Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom tell

Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom tell

129

Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom tellAlice M. Choyke

The worked bone, antler and tusk/tooth from Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom represent one of the most signifi cant assemblages of this class of fi nd from the tell-forming period of the Middle Bronze Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. The site itself, located on the northern section of the plain in an ecotone and not far from the Mátra mountains, represents continuous settlement development from the Early Middle Bronze Age until the end of the period. A shift visible in the faunal assemblage from cattle keeping to red deer hunting can also be traced in the worked osseous materials. The intent of this paper is to present this important assemblage from the viewpoint of raw material use, typology and function within the cultural context of this period of rapidly increasing social complexity in the Carpathian Basin.

Alice Choyke, Central European University, Medieval Studies Department, Nador St. 9, H/1051, Budapest, Hungary; [email protected]

Introduction The production of objects from bone, antler and teeth continued directly from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods into the Bronze Age with little modifi cation in technique. The principal tools used to manufacture these artifacts comprised fl aked stone blades and abrasive stone in various combinations. Most types continue to be made throughout the sequence and others appeared. Nevertheless, great social changes took place in this period with the development of well established territories, probably organized into chiefdom-type polities. Social networks based on family, clan, age group and social status must have ranged well beyond the confi nes of the household and individual settlement although these still remained the basic unit of reference for most individuals. Two contradictory tendencies confront each other in this period – the need to maintain social stability and a constant infl ux of new, potentially destabilizing ideas from the outside. Material culture in this period, thus, both refl ects and even infl uences both change and stability in different social contexts in the lives of individuals and populations. Less attention has been paid to the worked bone, antler and tooth objects from these later prehistoric periods so that few comparative materials exist to provide the cultural context for individual analyses. Over the past twenty years, the author has looked at bone tools from a number of Bronze Age sites in the region (Choyke 1979; 1983; 1984; 1998; 2000; Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999; 1999–2000; Choyke et al. 2004). Enough information has begun to accumulate so that more recent studies include comparative materials, permitting recognition of technical style and formal types as they relate to broad regions, more restricted areas and individual sites within a local hinterland.

The worked osseous materials from the Middle Bronze Age tell settlement of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, a well-known site in the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain (Fig. 1), will be discussed in light of this accumulated body of data.

130

Alice M. Choyke

Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in text. Lowland areas are darker in color.

Technical style and bone tool studiesThese levels of similarity in the choices made in bone tool production refl ect manufacturing traditions which express degrees of connection at different levels of social focus. Bone manufacturing of everyday objects in the Middle Bronze Age would have been largely learned within the household. The form and manufacture of such objects tends to be conservative, making utilitarian objects particularly sensitive indicators of ethnic or local affi liations. The technology of daily life suggests shared public knowledge (Ingold 1990), for instance on the immediate household, village or even local region level. Tools made from osseous materials are also tied to the source of the raw materials, that is, the animals themselves. In addition to questions of relative availability of particular species, culture specifi c, symbolic or iconographic attitudes toward animals also refl ect back on the way their bones are chosen for the production of tools and ornaments. In this manner, technology may be seen as “a phenomenon which marrie[s] the material, social and the symbolic in a complex web of associations” (Pfaffenberger 1988, 249; 1992).

Artisans, thus, make technical choices at most stages of technical production from procurement and choice of raw material to fi nal decoration. These choices are subject to individual interpretation (Wobst 1977; 1999, 120–121), constrained by both conscious and unconscious traditions. These choices constitute knowledge of manufacturing processes that are passed on, perhaps modifi ed by individual choice, from one generation to the next (Gosselain 1992; 1998; Lechtman 1977, 15; Sackett 1986, 268–269; 1990, 33, 37).

Bourdieu (1977) has termed this social pressure for sameness in non-state society, habitus and considers it a mechanism for maintaining social stability. Habitus consists of sets of learned behaviors that can be expressed, consciously or unconsciously, in material ways (Bourdieu 1977). Thus, as part of maintaining social coherence, people living in the large villages of Middle Bronze Age Hungary would have especially relied on “habituation, familiarity, and repetition” in their daily round of activities (Stark 1999, 28). This is also refl ected in the way they worked osseous materials.


131

At the same time, it is also noteworthy that there are classes of artifacts at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom and elsewhere during this period that conspicuously lack the tighter stylistic coherence of worked osseous materials from earlier Neolithic periods. Elsewhere, this has been described in terms of a manufacturing continuum of quality with Class II representing one extreme of tools made from opportunistically chosen bone fragments and representing used-unworked or barely worked objects. This can be compared to Class I tools representing objects produced in multiple stages and made from carefully selected raw materials (Choyke 1997; 2001). In the Middle Bronze Age utilitarian objects in bone are generally being less carefully manufactured and more open to variation in formal detail. These objects thus fall closer to the Class II end of the manufacturing continuum, although there is also a small group of extremely well-made elaborate ornamental objects, falling right at the extreme Class I (Fig. 2). These latter pieces are much more stereotypic both in the way they were manufactured and in appearance. Wobst (1999) would suggest that this loosening of technological rules, in this case the rules of bone tool manufacture, represents a kind of material interference in the social fabric, allowing assessment of individual commitment to the group. He states that “functionally appropriate or not, each new tool modifi es the social fi eld. It reshapes the template for what is thought or known to be practical. It modifi es the reference points.” (Wobst 1999, 126). This accounts for many of the changes in raw material choice, degree of care taken in workmanship and even in formal tool type observed through time at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom as well.

Fig. 2. Representation of the relative distribution of Class I and Class II tools in the Neolithic compared to the Middle Bronze Age.

