Minimally modified bone tools have been a difficult subject inside the complicated topic of bone tools. Being problematic to recognise and characterise it has been the subject of several...Show moreMinimally modified bone tools have been a difficult subject inside the complicated topic of bone tools. Being problematic to recognise and characterise it has been the subject of several experimental studies. Two studies knapping larger faunal bone remains Mateo-Lomba, Fernández-Marchena, Ollé and Cáceres (2020) and Hind Saadek-Kooros (1972) were taken as references for this paper. This research is an extension of these studies. By knapping Capreolus capreolus metapodials with a hammer stone on an anvil for marrow removal bone fragments are created. 37 Usable fragments were created. These fragments are analysed by looking at possible use and the need for modifications for them to be categorised as certain bone tools. The fragments are compared to two Neolithic excavations, Schipluiden and Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, and through morphology given possible tool typing. The typing existed out of pins, needles, awls, chisels, blanks, spatulas, blacks, a scraper and a possible hide working tool. Three-quarters still needed modifications before being able to be used as tools. About 24% had the right shape to be used immediately, the biggest amount of these were awls. There were some fragments which also only needed light reshaping before use. This result showed that modifications are not necessarily needed when creating minimally modified bone tools.Show less
This MA thesis is a study into the assemblage of bone tools from the Late Neolithic period of Tell Sabi Abyad, specifically the tools that come from the Operation III area. Only those objects that...Show moreThis MA thesis is a study into the assemblage of bone tools from the Late Neolithic period of Tell Sabi Abyad, specifically the tools that come from the Operation III area. Only those objects that can be seen as tools or implements have been the subject of the research. In total this amounts to an assemblage of 1081 objects. Of these objects this study investigates which types are present, the numbers in which they occur, and the manner of distribution across the area. The first step is the forming of a typology that is easy to understand for anyone working with the bone tool material from Tell Sabi Abyad yet retains enough detail to make clear distinctions in the distribution of the different objects. The framework of the typology is based on several different ways in which researchers have looked at bone tool assemblages; from the very detailed work of J. Schibler to the more basic idea of expedient versus time-invested tools as first proposed by A.T. Clason. A quantitative analysis is then given, where the different typological classifications and the arguments underlying them are mentioned in detail. Secondly, the implement distribution and contexts per typological entity is investigated. This results in the identification of what can be seen as two main centres within the distribution of the Operation III area. Whether these can be counted as centres of activity is not certain. The available data on the contexts gives an ambiguous view and specific activity localities could not be recognized. From the study it becomes clear that Tell Sabi Abyad shows an assemblage comparable to other Neolithic sites in the Near East and other regions. The typology as it is set up fits well within the limits of the typologies of other sites and, as such, is recognizable for those working on similar studies. This counts both for Tell Sabi Abyad as for other sites. Future work will in all likelihood give rise to reasons for alteration of the current typology but it is believed that the main body will remain upright.Show less
