Worked human femur from Gohar Tepe, Iran

Arkadiusz Sołtysiak*, Anna GręzakDepartment of BioarchaeologyInstitute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Polandul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 WarszawaE-mail: a.soltysiak@uw.edu.pl (corresponding author)

Abstract: A simple tool made from a gracile human femoral shaft was retrieved from a smallanimal bone assemblage found in a Late Bronze Age stratum at Gohar Tepe, Iran. The specimen hasbeen identified as a chisel or gouge for which no analogous examples are known in the Near East.Studies examining similar tools from other regions suggest that such a tool may have been used forwood processing or pottery smoothing.

Key words: bone tool; chisel; Late Bronze Age; Mazandaran

Introduction

In the past, human bone was occasionally used as a raw material for tools, musical instruments, orornaments. Many of the previously published examples of human bone tools were found in the NewWorld, including ornamented daggers made from the femora of the ancestors or slain enemies oftribes inhabiting the Eastern Sepic province of Papua (Newton, 1989) and omichicahuaztli, notchedhuman long bones, which were commonly used in Mesoamerica for funerary rites (McVicker, 2005;Pereira, 2005). In addition, several assemblages of utilitarian tools made from human bone thatwere likely used in daily life have been found at sites in Mesoamerica (Talavera et al., 2001, 2002;Meza Peñaloza, 2007). Human bone tools or ornaments have also been recovered from several OldWorld sites including a number of Magdalenian skull-cups and retouchers made from cranialfragments, dated to the Upper Palaeolithic (Bello et al., 2011; Verna & d'Errico, 2011), and apendant made from a human rib discovered at a Bronze Age site in Serbia (Stefanović, 2006).

In the Near East, only two previous cases have been published examining the use of human bone fortool preparation. Two spindles made from human fibulae were found in the Bronze Age strata ofTell Nebi Mend in Syria (Molleson, 2002). More than 20 primitive chisel-like tools made fromhuman femora, tibiae, and less frequently from other long bones, have also been identified at TellMajnuna in Syria, in a large midden dated to the Late Chalcolithic (Sołtysiak, 2010; McMahon etal., 2011).

In this article, we present another case of worked human bone retrieved from a Near Easternarchaeological site. This specimen was found at Gohar Tepe, a large site located in the Mazandaranprovince in northern Iran, between the northern range of the Elburz Mountains and the southernshore of the Caspian Sea (36°40'42"N 53°24'07"E, see Figure 1) (Mahfroozi, 2010).

Archaeological context

Excavations at Gohar Tepe have been carried out since 2005 by an Iranian expedition directed byAli Mahfroozi from the Iranian Center for Archaeological Research in co-operation with a Germanteam led by Christian Piller from the University of Munich, and the present authors who wereresponsible for the human (Sołtysiak) and animal (Gręzak) bone analyses. Thus far, few domesticstructures have been found and work has focused chiefly on the cemeteries located in the easternand south-eastern parts of the site. In six excavation seasons, more than 150 human skeletons wereunearthed, most dating to the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Sołtysiak & Mahfroozi, 2008,2009; Sołtysiak et al., 2010), as well as a few animal bone assemblages, a majority of which also

date to the Late Bronze Age.

One of the animal bone assemblages was retrieved from the context AJ2XX 68-211 on the easternslope of the main mound of Gohar Tepe. The stratigraphical position was not clear, but theassemblage most likely dates to the Late Bronze Age, c. 1500-1200 BC (Ali Mahfroozi, personalcommunication). Apart from a worked human femur, which was the only human element in thiscontext, the assemblage also contained 11 animal bone fragments, including four bones from smallruminants (representing a pelvis, a femur and two pieces of metatarsal bone), one sheep bone(molar tooth), five pig bones (a cervical vertebra, two humerus fragments and two metatarsalfragments), and one fishbone. The animal remains probably represent food waste, however, noevidence of butchering was observed.

Description of the specimen

Examination of worked bones using microscopic tools such as a scanning electron microscope ortransmitted light micrographs can be helpful in determining the function of an investigatedspecimen (e.g., Backwell et al., 2008; Verna & d'Errico, 2011). However, examination of the bonefragment from Gohar Tepe was undertaken in the dig camp at the site and the specimen is no longeravailable for further research. Since a cast of the tool’s working end could not be made, thedescription of the specimen is based only on macroscopic features which were documented using adigital camera and metric measurements.

