Ancient and Modern Bone

Artefacts from America to Russia

Cultural, technological and functional signature

Edited by

Alexandra Legrand-Pineau
Isabelle Sidra
and
Natacha Buc
Eva David
Vivian Scheinsohn

with the collaboration of

Douglas V. Campana, Alice M. Choyke,
Pam Crabtree and Elisabeth A. Stone

BAR International Series 2136

2010
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2136

Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, technological and functional
signature

Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010

ISBN 978 1 4073 0677 3

Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 Bone-Working in Roman Dacia

Lrnt VASS
Babe-Bolyai University, Romania

Abstract

Roman bone objects are usually considered the results of a standardized, industrialized production. There is hardly
any Roman carving that does not have a precise analogy from other province. Are there any special features of this
mass, any kind of tradition, any particular features of the bone industry of one province? The aim of this article is to
identify these special features and to determine the main economic aspects of bone working of Dacia, a much neglected
area of the Romanian research. The province of Dacia is considered one of the most militarized and Romanized
provinces due to massive military concentration and colonization. Soldiers and colonists coming from the different
provinces of the Roman Empire brought with them their tradition and special demands that affected the bone industry
in this province. The bone arrowheads, nocks, and bow stiffeners from the military fort of Porolissum, Micia, and
Tibiscum are connected to the eastern archery units stationed here. The largest concentrations of bone artifacts are
usually observed in urban settlements, probably owing to a well defined permanent clientele. The products are more
diverse than the bone objects from the military forts from Dacia, which are designed to satisfy the internal demands of
the troops. In the last part of the study, I try to identify different workshops on the basis of the working debris and
unfinished objects.

Introduction define the special features that characterize this economic

Bone artifacts recovered in large numbers from different
archaeological sites from the provinces of the Roman
Empire reveal an organized and standardized mass
production. Thus, the various bone artifacts can shed a
light on aspects of the economic life of a province, such
as the clientele, the acquisition of raw materials, the
social organization, tradition etc. Unfortunately, bone
working in the province of Dacia was, and still is, a
neglected field of archaeological research. The
standardized character of the carvings, which has been
ignored by researchers, can explain this general passivity.
Bone artifacts usually appear in archaeological reports as
parts of catalogues. Their analyses hardly extend beyond
the level of quantitative studies. Studies of these artifacts
are few in number; they discuss either the bone collection
of a museum (Coci-Alicu 1993; Petic-Zrinyi 2000) or
the bone finds from specific archaeological sites1.
Typological studies are very rare as well. The exception
is the study written by N. Gudea and I. Bajusz which
established a typology for hairpins for the first time
(Gudea-Bajusz 1991) from a specific region (Dacia
Porolissensis), and which became a reference in the
Roman archaeology in Romania. There is so far only one
article, published recently, that has tried to identify and to
collect all the workshops from the territory of Roman
Dacia (Timoc 2007).
The level of research concerning the bone artifacts is low,
and the title of this paper may seem a bit risky. Speaking
about an industry without proper and detailed studies and
analyses can be challenging. Even if the available data
are limited, they permit description of the main aspects of
this industry. This paper does not intend to present an
exhaustive picture of bone-working; rather it tries to
activity. It will examine to what extent the bone items can
contribute to the reconstruction of daily or economic life.
The province of Dacia (cf. Figure 5)
Dacia is one of the most interesting of the Roman
Empires provinces. Established after the Dacian-Roman
war led by Trajan in 106 AD, it was part of the Empire
for a short time, being abandoned officially in 271 AD
under Aurelianus2. Although the Roman rule did not
really last very long, Dacia is one of the most urbanized
and Romanised provinces, having in total 11 cities (10
municipii and 1 colonia deducta), from which 4 were
distinguished with the prestigious ius Italicum. Roman
rule also meant a strong military concentration within the
province which can be explained by its strategic position
and by a massive colonization3 ex toto orbe Romano,
mentioned by Eutropius. In the province the army and the
ethnically diverse colonists became the main consumers
and economic forces. They brought their traditions with
them, which determined the cultural and economic profile
of the new province. Monetary circulation in Dacia in the
2nd and the first half of the 3rd century AD was twice as
intensive as in Pannonia or in Moesia (Gzdac 2002, 47-
50) as a result of this massive concentration of colonists.
From an economic perspective, the most prosperous part
of the province is Dacia Superior (Apulensis). The
imperial road from Rome passed through this region, and
it is situated in the most fertile part of Transylvania. The
two most important cities of the province, Colonia Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetus Dacica and Apulum, are located in
the same region as well. The eastern and southern part,
Dacia Inferior, though it has a very strong military
character, is the least developed part of the Dacian

