Arthur Macgregor, 1985, Bone Antler, İvory, Horn [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: ARCHAEOLOGY

Volume 41

BONE, ANTLER, IVORY & HORN

This page intentionally left blank

BONE, ANTLER, IVORY & HORN The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period

ARTHUR MACGREGOR

ROUTLEDGE

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published in 1985 This edition first published in 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1985 Arthur MacGregor All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-138-79971-4 (Set) eISBN: 978-1-315-75194-8 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-138-81417-2 (Volume 41) eISBN: 978-1-315-74766-8 (Volume 41) Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this book but points out that some imperfections from the original may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

BONE

ANTLER IVORY &HORN

Roman Smcethe Roman Roman Smcethe Roman Smcethe Roman Period

ARTHUR MAcGREGOR

CROOM HELM London & Sydney BARNES & NOBLE BOOKS Totowa, New Jersey

©

1985 Arthur MacGregor Croom Helm Ltd, Provident House, Burrell Row, Beckenham,Kent BR3 lA T Croom Helm Australia Pty Ltd, First Floor, 139 King Street, Sydney, NSW 2001. Australia British Library Cataloguingin Publication Data MacGregor, Arthur Bone, antler, ivory and horn. 1. Man - Tools 2. Bone implements 1. Title 621.9'08'0901 GN799.T6 ISBN 0-7099-3242-1 First published in the USA 1985 by Barnes & Noble Books 81 Adams Drive, Totowa, New Jersey,07512 Library of CongressCataloging in Publication Data MacGregor, Arthur, 1941Bone, antler, ivory, and horn. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Bone carving-History. 2. Horn carving-History. 3. Ivory carving-History. 4. Implements,utensils, etc. -History. I. Title. 736'.6 84-18535 TT288.M3 1985 ISBN 0-389-20531-1

Typeset by Columns of Reading Printed and bound in Great Britain

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE 1. RAW MATERIALS 1 Bone 1 Antler 1 Ivory (Teeth) 14 Keratinous Hard Tissues19 Notes 22 2. BONE AND ANTLER AS MATERIALS 23 Mechanical Properties25 Notes 29 3. AVAILABILITY 30 Bone 30 Antler 32 Ivory 38 Horn 42 Notes 42 4. HANDICRAFT OR INDUSTRY? 44 Bone and Antler 44 Horn 51 Notes 53 5. WORKING METHODS AND TOOLS 55 Cutting and Splitting 55 Smoothing andPolishing 58 Turning 58 Drilling 59 Scribing 60 Rouletting 61 Gauging 62 Clamping 62 Riveting 62 Softening and Moulding 63 Colouring 67 Evidencefrom Industrial Waste 70 Notes 71 6. ARTEFACTS OF SKELETAL MATERIALS: A TYPOLOGICAL REVIEW 73 Combs73 Comb Cases96 Mirror and Other Cases99 Toilet Sets99 Buttons and Beads99 Button-and-loopFasteners102 Toggles 102 Buckles 103 Strap-ends105 Amulets 105 Ivory 'Bag Rings' 110 Bracelets112 Pins 113 SpectacleFrames122 Writing Materials 122 Seal Matrices 126 Coin Balances129 Dice 129 Gaming Pieces132 Skates141 Sledge Runners144 Stringed Instruments146 Whistles and Flutes 148 Blast Horns and Drinking Horns 151 Powder Horns 153 Other Horn Containers154 Horn Helmets 154 CompositeBows 155 Crossbows158 Arrowheads162 ScabbardChapes163 ScabbardSlides 163 Sword and Dagger Hilts 165 Implement Handles 167 Pinners' Bones 171 Hammers171 Clamps 172 Planes173 Points 174 Cleavers176 CetaceanBone Implements178 Antler Rakes 178 ScapulaScoops179 Apple or Cheese-scoops 180 Spoons181 Knives 183 Brushes183 Bobbins 183 Textile Equipment 185 Stamps194 Moulds 195 Motif Pieces195 Casketand Other Mounts 197 Caskets200 Hinges 203 Notes 205 BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 INDEX 238

