Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 46-47 (2001-2002) (Pécs, 2003)

Régészet - Katalin T. Bíró–Zsolt Schléder–Judit Antoni–György Szakmány: Petroarchaeological studies on polished stone artefacts from Baranya county, Hungary II. Zengővárkony: Notes on the production, use and circulation of polished stone tools

52 A Janus Pannonius Múzeum évkönyve 46-47 (2001-2002) can be considered a minimum number. It is very significant, however, that almost half of the polished stone tools were actually found in graves. Shaft-hole axes, typical for Zengővárkony were present in the graves slightly above the average, but some types, especially triangular and rounded butt chisels (72 %) and trapeze form chisels (61%) were present in very high quantity. As they are fairly numerous on the site (they can be considered representative) and fairly small in dimension (a lot of these small chisels may occur as stray-finds), we can see their contribution to the overall quantity of grave-goods as a minimum value and typical for the Zengővárkony community. Shoe-last form chisels, at the same time, are typically not given to the deceased and were made of more lasting/distant material, probably for actual use. The typical raw materials used for the shaft-hole axes included basalt (local and distant), tephritephonotephrite and bituminous limestone. This latter raises the intriguing question: were these soft limestone items used at all or made only, say, for the deceased as symbolic tools? This idea seems logical, however our data do not support it. Bituminous limestone is present in equal percentage among the grave-good axes (total 36 pieces and 8 pieces in grave, 22 %) as igneous rocks considered more suitable for hard work (basalt: total 71 pieces and 28 pieces in grave, 28%; phonolite: total 38 pieces and 10 pieces in grave, 26 %, tephrite: total 32 pieces and 9 pieces in grave, 28 %). The relation between „symbolic" (grave-) tools is more evident in the case of chisels where soft limestone and porcelanite is present prevailingly in the grave-finds. The overall contribution of metamorphic rocks, typical for polished stone tools all over Europe is fairly low for Zengővárkony. This is probably explained by local substitutes, in the first place alkaline vulcanite of the Mecsek Mts. for practical use and different limestone varieties for symbolic tools. Relation of size (weight) and raw material Obtaining information about the relation between the dimension and the raw material type, we used histograms. For the histogram a possible parameter is using the weight data of the tools. Our database contains both weight data (measured by J. Antoni) and petroarchaeological information in case of igneous rocks: 60 pieces, case of sedimentary rocks: 64 pieces and case of metamorphic rocks: 14 pieces. Furthermore, we also have parameters of stone tools as length, height and width for igneous rocks: 139 pieces, sedimentary rocks: 140 pieces, metamorphic rocks: 34 pieces. In the first step we used the weight data for histograms. Because of the relative low number of the weight data available, we have studied which other available data show correlation with weight and therefore could be used best for the histogram. Based on the Fig. 6., it is clear, while the curve of height and width data are flat (majority of tool has almost the same parameter), the length data are sensitive indicators of the dimension of stone tools. To evaluate the influence of the density difference of different stone types (e.g. sedimentary rock has lower density than igneous), we used the relation between length and weight (Fig. 7.). According to this diagram (both sedimentary and igneous plots are present all part of the curve) it is thought that the density difference has not strong influence to the result. Both the weight and the length histogram of igneous rocks show two-peak distribution (97-132 gram and 237-307 gram; 51-71 mm and 99-113 mm, Fig. 8. and Fig. 9.). If we use only the grave-found tools for histogram, it shows distribution with no peak in the case of weight data (Fig. 10.), while in the case of length data, the distribution shows one peak (at 99-113 mm, Fig. 11.). If we put the data of half-ready axes to the grave-found diagram (unfilled squares), it shows no correlation in the case of weight diagram, but shows good correlation both with the grave-found (with peak at 99-113 mm) and with second peak of bulk distribution of length data. This may mean that the axes with this size (99-113 mm) are complete items. Keeping in mind that the axes made of igneous rocks are usually perforated, it is quite likely that the items representing the first peak are fragments of a broken perforated axe. The same distribution of the length of grave found and half-ready tools implies that the deceased persons typically did not get broken tools. The lack of any pattern in the weight distribution diagram among the grave found and half-ready tools is thought due to the relative low number of data. In the case of sedimentary rocks both the weight and length histograms show one peak distribution (1-63 gram and 35-57 mm, Fig. 12. and Fig. 13.). The peak is close to the origo, implying that the tools made of this type of raw material are light and small-sized. Unfortunately, we do not have as many half-ready items (only 3 pieces), as we had in the previous case; therefore we are not allowed to get any conclusion about the original size of the tools in this way. Otherwise, if we create diagram among the grave stone tools (Fig. 14. and Fig. 15.), the feature is almost the same (peak at 1-63 gram and 35-57mm). This may imply that the original weight and size of the tools was around 1-63 gram and 35-5 7mm. The group of metamorphic rocks shows size distribution with two peaks (13-37 gram and 157-253 gram; 33-55 mm and 88-99 mm, Fig. 16. and Fig. 17.). Unfortunately, we do not have half-ready tools in this group at all, and we do not have as many items as we had at the previous cases, therefore it is hard to conclude anything. Among the grave tools, the light and small-sized tools are with less dominance (Fig. 18. and Fig. 19.). This distribution may imply that the metamorphic tools were re-worked from large pieces. To compare the size distribution and the raw material we made a histogram with all stone tools (Fig 20.). This overall diagram was carried out using only the length