthis material to be quite flexible and that it would be possible to bend it into a bracelet form.Thus, he began to manufacture Roman objects with a Germanic raw material. This demonstratesa transfer of knowledge and a new creation of a type in a small frontier fort. Even today, newthings can only develop if people look beyond their borders.

AcknowledgementsEnglish by Alice Choyke and Richard Frosdick.

References