Close to the bone: current studies in bone technologies Publisher: Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade For publisher Miomir Korać Editor Selena Vitezović Editorial board Steve Ashby (United Kingdom), Corneliu Beldiman (Romania), Alice Choyke (Hungary), Erik Hrnčiarik (Slovakia), Heidi Luik (Estonia), Soija Petković (Serbia), Isabelle Sidéra (France) Reviewers Steve Ashby (United Kingdom), Corneliu Beldiman (Romania), Alice Choyke (Hungary), Idoia Grau Sologestoa (Spain), Erik Hnrčiarik (Slovakia), Heidi Luik (Estonia), Marko Janković (Serbia), Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska (Poland), Matías E. Medina (Argentina), Soija Petković (Serbia), Siniša Radović (Croatia), Isabelle Sidéra (France), James Symonds (Netherlands) Graphic layout Amalija Vitezović ISBN 978-86-6439-005-7 (electronic) ISBN 978-86-6439-006-4 (print) Front cover illustration Caričin Grad (Iustiniana Prima), 6th century AD Back cover illustration Niš (Naissus), 4th-6th century AD his book is published with the inancial support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Institute of Archaeology Close to the bone: current studies in bone technologies Editor: Selena Vitezović Belgrade 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Ch. Arabatzis, Bone industry from the prehistoric settlement Anarghiri IXa, Florina, Greece .............................. 9 S. Ashby, Worked bone on the Wolds: a review of what we know about bone industry and objects in the Chalk Hills of Yorkshire’s North and East Ridings ...................................................................................................................... 18 J. Baron, M. Diakowski, T. Stolarczyk, Bone and antler artefacts from an 8-5th century BC settlement at Grzybiany, South-Western Poland ..................................................................................................................................... 28 C. Beldiman, D.-L. Buzea, D.-M. Sztancs, B. Briewig, Microscopy of prehistoric symbolic artefacts. Wietenberg decorated antler plate discovered at Șoimeni, Harghita County ................................................................................... 48 V. Bikić, S. Vitezović, Bone working and the army: an early eighteenth–century button workshop at the Belgrade fortress ................................................................................................................................................................... 57 S. Vuković-Bogdanović, I. Bogdanović, Late Roman bone anvils from Viminacium .............................................. 66 J. Bradield, Fracture analysis of bone tools: a review of the micro-CT and macrofracture methods for studying bone tool function ................................................................................................................................................................ 71 N. Buc, D. Rivero, M. Medina, he late Holocene bone tools from Quebrada del Real 1 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 80 I. Bugarski, Carved antler tools from Nosa and Manđelos reаssessed: a glimpse into the Avar pictorial evidence 86 M. S. Campos-Martínez, G. Pérez-Roldán, Worked human bone from Teotihuacan, Mexico (1st-6th centuries A.D.) 98 T. Čerškov, G. Jeremić, S. Vitezović, Zoomorphic decorations from osseous materials from Naissus (Niš) ......... 104 É. David, C. Casseyas, P. van der Sloot, J.-M. Léotard, A cross-border use of in-growth antler, to face Neolithisation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 112 E. Gál, Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age bone tools from the site of Paks-Gyapa (South-Eastern Transdanubia, Hungary) ...................................................................................................................................................... 121 L. Gidney, Bone artefacts from medieval and post-medieval windmills: changing interpretations ......................... 128 E. Grassi, Bone anvils from the city of Sassari (16th-18th centuries AD) ....................................................................... 133 E. Hrnčiarik, Roman bone artifacts from Iža .................................................................................................................. 140 H. Kalafatić, S. Radović, M. Čavka, M. Novak, M. Mihaljević, R. Šošić Klindžić, A rare ind of bone beads from the Late Bronze Age cemetery in the Southern Carpathian Basin ...................................................................... 146 M. Kovač, Several observations on semi-inished bone products supporting the existence of a bone workshop in Mursa ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 154 Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi ...................................................................................................... 