close to the bone: current studies in bone...

Close to the bone: current studies in bone technologies

Publisher: Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade

For publisher Miomir Korać

Editor Selena Vitezović

Editorial board Steve Ashby (United Kingdom), Corneliu Beldiman (Romania), Alice Choyke (Hungary), Erik Hrnčiarik (Slovakia), Heidi Luik (Estonia), Sofija Petković (Serbia), Isabelle Sidéra (France)

Reviewers Steve Ashby (United Kingdom), Corneliu Beldiman (Romania), Alice Choyke (Hungary), Idoia Grau Sologestoa (Spain), Erik Hnrčiarik (Slovakia), Heidi Luik (Estonia), Marko Janković (Serbia), Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska (Poland), Matías E. Medina (Argentina), Sofija Petković (Serbia), Siniša Radović (Croatia), Isabelle Sidéra (France), James Symonds (Netherlands)

Graphic layout Amalija Vitezović

ISBN 978-86-6439-005-7 (electronic)ISBN 978-86-6439-006-4 (print)

Front cover illustration Caričin Grad (Iustiniana Prima), 6th century AD

Back cover illustration Niš (Naissus), 4th-6th century AD

This book is published with the financial support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Institute of Archaeology

Close to the bone: current studies in bone technologies

Editor: Selena Vitezović

Belgrade 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................

Ch. Arabatzis, Bone industry from the prehistoric settlement Anarghiri IXa, Florina, Greece ..............................

S. Ashby, Worked bone on the Wolds: a review of what we know about bone industry and objects in the Chalk Hills of Yorkshire’s North and East Ridings ......................................................................................................................

J. Baron, M. Diakowski, T. Stolarczyk, Bone and antler artefacts from an 8-5th century BC settlement at Grzybiany, South-Western Poland .....................................................................................................................................

C. Beldiman, D.-L. Buzea, D.-M. Sztancs, B. Briewig, Microscopy of prehistoric symbolic artefacts. Wietenberg decorated antler plate discovered at Șoimeni, Harghita County ...................................................................................

V. Bikić, S. Vitezović, Bone working and the army: an early eighteenth–century button workshop at the Belgrade fortress ...................................................................................................................................................................

S. Vuković-Bogdanović, I. Bogdanović, Late Roman bone anvils from Viminacium ..............................................

J. Bradfield, Fracture analysis of bone tools: a review of the micro-CT and macrofracture methods for studying bone tool function ................................................................................................................................................................

N. Buc, D. Rivero, M. Medina, The late Holocene bone tools from Quebrada del Real 1 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) ..............................................................................................................................................................................

I. Bugarski, Carved antler tools from Nosa and Manđelos reаssessed: a glimpse into the Avar pictorial evidence

M. S. Campos-Martínez, G. Pérez-Roldán, Worked human bone from Teotihuacan, Mexico (1st-6th centuries A.D.)

T. Čerškov, G. Jeremić, S. Vitezović, Zoomorphic decorations from osseous materials from Naissus (Niš) .........

É. David, C. Casseyas, P. van der Sloot, J.-M. Léotard, A cross-border use of in-growth antler, to face Neolithisation .......................................................................................................................................................................

E. Gál, Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age bone tools from the site of Paks-Gyapa (South-Eastern Transdanubia, Hungary) ......................................................................................................................................................

L. Gidney, Bone artefacts from medieval and post-medieval windmills: changing interpretations .........................

E. Grassi, Bone anvils from the city of Sassari (16th-18th centuries AD) .......................................................................

E. Hrnčiarik, Roman bone artifacts from Iža ..................................................................................................................

H. Kalafatić, S. Radović, M. Čavka, M. Novak, M. Mihaljević, R. Šošić Klindžić, A rare find of bone beads from the Late Bronze Age cemetery in the Southern Carpathian Basin ......................................................................

M. Kovač, Several observations on semi-finished bone products supporting the existence of a bone workshop in Mursa .....................................................................................................................................................................................

Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi ......................................................................................................

F. Lang, Objects made of antler and antler production in the Roman Municipium Iuvavum (Salzburg) ...............

H. Luik, Bone working in the suburbs of Medieval and early modern Tallinn, Estonia ............................................

H. Luik, G. Piličiauskienė, Bone tools at the neolithc sites of Šventoji, Lithuania: raw materials and working methods .................................................................................................................................................................................

V. Manojlović-Nikolić, A contribution to the study of Medieval bone industry: bone and antler objects from the site of Pontes – Trajan’s bridge (9th−11th century) ............................................................................................................

7

9

18

28

48

57

66

71

80

86

98

104

112

121

128

133

140

146

154

160

168

178

188

201

M. Mărgărit, Exploitation of the Unio sp. valves for non-alimentary purposes in the Romanian Eneolithic. Archaeological and experimental data ..............................................................................................................................

N. Marković, S. Stamenković, Antler workshop in Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima): reconstruction of the technological process ...........................................................................................................................................................

G. Nuțu, S. Stanc, Carved bone and antler in northern Dobruja .................................................................................

J. Orłowska, Reading osseous artefacts – an application of micro-wear analysis to experimentally worked bone materials ................................................................................................................................................................................