55
LRNT VASS

provinces, having just one urban settlement, Romula. The
level of Romanisation in this region is low, probably
because of the small population. The varying levels of
research may also explain this disproportionate evidence
for Roman culture and lifestyle in different geographical
areas. Romanian Roman archaeology has
overemphasized the investigation of the limes area and
military construction, especially in the region of Dacia
Porolisssensis and Dacia Apulensis.
the demand by a permanent clientele that maintains the
line of production (Figure 6). The profile of production
can be also influenced by existing tradition, or by
different fashion trends. The quantity and the price of the
products are strongly influenced by the technology used
(mechanized or manual).

Bone-working and economic life

In the Roman period bone artifacts are very widespread

products of economic life. In comparison to the
prehistoric bone industry, Roman bone items are usually
standardized, related items, fittings, or jewelry. Items of
similar size and decoration are found in the most far-
flung provinces of the Empire. The most popular group of
artifacts made of bone is the diverse group of hairpins
that are recovered in large quantities not only from the Figure 1: The proportion of the main types of bone and antler
sites of Dacia, but in the other provinces as well. The products in Dacia. These diagrams are based on published
spread of hairpins reflects the general tendency of the material only. Abbreviations used: OH-Ornaments and objects
Roman economy to satisfy the demand of all consumers, related to hair-styles; OE-Objects of everyday use; GP-Gaming
even of the less wealthy population. In comparison with pieces; MD-Medical instruments; TI-Tools and instruments;
Pannonia (Br 1994) or other provinces, the bone OC-Object related to cosmetics; OWS- Objects related to
weaving and spinning; MEW- Objects decorating weapons,
carvings from Dacia are not as well represented. The
weapon-fittings, and objects of the military equipment; OW-
majority of the bone artifacts are various kinds of related Objects of wear; FF-Furniture fittings, appliqu, decorations.
fittings for articles such as furniture, tools, military
equipment, and gaming pieces (cf. Figure 4) (Alicu-
Neme 1982; Coci-Alicu 1993; Ciugudean 1997; Petic-
Zrinyi 2000; Vass 2006). We rarely find beautiful and
unique pieces that could be considered works of art4
among the bone carvings. The lack of beautiful carvings
and the large number of related items and hairpins proves
that the bone industry in Dacia is based mainly, even
more than in the other Roman provinces, on mass
production.

The majority of the finished products (Figure 1) were

unearthed from settlements (cities: Ciugudean 1997;
Cserni 1912, 280-282; Alicu-Neme 1982; Gudea-Bajusz
1991; Vass 2006 and military settlements: Gudea et al.
Figure 2: The distribution of bone products in Roman forts in
1992, 86-88, nr. 1-57, 92, nr. 1-10, fig. C-CII, CXX- Dacia.
CXXVI; Gudea-Pop 1971, Taf. LVIII, Protase et al.
1997, pl. LXXXII-LXXXIV; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Taf.
LXXXII, Taf. XCIV-C, CI/1-4), although research at
urban settlements is very limited. Not only is the quantity
higher in these cases, but the artifacts are more
diversified (Figure 3) in terms of function. This could be
explained by the continuity and larger scale of production
in these sites, owing probably to a stable clientele. In the
case of the better researched military forts, the range is
much more limited (Figure 2), production being focused
on satisfying the local needs of the troops. Most of the
bone items are tools, instruments, and objects related to
military equipment and weapons.

Bone tool production is determined by the acquisition of Figure 3: The distribution of bone products in Roman
and type of raw material used in manufacturing and by settlements in Dacia.

