Tárnoki Judit szerk.: Tisicum - A Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve 19. (2009)
Természettudomány és régészet - Alice M. Choyke - László Bartosiewicz - Telltale tools from a tell: Bone and antler manufacturing at Bronze Age Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, Hungary
Tisicum XIX. Figure 5. Three trophy skulls found next to the outer palisade at JászdózsaKápolnahalom. From their position the excavator concluded that they were eith set up on poles or hung directly form the palisade. bear and wild boar. 3 4 However, these data have not been reconfirmed either in the literature or in discussions with the late excavator. Certainly, the cognitive aspect of red deer as an important totem animal, representing some aspect of possibly ethnic identity for this community, cannot be discounted. The typology of bone artifacts As 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 was which species and their osseous elements were chosen to manufacture some of the types defined on a morphological basis. 3 5 Types are defined on the basis of the shape of the working edge, size, raw material and gross wear traces. The majority of these tools were probably designed to perform multipletasks. Where appropriate we have tried to include the bone tool typology used originally by Schibler 3 6 for the Neolithic (Cortaillod culture) lake-dwelling site of Twann on Lake of 34 STANCZIK, Ilona-TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992.127. 35 BARTOSIEWICZ, László - CHOYKE, Alice M. 1994. 36 SCHIBLER, Jörg 1980. Biel in Switzerland. Ours is an attempt to make bone and tusk tool categories comparable across national regions, beyond the Carpathian Basin. Some of the tool types are characteristic of the north of the Great Hungarian Plain, the distributions of others are more widespread, encompassing the Carpathian Basin, while a select few may be unique to the site of JászdózsaKápolnahalom itself. Hatvan/ „ ...... Hatvan _.. Koszider Stray MAIN TYPES Füzesabony n=85 n=108 n=78 n=166 Rib scraper (4/10) 6 7 3 S/G tibia scraper ( 4/5) 10 17 4 3 Large bevel-ended ( 4/3) 1 2 2 Large mandible smoother 3 13 1 2 Short bone w/ flattened sides 1 7 21 33 Small awl (1/1,1/3,1/4,1/7) 10 11 4 13 Double point (2/1) 1 1 Large awls ( 1/9) 1 1 1 2 Needles (21/1) 1 1 Wild boar tusk scraper ( 17) 4 1 1 1 Ornamental 6 9 5 Burr/beam hafted heavy duty 9 21 16 7 Harpoon/netweaver 1 1 Tine handle 4 8 5 2 Pick (beam or tine) 10 14 15 Antler debitage 20 41 23 3 Other 0 12 6 10 Table 1. List of main tool types with Schibler's 1980 relevant type codes in parentheses (after Choyke 2005,135). Abbreviations in the following descriptions are as follows: H = Hatvan, H-F = Hatvan-Füzesabony, K= Koszider and S= Stray. Rib scrapers (Schibier type 4/10) with broken unmodified butt ends. (H 7%; H-F4%; K2.7%; S - ) Ribs, particularlyfrom cattle 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. 3 7 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 although there are specimens with uneven striations more typical of use on a ceramic surface. However, it is unclear whether these striations are from manufacturing or use. (Plate I, a). 37 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1984. I 362