G. Osipowicz, Technical approach of two mesolithic bone harpoon heads from Wiele 33, central Poland ...........

S. Petković, Bone fibulae as grave gifts in Upper Moesia ...............................................................................................

S. Redžić, Roman buckles made from bone and ivory discovered at the site of Viminacium ..................................

I. Riddler, N. Trzaska-Nartowski, Production in Hamwic: six dials structure 15 .....................................................

M. Ružić, A strange bone object from late Roman necropolis Gladno polje in Bela Palanka (Remesiana) ...........

T. Sekelj Ivančan, Early Medieval bone tools from Northern Croatia .........................................................................

A. Shatil, Bone figurines of the Early Islamic period: the so called “Coptic dolls” from Palestine and Egypt ........

I. Sidéra, P. de Maret, An ideal bone for traditional dolls. Ruminants metapodia figurines: archaeological and ethnographical examples from Africa and Europe ..........................................................................................................

P. Stokes, A new interpretation of post-medieval bone scoops from the foreshore of the river Thames in London

D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, M. Gh. Barbu, M. M. Barbu, Artefacts made of perforated shells discovered in a Bronze Age ritual pit from Uroi, Hunedoara County, Romania ....................................................................................

T. Tkalčec, Life in a mediaeval castle: bone artefacts as indicators of handicraft and leisure ...................................

Vinayak, Possible smoothening and polishing techniques practiced over bone and antler arrowheads at iron age sites of Atranjikhera and Jakhera .......................................................................................................................................

K. Winnicka, More than meets the eye: microscopic and technological studies on Early Bronze Age bone and antler beads from Kichary Nowe, south-eastern Poland ...............................................................................................

List of contributors ...............................................................................................................................................................

208

218

226

236

248

257

261

265

284

289

296

315

324

338

356

364

376

395

7

Studies of worked osseous materials were neglected for а long time, but in the past two decades they are оn the rise. In recent years, numerous methodological and theoretical innovations were introduced and the quantity and quality of publications increased, including numerous individual articles, PhD thesis, monographs. Particularly important were several conferences and thematic sessions held in Europe, North America and Asia, devoted to the problems of worked bone. As a result, several edited volumes appeared, with high quality and diverse papers – for example, those edited by H. Luik et al. (2005), Ch. Gates-St-Pierre and R. Walker (2007), A. Legrand-Pineau & I. Sidéra et al. (2010), J. Baron and B. Kufel-Diakowska (2011), F. Lang (2013), A. Choyke and S. O’Connor (2013), Mărgărit et al 2014, to mention just a few.

Osseous materials began to be recognized as an important part of the archaeological finds first by the French school, and the most important theoretical and methodological work was done by French researchers. The most significant was the work by H. Camps-Fabrer, who initiated a large research program on bone industry, La Commission de Nomenclature sure l’Industrie de l’Os Prehistorique, later continued by other researchers. Work organized by M. Patou-Mathis on the industrie osseuse peu élaboré should also be mentioned. However, the most important role in spreading and promoting the research on bone artefacts and its importance in the past few decades has been that of the Worked bone research group (WBRG), formed almost 30 years ago, and one of the official working groups of the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) since 2000. The main role of the WBRG is to improve communication between individuals studying worked animal hard tissues (especially bone, antler, and ivory) with a special emphasis on archaeological finds. A broad diachronic and multi-disciplinary approach is emphasized in order to promote the exchange of ideas concerning attitudes towards and procurement of raw materials, technology, and cognitive aspects of bone working.

Since the first meeting, held in London in 1997, eight other meetings took place and in 2014 Belgrade was the host of the jubilee 10th Meeting of the WBRG (for more information, see www.wbrg.net).

Over sixty oral and poster presentations were held during the five conference days, contributed by 100 authors. Thirty-nine papers were selected for this volume, and I. Riddler, the organiser of the very first meeting in London, also contributed a paper with N. Trzaska-Nartowski.

Selected papers encompass the wide chronological and geographical range – from the Mesolithic period to the 18th century AD, from South America to the Eurasia

and South Africa. Selected case studies do not simply present interesting archaeological material, but they also cover a wide range of topics – methodological issues, in particular traceological investigations, reconstructions of technological procedures, problems related to the interpretation of functions, problems of the identification of workshops, and also symbolic use of osseous raw materials in both prehistoric and historic times. Papers are organised by alphabetical order, since the topics overlap and it was not possible to create distinctive thematic groups.

Such a variety in topics, as well as an increasing number of researchers focusing on studies of osseous raw materials, clearly shows that these studies have an important potential to contribute to the more general archaeological studies. Osseous artefacts are no longer disregarded, but are slowly gaining more and more space and are slowly taking place alongside with lithic industries and other classes of raw materials. However, there is still much work to be done, and bone tool studies still have to show all the potential they have.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all the people who helped during the conference and afterwards, during the preparation of the book. Special thanks to all the colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology and to all the colleagues and staff from the National museum in Belgrade, which generously offered the room for the conference and also helped with the lovely post-conference excursion to the Lepenski Vir. I would also like to thank for the hospitality to Dragan Janković, curator of the City museum, who welcomed us at the site of Vinča-Belo Brdo, and to dr Mira Ružić, who welcomed us at the Archaeological collection of the Faculty of Philosophy.

