Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 17. 1976 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1978)
Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Choyke, A. M.: A Classification of the Bone and Antler Tools from the Bronze Age Hill-fortress of Pákozdvár. p. 9–21.
TANULMÁNYOK — ABHANDLUNGEN A CLASSIFICATION OF THE BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS FROM THE BRONZE AGE HILL-FORTRESS OF PÁKOZDVÁR Introduction^) With the exception of a number of attempts to classify manufacture-modified bone in Paleolithic assemblages, very little systematic work has been done on bone tool classification. Even less work has been done on bone which has been modified by use alone. Bone comes in a variety of natural preforms and sizes. It is a relatively cheap and readily available raw material for those prehistoric societies in which metal was not yet widespread or was too expensive to produce for mass consumption. As Semenov points out, „Pointed parts. . . the rod like structure of ribs and long bones with their natural handles. . . the narrow section and strength of bones of small animals and birds. . . all considerably reduced human labor in shaping tools and objects for everyday use." (Semenov 1973, 15). These bone tools can be used with little or no alteration. There are a number of reasons why investigators have tended to ignore this important area of human technology. 1. Bone is frequently not as well preserved as stone, pottery, or metal and in fact may not be preserved at all if the soil is too acid. In general analyses of prehistoric technologies are skewed against items made from organic raw materials. 2. Even if bone is preserved at a particular site, it is frequently turned over, out of archaeological context, to a faunal specialist for initial species and bone part identification. The two-step operation inevitably means that the bone tools are the last to be examined by the archaeologist who may in fact have moved on to other projects by the time the analyzed bone material becomes available again for further study. 3. Faunal analysts are often biologically rather than culturally oriented. As such they may not recognize, or more importantly, be looking for the usemodified or unfinished tools. Inadequate cleaning also frequently obscures less spectacular polish, striations, and cut marks. 4. Very little culture specific work has been done on defining bone artifact classes except for the Upper Paleolithic assemblages of France and Spain. Culture historians, as well as those archaeologists interested in functional interpretations of specific assemblages, have traditionally concentrated on stone, ceramics, and metal. Such tools always require „profound alterations of the natural form of material between obtaining the material and completing the work" (Semenov 1973; 15). The final forms are seen as more intentionally shaped and therefore better indicators of classes of material and culture. 5. Bone part morphology is a necessary but not sufficient determiner of final tool function. Not only may the same body part be used for a multiplicity (1) I should like to gratefully acknowledge the Staff and the Direction of the King Stephen museum of Székesfehérvár for their many kindnesses during the course of my work there and for their permission to analyze this body of material. In addition, I must thank Ms. Julia Steele for her help with the theoretical background material for this article. Also, the many stimulating discussions we have had on the subject of classification and bone tool classification in particular, have surely influenced me in the present work. However, any mistakes and errors in logic found within I claim exchisively as my own.