The main emphasis in this paper will be on utilitarian objects because they may be more sensitive indicators of cultural boundaries. Objects lacking clear iconographic information vary in their degree of closure compared to highly decorative items (Hodder 1982). It is also true that people at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom used types of objects such as horse harness ornaments, which can be found well outside of the immediate region of the northern region of the Great Hungarian Plain, extending not only to the far south of the plain, for example on sites of the Vatina culture (Uzelac 1975), but also beyond the Carpathian Basin beyond even Austria and Slovakia (Hüttel 1981). Cross-cultural research has shown for fi neware ceramics and other more elaborated products (which were meant mostly for display rather than everyday use), that they are distributed over wider areas with the blurring of distribution boundaries. This is hardly a surprising circumstance given that such goods or the makers of more sophisticated goods may circulate widely (Stark 1999, 29). However, how these objects are produced, that is their technical style, especially as regards bone tool manufacture, seems more resistant to change than decorative aspects of material culture because technical style requires change in manufacturing process (Wiessner 1984). Because of this conservatism, tools as opposed to ornaments are ideal for identifying the presence of social boundaries of all kinds although not in specifying what those boundaries actually represented in terms of the particular society.

132

Alice M. Choyke

Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom also stands out from other contemporary tell sites in the Carpathian Basin because of the unusual emphasis on wild animal exploitation. Normally, Middle Bronze Age sites in Hungary do not have more than a 10%, and often much lower, proportion of wild animals in their faunal assemblages (Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999–2000, 51). The clear focus of wild animal resources in the faunal assemblage suggests that this population may have been involved in some kind of trade in wild animal products, particularly red deer (Choyke 1987; 1998). The hints of ritual use of wild animals (Stanczik in press; Stanczik & Tárnoki 1992) in the ditches surrounding the central mound, and the special abundance of objects made from antler, as well as evidence of on-site manufacturing of these objects, are also worth considering.

The siteThe tell site of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is located in the north of the Great Hungarian Plain, located near the ecotone between the plain and the Mátra mountains, 30 km to the north of the site (see Fig. 1). It is possible that this location made it a particularly rich habitat for wild animals such as red deer, opening a window of trade opportunity for the human population which they apparently chose to take advantage of. The settlement (Fig. 3) was established on the banks of a small stream called the Nyavalyka (Stanczik & Tárnoki 1992, 120; Stanczik 1969; 1975a; 1975b; in press). The ancient village might have extended over a maximum area of 500 by 800 m. The oval, inner mound is 5.40 m high, measuring 130 by 60 m. Although most of the excavation work took place in this area during the 1960s and 1970s, this is a well-known site in the history of Hungarian archaeology. Excavations took place here fi rst in the 19th century and it was at this time that Victor Hild produced the fi rst map of the site (Fig. 4). This map clearly shows the three ring ditches surrounding the central mound. The 13.5 wide zone of habitation layers between the innermost and middle ring are 4 m deep. The fi ll of the ditches contains material from the early and late Hatvan phases at the site, suggesting that they were no longer in use by the fi nal Koszider phase of the occupation. Altogether, 14 house levels, extending over approximately 400 years of occupation, were recovered (Stanczik & Tárnoki 1992, 124–126).

Fig. 3. Picture of central tell of Jaszdózsa–Kápolnahalom (photo Ilona Stanczik).

The archaeological sequence may be divided into three phases of occupation: the Early Middle Bronze Age Hatvan culture bearing layers representing the early and classical phases of this archaeological culture (levels XIV–XI); the Middle Bronze Age late Hatvan (Füzesabony style)


133

cultural layers (levels X–VI); and the late Middle Bronze Age Koszider culture layers (material from the humus/sub-humus and levels III–I; Stanczik & Tárnoki 1992). The different phases date by calibrated 14C as follows: Classic phase of the Hatvan period – 1750–1550 calBC; Hatvan (in Füzesabony style) – 1550–1450 calBC; Koszider – 1450–1350 calBC (Razcky et al. 1992, 40–41, 43–44).

The 437 artifacts made from osseous materials were also sub-divided according to these archaeological phases, although 78 pieces fall into the category of stray fi nds. Find material from the ditches surrounding the central tell were accompanied by fi ll, mostly from the earliest phase with some material from the middle phase. For this reason these objects have been tentatively assigned to the earliest phase at the site.

The site material was not sieved during excavation, a common problem in museum collections in Hungary. Although the natural stratigraphy was followed, only the material from recognized features was

Fig. 4. After 1895 map of Jaszdózsa–Kápolnahalom showing triple ditch system surrounding central tell settlement (after map made by Victor Hild).

hand-collected. There is a possibility that taphonomic loss includes a signifi cant percentage of smaller tools and that many of the more casual, less recognizable Class II tools remained in the faunal assemblage which is no longer available for re-examination. Recent experience at the Bronze Age tell site of Százhalombatta–Földvár, has shown that up to 30% of the bone tools may be lost where sieving is not employed and where the analyst has no access to the refuse bone material (Choyke et al. 2004).

Refuse bone and species frequenciesAlthough detailed information on the refuse bone assemblage is not available, the late Sándor Bökönyi kindly provided me with the unpublished relative frequencies of the identifi able bones from various species, broken down by archaeological phase.Table 1. The percentage of bones from domestic and wild animals in the refuse bone material at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

134

Alice M. Choyke

What is particularly important about these proportions is the outstanding numbers of bones from wild animals, and especially bones from red deer, coming from Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom (Table 1 and see also Table 4). Proportions of wild animals at sites of the Middle Bronze Age generally fall below 10%. The settlement’s position between the plains and the Matra Mountains perhaps speaks to the potential of the local environment but does not satisfactorily explain the very high proportion of wild animals. The only comparable site is that of Mende–Leányvár where the wild species proportion reaches 28.3%, again mostly comprised of red deer remains (Choyke 1984; Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999, 246). Mende is also located in a comparable ecotone. It has been proposed elsewhere (Choyke 1987; 1998, 158) that a demand for special products from the skin and bones of red deer encouraged the exploitation of and special attention paid to this species. The existence of antler collection territories near these two sites may be reasonably extrapolated but not proven.

A further set of data which seems to support the special status of red deer at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom are the three red deer skulls with intact racks found in the inner fortifi cation ditch surrounding the tell (Fig. 5). These have been interpreted as having stood on a stockade, displayed to the outside world although they may also have represented some kind of foundation

sacrifi ce. Elsewhere, passing mention is made of 10–12 skulls of other wild animals found in the fortifi cation ditch including also aurochs, brown bear and wild boar (Stanczik & Tárnoki 1992, 127). However, these data were not been reconfi rmed either in the literature or in discussions with the excavator before her death in the early 1990s. Certainly, the cognitive aspect of red deer as an important totem animal, representing some aspect of ethnic identity for this community, cannot be discounted.