Figures and Tables Figures 1. Extensionof long-bonesby endochondralossification 2. Structureof mammalianbone at different levels of organisation 3. Diagrammaticcross-sectionof the formation of a Haversiansystem 4. Three-dimensionaldiagram showing structural componentsof a longboneshaft 5. Growth of laminar bone 6. Mammalian(horse)skeleton 7. Mammalian(cattle) skeleton 8. Cutaway view of pneumatichumerus of an adult fowl 9. Comparisonof cancellousstructures in bone and antler 10. Growth cycle of antler 11. External blood supply to velvet in growing antler 12. Cross-sectionthrough antler base and pedicle 13. Antler morphology 14. Enamelformation 15. Comparisonof growth in bone and dentine 16. Diagrammaticcross-sectionof a humantooth 17. Tusk and skull morphology 18. Transverseand longitudinal sections of African elephanttusk 19. Transversesection from a walrus tusk 20. Diagrammaticcross-sectional comparisonof horn with growing antler 21. Baleen 22. Diagram of the stress-concentrating effect of a narrow slit in a material 23. Diagram of the blunting effects of interfacesin brittle materials 24. Stress-straincurves 25. Stress-straincurves showing the effects of soakingantler 26. Stress-straincurves for bone and antler

2 3 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 11

12 13 15 16 16 18 19 20 21 21 24 24 26 27 28

27. Current distributions of deer populations 33 28. Detailed distribution of red deer in Scandianviaduring the later 36 prehistoricperiod 29. Unfinished and waste piecesfrom 45 Romanbone-workingindustries 30. Discardedarticular ends of cattle 47 long-bonesfrom Southampton 31. Perspectiveview of the 'horn core 51 layer' at Lauriacum,Austria 32. Discardedantler burrs exhibiting 56 saw cuts 33. Double-bladedsaw or stadda 56 34. Viking age antler-beamfrom Hedeby 57 35. Rosary bead maker using a bow60 driven lathe or drill 36. Early medieval bovine mandible 61 from Schleswig 37. Roman trepanningor crown saws of 61 bronzefrom Bingen 38. Centre-bitsor scribing tools 61 from Slavic settlements 39. End-platefrom a double-sidedcomb 62 found at Abingdon, Oxfordshire 40. Slivers cut with a knife from red 65 deer antler softenedin water 41. Alternative methodsof horn 66 breaking 42. Schematicrepresentationof methods of cutting up and utilising antler at 68-9 Hedeby 43. Terminology used in the description 75 of compositecombs 77 44. One-piececombs 45. One-pieceelephantivory comb from 79 the tomb of St Cuthbertat Durham 46. One-piececomb of walrus ivory, 80 now in the British Museum 80 47. One-piececombs 84-5 48. Compositecombs 86 50. Compositecombs 88-9 51. Compositecombs 93 49. Compositecombs 52. Horn comb with riveted bone sideplates, from QueenVictoria Street, 95 London

53. Horn comb from London Wall, London 96 54. Comb cases 97 99 55. Ivory mirror case 56. Bone mirror casefrom London 100 57. Toilet implements 100 58. Beads,buttonsand fasteners 101 59. Toggles 103 60. Buckles and strap-ends 104 6I. Amulets 106 62. Ivory bag rings 111 63. Bracelets 112 64. Pins 114-15 65. Spectacleframesfrom London 122 66. Cetaceanbone writing tablet from Blythburgh 123 67. Writing implements 123 68. Seal matrix of walrus ivory from Wallingford 126 69. Seal matrices 127 70. Coin balancesof bone 128 71. Dice and gaming pieces 130 72. Discoid gaming counters 136 73. Early chesspieces 138 74. Chesspieces of walrus ivory from Lewis 140 75. Photomicrographof characteristic wear marks on a bone skate from York 141 76. Skatesand sledge-runners 143 77. Elementsfrom musical instruments 147 78. Whistles and flutes 149 79. Drinking horns 152 80. Helmet from Benty Grange 154 8I. Compositebows 156 82. Schematicenergy diagrams: self bow and pretensionedbow 157 83. Antler splints from composite bows in the Museumof London 157 84. Crossbowsand nuts 159 85. Antler arrowheads 162 86. Scabbardchapesand slides 164 87. Sword and daggerhilts 166

88. Implementhandles 89. Pinners'bonefrom London 90. Hammersof antler from Jarrow and Birka 91. Clampsof antler from Hedeby 92. Plane with antler stock and bronzesole, from Sarre 93. Points and cleavers 94. Cetaceanbone implementsfrom Foshigarryand Burrian 95. Antler rakes from South Shields and Eggington 96. Scapulascoopfrom London 97. Apple corner or cheesescoop 98. Spoons 99. Brushes 100. Bobbins lOI. Textile equipment 102. Long-toothedcombs from Schleswig 103. Cetaceanbone smoothing board from Birka 104. Stamps 105. Mould for a cruciform ornamentcut on an antler pedicle, from Hedeby 106. Motif piece carved on a jawbone fragment, from London 107. Casket mounts from York and SouthCadbury 108. The Franks Casket: view of lid and front panel 109. The Franks Casket: constructional details 110. Hinges

