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 BONE CYLINDRICAL OBJECTS FROM STOBI Zlatko Kovancaliev Abstract: A group of 18 bone objects found at the Early Byzantine complex at Stobi deserve special attention because of their disputable use. he same objects are found at many Early Byzantine sites in the Balkans, and are usually interpreted as knife handles. Some scholars consider these objects as part of looms, where they serve as heddle holders. hey are cylindrical, perforated in the middle, with rectangular cutting at one end. heir surface is always decorated with incised lines, and circle and dot motif. A newly discovered object at Stobi with a rectangular supplement inserted in the cutting, fully discards their identiication as knife handles. Most of the objects have use wear traces which support the possible idea as heddle holders or at least some usage with a thread. Presenting the context of the inds, this is another attempt to understand their exact function. Apstrakt: Grupa od 18 predmeta pronađena u ranovizantijskom kompleksu u Stobima zaslužuje posebnu pažnju oko interpretacije njihove upotrebe. Istovetni predmeti su pronađeni u brojnim ranovizantijskim lokalitetima na Balkanu, i obično su interpretirani kao drške noževa. Pojedini stručnjaci smatraju da se radi o delovima tkalačkog stana, odnosno da su služili kao držači za predivo. Ovi su predmeti cilindrični, perforirani po sredini i sa pravougaonim usekom na jednom kraju. Njihove su površine uvek ukrašene urezanim linijama i motivom kruga sa tačkom u sredini. Novootkriveni predmet sa Stoba sa pravougaonim dodatkom koji je usađen u usečeni deo u potpunosti negira identiikaciju ovih predmeta kao drški za noževe. Većina ovih artefakata ima tragove upotrebe koji podržavaju pretpostavku da su korišćeni u vezi sa preradom vlakana. U radu će biti predstavljen i kontekst nalaza, kao još jedan pokušaj razumevanja njhove tačne funkcije. INTRODUCTION GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE DISCOVERED OBJECTS Stobi is one of the most excavated and best preserved archaeological sites from the Roman and Late Antique period in the R. of Macedonia. It is located in the central part of the R. of Macedonia, some 80 km south from Skopje, along the European route E-75, at the conluence of the river Crna into the river Vardar (ancient Erigon and Axios). Its position between two rivers has provided a long history of habitation, starting from the late Bronze Age until the 6th century A.D. At the time of Augustus the city becomes an oppidum civium Romanorum, and soon ater, during the 1st century A.D. gains the rank of municipium, thus minting its own coins (Папазоглу 1957: 235; Wiseman 1986: 40). In the early 4th century A.D. Stobi became an episcopal seat, and the irst conirmed bishop, Budios, took part in the ecumenical council in Nicea in 325 A.D. At the end of the 4th century, with the partition of the province Macedonia, Stobi enters into the newly established province, Macedonia Salutaris. Soon ater, in early 5th century, it is renamed Macedonia Secunda, in which Stobi is most probably the capital city (Wiseman 1986: 41-42). he last phase of the urban development of the city is marked with a decline of economic power, reducing of the occupied area for living and constructing more modest buildings. he life continued until the last decade of the 6th century A.D., when the population withdrew and the city was abandoned. he large earthquakes, the frequent attacks of the Avars and Slavs combined with the climatic changes probably were the main reasons for abandoning the city (Folk 1973: 51-57). At the highest terrace of the site, above the Semicircular square and across the Episcopal Basilica, an area of some 7500 square meters has been excavated, in which almost ten buildings from the 6th century AD are deined. Few of the buildings revealed above the cavea of the theater belong to the same urban phase. Except a small part excavated earlier in the 70’s, the rooms 31 and 32 in House of the Fuller (Wiseman & Mano-Zisi 1974: 139; Mikulčić 1981: 214) most of the buildings in this area were discovered in the period between 2009 and 2010 as part of the capital project funded by the government of the Republic of Macedonia. he following years of excavation until 2013, have resulted in an uncovering of a segment of the Early Byzantine city of Stobi. he complex is composed