Finally, special thanks to the reviewers, who helped to enhance the scientific value of this volume.

The conference and the publication of this book were financially supported by the Ministry of education, science and technological development of the Republic of Serbia.

Choyke, A. M. and Bartosiewicz, L. (eds.) 2002. Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 937

Gates St-Pierre, Ch. and Walker, R. B. (eds.) 2007. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622.

INTRODUCTION

Close to the bone...

8

Kufel-Diakowska, B. and Baron, J. (eds.) 2011. Written in Bones. Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains. Wrocław. Uniwersytet Wrocławski–Instytut Archeologii.

Lang, F. (ed.) 2013. The Sound of Bones. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Salzburg 2011. Salzburg: Archaeo Plus. Schriften zur Archäologie und Archäometrie der Paris Lodron-Universität Salzburg 5.

Legrand-Pineau, A., Sidéra, I., Buc, N., David, E. and Scheinsohn, V. (eds.) 2010. Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 2136.

Luik, H., Choyke A., Batey, C. & Lougas, L. (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Tallinn : Muinasaja teadus 15.

Mărgarit, M, Le Dosseur, G., Averbouh, A. (eds.) 2014. An Overview of the exploitation of hard animal materials during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Proceedings of the GDRE PREHISTOS Work-Session in Tȃrgovişte, Romania, november 2013. Tȃrgovişte: Editura Cetatea de Scaun.

Selena Vitezović

356

The castle of Vrbovec lies on a steep slope offering a splendid view of the Sutla river valley, in the village of Kle-novec Humski in the very north-western part of Croatia.

The Institute of Archaeology (Zagreb) began the trial investigations of the castle in 1987 and 1994, and from 2001 the archaeological investigations and conservation work on the architecture have been continuously carried out till present day. The results of the first ten seasons of archaeological research have been presented at museum exhibitions and in numerous articles and academic pa-pers, as well as in a monographic edition (Tkalčec 2010a, with a list of complete older references; Tkalčec 2014a). The last five seasons of excavations have brought a new understanding of life in the mediaeval castle (Tkalčec 2012, 2013, 2014b, 2015).

Vrbovec Castle or castrum Vrbouch is directly or in-directly mentioned in historical sources in the period between 1267 and 1497 (Karbić 2010). Although we can track historical data referring to the castle of Vrbovec from the second half of the 13th until the late 15th century, archaeological excavations point to an even earlier time of its construction, i.e. to the very end of the 12th century, and to an even longer continuity of its use until the mid-16th cent. The polygonal layout of the Romanesque castle has been preserved only at foundation level and in the lower portions of walls of ground-floor rooms. Neverthe-less, the well-discerned layers with rich finds provided a wealth of new information about the ways everyday life in the castle functioned, especially in its later phases, from the way kitchenware was used in the preparation of food, to more luxurious eating and drinking vessels used by the feudal lord, to the interior design of the castle, lavishly decorated with tile stoves, as well as stone profilations of

windows, doors etc., characteristic for the beginning of the 15th century (Horvat, Tkalčec 2009, Tkalčec 2010b, 2010c, Zglav-Martinac 2010).

Archaeological investigations brought to the light of day abundant faunal remains from all periods of life at the castle. The sample consists of a total of around 6850 frag-ments of bones, teeth and horns/antlers, of which 20.92% were determined as mammals (Mammalia), 3.17% as birds (Aves) and 0.23% as remains of fish (Pisces). Inde-terminate fragments amounted to 75.68%. For the period between the 12th and 14th centuries a predominance of re-mains of pigs (around 60%) is noticed (NISP analysis), while remains of cattle and small ruminants vary between 10% and 20% depending on the period. During the sec-ond half of the 15th century the proportion of pigs drops significantly but grows again towards the end of the 15th, while in the 16th century its proportion is again very low. A decline in the proportion of pigs in the latter half of the 15th century coincides with a substantial rise of small ruminants. At the turn of the 16th century and during that century the number of bone remains of cattle rises. A cal-culation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) shows a fairly balanced proportion for all animal species through all the periods, with the exception of pigs and cattle at the turn of the 16th century, where the MNI for these species rises significantly. The share of wild animals (wild boar, red deer, roe deer and rabbit) was relatively constant at all times and does not exceed 5% (Trbojević Vukičević et al. 2010). There is only a single bone attrib-utable to the horse. Although there are only few remains of dog bones, the presence of carnivore tooth marks on bones of domestic and wild animals allow the assumption that dogs were common at the site.

LIFE IN A MEDIAEVAL CASTLE: BONE ARTEFACTS AS INDICATORS OF HANDICRAFT AND LEISURE

Tatjana Tkalčec

Abstract: The paper presents artefacts made of animal bones found in the archaeological excavations at Vrbovec castle in Croatia. The osteological sample consists of around 6850 fragments of bones, teeth, horns and antlers (mostly mammali-an, with some bird and fish bones). Bone artefacts are rare finds at the castle, and mostly come from the backfill of the me-diaeval cistern and from the modern-period horizon. In other words, they date from the 15th and the first half of the 16th century. We can divide the finds into utilitarian objects used as tools (awls) and implements for sewing and knitting, and perhaps also for working lace, and objects related with leisure (pipe/flute, spinning tops-astragaloi). They inform us about certain segments of life and activities taking place at the castle during the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period.

