|

Alice M. CHOYKE1 and László BARTOSIEWICZ2

Telltale tools from a tell:Bone and antler manufacturing at Bronze Age Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom,

Hungary

Introduction

Manufacturing of tools and ornaments from bone, antler and teeth in the territory of present-day Hungary continued from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods into the Bronze Age with little modifi cation in manufacturing techniques. The principal tools used to produce these artifacts comprised fl aked stone blades and abrasive stone surfaces although metal axes were regularly used to divide up the antler rack for producing individual tools. Finer metal cutting tools were probably also employed in the specialized production and decoration of certain, fi nely worked antler ornaments. Some types of worked osseous material continued from early periods, with their formal antecedents extending back into at least the late Neolithic. A number bone and antler tool types appear at the end of the Early Bronze Age Nagyrév culture and continue to be made well into the Late Bronze Age.

Other types had shorter production lives and appeared and disappeared throughout the chronological sequence. Finally, in terms of raw material selection and production techniques, regional differences technological style have started to become evident following three decades of research in this specialized area of study.3

Social complexity increased during the Bronze Age, a social change inter-twined with improved communication possibilities as the horse was harnessed for long-distance trade in new commodities with bronze being the most prominent. Well-established territories seem to exist, probably organized into chiefdom type polities. Social networks based on family, clan, age group and social status must have ranged well beyond the confi nes of the household and individual settlement although these still would have

1 Central European University, Medieval Studies Department,choyke@ceu.hu; Aquincum Museum (BTM), h13017cho@iif.hu

2 Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Loránd Eötvös University,bartwicz@yahoo.com

3 Thanks here are due to all the archaeologists, especially Marietta Csányi and the late Ilona Stanczik, who took the authors of this paper under their collective wings and introduced them to the Bronze Age in Hungary and in particular to the crew of the memorable excavations at Tiszaug–Kéménytetô.

remained the basic units of reference for most individuals. Thus, two contradictory tendencies confront each other in this period – a need to maintain social stability within settlements and regional contexts in the face of a constant infl ux of new, potentially destabilizing ideas appearing through the medium of movement of people outside narrow tribal boundaries for trade and other purposes. Material culture in this period, thus, refl ects both an impulse to innovation and change over large regions as well as the need of individuals to have stability in their daily lives. People continuously need to negotiate close and immediate social interactions in the social environment of the household and settlement. Bone tools are objects associated with daily life and less often with representation. They and their modes of manufacture, therefore, tend to change very slowly over time. When change can be observed it may often signal profound social changes that reach into the intimate household sphere itself.

Despite their potential for sensitively signally social changes, in Europe in general, objects made from osseous materials seem to be more or less neglected with the exception of probably high status, decorated horse bridle equipment.4 Other than the fi rst author of this paper, the only scholar working on bone objects in this period is Nöelle Provenzano, in particular her work on Terramare sites in Northern Italy.5 In any case, few comparative materials have been published to provide a techno-cultural context for individual analyses.

The tell settlement of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom

The very large assemblage of worked Bronze Age osseous materials from the tell settlement of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, in the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, will be discussed in light of what data has been accumulated. The Middle Bronze Age tell settlement of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is located in the north of the Great Hungarian Plain (Latitude: 47.6 N, Longitude: 20.0 E), near an ecotone between the plain and the Mátra mountains, rising

4 BÖKÖNYI Sándor 1953, FOLTINY, Stephen 1965, HÜTTEL, Hans-Georg 1981, MOZSOLICS Amália 1962.

5 PROVENZANO, Nöelle 1997. 621-628; unpublished dissertation 2001.

| Tisicum XIX.

some 30 km to the north of the site (Figure 1). Because there was no sieving at that time on excavations, smaller artifacts may be totally missing from the assemblage. In addition, because sites such as the Jászdózsa tell are complex sites it cannot be assumed that all parts of the site contain the same kinds of tools and ornaments. Most of the excavation units were located in the central tell part of the site. It maybe that proportions of types would look much different if more of the site between the defensive rings had been excavated.

In terms of the local geomorphology, this location represents a transitional area between recent alluvial deposits and loess soils. Typically for a prehistoric settlement lying in the marginal regions of river basins, the landscape is terraced by alluvial fans.6 During the period the site was inhabited was forested and marshy, as the Tarna River and a number of smaller streams such as Ágó (Kotró) and Szarvágy stream formed a network here, often fl ooding low-lying ground. Understandably, settlements have always occupied natural, slight elevations. Even after river regulations in the 19th century, elevated water tables in years of high precipitation reveal where former fl ood pools of the Tarna River were located.

6 PÉCSI Márton et al. 1969.

Within this general environment, this tell settlement was established on the banks of a small stream called the Nyavalyka.7 It began on a small natural elevation, well removed from the fl ooding that sometimes plagued the area. This location would also have been a particularly rich habitat for wild animals such as red deer and wild boar. In addition, the environmental potentials of the region in terms of the rich wild life may well have opened a window of trading opportunity in skins and antler products for the inhabitants of the settlement after the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age occupation. The settlement might have extended over a maximum area of 500 by 800 m. The oval, inner mound is 5.40 m high, measuring 130 x 60 m.

Although, as mentioned previously, most of the excavation work took place in this mound area during the 1960s and 1970s of the last century century, this is a well-known site in the history of Hungarian archaeology. Excavations fi rst took place here in the 19th century and it was at this time that Viktor Hild produced the fi rst map of the site (Figure 2), which clearly shows the three ring ditches surrounding the central mound.

The 13.5 m wide zone of habitation layers between the innermost and middle ring contain up to 4 m of habitation

7 STANCZIK, Ilona 1969, 1975; STANCZIK, Ilona – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992. 120.

Figure 1. The location of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom in the north of the Great Hungarian Plain.

Figure 2. The map of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom drawn by Viktor Hild in 1895 (after Stanczik 1975, Choyke 2005, 133).

|

levels. The fi ll of the ditches contains material from the early and late Hatvan (Füzesabony) phases at the site, suggesting that they were no longer in use by the fi nal, Koszider phase of the occupation. Altogether, 14 house levels, extending over approximately 400 years of occupation, were recovered.8

This archaeological sequence may be divided into three major occupation phases at the site: the Early Middle Bronze Age Hatvan habitation layers representing the early and classical phases of this archaeological culture (levels XIV-XI); the Middle Bronze Age late Hatvan (Füzesabony style) habitation layers (levels X-VI); and the late Middle Bronze Age Koszider habitation layers (material from the humus/sub-humus and levels III-I).9 The different phases date by calibrated 14C as follows: Classic phase of the Hatvan period: 1750–1550 cal BC; Hatvan (in Füzesabony style): 1550–1450 cal BC; Koszider: 1450–1350 cal BC.10 Mostly, these sequences represent a series of house fl oors separated by fi ll layers, particularly in the central tell.