of private houses, workshops, and shops. he houses are organized along the main street, divided with narrow alleys, and the workshops and shops are located around the Semicircular Court. he buildings have beaten earth loors, some have two stories, with walls made of stones in the lower zones, mud bricks in the upper zones, and covered with roofs made of tiles. he movable inds, clearly identify the function of some rooms as kitchens, workshops or storage facilities. During the excavations of this Early Byzantine complex, at loor levels in closed context, eighteen cylindrical objects of bone are discovered which are subject of research in this study. Nine of them are fully preserved, eight are partly damaged, and only one object is preserved in fragments. he special analysis on the objects from Stobi has not been done yet, but many identical with them, widely discov- 160 Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi ered at the Balkans, are identiied by researchers as objects made of red deer antler. A huge number of such objects are known from the territory of Bulgaria (Владкова 2002: 97, T. II, 53; Владкова 2006: 264, Pl. III, 4-6, 10, 11; Владкова 2009: 214-215, Т. VI, 6-9; Vladkova 2012: 218, Pl. IV, 29-31; Койчева 2000: 248-257, T. VIII, IX) and Serbia (Јанковић 1983: 135, kat. br. 222-226; Petković 1995: 49, T. XXXVI, 4-6; Špehar 2010: kat. br. 201-202, sl. 45). Only a few have been published from other sites in Macedonia (Георгиев 1989: 209, сл. 5, 5; Канзурова Стојанова 2009: сл. 4, ж, з, ѕ). All are closely dated, starting from the second half of the 4th century AD and continuing until the end of the 6th century AD. All eighteen objects from Stobi are found on loor levels from the last urban phase of the Early Byzantine city, dated in the second half of the 6th century AD hree hoards (Stobi E, F, G) are discovered in this settlement, and the latest coins found in two of them are minted during the reign of Mauricius in 584 – 585 AD (Hadji - Maneva 2009: 113). Greater part of the objects are found as singular inds in a room, in two cases two objects are found in one room, and only in one case even three objects in one room. Fig. 1. Incised decoration continues on the rectangular supplement. CHARACTERISTICS All of the objects have three mutual characteristics: cylindrical shape, rectangular cutting at one end, and longitudinal perforation in the middle. he spongy structure of the antler was ideal and a good starting point for long perforations. he longest is 6.2 cm, and the shortest is 4.8 cm, but most of the objects diferentiate only in millimetres. he diameter at one end is wider and it gradually becomes narrower to the other one, probably following the natural shape of the antler. he section is mostly oval, rarely circular and only in one example (Pl. I: 5) is hexagonal. Very rare as it is (Fig. 6; Pl. I: 15), the cylindrical object is found together with a rectangular supplement which perfectly its into the rectangular cutting. he objects’ surfaces are always decorated with incised lines. Generally the markings consist of incised cross wise lines (two, three or four parallel lines) which divide the surface of the object in two or three zones. hese two or three zones can be illed with crossed lines, diagonal lines, some combined with the circle and dot motif, or rarely, let blank (Pls I-II). he motifs are similar, but there are no objects with identically covered surface, nor objects without decoration. During the process of incision on one object, the rectangular supplement was inserted so part of the cross wise lines continues to its surface (Fig. 1). Judging by the surface observation possible illing with black colour into the incised lines can be noted at three objects (Fig. 2, a-c). Chemical analysis is not made to conirm the colouring, because these traces can be a result of charcoal presence or minerals in the soil, where the objects were found. Fig. 2. Possible illing with black color into the incised lines, photos made using digital microscope Celestron with 10 times magniication. DISCUSSION OF FUNCTIONALITY When researchers discover these objects, they oten identify them as knife handles, as their shape and decoration at irst glance really look like a nicely carved bone handle. But careful analysis ofers a little basic information which fully discards their eventual usage as knife handles. Firstly, the