The bone tools. In: Y. Garfinkel et al., The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yiftahel: The 1980s and 1990s Excavations. Berlin: ex oriente. Pp. 217-226. (2012)

217

CHAPTER 9: THE BONE TOOLS

CHAPTER 9

THE BONE TOOLS

Yosef Garfinkel, Liora K. Horwitz and Francesca Alhaique

AREA C Yosef Garfinkel and Liora K. Horwitz *

InTRoduCTIon

A number of typologies have been applied to bone-tool analysis at prehistoric sites in the Levant. Among the most detailed studies are those of the worked bones from the Natufian layer of Hayonim Cave (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov 1970; Campana 1988), the Upper Paleolithic bone artifacts from Ksar Akil (Newcomer 1974; Newcomer and Watson 1984), the Jericho bone assemblage (Marshall 1982) and Stordeur’s comprehensive works on various sites in the Near East (Stordeur-Yedid 1976; Stordeur1978, 1980, 1984, 1988). The lack of a standardized terminology or typology for worked-bone tools has created a plethora of categories and criteria, with no homogeneity between sites.

During the PPNB, the use of bone tools and ornaments was widespread and almost every site has produced such artifacts, e.g., Tell Aatne (Coqueugniot 1982), eight items from Beisamun (Lechevallier 1978: 177–178), 14 items from Qedir I (Aurenche, Cauvin and Stordeur 1982) and 21 items from El Kowm (Cauvin et al. 1979: 85). The report of the bone artifacts from the excavations at Bouqras provides only a percentage breakdown of the material from one portion of the site (burnt house 12), and thus it is impossible to determine the total size of the entire sample (Akkermans et al. 1983). More data from this important Neolithic settlement

is known from the earlier excavations at the site (de Contenson 1985). Detailed typological reports on the worked-bone assemblages from Tell Ramad, Tell Aswad and Ghoraife do not supply quantitative data (Stordeur 1980). In the present study, we suggest a simple typological framework to present the 104 worked-bone items from Area C of Yiftahel (Garfinkel and Horwitz 1988), with four basic categories based on overall shape of the artifact: points, spatulas, ornamental artifacts and varia (Fig. 9.1). Additional sub-divisions are based on the type of bone element used, the shape and size of the tool and the style of manufacture. These sub-divisions are defined using measurements, species and/or bone element identification and cross-sectional drawings. It should be noted that all complete, relatively complete and fragmentary artifacts that are clearly worked are included in the analysis. Terms for the different parts of a bone tool are those used by Newcomer (1974): tip (uppermost part), base (lowermost part), outer surface and inner surface (marrow-cavity side).

TYPoLoGY

A. Points (Figs. 9.2–9.4)

These are defined as any item manufactured from bone (excluding ribs) or antler with at least one end shaped to form a point. This category includes artifacts noted in the literature as points, awls, needles and pins, and is further sub-divided into five types.

A1. Points on compact bone/antler (N=1). This type includes pieces of bone or antler with at least one end tapering to a tip that may be pointed, blunt or tanged. Both single-tipped and

* Based on Garfinkel Y. and Horwitz L.K. 1988. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Bone Industry of Yiftahel. Paléorient 14/1: 73–86.

218

YOSEF GARFINKEL, LIORA K. HORWITz AND FRANCESCA ALHAIQUE

219


double-tipped points are included. The entire piece must show working or smoothing on all surfaces and edges, resulting in overall change to the original form of the bone. Only one such artifact was discerned in Area C. It was made on a bone fragment worked to form a pointed tip at one end, and is oval to circular in cross section with a rounded base (Fig. 9.2:1). It is the largest and thickest type of point at the site, with a maximum length of 78 mm, width of 13 mm and diameter of 7 mm. The point in Fig. 9.2:2 may belong to this type, although it is included in Category A5 (Varia, due to the fragmentary condition) and described below. It has been proposed that these artifacts served as projectile points (Newcomer 1974; Newcomer and Watson 1984).

