Ilon Gábor szerk.: Pápai Múzeumi Értesítő 6. (Pápa, 1996)
Bronzkor a Nyugat-Dunántúlon - L. Bartosiewicz: Bronze age animal keeping in northwestern Transdanubia, Hungary. Bronzkori állattartás az Északnyugat-Dunántúlon
ronolog 1 lell jlate 1 Site and culture Relative ch Hamster Pond torto Riverine si Large uagi Small uagi S an h 3 o Táp - Borbapuszta Makó EBA I 14 5 7 26 Morcraaentrmklús ~ Pal major II Makó EBA I 4 7 11 Abda - Hármasok Makó EBA I 5 5 Ravazd - Villibald-domb Somogyvár-Vinkovci EBA II 56 16 72 Győrszemere - Tóth-tag Somogyvár-Vinkovci EBA II 6 6 Ravazd - Villibald-domb Kisapostag EBA III 177 188 365 Ménfócsanak - Szcles-telep Kisapostag EBA III 2 1 1 4 Ménfócsanak - Szeles-telep Lime Incrusted Ware MBA I 82 37 31 150 Börcs - Paphomlok-dűlő Late Tumulus LBA 38 649 340 9 1036 Mosonmagyaróvár - Német-dűlő Kajarpéc - Pnkolfa-díimb Late Tumulus II Um field LBA LBA 4 1 67 76 3 18 1 71 99 Table 2: List of animal remains not used in in faunal studies (preliminary results are marked by shading) 2. tábla: A régészeti faunához nem tartozó állatfajok listája (az előzetes eredmények árnyékolással kiemelve) Results As was already mentioned during the preliminary faunal appraisal of the material, fragment counts summarized in Table 1 show the very clear dominance of domestic animal remains at each of the studied sites. This means that by the beginning of the Bronze Age, the role of hunting in meat procurement had become insignificant in the studied area. According to the percentual values shown in Figure 2, it is only the site of Ravazd-Villibald-domb where hunting may have retained some of its role, although even the c. a. 25% contribution of wild animal remains may be considered insignificant in an assemblage of only 116 identifiable bone specimens. On the other hand, the geographical location of this site stands apart from those of the other settlements under discussion here. It is to be found in a slightly hillier area as opposed to the majority of the assemblages that come from the proximity of floodplains or at least major water sources. The relatively higher contribution of wild animal remains to the tiny assemblage from Győrszcmere-Tóth-tag may largely be attributed to sampling bias. Although deer antler was not included in these calculations, a source of the identifier's subjective bias may also account for the relatively high percentage of wild animal bones in these assemblages. Namely, morphological distinctions between the remains of wild and domestic cattle as well as pig are, in many cases, impossible in materials where fragmented bones often fall within the considerable size overlap between the wild and domestic forms. 8 While pig bones seem to have posed less of a problem in the material under discussion here, some large, non-measurable splinters of ,ßovine" bone were assigned with greater likclyhood to aurochs. It is well known, however, that primigenius type Bronze Age domestic cattle attained, in some cases, respectable sizes as well. It is also e. g. BókönyL, S. - Bartoslewlcz, L.: Domestiacation and variation. Archaeozoologia I (1987) 161-170.; Rowley-CoBwy, P.: Wild or domestic? On the evidence for the earliest domestic cattle and pigs in south Scandinavia and Iberia. IntJourOsteoarch 5 (1995) 122., Fig. 8 This group is best referred to as ..domestic males and/or wild females" 9 Vörös 1978.81.