56

Figure 5: The province of Dacia (after Cristian Gzdac).
Figure 6: Economic aspects of bone working.
Raw material
On the basis of the published literature, it is very hard to
determine the raw material used and the animal species
from which the raw material came. Archaeozoological
studies usually focus on the ancient livestock and food
habits, without analyzing the bone-working debris. The
food debris came mainly from the most common
domestic species including Bos taurus, Ovis, Capra, Sus,
and Equus (Gudea 2007). The analyses of the finished
bone artifacts and working debris reflect the same
situation. Bone artifacts are made usually of long bones
of the species mentioned above (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig.
7). We can conclude that the raw material was provided
mainly by the abundant food debris. As in other
provinces, antler was another very popular raw material,
preferred because of its flexible structure. Although antler
combs were not as popular as they were in Pannonia
57
BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA
(Br 1994, 12), antler was used largely for
manufacturing handles, bow stiffeners, gaming pieces etc.
(Petic-Zrinyi 2000, pl.II/4, 5, 8, pl.V/7; Gudea et al.
1992, Pl CXXI, CXXII). Considering that Dacia was rich
in forests, the acquisition of antler was not a problem
either. By collecting the shed antler pieces the artisan
could collect enough raw material for manufacturing,
without the need for hunting. Ivory was not a popular raw
material; it may have been too expensive. We have only
a few artifacts made of this material5.
Clientele
The province of Dacia was established for strategic
purposes, which means that a large concentration of
military units was placed inside it. In such a militarized
province (Figure 7) it is no wonder that the main
consumers were members of the army. The majority of
the identified workshops are situated along the western
limes (Tibiscum, Buciumi, Porolissum), along the large
Imperial road. They were meant to satisfy the internal
needs of the troups (for weapons, military equipment,
etc.). Because archaeological investigations in Romania
have focused mostly on the military features, with the
exception of Apulum we do not have a general picture of
the bone working in the cities. On the basis of the
distribution of functional categories we can surmise that
the bone industry from the cities was of a civilian
character and intended to satisfy consumer demands.
Unfortunately, the lack of published material makes it
impossible to separate the different social levels among
the consumers.
LRNT VASS
Figure 7: Workshops in Dacia (after Cristian Gzdac).
Tradition, fashion
Identifying tradition in manufacturing or in distribution
of certain mass-produced artifacts is very difficult. There
is no evidence of bone working in the province before the
Roman period. The indigenous Dacian population did not
use bone as raw material, so the possibility of an inherited
cultural tradition is excluded. What kind of cultural
tradition can we then observe? The only plausible
tradition would have come from outside, brought in by
colonists or soldiers, as we believe, from east. This is true
of the many bone arrowheads (Figure 8) found in the
large auxiliary camp from Porolissum (Gudea 2006, fig.
10) and the arrow nocks from Tibiscum ( Benea 2003, fig.
VII/1,12; Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-66, 5-67, 5-68) and
Micia (Petculescu 2002, fig. 5-64, 5-65). The
unpublished bone arrowheads as well as the bone nocks
from Porolissum are unique pieces in the Roman Empire.
They were found in military forts where three similar
irregular units had been stationed, the numerus
Palmyrenorum Porolissensis (Porolissum), the numerus
Palmyrenorum Tibiscensium (Tibiscum), and the cohors
II Flavia Commagenorum equitata sagittariorum (Micia).
The arrowheads and nocks could have been part of the
weaponry of these eastern archery units. The bone
arrowheads are precise imitations of iron and bronze
ones; we can find among them leaf-shaped arrowheads
just like arrowheads of triangular cross-section. The
manufacturing of one of these little items takes more time
and energy than making one of metal, but they are
considerably lighter. Pauli Jensen analyzed the Roman
arrowheads in Denmark and concluded that light
arrowheads can reach a higher speed, and living tissue is
less resistant to penetration at high speed (Pauli Jensen
2005, 544). Were these arrowheads were used for
58
fighting or for hunting? The low weight and the broad
head (in the case of leaf-shaped items) may argue for
their use as hunting weapons. However, these artifacts
were recovered among other metal weapons from the
weapon-deposit near the praetentura of the big auxiliary
camp from Porolissum (Gudea et al. 1988, 149). This and
the fact that bone objects related to arrows could be found
in Tibiscum and Micia where the other archery units were
stationed could not be coincidental. In all three camps a
considerable number of finished and unfinished bow
stiffeners were found6 among these objects. Without
access to all the objects discussed above, it was
impossible to observe any kind of similarities in the
technical process or to identify the existence of a
common know-how. These objects reflect rather a special
kind of fighting strategy that the units brought with them.
This seems to be plausible since these units were
stationed on the western limes, a defensive line facing the
land inhabited by the dreaded Sarmatian population
famous for their archery skills. The role of the eastern
irregular archery units was probably to keep this
barbarian population away from the Roman borders.
Figure 8: Bone arrowheads from the auxiliary fort from
Porolissum (photo by the author).

