kliknij aby powiększyć

Anna Drzewicz

"Wyroby z kości i poroża z osiedla obronnego ludności kultury łużyckiej w Biskupinie"

Format A4, s.142, 65 tablic z ilustracjami
(fotografie barwne i czarno-białe, tablice, tabele, ryciny),
streszczenie w jęz. angielskim

ISBN 83-89100-43-6

Spis treści / Contents

PRZEDMOWA
I. UWAGI WSTĘPNE
II. KOŚĆ I POROŻE
III. KLASYFIKACJA I ANALIZA WYROBÓW Z KOŚCI I POROŻA
Kategoria 1: narzędzia
- Grupa A: narzędzia kopieniacze
- Grupa B: gładziki łyżwowate
- Grupa C: skrobacze
- Grupa D: młotki
- Grupa E: szydła
- Grupa F: rylce
- Grupa G: dłuta
- Grupa H: uchwyty i ich elementy
Kategoria 2: broń
- Grupa A: groty oszczepów-włóczni
- Grupa B: grociki strzał
Kategoria 3: części uzdy końskiej
- Grupa A: wędzidła
- Grupa B: pobocznice
- Grupa C: krążki z poroża
Kategoria 4: ozdoby
- Grupa A: paciorki z poroża
- Grupa B: wisiorki i amulety
IV. SUROWIEC I JEGO OBRÓBKA
V. UWAGI KOŃCOWE
TABELE
BIBLIOGRAFIA
ANTLER AND BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE LUSATIAN CULTURE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT IN BISKUPIN (ABSTRACT)
RYCINY/FIGURES
TABLICE/PLATES
FOTOGRAFIE/PHOTOS

ANTLER AND BONE ARTEFACTS FROM THE LUSATIAN CULTURE FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT IN BISKUPIN

ABSTRACT

The present study focuses on selected issues associated with production of antler and bone artefacts in Lusatian culture during the Hallstatt period. Analysis is made of antler and bone objects recovered at the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt C) fortified settlement at Biskupin, district Żnin, in North-Eastern part of Great Poland, excavated in the years 1934-1939, 1941-1942, 1946-1960, 1966, 1970-1974. Nest to pottery and consumption debris, antler and bone are the largest category of finds registered at the site.

Due to the wartime depredations and poor storage conditions in the post-1945 period a large number of antler and bone artefacts was lost; some of the surviving material is no longer valuable as a source of information because records of its stratigraphy is missing. Moreover, over long years in storage some of the ?Lusatian? artefacts became mixed up with finds from other periods, mainly Early Medieval material. With the patchy stratigraphic record insubstantial typological and chronological variations of some forms (eg Awls and Gravers) made identification of all antler and bone objects belonging to Lusatian culture impossible. All that remains at present of Lusatian antler and bone objects from Biskupin probably represents only a quarter of all evidence of this type recovered at the site.

The analysis focused on the entire currently available material, attributable relatively soundly to Lusatian culture: 981 artefacts and their fragments, 372 waste pieces, fragments of unworked antler and bone and roughouts of obscure form and function.

The material was classified into four categories: Tools, Weapons, Parts of Horses Bridle, and Ornaments, some of which are further subdivided into types and subtypes. The classification based on the criterion of morphology and the function ? identified or inferred ? of individual artefacts.

CATEGORY 1: TOOLS

Group A: Foraging and Farming tools

Type I: Hoes

Represented by 31 specimens, all from red deer antler (Plate III:1-6; IV:1). In most pieces the handle is fashioned from the main beam by cutting off the antler 20-30 cm above the base. The working section, modelled from the brow tine (Plate XXII), is between 8 to 30 cm long; the blade is either chisel-like ? 20 (Plate III:1-3, 5; IV:1), pointed ? 4 (Plate III:6), or bevelled ? 2 (Plate III:4; Photo 2). W. of Blade: 1.5 and 3.0 cm. Antler hoes were probably used in farming for loosening the soil and in other tasks, as well as in foraging, eg, turning up roots and tubers.