A2. Points on an unworked shaft fragment (N=1). This type must be made on a piece of bone derived from the shaft of a long bone after both proximal and distal epiphyses have been removed,

leaving a splinter of compact bone. It differs from Type A1 in that only the tip has been worked and polished into a sharp point, leaving the base surfaces and sides rough and unworked. The tip is round in cross section, but the rest of the bone may vary in cross section and thickness depending on the long bone used in its manufacture. The one item from Area C is 75 mm long, 16 mm wide and 8 mm thick (Fig. 9.2:3). The point is circular in cross-section, and constitutes 1/3 of the total tool length and is not situated symmetrically on the central axis of the tool. The animal species could not be identified. This point type is commonly designated as an awl in the literature (Bar-Yosef and Tchernov 1970; Newcomer 1974), and on the basis of wear patterns they have been associated with hole making in leather (Newcomer and Watson 1984).

A3. Points on a halved metapodial shaft (N=23). This tool type is defined as a single-tipped point, the tip is usually blunt or rounded,

Fig. 9.1. Typology of bone tools.

218


219


manufactured on the full length of a halved metapodial (metatarsal or metacarpal) shaft, with one epiphysis (either proximal or distal) removed at its base, and worked (polish and smoothing visible) on all surfaces and edges. The utilization of these artifacts affects the thickness of the original shaft but not its width. The dimensions of the tool will vary with the size of the animal species exploited for this purpose. One complete artifact of this category was retrieved in Area C (Fig. 9.2:8), 132 mm long, 10 mm wide and 3.5 mm thick. Another 22 fragments of such tools were found: three were halved, the distal epiphyses showing smoothing and halving on the remaining shaft, nine were fragments of worked

shafts of varying length with neither epiphysial end present, while 10 were fragmentary tips of varying sharpness and shape. A further division on the basis of cross section of the tip was possible in this latter type: banana-shaped cross section (3 artifacts, Fig. 9.2:4), circular cross section (3 artifacts, Fig. 9.2:5) and elliptical cross section (4 artifacts, Fig. 9.2:6). However, this subdivision was not used as criteria for a further categorization as the resulting differences in cross section may have been the result of utilization and wear. All the artifacts in this group were made on metapodials of mountain gazelle (Gazella gazella). At Yiftahel, only the proximal epiphyses of metapodials were worked

Fig. 9.2. Area C: bone points.

2 cm0

220


221


into points, while the distal ends were retained, whereas at Jericho no preference was evident.

A4. Points on a narrow shaft fragment (N=2). This type comprises artifacts made on halved long-bone shafts worked over the entire length, and are often termed needles, ‘gorgets’, or small bi-points. They differ from Type A3 in that the working process affected the width of the bone such that the sides are narrower and the cross section is square. These items may be single

Fig. 9.3. Area C: bone points.

Fig. 9.4. Area C: broken tips of bone points.3 cm0

1

64 5

7

3

2

2 cm0

1 1 42

220


221


or double tipped and examples of such points with perforations at the base are reported from Tell Abu Hureyra (Moore, Hillman and Legge 1975), Jericho (Marshall 1982) and Mureybet (Stordeur 1978). Two of this type were found in Area C, 59 mm (Fig. 9.2:7) and 27 mm in length respectively and both broken at the end opposite the point, therefore it is not possible to determine if they were bi-pointed or single tipped.

A5. Broken undetermined points tips (N=5). This type includes all point tips too fragmentary to allow inclusion in Types A1–4, four with circular cross sections (Fig. 9.2:2) and one elliptical in cross section, and measuring 15–30 mm long.

