Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia Cultural, technological and functional signature Edited by Alexandra Legrand-Pineau Isabelle Sidéra and Natacha Buc Eva David Vivian Scheinsohn with the collaboration of Douglas V. Campana, Alice M. Choyke, Pam Crabtree and Elisabeth A. Stone BAR International Series 2136 2010 Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S2136 Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional signature © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010 ISBN 978 1 4073 0677 3 Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com Bone-Working in Roman Dacia Lóránt VASS Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania Abstract Roman bone objects are usually considered the results of a standardized, “industrialized” production. There is hardly any Roman carving that does not have a precise analogy from other province. Are there any special features of this mass, any kind of tradition, any particular features of the bone industry of one province? The aim of this article is to identify these special features and to determine the main economic aspects of bone working of Dacia, a much neglected area of the Romanian research. The province of Dacia is considered one of the most militarized and Romanized provinces due to massive military concentration and colonization. Soldiers and colonists coming from the different provinces of the Roman Empire brought with them their tradition and special demands that affected the bone industry in this province. The bone arrowheads, nocks, and bow stiffeners from the military fort of Porolissum, Micia, and Tibiscum are connected to the eastern archery units stationed here. The largest concentrations of bone artifacts are usually observed in urban settlements, probably owing to a well defined permanent clientele. The products are more diverse than the bone objects from the military forts from Dacia, which are designed to satisfy the internal demands of the troops. In the last part of the study, I try to identify different workshops on the basis of the working debris and unfinished objects. define the special features that characterize this economic activity. It will examine to what extent the bone items can contribute to the reconstruction of daily or economic life. Introduction Bone artifacts recovered in large numbers from different archaeological sites from the provinces of the Roman Empire reveal an organized and standardized mass production. Thus, the various bone artifacts can shed a light on aspects of the economic life of a province, such as the clientele, the acquisition of raw materials, the social organization, tradition etc. Unfortunately, bone working in the province of Dacia was, and still is, a neglected field of archaeological research. The standardized character of the carvings, which has been ignored by researchers, can explain this general passivity. Bone artifacts usually appear in archaeological reports as parts of catalogues. Their analyses hardly extend beyond the level of quantitative studies. Studies of these artifacts are few in number; they discuss either the bone collection of a museum (Cociş-Alicu 1993; Petică-Zrinyi 2000) or the bone finds from specific archaeological sites1. Typological studies are very rare as well. The exception is the study written by N. Gudea and I. Bajusz which established a typology for hairpins for the first time (Gudea-Bajusz 1991) from a specific region (Dacia Porolissensis), and which became a reference in the Roman archaeology in Romania. There is so far only one article, published recently, that has tried to identify and to collect all the workshops from the territory of Roman Dacia (Timoc 2007). The province of Dacia (cf. Figure 5) Dacia is one of the most interesting of the Roman Empire’s provinces. Established after the Dacian-Roman war led by Trajan in 106 AD, it was part of the Empire for a short time, being abandoned officially in 271 AD under Aurelianus2. Although the Roman rule did not really last very long, Dacia is one of the most urbanized and Romanised provinces, having in total 11 cities (10 municipii and 1 colonia deducta), from which 4 were distinguished with the prestigious ius Italicum. Roman rule also meant a strong military concentration within the province which can be explained by its strategic position and by a massive colonization3 ex toto orbe Romano, mentioned by Eutropius. In the province the army and the ethnically diverse colonists became the main consumers and economic forces. They brought their traditions with them, which determined the cultural and economic profile of the new province. Monetary circulation in Dacia in