Type II: Hoe-like tools

Represented by 58 specimens (Plate IV:2-8, 12; Photo 5). Most pieces are fashioned from the brow tine, cut off from the main beam right next to the fork (Plate XXII). The blade is pointed or chisel-like (18 and 39 pieces respectively). L. 12-33 cm.. Hoe-like tools presumably were a type of hoe (to judge from the form of the blade and traces of use-wear), used in foraging and farming.

Type III: Digging tools with a straight blade

Represented by 8 specimens (Plate V:1-4; XXII, Photo 7). Fashioned form straight or slightly bowed red deer antler tines. L. 16-28 cm. Typically the blade is blunt, parallel to the longer axis of the tool, circular in lateral cross-section. Six specimens have hollow mortises. Use-wear suggests that this type of tool was used in digging furrows and holes when planting legumes, less often, in foraging, or as hoes for loosening the soil.

Group B: Spatulae

Represented by 94 entire and fragmented specimens (Plate V:5-11; VI:1-4; VII:1-2). Analysis made of 75 pieces determined the following bone type: radial bone ? 73 (97.3%), tibia and humerus ? 1 each (Table 3). Species composition was identified for 72 pieces: Red deer ? 42 (58.3%), Roe deer ? 1 (1.4%), Horse ? 2 (2.8%), Sheep / Goat ? 6 (8.3%), Cattle ? 13 (18.1%), Dog ? 1 (1.4%), Pig /Wild Boar ? 7 (9.7%) (Table 2). L. 25-34 cm, W. of shaft, ? 3.2-4.5 cm. Spatulae were manufactured from radial bones (Photo 8) simply by removing with a sharp tool the anterior surface of the proximal end of the bone and the radial protuberance below it. The distal end was left unworked. The working surface covers from 1/2 to 3/4 of the length of the bone (Photo 9). Its appearance suggests that the objects were used in working soft organic materials, eg, cloth and pelts.

Group C: Scrapers

Represented by 123 specimens (Plate VI:5-11; VII:3-14; VIII:1-5; Photo 10). Analysis made of 109 specimens determined the following species composition and bone type: Red deer: ribs ? 101 (92.7%), tibia ? 1 (0.9%), metapodial bone ? 1 (0.9%); Roe deer radials ? 1 (0.9%), cattle ribs ? 5 (4.6%) (Tables 2, 3); 2 pieces were made of red deer antler. Scrapers were fashioned from the rib shaft by cutting off the rib head and the distal end (Photo 11). The rounded blade was modelled probably by polishing on a whetstone. L. 10-33 cm, W. 1.5-3.0 cm. Experiments suggest various scraper use, eg. moulding and burnishing pottery, stripping bark, cleaning the flesh side of pelts.

Group D: Hammers

Represented by 34 finished specimens ? entire and fragmented ? as well as roughouts, all made of Red deer antler (Plate VIII:6-11; IX:1-7). Four types may be distinguished:

Type I: Hammers with the hammer face fashioned from the antler base

Represented by 22 pieces (Plate VIII:6-11; IX:6-7; Photo 14), fashioned from the lower beam section. The hammer face is formed by the compact substance originally forming the base of the antler beam (Plate XXIV). Panes were fashioned by making a lateral cut through the beam. Additional reinforcement was provided by driving a tenon of tough antler into a mortise formed by removing the spongy substance (Plate VIII:9). L. of Hammers: 11-19 cm; D. of Hammer face: 4.0-6.5 cm; D. of Hammer pane: 3.0-5.5 cm. Rectangular shaft-hole: 3.0-5.0 x 4.0-6.5 cm.

Type II: Hammers formed by bifacial truncation and having a sheath-reinforced shaft

Represented by 1 finished specimen and 1 roughout (Plate IX:1-2). Fashioned from the middle section of the beam cut off at both ends (Plate XXIV); the hammer face and pane are reinforced with a tenon. The shaft is additionally reinforced by sheath made from a fragment of the bez or the trez tine. L. 11 and 15 cm; D. of Pane and Hammer face: 3.0-4.6 cm. Shaft-hole: 3.0 x 2.1 cm and 1.5 x 2.4 cm.