The 437 artifacts made from various osseous materials were also sub-divided according to these archaeological phases, although 78 pieces fall into the category of stray fi nds because their provenience could not be precisely identifi ed. Find material from the ditches surrounding the central tell were accompanied by fi ll, mostly from the earliest Hatvan phase mixed with some fi nds from the middle phase of the occupation. For this reason, these bone, antler and tooth/tusk objects have been tentatively assigned to the earliest phase at the site.

The site material was not screened during excavation, a common problem in older museum collections in Hungary. Although the cultural stratigraphy was followed, only the material from recognized features was hand-collected. There is a possibility that taphonomic loss due to secondary anthropogenic infl uences11 includes a signifi cant percentage of smaller tools and that many of the more casual, less recognizable Class II tools12 remained in the faunal assemblage which is now no longer available for re-examination. Recent experience at the Bronze Age tell site of Százhallombatta–Földvár, has shown that more than 30% of the bone tools may be lost where regular screening with a minimum of 1 cm mesh screens but preferably .5 cm mesh screens is not employed and where the analyst has no access to the refuse bone material.13 Indeed entire classes of small-sized bone artifact types, either unknown or deemed very rare at other contemporary Vatya culture sites appear in large numbers during the course of excavations at this major Middle Bronze Age site on the Danube.

8 STANCZIK, Ilona – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992.124-126.9 STANCZIK, Ilona – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992.10 RACZKY, Pál et al. 1992. 40-41, 43-44.11 BARTOSIEWICZ, László 2001.12 CHOYKE 1983, 1997. 68.13 CHOYKE, Alice M. et al. 2004.

Bone tools: manufacturing technique and style

Over the past three decades, the senior author of this paper has looked at bone tools from a number of Bronze Age sites in both the eastern and western parts of modern-day Hungary.14 Enough information has slowly begun to accumulate so that more recent studies include comparative materials permitting recognition of technical style and formal types as they relate to broader regions and more restricted areas beyond individual sites as well as particular sites within a local hinterland. Even more information has been gathered since my fi rst publication on the bone tools of Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.15

These degrees of similarity or differences in the choices made by the producers of worked osseous materials at different Bronze Age settlements refl ect both continuity and discontinuity in manufacturing traditions. The choices of which raw materials and techniques were chosen in individual households expressed varying kinds of social interactions between people living at this complex tell settlement. Bone manufacturing of everyday objects in the Middle Bronze Age would have been largely learned within the household, with rules and traditions of manufacture passed on from parents to children. The form and manufacturing of such objects tended to be conservative, their forms meant to conform to the narrow standards expected between related households within the settlement. This rather strict focus makes utilitarian objects manufactured in traditionally regulated ways means that such objects are particularly sensitive indicators of local affi liations. The technology of daily life refl ects the existence of shared public knowledge16 of how to produce and use such objects within immediate households, a village or on the local region level.

Tools made from osseous materials are also tied to the source of the raw materials, that is, the wild and domestic animals exploited by people at any given time. In addition to questions of relative availability of particular species, culture specifi c, symbolic or iconographic attitudes toward animals are also indicated in the way their bones are chosen for the production of tools and ornaments.17 There may have been popular belief about the properties of particular raw materials based on beliefs about the animals they came from or even the circumstances of their acquisition (for example coming from a hunted animal).

Artisans, thus, always make a series of technical choices at most stages of manufacturing production from procurement and decisions about which raw material to

14 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1979; 1983; 1984; 1998; 2000; CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999; 1999-2000.

15 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005.16 INGOLD, Tim 1990.17 See, for example, the meaning of species and skeletal elements in

BIRTALAN Ágnes 2003.

| Tisicum XIX.

exploit to fi nal decoration, choices more dictated by custom than by effi ciency. These technical choices were subject to individual interpretation, of course,18 constrained by both conscious and unconscious traditions. These manufacturing processes are passed on, from one generation to the next, perhaps modifi ed by individual choice.19 However, in traditional society where people keep a close eye on the way their neighbors carry out their daily tasks, people would be alert to such apparently subtle changes in the customary daily life.

Bourdieu (1977) has termed this social pressure for maintaining sameness in non-state society, habitus. He considers it a mechanism for maintaining social stability. Habitus consists of sets of learned behaviors that can be expressed, consciously or unconsciously, in material ways.20 Thus, as part of maintaining social coherence, people living in the large villages of Middle Bronze Age Hungary would have especially relied on “habituation, familiarity, and repetition” in their daily round of activities,21 a way of expressing their participation in local custom. Conforming to tradition in technical styles would also have been refl ected in the way individuals chose to select and work the huge range of potential osseous materials they had at hand.

At the same time, it is also noteworthy that there are classes of artifacts at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom and elsewhere during the Bronze Age in this region at least, that defi nitely do not have the greater stylistic coherence of worked osseous materials from in the Neolithic. This process of loosening of the manufacturing rules actually seems to have begun during the Chalcolithic despite the fact that these tools continued to be used in similar ways in tasks of equal importance. Elsewhere, this has been described in terms of a manufacturing continuum of quality with Class II representing one extreme of tools made from opportunistically chosen bone fragments and representing used unworked or barely worked ad hoc specimens compared to Class I tools that stand for objects produced in multiple stages and made from carefully selected raw materials discussed elsewhere.22 In the Middle Bronze Age, utilitarian objects in bone antler and teeth are generally less carefully manufactured and be more open to variation in their formal details. These objects thus, fall closer to the Class II end of the so-called manufacturing continuum, although there is also a small group of extremely well-made elaborate ornamental objects, falling close to the other extreme, the Class I end of the same continuum (Figure 3).

Many of the latter elaborated, planned representative types in the Bronze Age, such as bridle cheek pieces, rein-dividers,

18 WOBST, H. Martin 1977. 1999. 120-121.19 GOSSELAIN, Olivier P. 1992, 1998; LECHTMAN, Heather 1977. 15;

SACKETT, James R. 1986. 268-269, 1990. 33, 37.20 BOURDIEU, Pierre 1977.21 STARK, Miriam T. 1999. 28.22 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1997, 2001.

ornamental handle ends and various ornaments have broad distributions. These latter objects are, thus, much more stereotypic both in the way they were manufactured and in their formal characteristics. Since these objects were intended to display the higher status of the people using them, it is hardly surprising that it had to be possible for their underlying message to be interpretable over wide territories. Furthermore, since many of these objects are associated with the horse as a instrument of long distance travel, it is possible that many objects were lost or discarded far from their original places of manufacture.