Workshops (cf. Figure 7)
The hardest part of worked-bone research is the location
and definition of workshops. In comparison to other
handicrafts, bone working does not need a special tool kit
or special room for the equipment. Unfortunately, the
Roman written sources do not even mention this
handicraft; the only written evidence for it refers to the
ivory sculptors (eborarii) who were working in the same
building and collegium with the carpenters (citrarii)
(Deschler-Erb 1998, 93). Usually the most reliable clue to
the existence of bone workshops is the waste material and
unfinished pieces. Taking into consideration this
mobility of bone workshops, we believe that almost
every settlement had at least one workshop producing
bone artifacts, even if the publications and research do
not reflect this. I will present the main workshops
identified so far, focusing first of all on the waste
material.
Tibiscum
The workshop (Benea 2003, 223) from Tibiscum was of a
military character. It was identified in masonry in the 3rd
phase of the auxiliary fort (120-165 AD). In the inventory
of this workshop we find many unfinished or finished
bow stiffeners (Figure 9), some arrowheads, handles,
unfinished counters, and pendants of antler (Benea 2003,
224, Taf. IV-VII). The distribution of functional
categories reveals that the workshop satisfied the internal
demands of the archers (cohors I Sagittatorium) stationed
here. The raw material used here was mainly antler. The
manufacturing techniques are the same as those used
elsewhere in the Roman Empire. The sawn-off antler
tines were split to different sizes and forms. The prepared
material then was shaped by rasping or by faceting with a
knife to produce the desired form.
Figure 9: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from
Tibiscum (after Benea 2003).
59
BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA
Buciumi
A workshop (Figure 10) was identified in the barrack nr 5
in the auxiliary fort from Bucium (Gudea et al. 1992, 86-
89). As in Tibiscum, this workshop was supplying the
army. On the basis of the unfinished and finished bone
items, we can show that this workshop specialized in
producing handles and counters (Gudea et al. 1992, 86-
87, nr.1-37, fig. CXX-CXXII, CXV/1-4). Antler is the
most popular raw material in this case, too.
Unfortunately, in the absence of archaeozoological
analysis of the animal bones coming from this site, we
cannot determine whether the preference for antler for
manufacturing artifacts was related to the hunting of
cervids in the region. The handles are made of antler tines
by sawing and by maintaining the lightly curved natural
form of the raw material. Barrack nr 5, where the
workshop was identified, contained waste material of
bronze working as well, indicating that the bone
workshop used the same building as other handicrafts and
probably the same tool kit.
Figure 10: Workshop debris from the auxiliary fort from
Buciumi (after Gudea et al. 1992).
Porolissum
The bone arrowheads recovered from the big auxiliary
camp from Porolissum were discussed above. In addition
to these arrowheads, a lot of unfinished and finished bow
stiffeners of antler were recovered, indicating that there
was a bone workshop specialized in producing weapons
belonging to the archery unit stationed here (Figure 11).
Unfortunately, we cannot locate the workshop precisely,
because the majority of these stiffeners were recovered
from the water cistern in the camp along with glass-
working and ceramic debris (Gudea et al. 1988, 151).
Antler cutoffs, unfinished pieces, and waste material were
recovered from the amphitheatre, too (Vass 2006, 646 nr.
1-4; fig. 2-1, 2-4). A small number of unfinished objects
were recovered here that could not be clearly connected
to a finished product. As a result it is difficult to
determine whether another workshop functioned in the
LRNT VASS
amphitheatre or whether the debris reached here as waste
material from the nearby workshop in the fort.
Micia
In the military fort of Micia, in a store dated to 106-107
AD, bow stiffeners, arrow nocks and antler waste
material were unearthed (Petculescu 2002, 765, fig. 3-32,
3-39, fig. 4-40, 4-52). The waste and unfinished material
consisted of antler plaque cutoffs related to the
production of bow stiffeners as seen at the forts of
Porolissum and Tibiscum. The plaques bear the traces of
rasping and cutting with a saw. The workshop can be
related probably to the eastern archery unit, cohors II
Flavia Commagenorum.
Figure 11: Unfinished and waste material from the production
of bow stiffeners from the auxiliary fort from Porolissum
(photo: L. Vass).
Apulum
We identified several bone workshops in the urban
settlement of Apulum (Figure 12). So far, Apulum is the
only city where we can closely observe the organization
of the bone industry. The nature of the production differs
totally from the workshops of military character
presented above. Its main clientele is the civilian
population. Excavations carried out in the beginning of
the 20th century by B. Cserni (Ciugudean 1997, 82, pl.
37-2; Ciugudean. 2001: 63; 69, fig. 5; Ciugudean 2000,
63) in the governors palace (Figure 12-A), south-east of
the legionary fort, recovered many finished and
unfinished bone items, including a rib with circular
cutoffs for manufacturing counters. This proves that the
60
governors palace had its own workshop. Another
workshop was located in the northern part of the colony.
In a large building (Figure 12-B) B. Cserni found 316
bone artifacts, including 216 hairpins and needles (Figure
13) (Cserni 1912, 280-282, fig. 23-2)8. The bone working
debris and the large numbers of hairpins and needles
reveal a specialized bone workshop or store, whose main
product was hairpins. The bone artifacts were
concentrated in rooms A, B and I, so we can conclude
that the bone working took place in these rooms. In this
building a large quantity of ceramic and glass-working
waste material was identified as well. This underlines
again that bone-working was a complementary
handicraft, and it functioned in the same workshop as
other handicrafts.
The third workshop was located in the territory of the
cannabae, in Moilor Street and Gemina Street (Figure
12-C). Various antler tine, goat horn core, and long bone
cutoffs were recovered from dwellings and pits dated to
the time of Trajan and Hadrian (Ciugudean 2001, 62).
The fourth workshop comes from the cannabae as well.
In the backyard of Horia, Cloca i Crian High school
(Figures 12-D and 14) a large trash pit with bone-working
debris was recovered. The debris included ephiphysis
cutoffs thrown away after the preparation of raw material
and various parts of diaphysis probably deposited for
future processing (Ciugudean 2001, 63, fig.7).
We are dealing, therefore, with at least four separate bone
workshops, each with its own clientele and profile. It
seems that each workshop satisfied the demand of a
certain area: cannabae, civilian settlement (colony), or
governors palace. Apulum is a good example of the
organization of the bone-working industry in urban
settlements.
Figure 12: Workshops in Apulum.