Type III: Hammers formed by bifacial truncation

Represented by 2 finished specimens (Plate IX:4-5) and a roughout (Plate IX:3). Fashioned from the middle section of the beam and fragment of tine (Plate XXIV). Hammer face and pane reinforced with tenons (Photo 15). L. 12-13 cm; D. of Hammer pane and face: 2.1-3.3 cm. Rectangular shaft-hole: 2.7 x 1.2 and 2.1 x 1.2 cm.

Type IV: Axe ? hammers

Represented by 1 specimen (Photo 16). The hammer face is formed from the base of the antler beam, in place of the pane the hammer has a broad axe-like blade. L. 15.8 cm, D. of Hammer face: 3.2 x 5.5 cm; Shaft-hole: 1.3 x 3.0 cm.

Hammers of all the described types presumably were used for specific tasks. Ethnographic studies suggest that like wooden mallets they may have been used for hammering in wooden wedges, propelling chisels, etc. This is indicated by the panes and faces reinforced with tenons of tough compact substance and by use-wear (particularly, marks seen on faces of Type I Hammers) ? minute and shallow dents surrounded by a network of similarly fine fissures.

Group E: Awls

Represented by 193 specimens (Plate IX:8-13; X:1-17; XI:1-17). Deliberate selection of raw material for awl production is evident. Analysis of species composition (67 pieces) and bone type (72 pieces) demonstrated an evident preferences for bone taken from wild animals: Red and Roe deer ? 50 (74.6%), Sheep / Goat ? 7 (10.4%), Cattle ? 2 (3.0%), Horse ? 4 (6.0%), Pig /Wild Boar ? 2 (3.0%), Dog / Wolf ? 1(1.5 %), Dog 1(1.5%); 8 pieces were fashioned from antler (Tables 2, 4). Bone type composition was as follows: Metapodial bones ? 52 (72.2%), ulna ? 8 (11.1%), tibia ? 9 (12.5%), radial ? 1 (ca. 1.4%), femur ? 1 (ca. 1.4%) and fibula ? 1 (ca. 1.4%) (Table 3).

Four main Awl types were distinguished:

Type I: Awls with a bevelled point

Represented by 35 specimens (Plate IX:8-13; X:1-6). The bevelled point was fashioned from the shaft of the long bone by grinding. The Awl head is formed by the unworked end of the bone. L. 9-15 cm. This type of tool was probably used for piercing holes in thick and tough hides.

Type II: Awls from longitudinally split bone

Represented by 108 specimens (Plate X:7-17; XI:1-4). Produced by cutting off one of the ends of the bone, making lengthwise grooves in the compact substance of the bone on opposite sides of the shaft, and splitting the bone (Plate XXV). The point was modelled on a whetstone. Type II Awls may be distinguished into two subtypes:

Subtype IIa: Specimens with the head formed by the natural joint of the proximal end of the long bone (32 pieces), L. 10-15 cm. Their form suggests that they were used for piercing holes or in simple sewing tasks.

Subtype IIb: Specimens with both ends of bone cut off (21 pieces), L. 10-15 cm, fashioned from slender bone splinters. Presumably used for piercing holes in soft and delicate skins or thick cloth, eg. felt, and for pushing the thread through holes made with Type I and IIa Awls.

Type II also includes 55 pieces with a broken off head, not assignable to either of the two subtypes.

Type III: Ulna bone awls

Represented by 11 specimens (Photo 19), the majority fashioned from roe and red deer ulnae (7 pieces). They have a broad natural griping surface formed by the ulnar process, and a slender working section formed by the shaft of the ulna. L. 9.6-14 cm. This type of tools imaginably were highly effective perforators, used on soft skins and thick cloth.

Type IV: Needle awls

Represented by 39 specimens (Plate XI:5-17). Fashioned by splitting off a bone splinter which was later carefully polished on a whetstone. They may have been used for pushing thread through holes and for piercing holes in lighter fabrics, mainly textiles. Type IV awls were distinguished into two subtypes:

Subtype IV a: Specimens with a splayed head. Represented by 11 pieces (Plate XI:5-7). L. 8-11 cm, D. of oval or circular-sectioned shaft: 0.3-0.5 cm.

Subtype IV b: Specimens with a truncated flat head, similar in form to needles. Represented by 21 specimens (Plate XI:8-17). L. 8-10 cm, D. of circular-sectioned shaft: 0.3-0.5 cm.