Typological discussionAs previously mentioned, utilitarian objects made from bone, antler and tusk of the period tend to display wider formal variability because they are less carefully executed. What does remain fairly conservative is the selection of species and skeletal part for some of the formal types. Types are defi ned on the basis of shape of the working edge, size, raw material and gross wear traces. The majority of these tools were probably multi-task. Where appropriate I have tried to include the bone tool typology used originally by Schibler (1980) for the Neolithic lake-dwelling site of Twann on Lake of Biel in Switzerland. This is an attempt to make bone and tusk tool categories comparable across regions, beyond the Carpathian Basin.

Some of the tool types are characteristic of the north of the Great Hungarian Plain, others are more widespread, encompassing the Carpathian Basin, while a select few may be unique to the site of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom itself (Table 2).

Fig. 5. Red deer trophies or foundation sacrifi ces at Jaszdózsa–Kápolnahalom from second ditch surrounding central tell with fi ll dating to early and late Hatvan phases. Other skulls included specimens from au-rochs, wild boar and brown bear also found in ditch (photo Ilona Stanczik).


135

Rib scrapers (Schibler 4/10) without fi nished butt ends (CH 7%; LH 4%; K 2.7%; S –).1 Given the form of ribs, they have been consistently used in the Carpathian Basin for scrapers of various kinds. In the Middle Bronze Age they represent an important marker of the west Hungarian Vatya culture tool inventory so that they even appear in numbers at Csongrád–Vidre-Sziget, a small hamlet in the center of the plain (Choyke 1984). Their presence at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom may be related to proximity to sites representative of this archaeological culture, however, their appearance suggests the ribs were opportunistically chosen, placing them well toward the Class II end of the manufacturing continuum. Wear on the working end suggests use on both soft materials also with uneven striations more typical of use on a ceramic surface (Pls. I: 13; IV: 7; VI: 3, 4).

Sheep/goat tibia scraper (Schibler 4/5) (CH 11.7%; LH 10.2%; K 3.8%; S 3.8%). These Class I tools are based on a spiral break towards the proximal end of tibia diaphyses, mostly with the distal end retained (Pls. III: 7–9; VI: 6–8). Sometimes these tools are made from dog tibiae (Pl. VI: 10) or occasionally sheep-size metapodia (Pls. III: 6; VI: 9). These tools often display a very high, glossy polish. Striations run over the working edge strongly suggesting that these objects may have been used to scrape leather. This type is characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age east of the Danube, for example at Tiszaug–Kéménytető, Füzesabony–Öregdomb and Törökszentmiklós–Terehalom (Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999–2000, 65). They also represent an important, consistently used type at this site, particularly in the fi rst two occupation phases.

1 Here and in the following descriptions CH = Classic Hatvan, LH = Late Hatvan, K = Koszider and S = Stray.

Table 2. List of main tool types with Schibler’s (1980) relevant type codes in parentheses.

136

Alice M. Choyke

Large bevel-ended scraper or wedge (Schibler 4/3) (CH 1.2%; LH 1.2%; K 1.9%; S –). These Class I–Class II tools are based on scapulae (Fig. 6; Pls. I: 14; II: 1) in the Koszider phase or more typically from cattle-size metapodial diaphyses (Pls. II: 8; IV: 12–13; VI: 5) in the late and classical Hatvan phases. The strong straight edge suggests these objects may have been used as wedges for splitting wood.

Broad mandible smoother (CH 3.5%; LH 7.8%; K 1%; S 2.5%). At Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, these characteristic Class I tools of the northern and central part of the Great Hungarian Plain appear in all sub-assemblages. Their distribution closely follows that of the sheep/goat tibia scrapers. In the earliest phase, although not so common, they are made from cattle mandibles (Fig. 7, top mandible). They are common in the middle Hatvan (Füzesabony style) phase where the preferred raw material is red deer mandible with fewer cattle mandibles, mirroring the increase in red deer numbers in the refuse bone sample (Fig. 7, lower mandible; Pls. IV: 14; VI: 15; VII: 1–5). They were also found at

Tiszaug–Kéménytető, Füzesabony–Öregdomb and Törökszentmiklós–Terehalom. Their numbers drop off sharply in the late period when the preferred raw material remains red deer mandible (Pl. I: 17). Typically, these objects have the teeth intact, and the ramus broken off crudely. A ca 2 cm or even broader facet, run parallel to and below the tooth row on the buccal surface of the mandible. Uneven striations run parallel to the long axis of the tool suggesting use on a ceramic surface, possibly for house wall plastering (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Broad mandible smoothers: top made from cattle and lower tool made from red deer mandible (photo Alice Choyke).

Fig. 6. Ad hoc broad scapula scraper from cattle (photo Alice Choyke).


137

Short bones with fl attened sides (CH 1.2%; LH 4.2%; K 19.9%; S 42%). These Class I bone objects (Fig. 9) consist of phalanges from red deer, cattle, horse, sheep/goat and even pig (Pls. I: 12; II: 3–4, 6; IV: 3; VI: 11–14) and astragali (Pls. I: 10–11; III: 17–19), particularly from cattle and red deer although there are a few sheep/goat astragali. These objects are increasingly made from red deer (astragalus and fi rst phalanx) and horse fi rst phalanges as time progresses. Typically, the medio-lateral surfaces are flattened by grinding and polished although sometimes all four sides are worn smooth. The same tendency of increasing numbers of red deer bones being used at the expense of cattle can be traced in the astragali with fl attened surfaces. These are often interpreted as gaming or ritual pieces. It perhaps speaks to the ritual aspect that such a high percentage were found in the ditch fi ll where other ritual deposits related to animal trophies were brought to light. The emphasis on horse in the Koszider occupation where the proportion of horse in the refuse bone is much lower compared to the worked sample also suggests these bones were deliberately selected in fulfillment of some symbolic purpose related to attitudes toward horse which came increasingly to the prevalent through time. These fl attened short bones are particularly important at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom although they may be found occasionally at other sites in the east of the country such as Füzesabony–Öregdomb.