Figure 13: Bone objects from a possible workshop in Apulum
(after Cserni 1912).
Figure 14: Workshop debris from Apulum
(after Ciugudean 2001).
Other bone- or antler-working workshops in Dacia could
have functioned in almost every Roman settlement and
fort, including some other military forts from Romita 9,
Iliua 10, Cumidava 11, and settlements like Cristeti 12.
In these cases the small number of unfinished objects and
waste material, and in some cases the lack of information
concerning their precise localization or the poor quality
of the illustrations, do not allow us to reconstruct the
character of the bone industry at these sites so the
existence of standardized production is probable but not
certain.
Conclusions
Bone-working, like any other handicraft can be used as
an archaeological source for reconstructing economic and
daily life. The bone industry in Dacia and other parts of
the Roman Empire, is based on mass production. That is
why the majority of bone artifacts are different related
fittings (handles, hinges, weapon parts, etc) or ornaments
(hairpins). In a militarized and Romanized province like
Dacia, the main consumers were the members of the
61
BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA
army, as well as part of the civilian population. The
distribution of functional categories of different
workshops can shed light upon the profile and clientele of
these products. Thus we can distinguish between
workshops of military and of civilian character. There is
no Roman fort that would not have at least one bone
workshop meant to supply the military unit. So far, we
managed to identify just four such workshops: in
Tibiscum, Micia, Buciumi, and Porolissum, as well as
three other possible workshop from the forts from
Romita, Iliua and Cumidava. Even if Dacia is considered
a very urbanized province, the research on urban
settlements is very limited. We only have information
about the bone industry of Apulum, where we identified
at least four different workshops. Each workshop had its
own clientele and was meant to satisfy the demand of a
particular area (cannabae, colony, governors palace).
The clientele in all four cases seems to be the civilian
population, as the predominance of hairpins suggests. We
emphasize that this overview of the bone industry in
Dacia focused on the economic aspects of this handicraft.
Further research and publications may modify or confirm
these conclusions.
Lrnt Vass
Str. Koglniceanu nr. 1, Cluj-Napoca
Babe-Bolyai University
Romania
v_lorant@yahoo.com
Note 1: Bone finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa
Dacica: Alicu-Neme 1982; Due to D. Ciugudeans
serious studies the majority of these studies focus on the
bone items from Apulum: Ciugudean 1997- we should
mention that this work is the first and so far the only
monograph dedicated to bone objects from Dacia
(Ciugudean 2001; Ciugudean 2002).
Note 2: During its existence, Dacias administrative and
political organization was largely unmodified. There
were only two major administrative reorganizations: one
during the reign of Hadrian, when for defensive
purposes, Dacia was divided into two political entities:
Dacia Superior and Dacia Inferior. In the same period
another administrative entity appeared: Dacia
Porolissensis, though its exact boundaries are still not
clear. The other reorganization took place in 168 under
Marcus Aurelius, when these existing entities were
renamed: Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Apulensis and
Dacia Malvensis (Ardevan 1998, 25-28).
Note 3: The massive colonization resulted from the
Dacian-Roman war in 105-106 AD. The elite of the
native Dacian population must have been executed, and a
large part of the civilian population ended their
traditional settlements and lifestyle. It is still unclear
what actually happened to the indigenous Dacian
population after the war.
LRNT VASS
Note 4: Except for a statue of Hercules from Apulum and
another of Eros riding a dolphin (both still unpublished)
from Porolissum we do not possess any unique pieces.