Apstrakt: U radu su predstavljeni predmeti izrađeni od životinjskih kostiju otkriveni tokom arheoloških istraživanja Bur-ga Vrbovec u Hrvatskoj. Uzorak se sastoji od ukupno oko 6850 fragmenata kostiju, zubi i rogova (uglavnom sisavaca, ne-što ptica i ribljih kostiju). Predmeti izrađeni iz kostiju rijedak su nalaz na burgu, a uglavnom potječu iz sloja zatrpavanja srednjovjekovne cisterne te iz novovjekovnog horizonta, odnosno datiraju se u 15. i prvu polovinu 16. stoljeća. Možemo ih podijeliti na uporabne predmete korištenje kao alatke (šila) pribor za šivanje i pletenje, možda i izradu čipke, te na predmete za razbibrigu i dokolicu (svirala, zvrkovi-astragali). Govore nam o nekim segmentima života i aktivnostima koje su se odvijale na samome burgu tijekom kasnog srednjeg i ranog novog vijeka.

357

T. Tkalčec, Life in a mediaeval castle...

Traces of butchery marks were documented on a large number of animal bones, including both primary and secondary (dismemberment into smaller pieces) as well as tertiary marks (shallow incisions on bones, character-istic for defleshing of bones) (Trbojević Vukičević et al. 2010: 242).

Although a number of faunal remains were found at the Vrbovec Castle, the finds of worked bone artefacts are exceptionally rare. Most come from the backfill of the mediaeval cistern. The assemblage consists of arte-facts used as sewing and knitting implements, objects used during time of leisure, as well as certain objects and semi-products of indeterminate function. Except for the needle and the flute, the function of the remaining bone artefacts (including the so-called astragaloi) remains at least partly open. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, such artefacts may have been used in various ways and in a number of different activities and, on the other, we were unable to find direct typological analogies in ar-tefacts with a clearly identified function, that is, various possibilities of their application and use have been put forward in the literature.

As explained previously, a few of the bone artefacts show different marks of primary treatment in the process of making a bone artefact. That indicates these activities at the very castle of Vrbovec. Initial processing attempts are identified on a deer antler (Cervus elaphus L.) from the cistern backfill dated to the second half of the 15th c. - second half of the 16th c. (Cat. No. 1). This half-finished product exhibits traces of short, sharp cuts. One end is sawn off in a regular fashion, while the other is irregular. A fragment, or more precisely, fragments of another red deer antler (Cervus elaphus L.), which was scorched by fire that also damaged a wooden tower from the first half of the 16th century, likewise exhibits short incisions, prob-ably from processing (Cat. No. 2).

A sewing needle with a damaged upper part where a thread hole (the eye) is visible represents the oldest arte-fact made of bone, and originates from a layer dated to the 14th or the first half of the 15th century (Cat. No. 4). The needle, due to its dimensions, was probably used for sewing coarse materials or hide. Most of the other bone objects originate from the layer of backfill of the castle cistern, dating back to the late 15th and the first half of the 16th century.

A long bone artefact, made of compact bone substance (substantiae compacte), probably a long bone of cattle, is coarsely made or unfinished, although finely smoothed on the outside and somewhat less well on the inside. Both ends are pointed near the top. Due to this, the ob-ject might have been an awl or possibly a tool for knitting fishing nets (Cat. No. 3). The next object, also finely made of compact bone substance of a large animal (e.g. cattle), may have equally been used as an awl or a tool for knit-ting fishing nets (Cat. No. 5). One end is crudely pointed while the other is regular and ends with a slightly bulg-

ing circle. A similar, but smaller object of the same type, whose function escapes us, is an awl (?), likewise made of compact bone matter of a large animal (Cat. No. 6).

An interesting artefact, also made of finely processed compact bone matter from a diaphysis of a long bone whose lower end is broken off while the upper one finish-es with a narrowing neck topped by a pronounced round bulge, allows several possible interpretations of its func-tion (Fig. 1, Cat. No. 7). On the one hand, the artefact is reminiscent of a lace-knitting tool—a lace bobbin—of the kind used in the manufacture of the so-called Lepo-glava lace. In this part of Croatia, the lace making craft affirmed itself in particular towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, and today the Lep-oglava lace is inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of the UNESCO. Even though it is believed that the Pauline Order introduced this lace-making method in Lepoglava, a town lying around 30 km from the Vr-bovec castle, we nevertheless, due to the lack of concrete information or analogous finds, cannot ascertain that this artefact served this precise function. In the litera-ture, bobbin lace is dated to the 16th century, although the place of its origin is still uncertain. Some authors are

Fig. 1. Knitting/lace or clothing accessories from the cistern backfill (photo: Ivana

Škiljan).