Group F: Gravers

Represented by 92 specimens (Plate XI:18-25; XII1-6; Photo 20). In form they resemble Awls, only their cutting section is different, broad, steeply bevelled and blunt. Species composition determined for 31 specimens showed prevalence of wild species: Red deer ? 17 (54.9%), Roe deer ? 9 (29%), Hare ? 1 (3.2%), followed by Sheep / Goat ? 2 (6.5%) and Pig /Wild Boar ? 1 (3.2%). A further specimen was fashioned from an animal tooth, 6 pieces, from antler (Tables 2, 4). Analysis of bone type made for 35 specimens showed greater variation: tibia ? 9 (ca. 25.7%), ulna ? 6 (ca. 17.1%), radial ? 3 (ok. 8.5%), metapodial bones ? 12 (ca. 34.2%), fibula ? 2 (ca 5.7%), femur, humerus and rib bone ? 1 each (2.9% each) (Table 3). L. 5-20 cm, D. of Blade: 0.5-0.8 cm. Gravers were probably used for engraving ornaments on pottery.

Group G: Chisels

Represented by 8 fragmented specimens (Plate XIII:3-6): 7 fashioned from antler, 1 from animal bone (Table 4). Their surviving blade section is broken, locally notched owing to use-wear. L. 3.4-7.2 cm, W: 0.8-1.6 cm.

Group H: Hafts and Elements of Hafts

?Elements of Hafts? denote all objects of antler and bone which are a part of the gripping section of objects made of wood, metal and other raw material. In the analysed set they include Handle-liners and Sleeves; hafts were treated as independent Hafts.

Handle-liners (Plate XII:7-10) have the form of flat or slightly curved oval or rectangular plaques made of bone (1 piece), or antler (3 pieces) (Table 4). L. 2.4-3.3 cm, W. 1.8-2.2 cm, Th. 0.4-0.5 cm.

Sleeves are represented by 15 specimens (Plate XII:11-16): antler (14 pieces) and bone (1 piece) (Table 4). H. 2.3-5.2 cm, D. 2.3-3.4 cm.

The described elements helped to reinforce the wooden base of the shaft.

Shafts are represented by 13 specimens (Plate XII:17-20), XIII:1-2), fashioned from antler (11 pieces) and bone (2 pieces), (Table 4). L. 7-15 cm, D. 2.0-2.6 cm.

CATEGORY 2: WEAPONS

Group A: Spearheads

We cannot say at present what to what type of shafted weapon ? one used for throwing or for thrusting ? antler points were originally attached, so they are all referred to here to as Spearheads. The set from Biskupin includes 22 specimens (Plate XIII:7-11; XIV:1-2; Photo 22-23), all from red deer antler. Their form is that of a slender cone, H. 4.5-19 cm, D. 1.25-4.1 cm. Spearheads were produced by cutting off the tip of a trez or crown tine, carefully removing the pearls, drilling a socket for the shaft and sharpening the blade to a point. In some pieces one or two small rivet-holes were drilled near the base of the spearhead; as a last step, the spearhead was polished on a whetstone. Concentrations of spearheads recorded in some of the excavated grid squares at Biskupin were interpreted as evidence of a specialised arrow ? and spearhead making workshop.

Group B: Arrowheads

Represented by 179 specimens (Plate XIV:3-17, XV:1-22; XVI:1-26), 27 made of bone, 152 of antler (Table 4). Arrowheads are distinguished into five Types (depending on the form of their leaf) and Subtypes (hafting method):

Type I: Pin-shaped Arrowheads

Subtype I a: Untanged

Represented by 16 specimens (Plate XIV:3-7; XVI:1-5; Photo 24). In form they are stick-like or spindle-shaped. L. 4.8-6.6 cm, D. 0.3-0.8 cm. Cross-section is typically round, more rarely, oval or polygonal. Sharpened at both ends.

Subtype I b: Tanged

Represented by 73 specimens (Plate XIV:8-17; XVI:6-11). The cone-shaped point passes directly to a carefully executed tang. L. 3.7-10.4 cm, D. of Point 0.4-0.7 cm. Cross-section through the point is round or oval, through the tang ? usually triangular. Regardless of the length of the point the length of the tang is invariably 1-1.5 cm.