160 F. Lang, Objects made of antler and antler production in the Roman Municipium Iuvavum (Salzburg) ............... 168 H. Luik, Bone working in the suburbs of Medieval and early modern Tallinn, Estonia ............................................ 178 H. Luik, G. Piličiauskienė, Bone tools at the neolithc sites of Šventoji, Lithuania: raw materials and working methods ................................................................................................................................................................................. 188 V. Manojlović-Nikolić, A contribution to the study of Medieval bone industry: bone and antler objects from the site of Pontes – Trajan’s bridge (9th−11th century) ............................................................................................................ 201 M. Mărgărit, Exploitation of the Unio sp. valves for non-alimentary purposes in the Romanian Eneolithic. Archaeological and experimental data .............................................................................................................................. 208 N. Marković, S. Stamenković, Antler workshop in Caričin Grad (Justiniana Prima): reconstruction of the technological process ........................................................................................................................................................... 218 G. Nuțu, S. Stanc, Carved bone and antler in northern Dobruja ................................................................................. 226 J. Orłowska, Reading osseous artefacts – an application of micro-wear analysis to experimentally worked bone materials ................................................................................................................................................................................ 236 G. Osipowicz, Technical approach of two mesolithic bone harpoon heads from Wiele 33, central Poland ........... 248 S. Petković, Bone ibulae as grave gits in Upper Moesia ............................................................................................... 257 S. Redžić, Roman buckles made from bone and ivory discovered at the site of Viminacium .................................. 261 I. Riddler, N. Trzaska-Nartowski, Production in Hamwic: six dials structure 15 ..................................................... 265 M. Ružić, A strange bone object from late Roman necropolis Gladno polje in Bela Palanka (Remesiana) ........... 284 T. Sekelj Ivančan, Early Medieval bone tools from Northern Croatia ......................................................................... 289 A. Shatil, Bone igurines of the Early Islamic period: the so called “Coptic dolls” from Palestine and Egypt ........ 296 I. Sidéra, P. de Maret, An ideal bone for traditional dolls. Ruminants metapodia igurines: archaeological and ethnographical examples from Africa and Europe .......................................................................................................... 315 P. Stokes, A new interpretation of post-medieval bone scoops from the foreshore of the river hames in London 324 D.-M. Sztancs, C. Beldiman, M. Gh. Barbu, M. M. Barbu, Artefacts made of perforated shells discovered in a Bronze Age ritual pit from Uroi, Hunedoara County, Romania .................................................................................... 338 T. Tkalčec, Life in a mediaeval castle: bone artefacts as indicators of handicrat and leisure ................................... 356 Vinayak, Possible smoothening and polishing techniques practiced over bone and antler arrowheads at iron age sites of Atranjikhera and Jakhera ....................................................................................................................................... 364 K. Winnicka, More than meets the eye: microscopic and technological studies on Early Bronze Age bone and antler beads from Kichary Nowe, south-eastern Poland ............................................................................................... 376 List of contributors ............................................................................................................................................................... 