358

more inclined to the theory positing Italy as the cradle of bobbin lace, same as in the case of needle lace, which is mentioned in the sources as far back as the 15th century (Jackson 1900: 15-16), while others favour Flanders as the place of origin of bobbin lace (HE: 314). Moreover, as regards the identification of the function of this ar-tefact from Vrbovec, there is mention in the literature of similar bone artefacts that sometimes feature a thin metal prong on the very top, which, alternatively, may be merely pointed. Such artefacts have been interpreted as writing instruments, that is, the so-called styli, used for writing on wax tablets or parchments (Soltan-Kościelec-ka 2007). Since such round-tipped writing implements are extremely rare, we assume that our artefact should rather be interpreted as a sewing tool or an implement for weaving or knitting.1 It also merits mention that simi-lar bone artefacts were found in Hungary, in the 16th cen-tury Styrian fort of Bajcs, where they were interpreted as stiffeners (Gürtelverstreifer) (Vándor 2002: 126, Cat. no. 57-58), as well as in the Royal Palace of Buda, where they were also interpreted as clothing accessories, namely as elements of belts (Kovács 2005: 313, Fig. 3: 6-7). Such finds are found at the Royal Palace of Visegrád (Kováts 2005: 301, Fig. 15), as well as at the Lower Castle from Visegrád. Although there are several similar finds known from Hungary from the late medieval and early modern period, and they were usually defined as “belt stiffeners“, no explanation of their use is available in the literature. Our specimen, in spite of one broken end, is highly rem-iniscent of the mentioned objects. On the other hand, in case its now missing part had originally had a thickened, drop-shaped form, this might really have been a lace bobbin. If, however, its broken top extended into a point, it is not excluded that this may have been a knitting nee-dle, which would give us a hint as to how a noblewoman spent her day in the castle. In case this object was really

1 Metal styli are more common, while as regards styli made of organic materials (bone or wood), more common are those with a metal pin on top, which allowed for a neater and clearer recording of signs. Tips of all these styli feature various forms and are mostly flat, so it was believed that they doubled as correcting tools for mistakes in writing. Styli with solid round tips are not suitable for this purpose, so they are extremely rare (Soltan-Kościelecka 2007: 228).

a lace bobbin, this would expand our understanding of the production of this type of lacework to include the late mediaeval period in Croatia. However, the problem surrounding the identification of this object remains un-resolved.

A few bone artefacts tell us also a story about how the nobleman and noble child spent their leisure time - play-ing flute and playing with astragaloi. A unique find of a pipe or flute (Fig. 2, Cat. No. 8) made of a bird femur (os femoris) was found in the cistern backfill. It exhibits a clearly visible opening with flat upper and round lower edge. The upper top of the flute is cut straight, while the lower one is cut at a slant; it is also partly damaged, al-though it is not entirely clear whether this might be the beginning of another hole, since the end is broken off. Based on this, the object might have been a pipe, that is, a flute, but it might equally have been a whistle used for military purposes or during hunting. In Croatia, the only specimens so far published in the literature are the bone pipes from the forts at Čanjevo (Višnjić 2008: 117, T. 2/8) and Barilović (Janeš 2014: 75, Fig. 76). In the foreign lit-erature dedicated to the Middle Ages and the Modern Pe-riod, the finds of pipes made of long bird bones are more common, appearing from the Early Middle Ages until the Modern Period (Klápštĕ 2002: 381, Tab. 175/6), that is, they are known also from the earlier periods of Antiquity up until the Late Middle Ages and the Modern Period, in which we underline the pipes found in Visegrád (Gál 2005: 328-329, Fig. 6-7).

Objects made of phalanges or metatarsal animal bones, the so-called astragaloi, perforated with one hole (passing through both sides of the bone) or several, like in the case of the three finds from Vrbovec, in archaeo-logical contexts are found from prehistoric times to the Modern Age. They were by and large made of knuckle-bones of sheep or goats, as well as pigs. They are usual-ly interpreted as bone pendants of votive and divining character, but are also recognised as objects intended for augury, gambling, and play. Two astragaloi made of pig bones Cat. No. 9 (Phalanx proximalis) and Cat. No. 10 (Ossa metatarsalia III) were found in the cistern backfill and dated to the 15th century, while an astragal Cat. No.

Fig. 2. Pipe/flute from the Vrbovec Castle cistern backfill (photo: Tatjana Tkalčec).

359


11 made of a large ruminant bone, most probably cattle (Phalanx proximalis) originates from the layer dated to the first half of the 16th century.

Astragal Cat. No. 9 has three holes for threads on three sides on its wider end, while the opposite, narrower end has two opposing holes. The second specimen was made of the left metatarsal bone of pig, perforated at the middle with two holes through either side of the di-aphysis (Cat. No. 10). The latter specimen has analogies in Schlossberg, in a specimen made of a metacarpus of a young pig, perforated with a single hole and dated to the 15th century (Bitschnau et al. 2007: 227, Taf. 1/D9). The authors attributed the artefact to the assemblage of gaming and leisure items, noting that such a bone on a cord may have produced sounds when pulled and may have also been used as a spinning top or rattle. In addition to the more common specimens with one hole, there are also sporadic finds with two parallel holes (likewise per-forated through either side of the bone), such as our spec-imen (Bitschnau et al. 2007: 219-220). The third astragal from Vrbovec, Cat. No. 11, has two perforated channels with regular circular openings (below the proximal edge in the lateral-medial direction and immediately above the distal epiphysis in the cranial-palmar/plantar direction). Below the proximal edge on the palmar/plantar side there is another circular opening entering into the existing proximal channel.