B. Spatulas (Figs. 9.5–9.7)

This category includes all artifacts made on animal ribs or similarly thin pieces of bone or antler, with all surfaces worked, smoothed and/or polished. Due to their length and fragility, few complete examples have survived, and the usual spatula assemblage comprises broken fragments, often with no worked tip or base. In Area C, each such fragment was counted as an individual artifact, even though it is possible that many may belong to the same tool. These artifacts have been interpreted as tools for scraping leather, making basketry and, when perforated, for weaving. Marshall (1982) termed a group of tools at Jericho made on ribs as ‘flat weaving tools’. These were usually polished on one side with the spongy tissue (trabecular bone) showing on the other. In the early layers at Jericho, they were predominantly made on gazelle ribs, while in the later layers sheep/goat ribs were used. The larger-sized variety of these tools was probably made from cattle ribs. Marshall noted that if neither end of the worked rib (tip or base) was present, the fragment was discarded and not analyzed. At Yiftahel, all rib fragments showing signs of working were retained and included in the total count. This may have resulted in somewhat inflated numbers, especially of spatulas, while at Jericho the spatulas are probably under-represented. Stordeur (1988) described a similar artifact category in the Natufian assemblage from

Mallaha, which she called knives (couteaux), and divided them into two categories according to their width: 9–15 mm and 19–24 mm. She noted that their thickness varied little, ranging from 2 to 4 mm.

A total of 63 spatulas were counted in Area C, with one type defined as perforated spatulas, while the others were subdivided according to width, reflecting the different animal species whose ribs were utilized.

B1. Perforated spatulas (N=4). These are artifacts made on animal ribs with smoothed and polished surfaces, usually pointed or rounded at the tip with a perforation present at the base of the piece, and they exhibit a wide range of variability in size. In Area C, four fragmentary pieces were retrieved, all broken just at the perforation (Fig. 9.5:1–4), which is probably the weakest point and the first to break under pressure. It was not possible to determine the species of animal from which these spatulas were made, nor their original length or shape, though one item has a perforation some 12 mm from a straight tip (Fig. 9.5:3), while another has the perforation 16 mm from a pointed tip (Fig. 9.5:4).

At the PPNB site of Nahal Hemar Cave, a large assemblage of complete perforated spatulas was discovered, some of them 22 cm long (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988: Fig. 10). During the 1983 excavation season at ‘Ain Ghazal, 15% of the spatulas found were perforated (Rollefson and Simmons 1985: Table 4).

B2. narrow spatulas (N=15). This category includes spatulas up to 10 mm wide, made on the ribs of small mammals. These artifacts are polished on all surfaces and have elliptical to rectangular cross sections. Of the 15 such spatulas from Area C, four were 6 mm wide, three were 7 mm wide, four were 8 mm wide and four were longitudinally broken so their exact width is unknown. All the items were broken to a length between 10–20 mm long, except for one example that was preserved in two pieces and after restoration was over 105 mm long (Fig. 9.5:9). Two items are longitudinal fragments with pointed edges (Fig. 9.5:5–6). The narrow spatulas were all probably made on

222


223


ribs of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) or similar-sized mammals whose remains were found at the site.

B3. Medium-width spatulas (N=11). This cate-gory includes spatulas 10–15 mm wide, made on ribs or long-bone fragments of medium-sized mammals such as gazelles and goats. Polish is visible on the surfaces, and in some cases the spongy tissue (trabecular bone) is exposed on at

Fig. 9.5. Area C: bone spatulas.

least one side of the tool, in the form of smoothed circles. Three of the eleven artifacts have the original working edge preserved, while eight are broken without any working edge remaining. Two of the working edge fragments are rounded (Fig. 9.5:7–8) while the third is straight. As mountain gazelle was the most frequent species in the faunal assemblage at the site, it is probable that most of these spatulas were made on gazelle ribs.