Type II: Barbed Arrowheads

Subtype II a: Tanged specimens with a distinct shaft

Represented by 21 specimens (Plate XV:4-10, 16; XVI:14-19). Their distinctly triangular leaf with well defined barbs tapers to a narrow pointed tip. The barbs are variously shaped: in some pieces they are prominent and far apart, in others they are close to the shaft or are only lightly indicated by a groove. In many specimens there is no ridge at all (lentoid section), it is indistinct (roof-like cross-section) or it forms a morphological extension of the shaft which it resembled in cross-section, usually oval. The shaft expands lightly before passing into the tang. L. of Arrowhead 5.0-8.0 cm, W. (between barbs) 0.5-1.5 cm, L. of Shaft: 1.0-1.5 cm.

Subtype II b: Untanged specimens

Represented by 13 specimens (Plate XV: 10-15; XVI:20-24). Their form, technique of execution and size do not differ from Subtype IIa Arrowheads. The main difference is absence of a distinct tang and a different profiling of the shaft, which is either straight or tapers to a pointed end.

Type III: Arrowheads with one barb

Represented by one specimen (currently lost) (Plate XV:17), tanged with a shaft and a single barb.

Type IV: Lancet-shaped Arrowheads

Represented by 4 specimens (Plate XV:20-21) having a lancet-shaped leaf gently passing to a shaft tapering downward. L. 5-7.4 cm.

Type V: Spade-like Arrowheads

Represented by 2 specimens (Plate XV:22). The base of the leaf is at right angles to the tapering tang. L. 5.0 cm, W. 0.95-1.0 cm, Th. 0.5 cm.

A number of grid squares excavated at Biskupin containing a concentration of roughouts, finished arrowheads and raw antler have commonly been interpreted as a workshop of a specialised arrow ? (possibly also bow and spear) ? maker. But the material evidence and records do not confirm activity in Biskupin at this time of an arrowmaker, with a separate working area and specialised tools, dependent for livelihood chiefly on his craft. It is more likely that one or a group of villagers were engaged on a casual basis in arrowmaking, having the skill to manufacture all manner of projectile points and some understanding of ballistics, proficient also in the technique of shaving. A specialist-arrowmaker perhaps, with know-how higher than the average skills of home-production, but still not a full-fledged craftsman-arrowhead maker. The area of accumulated roughouts and raw antler may have been his workplace but probably it cannot be called a ?workshop?, which would suggest a continuous process of production, diverging qualitatively and quantitatively from average domestic production. In sum, archaeological evidence and documentation from Biskupin are insufficient to warrant identifying the concentration of finds associated with antlerworking as an ?arrowmakers workshop?.

CATEGORY 3: PARTS OF HORSES BRIDLE

Group A: Bridle Bits

Antler Bits from Biskupin are two-piece in form. The set of 7 bit-links includes 2 finished and 2 fragmented specimens as well as 3 roughouts (Plate XVII:1-4, 6; Photo 27:1, 3-5). All are roughly cylindrical in form. L. 11.1-13.5 cm. One end tends to be thicker tapering gradually to the other end of the bit-piece. This form of the bit-link is a diagnostic feature of construction of bi-partite Bits.

Group B: Cheek Pieces

Represented by 7 specimens: 2 complete, 5 fragmented (Plate XVII:5, 7, 9; Photo 27:2; 28). They may be distinguished into two main types:

Type I: Bar Cheek Pieces

Represented by 5 specimens. Fashioned from a flat and oblong antler plaque (Plate 9, Photo 27:2). At each end, circular opening. L. 12.7 cm, W. 1.6-2.0 cm, Th.: 0.7-1.1 cm.

Type II: Cheek Pieces with three perforations in the same plane

Represented by 2 specimens: one entire, one fragmented (Plate XVII:5, Photo 28). L. of intact Cheek piece: 15.2 cm, max. W. 2.6 cm, Th.: 1.1-1.2 cm.