The worked human bone fragment consisted of a large portion of the proximal shaft of a gracile leftfemur (Figure 2a). The total length of the worked bone was 110 mm which included a 63 mmportion of bone with the complete circumference represented in the subtrochanteric part of the shaft.Although the bone was gracile, and subtrochanteric measurements were only 26 mm and 19.5 mmfor mediolateral and anteroposterior diameters respectively, muscle attachment areas were clearlymarked, so it was more likely that the bone belonged to an adult female than to a subadultindividual. A marked lateral fossa was present on the subtrochanteric part of the shaft.

The worked surface was located on the lateral side, well above the midshaft of the femur andformed a shovel-shaped area 18 mm in breadth (Figure 2b). The bone was damaged on the medialaspect of the worked end which resulted in a fracture (Figure 2c). The proximal end of the bone hadan irregularly fractured edge and showed no clear traces of intentional working or any signs of use(Figure 2d). No cut marks were observed. Both the proximal fracture and the fracture observed onthe unworked portion of the distal end of the femur were irregular, with right angles and jaggedfracture surfaces. These features suggest that the tool shaping was performed on dry bone, perhapsaccidentally fragmented prior to use as a raw material (cf. Walker, 2001; Wheatley, 2008).

Discussion and conclusion

Occasionally, natural factors imitate the appearance of intentional tools, and for this reason it isnecessary to rule out taphonomic agents other than human intervention prior to any interpretation,especially of a non-specific tool such as the one from Gohar Tepe. Localized polishing which canimitate worked ends may be related to water erosion (Moraitis & Spiliopoulou, 2006) or animalchewing (Myers et al., 1980). Both factors can produce regular smooth edges, however, in suchcases no traces of retouch are expected and polishing often involves larger areas of bone for pseudo-tools. In the specimen from Gohar Tepe, one edge of the worked end was retouched (Figure 2b)and polishing was limited to the narrow margins around edges, so it is unlikely that the tool was notmanufactured by a human.

According to the common typology of bone tools, the specimen from Gohar Tepe would be

classified as a chisel or a gouge (cf. Russell, 2006). In the Late Chalcolithic midden at TellMajnuna, Syria, more than 20 more primitive chisels were found in a single context, all of themmade from human bone (Figure 3). The tools were typically 11-21 cm long, often with a clearlypolished handle, a pointed end worked to form a U-, D- or V-shape, and a chipped back. Some ofthem were unfinished or broken. Most were made from femoral or tibial shafts, in many cases withcomplete bone circumference preserved at the handle (Sołtysiak, 2010, Fig. 54; McMahon et al.,2011). A more spatially distant analogy is the assemblage of more than one hundred tools madefrom human bone, found at the Pre-Columbian site of Cantona in Mexico. Among them, U-shapedand D-shaped chisels or gouges were interpreted as tools for pottery smoothing and decorating(Talavera et al., 2001).

At Gohar Tepe, 13 animal bone tools belonging to five categories were found. The first categorywas represented by four tools made of split cattle metapodials sharpened into tools with beveled orwedged working ends. Some areas of the working edges and unworked surfaces were smoothed,and polished. The modified bones were most likely used as scrapers or chisels. The second categoryincluded scrapers or smoothers made from large mammal ribs. Three ribs were broken along theirlength and the shorter edge of the split was worked to from a beveled end (Figure 4). An unworkedfragment was also found. The third category included two small bevel-ended scrapers made ofcaprine tibiae which were broken or cut obliquely across the shaft. The fourth category wasrepresented by an awl made from a sheep metacarpal bone and two broad mandible smoothersconstituted the fifth category.

The working end of the human femur from Gohar Tepe most resembles rib fragments included inthe second category. The most similar chisels or gouges reported within the region were made fromdistal sheep tibiae during the Neolithic at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, although there are slight differencesin the shape of the working end, specifically the tools from Gohar Tepe are significantly lessrounded. The specimens from Çatalhöyük were interpreted as tools for carving into soft wood(Russell, 2006, Fig. 16.7).

The function of the worked human bone from Gohar Tepe is not known, although at this site, whichis located close to the forests growing on the northern flanks of the Elburz Mountains, use of such achisel for wood carving or barking – as in Çatalhöyük – is a possibility. However, potterysmoothing or other uses not related to rapid force application – as in Cantona – are also likely if wetake into account the absence of chopping due to compressive force on the proximal end of the tool.