2 cm0

222


223


B4. Wide spatulas (N=27). These artifacts were produced on ribs or long-bone fragments of large mammals such as cattle or equids, with their width exceeding 16 mm. They are polished on one or both inner and outer surfaces. In Area C, 11 pieces were worked on both surfaces (Sub-type 1), all made on ribs. Two of these had diagonal edges (Figs. 9.5:10; 9:7), the remaining nine being fragments of rib shafts. Sub-type 2 is composed of 16 artifacts that are polished on one surface only, while the unpolished surface has been stripped to reveal the trabecular bone. Seven are body fragments of ribs, six are fragments with straight working edges (Fig. 9.5:11) and three have rounded working edges (Fig. 9.5:12). These artifacts were probably made on bones of aurochs (Bos primigenius), which was the only large mammal present at Yiftahel.

B5. undetermined spatula fragments (N=7). This category comprises spatulas too fragmentary for inclusion in Types B1–4. These seven items fall mainly into the medium- to large-size spatula types.

Fig. 9.6. Area C: bone spatulas.

Fig. 9.7. Area C: fragment of bone spatula made on a rib of Bos primigenius.

2 cm0

2 cm0

1

109876

5

43

2

224


225


C. ornamental Artifacts

Although the use of bone for ornamental purposes reached a peak in the Natufian period, it continued to be used for bead manufacture in the Neolithic and later periods. Two types of beads have been identified: flat beads and tubular beads.

C1. Flat beads (N=1). Disc-shaped beads made of flat pieces of bone with a thickness of less than 5 mm, perforated in the center. The single item of this type is 3 mm thick, with an outer diameter of 7 mm and a hole diameter of 2 mm (Figs. 9.8:1; 9.9). Similar beads have been reported from other PPNB sites such as Jericho (Marshall 1982; Talbot 1983; both refer to the same item), Nahal Oren (Noy, Legge and Higgs 1973) and ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Simmons 1985: Table 8).

C2. Tubular beads (N=2). Elongated beads made on medium-sized pieces of bone, usually mammalian, or pieces of long-bone shafts

(mammalian or avian) cut to form a tube or cylinder of variable length. Unlike the Natufian tube beads made of bird bones (Pichon 1983), the two tubular beads from Area C were made of mammalian long-bone shafts. Although broken, both of them are over 14 mm long (Fig. 9.8:2–3). Examples of similar beads are known from Beidha (Kirkbride 1966), Tell Abu Hureyra (Moore, Hillman and Legge 1975), Nahal Issaron (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1983) and ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Simmons 1985: Table 8).

d. Varia

This category contains single items that do not fit into Categories A–C defined above.

1. A small fragment of the denticulated (comb-like) edge of a larger object, flat and polished on both inner and outer surfaces (Fig. 9.8:4). A similar fragment was reported from Jericho (Marshall 1982).

Fig. 9.8. Area C: ornamental bone artifacts.

2 cm0

224


225


2. A fragment of a relatively thick mammalian long bone, slightly polished on the outer surface with a deep hole drilled into the trabecular bone on the inner side. The hole is at a slant and does not penetrate through to the other side of the bone (Fig. 9.8:5).

3. A long tool made on a fragment of a long-bone shaft, polished on three sides with trabecular bone exposed on the fourth side; the working edge is rounded (Fig. 9.8:6).

4. A tool fashioned on a large piece of compact bone (possibly auroch), polished on one side and triangular in cross section at the tip. The sides of the artifact slant inwards to form a point, although the tip is broken (Fig. 9.8:7). A similar artifact was reported from Basta I (Gebel and Starck 1985: Fig. 8:4).

5. A tip fragment of a compact-bone tool with a triangular cross section (Fig. 9.8:8), perhaps the tip of the tool described above (No. 4), as they were discovered in close proximity and are made of compact bone of similar thickness. However, they do not join and as such are presented separately.

BonE-TooL MAnuFACTuRInG TECHnIquES, BuTCHERY MARkS And BonE SELECTIon

A common problem facing analysts of worked-bone assemblages is the inclusion, whether accidental or intentional, of modified bones or those with butchery marks resulting from the processing of an animal carcass for food. Such marks include cut marks caused by stone, bone or metal implements, flaking and splitting of bones during eating or the removal of bone marrow, all of which may result in the creation of pseudo-tools (Binford 1981).