the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd century AD was twice as intensive as in Pannonia or in Moesia (Găzdac 2002, 4750) as a result of this massive concentration of colonists. From an economic perspective, the most prosperous part of the province is Dacia Superior (Apulensis). The imperial road from Rome passed through this region, and it is situated in the most fertile part of Transylvania. The two most important cities of the province, Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetus Dacica and Apulum, are located in the same region as well. The eastern and southern part, Dacia Inferior, though it has a very strong military character, is the least developed part of the Dacian The level of research concerning the bone artifacts is low, and the title of this paper may seem a bit risky. Speaking about an industry without proper and detailed studies and analyses can be challenging. Even if the available data are limited, they permit description of the main aspects of this industry. This paper does not intend to present an exhaustive picture of bone-working; rather it tries to 55 LÓRÁNT VASS provinces, having just one urban settlement, Romula. The level of Romanisation in this region is low, probably because of the small population. The varying levels of research may also explain this disproportionate evidence for Roman culture and lifestyle in different geographical areas. Romanian Roman archaeology has overemphasized the investigation of the limes area and military construction, especially in the region of Dacia Porolisssensis and Dacia Apulensis. the demand by a permanent clientele that maintains the line of production (Figure 6). The profile of production can be also influenced by existing tradition, or by different fashion trends. The quantity and the price of the products are strongly influenced by the technology used (mechanized or manual). Bone-working and economic life In the Roman period bone artifacts are very widespread products of economic life. In comparison to the prehistoric bone industry, Roman bone items are usually standardized, related items, fittings, or jewelry. Items of similar size and decoration are found in the most farflung provinces of the Empire. The most popular group of artifacts made of bone is the diverse group of hairpins that are recovered in large quantities not only from the sites of Dacia, but in the other provinces as well. The spread of hairpins reflects the general tendency of the Roman economy to satisfy the demand of all consumers, even of the less wealthy population. In comparison with Pannonia (Bíró 1994) or other provinces, the bone carvings from Dacia are not as well represented. The majority of the bone artifacts are various kinds of related fittings for articles such as furniture, tools, military equipment, and gaming pieces (cf. Figure 4) (AlicuNemeş 1982; Cociş-Alicu 1993; Ciugudean 1997; PeticăZrinyi 2000; Vass 2006). We rarely find beautiful and unique pieces that could be considered works of art4 among the bone carvings. The lack of beautiful carvings and the large number of related items and hairpins proves that the bone industry in Dacia is based mainly, even more than in the other Roman provinces, on mass production. Figure 1: The proportion of the main types of bone and antler products in Dacia. These diagrams are based on published material only. Abbreviations used: OH-Ornaments and objects related to hair-styles; OE-Objects of everyday use; GP-Gaming pieces; MD-Medical instruments; TI-Tools and instruments; OC-Object related to cosmetics; OWS- Objects related to weaving and spinning; MEW- Objects decorating weapons, weapon-fittings, and objects of the military equipment; OWObjects of wear; FF-Furniture fittings, appliqué, decorations. The majority of the finished products (Figure 1) were unearthed from settlements (cities: Ciugudean 1997; Cserni 1912, 280-282; Alicu-Nemeş 1982; Gudea-Bajusz 1991; Vass 2006 and military settlements: Gudea et al. 1992, 86-88, nr. 1-57, 92, nr. 1-10, fig. C-CII, CXXCXXVI; Gudea-Pop 1971, Taf. LVIII, Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXXII-LXXXIV; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Taf. LXXXII, Taf. XCIV-C, CI/1-4), although research at urban settlements is very limited. Not only is the quantity higher in these cases, but the artifacts are more diversified (Figure 3) in terms of function. This could be explained by the continuity and larger scale of production in these sites, owing probably to a stable clientele. In the case of the better researched military forts, the range is much more limited (Figure 2), production being focused on satisfying the local needs of the troops. Most of the bone items are tools, instruments, and objects related to military equipment and weapons. Figure 2: The distribution of bone products in Roman forts in Dacia. Bone tool production is determined by the acquisition of and type of raw material used in manufacturing and by Figure 3: The distribution of bone products in Roman settlements in Dacia. 