168 171 172 173 173 175 177 178 179 180 181 184 184 186 190 192 194 195 196 198 201 202 204

Tables

2.1 Comparisonsof bending strength and modulus of elasticity in skeletal materials 27 2.2 Comparisonsof bending strenth and work of fracture in bone and antler 28

Acknowledgements

In compiling this study I have enjoyed the cooperation of a number of institutions and the friendly collaboration of many colleagues. In the initial period of my research Mr James Rackham'szoological advice and his discussion of the whole range of the enquiry was of enormous value. Professor John Currey made it possible for me to attempt a scientific assessment of the materials concernedby his liberal provision of expertiseand laboratory facilities. Several colleagues working on related topics have commentedon my draft texts and have generously shared the results of their own research with me: amongst those I would particularly like to mention are Dr Kristina Ambrosiani, for accessto and discussionof the material from Birka and other Swedish sites; Dr Philip Armitage for referencesto medieval and later horn and bone industries;Dr Stephen Greep for discussionof Roman bone working; and Dr Ingrid Ulbricht for access to and information on the material from Hedeby. My

own researchbenefited from the guidance of Professor Rosemary Cramp and from the scrutiny of Mrs Leslie Webster and Mr ChristopherMorris. A numberof excavatorshave kindly allowed me to mention their finds in advanceof their final publication: these include Mr P.v. Addyman, Mr G. Beresford,Mr N.Q. Bogdan, Mr P.D.C. Brown, Mr. A. Carter, Mrs. N. Crummy and Mr D. Phillips. I would also like to extend my thanks to those colleagueswhose illustrations have been reproducedwith their specific consent,and also to those from whom agreementhas had to be assumed.In either case the primary source of illustrations is acknowledgedin the captions. My wife has lived with proliferating drafts of this book over several years and has provided some critical appraisal of them. The final version was typed with great care by Mrs F. Holt.

Preface

In recent years, which have seen a variety of sophisticatedmethods and techniquesapplied to the analysisof certain categoriesof archaeological material, the study of items made from skeletal materials has remained resolutely neglected. Useful accounts have appearedof some groups of objects related typologicallyor stratigraphically, but their impact has been limited by the lack of an overall context in which they could be set. The object of this survey is to provide a general background against which individual finds, specifically those of northern Europe since the Romanperiod, may be viewed in their proper perspective. Several factors exercising varying - sometimes crucial - degrees of control over the final products are considered, and their inter-relationships examined. The principal materials, bone, antler, ivory and horn, are reviewed in terms of their structure, morphology and availability; their mechanical

properties are compared and quantified in objective scientific terms; and the working methods applicable to them are considered, drawing on the evidence of manufacturing techniquesvisible on the objects themselves, and that of tools recoveredfrom archaeological deposits. There follows a review of objects made from skeletal materials since the Roman period, acknowledging where appropriate the considerationsoutlined above, together with other evidence from archaeological,historical and ethnological sources. By treating together the disparate objects considered here and the evidence of varying kinds which can be brought to bear on them, it is hoped at once to provide a useful body of referencematerial and, perhaps,the basisfor a more comprehensiveand integrated approach in the future to the examination of artefacts made from skeletal materials.

This page intentionally left blank

1. Raw Materials

The elementof objectivity gained by examination of each of the raw materials considered here is a necessaryprerequisitefor the proper study of the artefacts which were made from them. In some instances their distinguishing characteristicscame to be acutely appreciated by those who utilised them, both as the result of personal observationand of generationsof inherited knowledge. This was the manner in which any craftsman learned his trade in the days before a theoretical grounding was added to the otherwise practical curriculum of the trainee technician. By the time he had finished his apprenticeship, such a craftsman would have acquireda 'feel' for his materialsbasedon the experiencehe had gained for himself and had absorbedfrom his masters: he might well find difficulty in expressingprecisely why one piece of raw material was particularly suitable for one purposeor another, but his judgement would be no less valid and accuratefor all that. In our attemptsto reconstructthe factors which led to the evolution of particular craft practices in antiquity we are, in the case of skeletal materials, denied access to any body of accumulatedknowledge,since nearly all use of these materials ceased long ago and written records relating to them are few. Instead we must substitute scientifically-obtained data through which objective valuations can be made and from which we can attempt to infer the qualities which led to the consistentadoption of specific materials for specific purposes. The overall picture which emergesfrom this exerciseplacesskeletalmaterialsin a new light: whereasthere has in the past been a tendency to regard bone, antler and horn as inferior substitutesfor metal or even ivory, the respective mechanicalpropertieswhich each of these possessesare in many ways truly remarkable, and often render them supremelysuitable for particular tasks. A further important consideration is the manner in which the gross characteristicsof particular materials, especially whole bones, directly conditionedthe evolution of typologies.