Note 5: Hopefully the lack of ivory pieces can be
explained by the improper analysis of raw material or by
the unpublished artifacts that are lying in the cupboards
of different researchers.
Note 6: The bow stiffeners from Porolissum are still
unpublished (see Figure 7); Tibiscum: Benea 2003, Taf.
VII/3-6, 8-11; Benea-Petru 1994, fig. 22; Micia:
Petculescu 2002, fig. 1-4; 5-53.
Note 7: According to N. Gudea, the Roman archery units
concentrated in Porolissum were not necessarily
equipped according to the weaponry of the enemy.
Rather, they were used to prevent the raids by the
barbarian population outside the province (Gudea 2006,
399).
Note 8: Cserni, on the basis of the many hairpins and
needles, confirms that the owners of the building were
women for a long period.
Note 9: Antler tines, probably unfinished objects, without
illustration (Matei-Bajusz 1997, 129).
Note 10: Antler tine cutoffs, a plaque showing traces of
testing decorating tools (compass). Unfortunately, the
authors do not provide any kind of information about
their place of discovery inside the camp or any
description of them (Protase et al. 1997, pl. LXXIV/3-5,
LXXXIII/2-9).
Note 11: Unfortunately, the quality of the photos is very
poor, so we can barely see any kind of manufacturing
traces on the illustrated antler cutoffs (Gudea-Pop 1971,
Taf. LVIII/5-10).
Note 12: In the settlement of Cristeti four objects may be
considered as unfinished or waste material. Considering
that the four objects were made of three different types of
raw material (goat horn, antler and bird-bone) these
pieces represent a rather ad-hoc style of manufacturing
(Petic-Zrinyi 2000, 124, nr.12, 13; 125, nr. 16, 17, pl.
II/4, 5, 8, 9).
References cited
Alicu-Neme, E. 1982. Obiecte de os descoperite la Ulpia
Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Acta Musei Napocensis XIX, 345-
366.
Ardevan, R. 1998. Viaa municipal n Dacia Roman.
Timioara.
Benea, D. and Petru, P. 1994. Tibiscum. Timioara.
62
Benea, D. 2003. Istoria aezrilor de tip vici militares din
Dacia roman. Timioara.
Br, M. 1994. The bone objects of the Roman Collection.
Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici II, Budapest.
Ciugudean, D. 1997. Obiectele din os, corn i filde de la
Apulum. Alba Iulia.
Ciugudean, D. 2001. Workshops and manufacturing
techniques at Apulum (Ad 2nd-3rd Century), in A.
Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Crafting Bone:
Skeletal Technologies through time and Space. Oxford,
BAR International Series 937, 61-72.
Ciugudean, D. 2002. Noi artefacte din os de la Apulum.
Apulum XXXIX, 289-300.
Coci, S. and Alicu, D. 1993. Obiecte de os din Dacia
Apulensis i Dacia Porolissensis. Acta Musei
Porolissensis XVII, 114-149.
Cserni, B. 1912. Jelents a Colonia Apulensis terletn
vgzett satsokrl. Muzeumi s Knyvtri rtest 6,
257-28.
Deschler-Erb, S. 1998. Rmische Beinartefakte aus
Augusta Raurica. Augst.
Gzdac, C. 2002. Circulaia monetar n Dacia i
provinciile nvecinate de la Traian la Constantin I, vol. I,
Cluj-Napoca.
Gudea, N. 2006. Sagittarii Porolissenses i armele lor. I.
(Sagittarii Porolissenses and their weapons), in C. Gaiu
and C. Gzdac (eds.) Fontes Historiae. Studia In
Honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistrita-Cluj-Napoca, 395-
415.
Gudea, A. 2007. Contribuii la istoria economic a
Daciei romane. Studiu arheozoologic. Cluj-Napoca.
Gudea, N. and Bajusz, I. 1991. Ace de pr din os de la
Porolissum. Cteva observaii n legtur cu ace din os
pentru prins prul din Dacia Roman, in Acta Musei
Porolissensis XIV-XV, 81-126.
Gudea, N., Chiril, E, Luccel, V., Pop, C. 1992. Das
Rmerlager von Buciumi. Cluj-Napoca.
Gudea, N., Chiril, E, Matei, A. V., Bajusz, I., Tamba, D.
1988. Raport preliminar n legtur cu spturile
arheologice i lucrrile de conservare i restaurare
executate n complexul daco-roman Porolissum n anii
1986-1987, in Acta Musei Porolissensis XII, 147-189.
Gudea, N. and Pop, I. I. 1971. Das Rmerlager von
Rnov (Rosenau) CVMIDAVA. Beitrge zu den
Limesuntersuchungen im Sdosten des rmischen Dazien.
Braov.
 BONE-WORKING IN ROMAN DACIA