56 BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA Figure 5: The province of Dacia (after Cristian Găzdac). (Bíró 1994, 12), antler was used largely for manufacturing handles, bow stiffeners, gaming pieces etc. (Petică-Zrinyi 2000, pl.II/4, 5, 8, pl.V/7; Gudea et al. 1992, Pl CXXI, CXXII). Considering that Dacia was rich in forests, the acquisition of antler was not a problem either. By collecting the shed antler pieces the artisan could collect enough raw material for manufacturing, without the need for hunting. Ivory was not a popular raw material; it may have been too expensive. We have only a few artifacts made of this material5. Figure 6: Economic aspects of bone working. Clientele Raw material The province of Dacia was established for strategic purposes, which means that a large concentration of military units was placed inside it. In such a militarized province (Figure 7) it is no wonder that the main consumers were members of the army. The majority of the identified workshops are situated along the western limes (Tibiscum, Buciumi, Porolissum), along the large Imperial road. They were meant to satisfy the internal needs of the troups (for weapons, military equipment, etc.). Because archaeological investigations in Romania have focused mostly on the military features, with the exception of Apulum we do not have a general picture of the bone working in the cities. On the basis of the distribution of functional categories we can surmise that the bone industry from the cities was of a civilian character and intended to satisfy consumer demands. Unfortunately, the lack of published material makes it impossible to separate the different social levels among the consumers. On the basis of the published literature, it is very hard to determine the raw material used and the animal species from which the raw material came. Archaeozoological studies usually focus on the ancient livestock and food habits, without analyzing the bone-working debris. The food debris came mainly from the most common domestic species including Bos taurus, Ovis, Capra, Sus, and Equus (Gudea 2007). The analyses of the finished bone artifacts and working debris reflect the same situation. Bone artifacts are made usually of long bones of the species mentioned above (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig. 7). We can conclude that the raw material was provided mainly by the abundant food debris. As in other provinces, antler was another very popular raw material, preferred because of its flexible structure. Although antler combs were not as popular as they were in Pannonia 57 LÓRÁNT VASS Figure 7: Workshops in Dacia (after Cristian Găzdac). fighting or for hunting? The low weight and the broad head (in the case of leaf-shaped items) may argue for their use as hunting weapons. However, these artifacts were recovered among other metal weapons from the weapon-deposit near the praetentura of the big auxiliary camp from Porolissum (Gudea et al. 1988, 149). This and the fact that bone objects related to arrows could be found in Tibiscum and Micia where the other archery units were stationed could not be coincidental. In all three camps a considerable number of finished and unfinished bow stiffeners were found6 among these objects. Without access to all the objects discussed above, it was impossible to observe any kind of similarities in the technical process or to identify the existence of a common know-how. These objects reflect rather a special kind of fighting strategy that the units brought with them. This seems to be plausible since these units were stationed on the western limes, a defensive line facing the land inhabited by the dreaded Sarmatian population famous for their archery skills. The role of the eastern irregular archery units was probably to keep this barbarian population away from the Roman borders. Tradition, fashion Identifying tradition in manufacturing or in distribution of certain mass-produced artifacts is very difficult. There is no evidence of bone working in the province before the Roman period. The indigenous Dacian population did not use bone as raw material, so the possibility of an inherited cultural tradition is excluded. What kind of cultural tradition can we then observe? The only plausible tradition would have come from outside, brought in by colonists or soldiers, as