length of the Stobi objects does not reach more than 6.2 cm, therefore cut handling with a short handle makes the process of cutting more diicult and requires greater power and strength. Besides that, if the blade is broken of, the tang would retain into the cutting or into the longitudinal perforation, or traces of corrosion by the metal, which ocurr as a result of a contact of bone with corroding metak, would be noted at least at some of the examples. Also there is no cylindrical object with a metal blade found yet, but there are examples where a rectangular supplement is inserted into the cutting. Such cylinder object with an inserted rectangular supplement was excavated in 1974 at Stobi (Inv. no. MF-74-52, currently kept in the depots of the Archaeological museum in Skopje and unavailable for studying). It is worth mentioning that it was found at the same loor level with another similar object (Pl. I: 2). he next example (Pl. I: 3) was discovered in 2009, and the rectangular supplement was found the next year when the excavations continued in the same room. he most interesting of all is the object with Inv. no. РН-12-03 found in situ in 2012 (Pl. I: 15) with the 161 Close to the bone... Fig. 3. Horizontal treadle operated loom from 20th century in the ethnological exhibition in Museum of Macedonia. Courtesy of Museum of Macedonia (photo Zlatko Kovancaliev). rectangular supplement (2.1 x 1.8 cm) inserted into the cutting. Other similar cylindrical objects with inserted rectangular supplement are known from the site Novae near Veliko Trnovo in R. of Bulgaria (Vladkova 2012: Pl. IV, 29-31). Only with the usage of these rectangular supplements it is reasonable to have the cutting at one end. On the question why great part of the cylindrical objects are found without these supplements, the answer probably lies in their small dimensions, so they are rarely noted by the excavators, or the possibility of being made of wood, and therefore are not preserved. In 1983, the cylindrical objects from Gamzigrad in Serbia got a diferent interpretation from the one as knife handles. he archaeologist Ðorđe Janković identiies them as objects used in weaving, but he does not provide additional information for the way of use or about the context of discovery as conirmation of this theory (Јанковић 1983: 135, kat. 222-226). Much later, in 2000, Kina Koičeva published 13 from the 19 discovered such objects at the site Gradište near Gabrovo in Bulgaria (Койчева 2000: T. VIII, IX). She puts them in the group of objects with an unknown function, and her arguments against the identiication as knife handles are as follows: “the large width of the cutting and the longitudinal perforation, cannot ensure stability during work with an instrument; the diameter of the perforation sometime exceed 10 mm size which is not conirmed at the tang of metal knifes; there are no traces of corrosion at the surface; the use wear traces and deformation at the base of the cutting most probably are result of contact with sot materials such as leather or thread” (Койчева 2000: 248250). his is also the irst time some researcher to note the use wear traces at the bottom of the cutting. Later, Pavlina Vladkova agrees with Jankovićs’ identiication as objects used for weaving, and for the cylindrical objects discovered at the Early Byzantine sites in Bulgaria, says that they are part of a horizontal loom, where they serve to hold the thread while opening the heddles (Владкова 2002: 97, T. II, 53; Владкова 2006: 264, Pl. III, 4-6, 10, 11; Владкова 2009: 214-215, Т. VI, 6-9; Vladkova 2012: 218, Pl. IV, 29-31). Vladkova says that Janković ascertained this identiication on the basis of ethnographic parallels, but unfortunately in his paper there are no such parallels. Although she adds that inds that can be connected with spinning and weaving are discovered with them, but she is not precise about which. Despite Janković and Vladkova identifying the cylindrical objects as objects for weaving, it remains unclear how they were functioning or how the loom in which they were implemented looks like. Judging by the description which Vladkova gives, she alludes to a horizontal treadle operated loom, where the cylindrical objects serve as pulleys of the heddles, similar to the looms of the 20th century (Fig. 3). However, the oldest illustration of this kind of loom dates from the middle of the 