Although the function of some of the artefacts pre-sented here has not been fully ascertained, there are clear indicators that some kind of minor bone processing ac-tivity took place at the Vrbovec castle. Bone artefacts might have formed part of dressing accessories or as tools for knitting fishing nets; as sewing, weaving or lace mak-ing implements (?), as well as music instruments and toys in the everyday life of the inhabitants of the mediaeval castle.

CATALOGUE

1. Bone artefact, bone, red deer antler (Cervus ela-phus L.?), object of unknown use, traces of longitudinal processing visible on all sides of the bone; traces of trans-verse processing visible on one end; length 8 cm, diam-eter 2.9 cm, weight 44.6 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 401; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1588.

2. Bone artefact, bone, red deer antler (Cervus ela-phus L.?) – two fragments exposed to fire, with visible sharp cuts – attempts at processing; length 9.5 cm, width 6.1 cm, weight 39.4 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´08, U 272, PN 453; Context: SJ 171; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle.

3. Awl (?), compact bone matter (substantiae com-pacte), probably from a long bone of cattle, crudely pro-cessed or unfinished tool, rectangular cross-section, both ends pointed; length 19.3 cm, width 1.1 cm, thickness 0.8 cm, weight 25.5 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4a, PN

318; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1590.

4. Needle, bone, damaged upper part with a hole for thread, flattened and smoothed body, pointed top, round cross-section; length 8.6 cm, width 0.9 cm, weight 2.7 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´06, □ A6, PN 367; Context: SJ 90; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1582.

5. Awl (?), (tool for knitting fishing nets?), bone, compact bone matter (substantiae compacte), probably from a long bone of cattle, round cross-section, one side damaged, pointed top; length 9 cm, width 1.1 cm, weight 7.1 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 319; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1589.

6. Awl (?), (tool for knitting fishing nets?), bone, compact bone matter (substantiae compacte), probably from a long bone of cattle, round cross-section, pointed top; length 4 cm, diameter 9 mm, weight 2.8 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 337; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1587.

7. Needle/lace bobbin (?), bone, compact bone matter from a diaphysis of a long bone, round top, nar-rowed neck serving as a spool (?); preserved length 5 cm, neck diameter 6 mm, top diameter 8 mm, body diameter 7 mm, weight 2.7 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ A/B4, PN 311; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1584.

8. Pipe, thigh bone of a bird (os femoris); one pre-served hole, damaged top, length 53 cm, diameter 8 mm, weight 1.6 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 400; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1585.

9. Astragal, bone, phalanx (Phalanx proximalis), upper phalanx of a pig; on the wider end of the phalanx there are three holes for passing thread on three sides, while on the opposite narrower end there are two op-posing holes; length 3.6 cm, width 1.8 cm, weight 4 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 399; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1583.

10. Astragal, bone, left metatarsal bone of a pig; two pairs of holes perforated on the distal end through both sides of the diaphysis; length 7.3 cm, width 2.1 cm, diam-eter of the middle part of the bone 1.2 cm, weight 8.5 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ B4, PN 309; Context: SJ 76; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle, Inv. no. DVT 1586.

11. Astragal, bone, phalanx (Phalanx proximalis), upper phalanx of a large ruminant (most likely cattle) perforated with two channels with openings of regular circular form (below the proximal edge in the lateral-me-dial direction and immediately above the distal epiphy-sis in the cranial-palmar/plantar direction) and another circular opening on the palmar/plantar side below the proximal edge, length 4.9 cm, width 2.5 cm, weight 12.8 g; Fieldwork marks: PGV´04, □ C4, PN 454; Context: SJ 72; Stored at: Veliki Tabor Castle.


360

361



362

363


REFERENCES

Bitschnau, M., Schick, M., Kreißl, U., Kreinz, H.G., Kaufer, Ch., Reitmaier, Th., Haller, Th., Rizzoli, H., Stadler, H. 2007. Der Schlossberg bei Seefeld in Tirol, Ergebnisse der archäologischen Notuntersuchung 1974. Teil B: Die Klein-funde, Nearchos 15, Innsbruck.

Gál, E. 2005. New data on bird bone artefacts from Hungary and Romania. In: Luik, H., Choyke, A.-M., Bat-ey, C.-E., Lougas, L. (eds.): From Hooves to Horns from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Ar-tefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th – 31st of August 2003, Muinasaja Teadus 15, Tallin: 293-304.

HE 1942. Čipka. Hrvatska enciklopedija IV, Naklada Hr-vatskog izdavačkog bibliografskog zavoda, Zagreb: 313-319.

Horvat, Z., Tkalčec, T. 2009. Arhitektura i arhitekton-ska plastika burga Vrbovca kraj Huma na Sutli / Architec-ture and Architectural Stonework of the Medieval Castle of Vrbovec near Hum na Sutli. Prilozi Instituta za arhe-ologiju u Zagrebu 26: 181–218.

Jackson, F.-N. 1900. A History of hand-made lace. Lon-don : L.U. Gill ; New York : C. Scribner’s Sons.