Group C: Antler Disc

Represented by a single specimen (Plate XVII:8). In its side faces the piece is pierced by two round-sectioned intersecting perforations. H. of Disc: 1.5 cm, D. 2.7 cm; D. of perforations: 0.9 cm. The piece is interpreted as a separator of head harness straps.

CATEGORY 4: ORNAMENTS

Group A: Beads

Represented by 29 specimens, all made of antler: 13 entire, 2 fragmented and 14 roughouts (Plate XVIII:1-10). H. 1.4-2.8 cm, D. 1.3-1.8 cm.

Beads were distinguished into three types:

Type I: Cylindrical

Type II: Conical

Type III: Barrel-shaped.

Group B: Pendants and Amulets

Represented by 29 specimens (Plate XVIII:11-22; XIX:1-7, 9-10). The majority (20 pieces) are fashioned from animal teeth incisors or canines of, mostly, Dog, Wolf, Bear and Pig / Wild Boar (Plate XVIII:11-14, 16-21; XIX:5-6, 9). Other materials included Rabbit or Hare humerus ? 1 (Plate XVIII:22), Red deer/Cattle scapula ? disc-shaped piece (Plate XVIII:15), Horse wrist bone ? 2 pendant-amulets (Plate XIX:3.7); a cone-shaped pendant was made of obscure bone (Plate XIX:10). Four further items (Plate XIX:1-2, 4) were fashioned from the jawbone of Dog / Wolf (2 pieces), Marten (1 piece) and an unidentified canid or mustelid.

Some isolated antler and bone implements of obscure function is discussed separategd group of artefacts (Plate XIX:11-17, XX, XXI).

Unlike metal, antler and bone were a universally available raw material, easy to work, not requiring complicated treatment or specialised tools. This would explain the substantial chronological and territorial distribution range of antler and bone artefacts, which ? next to pottery ? make up an important element of inventories at open and fortified settlements alike.

Exhibiting little variation in general, antler and bone objects have relatively slight value for chronological determination. This is true particularly of tool forms, which continue occur in fairly similar forms in different areas and different periods. In consequence researchers have the tendency to treat antler and boneworking marginally despite the importance evidently played by antler and bone objects in the life and economy of human communities starting from the Palaeolithic into the medieval period.

The principal material used in production of antler and bone artefacts in Early Iron Age Biskupin was red and roe deer antler (taken from butchered animals as well as shed antler), and bone of wild and domesticated animals. Some groups of artefacts were produced exclusively from antler, others tended to be made of bone.

The material used was mainly the outer, tougher part of antler and bone, ie, compact substance enclosing the inner substance (Plate I).

Animal bone used by the dwellers of Biskupin for toolmaking was predominantly bone of wild species (74.8% of identifies bones), mostly red and roe deer (61.3 and 11.0% respectively). Domesticated animals accounted for just 25.2%; this last percentage includes bones identified as belonging to Dog/Wolf or Pig/Wild Boar, which actually ought to be set apart as a distinct category. Interestingly enough, the reverse is true of species composition of bones associated with food consumption where domesticated species account for 90.58% as opposed to wild species, a mere 9.42%. A similar situation is seen at other sites of Lusatian culture settlement, where participation of wild animal species is less than 10%.

This striking preference for wild animal bone at Biskupin was noticed already by Professor K. Krysiak, who studied the structure of wild versus domesticated animal bone by examining thin sections of roe deer and sheep metatarsals under the microscope. Analysis of similar thin sections made for the purpose of the present study confirmed that the structure of the compact substance, on the quality of which depends the utility of the bone material for tool making, in roe deer and sheep is slightly different. In roe deer, osteons are circular or slightly oval, and have a roughly the same diameter, arranged densely without any regularity; the amount of interstitial substance around the osteons is small (Photo 29). In sheep bone, the number of osteons is smaller in comparison to the interstitial substance, the osteons themselves are smaller, elongated and regularly arranged in layers (Photo 30). The structure of the compact substance of roe deer bone makes it more resistant to mechanical force than that of sheep bone.

This would explain why wild animal bone was preferred at Biskupin, not just because of its higher durability, but also because this material were easier to work and polish. In short, its quality was better of which both the toolmakers and the users were perfectly aware.