395 INTRODUCTION Studies of worked osseous materials were neglected for а long time, but in the past two decades they are оn the rise. In recent years, numerous methodological and theoretical innovations were introduced and the quantity and quality of publications increased, including numerous individual articles, PhD thesis, monographs. Particularly important were several conferences and thematic sessions held in Europe, North America and Asia, devoted to the problems of worked bone. As a result, several edited volumes appeared, with high quality and diverse papers – for example, those edited by H. Luik et al. (2005), Ch. Gates-St-Pierre and R. Walker (2007), A. Legrand-Pineau & I. Sidéra et al. (2010), J. Baron and B. Kufel-Diakowska (2011), F. Lang (2013), A. Choyke and S. O’Connor (2013), Mărgărit et al 2014, to mention just a few. Osseous materials began to be recognized as an important part of the archaeological inds irst by the French school, and the most important theoretical and methodological work was done by French researchers. he most signiicant was the work by H. Camps-Fabrer, who initiated a large research program on bone industry, La Commission de Nomenclature sure l’Industrie de l’Os Prehistorique, later continued by other researchers. Work organized by M. Patou-Mathis on the industrie osseuse peu élaboré should also be mentioned. However, the most important role in spreading and promoting the research on bone artefacts and its importance in the past few decades has been that of the Worked bone research group (WBRG), formed almost 30 years ago, and one of the oicial working groups of the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) since 2000. he main role of the WBRG is to improve communication between individuals studying worked animal hard tissues (especially bone, antler, and ivory) with a special emphasis on archaeological inds. A broad diachronic and multidisciplinary approach is emphasized in order to promote the exchange of ideas concerning attitudes towards and procurement of raw materials, technology, and cognitive aspects of bone working. Since the irst meeting, held in London in 1997, eight other meetings took place and in 2014 Belgrade was the host of the jubilee 10th Meeting of the WBRG (for more information, see www.wbrg.net). Over sixty oral and poster presentations were held during the ive conference days, contributed by 100 authors. hirty-nine papers were selected for this volume, and I. Riddler, the organiser of the very irst meeting in London, also contributed a paper with N. TrzaskaNartowski. Selected papers encompass the wide chronological and geographical range – from the Mesolithic period to the 18th century AD, from South America to the Eurasia and South Africa. Selected case studies do not simply present interesting archaeological material, but they also cover a wide range of topics – methodological issues, in particular traceological investigations, reconstructions of technological procedures, problems related to the interpretation of functions, problems of the identiication of workshops, and also symbolic use of osseous raw materials in both prehistoric and historic times. Papers are organised by alphabetical order, since the topics overlap and it was not possible to create distinctive thematic groups. Such a variety in topics, as well as an increasing number of researchers focusing on studies of osseous raw materials, clearly shows that these studies have an important potential to contribute to the more general archaeological studies. Osseous artefacts are no longer disregarded, but are slowly gaining more and more space and are slowly taking place alongside with lithic industries and other classes of raw materials. However, there is still much work to be done, and bone tool studies still have to show all the potential they have. Last but not least, I would like to thank all the people who helped during the conference and aterwards, during the preparation of the book. Special thanks to all the colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology and to all the colleagues and staf from the National museum in Belgrade, which generously ofered the room for the conference and also helped with the lovely postconference excursion to the Lepenski Vir. I would also like to thank for the hospitality to Dragan Janković, curator of the City museum, who welcomed us at the site of Vinča-Belo Brdo, and to dr Mira Ružić, who welcomed us at the Archaeological collection of the Faculty of Philosophy. Finally, special thanks to the reviewers, who helped to enhance the scientiic value of this volume. he conference and the publication of this book were inancially supported by the Ministry of education, science and technological development of the Republic of Serbia. Choyke, A. M. and Bartosiewicz, L. (eds.) 2002. Crating Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 937 Gates St-Pierre, Ch. and Walker, R. B. (eds.) 2007. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. 7 Close to the bone... Kufel-Diakowska, B. and Baron, J. (eds.) 2011. Written in Bones. Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains. Wrocław. Uniwersytet Wrocławski–Instytut Archeologii. Lang, F. (ed.) 2013. he Sound of Bones. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Salzburg 2011. Salzburg: Archaeo Plus. Schriten zur Archäologie und Archäometrie der Paris LodronUniversität Salzburg 5. Legrand-Pineau, A., Sidéra, I., Buc, N., David, E. and Scheinsohn, V. (eds.) 2010. Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia. Cultural, technological and functional signature. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 2136. Luik, H., Choyke A., Batey, C. & Lougas, L. (eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group at Tallinn, 26th–31st of August 2003. Tallinn : Muinasaja teadus 15. Mărgarit, M, Le Dosseur, G., Averbouh, A. (eds.) 2014. An Overview of the exploitation of hard animal materials during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Proceedings of the GDRE PREHISTOS Work-Session in Tȃrgovişte, Romania, november 2013. Tȃrgovişte: Editura Cetatea de Scaun. Selena Vitezović 8 LATE ROMAN BONE ANVILS FROM VIMINACIUM Sonja Vuković – Bogdanović Ivan Bogdanović Abstract: Among faunal material from the Roman city of Viminacium, two peculiarly marked cattle bones, a mandible and a distal metatarsal bone, were noted. he surfaces of the bones were covered with regular rows of triangular marks – a characteristic use wear marks which, according to recent ethnographic studies, identify bones used as anvils to create teeth on blades of iron sickles. Based on the context of the ind it was possible to date both inds back to the late Roman period, i.e. to the 4th century AD. It is notable that a large number of known bone anvils date back from the Middle ages to the modern times and that they are mostly found in the western Mediterranean region. As the Roman period bone anvils were only recorded in the north-western coast of the Black sea, and there is a single ind in Southern Italy, specimens from Viminacium certainly complement these inds in Europe. In this paper we will discuss the process of making and utilizing Viminacium bone anvils: from the butchers’ to the blacksmiths’. Apstrakt: Među faunalnim nalazima iz rimskog grada Viminacijuma, pronađene su i dve neobične kosti govečeta – mandibula i distalna metatarzalna kost. Površine kostiju pokrivene su tragovima u obliku pravilnih trouglastih redova, što je karakterističan trag upotrebe koji je, prema recentnim etnografskim studijama, identiikovan kao trag koji ostavljaju zupci sečiva gvozdenih srpova. Na osnovu konteksta nalaza, bilo je moguće datovati ih u kasnoantički period, tačnije u 4. vek nove ere. Treba napomenuti da veliki broj poznatih koštanih nakovanja potiče iz perioda od srednjeg veka do modernog doba i da su uglavnom pronađeni u zapadnom Mediteranu. Budući da su nakovnji iz rimske epohe dokumentovani samo na severozapadnoj obali Crnog mora, i da postoji samo jedan nalaz iz južne Italije, primerci sa Viminacijuma doprinose proučavanju ovakvih nalaza u Evropi. U ovom radu raspravljaće se i o procesu izrade i upotrebe koštanih nakovanja sa Viminacijuma - od kasapnice do kovačnice. INTRODUCTION his paper is devoted to two bone anvils which were discovered during the recent excavation of the Viminacium amphitheatre. Finds of bone anvils are very important, as they summarize our knowledge on bone working, metallurgy and agriculture. he function of similar bones in the past gave rise to diferent misled interpretations, from the assumption that they were tools for polishing wood and stone (Semenov 1964), to those about the unknown Getic writing system (Boroneanţ 2005). However, recent ethnographic studies that were initially made by M. Esteban Nadal (2003), and later by other authors, too (Esteban-Nadal and Carbonell Roure 2004, Aguirre et al. 2004) resolved the function of those tools. hey identiied them as anvils that were used as a base for manufacturing saw-teeth on blades of iron sickles by hammer and chisel. he earliest appearance of bone anvils is related to the Hellenistic period and comes from the site of Olbia in Ukraine and from Greco-Scythian sites Neapolis and hanagoria (Semenov 1964: 186) and also from Getic settlements (Arnăut 2007). Along with Viminacium there are only few sites from Roman period with reported bone anvils. In the city of Histria (Romania) within the 2nd–3rd century AD deposits, 40 specimens of bone anvils were discovered (Beldiman et al. 2011b), while 4 bone anvils were found during the excavations of the site Ostrov-Durostorum (Romania) (Beldiman et al. 2011a). At the site of Chitila (Romania), that is related to Getic autochthonous population, 13 anvils were discovered (Beldi- man et al. 2011b, Boroneanţ 2005). here is also a single ind of a bone anvil from the site of Pantanello (Gál 2010: 9) in Sothern Italy, which has been dated between the early 2nd century BC to the beginning of the 1st century AD (Gál and Bartosiewicz 2012).Within the western Mediterranean region (Iberian peninsula, France, North Africa) numerous inds of bone anvils have been detected, dating back from the 5th to the 20th century AD (Grau-Sologestoa 2012, Poplin 2007, Poplin 2013, Rodet-Belarbi et al. 2007 and references therein). Bone anvils were also found in early medieval deposits in Hungary (Gál et al. 2010). he appearance of anvils and speciic use wear marks did not change through all these periods. he majority of anvils were made of ungulate long bones, usually metapodials, but there are also examples of usage of other bones, such as mandibles (Grau-Sologestoa 2012) or even red deer antlers (Beldiman et al. 2011a). Metapodial shats were usually irst lattened by ile before usage and then smoothed. In the course of serration, the blacksmith would move the sickle on the anvil (igs. 5, 6). Once a bone was covered with rows of dents, it could be lattened and smoothed again, in order to be reused. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF VIMINACIUM FINDS Viminacium is located near Kostolac in Eastern Serbia, on the right bank of the Mlava River, close to its conluence with the Danube River (ig. 1). Initially it was a legionary fortress. Along the fortress, which was built 66 S. Vuković-Bogdanović, I. Bogdanović, Late Roman bone anvils from Viminacium Fig. 1: he location of Viminacium. during the 1st century AD, a city developed. Viminacium was the capital of the province of Moesia Superior, while in the late Roman period it was the capital of the province of Moesia Prima(Mirković 1968: 56–73, Поповић 1968). Bone anvils were discovered within the Viminacium amphitheatre, which was situated in the north-eastern corner of the ancient city area, approximately 50 m away from the north-western corner of the legionary fortress (ig. 2). Based on previous archaeological excavations, it can be assumed that the amphitheatre was built at the beginning of the 2nd century AD and that it was used until the end of the 3rd or early 4th century AD (Nikolić and Bogdanović 2012). Both anvils belong to the layer that dates back to the middle and second half of the 4th century AD. At that time, the amphitheatre was abandoned, buried and not in use anymore, while in the late 4th century AD, a necropolis was set in this area (Nikolić and Bogdanović 2012: 44, Vuković and Bogdanović 2013: 254–255). Fig. 2: Viminacium, the location of the amphitheatre. 67 Close to the bone... VIMINACIUM BONE ANVILS he irst anvil represents an almost complete horizontal beam of a right cattle mandible (ig. 3). It is 222 mm long and 87 mm wide. On both outer and inner lats there are ca. 40 rows of small marks in the shape of triangles with V-shaped cross section. he length of the base of triangular marks is 1.5–2mm and the length of rows varies between 8 and 28 mm. he majority of the rows run parallel to each other, while there are some that cross and run in various directions. he basal rim of this mandible in one of its part is smoothed down. he second anvil was made of a distal cattle metatarsus (ig. 4) and its preserved length is 114 mm, while it is 35 mm wide. he tool is not complete: on the proximal part there is an old breakage, while the lateral condylus was broken in the course of excavations. he anterior and posterior sides of the diaphysis of this metatarsal bone had been whittled down and smoothed prior to its usage. On both the anterior and posterior sides there are rows of triangle dents with V-shaped cross section: 6 on the anterior and 12 on the posterior side. he dents are 1.5–2 mm long, and the rows are ca. 20 mm in length and they follow the entire width of the bone. here are rows which are mutually parallel, but there are also the ones that cross others. Shallow diferently oriented scratches that vary in size have also been noted on both wider sides of this bone. hose marks sometimes run over the incisions, while sometimes incisions also run over them. DISCUSSION he two bones from Viminacium that were used as anvils have diferent features (igs. 3, 4). While the metatarsal bone had been lattened prior to its usage, the mandible outer and inner sides had not been previously prepared. his is probably due to the fact that the mandible has more or less lat sides in contrast to the metatarsus which has a convex shat. he smoothed part of the mandible basal rim represents either use wear marks let by the blacksmith’s grip on the anvil while working, or traces of bone smoothing for the purpose of easier maintenance of the anvil. Both anvils had two active sides. Rows of triangular dents that run across both sides of those bones represent typical use wear marks for bone anvils formed during shaping of sickle teeth (igs. 5, 6). Scratches on metatarsal diaphysis that run across and beneath the rows of dents indicate that this anvil was smoothed down again and reused. Since intensive reusing of anvils during reshaping usually produces breaking of the shat of the bone (Beldiman et al. 2011b: 180) we suggest that this anvil could have been broken in the course of its usage. he metatarsal anvil represents a typical tool of its kind that suggests specialization of the blacksmith. Metapodial bones were the most frequent raw material used for making bone anvils in Roman times, as well as in other periods. he Pantanello anvil (Gál 2010: 9) was also made of cattle metapodial and majority of bone anvils from the Roman sites in Romania (Beldiman et al. Fig. 3: he Viminacium bone anvil made of a right cattle mandibule. Fig. 5: Blacksmith pinking the sickle using a bone anvil, ater Esteban-Nadal & Carbonell Roure (2004: ig. 12). Fig. 4: he Viminacium bone anvil made of a distal cattle metatarsus. 