Janeš, A. 2014. Stakleni i koštani nalazi. In: Azinović Bebek, A., Krmpotić, M. (eds.): Stari grad Barilović. 10 godina arheoloških istraživanja. Hrvatski restauratorski zavod, Zagreb: 70-75.

Karbić, D. 2010. Povijesni podaci o burgu Vrbovcu (1267. –1524.). In: Tkalčec, T.: Burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Humskome. Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja & Institut za arhe-ologiju, Zagreb: 203–222.

Klápštĕ, J. 2002. Kostĕné předmĕty. In: Klápštĕ, J.(ed.): Archeologie střĕdovĕkëho domu v Mostĕ (čp. 226), The ar-chaeology of medieval House (No. 226) in Most, Mediae-valia Archaeologica 4. Praha – Most: 130-132.

Kovács, E. 2005. Remains of the bone working in medie-val Buda. In: Luik, H., Choyke, A.-M., Batey, C.-E., Lougas, L. (eds.): From Hooves to Horns from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th – 31st of August 2003, Muinasaja Teadus 15, Tallin: 309-316.

Kováts, I. 2005. Finds of worked bone and antler from the Royal Palace of Visegrád. In: Luik, H., Choyke, A.-M., Batey, C.-E., Lougas, L. (eds.): From Hooves to Horns from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Ar-tefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th – 31st of August 2003, Muinasaja Teadus 15, Tallin: 293-304.

Soltan-Kościelecka, K. 2007. Ausgewählte spättmittel-alterliche Schreibgriffel aus dem Ostseegebiet und dem östlichen Mitteleuropa. Arbeits- und Forschungsberich-te zur Sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege, Band 47/2005, Dresden, 223-254.

Tkalčec, T. 2010a. Burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Humskome. Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja & Institut za arheologiju, Zagreb.

Tkalčec, T. 2010b. Kuhinjska i stolna keramika iz stambenog dijela burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskome. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu. Ser. 3, 43: 455–476.

Tkalčec, T. 2010c. Pećnjaci iz drvenog objekta podig-nutog na ruševinama srednjovjekovnog burga Vrbovca kod Huma na Sutli. Archaeologia Adriatica 4: 325–338.

Tkalčec, T. 2012. Konzervatorski radovi na burgu Vr-bovcu u Klenovcu Humskom 2011. godine. Annales Insti-tuti Archaeologici VIII: 95-97.

Tkalčec, T. 2013. Nastavak arheoloških istraživanja burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskom 2012. godine. An-nales Instituti Archaeologici IX: 109-115.

Tkalčec, T. 2014a. Medieval Castle of ‘’Vrbouch’’ in Klenovec Humski (Northwestern Croatia): Ten Seasons of Archaeological and Conservation Work. In: Predovnik, K. (ed.): Castrum Bene 12, 12th International Castellologi-cal Conference: The Castle as social Space. Univerza v Lju-bljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana: 301-312.

Tkalčec, T. 2014b. Nastavak konzervatorskih radova na burgu Vrbovcu u Klenovcu Humskom u 2013. godini. Annales Instituti Archaeologici X: 134-139.

Tkalčec, T. 2015. Novi pogledi na stara obrambena zdanja: burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Humskom, arheološka istraživanja 2014. godine. Annales Instituti Archaeologici XI (in press).

Trbojević Vukičević, T., Frančić, S., Kužir, S. 2010. Analiza životinjskih kostiju iz srednjovjekovnog burga Vrbovca u Klenovcu Humskome. In: Tkalčec, T.: Burg Vr-bovec u Klenovcu Humskome. Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja & Institut za arheologiju, Zagreb: 234–246.

Višnjić, J. 2008. Koštane izrađevine s utvrde Čanjevo, In: Bekić, L. (ed.): Utvrda Čanjevo / Fort Čanjevo. Visoko: 107-119.

Vándor, L. (ed.) 2002. Weitschawar/ Bajcsa-vár, Egy stájer erődítmény Magyarországon a 16. szazad második felében. Zalaegerszeg.

Zglav-Martinac, H. 2010. Kasnosrednjovjekovna i no-vovjekovna keramika s premazom s lokaliteta Plemićki grad Vrbovec. In: Tkalčec, T.: Burg Vrbovec u Klenovcu Humskome. Muzeji Hrvatskog zagorja & Institut za arhe-ologiju, Zagreb: 223–233.

Acknowledgments and notes: I would like to thank Ta-jana Trbojević Vukičević and her associates for the detailed zooarchaeological analysis of the bone assemblage from the Vrbovec castle, published in the cited paper. Further, I thank Alice Choyke and István Kováts for advice regarding the possible identification of artefact cat. no. 7 as a cloth-ing accessory, as well as information about similar finds in Buda and Visegrád; I thank Tihana Petrović Leš for di-recting me to analogies for identifying this object as a lace bobbin. For the drawings, I thank Zlatko Mirt (cat. nos. 1, 3-10) and Suzana Čule (cat. nos. 2, 11).

Artefacts are stored at the Veliki Tabor Castle, Museums of Hrvatsko Zagorje.