we believe, from east. This is true of the many bone arrowheads (Figure 8) found in the large auxiliary camp from Porolissum (Gudea 2006, fig. 10) and the arrow nocks from Tibiscum ( Benea 2003, fig. VII/1,12; Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-66, 5-67, 5-68) and Micia (Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-64, 5-65). The unpublished bone arrowheads as well as the bone nocks from Porolissum are unique pieces in the Roman Empire. They were found in military forts where three similar irregular units had been stationed, the numerus Palmyrenorum Porolissensis (Porolissum), the numerus Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium (Tibiscum), and the cohors II Flavia Commagenorum equitata sagittariorum (Micia). The arrowheads and nocks could have been part of the weaponry of these eastern archery units. The bone arrowheads are precise imitations of iron and bronze ones; we can find among them leaf-shaped arrowheads just like arrowheads of triangular cross-section. The manufacturing of one of these little items takes more time and energy than making one of metal, but they are considerably lighter. Pauli Jensen analyzed the Roman arrowheads in Denmark and concluded that light arrowheads can reach a higher speed, and living tissue is less resistant to penetration at high speed (Pauli Jensen 2005, 544). Were these arrowheads were used for Figure 8: Bone arrowheads from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum (photo by the author). 58 BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA Workshops (cf. Figure 7) Buciumi The hardest part of worked-bone research is the location and definition of workshops. In comparison to other handicrafts, bone working does not need a special tool kit or special room for the equipment. Unfortunately, the Roman written sources do not even mention this handicraft; the only written evidence for it refers to the ivory sculptors (eborarii) who were working in the same building and collegium with the carpenters (citrarii) (Deschler-Erb 1998, 93). Usually the most reliable clue to the existence of bone workshops is the waste material and unfinished pieces. Taking into consideration this ‘mobility’ of bone workshops, we believe that almost every settlement had at least one workshop producing bone artifacts, even if the publications and research do not reflect this. I will present the main workshops identified so far, focusing first of all on the waste material. A workshop (Figure 10) was identified in the barrack nr 5 in the auxiliary fort from Bucium (Gudea et al. 1992, 8689). As in Tibiscum, this workshop was supplying the army. On the basis of the unfinished and finished bone items, we can show that this workshop specialized in producing handles and counters (Gudea et al. 1992, 8687, nr.1-37, fig. CXX-CXXII, CXV/1-4). Antler is the most popular raw material in this case, too. Unfortunately, in the absence of archaeozoological analysis of the animal bones coming from this site, we cannot determine whether the preference for antler for manufacturing artifacts was related to the hunting of cervids in the region. The handles are made of antler tines by sawing and by maintaining the lightly curved natural form of the raw material. Barrack nr 5, where the workshop was identified, contained waste material of bronze working as well, indicating that the bone workshop used the same building as other handicrafts and probably the same tool kit. Tibiscum The workshop (Benea 2003, 223) from Tibiscum was of a military character. It was identified in masonry in the 3rd phase of the auxiliary fort (120-165 AD). In the inventory of this workshop we find many unfinished or finished bow stiffeners (Figure 9), some arrowheads, handles, unfinished counters, and pendants of antler (Benea 2003, 224, Taf. IV-VII). The distribution of functional categories reveals that the workshop satisfied the internal demands of the archers (cohors I Sagittatorium) stationed here. The raw material used here was mainly antler. The manufacturing techniques are the same as those used elsewhere in the Roman Empire. The sawn-off antler tines were split to different sizes and forms. The prepared material then was shaped by rasping or by faceting with a knife to produce the desired form. Figure 10: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from Buciumi (after Gudea et al. 1992). Porolissum The bone arrowheads recovered from the big auxiliary camp from Porolissum were discussed above. In addition to these arrowheads, a lot of unfinished and finished bow stiffeners of antler were recovered, indicating that there was a bone workshop specialized in producing weapons belonging to the archery unit stationed here (Figure 11). Unfortunately, we cannot locate the workshop precisely, because the majority of these stiffeners were recovered from the water cistern in the camp along with glassworking and ceramic debris (Gudea et al. 1988, 151). Antler cutoffs, unfinished pieces, and waste material were recovered from the amphitheatre, too (Vass 2006, 646 nr. 1-4; fig. 2-1, 2-4). A small number of unfinished objects were recovered here that could not be clearly connected to a finished product. As a result it is difficult to determine whether another workshop functioned in the Figure 9: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from Tibiscum (after Benea 2003). 