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