In the past these typologies have all too often been studied with no reference whatever to such factors, but in many casesit can be shown that the morphology of the raw materialshad a crucial influence and, in some instances,even led to the conditioning of forms subsequently executed in other materials in which these primary controls were absent. An initial problem encounteredin this study is one of suitable terminology. Osseousskeletons, while consisting of many diverse components, are structurally distinct from teeth; neither of thesein turn has anythingin common with the keratinousmaterial of which horns are composed.In an attempt to producean appropriate portmanteau word which would encompassall animal substancesused in the production of tools and implements, the term 'osteodontokeraticmaterials' has been adopted by some archaeologists(e.g. Dart 1957) while Halstead (1974) has settled for the more prosaic 'vertebrate hard tissues'. While each of these alternativespossessesa higher degree of biological precision than that adoptedhere, the term 'skeletal materials' is preferred, as it conveys to the non-specialista more comprehensible (if strictly less accurate)impressionof the scope of this enquiry. Since a good deal of emphasisis to be laid here on the conditioning exerted on the evolution of artefactsby the raw materialsfrom which each of them was formed, it will be necessaryto begin with an account of each category of material in turn; in this way, the nature of each can be assessed,mutual comparisons can be made, a working terminology established and the characteristics by which each can be identified made known.

Bone The archaeologistwith an interest in bones is already well served by a number of publications, among which those of Brothwell (1972), Chaplin (1971), Cornwall (1974), Ryder 1

2

Raw Materials

(1968a) and Schmid (1972) deserve particular mention. In each of these works, however, particular emphasis is placed on the morphology of bones, the problems of identifying them and their distribution and function within the living skeleton. Although these factors are of someimportancein the presentcontext, they are secondary to the main theme. As the materials reviewed here are consideredoutside the environmentfor which they were originally evolved, their fitness for their original function is not of direct importance, although the qualities which recommendthem for utilisation in a particular way are often interconnected with their original skeletal function. Formation According to the manner in which it develops at the foetal stage,a broad distinction is drawn between membrane (or dermal) bone, which originates in fibrous membrane,and cartilage bone, whose origins lie in pre-existing foetal cartilage. Both types develop through a process of ossification, in which soft tissue is progressively replacedby bone through the action of specialisedosteoblast(bone-producing)cells, although details of the process differ for the two varieties. Ossification continuesafter birth at the growing zones until the definitive size is reached.Cartilagebonesare formed by gradual replacement with bone tissue of embryonic cartilage models. They are extended(Figure 1)

Growth of cartilage Bone replaces cartilage Growth of cartilage Bone replaces cartilage Resorption

- Addition ion Growth carti Figure 1: Extensionof long-bonesby endochondral ossification(after Ham). While new cartilageis addedto and ossified at the growing ends,a complimentaryprocess of resorptionmaintainsthe original form of the bone

by progressiveossification of the proliferating epiphyseal cartilage which separatesthe diaphysis or shaft from the articular ends or epiphyses (endochondral ossification), the processbeing completed with maturity. In the case of membrane bones growth takes place around the peripheries (intra-membraneous ossification), the junctions or sutures between certain bonesagain becomingfused in maturity (Freeman and Bracegirdle 1967; Ham 1965; Weinmann and Sicher 1955). The distinction here is therefore betweenthe types of tissuebeing replacedby the developing bone: the resulting bones are indistinguishable except perhaps for some difference in the coarsenessof the initial fibres (Pritchard 1972), and this primary tissue is in any case quickly replaced under normal processes (p. 7). Further evidence for the close links existing between the two types of bone lies in the fact that elementsof both types are involved in the developmentof some bones: the clavicle and mandible,for example, are classifiedamongthe membranebones, even though a large proportion of each has its origin in cartilage, while the long bones, which are counted among the cartilage bones, have much of their shafts formed in membrane(Pritchard 1956). An important bone-forming membrane,the periosteum, sheathes the external surfaces, while the interior cavities of certain cartilage bones are lined with a corresponding membrane, the endosteum.In addition to its normal osteogenicfunctions during growth, the periosteummay be stimulatedto producenew bone in order to repair damage, or in responseto demandsfrom the musclesor tendonsfor more secure anchorages(McLean and Urist 1961; Ham 1965).1 Structure Bone tissue consists of an organic and an inorg