Fig. 8. Reconstruction of Hatvan period house with stucco decorated plastered walls from Tiszaug–Kéménytető contemporary with the early Hatvan levels at Jaszdózsa (drawing by Ágostan Dékány).

Fig. 9. Phalanges and astragali from various species with fl attened sides, some with suspension holes. Possibly gaming/special, ritual objects (photo Alice Choyke).

138

Alice M. Choyke

Small awls (Schibler 1/1, 1/3, 1/4, 1/7) (CH 11.8%; LH 6.6%; K 3.7%; S 16.6%). Typically for awls made on sheep-size animals, they are based various long bone diaphysis fragments and are often not very modifi ed (Pls. I: 2; III: 2–5). This results in higher formal and technical variability compared to Neolithic assemblages. As is the case on other contemporary sites in the region, the prehistoric classic, small ruminant metapodial based awls, grooved through the epiphysis (Fig. 10: 5) or, more often not, (Fig. 10: 6) come to light only occasionally. This shows the technological knowledge was not lost but infrequently implemented. Awls were most common in the earliest occupation and decrease in frequency towards the top of the stratigraphic sequence. Fox and dog ulnae worked into awls also appear here (Fig. 10: 1, 2; Pl. V: 6). Use of dog bone for the manufacture of tools is particularly characteristic of Middle Bronze Age sites east of the Danube river with Class II awls of this type being characteristic of sites in the eastern and southeastern regions of Hungary.

Fig. 10. Various awls and needles: 1 fox ulna awl; 2 dog ulna awl; 3 cattle-size long bone diaphysis awl; 4 horse metapodial awl; 5 sheep metatarsal awl; 6 roe deer metatarsal awl; 7 pig fi bula needle; 8 caprine metapodia diaphysis needle; 9 cattle-size long bone diaphysis double pointed tool (photo Alice Choyke).

Double point based on long bone diaphysis (Schibler 2/1). This highly modifi ed type, a very characteristic tool of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Hungary is nevertheless essentially missing at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom. The single example comes from the middle phase (Fig. 10: 9). This type is also found in low numbers, although not consistently, at a number of coeval sites in Hungary such as later phases at Tisazug–Kéménytető (Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999–2000).


139

Large awls without worked basis (Schibler1/9) (CH 1.2%; LH 0.6%; K 0.9%; S 2.6%). These large, well made points, are not common for sites of this period. They tend to be highly modifi ed so that they fall towards the Class I end of the manufacturing continuum. Some of these large, blunt awls are made on fragments of diaphysis without the epiphysis (Fig. 10: 3; Pl. VI: 2) and some retain the epiphysis but without modifi cation (Fig. 10: 4). With their strong points they may have been used in some special craft involving thick but soft material.

Needles (Schibler 21/1) (CH –; LH 0.6%; K –; S 2.5%). There are three pointed tools with drilled, perforated ends in this assemblage, one from the middle phase and two from the assemblage of stray objects. Two must have been used in something like net-weaving (Fig. 10: 7) while the other, fi ner specimen (Fig. 10: 8) could have been used in sewing leather. Needles are relatively unusual tools on all prehistoric sites in the Carpathian Basin.

Wild boar scraper (Schibler 17) (CH 4.7%; LH 0.6%; K 0.9%; S 1.2%). S-shaped, Class I scrapers based on split lower canines of wild boar and large domestic swine are found from the Neolithic period onwards in prehistoric Hungary. They are found consistently at Middle Bronze Age sites throughout the country. After splitting, the inside of the tooth was scraped with a fl int tool and one edge strengthened and continuously renewed, creating the characteristic S-shape in later stages of curation (Pl. I: 19). These would have made excellent scrapers for work requiring a hard and strong edge, for example wood working and bark scraping.

Ornamental objects (CH 7%; LH 5.4%; K 4.6%; S –). This category includes all drilled animal teeth (domestic pig, horse, dog, wolf, wild boar, brown bear), antler handles and an antler cylinder with incised meander decoration as well as antler horse-harness elements. All these elements can be found widely distributed beyond Hungary into Slovakia, Austria and Serbia in this period and are an example of why this category is actually not very good for marking social boundaries. The maxillary upper canines of pig, drilled through the root (Pl. I: 15) and the drilled incisor of horse (Pl. II: 2) are particular to this site. The fact that horse teeth are used for personal decoration in the Koszider levels underscores their special role in this period. Drilled canines from dog (Pls. I: 8; V: 7) are found everywhere on prehistoric sites although they seem to be particularly common on sites such as Százhalombatta–Földvár, where dog attains special meaning, possibly connected with the rise of sheep herding there (Choyke et al. 2004). The use of drilled brown bear canine is a special feature of the Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. There is a huge split wild boar canine with multiple suspension holes along one edge from the late Hatvan occupation. Similar fi nds are also known from Tiszaug–Kéménytető (Choyke & Bartosiewicz 1999–2000). Finally there is a single example of a small fl at pendant made from antler with incised decoration (Fig. 11).

Antler working remained an important activity in all levels of the site (CH 23.4%; LH 24.6%; K 21.3%; S 3.8%). Another way of measuring relative amounts of antler is by weight but here too, factoring in differences in the sizes of the sub-samples, the amounts of antler used seem fairly even throughout the history of the site (Table 3).

Fig. 11. Small fl at pendant from antler with special shape (drawing Alice Choyke).

140

Alice M. Choyke

Normally, refuse material like this, comprises no more than 5% of the worked osseous material in assemblages at other coeval tell sites.