395

Ariel Shatil, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Is-rael

Björn Briewig, German institute of Archaeology, Ber-lin, Germany

Christian Casseyas, Laboratoire d’ archéologie ex-périmentale, Préhistomuseum, Flemalle, Belgium

Christopher Arabatzis, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland

Corneliu Beldiman, University of Piteşti, Faculty of Socio-Humanistic Sciences, Department of History, Piteşti, Romania.

Dan Lucian Buzea, National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians, Sf. Gheorghe, Covasna County, Romania

Diana-Maria Sztancs, Central High School, Bucha-rest, Romania

Diego Rivero, CONICET – Área de Arqueología y Et-nohistoria del Centro de Estudios Históricos “Prof. Car-los S. A. Segreti”, Córdoba, Argentina

Elisabetta Grassi, Dipartimento di Scienze della Natu-ra e del Territorio, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Italia

Erik Hrnčiarik, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Filozo-fická fakulta, Katedra klasickej archeológie, Trnava, Slo-vakia

Erika Gál, Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Bu-dapest, Hungary

Éva David, CNRS Laboratoire Préhistoire et techno-logie, Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France

Felix Lang, University of Salzburg, Deportment of Classical Studies / Archaeology, Salzburg, Austria

George Nuțu, Eco-Museum Research Institute, Tul-cea, Romania

Giedrė Piličiauskienė, Lithuanian Institute of Histo-ry, Kražių 5, Vilnius, Lithuania

Gilberto Pérez-Roldan, Escuela de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Po-tosí, Mexico

Gordana Jeremić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia

Grzegorz Osipowicz, Institute of Archaeology, Nico-laus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Heidi Luik, Institute of History, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

Hrvoje Kalafatić, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, Croatia

Ian Riddler, independent researcher, Stratton, Corn-wall, UK

Isabelle Sidéra, CNRS, laboratoire Préhistoire et tech-nologie, Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La défense, France

Ivan Bogdanović, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia

Ivan Bugarski, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia

Jean-Marc Léotard, Service Public de Wallonie, DG04 Direction de Liège 1, Service de l’Archéologie, Belgium

Justin Bradfield, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Johannesburg, Auck-land Park Campus, Johannesburg, South Africa

Justyna Baron, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland

Justyna Orłowska, Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Kinga Winnicka, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland

Louisa Gidney, Archaeological Services, University of Durham, UK

Marcin Diakowski, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland

Marija Mihaljević, Municipal Museum Nova Gradiš-ka, Croatia

Marina Kovač, Museum of Slavonia, Osijek, CroatiaMario Novak, Institute for Anthropological Research,

Zagreb, CroatiaMarius Gheorghe Barbu, Museum of Dacian and Ro-

man Civilisation, Deva, Romania Matías E. Medina, CONICET-Área de Arqueología

y Etnohistoria del Centro de Estudios Históricos “Prof. Carlos S. A. Segreti”, Córdoba, Argentina

Mihaela Maria Barbu, Museum of Dacian and Ro-man Civilisation, Deva, Romania

Mira Ružić, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Miriam Selene Campos Martínez, Escuela de Cien-cias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico

Mislav Čavka, University Hospital Dubrava, Zagreb, Croatia

Monica Mărgărit, Valahia University of Târgoviste, Romania

Natacha Buc, CONICET-Instituto Nacional de An-tropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Buenos Ai-res, Argentina

Nemanja Marković, Institute of Archaeology, Bel-grade, Serbia

Nicola Trzaska-Nartowski, independent researcher, Stratton, Cornwall, UK

Paul Stokes, St. Cuthbert’s Society University of Durham, Durham, UK

Pierre de Maret, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bel-gique

Pierre van der Sloot, Service Public de Wallonie, DG04 Direction de Liège 1, Service de l’Archéologie, Bel-giumChristian Casseyas, Laboratoire d’ archéologie ex-périmentale, Préhistomuseum, Flemalle, Belgium

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS


396

Rajna šošić Klindžić, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia

Saša Redžić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, SerbiaSelena Vitezović, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade,

SerbiaSimina Margareta Stanc, Faculty of Biology, Alexan-

dru Ioan Cuza University, Iaşi, RomaniaSiniša Radović, Croatian Academy of Sciences and

Arts, Institute for Quaternary Paleontology and Geology, Zagreb, Croatia

Sofija Petković, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia

Sonja Stamenković, Institute of Archaeology, Bel-grade, Serbia

Sonja Vuković-Bogdanović, Laboratory of Bioar-chaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Steven P. Ashby, Departament of Archaeology, Uni-versity of York, York, UK

Tajana Sekelj Ivančan, Institute of Archaeology, Za-greb, Croatia

Tatjana Tkalčec, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, Croatia

Tomasz Stolarczyk, Copper Museum in Legnica, Poland Toni Čerškov, Institute for the cultural heritage pres-

ervation, Niš, SerbiaVesna Bikić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Vesna Manojlović Nikolić, Faculty of Philosophy,

Department of History, University of Novi Sad, SerbiaVinayak, Centre for Historical Studies, School of So-

cial Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, IndiaZlatko Kovancaliev, NI Stobi, Archaeological site

Stobi, Gradsko, FYR Macedonia

close to the bone: current studies in bone...

Documents