At this point it is worth noting the visible shift which occurred in preference for bone material in tool making during the prehistoric period. Bone objects recorded at Neolithic sites in south-central and east-central Poland (Ćmielów, distr. Ostrowiec, Zawichost-Pogórze, distr. Sandomierz, and Gródek Nadbużny, distr. Hrubieszów) were largely of domesticated, mostly cattle and pig, bone. A similar preference is noted at the settlement of the Early Bronze Age Nowa Cerekwia group at Jędrychowice, distr. Głubczyce. Out of 32 fragments of animal bone identified no less than 30 belonged to domestic animals ? cattle, goat and sheep, followed by the horse and pig. On the other hand bone artefacts produced by a Lusatian culture fortified settlement at Słupca, distr. Słupca, showed a 4:3 ratio of wild to domesticated animal bone showing that bone from game animals was more popular, though not as unambiguously as in Biskupin.

The described shift from a preference for domesticated to wild animal bone as material used in bone tool production may be a part of a more far-reaching, perhaps even a general phenomenon. However, evidence at hand is too limited and patchy to warrant more definite conclusions.

In addition to preferring wild animal bone toolmakers of Biskupin apparently selected bones suited by their natural form for production of specific objects fashioning them into tools by making only small adjustments to their form. Certain regularities may be seen in this respect, ie, Scrapers were mostly fashioned from animal ribs (103 out of 109 surviving specimens), Spatulae tend to be made from radial bones (73 out of 75 pieces identified anatomically), Awls were typically of metapodial bone (52 of 72 Awls). Only Gravers show greater variation in the repertoire of bone types used.

In a similarly ingenious way craftsmen used the natural shape of antler to the best advantage. Many traces of working as well as the appearance of finished artefacts show that the process of production was a complex one, involving many stages, and that preliminary assessment was made of the potential and usefulness of the raw material. It is noteworthy how each time the toolmaker selected the part of antler best suited to serve his purpose.

Next to finished items Biskupin produced 372 roughouts, in different stages of working, along with fragments of unworked antler and bone, and production waste. Their analysis helped to identify several techniques of working the raw material and tool making. These may be distinguished into mechanical and chemical-mechanical.

The term ?mechanical working? refers to all methods of working the raw material not preceded by any chemical treatment of its structure. Of these the least complicated was breaking and splitting. A slightly more sophisticated technique was sawing, different methods of cutting, and smoothing on a grindstone.

The chemical-mechanical methods, which required previous softening of the raw material, include, first of all, shaving and precision cutting.

Studies were made of the means for softening antler and bone to identify a method, reversible and at the same not destructive to the natural and desirable properties of the raw material. The most promising results were achieved by K. Żurowski. Using a solution of soured broth of sorrel leaves, obtained with simple methods he demonstrated that antler may be softened and will later reassume its former properties by soaking in organic acids. After about 6 weeks it was possible to cut antler with the same ease as wood. The degree of softening could be regulated by varying the time of exposure to the acid. About four days after being taken out from the solution antler regained its wiriness and toughness, losing none of its usefulness.

The solution of soured broth of sorrel leaves is obtained as a result of lactic fermentation, with lactic and acetic acid as its end product. For the purpose of the present study we soaked antler in acetic acid (vinegar) and lactic acid (sour milk, buttermilk, 6% comestible acid) in an anoxic environment. After 8-12 weeks (depending on the solution used) antler became fully soft. Softening occurred layer by layer, as the acid gradually penetrated the compact substance. The compact substance, white at the outset became glassy-cream in colour (Photo 31). For the purpose of the present study antler was also submerged in tartaric, oxalic and malic acids, but the results obtained were not positive.

Organic acids used in our experiments contain different acid radicals: lactic acid ? (CH3CH2CO-), oxalic acid ? (-OCCO-), malic and tartaric acid ? (CH3CH2CH2CO-), acetic acid ? (CH3CO-). Perhaps the acid radical is responsible for the extent and the way a given acid acts on antler. The best result was obtained with acids containing the (CH3CO-) and (CH3CH2CO-) acid radicals.