In spite of this difficulty in functional identification, the tool is still interesting as a rare case ofhuman bone utilization for tool production in the Near East. Since the discussed specimen waslikely worked when the bone was dry, it is possible that the processed fragment was not recognizedas human and perhaps retrieved from an older burial disturbed during the succesive periods ofactivity at the site.

Acknowledgements: We are most grateful to Ali Mahfroozi for his kind invitation to work with theteam excavating Gohar Tepe and for his hospitality during the fieldwork. The reference to thependant from Mokrin was provided by Sonja Vuković. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewersfor their constructive comments and to Jessica Walker for language corrections.

References

Backwell L, d'Errico F, Wadley L. 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poortlayers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1566-1580.

Bello SM, Parfitt SA, Stringer CB. 2011. Earliest directly-dated human skull-cups. PLoS ONE 6(2):e17026. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017026

Mahfroozi A. 2010. Political, economical, and social changes in south and south-east of CaspianSea area from 4th to 1st millennium BC. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of theArchaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 1. Matthiae P, Pinnock F, Nigro L, Marchetti N (ed.).Otto Harrassowitz GmbH: Wiesbaden; 409-416.

McMahon A, Sołtysiak A, Weber J. 2011. Late Chalcolithic mass graves at Tell Brak, Syria, and violent conflict during the growth of early city-states. Journal of Field Archaeology 36: 201-220.

McVicker D. 2005. Notched human bones from Mesoamerica. Mesoamerican Voices 2: 1-31.Meza Peñaloza A. 2007. Estudio osteológico y funcional de raspadores elaborados con frontales

humanos en La Ventilla, Teotihuacan, temporada 92-94. Estudios de Antropología Biológica 13: 150-170.

Molleson T. 2002. Two spindles made from human fibulae from Tell Nebi Mend, Syria. BANEA Newsletter 15: 10-11.

Moraitis K, Spiliopoulou C. 2006. Identification and differential diagnosis of perimortem blunt force trauma in tubular long bones. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 2(4): 221-229.

Myers TP, Voorhies MR, Corner RG. 1980. Spiral fractures and bone pseudotools at paleontological sites. American Antiquity 45(3): 483-490.

Newton D. 1989. Mother Cassowary's bones: daggers of the East Sepik province, Papua New Guinea. Metropolitan Museum Journal 24: 305-325.

Pereira G. 2005. The utilization of grooved human bones: a reanalysis of artificially modified human bones excavated by Carl Lumholtz at Zacapu, Michoacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 16(3): 293-312.

Russell N. 2006. The Çatalhöyük worked bone. In Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Hodder I (ed.). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge; 339-367.

Sołtysiak A. 2010. Death and decay at the dawn of the city. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw.

Sołtysiak A, Mahfroozi A. 2008. Short Fieldwork Report: Gohar Tepe and Goldar Tepe (Iran), seasons 2006-2007. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 2: 71-77.

Sołtysiak A, Mahfroozi A. 2009. Short Fieldwork Report: Gohar Tepe (Iran), season 2009. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 3: 47-51.

Sołtysiak A, Mahfroozi A, Ghasemi S, Amirkolaee E. 2010. Short Fieldwork Report: Gohar Tepe and three other sites (Iran), seasons 2009-2010. Bioarchaeology of the Near East 4: 52-57.

Stefanović S. 2006. Human rib as a pendant at the Early Bronze Age necropolis in Mokrin. Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 22: 243-251.

Talavera JA, Gojas JM, García E. 2001. Modificaciones culturales en los restos óseos de Cantona, Puebla. Un análisis bioarqueológico, "Colección Científica" 432, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Mexico City.

Talavera JA, Rojas JM, Salas ME, González LA. 2002. Análisis tecnológico y funcional de algunos artefactos de hueso humano del Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Arqueología 32: 48-60.

Verna C, d'Errico F. 2011. The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as a tool. Journal of Human Evolution 60: 145-157.

Walker PL. 2001. A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 573-596.

Wheatley BP. 2008. Perimortem or postmortem bone fractures? An experimental study of fracture patterns in deer femora. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(1): 69-72.

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Gohar Tepe.

Figure 2. (a) General posterior view of the tool; (b) Detailed anterior view of the working end. Retouched edges marked by arrows; (c) Detailed medial view of the working end; (d) Detailed view of the proximal end. Scale bar 1 cm.

Figure 3. Worked human femur from Tell Majnuna, EM loc. 53, L/4 bone 9. Scale bar 1 cm.

Figure 4. Worked cattle rib, Gohar Tepe. Scale bar 1 cm.