Table 3. Weights of antler for each sub-assemblage at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

Objects made from various parts of the antler rack were used to divide straps and attach the bit and reins on various parts of horse bridles (Fig. 12). Because they are generally beautifully made these spectacular pieces have been much discussed in the literature (Bökönyi 1960; Mozsolics 1962; Foltiny 1965; Hüttel 1981). Incised motifs (Pls. III: 1; IV: 1; V: 8a–b) are common and different ones appear side by side. Motifs include meander designs with clear links to contemporary Aegean cultures or copy coeval ceramic motifs. These artifacts represent a classic example of iconological style with broad distribution (Stark 1999, 29), arising at the time horse numbers drop sharply, and their beautiful execution and elaborate designs underscore the high status of this species. Although horse was sometimes eaten (Choyke et al. 2004) this does not represent a regular occurrence at sites of this period. Horse was clearly used for transport of individual riders, perhaps wealthy traders. This also explains why these incised motifs and decorative types in general become

Fig. 12. Reconstruction of how head harness or-naments might have been used (after drawing by Ágostan Dékány).

increasingly widespread. A number of these decorated objects may even have been produced by semi-specialized craftspeople who may also have traveled from center to center, increasing the distribution of formal styles. Only these pieces seem to have been carved using metal tools.

Antler tine net weaver. Only two net-weavers came to light at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, one from the late Hatvan and the other from the Koszider occupation at the site. They are beautifully carved from tines with a thin point and a long guide hole drilled longitudinally at the other end. They are both well worn. Such objects are scattered consistently on sites of this period although they are never common.


141

Large antler tools The categories of worked antler at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom also include the largely utilitarian handles, picks and heavy-duty hammer-hoes made from the burr and beam. Since by defi nition these objects are made from a specially selected raw material – antler – all fi nished objects fall toward the Class I end of the manufacturing continuum. There are numerous examples of half-fi nished objects and relatively large amounts of refuse in the form of cut-off tines showing that such tools were manufactured on site. The amounts of manufacture refuse are particularly high compared to the situation at other comparable sites from the Middle Bronze Age in the region. Since most of the identifi able pieces seem to come from gathered antler, this suggests that insuring the supply of antler was important for economic reasons and that, perhaps, more was procured than was necessary to meet the immediate demands of the local population. In other words, there was a surplus of antler which would have been traded on in the form of fi nished utilitarian tools.

The fact is that most of the manufacture of antler objects (based on distribution of the refuse antler) took place in the central mound area of the site. As a hypothesis, this also suggests that access to antler was limited to certain parts of the community – individuals literally living in the center of the settlement who might have been responsible for gathering, stockpiling, manufacturing and trading in antler objects as well.

Burr and beam hammer/adze (CH 10.6%; LH 12.7%; K 14.8%; S 8.8%). These tools are based on the burr and beam segments of the red deer antler rack. There are only three examples of antler with the pedicle still attached being used as the hammer part of the tool (Plate III: 20), in other words, they are from hunted animals. The burr (or pedicle) functioned as hammers with remains of battering visible on their surfaces. The eye tines are cut off fl ush with the surface of the beam and the hafting holes were drilled or cut out in a medial-lateral direction. Finally, where the butt ends remain they are either oblique, used as adze-like rather than axe-like instruments (Pls. I: 20; V: 14) or cut straight as hafts for a separate blade (Pls. III: 21; IV: 15, 17; V: 10–11). The latter are more characteristic of the western Middle Bronze Age Vatya culture (Pákozdvár–Várhegy, Százhalombatta–Földvár, Mende–Leányvár, Igar–Vámpuszta, Figs. 1, 13; Choyke 1979; 1984). Holes for most tools are re-drilled as the butt-end broke off during use, which accounts for the final location of holes directly behind the burr (Pl. I: 1). There is one example from the late Hatvan phase of a hammer/adze decorated with a row of dots around the hafting hole (Fig. 14). Such decorated tools have been found elsewhere in the eastern part of Hungary, for example at Füzesabony–Öregdomb (Fig. 1).

Fig. 13. Vatya culture type burr and beam hammer/axes with squared end from hill-fort site of Százhalombatta–Földvár. Contemporary with late Hatvan (Füzesabony style) levels at Jaszdózsa–Kápolnahalom (photo Alice Choyke).

142

Alice M. Choyke

Fig. 14. Decorated burr and beam hammer/axe from MBA late Hatvan (Füzesabony style) levels (drawing Alice Choyke).

Tine handles (CH 4.7%; LH 4.8%; K 4.6%; S 2.6%). These handles take advantage of the natural shape of the red deer antler tine, the point of which was sometimes retained (Pl. IV: 8). The socket was always located in the wider end. Inserted objects were clearly fi xed in the socket with a peg through a hole in one side of the socket edge (Pl. IV: 2). Finally, there was a single small handle without fi xing hole and with the tine tip cut off which had incised decoration around the edge of the socket (Pl. IV: 1). Such handles are more often found in sites in the eastern part of Hungary.

Tine picks/hoes (CH 11.8%; LH 8.4%; K 13.8; S –). These objects have a narrowing facet towards the naturally pointed end of the tine and either a hafting hole towards the wider end (Pls. I: 5; II: 12; III: 14; V: 3–4, VI: 16–17) or more pointed and hand held with a small suspension hole near the broader end (Pls. III: 10, 12; IV: 4). These antler tools are not very carefully modifi ed and come in some categories close to the defi nition for an ad hoc tool, probably derived from the supply of refuse tines. This is probably why so few were found in the mixed fi ll of the fortifi cation ditch. One notable exception is the antler tine hoe/pick, stained almost black, with a completely worked surface which is decorated around its circumference with cross-hatched designs, reminiscent perhaps of a fi eld system (Fig. 15). Similarly decorated hafted hoe/picks occur especially in western Hungary, for example at the Vatya hill-fort near the Danube in Transdanubia, Igar–Vámpuszta (Choyke 1984, Fig. 1).

Fig. 15. Antler tine hoe decorated with cross-hatched rectangles scattered across surface from early MBA Hatvan levels (drawing Alice Choyke).

Species choice in the worked tool assemblageIn general, the choice of bones from particular species seems to mostly depend on availability, although there are a number of interesting exceptions. Sheep/goat long bones, especially metapodials and tibiae are made respectively into the majority of those multi-function awls and hide-scraping/softening tools. Horse bone, starts to be used only at the end of occupation in the form of awls and, most importantly, fi rst phalanges with fl attened sides or simple incised decoration in addition to the general increase in the use of short bones with fl attened sides from cattle, red deer and sheep/goat. This change may relate to changes in the iconographic notions of horse within this community’s belief system. Finally, as is evident from Table 4, all red deer bone seems to have been worked.