Matei, A.V., Bajusz, I. 1997. Castrul roman de la

Romita-Certiae. Das Rmergrenzkastell von Romita-
Certiae. Zalu.

Pauli Jensen, X. 2005. Arrowheads in Danish bogs

Evidence on change in military tactics, in Limes XIX,
Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of
Roman Frontier Studies, Pecs, Hungary, September 2003.
Visy, Zs, 543-555.

Petculescu, L. 2002. The military equipment of oriental

archers in Roman Dacia, in Ph. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T
Fiema and B. Hoffmann (eds.), LIMES XVIII,
Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of
Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan
(September 2000), Volume II. Oxford, BAR International
Series 1084, 765-770.

Petic, M. and Zrinyi, A. 2000. Obiecte de os n coleciile

Muzeului Judeean Mure. Marisia XXVI, 123-135.

Protase, D., Gaiu, C. and Marinescu, L. 1997. Castrul

roman de la Iliua, Bistria.

Timoc, C. 2007. Prelucrarea osului i cornului n

provincia Dacia, in D. Benea (ed.), Meteuguri i
artizani n Dacia roman. Timioara, 171-183.

Vass, L. 2006. Unpublished Roman bone artifacts from

the amphitheatre of Porolissum, in C. Gaiu and C.
Gzdac (eds.), Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem
Demetrii Protase. Bistria-Cluj-Napoca, 641-657.