68 S. Vuković-Bogdanović, I. Bogdanović, Late Roman bone anvils from Viminacium Fig. 6: Detail of the process of cutting teeth into a sickle. It is clearly visible how each tooth corresponds to a V-shaped indentation on the bone anvil, ater Esteban-Nadal & Carbonell Roure (2004: ig. 13). Fig. 7: Depiction of Roman soldiers during reaping of cereals on Trajan`s Column in Rome (Scene CX), ater Coarelli (1999: Tav. 133). 2011b) were made of cattle metapodials, too. Mandibles were used as anvils less frequently and similar anvils made of this bone are known from medieval sites in France, Portugal and Marocco (Grau-Sologestoa 2012). Mandibles and metapodial bones usually fall within primary butchery waste (O’Connor 1993), so there is a possibility that they were intentionally segregated at this stage of butchery to be used in blacksmiths workshops as anvils. been discovered in Viminacium area, as well within other Late Roman sites in Serbia (Поповић 1988, Живановић 2013: 57–83, Ilić 2012). he inds of bone anvils certainly complement the picture of developed agriculture in this region. heir presence also suggests the existence of blacksmith workshops, which have not yet been discovered in the area of Viminacium. CONCLUSION REFERENCES he discovery of the bone anvils from Viminacium is a unique inding within the territory of Central Balkans. hese tools are not well known among archaeologists and we argue that there are probably more anvils hidden in the faunal material of other Roman and late Roman sites across Europe. As bone anvils were used during shaping serrated teeth of iron sickles, they are an indirect proof of the existence of these agricultural tools mentioned by Columella (De re rustica II.20.3, Poplin 2013b). Sickles (falx messoria) of diferent types (White 1967: 72–85, 205– 210) have been found on numerous localities throughout the Roman Empire, as well as within the provinces on the territory of Serbia (Поповић 1988: 82–86, Чолаков 2010: 51–56). According to ancient written sources (Varro, De re rustica I.49–50,Columella, De re rustica II.20), depictions on Roman monuments (Поповић 1988: 83, White 1967: 84–85) and ethnographic data (Esteban-Nadal 2003), it is known that sickles were mostly utilized by soldiers and civilians in the reaping of cereals (ig. 7). Viminacium is located in the fertile plains of Stig, where Roman agricultural activities have been attested (Spasić-Đurić 2009: 44–45, Ilić 2012: 14–15, Живановић 2013: 24–25). Several late Roman villae rusticae that represent a key for landownership and agricultural production have already been archaeologically conirmed in the vicinity of this city (Jovičić 2011: 30–43, 60–67, Jovičić 2012). Tools and other inds related to agriculture have Aguirre, A., Etxeberria, F. & Herrasti, L. 2004. El yunque de hueso para ailar la hoz metálica dentada. Munibe. Antropologia-Arkeologia 56: 113–121. Arnăut, T. 2007. Data about a category of bone tools with the function of polishing and shaping. hracia 17: 295–305. Beldiman, C., Eleterescu, D. & Sztancs, D. M. 2011a. La microscopie de l’ancienne technologie: enclumes en os et en bois de cerf découvertes à Ostrov-Durostorum, dép. de Constanţa, Roumanie. Annales d’Université Valahia Targoviste, Section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire13: 59–75. Beldiman, C., Sztancs, D. M., Rusu-Bolindeţ, V. & Achim, I. A. 2011b. Skeletal technologies, metal-working and wheat harvesting: ancient bone and antler anvils for manufacturing saw-toothed iron sickles discovered in Romania. In: Baron, J. & Kufel-Diakowska, B. (eds.): Written in Bones. Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains. Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Instytut Archeologii, Wroclaw: 173–187. Boroneanţ, V. 2005. Scrierea pe oase – o scriere necunoscută identiicată în săpăturile arheologice de la Chitila. Bucureşti.Materiale de istorie şi muzeograie 19: 12–35. Coarelli, F. 1999. La Colonna Traiana. Colombo, Roma. Columella, L. J. M. 1941. On agriculture (De re rustica) (translated by Harrison Boyd Ash). Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. 69 Close to the bone... Чолаков, И. Д. 2010. Римски и ранновизантийски метални инструменти от територията на България (I - началото на VII век). НОУС ЕООД, София. Esteban-Nadal, M. 2003. Ossos de Ferrer mil.lenaris. Actes del II Congrés d’Història d’Alcanar.1, 2 i 3 de desembre de 2000. Ajuntament d’Alcanar, Alcanar: 111–120. Esteban-Nadal, M. & Carbonell Roure, E. 2004. Sawtoothed sickles and bone anvils: a medieval technique from Spain. Antiquity 78: 637–646. Gál, E. 2010. Bone Artifacts from the Chora of Metaponto. In: Bartosiewicz, L. (ed.): he Chora of Metaponto 2, Archaeozoology at Pantanello and ive other sites. Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Texas Press, Austin: 71–86. Gál, E. & Bartosiewicz, L. 2012. A radiocarbon-dated bone anvil from the chora of Metaponto, southern Italy. Antiquity 86: Project Gallery article. Gál, E., Kovács, E., Kováts, I. & Zimborán, G. 2010. Early Medieval (10th–13th century) Bone Anvils from Hungary: another example for the use of animal bones. In: Gömöri, J. & Kőrösi, A. (eds.): Bone and Leather. History, Archaeology and Ethnography of Crats Utilizing Raw Materials from Animals. Nemzeti Kulturális Alap, Budapest: 117–127. Grau-Sologestoa, I. 2012. Agriculture and ironwork in the Middle Ages: new evidence of bone anvils in Spain. MUNIBE (Antropologia-Arkeologia) 63: 305–319. Ilić, O. 2012. Poljoprivredna proizvodnja u rimskim provincijama na tlu Srbije od I do polovine V veka. Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Jovičić, M. 2011. Vile rustike na teritoriji Viminacijuma. Unpublished MA thesis. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Jovičić, M. 2012. Late Roman Villa on the Site Livade kod Ćuprije - A Contribution to the Study of Villae Rusticae in the Vicinity of Viminacium. Arheologija i prirodne nauke 7 (2011): 369–385. Mirković, M. 1968. Rimski gradovi na Dunavu u Gornjo Meziji. Beograd. Nikolić, S. & Bogdanović, I. 2012. Istraživanja viminacijumskog amiteatra u toku 2011. godine. In: Bikić, V., Golubović, S. & Antonović, D. (eds.): Arheologija u Srbiji: Projekti Arheološkog instituta u 2011. godini. Beograd: 42–45. O’Connor, T. P. 1993. Process and Terminology in Mammal Carcass Reduction. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3: 63–67. Poplin, F. 2007. Des os supports à denter les faucilles: une longue histoire technologique dans le bassin de la Méditerranée et de la mer Noir. Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de France 2007 (2009): 215–221. Poplin, F. 2013a. Des os supports/afûts à denter les faucilles. Instrumentum 37: 12. Poplin, F. 2013b. La faucille falx veruculatadenticulata de Columelle: une énigme bien verrouillée. In: Anderson, P. C., Cheval, C. & Durand, A. (eds.): Regards croisés sur les outils liés au travail des végétaux. An interdisciplinary focus on plant-working tools. XXXIIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes: 49–60. Поповић, И. 1988. Античко оруђе од гвожђа у Србији. Народни музеј, Београд. Поповић, В. 1968. Увод у топографију Виминацијума. Старинар XVIII: 29–49. Rodet-Belarbi, I., M. Esteban Nadal, V. Forest, M. Moreno Garcia & Pimenta, C. 2007. Des aiguissoirs/ polissoirs aux enclumes en os: l’historiographie des os piquetés. Archéologie Médiévale 37: 157–67. Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric technology. Barnes & Noble, New York. Spasić-Đurić, D. 2009. Viminacijum – glavni grad rimske provincije Gornje Mezije. Narodni muzej, Požarevac. Varro, M. T. & Cato, M. C. 1967. On agriculture (Work by Cato entitled: De agricultura; byVarro, Rerum rusticarum.). (Translated by William Davis Hooper, rev. by Harrison Boyd Ash). Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. Vuković, S. & Bogdanović, I. 2013. A Camel Skeleton from the Viminacium Amphitheatre. Starinar 63: 251– 267. White, K.D. 1967. Agricultural implements of the Roman world. Cambridge University Press, London. Живановић, Ј. 2013. Производња, увоз и дистрибуција житарица у римском пeриоду на тлу провинције Горње Мезије. Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. Aknowledgements: his paper is the result of the following projects: Viminacium, Roman city and military camp – research of the material and non material culture of inhabitants by using the modern technologies of remote detection, geophysics, GIS, digitalization and 3D visualization (No. III 47018) and Bioarchaeology of Ancient Europe – humans, animals and plants in the prehistory of Serbia (No. III 47001), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. 70 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Ariel Shatil, he Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel Björn Briewig, German institute of Archaeology, Berlin, Germany Christian Casseyas, Laboratoire d’ archéologie expérimentale, Préhistomuseum, Flemalle, Belgium Christopher Arabatzis, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland Corneliu Beldiman, University of Piteşti, Faculty of Socio-Humanistic Sciences, Department of History, Piteşti, Romania. Dan Lucian Buzea, National Museum of the Eastern Carpathians, Sf. Gheorghe, Covasna County, Romania Diana-Maria Sztancs, Central High School, Bucharest, Romania Diego Rivero, CONICET – Área de Arqueología y Etnohistoria del Centro de Estudios Históricos “Prof. Carlos S. A. Segreti”, Córdoba, Argentina