People at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom used types of objects such as horse harness ornaments, which can be found well outside of the immediate region of the northern region of the Great Hungarian Plain, extending not only to the far south of the plain, for example on sites of the Vatina culture,23 but also beyond the Carpathian Basin, beyond even Austria and Slovakia.24 Cross-cultural research has shown for fi neware ceramics and other more elaborated products, meant mostly for display rather than everyday use, that they tend to be distributed over wider areas with blurring of distribution boundaries. This is hardly a surprising circumstance given that such goods or the makers of more sophisticated goods may circulate widely.25 Furthermore, such objects are meant to be seen and can be interpreted by a broad range of peoples over wide geographical areas. Some of these objects were certainly made by specialized craftspeople, themselves possibly mobile. All such possessions would have signaled that their owners were of high enough rank and had access to suffi cient resources to acquire these special goods.

Decorative objects are also more prone to relatively rapid, widespread changes in fashion since they are meant to be seen as opposed to utilitarian objects meant for household use However, these common objects were produced, that is, whatever their technical style, their traditions of manufacture seems to have been more resistant to change than decorative elements in the material culture because technical style is

23 UZELAC, Jovan 1975.24 HÜTTEL, Hans-Georg 1981.25 STARK, Miriam T. 1999. 29.

Figure 3. Basic differences in the distribution of Neolithic and Bronze Age artifacts along the manufacturing continuum ranging from ad hoc to planned tools.

|

related to change in manufacturing processes not forms.26 Because of this conservatism, utilitarian objects as opposed to ornaments are often better for identifying the presence of social boundaries of all kinds although not in specifying what those boundaries actually represented in terms of the particular society.

However, the fact remains that most bone and antler tools are simpler, more carelessly made, less fi nely fi nished compared functionally similar objects produced at the end of the Neolithic. Wobst would suggest that this loosening of technological rules, in this case the rules of bone and antler tool manufacture, represents a kind of material way to interfere or disrupt the social fabric, allowing assessment of individual commitment to group values.27 This individual choice in manufacturing style accounts for many of the changes in raw material choice, the degree of care taken in workmanship and even in formal tool types observed through time at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom as well. The main emphasis in this paper will be on the raw materials used to produce utilitarian objects because they seem to be more sensitive indicators of cultural boundaries and various kinds of social identities including gender, age, village, and tribal identities in this time period. Objects lacking clear iconographical information vary in how strict their rules of manufacture are compared to highly decorative items28 meant for display.

Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom also stands out from many other contemporary tell sites in the Carpathian Basin because of the unusual emphasis on wild animal exploitation refl ected in species frequencies in the faunal assemblage. Normally, Middle Bronze age sites in Hungary do not have more than 10%, and often a much lower, proportion of wild animals in their faunal assemblages.29 The location of the settlement in an ecotone between the plains and the hills explains why a variety of wild animals might have been available to

26 WIESSNER, Polly 1985.27 WOBST, H. Martin 1999.28 HODDER, Ian 1982.29 CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999-2000. 51.

hunters. The clear focus on wild animal resources in the faunal assemblage suggests that this population may have been involved in some kind of trade in wild animal products, particularly red deer.30 The hints at the symbolic use of skull trophies from this species31 apparently fallen from stockades into the ditches surrounding the central mound. The special abundance of objects made from antler as well as evidence of on-site manufacturing of these objects, also point in the direction of such a trade specialization.

Refuse bone and species frequenciesAlthough detailed information on the refuse bone

assemblage from Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is not available, the late Sándor Bökönyi kindly provided the unpublished relative frequencies of the identifi able bones from various species, broken down by archaeological phase. What is particularly important about these proportions is the outstanding contribution of bones from wild animals, and especially red deer (Figure 4). Here, it is compared to the Vatya tell site of Mende-Léanyvár which is located in the interfl uve between the Danube and Tisza river on the north plain, not far from the Matra mountains.

Proportions of wild animals at sites of the Middle Bronze Age generally fall below 10%. The settlements positions between the plains and the Mátra Mountains perhaps speaks to the potential of the local environment but does not satisfactorily explain the very high proportion of wild animals at either site. At Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom these percentages are around 25% in the Hatvan/Hatvan-Füzesabony phases and 47.9% in the Koszider phase; within these proportions parallel increases in red deer are 15.7, 20.4 and 38.8% respectively. At Mende–Leányvár the proportion of animal remains from wild species lies at 28.3%, again mostly comprised of red deer remains (23%).32 It has been proposed elsewhere33 that a demand for special products from the skin and bones of red deer encouraged the exploitation of and special attention paid to this species. The existence of antler collection territories near these two sites may be reasonably presumed but cannot be proven.

A further set of data which seems to support the special status of red deer at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom are the three red deer skulls with intact racks found in the inner fortifi cation ditch surrounding the tell (Figure 5). These have been interpreted as having stood on a stockade, displayed to the outside world although they may also have represented some kind of foundation sacrifi ce. Elsewhere, passing mention is made of 10-12 skulls of other wild animals found in the fortifi cation ditch including also aurochs, brown

30 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1987; 1998.31 STANCZIK, Ilona 1975; STANCZIK, Ilona – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992.32 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1984; CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László

1999. 24633 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1987, 1998. 158.

Figure 4. The diachronic contribution of red deer at and Mende–Leányvár compared to various phases at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

| Tisicum XIX.

bear and wild boar.34 However, these data have not been reconfi rmed 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 defi ned on a morphological basis.35 Types are defi ned 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 multiple-tasks. Where appropriate we have tried to include the bone tool typology used originally by Schibler36 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 Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom itself.

MAIN TYPESHatvan n=85

Hatvan/Füzesabony

n=166

Koszider n=108

Stray n=78

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/ fl attened 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 (Schibler type 4/10) with broken unmodifi ed butt ends. (H 7%; H-F 4%; K 2.7%; S − ) Ribs, particularly from 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.37 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.

Figure 5. Three trophy skulls found next to the outer palisade at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom. From their position the excavator concluded that they were eith set up on poles or hung directly form the palisade.

|

Caprine tibia scraper (Schibler type 4/5). (H 11.7%; H-F 10.2%; K 3.8%; S 3.8%) These Class I tools are based on a spiral break towards the proximal end of tibia diaphyses, mostly with the distal end retained (Plate I, f ). Sometimes these tools are made from dog tibiae or occasionally caprine-size metapodia (Plate I, e). These tools often display a very high, glossy polish. Striations run over the fi ne, thin working edge strongly suggesting that these objects may have been used to scrape leather. This type is characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age east of the Danube, for example at Tiszaug–Kéménytetô, Füzesabony–Öregdomb and Törökszentmiklós–Terehalom.38 This bone tool type also seems to have a wide distribution across the Pannonian Plain. Examples of this tibia scraper were also found in old excavations at a marsh-dwelling, possibly Middle Bronze Age, in Slovenia near Ljubljana. It is connected to Hungary through the Pannonian Plain. These scrapers also represent an important, consistently used type at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, particularly in the fi rst two occupation phases.