59 LÓRÁNT VASS amphitheatre or whether the debris reached here as waste material from the nearby workshop in the fort. governor’s palace had its own workshop. Another workshop was located in the northern part of the colony. In a large building (Figure 12-B) B. Cserni found 316 bone artifacts, including 216 hairpins and needles (Figure 13) (Cserni 1912, 280-282, fig. 23-2)8. The bone working debris and the large numbers of hairpins and needles reveal a specialized bone workshop or store, whose main product was hairpins. The bone artifacts were concentrated in rooms A, B and I, so we can conclude that the bone working took place in these rooms. In this building a large quantity of ceramic and glass-working waste material was identified as well. This underlines again that bone-working was a complementary handicraft, and it functioned in the same workshop as other handicrafts. Micia In the military fort of Micia, in a store dated to 106-107 AD, bow stiffeners, arrow nocks and antler waste material were unearthed (Petculescu 2002, 765, fig. 3-32, 3-39, fig. 4-40, 4-52). The waste and unfinished material consisted of antler plaque cutoffs related to the production of bow stiffeners as seen at the forts of Porolissum and Tibiscum. The plaques bear the traces of rasping and cutting with a saw. The workshop can be related probably to the eastern archery unit, cohors II Flavia Commagenorum. The third workshop was located in the territory of the cannabae, in Moţilor Street and Gemina Street (Figure 12-C). Various antler tine, goat horn core, and long bone cutoffs were recovered from dwellings and pits dated to the time of Trajan and Hadrian (Ciugudean 2001, 62). The fourth workshop comes from the cannabae as well. In the backyard of Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan High school (Figures 12-D and 14) a large trash pit with bone-working debris was recovered. The debris included ephiphysis cutoffs thrown away after the preparation of raw material and various parts of diaphysis probably deposited for future processing (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig.7). We are dealing, therefore, with at least four separate bone workshops, each with its own clientele and profile. It seems that each workshop satisfied the demand of a certain area: cannabae, civilian settlement (colony), or governor’s palace. Apulum is a good example of the organization of the bone-working industry in urban settlements. Figure 11: Unfinished and waste material from the production of bow stiffeners from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum (photo: L. Vass). Apulum We identified several bone workshops in the urban settlement of Apulum (Figure 12). So far, Apulum is the only city where we can closely observe the organization of the bone industry. The nature of the production differs totally from the workshops of military character presented above. Its main clientele is the civilian population. Excavations carried out in the beginning of the 20th century by B. Cserni (Ciugudean 1997, 82, pl. 37-2; Ciugudean. 2001: 63; 69, fig. 5; Ciugudean 2000, 63) in the governor’s palace (Figure 12-A), south-east of the legionary fort, recovered many finished and unfinished bone items, including a rib with circular cutoffs for manufacturing counters. This proves that the Figure 12: Workshops in Apulum. 