Fig. 9.9. Area C: bone bead.

Two metapodial proximal ends bear circular grooves around the shaft (Fig. 9.10), a pheno-menon that has been described from a number of PPNB sites in the Levant, such as Jericho (Marshall 1982), Mesad Mazzal (Taute 1981), Qedir I (Aurenche, Cauvin and Stordeur 1982) and Tell Ramad (de Contenson and Van Liere 1964). At some sites, these grooves have been interpreted as bone decoration; however, we propose that these may be either preparation grooves for breaking or snapping of the bone shaft during tool preparation, or skinning marks. Binford (1981) has noted that during skinning of an animal, the lower limb bones (such as the metapodials) are encircled and these are the ‘points of entry’. However, such circular cut marks tend to be narrower and shallower than those evident on the above-mentioned objects, suggesting rather that these were preparation grooves for shaft snapping. It is possible that the bone handles or manches mentioned by de Contenson (1985) from Bouqras are in fact remains of snapped long-bone shafts that have not yet been worked, with only a circular grooving existing.

Marshall (1982) noted three gazelle phalanges from the PPNA and PPNB layers of Jericho that were polished all over, which she described as “having an amulet quality about them”. Davis (1985) has noted the presence of corroded, often polished, small-sized bones (less than 35 mm long and often including phalanges and astragali) at the PPNA site of Hatula. He suggested that they may have passed through the digestive system of dogs resulting in corrosion and polish, which is a characteristic of carnivore-digested bone (Payne and Munson 1985). This may be an alternative explanation for these otherwise-unexplained objects at Jericho.

The Area C bone-artifact assemblage was composed primarily of fragments and splinters

Fig. 9.10. Area C: cut marks on a one.

2 cm0 2 cm0

226


227


of worked bones averaging 30 mm in length. It appears that they were broken in antiquity, possibly by the inhabitants who used them until they broke or were worn down to this size. Due to the small size, it is difficult to identify the species utilized for most of the bone artifacts, although there appears to be a predominance of gazelle bones, probably reflecting the dominance of gazelle in the faunal assemblage. A substantial number of small ribs (spatula category) appear to originate from small carnivores, possibly fox (Vulpes vulpes). Auroch ribs were used for the large-sized spatulas. There appears to be some correlation between specific tool types and the bones used, such as the halved metapodial points (Type A3). This is a widespread phenomenon throughout PPNB assemblages, suggesting that the craftsmen had a specific concept in mind when manufacturing a tool. This may have been a function of the suitability of a particular bone to a specific tool, or it may have been due to cultural precedents.

No evidence of spatial organization such as activity areas for bone manufacture or usage was observed, nor were there any concentrations of whole artifacts, as in the Nahal Hemar Cave (Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988), the southwest room of burnt house 12 at Bouqras (Akkerman et al. 1983), and the concentration of beads in a grave at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson and Simmons 1986: Table 10).

dISCuSSIon

Comparison of the relative frequencies of bone-tool types in Area C at Yiftahel to those at other PPNB sites that have quantifiable data is presented in Table 9.1. Though there is a lack of uniformity in the use and application of criteria in the analyses of worked-bone assemblages from the Levant, we have attempted to summarize the data in the different reports to present a cohesive picture of this period. To this end, we have re-analyzed the published data using our four main categories, and undoubtedly this may have resulted in some discrepancies. An additional problem arising from the comparison of these assemblages is the variation in sample size.

Yiftahel most closely resembles Beisamun in relative percentages of points and spatulas (Table 9.1). However, the extremely small number of tools from Beisamun (three and four respectively) renders such a comparison of little significance. Jericho, ‘Ain Ghazal, Abu Ghosh and Bouqras provide the only samples of similar size to that of Yiftahel Area C, and all of them show a significantly higher frequency of points. In Fig. 9.11, the point-to-spatula frequency for each site given in Table 9.1 is plotted in an attempt to minimize inter-site variability due to the presence of ornaments and varia. The site of Yiftahel has the highest proportion of spatulas than any of the other PPNB village sites in the Levant.