13th century A.D. (Wild 1987: Fig. 1). herefore any assumption for the existence of the horizontal loom with treadles in the 6th century, based only by the cylindrical objects is too audacious and unreliable. John Peter Wild in his study 162 Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi of Roman textiles proves that horizontal looms already existed in 250 A.D. (Wild 1987). If the cylindrical objects were integral parts of a loom as Janković and Vladkova suggest, it is possible that it was horizontal but without treadles. Again, he remains uncertain regarding its way of functioning and what kind of textiles were woven using it. Another piece of information that supports their relation with looms or household production of textiles is the context of their disFig. 5. Deer antler found with cylindrical object and four spindle. covery. Depositing knives in graves is a common practice, but neither at 9), and two more (Pl. II: 10-11) also together in a same Stobi nor other sites, there is no case where this type of room. With the excavations in 2011, in a small area in a object is found in a burial. his deinitely suggests that room, three cylindrical objects were found (Pl. II, 12-14), their usage should be sought in some of the household ac- together with two spindle whorls (Fig. 4, 10-11). Judging tivities. Despite that, all cylindrical objects from Stobi are by these contexts, it can be concluded that the process of found in settlement contexts, and very oten, at the same spinning was certainly active in most of the rooms where loor levels, even a few stone spindle whorls have been these objects are discovered. found. Two of them (Pl. I: 2; and Inv. no. MF-74-52, now in Archaeological Museum in Skopje) are found together Use wear traces with four steatite spindle whorls (Fig. 4, 1-4). In another he possibility that their function is closely related case there are three steatite spindle whorls, one bronze with usage of threads is conirmed by the longitudinal spindle whorl (Fig. 4, 5-8) a fragmented roe deer antler perforation in the cylindrical objects and the perforation (Fig. 5) and a cylindrical object (Pl. I: 3). Two others (Pl. into the rectangular supplements. hey are made in the I: 4, 17) are found with one stone spindle whorl (Fig. 4, same direction and perfectly it together (Fig. 6). If they were not made for passing a thread, their manufacture is absolutely useless. As an additional argument of the usage with threads are the use wear traces in the form of semi-circular depressions at the base of the cuttings. Fig. 6. Cylindrical object with rectangular supplement inserted into the cutting. a) side view, b) top view, c) bottom view. Fig. 4. Spindle whorls found at loor levels with the cylindrical objects. hey are most clearly visible at the edges, at the corners (Fig. 7, a-d), and sometimes several run from one corner to the other (Fig. 7, e-h), or set in a shape of a wide centrally positioned depression. Most of them are even visi- 163 Close to the bone... lar with the one implemented in the later horizontal looms with treadles. If the cylindrical objects were an integral part of the loom, judging by the use wear traces at the bottom of the cutting and their perforations, the possible way of usage is as follows (Fig. 8): he cylindrical object is set vertically, with the cutting upwards, and thread (Fig. 8, thread No. 1) is tied in a knot at the lower end and passes through the perforation of the cylindrical object and the perforation of the rectangular supplement and holds them Fig. 7. Semicircular depressions on the base of the cuttings, photos made using digital microscope at one axis. his way the recCelestron with 10 times magniication. tangular supplement can be easily lited and lowered but it ble with the naked eye, although a much better view can remains unclear what the thread is tied at the top. be achieved if they are studied with microscope. hese Another two threads (Fig. 8, threads Nos. 2-3) are tied use wear traces unequivocally point out that they are a result of extensive use and friction of a tight thread into with a knot at the upper side of the supplement; they pass through its perforation and continue along the sides of the bone. the cylindrical object. At the lower end they eventually hold the heddle of the loom. hus when the rectangular CONCLUSIONS AND POSSIBLE USAGE supplement is lited, the