60 BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA army, as well as part of the civilian population. The distribution of functional categories of different workshops can shed light upon the profile and clientele of these products. Thus we can distinguish between workshops of military and of civilian character. There is no Roman fort that would not have at least one bone workshop meant to supply the military unit. So far, we managed to identify just four such workshops: in Tibiscum, Micia, Buciumi, and Porolissum, as well as three other possible workshop from the forts from Romita, Ilişua and Cumidava. Even if Dacia is considered a very urbanized province, the research on urban settlements is very limited. We only have information about the bone industry of Apulum, where we identified at least four different workshops. Each workshop had its own clientele and was meant to satisfy the demand of a particular area (cannabae, colony, governor’s palace). The clientele in all four cases seems to be the civilian population, as the predominance of hairpins suggests. We emphasize that this overview of the bone industry in Dacia focused on the economic aspects of this handicraft. Further research and publications may modify or confirm these conclusions. Figure 13: Bone objects from a possible workshop in Apulum (after Cserni 1912). Lóránt Vass Str. Kogălniceanu nr. 1, Cluj-Napoca Babeş-Bolyai University Romania v_lorant@yahoo.com Note 1: Bone finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa Dacica: Alicu-Nemeş 1982; Due to D. Ciugudean’s serious studies the majority of these studies focus on the bone items from Apulum: Ciugudean 1997- we should mention that this work is the first and so far the only monograph dedicated to bone objects from Dacia (Ciugudean 2001; Ciugudean 2002). Figure 14: Workshop debris from Apulum (after Ciugudean 2001). Other bone- or antler-working workshops in Dacia could have functioned in almost every Roman settlement and fort, including some other military forts from Romita 9, Ilişua 10, Cumidava 11, and settlements like Cristeşti 12. In these cases the small number of unfinished objects and waste material, and in some cases the lack of information concerning their precise localization or the poor quality of the illustrations, do not allow us to reconstruct the character of the bone industry at these sites so the existence of standardized production is probable but not certain. Note 2: During its existence, Dacia’s administrative and political organization was largely unmodified. There were only two major administrative reorganizations: one during the reign of Hadrian, when for defensive purposes, Dacia was divided into two political entities: Dacia Superior and Dacia Inferior. In the same period another administrative entity appeared: Dacia Porolissensis, though its exact boundaries are still not clear. The other reorganization took place in 168 under Marcus Aurelius, when these existing entities were renamed: Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Apulensis and Dacia Malvensis (Ardevan 1998, 25-28). Conclusions Bone-working, like any other handicraft can be used as an archaeological source for reconstructing economic and daily life. The bone industry in Dacia and other parts of the Roman Empire, is based on mass production. That is why the majority of bone artifacts are different related fittings (handles, hinges, weapon parts, etc) or ornaments (hairpins). In a militarized and Romanized province like Dacia, the main consumers were the members of the Note 3: The massive colonization resulted from the Dacian-Roman war in 105-106 AD. The elite of the native Dacian population must have been executed, and a large part of the civilian population ended their traditional settlements and lifestyle. It is still unclear what actually happened to the indigenous Dacian population after the war. 61 LÓRÁNT VASS Note 4: Except for a statue of Hercules from Apulum and another of Eros riding a dolphin (both still unpublished) from Porolissum we do not possess any unique pieces. Benea, D. 2003. Istoria aşezărilor de tip vici militares din Dacia romană. Timişoara. Bíró, M. 1994. The bone objects of the Roman Collection. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici II, Budapest. Note 5: Hopefully the lack of ivory pieces can be explained by the improper analysis of raw material or by the unpublished artifacts that are lying in the cupboards of different researchers. Ciugudean, D. 1997. Obiectele din os, corn şi fildeş de la Apulum. Alba Iulia. Ciugudean, D. 2001. Workshops and manufacturing techniques at Apulum (Ad 2nd-3rd Century), in A. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through time and Space. Oxford, BAR International Series 937, 61-72. Note 6: The bow stiffeners from Porolissum are still unpublished (see Figure 7); Tibiscum: Benea 2003, Taf. VII/3-6, 8-11; Benea-Petru 1994, fig. 22; Micia: Petculescu 2002, fig. 1-4; 5-53. Note 7: According to N. Gudea, the Roman archery units concentrated in Porolissum were not necessarily equipped according to the weaponry of the enemy. Rather, they were used to prevent the raids by the barbarian population outside the province (Gudea 2006, 399). Ciugudean, D. 2002. Noi artefacte din os de la Apulum. Apulum XXXIX, 289-300. Cociş, S. and Alicu, D. 1993. Obiecte de os din Dacia Apulensis şi Dacia Porolissensis. Acta Musei Porolissensis XVII, 114-149. Note 8: Cserni, on the basis of the many hairpins and needles, confirms that the owners of the building were women for a long period. Cserni, B. 1912. Jelentés a Colonia Apulensis területén végzett ásatásokról. Muzeumi és Könyvtári Értesítő 6, 257-28. Note 9: Antler tines, probably unfinished objects, without illustration (Matei-Bajusz 1997, 129). Deschler-Erb, S. 1998. Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Augst. Note 10: Antler tine cutoffs, a plaque showing traces of testing decorating tools (compass). Unfortunately, the authors do not provide any kind of information about their place of discovery inside the camp or any description of them (Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXIV/3-5, LXXXIII/2-9). Găzdac, C. 2002. Circulaţia monetară în Dacia şi provinciile învecinate de la Traian la Constantin I, vol. I, Cluj-Napoca. Gudea, N. 2006. Sagittarii Porolissenses şi armele lor. I. (Sagittarii Porolissenses and their weapons), in C. Gaiu and C. Găzdac (eds.) Fontes Historiae. Studia In Honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistrita-Cluj-Napoca, 395415. Note 11: Unfortunately, the quality of the photos is very poor, so we can barely see any kind of manufacturing traces on the illustrated antler cutoffs (Gudea-Pop 1971, Taf. LVIII/5-10). Gudea, A. 2007. Contribuţii la istoria economică a Daciei romane. Studiu arheozoologic. Cluj-Napoca. Note 12: In the settlement of Cristeşti four objects may be considered as unfinished or waste material. Considering that the four objects were made of three different types of raw material (goat horn, antler and bird-bone) these pieces represent a rather ad-hoc style of manufacturing (Petică-Zrinyi 2000, 124, nr.12, 13; 125, nr. 16, 17, pl. II/4, 5, 8, 9). Gudea, N. and Bajusz, I. 1991. Ace de păr din os de la Porolissum. Câteva observaţii în legătură cu ace din os pentru prins părul din Dacia Romană, in Acta Musei Porolissensis XIV-XV, 81-126. Gudea, N., Chirilă, E, Lucăcel, V., Pop, C. 1992. Das Römerlager von Buciumi. Cluj-Napoca. References cited Gudea, N., Chirilă, E, Matei, A. V., Bajusz, I., Tamba, D. 1988. Raport preliminar în legătură cu săpăturile arheologice şi lucrările de conservare şi restaurare executate în complexul daco-roman Porolissum în anii 1986-1987, in Acta Musei Porolissensis XII, 147-189. Alicu-Nemeş, E. 1982. Obiecte de os descoperite la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Acta Musei Napocensis XIX, 345366. Ardevan, R. 1998. Viaţa municipală în Dacia Romană. Timişoara. Gudea, N. and Pop, I. I. 1971. Das Römerlager von Râşnov (Rosenau) CVMIDAVA. Beiträge zu den Limesuntersuchungen im Südosten des römischen Dazien. Braşov. Benea, D. and Petru, P. 1994. Tibiscum. Timişoara. 62 BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA Matei, A.V., Bajusz, I. 1997. Castrul roman de la Romita-Certiae. Das Römergrenzkastell von RomitaCertiae. Zalău. Pauli Jensen, X. 2005. Arrowheads in Danish bogs – Evidence on change in military tactics, in Limes XIX, Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Pecs, Hungary, September 2003. Visy, Zs, 543-555. Petculescu, L. 2002. The military equipment of oriental archers in Roman Dacia, in Ph. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T Fiema and B. Hoffmann (eds.), LIMES XVIII, Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000), Volume II. Oxford, BAR International Series 1084, 765-770. Petică, M. and Zrinyi, A. 2000. Obiecte de os în colecţiile Muzeului Judeţean Mureş. Marisia XXVI, 123-135. Protase, D., Gaiu, C. and Marinescu, L. 1997. Castrul roman de la Ilişua, Bistriţa. Timoc, C. 2007. Prelucrarea osului şi cornului în provincia Dacia, in D. Benea (ed.), Meşteşuguri şi artizani în Dacia romană. Timişoara, 171-183. Vass, L. 2006. Unpublished Roman bone artifacts from the amphitheatre of Porolissum, in C. Gaiu and C. Găzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistriţa-Cluj-Napoca, 641-657. 