63
 Functional categories
Ornaments and objects related to
hair-styles
Objects of everyday use
Gaming pieces
Medical instruments
Tools
Objects related to cosmetics
Objects related to weaving and
spinning
Objects decorating weapons,
weapons fittings and military
equipment
Objects of wear
Furniture fittings, appliqus,
decorations
Figure 4: Functional categories and types of objects made of bone in Dacia.
Artifacts belonging to Reference
functional categories
hairpins Alicu-Neme 1982, p. 352-353; Gudea-Bajusz
1991; Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl I-IX; Gudea et alii
1992, Pl C; Protase et alii 1997, Pl LXXXII/1-
10, 13-19; Isac 1999, Taf VII/44-47; VIII, IX/56-
58, X/65-67; Ciugudean 1997, Pl IV-IX; Petic-
Zrinyi 2000, Pl IV, V/3-6; Ciugudean 2002, Pl
II/1-5, III/1-4, IV/4;
bracelets Unpublished (from Apulum)
Pendants, amulets Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XVI/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XIII/1-5 XIV/1-3; Matei-Bajusz 1997, Pl
LXXXII/5; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/2
Comb Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl.X/1.
needles Alicu-Neme 1982, PL II-III, Coci-Alicu 1993,
Pl. XIV; Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CI; Protase et alii
1997, Pl LXXXII/11, 12, 20; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XV-XVIII; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl I; Ciugudean
2002, Pl II/6-7; Vass 2006, Fig. 4-5.
counters Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl. IV/10-13; V; Gudea et
alii 1992, Pl CXXII, CXXV/14; Coci-Alicu 1993,
Pl XXI/4-6; XXII-XXIII; Protase et alii 1997, Pl
LXXXIII/3-6; Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXI-XXXII;
Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/3-5; Ciugudean 2002,
Pl V/3-6; Vass 2006, Fig.7/40-43.
dice Alicu-Neme 1982, PL VI/1-4; Coci-Alicu
1993, Pl. XXI/1-3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XXXIII/1-6; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl VI/1; Vass
2006, Fig. 7/44.
spoons Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl IX/2; Gudea et alii 1992,
Pl. CXXVI/3; Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl. XII-XIII;
Ciugudean 1997, Pl. XXVI-XXVII/1-4;
Ciugudean 2002, Pl V/1-2, Vass 2006, Fig.
3/11.
palettes Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/3-4; Ciugudean 1997,
Pl XXXVI/11
Knife handles Gudea et alii 1992, Pl CXX/4-6, CXXVI/5;
Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XVIII/3, XIX/1; Protase et
alii 1997, Pl LXXXIII/2, LXXXIV/2; Petic-Zrinyi
2000, Pl III/8; Ciugudean 2002, Pl III/5, Vass
2006, Fig. 12/12.
Knot loosener Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl.VIII/2, Protase et alii
1997, Pl LXXXIV/1
Tools used for decorating Coci-Alicu 1993, PL XI/2-3; Ciugudean 1997,
pottery Pl V/2
Flutes Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXXIV/1.
Handles Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl IV/1-7; Coci-Alicu 1993,
Pl XI/4, 6; Pl XVI/1-5., Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XXVII/8,9; Pl XXVIII/1,2,5,6.
Unguentum jars (pyxis) Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl IX/2; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XIII/6; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, VI/2; Vass 2006, Fig.
3/8.
spatulas Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XI/1
Distaffs, spindles Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XV/1-2; Ciugudean 1997,
Pl XXVII/6-7; Gudea 2008, Pl LXXI/9
Spindle whorls Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3-5
Loom fittings Alicu-Neme 1982, Pl VI/5, VII/1,6, 7, 8; VIII/1;
Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XXIV; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XII/1-4; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl II/1-3
Scabbard chapes Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/2, Vass 2006, Fig.
6/34
Scabbard slides Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/1
Gard de sabie Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XX/2
Bow stiffeners Ciugudean 1997, Pl XXX/2-4; Matei-Bajusz
1997, Pl LXXXII/1-2; Petic-Zrinyi 2000, Pl V/7;
Benea 2003, Taf VII/9-11., Vass 2006,
Fig.6/30-33.
Arrow heads, nocks Gudea et alii 1992, Pl C/3; Benea 2003, Taf.
VII/1,2, 12, Petculescu 2002, Fig. 5/64-68.
rings Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl. XV/3; Ciugudean 1997, Pl
XII/5-6, Vass 2006, Fig. 3/10
Needles with three holes Ciugudean 1997, Pl XVII/7,8, XXV/1-2; Matei-
Bajusz 1997, Pl CI/2,3.
Decorative appliqus Coci-Alicu 1993, Pl XVII/3.; Petic-Zrinyi 2000,
Pl V/1, VI/6, Vass 2006, Fig.3/5-7
64