possible heddle also lits, and a OF THE OBJECTS shed in the warp threads is formed. When they are lowIn this phase of research, when we are lacking illus- ered, the weight of the heddle tightens the thread and trations or descriptive material from that period, we can results in forming semi-circular depressions, which are only assume how the looms from the 4th and 6th century normally most visible at the edges. he search for antique or contemporary examples of A.D. looked like. Probably the way of raising the heddles and opening the shed was very simple, but is also simi- these kind of objects used in a horizontal loom have not resulted with success. he implemented methodology in this study is just an attempt to understand the possible way in which the cylindrical objects were used. he achieved results are not inal; they derive from the data available until present day. he future excavations and research will add to these results and will surely bring us forward to a more accurate interpretation of the function and underFig. 8. Possible usage of the cylinstanding of these objects. drical object and the rectangular supplement using threads (drawing Z. Kovancaliev). 164 Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi Plate I. 165 Close to the bone... Plate II. 166 Z. Kovancaliev, Bone cylindrical objects from Stobi REFERENCES Folk, R. L. 1973. he Geologic Framework of Stobi. In: Wiseman J. (ed.): Studies in the antiquities of Stobi, Vol. I, Beograd: 37-57. Hadji–Maneva, M. 2009. Early Byzantine Coin Circulation in Macedonia Secunda. Cercetări numismatice Vol. XV: 107–32. Mikulčić, I. 1981. Some new factors in the history of Stobi. In: Aleksova, B. & Wiseman, J. (eds.): Studies in the antiquities of Stobi, Vol. III, Titov Veles: 215-228. Vladkova, P. 2012. On the Working of Bone and Horn in Novae. In: Vagalinski L. et al. (eds.), he Lower Danube Roman Limes (1st-6th C. AD), Soia: 211-250. Wild, P.J. 1987. he Roman Horizontal Loom. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 91, No. 3: 459-471. Wiseman, J. & Mano-Zisi, D. 1974. Excavations at Stobi, 1973-1974. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 1, No. 1/2: 117-148. Wiseman, Ј. 1986. Archaeology and History at Stobi, Macedonia. In: McClendon, C. B. (ed.) Rome and the Provinces. New Haven Society of the Archaeological Institute of America: 37-50. Владкова, П. 2002. Предмети од кост и рог от Царевец. Юбилеен сборник доклади и научни съобщения от петите музейни четения на Регионален исторически музей, Велико Търново: 93-105. Владкова, П. 2006. Обработка на кост и рог в съвременните български земи през римската и късноантичната епоха (Историография, извори, терминология, работилници, технология, класификация). In: Иванов, Р. (ed.): Археология на българските земи. Том 2, Софија: 245-285. Владкова, П. 2009. Находки од кост и рог от Градиштето. Разкопки и Проучвания, Кн. XXXIX: 207-255. Георгиев, З. 1989. Градиште, с. Пчиња – Доцноантички и Рановизантиски Кастел. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 10: 199-214. Јанковић, Ђ. 1983. У сутону антике, Рановизантијски Гамзиград, Словенски Град. In: Ђелић, С. (ed.): Гамзиград. Касноантички Царски Дворац, Галерија Српске Академије Наука и Уметности, Београд: 98160. Канзурова Стојанова, Е. 2009. Предмети од коска од археолошкиот локалитет Големо Градиште, с. Коњух (археолошки истражувања 2001-2006). Музејски Гласник 5, Кратово: 55-70. Койчева, K. 2000. Костни изделия от ранновизантийската епоха. Известия на Националния Исторически Музей, Том ХІ: 237-261. Папазоглу, Ф. 1957. Македонски градови у римско доба, Жива Антика, Посебна Издања Књига I, Скопје. Acknowledgments:he research is part of a master thesis supervised by Prof. Marjan Jovanov, and defended at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje. I would like to thank Silvana Blaževska director of the excavations at Stobi, for giving me the opportunity to study the new material. hanks are also due to NI Stobi colleagues Dimitar Nikolovski and Goce Pavlovski for their comments and irst revision of the English text, and to Mariana Filova about the drawings. he inal editing of the English text was done by Mikel Wein, to whom I owe many thanks. he authors’ participation on the 10th ICAZ WBRG meeting was funded by National Institution for Management of the Archaeological Site of Stobi. 167 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