Large bevel-ended scraper or wedge (Schibler type 4/3). (H1.2%; H-F 1.2%; K 1.9%; S −). These Class I-Class II tools are based on scapulae (Plate II a) in the Koszider phase or more typically from cattle-size metapodial diaphyses (Plate I, b-d) in the late and classical Hatvan phases. The strong straight edge suggests these objects may have been used as wedges for splitting wood or even bark peeling.

Broad mandible smoother (H 3.5%; H-F 7.8%; K 1%; S 2.5%). At Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom these characteristic Class I tools from the northern and central part of the Great Hungarian Plain appear in all sub-assemblages. Their distribution within the larger region closely follows that of the sheep/goat tibia scrapers. In the earliest phase at the site, although not so common, they are made on cattle mandibles (Plate II, b, lower mandible). They are common in the middle, Hatvan (Füzesabony style) phase where the preferred raw material for this tool type tends to be red deer mandible with fewer cattle mandibles, mirroring the increase in red deer numbers in the refuse bone sample (Plate II, b, upper mandible), lower mandible. They were also found at Tiszaug–Kéménytetô, Füzesabony–Öregdomb and Törökszentmiklós–Terehalom. Their numbers drop off sharply in the late period although the preferred raw material remains red deer mandible. Typically, these mandibular teeth are not removed in these objects. The ramus is broken off crudely. A ca. 2 cm or even broader facet, runs parallel to and below the tooth row on the buccal surface of the mandible. Uneven, criss-crossing striations run parallel to the long axis of the tool possibly suggesting contact with a hide surface with dirt on its surface or even more likely, use on some kind of clay surface, possibly for house wall or

38 CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999-2000.65.

fl oor plastering. Middle Bronze age houses contained many fl attened clay surfaces in which these mandible tools and astragli and phalanges with abraded, fl attened sides could have been used.39

Short bones with fl attened sides (H 1.2%; H-F 4.2%; K 19.9%; S 42%). These Class I bone objects (based on their very restricted raw materials consist of phalanges from red deer (Plate III, d and f), cattle, horse (Plate III, a), sheep/goat and even pig as well as astragali, particularly from cattle and red deer (Plate III, b, c, e) although there are a few sheep/goat astragali (Plate III, g). These objects are increasingly made from red deer (astragalus and fi rst phalanx) and horse fi rst phalanges as time progresses. Typically, the medio-lateral surfaces are fl attened by grinding and polished (Plate III, b) although sometimes all four sides are worn smooth. The same tendency of increasing numbers of red deer bones being used at the expense of cattle can be traced in the astragali and phalanges with fl attened surfaces. These are often interpreted as gaming or ritual pieces although it is just as likely that they were used to smooth clay surfaces based on the criss-crossing striations on the fl attened surfaces. These fl attened short bones are particularly common at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom as well as other coeval sites in the east of the country such as Füzesabony–Öregdomb. They represent a common type as well at Százhalombatta–Földvár. Perhaps these bone tools were chosen because of culturally ascribed characteristics and had both functional and ritual-gaming aspects. In other words ritual-gaming and function need not be mutually exclusive aspects of raw material selection.

Small awls (Schibler type 1/1, 1/3, 1/4, 1/7), (H 11.8%; H-F 6.6%; K 3.7%; S 16.6%). Typically for awls made on sheep-size animals, the specimens from this site are based on various long bone diaphysis fragments and are not intensively modifi ed and not particularly characteristic.40 This results in higher formal variability in the fi nal products. Awls were most common in the earliest occupation and decrease in frequency towards the top of the stratigraphic sequence. Dog ulnae worked into awls also appear here.41 Worked dog bones, particularly dog ulnae, tend to be a cultural characteristic of eastern Bronze Age sites. Class II awls of this type are characteristic on sites in the eastern and southeastern regions of Hungary. Dog bone is almost never used at Vatya culture sites.

Double point based on long bone diaphysis splinter (Schibler type 2/1). This highly modifi ed type, a very characteristic tool of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in Hungary is essentially missing at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

39 For example at Túrkeve-Terehalom, CSÁNYI, Marietta – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992.

40 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awls 3 and 6, p.138.41 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awls 1 and 2, p.138.

| Tisicum XIX.

The single example found here comes from the middle phase at the site.42 This type is also found in low numbers, although not consistently, at a number of coeval sites in Hungary such as Tisazug–Kéménytetô.43 However, it is a small bone tool type and may often not have been found. The frequencies of this type may also be affected by what part of these complex settlements the excavation impact.

Large awls without worked basis (Schibler1/9)(H 1.2%; H-F .6%; K .9%; S 2.6%). These large, well made points, are typically not common for sites of this period. They tend to be highly modifi ed so that they fall towards the Class I end of the manufacturing continuum.44 With their strong points, they may have been used in some special craft involving thick but soft material.

Needles (Schibler type 21/1), (H −; H-F .6%; K −; S 2.5%). There are three pointed tools with drilled ends in this assemblage, one from the middle phase and two from the assemblage of stray objects. One may have been used in something like net-weaving45 while the other, fi ner specimen46 could have been used in sewing cloth or leather. Needles are relatively unusual but consistently present tools sites from all prehistoric periods in the Carpathian Basin, perhaps because the majority of needles were usually made from perishable raw materials such as wood.

Wild boar scraper (Schibler type 17), (H 4.7%; H-F .6%; K .9%; S 1.2%). S-shaped, Class I scrapers based on split lower canines of wild boar and large domestic swine are found from the Neolithic period onwards in prehistoric Hungary. They are found consistently at Middle Bronze Age sites throughout the country. After splitting, the inside of the tusk was scraped with a fl int tool and one edge strengthened by creating a long facet with an edge at a more oblique angle compared to the natural edge after splitting. The edge is usually chipped and displays signs of continuous renewing, creating the characteristic S-shape that developed in the later stages of curation. These would have made excellent scrapers for work requiring a strong hard and strong edge, for example wood working and bark scraping.