Table 9.1. Relative frequencies of bone tools from PPnB sites in the Levant.

Site N Points Spatulas Ornaments Varia Reference

1. Yiftahel Area C 104 32 64 3 5

2. Beisamun 8 37 50 - 12 Lechevallier 1978

3. Bouqras 101 20 19 - 62* de Contenson 1985

4. Jericho 68 50 34 10 6 Marshall 1982

5. ‘Ain Ghazal 305 41 20 7** 1 Rollefson 1984, Rollefson and Simmons 1985, 1986

6. Abu Ghosh 69 77 19 - 4 Lechevallier 1978

7. El Kowm 21 62 14 - 28 Cauvin et al. 1979

8. Tell Aatne 6 83 17 - - Coqueugniot 1982

9. Qedir I 14 93 - - 7 Aurench, Cauvin and Stordeur 1982

* includes bone tubes (manches); ** the relative frequency is skewed by 29% of beads found in one grave

226


227


AREA E Francesca Alhaique

An assemblage of 30 bone tools was retrieved from Area E (Table 9.2).Haft (N=1). This category includes one bone handle of a sickle (Khalaily et al. 2005), which is described with the flint tools (Chapter 4: Figs. 4.17–4.18) Points (N=2). In one case the distal end was slightly burned to make it harder. The tip of this artifact also showed striations perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tool, testifying to its use in piercing some material with a rotating motion.

Fig. 9.11. Point/spatula ratios at PPNB sites (Nos. 1–9 from Table 9.1).

Spatulas (N=5). These were usually made from rib-shaft fragments of large ungulates, probably Bos primigenius (Fig. 9.12). The prevalence of spatulas in the bone-tool assemblage corresponds with the findings from Area C (see above), and is surely related to activities at the village. Further study is necessary to better understand the actual use of these artifacts.Ad-hoc (expediency) tools (N=2). One (Fig. 9.13) is a neural spine of a thoracic vertebra whose broken distal end bears rounded edge fractures and striations produced by use; the other is a long-bone shaft fragment that had been broken with a blow, as indicated by an impact cone, and its use produced rounding of some fracture edges.

Table 9.2. Area E: Bone tools according to layers.

B/C C C1 C2 C3 C4 Total C Total %

Haft 1 1 1 3.3

Points 1 1 2 2 6.7

Spatulas 1 1 2 1 4 5 16.7

Ad-hoc (expediency) tools 1 1 2 2 6.7

Bone tool fragments 1 4 3 5 1 6 19 20 66.7

Total 2 5 5 7 2 9 28 30 100.1

228


Fragments (N=20). These bear modification signs, mostly related to the manufacture and use of bone tools. Several unidentifiable fragments show signs of intense scraping of the surfaces, indicating cleaning and shaping of an artifact.Cut Antlers. Two fragments of deer antler had been transversely cut, but did not show any other clear modifications, perhaps due to abrasion of their surface. Thus, it is possible they represent artifact fragments. Antler fragments with human modifications and use-wear traces were also recovered in Area C (see above; Horwitz 1997). The fact that antler fragments with human modifications are the only cervid remains identified in this assemblage suggests

Fig. 9.12. Area E: fragment of bone spatula made on a rib of Bos primigenius, Level C2, Basket 145.

Fig. 9.13. Area E: ad-hoc tool made on the neural spine of a thoracic vertebra of Bos primigenius. Dotted line indi-cates the working edge (Layer C, Basket 139).

that this species was not often exploited for food; furthermore, shed antlers could have been collected and used as raw material for making tools without active hunting of the animal.

2 cm0

1 cm0

Documents

The bone tools. In: Y. Garfinkel et al., The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Village of Yiftahel: The 1980s and 1990s Excavations. Berlin: ex oriente. Pp. 217-226. (2012)