63 Functional categories Ornaments and objects related to hair-styles Artifacts belonging to functional categories hairpins bracelets Pendants, amulets Objects of everyday use Comb needles Gaming pieces counters dice Medical instruments spoons palettes Tools Knife handles Knot loosener Objects related to cosmetics Tools used for decorating pottery Flutes Handles Unguentum jars (pyxis) Objects related to weaving and spinning spatulas Distaffs, spindles Spindle whorls Loom fittings Objects decorating weapons, weapons fittings and military equipment Scabbard chapes Scabbard slides Gardă de sabie Bow stiffeners Arrow heads, nocks Objects of wear rings Needles with three holes Furniture fittings, appliqués, decorations Decorative appliqués Reference Alicu-Nemeş 1982, p. 352-353; Gudea-Bajusz 1991; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl I-IX; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl C; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXII/110, 13-19; Isac 1999, Taf VII/44-47; VIII, IX/5658, X/65-67; Ciugudean 1997, Pl IV-IX; PeticăZrinyi 2000, Pl IV, V/3-6; Ciugudean 2002, Pl II/1-5, III/1-4, IV/4; Unpublished (from Apulum) Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVI/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XIII/1-5 XIV/1-3; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Pl LXXXII/5; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/2 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl.X/1. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, PL II-III, Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XIV; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CI; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXII/11, 12, 20; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XV-XVIII; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl I; Ciugudean 2002, Pl II/6-7; Vass 2006, Fig. 4-5. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl. IV/10-13; V; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CXXII, CXXV/14; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XXI/4-6; XXII-XXIII; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIII/3-6; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXI-XXXII; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/3-5; Ciugudean 2002, Pl V/3-6; Vass 2006, Fig.7/40-43. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, PL VI/1-4; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XXI/1-3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXIII/1-6; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/1; Vass 2006, Fig. 7/44. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IX/2; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl. CXXVI/3; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XII-XIII; Ciugudean 1997, Pl. XXVI-XXVII/1-4; Ciugudean 2002, Pl V/1-2, Vass 2006, Fig. 3/11. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/3-4; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXVI/11 Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CXX/4-6, CXXVI/5; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVIII/3, XIX/1; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIII/2, LXXXIV/2; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl III/8; Ciugudean 2002, Pl III/5, Vass 2006, Fig. 12/12. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl.VIII/2, Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXIV/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, PL XI/2-3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl V/2 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXIV/1. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IV/1-7; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XI/4, 6; Pl XVI/1-5., Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXVII/8,9; Pl XXVIII/1,2,5,6. Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl IX/2; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XIII/6; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, VI/2; Vass 2006, Fig. 3/8. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XI/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XV/1-2; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXVII/6-7; Gudea 2008, Pl LXXI/9 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3-5 Alicu-Nemeş 1982, Pl VI/5, VII/1,6, 7, 8; VIII/1; Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XXIV; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XII/1-4; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl II/1-3 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/2, Vass 2006, Fig. 6/34 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/1 Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/2 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXX/2-4; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Pl LXXXII/1-2; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/7; Benea 2003, Taf VII/9-11., Vass 2006, Fig.6/30-33. Gudea et alii 1992, Pl C/3; Benea 2003, Taf. VII/1,2, 12, Petculescu 2002, Fig. 5/64-68. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XII/5-6, Vass 2006, Fig. 3/10 Ciugudean 1997, Pl XVII/7,8, XXV/1-2; MateiBajusz 1997, Pl CI/2,3. Cociş-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/3.; Petică-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/1, VI/6, Vass 2006, Fig.3/5-7 Figure 4: Functional categories and types of objects made of bone in Dacia. 64