Ornamental objects (CH 7%; LH 5.4%; K 4.6%; S −). This category includes all drilled animal teeth (domestic pig, horse, dog, wolf, wild boar, brown bear), antler handles and an antler cylinder with an incised meander decoration as well as antler horse harness elements. All these elements can be found widely distributed beyond Hungary into Slovakia, Austria and Serbia in this period and are good examples of why this category is actually not very good for identifying

42 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awl 9, p.138.43 CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999-2000.44 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awls 4 and 5, p. 138.45 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awls 7, p. 138.46 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005, fi g. 10, awls 8, p. 138.

most social boundaries. The maxillary upper canines of pig, drilled through the root and the drilled incisor of horse are particular to this site. The fact that horse teeth are used for personal decoration in the Koszider levels underscores their special role in this period. Drilled canines from dog are found everywhere on prehistoric sites in Hungary although they seem to be particularly common on sites such as Százhalombatta–Földvár, where dog was certainly ascribed a special symbolic, protective meaning, possibly connected with the rise of sheep herding there.47 The use of drilled brown bear canine is a special feature of the Middle Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. A huge split wild boar canine has multiple suspension holes along one edge and comes from the late Hatvan occupation. Similar fi nds are also known from Tiszaug−Kéménytetô.48 Finally there is a single example of a small fl at pendant made from antler with incised decoration.

Antler working remained an important activity in all levels of the site (H 23.4%; H-F 24.6%; K 21.3%; S 3.8%). Another way of measuring relative amounts of antler is by weight but here too, factoring in differences in the sizes of the sub-samples, the amounts of antler used seem fairly even throughout the history of the site, with a dominance of Hatvan-Füzesabony antler in terms of weight (Figure 6).

Normally, red deer antler refuse material like this, comprises no more than 5% of the worked osseous material in assemblages at other coeval tell settlements. For example, there is relatively very little compared by Jászdózsa

47 CHOYKE, Alice M. et al. 2004.48 CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999-2000.

Figure 6. The chronological distribution of worked antler weights at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom (after Choyke 2005, 140).

|

antler, either worked or especially as raw material at the contemporary settlement of Százhalombatta–Földvár.

Objects made from various parts of the antler rack were used to divide straps and attach the bit and reins on various parts of horse bridles.49 Because they are generally beautifully made, these spectacular pieces have been much discussed in the literature.50 Incised motifs are common and different ones appear side by side. Motifs include meander designs with clear links to contemporaneous Aegean cultures or copy motifs on coeval ceramics and decorative metal. These artifacts represent a classic example of iconological style with broad distributions.51 They arise at the same moment horse numbers drop sharply compared to the early Bronze Age. Their beautiful execution and elaborate designs underscore the high status accorded horse. Although horse fl esh was sometimes eaten52 this was not common at sites of this period since horse was clearly more important for transport of individual riders, perhaps wealthy, traders. This also explains why these incised motifs and decorative types in general become increasingly widespread. A number of these decorated objects may even have been produced by semi-specialized craftspeople who may also have traveled from center to center, increasing the distribution of formal styles. Metal axes were used to cut off antler tines and section the beam but otherwise chipped stone and abrasive stones were used to manufacture utilitarian objects for everyday life. Only some these special decorative pieces of (mostly) antler seem to have been carved and incised using metal tools, increasing their relative value in the eyes of people using and observing them (the audience).

Antler tine ‘net-weaver’. Only two so-called ‘net-weavers’ came to light at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom, one from the late Hatvan and the other from the Koszider occupation at the site. They are beautifully carved from tines with a thin point and a long guide hole drilled longitudinally at the other end. They are both well worn. Such objects are scattered consistently on sites of this period although they are never common. Their consistent form over wide areas also suggests that they may not have been strictly utilitarian but also somehow involved in display. Thus, whether they were actually used as net-weavers is debatable. The convention is to call them net-weavers based on similarities with ethnographically attested specimens. Some kind of fi lament was, never the less, defi nitely passed through the cylindrical guide hole.

Large antler tools The categories of worked antler at Jászdózsa–

49 CHOYKE, Alice, 2005.154, fi gs. 12, Plate 1, image 1.50 BÖKÖNYI Sándor 1953, FOLTINY, Stephen 1965, HÜTTEL, Hans-

Georg 1981, MOZSOLICS Amália 1962.51 STARK, Miriam T. 1999. 29.52 CHOYKE, Alice M. et.al. 2004.

Kápolnahalom also include largely utilitarian handles, picks and heavy-duty hammer-adzes and axes made from the robust burr and beam of the red deer antler rack. Since by defi nition these objects are made from a specially selected raw material – antler – all fi nished objects fall toward the Class I end of the manufacturing continuum. There are numerous examples of half-fi nished objects and relatively large amounts of refuse in the form of cut-off tines showing that such tools were manufactured on site. This speaks to the idea that the people at the settlement traded in red deer products, including antler. The amounts of manufacture refuse are particularly high compared to other comparable sites from the Middle Bronze Age in the region. Since most of the identifi able pieces seem to come from gathered, shed antler, this suggests that insuring the supply of antler was important for economic reasons and that, perhaps, more might have been procured than was necessary to meet the immediate demands of the local population. In other words, there may have been a surplus of antler, traded on in the form of fi nished utilitarian tools. Certainly, if the amount antler objects found at Százhalombatta represents what would have been necessary for daily life then there was a true surplus of antler at Jászdózsa.

The fact is that most of the antler objects seems to have been produced (based on distribution of the refuse antler) in the central mound area of the site. As a hypothesis, this may also suggest that free access to antler was limited to certain segments of the community – individuals literally living at the center of the settlement who might have controlled gathering, stockpiling, manufacturing and trading in antler objects.

Burr and beam hammer/adze (H 10.6%; H-F 12.7%; K 14.8%; S 8.8%). These tools are based on the burr and beam segments of the red deer antler rack. There are only three examples of antler from hunted animals with the pedicle still attached being used as the hammer part of the tool (Plate IV, a). The burr (or pedicle) functioned as hammers with remains of battering visible on their surfaces. The eye tines are cut off fl ush with the surface of the beam and the hafting holes were drilled or cut out in a medial-lateral direction. Finally, where the butt ends remain they are either oblique, used as adze-like rather than axe-like instruments (Plate IV, b and c) or cut straight as hafts for a separate blade (Plate IV, d-g). The latter are more characteristic of the western Middle Bronze Age Vatya culture (Pákozdvár–Várhegy, Százhalombatta–Földvár, Mende–Leányvár, Igar–Vámpuszta).53 Holes for most tools needed to be re-drilled as the butt-end broke off during use which sometimes accounts for the fi nal location of holes directly behind the burr. There is one example from the late Hatvan phase of a hammer/adze decorated with a row of dots around the hafting hole (Figure 7). Such decorated

53 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1979, 1984.

| Tisicum XIX.

tools have been found elsewhere, especially in the eastern part of Hungary, for example at Füzesabony–Öregdomb. The complete surfaces are scraped and formed with chipped stone suggesting such intensively modifi ed objects may have a more ritual purpose. The tines were separated from the beam, the rose shaped and the beam cut to the desired length using metal ax blades.