143

Three of the special tool categories, sheep/goat tibia scrapers, the broad mandible smoothers and the short bones with fl attened sides remain remarkably stable in terms of their technical style throughout the sequence. Although, red deer bones contribute increasing amounts to the manufacture of the last two types, the choice of skeletal part, and style of manufacture remain largely identical within the sequence recalling the idea of habituation or habitus mentioned earlier. This latter would have been particularly important during the Koszider period. Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is among the few sites where the sequence does not end abruptly after the late Hatvan culture. Clearly, these were particularly unstable times which resulted both in change and an insistence on traditional behavior in the face of that change.

Attitude to tools – curationIn keeping with the relative lack of care refl ected in technical style apparent in most of the worked assemblage, the majority of the tools do not display any indication of curation, or else it is hard to recognize. At this site, antler burr and beam hammer/adzes tend to be re-drilled as the butt end breaks off, as are the scraping edges of the sheep/goat tibia scrapers. It may also be that the short bones with fl attened sides display varying degrees of wear, suggesting their sides were continuously re-ground to maintain the general form. The same may also be said for the mandible smoothers where the side facet widens as the tool was used and the facet continuously worn down. Awls, unlike in earlier periods, are much less intensively curated (Table 5).

Table 4. Percentages of species in the refuse bone material, divided by phase at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

Table 5. The proportions of curated to non-curated tools broken down by sub-assemblage.

144

Alice M. Choyke

ConclusionsThe technical style and form of the bone tools at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom refl ect three levels of social cohesiveness representing tradition on the local, regional and broad regional levels. The forms of the very well-made decorative elements appear at many large sites in this period. This refl ects permeable boundaries in the distribution of decorative motifs, decorated horse harness elements, the species used for tooth pendants and other decorative objects meant for display. The reason for these broad distributions in more iconographic goods is greater mobility related to the high status of the horse everywhere, trade networks, actual movement of semi-specialized artisans producing these beautiful objects and fi nally commonality in ways of signaling social status. Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is typical in the use of meander motifs, incised designs mimicking ceramic motifs and the use of drilled animal teeth including wild boar and brown bear. The low quality of the manufacturing techniques, or loosening of technological rules, resulted in greater variability in tool categories such as awls, as a general characteristic of this period. These less well-made tool types, which formerly appeared in restricted, often more elaborated forms, may refl ect on-going changes in the tasks these tools were used for, the value these tasks had for individuals in the community and even shifts in the way the tools were used.

It has been suggested here that the technical style of more utilitarian tools at this settlement refl ects a certain long-term continuity in the choice of species and skeletal elements of certain tool types in the area of the Great Hungarian Plain. The main tool types include sheep/goat tibia scrapers, dog ulna awls, broad mandible smoothers, short bones with fl attened sides and burr and beam hammer/adzes with socketed or oblique ends. At the settlement itself, there was a consistent emphasis on the use of red deer bone which makes it stand out from other coeval sites. The presence of three red deer trophies in one of the fortifi cation ditches underlines what seems to be the special status of this species, not only economically but as an animal with given attributes closely woven into the social fabric of this particular community. The unusually high proportion of antler tools, half fi nished tools and manufacture refuse suggests that this valuable raw material may well have been traded beyond the settlement limits. Most of the refuse and half-fi nished pieces come from the central mound. Social differentiation was a characteristic of societies in the Carpathian Basin from the late Neolithic. At Jászdózsa there may well have been differential access to valuable raw materials such as antler, including the right to gather and stockpile it as well as manufacture objects and trade in them. Interestingly this tendency seems to increase through time.

Although the technical style and formal characteristics of certain artifact categories remain remarkably stable over the 400 years of the occupation some changes do occur, particularly at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Koszider period. Horse phalanges appear with fl attened sides and incised decoration in addition to phalanges and astragali from sheep/goat, cattle, and red deer which are increasingly used toward the end of the occupation at this site. This may be a response to new ideas from the outside world or loosening of processes of familiarity, repetition and habituation which both refl ected and strengthened social cohesiveness during the Middle Bronze Age. However, great changes were afoot which were to bring about social changes and see a sudden end to life at most of the great tell settlements of Middle Bronze Age Hungary.