Additional experiments were made by boiling antler in water, in an infusion of sorrel (Rumex) leaves and roots, and in oil, as well as by soaking it in cold water. None of them proved as effective for softening the material as immersion in lactic and acetic acid.

A study of techniques of working bone and horn was made on the basis of finished objects, their roughouts in different stages of working and production waste. It was determined that all method of working antler and bone known in earlier periods were used by the toolmakers of Biskupin. Of these the most primitive techniques involved breaking, cracking and splitting. All of them were limited to the preliminary stage of working as subsidiary to more advanced techniques.

The latter involved cutting, of which three variants were noted: cross-wise, length-wise and diagonal. They varied in the degree of complexity, and in many cases had to be supplemented by breaking or axe cutting. For instance, first a groove was cut in the compact substance with a sharp tool right down to the spongy substance, after which the antler or bone was cracked open. Different methods of cutting were used on antler and on bone. The latter was cut by making a groove with a graver or simply cut with a saw. In the compact substance of antler grooves were made with a knife or a serrated tool. The aim was to obtain a fragment of antler or bone of size suitable for production of the planned tool. As a next step, the fragment was worked using the technique of shaving which involved the removal from the worked surface of fine flakes of compact substance. The same method was used to remove pearls, shape the worked piece, smooth its surface, etc.

Another distinct technique evidenced by the material from Biskupin is making perforations. Rectangular and circular openings were made in hammers, bits, cheek-pieces and ornaments. There seem to have been three methods of making perforations: elongated openings made in thicker objects (such as hammers) were probably made in antler using a chisel. In an alternative method holes were carved in less thick items (such as cheek pieces and bits) probably with a knife, and the perforations are usually circular. The third method is drilling, using for instance, a small drill with a flint point. It seems that the last technique was used in perforating animal teeth.

One of the final stages of production was smoothing, which included whittling, scraping or grinding. The latter method, next to giving to the tool the desired smoothness was also a way to give the ultimate shape and to sharpen the points in awls, and the blade in gravers and arrowheads.

The final stage of working was polishing the nearly finished piece to make it glossy. A traditional method known in folk culture is to use for instance a piece of skin soaked in ash mixed with oil, or some other type of grease or dried horsetail (Equisetum).

Our understanding of tools used in working bone and antler bases primarily on macroscopic analyses of marks surviving on roughouts and waste, to a lesser extent, on finished products. These helped to determine that the principal tool was the knife, used for cutting the raw material, shaving and scraping, making perforations, etc. Working traces indicate that both metal and flint knives were used.

Axe was another tool used in cutting up the raw antler and bone. Biskupin produced a large number of stone axes as well as a handful of bronze and iron axes. Other tools used for the same purpose included some type of serrated tool but at the present stage of research it is difficult to identify what material they were made of. Grooves and ornaments were made with a burin, perhaps of flint. Chisels, on the other hand, were used in antlerworking only to a limited extent, for cutting rectangular perforations and splitting the spongy matter. Smoothing and polishing of antler and bone objects was made using whetstones, grindstones and filing slabs. Most of the ones discovered at Biskupin were of sandstone, quartz, quartzite, slate and granite.

Antler and bone finds form Biskupin indicate that, on the whole, Lusatian culture population introduced little innovation to antler and boneworking. The ability to make perforations had been mastered as far back as in the Middle Palaeolithic, during the Upper Palaeolithic humans learned the art of softening, shaving and scraping antler. Grinding with stone slabs is also one of the earliest methods used to shape antler and bone artefacts. The tendency in the later periods of prehistory apparently was to refine already known techniques, fuelled in large measure by the evolution and upgrading of tools, including also metal ones.

The presented discussion of production and utilisation of antler and bone objects at Biskupin during the Early Iron Age reflects our present state of knowledge. Focus was placed primarily on issues which seem to have greater significance or be more characteristic for the analysed set of finds. At the same time, many issues still need to be examined in detail. First of all, studies should be continued of the provenance and selection of raw bone and antler to further our understanding of its structure and properties. It is also important to continue investigate the artefacts themselves, both their morphology and function. In depth analysis is necessary of methods of antler and boneworking and tools. In this respect, experimental archaeology has much insight to offer in conjunction with penetrating traseological studies.