Tine handles (H 4.7%; H-F 4.8%; K 4.6%; S 2.6%). These handles take advantage of the natural shape of the red deer antler tine, the point of which was sometimes retained (Plate IV, 8). The socket was always located in the wider end. Inserted objects were fi xed in the socket with a peg through a hole in one side of the socket edge.54 Finally, there was a single small handle without a fi xing hole and with the tine point cut off that had an incised decoration around the edge of the socket (Plate IV, 1).55 Such handles are more often found on sites in the eastern part of Hungary.

Tine picks/hoes. (H 11.8%; H-F 8.4%; K 13.8; S −). These objects have a narrowing facet towards the naturally pointed end of the tine and either a hafting hole towards the wider end (Plate IV, h) or are more pointed and hand held with a small suspension hole near the broader end. These antler tools are not very carefully modifi ed and in some categories come close to the defi nition for an ad hoc tool, probably derived from the supply of refuse tines. This may be why so few were found in the mixed fi ll of the fortifi cation ditch. One notable exception is the decorated antler tine hoe/pick, stained almost black, with a completely worked surface which is decorated around its circumference with cross-hatched designs, reminiscent perhaps of a fi eld system (Figure 8). Similarly decorated hafted hoe/picks occur

54 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005.138, Plate I, 16a-b.55 CHOYKE, Alice M. 2005.153, Plate IV, 1.

especially in western Hungary, for example at the Vatya hill-fort near the Danube in Transdanubia, Igar−Vámpuszta (Figure 1).56 Like the heavy-duty burr and beam adzes with completely scraped surfaces and a dotted design around the hafting whole it seems likely that these objects were used for symbolic display in ritual activities.

Raw material selection

In general, the choice of bones from particular species seems to mostly depend on availability with a number of interesting exceptions. Sheep/goat long bones, especially metapodials and tibiae are made respectively into the majority of those multi-functional awls and hide scraping tools. Horse bone, starts to be used only at the end of occupation in the form of awls and, most importantly, fi rst phalanges with fl attened sides or simple incised decorations. In general, there was a general increase in the use of short bones with fl attened sides from cattle, red deer and sheep/goat throughout the sequence. This change may relate to changes in the iconographic notions of horse within this community’s belief system. Finally, as is evident from Figure 9, Table 2, particular skeletal elements from red deer were consistently and preferentially worked.

A synthetic evaluation of these data is possible using the so-called “utilization factor” (Vetrwertungsfaktor) developed by Jörg Schibler.57 According to this simple method, the ratio between the percentages of worked bone to that of the refuse bone of the same species is calculated by archaeological period. Although this means comparisons between two percentage values that have independent

56 CHOYKE, Alice M. 1984.57 SCHIBLER, Jörg 1980. 12.

Figure 7. The hammer axe made from the burr and beam of red deer with decorative holes around the hole. Probably not used in ordinary activities (drawing by Choyke, after Choyke 2005, 142). Figure 8. Antler pick made from beam that was polished and burned black.

Decorated by discrete patches of cross-hatched lines. Probably not used in ordinary activities (drawing by Choyke, after Choyke 2005, 142).

|

bases, the utilization factor is useful in studying the gross effects of availability within the raw material pool on bone manufacturing. The utilization factor values calculated for major animal species by chronological phases are shown in Figure 9, Table 2.

Figure 9 shows that cattle, an animal of overwhelming importance in meat provisioning, contributed only relatively few worked pieces to the bone tool assemblage, especially in the later phases at the site. This is less surprising in the case of domestic and wild pig whose bones are seldom worked. Dog bones occur scarcely in the refuse bone assemblage but they are also rarely worked at this site with the exception of dog ulna awls. Caprine bones are of interest, as they were regularly turned into points. Skeletal elements of the otherwise infrequent horse are consistently turned into implements, showing that horse bone may have been a valued, ascribed special characteristics raw material related to beliefs about this species. Without distinguishing between bone and antler, the role of red deer in raw material provisioning is diffi cult to evaluate. It seems, however, that the presence of red deer remains in the refuse material of

later periods increased at a greater rate than the contribution of this species to the worked bone assemblage. In contrast to the decline of utilization factor, values for red deer, roe deer seems more consistently represented during the later two periods.

Three of the special tool categories, sheep/goat tibia scrapers, the broad mandible smoothers and the short bones with fl attened sides remain remarkably stable in terms of their technical style throughout the sequence. Although, red deer bones contributed increasing amounts to the manufacture of the last two types, the choice of skeletal part, and style of manufacture remain largely identical within the sequence recalling the idea of social stability encouraged through habituation or habitus, familiarity and regularity mentioned earlier. This maintenance of social stability might have been particularly important during the Koszider period. Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is among the few sites where the sequence does not end abruptly after the Hatvan-Füzesabony culture. Clearly, these were particularly unstable times which resulted both in change and a stubborn insistence on traditional manufacturing behavior att he household level in the face of that change.

Attitudes to tools – curation

In keeping with the relative lack of care refl ected in technical style apparent in most of the worked assemblage (c. f. Figure 2), the majority of the tools do not display any indication of curation, or else it is hard to recognize. At this site, antler burr and beam hammer/adzes tend to be re-drilled as the butt end breaks off as are the scraping edges of the sheep/goat tibia scrapers. The short bones with fl attened sides display varying degrees of wear, suggesting their sides needed to be continuously re-ground to maintain the planes of the surface. The same may also be said for the mandible smoothers where the side facet widens as the tool was used and the facet continuously wore down. Awls, as opposed to earlier periods, are much less intensively curated. There is

Figure 9. Diachronic changes in the proportion of worked bone by animal species as expressed by Schibler’s (1980) utilization factor.

Table 2. Percentages of species in the refuse bone material, divided by phase at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom (after Choyke 2005, 143).

Classic Hatvan Refuse % Tool % Late Hatvan Refuse % Tool % Koszider Refuse % Tool %

Cattle 29.0 6.0 Cattle 37.9 6.0 Cattle 23.4 7.2

Sheep/goat 21.5 27.0 Sheep/goat 16.7 13.6 Sheep/goat 10.0 17

Pig 18.0 2.0 Pig 11.5 − Pig 13.5 2.3

Horse 6.6 − Horse 5.2 0.6 Horse 3.4 7.2

Dog 1.4 2.0 Dog 3.0 0.6 Dog 1.9 −

Aurochs 1.4 − Aurochs 0.8 − Aurochs 0.7 −

Red deer

(tools w/ & w/out antler)15.7

63 &

15.7

Red deer

(tools w/ & w/out antler)20.4

67.3 &

20.4

Red deer

(tools w/ & w/out antler)38.8

63.1 &

38.8

Roe deer 1.2 − Roe deer 1.3 1.8 Roe deer 1.4 −

Wild pig 4.5 − Wild pig 2.9 1.8 Wild pig 5.2 −

Other wild 0.0 − Other wild 1.1 − Other wild 1.9 −

| Tisicum XIX.

a consistent diachronic decline in the proportion of curated bone tools from 12.5 to 9.7% (Figure 10).