145

ReferencesBourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Bökönyi, S. 1960. Reconstruction des mors en bois de cerf et en os. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 12, 113–122. Choyke, A. M. 1979. A classifi cation of the bone and antler tools from the Bronze Age hill-fortress of Pákozdvár. – Alba Regia, 17, 9–21. Choyke, A. M. 1983. Előzetes jelentés a tiszaug-kéménytetői ásatás csontszerszámairól. – Archeológiai Értesítő, 109: 1, 35–41.Choyke, A. M. 1984. An analysis of bone, antler and tooth tools from Bronze Age Hungary. – Mitteilungen des archäologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 12/13, 13 –57.Choyke, A. M. 1987. The exploitation of red deer in the Hungarian Bronze Age. – Archaeozoologia, I: 1, 109–116. Choyke, A. M. 1997. The bone manufacturing continuum. – Anthropozoologica, 25–26, 65–72.Choyke, A. M. 1998. Bronze Age red deer: case studies from the Great Hungarian Plain. – P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem & W. Meid (eds.). Man and the Animal World. Studies in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Archaeolingua Kiadó. Budapest, 157–178. Choyke, A. M. 2000. Refuse and modifi ed bone from Százhalombatta–Földvár. Some preliminary observations. – I. Poroszlai & M. Vicze (eds.). Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition Annual Report, 1. Matrica Museum. Százhalombatta, 97–102.Choyke, A. M. 2001. A quantitative approach to the concept of quality in prehistoric bone manufacturing. – H. Buitenhuis & W. Prummel (eds.). Animals and Man in the Past. ARC-Publicatie, 41. Groningen. 50–66.Choyke, A. M. & Bartosiewicz, L. 1999. Bronze Age animal keeping in Western Hungary. – E. Jerem & I. Poroszlai (eds). Archaeology of the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Experimental Archaeology, Environmental Archaeology, Archaeological Parks. Archaeolingua Series Major. Budapest, 239–249.Choyke, A. M. & Bartosiewicz, L. 1999–2000. Bronze Age animal exploitation in the Central Great Hungarian Plain. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 51, 43–70. Choyke, A. M., Vretemark, M. & Sten, S. 2004. Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta–Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary. – S. Jones O’Day, W. van Neer & A. Ervynck (eds.). Behaviour Behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity. Oxbow Books. Oxford, 177–189.Foltiny, St. 1965. Bronze- und urnenfelderzeitliche Hirshhorn- und Knochentrensen aus Neiderösterreich. – Mitt. Anthr. Ges., 95. Wien, 243–249.Gosselain, O. P. 1992. Technology and style: Potters and pottery among the Bafi a of Cameroon. – Man (N.S.), 27, 559–586.Gosselain, O. P. 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. – M. Stark (ed.). The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C., 78–106.Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press. New York.Hüttel, H.-G. 1981. Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Grundzüge ihrer Entwicklung. Prähistorische Bronzefunde, XVI: 2. München. Ingold, T. 1990. Society, nature, and the concept of technology. – Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9: 1, 5–17.Lechtman, H. 1977. Style in technology: Some early thoughts. – H. Lechtman & R. Merill (eds.). Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. 1975 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. West Publishing. St. Paul, Minn., 3–20. Mozsolics, A. 1962. Die Herkunftfragen der ältesten Hirshgeweihtrensen. – Acta Archaeologcia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 12, 125–135.Pfaffenberger, B. 1988. Fetishised objects and humanised nature: towards an anthropology of technology. – Man, 23: 2, 236–252.Pfaffenberger, B. 1992. Social anthropology of technology. – Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 491–516.Raczky, P., Hertelendi, E. & Horváth, F. 1992. Zur absolute Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. – Die Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hungarian National Museum. Budapest, 42–47.

146

Alice M. Choyke

Sackett, J. 1986. Isochrestism and style: a clarifi cation. – Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 266–277. Sackett, J. 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism. – M. Conkey & C. Hastorf (eds.). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 32– 43.Schibler, J. 1980. Die Neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann. Bern.Stanczik, I. 1969. Régészeti kutatások Jászdózsa. – Jászkunság, 15: 4, 165–171. Stanczik, I. 1975a. Szolnok megyei régészeti adok Hild Viktor jegyzetiből. Szolnok. Stanczik, I. 1975b. Bronzkor kutatás Szolnok megyében. – Művészet, 16: 2, 15–17.Stanczik, I. in press. Jászdózsa–Kapolnahalom. – Bronze Age Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain, II. Inventaria Praehistoria Hungariae. Hungarian National Museum. Budapest. Stanczik, I. & Tárnoki, J. 1992. Jászdóza–Kápolnahalom. – Die Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Hungarian National Museum. Budapest, 120–127.Stark, M. 1999. Social dimensions of technical choice in Kalinga ceramic traditions. – E. Chilton (ed.). Material Meanings. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, 24–43.Uzelac, J. 1975. Objets en os et en corne de vatin dans la collection du Musée de Vrsac. – B. Starinar (ed.). Revue de l’Institute Archéologique, New Series 26. Beograd, 132–141.Wiessner, P. 1984. Reconsidering the behavioral basis for style: a case study among the Kalahari San. – Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 3, 190–234.Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. – C. Cleland (ed.). Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffi n. Michigan Anthropological Papers, 61, 317–342.Wobst, H. M. 1999. Style in archaeology or archaeologists in style. – E. S. Chilton (ed.). Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City, 118–132.

PlatesDrawings on Plates by Dr. Andrea Vaday, archaeologist at Archaeology Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Hatvan – Early Middle Bronze Age (early MBA) – 2000–1550 calBC – Jászdózsa levelsLate Hatvan (in Füzesabony style) – Middle Bronze Age (MBA) – 1550–1450 calBC – Jászdózsa levels Koszider – Late Middle Bronze Age (late MBA) – 1450–1350 calBC – Jászdózsa levels

The drawings for these Plates were prepared at the end of the 1980s for an article which was never published. The publication was to have concerned only the Middle and late Middle Bronze Age levels at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom. Drawings were unfortunately never prepared for the tools from the earliest early Middle Bronze Age occupation and there no funds exist for preparing new ones. In the interests of not wasting the available drawings it was decided to include the existing drawings anyway.


147

Plate I1. Antler beam hoe: red deer; late MBA, humus2. Ulna, awl (Schibler 1/4): sheep/goat; late MBA, sub-humus3. Metacarpus, large bevel-ended wedge-scraper (Schibler 4/3): red deer; late MBA, humus/sub-humus4. Tibia based large bevel-ended wedge-scraper (Schibler 4/3): red deer; late MBA culture, humus/sub-

humus5. Antler tine, hafted pick: red deer; late MBA, humus/sub-humus6. Antler rose and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, humus/sub-

humus7. Antler rose and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, humus/sub-

humus8. Canine, pendant (Schibler 23): dog; late MBA, level I9. Antler rose and beam, axe: red deer; late MBA, level I10. Astragalus, flattened sides: red deer; late MBA, level I11. Astragalus, flattened sides: cattle; late MBA, level I12. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: horse; late MBA, level I13. Rib, ceramic scraper (Schibler 4/10): cattle; late MBA, level I–II14. Metacarpus, large ad hoc awl from metacarpus without epiphysis (Schibler 1/9): red deer; late MBA,

level I–II15. Upper canine, half-finished pendant (Schibler 23): wild boar; late MBA, level I–II16. a–b. Antler tine, half-finished harness bit?: red deer; late MBA, level I–II17. Mandible, broad smoother: red deer; late MBA, level I–II18. Antler beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level I–II19. Lower tusk, split S-shaped scraper (Schibler 17): wild boar; late MBA, level I–II20. Antler rose and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level I–II