Elisabetta Grassi, Dipartimento di Scienze della Natura e del Territorio, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Italia Erik Hrnčiarik, Trnavská univerzita v Trnave, Filozoická fakulta, Katedra klasickej archeológie, Trnava, Slovakia Erika Gál, Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary Éva David, CNRS Laboratoire Préhistoire et technologie, Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France Felix Lang, University of Salzburg, Deportment of Classical Studies / Archaeology, Salzburg, Austria George Nuțu, Eco-Museum Research Institute, Tulcea, Romania Giedrė Piličiauskienė, Lithuanian Institute of History, Kražių 5, Vilnius, Lithuania Gilberto Pérez-Roldan, Escuela de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico Gordana Jeremić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Grzegorz Osipowicz, Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland Heidi Luik, Institute of History, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia Hrvoje Kalafatić, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, Croatia Ian Riddler, independent researcher, Stratton, Cornwall, UK Isabelle Sidéra, CNRS, laboratoire Préhistoire et technologie, Maison Archéologie et Ethnologie, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La défense, France Ivan Bogdanović, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Ivan Bugarski, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Jean-Marc Léotard, Service Public de Wallonie, DG04 Direction de Liège 1, Service de l’Archéologie, Belgium Justin Bradield, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Campus, Johannesburg, South Africa Justyna Baron, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland Justyna Orłowska, Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland Kinga Winnicka, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland Louisa Gidney, Archaeological Services, University of Durham, UK Marcin Diakowski, Institute of Archaeology, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland Marija Mihaljević, Municipal Museum Nova Gradiška, Croatia Marina Kovač, Museum of Slavonia, Osijek, Croatia Mario Novak, Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia Marius Gheorghe Barbu, Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation, Deva, Romania Matías E. Medina, CONICET-Área de Arqueología y Etnohistoria del Centro de Estudios Históricos “Prof. Carlos S. A. Segreti”, Córdoba, Argentina Mihaela Maria Barbu, Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilisation, Deva, Romania Mira Ružić, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia Miriam Selene Campos Martínez, Escuela de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico Mislav Čavka, University Hospital Dubrava, Zagreb, Croatia Monica Mărgărit, Valahia University of Târgoviste, Romania Natacha Buc, CONICET-Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, Argentina Nemanja Marković, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Nicola Trzaska-Nartowski, independent researcher, Stratton, Cornwall, UK Paul Stokes, St. Cuthbert’s Society University of Durham, Durham, UK Pierre de Maret, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgique Pierre van der Sloot, Service Public de Wallonie, DG04 Direction de Liège 1, Service de l’Archéologie, BelgiumChristian Casseyas, Laboratoire d’ archéologie expérimentale, Préhistomuseum, Flemalle, Belgium 395 Close to the bone... Rajna šošić Klindžić, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia Saša Redžić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Selena Vitezović, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Simina Margareta Stanc, Faculty of Biology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iaşi, Romania Siniša Radović, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Quaternary Paleontology and Geology, Zagreb, Croatia Soija Petković, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Sonja Stamenković, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Sonja Vuković-Bogdanović, Laboratory of Bioarchaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, University of Belgrade, Serbia Steven P. Ashby, Departament of Archaeology, University of York, York, UK Tajana Sekelj Ivančan, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, Croatia Tatjana Tkalčec, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb, Croatia Tomasz Stolarczyk, Copper Museum in Legnica, Poland Toni Čerškov, Institute for the cultural heritage preservation, Niš, Serbia Vesna Bikić, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, Serbia Vesna Manojlović Nikolić, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of History, University of Novi Sad, Serbia Vinayak, Centre for Historical Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India Zlatko Kovancaliev, NI Stobi, Archaeological site Stobi, Gradsko, FYR Macedonia 396 397