ConclusionsThe technical style and form of the bone tools at

Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom refl ect three levels of social cohesion representing tradition on the local, regional and broad regional levels. The forms of the very well-made decorative elements appear at many large sites in this period throughout the country. This refl ects the permeable boundaries of fashions in the distribution of decorative motifs in general, ornamented heavy-duty antler adzes and picks, decorated horse harness elements, the species used for tooth pendants and other decorative objects meant for display. The reason for these broad distributions in more iconographic – symbolically charged goods is greater mobility related to the high status of the horse everywhere, trade networks, actual movement of semi-specialized artisans producing these beautiful objects and fi nally commonality in ways of signaling social status. Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom is typical in the use of meander motifs, incised designs mimicking ceramic motifs and the use of drilled animal teeth including wild boar and brown bear.

The low quality of the manufacturing techniques, or loosening of technological rules, resulted in greater variability in tool categories such as awls, as a general characteristic of this period. These less well-made tool types, which formerly appeared in restricted, often more elaborated forms, may refl ect on-going changes in the tasks these tools were used for, the value these tasks had for individuals in the community and, perhaps, even shifts in the way the tools were used.

It has been suggested here that the technical style of more utilitarian tools at this settlement refl ects a certain long-term

continuity in the choice of species and skeletal elements of certain tool types in the area of the Great Hungarian Plain. The main tool types include sheep/goat tibia scrapers, dog ulna awls and broad mandible smoothers, short bones with fl attened sides and burr and beam hammer/adzes with socketed or oblique ends. At the settlement itself, there was a consistent emphasis on the use of red deer bone, especially in the Hatvan-Füzesabony and Koszider phases, which makes it stand out from other coeval sites. The presence of three red deer trophies and possibly the skulls of other large game animals in one of the fortifi cation ditches, underlines what seems to be the special status of wild animals at this large prehistoric settlement. Red deer in particular seems to have been important, not only economically but also as an animal with given attributes closely woven into the social fabric of this particular community. In addition, the choice of raw materials in terms of species and skeletal element for making particular tools is as much related to tradition as the effi cacy of the form of the skeletal element for the intended function of the tool. In other words, custom, belief and practicality need not be mutually exclusive aspects of raw material selection

The unusually high proportion of antler tools, half fi nished tools and manufacture refuse suggests that this valuable raw material may well have been traded beyond the settlement limits. Most of the refuse and half-fi nished pieces come from the central mound. Social differentiation was a characteristic of societies in the Carpathian Basin from the late Neolithic. At Jászdózsa there may well have been differential access to valuable raw materials such as antler, including the right to gather and stockpile it as well as manufacture objects and trade in them. Interestingly, the importance of this raw material seems to have increased through time at this settlement, whether in trade or for local use.

Although the technical style and formal characteristics of certain artifact categories remain remarkably stable over the 400 years of the occupation some changes do occur, particularly at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Koszider period. Horse phalanges appear with fl attened sides and incised decoration in addition to the already well-established tradition of working phalanges and astragali from sheep/goat, cattle, and red deer. This use of horse phalanges may be a response to new ideas from the outside world or loosening of processes of familiarity, repetition and habituation which both refl ected and strengthened social cohesiveness during the Middle Bronze Age but which was to be disrupted with social changes bringing life to a sudden end at most of the great tell settlements in Middle Bronze Age Hungary.

Figure 10. The diachronically declining proportion of curated bone tools at Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom.

|

BARTOSIEWICZ, László 2001. Archaeozoology or zooarchaeology?: A problem from the last century. Archaeologia Polona 39, 75–86.

BARTOSIEWICZ, László – CHOYKE, Alice M. 1994. Taxonomie und Typologie der Knochenartefakte von St. Blaise. In Mostefa KOKABI and Joachim WAHL (eds.) Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen

Anthropologie. Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg, Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, 263–268.

BIRTALAN, Ágnes 2003. Ritualistic use of livestock bones in the Mongolian belief system and customs, in Alice SÁRKÖZI and Attila RÁKOS (eds.) Altaica Budapestinensia MMII, Proceedings of the 45th permanent international Altaistic conference (PIAC), Budapest, Hungary, June 23-28, 2002, 34–60.

BÖKÖNYI, Sándor 1953. Reconstruction des mors en bois et en os. Acta

Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3: 113–122.

BOURDIEU, Pierre 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CHOYKE, Alice M. 1979. A Classifi cation of the Bone and Antler Tools from the Bronze Age Hill-fortress of Pákozdvár. Alba Regia 17, 9–21.1983. Elôzetes jelentés a tiszaug-kéménytetôi ásatás csontszerszámairól. Archaeologiai Értesítô 109/1, 35–41.1984. An Analysis of Bone, Antler and Tooth Tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen des archäologischen

Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 12/13, 13–57.1987. The Exploitation of Red Deer in the Hungarian Bronze Age. Archaeozoologia 1/1, 109–116.1997. The Bone Manufacturing Continuum. Anthropozoologica 25-26, 65–72. 1998. Bronze Age Red Deer: Case Studies from the Great Hungarian Plain. In: Peter ANREITER, László BARTOSIEWICZ, Erzsébet JEREM and Wolfgang MEID (eds.) Man and the

Animal World. Studies in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Archaeolingua Kiadó, Budapest, 157–178.

2000. Refuse and Modifi ed Bone from Százhalombatta–Földvár: Some Preliminary Observations. In: Ildikó POROSZLAI and Magdolna VICZE (eds.) Százhalombatta

Archaeological Expedition Annual Report 1, Matrica

Museum. Százhalombatta, 97–102.2001. A Quantitative Approach to the Concept of Quality in Prehistoric Bone Manufacturing. In: Hijlke BUITENHUIS and Wietske PRUMMEL (eds.) Animals and Man in the Past ARC Publicatie 41, Groningen, 50–66.2005. Bronze Age Bone and Antler Working at the Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom Tell. In: Heidi LUIK, Alice M. CHOYKE, Coleen E. BATEY and Lembi LÕUGAS (eds.) From hooves to horns,

from mollusc to mammoth. Muinasaja Teadus 15, Tallinn, 129–156.

CHOYKE, Alice M. – BARTOSIEWICZ, László 1999. Bronze Age animal keeping in Western Hungary. In Erzsébet JEREM and Ildikó POROSZLAI (eds.) Archaeology

of the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Experimental archaeology,

environmental archaeology, archaeological parks. Archaeolingua Series Major, Budapest, 239–249.1999-2000. Bronze Age animal exploitation in the Central Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeologica Academiae

Scientiarum Hungaricae 51, 43-70.