Plate II1. Scapula, ad hoc large scraper/wedge-scraper: cattle-size; late MBA, level I–II2. Incisor, pendant: horse; late MBA, level II3. a–b. First phalange, flattened sides: red deer; late MBA, level II4. a–b. First phalange, flattened sides: red deer; late MBA, level II5. Antler beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level II6. a–b. First phalange, flattened sides: red deer; late MBA, level II7. Tibia, ad hoc handle (Schibler 20): red deer; late MBA, level II8. Metatarsus, large bevel-ended wedge-scraper (Schibler 4/3): red deer; late MBA, level III9. Antler tine, large wedge-scraper: red deer; late MBA, level III10. a–b. Mandible, large smoother with drilled holes: red deer; late MBA, level III11. Antler beam, T-shaped hoe with hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level III12. Antler tine, hafted pick/hoe: red deer; late MBA, level III

148

Alice M. Choyke

Plate III1. Antler beam, rein divider fragment: red deer; late MBA, level IV2. Long bone diaphysis, ad hoc awl without epiphysis (Schibler1/7): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV3. Metacarpus, split metapodial awl (Schibler 1/1): sheep; late MBA, level IV4. Tibia diaphysis, ad hoc awl (Schibler 1/7): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV5. Tibia diaphysis, awl (Schibler 1/7): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV6. Metacarpus, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler: 4/5): sheep; late MBA, level IV7. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV8. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV9. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; late MBA, level IV10. Antler tine, pick with suspension hole: late MBA, level IV11. Antler tine, hafted pick: late MBA, level IV12. Antler tine, pick with suspension hole: late MBA, level IV13. Antler tine, half-finished harpoon: late MBA, level IV14. Antler tine, half-finished pick?: red deer; late MBA, level IV15. a–b. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces, suspension hole drilled medial-lateral direction:

horse; late MBA, level IV16. Antler tine, shaped raw material: red deer; late MBA, level IV17. Astragalus, 4 sides flattened surfaces: red deer; late MBA, level IV18. a–b. Astragalus, 4 sides flattened surfaces: red deer; late MBA, level IV19. Astragalus, 4 sides flattened surfaces: red deer; late MBA, level IV20. Antler pedicle, burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level IV21. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level IV

Plate IV1. Antler tine, handle: red deer; late MBA, level V2. Antler tine, handle with fixing hole at one edge: red deer; late MBA, level V3. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: red deer; late MBA, level V4. Antler tine, half-finished pick with suspension hole: red deer; late MBA, level V5. Femur, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; late MBA, level V6. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; late MBA, level V7. Rib, bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/10): cattle-size; late MBA, level V8. Antler tine, handle with fixing hole at edge: red deer; late MBA, level V9. Rib, bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/10): cattle-size; late MBA, level V10. Antler tine, small hammer: red deer; late MBA, level V11. Antler beam, hafted heavy-duty tool – fragmented: red deer; late MBA, level V12. Metatarsus diaphysis, large bevel-ended wedge-scraper (Schibler 4/3): red deer; late MBA, level V13. Metatarsus, large bevel-ended wedge-scraper with epiphysis (Schibler 4/13): red deer; late MBA,

level V14. Mandible, broad smoother fragment: cattle; late MBA, level V15. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; late MBA, level V16. Antler tine, shaped raw material: red deer; late MBA, level V17. Antler burr and beam, half-finished hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; MBA, level VI18. Mandible, broad smoother fragment: cattle; MBA, level VI


149

Plate V1. Antler beam, rein divider: red deer; MBA, level VI2. Antler tine, undecorated cylinder: red deer; MBA, level VI3. Antler tine, hafted pick fragment: MBA, level VI4. Antler tine, hafted pick fragment: MBA, level VI5. Antler tine, debitage: MBA, level VI6. Ulna, awl (Schibler 1/4): dog; MBA, level VI7. Canine, pendant (Schibler 23): dog; MBA, level VII8. a–b. Antler tine, double row circle and dot decorated cylinder: red deer; MBA, level VII9. Long bone diaphysis, awl fragment (Schibler 1/?): sheep/goat; MBA, level VII10. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; MBA, level VII11. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole fragment: red deer; MBA, level VII12. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole fragment: red deer; MBA, level VII13. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; MBA, level VII14. Antler burr and beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; MBA, level VII15. Antler beam, hammer/axe with medial-lateral hafting hole: red deer; MBA, level VII

Plate VI1. Tibia, ad hoc handle (Schibler 20): cattle; MBA, level VII2. Long bone diaphysis, large ad hoc awl without epiphysis (Schibler 1/9): cattle-size; MBA, level VII3. Rib, bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/10): cattle-size; MBA, level VII4. Rib, bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/10): cattle-size; MBA, level VII5. Metacarpus, bevel-ended wedge-scraper (Schibler 4/3): cattle; MBA, level VII6. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; MBA, level VII7. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; MBA, level VII8. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep/goat; MBA, level VII9. Metatarsus, small bevel-ended scraper (Schibler 4/5): sheep; MBA, level VII10. Tibia, small bevel-ended scraper fragment (Schibler 4/5): dog; MBA, level VII11. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: red deer; MBA, level VII12. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: red deer; MBA, level VII13. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: red deer; MBA, level VII14. First phalange, flattened dorsal/ventral surfaces: horse; MBA, level VII15. Mandible, broad smoother: cattle; MBA, level VII16. Antler tine, hafted pick fragment: red deer; MBA, level VII17. Antler tine, hafted pick fragment: red deer; MBA, level VII

Plate VII1. Mandible, broad smoother: cattle; MBA, level VII2. Mandible, broad smoother: red deer; MBA, level VII3. Mandible, broad smoother: red deer; MBA, level VII4. Mandible, broad smoother: cattle; MBA, level VII5. Mandible, broad smoother: red deer; MBA, level VII

150

Alice M. Choyke

Plate I


151

Plate II

152

Alice M. Choyke

Plate III


153

Plate IV

154

Alice M. Choyke

Plate V


155

Plate VI

156

Alice M. Choyke

Plate VII

Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom tell

Documents

Transcript of Bronze Age bone and antler working at the Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom tell