CHOYKE, Alice M. – VRETEMARK, Maria – STEN, Sabine2004. Levels of Social Identity Expressed in the Refuse and Worked Bone from the Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya Culture, Hungary. In: Sharyn J. O’DAY, Wim VAN NEER and Anton ERVYNCK (eds.) Behaviour Behind

Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and

Identity. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 177–189.

CSÁNYI, Marietta – TÁRNOKI, Judit1992. Túrkeve-Terehalom. In: Walter MEIER-ARENDT (ed.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn, Forschungen in Tell-Seidlungen an

Donau und Theiss. Kristian Roth:Kronberg, 159–165.

FOLTINY, Stephen 1965. Bronze- und urnenfelderzeitliche Hirshhorn- und Knochentrensen aus Neiderösterreich. Mitteilungen der

Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 95, 243–249.

GOSSELAIN, Olivier P. 1992. Technology and style: Potters and pottery among the Bafi a of Cameroon. Man (N.S.) 27, 559–586.1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In Miriam T. STARK (ed.) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 78–100.

HODDER, Ian 1982. Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of

material culture. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bibliography

| Tisicum XIX.

HÜTTEL, Hans-Georg1981. Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa: Grundzüge ihrer Entwicklung. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVI.2 p. 43ff.

INGOLD, Tim 1990. Society, nature and the concept of technology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9/1: 5–17.

LECHTMAN, Heather 1977. Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts. In Heather LECHTMAN and Robert S. MERILL (eds.) Material Culture:

Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology. West Publications: St. Paul, MN, 3–20.

MOZSOLICS Amália 1962. Die Herkunftfragen der ältesten Hirshgeweihtrensen. Acta Archaeologcia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 125–135.

PÉCSI, Márton et al. 1969. Geomorphological Map of Hungary. Budapest: Cartographia.

PROVENZANO, Nöelle 1997. Produzione in osso e corno delle terramare emiliane. In: Maria Bernab Brea, Andrea CARDARELLI and Mauro CREMASCHI eds. Le Terramare. La più antica civiltà padana, Electa: Milano, 524–544. 2001. Les Industries en Os et Bois de Cervidés des

Terramares Émiliennes. Vols. I and II., Ph.D., Université de Provence – Centre d’Aix.

SACKETT, James R. 1986. Isochretism and style: a clarifi cation. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 5 (3), 266–77.1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology: The case for isochrestism. In: Margaret Wright CONKEY and Christine Ann HASTORF (eds.) The Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 32–43.1980. Osteologische Untersuchung der cortaillodzeitlichen

Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Uferseidlungen von

Twann Band 8. Bern: Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Bern, herausgegeben vom Archäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag:Bern.

STANCZIK, Ilona 1969. Régészeti kutatások Jászdózsán. Jászkunság 15/4, 165–171.1975. Szolnok megyei régészeti adatok Hild Viktor jegyzeteibôl. Szolnok.

STANCZIK, Ilona – TÁRNOKI, Judit 1992. Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom. In: Walter MEIER-ARENDT (ed.) Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen

an Donau und Theiss. Kristian Roth:Kronberg, 120–127.

STARK, Miriam T. 1999. Social dimensions of technical choice in Kalinga ceramic traditions. In: Elizabeth S. CHILTON (ed.) Material

Meanings: Critical Approaches to Interpreting Material

Culture. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, 24–43.

UZELAC, Jovan 1975. Objets en os et en corne de vatin dans la collection du Musée de Vrsac. Revue de l’Institut. Archéologique. (N.S.), 26.

WIESSNER, Polly 1985. Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 3/ 3, 190–234.

WOBST, H. Martin 1977. Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In: Charles E. CLELAND (ed.) For the Director: Research Essays

in Honor of James B. Griffi n. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthropological Papers, no. 61. The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology: Ann Arbor, Michigan, 317–342.

1999. Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. In: Elizabeth S. CHILTON (ed.) Material Meanings: Critical

Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, 118–132.

|

Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom megmunkált csont, agancs, vadkanagyar és egyéb állatfog leletei az Alföld középsô bronzkori településein lelt hasonló tárgyak közül az egyik legjelentôsebb leletegyüttest alkotják. A lelôhely az Alföld északi részén olyan átmeneti környezeti zónában fekszik, ahol a Mátra hegylábi vidéke a síksággal találkozik. A rétegzett tell település fejlôdése lényegében az egész középsô bronzkort felöleli. Az állatmaradványok arra utalnak, hogy a szarvasmarha szerepe a húsellátásban az idô elôrehaladtával

csökkent, míg a gímszarvasé nôtt. Tanulmányunk célja, hogy a megmunkált állatmaradványokat ennek fényében tekintsük át, különös tekintettel arra, hogy a szarvasok vadászatának megnövekedett szerepe mennyire követhetô a csont- és agancseszközök készítésében. A jászdózsai leletegyüttesben a nyersanyagválasztás, tipológia és funkció változásait a kor növekvô társadalmi szervezettségû kárpát-medencei régészeti kultúráinak összefüggésében értékeltük.

Alice M. CHOYKE – BARTOSIEWICZ László

Egy tell település sokat mondó eszközei:Jászdózsa–Kápolnahalom bronzkori csont- és agancsmegmunkálása

| Tisicum XIX.

Plate I. Bevel-ended tools. a. Rib based bevel-ended tools; b. Cattle-sized long bone diaphysis based bevel-ended tools;Caprine tibia based bevel-ended tools.

|

Plate II. Scapula scraper and faceted mandible. a. Cattle scapula bevel-ended tool; b. upper – red deer mandible faceted on buccal surface,lower – cattle mandible faceted on buccal surface from lower Hatvan levels at the site.

| Tisicum XIX.

Plate III. Faceted short bones. a. horse fi rst phalanges faceted dorsally; b. two cattle-size astragali heavily faceted by abrasion on medial and lateral sides; c. cattle-size astragali faceted by abrasion on medial-lateral and plantar sides; d. polished red deer fi rst phalange, faceted by abrasion on plantar

surface; e. cattle astragalus lightly faceted medial-laterally by abrasion; f. red deer fi rst phalange heavily faceted by abrasion medial-laterally;g. two caprine astragali heavily faceted by abrasion medial/laterally. Caprine tibia based bevel-ended tools.

|

Plate IV. Antler tools from burr, beam and tine. a. – b. burr and beam hafted axe/adzes with oblique end; c. Beam hafted axe/adze with oblique end; d.- g. burr and beam hafted axe/adzes with socketed end; h. beam based hafted pick.