Could broken bone combs have had new lives?Kas purunenud luukammil oli voimalusi uueks eluks?

Could broken bone combs have had new lives?Kas purunenud luukammil oli voimalusi uueks eluks? Introduction The idea that objects, like people, have biographies was firstsuggested by Igor Kopytoff (1986). Since that time the biographicalapproach has been quite widely used in archaeology (e.g. Appadurai 1986;Miller 1987, 126; Lubar & Kingery 1993; Rawson 1993; Shanks 1998;Gosden & Marshall 1999). In Estonian archaeology this topic has beentackled by Andres Tvauri (2001, 165 ff.; 2002, 276 ff.) and KristiinaJohanson (2006, 100). In the biographical approach, according to ChrisCaple, the object is treated as part of a production and use sequence,in which materials are transformed into products, using skills ofcraftsmen who, in turn, use the available tools and facilities (Caple2000, 76; 2006, 13 ff., fig. 3.1). Besides "biography" and"life history", the term "use life" has beenemployed (Gosden & Marshall 1999, 170). Linda Hurcombe stresses thatthe use life of an object can outlast its maker (e.g. Choyke 2006,2007), objects could have been used in different ways and have meantdifferent things; she presents these object-people interactions throughtime as spirals (Hurcombe 2007, 22 ff., fig. 2.3). But although thebiographical approach has successfully dealt with the births and deathsof objects, it is often difficult to say something about their livesbetween their birth and death (Joy & Armstrong Oma 2008). In the present article I discuss biographies of artefacts analyzingtheir possibilities for a "new life" through mending ormodifying. Artefacts do not have biographies without people. Both thebirth and death of an artefact, but also its life, are connected withpeople. As Julian Thomas (2007, 17) puts it, "we might wish to saythat artefacts too have a past, but only by virtue of their engagementand involvement in a human world". Perhaps in the case of a repaired or recycled object it would bepossible to trace more persons who might have had some connection withthat artefact. What could we find out about these people? Is it possibleto find out who tried to give a new life to the broken artefact, andwhy? How many persons were connected with the "new life" of anartefact? Was it just one person, the owner, who repaired it and used itagain? Or was there a craftsman involved in the process of giving a newlife to it? Or maybe the owner discarded it and someone else found itand repaired, recycled or reused it? People made decisions whether to discard the artefact or whether torepair it. Why were some artefacts discarded after breaking and otherswere repaired or recycled (Choyke & Daroczi-Szabo in print; Choyke& Kovats in print)? Were practical reasons most important--maybe itwas not easy to get a new one? Were only valuable things repaired? Whatwas the value? Did the artefact need to be expensive or imported ormaybe it had to have some sentimental value or some meaning because ofwhich the artefact was seen as worthy of a new life? Or could itsometimes happen just by chance? In the present article I try to findanswers to these questions using the biographies of combs from differentperiods as case studies. Different possibilities for a broken comb Fine comb teeth that often broke were the weakest part of bonecombs (e.g. Luik 1998, pls I-IV). There were two possibilities in thesubsequent life of such a comb--it was either thrown away or repaired.If repaired, the broken part could be replaced or the shape of theartefact was modified. The possibility chosen might have depended on theskills of the repairer. In both cases, the biography of the comb wouldcontinue having the same function and meaning as before breaking.Sometimes it was not possible to repair the comb so that it could beused for combing again. Mending a comb--retention of the previous function One way to mend a comb would be through replacing the broken part.There are different possibilities concerning which parts and to whichextent they were replaced. On some combs a tooth plate with broken teethwas replaced by a new one. Sometimes, for example on a comb fromHaithabu, a single tooth was carefully replaced (Ulbricht 1978, 66, pl.33: 3). Sometimes the end plate or connecting plate were replaced, assuggested by a different ornament or shape, or sometimes even differentmaterial (e.g. a bone plate on a comb, which otherwise is made ofantler). For example, one comb from Schleswig has different end plates:one straight and the other with a convex edge (Ulbricht 1984, pl. 31:3). Usually both ends of a comb had similar edges. Moreover, the fineteeth of the curved end plate are not sharpened while the teeth of theother plates are. The comb from Viljandi has different ornaments on theend plate and the connecting plates (Fig. 1), although usually a combwith end plates decorated with dots and circles also has the samepattern on connecting plates (e.g. Luik 1998, figs 74 ff.). It should bementioned as well that the end plate seems to be made more carelesslythan the connecting plates. That this comb had been mended is alsosuggested by the fact that the saw marks on the connecting plate differslightly in terms of the gaps between teeth (Fig. 2). It appears thatthe tooth plates were moved a little during replacement of somedetail(s). It is possible that one of the tooth plates was alsoreplaced, since the teeth of one tooth plate are very regular and equal,while on the other their proportions vary (Fig. 2). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] The other possibility is changing the shape of a comb. On suchoccasions the broken part was cut off, trying to give the comb a betterlook or more convenient shape (e.g. Roes 1963, 10, pl. II: 6). Forinstance, when the teeth of a double simple comb broke only on one side,the broken side was cut off, thus making a single comb. Examples of suchrepair work have been found in Schleswig (Ulbricht 1984, pl. 23: 7, 10)and Novgorod (Smirnova 2005, 106, fig. 4.1). A large single comb wasfound at the hill fort of Rouge in Estonia, one side of which was cutoff, probably because it was broken. The cut surface was carefullysmoothed so that the comb could be used again (Fig. 3; Luik 1998, 25,fig. 11, pl. I: 3). Here, one more example could be given, a find fromthe Dome Church of Tartu, discovered in summer 2008 (Malve 2008). It isnot a comb, but a brush with bone back. A side or sides of the brushwere probably broken, after which both sides were cut smooth again (Fig.4). Although the result was a narrow object with only two rows ofbristles, it was evidently still possible to use it as a brush. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Substantial modification of the object--does the new shape alsomean a new meaning? As a case study, an open-work antler pendant from the Viking AgeRouge hill fort is presented. At first sight, it does not appear to be acomb at all (Fig. 5). However, several comb-shaped pendants withopen-work upper part have been found in Rouge as well as elsewhere insouth-eastern Estonia and comparing their ornamentation with the objectunder study here reveals that in its first life this object must havebeen a comb-shaped pendant with open-work upper part (Fig. 6; Luik 1999,figs 2-4). It was probably because of the fragile open-work uppersection that many of these pendants were broken. Other pendants,however, were no longer used after they broke. Nevertheless, the brokenside of this comb-shaped pendant was cut smooth and it was probably usedas a pendant again. The question arises whether the modified pendant hadthe same meaning as the original comb-shaped pendant or whether itchanged after acquiring a new shape? [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] An object with quite a different function and meaning--gamblingwith a comb Sometimes it may happen that all teeth of a double comb, or most ofthem, are broken so that it was really impossible to use it as a comb(Fig. 7). Evidently the life of such an artefact has come to an end andits probable fate is to be cast away. Still, it may happen that a newfunction can be found even for such an object. The example of suchpossibility is a double comb from medieval Viljandi (Fig. 8; Haak 2005,73, fig. 3: 2). It appears that it was intended to make a gaming piecefrom this comb--i.e. an object with quite a different function andmeaning. [FIGURE 7 OMITTED] [FIGURE 8 OMITTED] Discussion: who and why? Is it possible, regarding combs, to draw any conclusions about whohas mended or reused them, and why? As for mended combs with replaced parts, it is important to observethe level of workmanship used to manufacture it to assess whether thework was carried out by a professional craftsman (who might be theperson who made the comb, as well as somebody else). For instance, forreplacing a plate a person who undertook it must have been able to rivetthe missing detail to its place, to saw sufficiently thin teeth, and,sometimes, to ornament it. For all these tasks, special tools wereevidently required, tools possessed only by masters of this craft. Whywere artefacts mended? Usually it has been presumed that only valuableand precious objects were mended (Christophersen 1980, 228, 230; Choykeet al. 2004, 185; Caple 2006, 189). With combs it can be observed thatmended specimens are more numerous among the earlier, Viking Age combs,which were abundantly decorated. These were time-consuming handicraftproducts, evidently specially made for a certain customer. With latercombs, cheaper and less labour-consuming, made for a wider market andanonymous customers, mending occurred less frequently (Christophersen1980, 228). In the case of the Viljandi comb (Figs 1-2) it seems thatthe person who repaired the comb was less skilled than the craftsman whohad originally made it. Concerning the other possibility--changing the shape of anartefact--it seems more likely that the owner of the artefact tried tomake it usable. Considering the small number of Viking Age combs foundin Estonia, as well as the complete absence of production refuse typicalto manufacturing such combs, it seems plausible that the half of a combfound at Rouge hill fort (Fig. 3) was an imported object which couldhave been considered valuable. Most likely there was no master in theneighbourhood at that time who was able to mend such a comb andtherefore the broken part was just cut off and the surface smoothed(Luik 1998, 139 ff.; 2005, 87-88, 103). The modified comb-shaped pendant from Rouge (Fig. 5) was also mostlikely adjusted for use by its owner. Maybe as an amulet this pendantpossessed a very special (maybe very personal or sentimental) meaningfor its wearer, and that was the reason the artefact was not thrown awaywhen it broke. The symbolic meaning of comb-shaped pendants can berelated to combing and to hair, to which magic meaning has often beenattributed (Luik 1999, 151-152; 2005, 114). From folklore it is knownthat the ritual combing of the bride's hair before wedding wasconnected with fertility magic, where the comb teeth imitated rain. Thecustom of dipping the comb in honey or wine before combing was alsorelated to watering and fecundity (Kondrat'eva 1999, 84). Theritual combing of the bride's hair has been also mentioned inKarelian, Vepsian and Estonian folklore; for example Setu folk songscontain instances where combing the bride's hair was meant to makeher livestock and grains crops fertile (Salve 2000, 89 ff.). Could thesymbolic meaning related to combing hair have survived even though theartefact was modified? I suppose it could, because the person who knewits original shape. For example, written sources from the 16th-17thcenturies in Russia show that comb was one of the gifts brought to abride, and in the Volga region comb pendants were part of the bridalcostume, having the function of protective magic and symbolizing socialstatus--maturity (Kondrat'eva 1999, 85). Such an object couldcertainly possess sentimental value for its owner, so that a desire topreserve and use the broken object is understandable. Concerning the "gambling comb" from Viljandi (Fig. 8), Iwould suggest that the person who tried to modify the artefact wasprobably not its former owner. Sometimes stones or potsherds, which havebeen cut round, just like the comb from Viljandi, were used as gamingpieces (e.g. Heege 2002, 320, fig. 694). Hence, it was something thatwas available at that moment, a piece of worked bone which could bere-used relatively easily. I suppose that the Viljandi comb, havingbecome utterly unusable, was thrown away by its owner and incidentallypicked up by somebody who just needed material for a gaming piece. Thus,the artefact got an opportunity for a new and completely different life. Summary The fact thus was that some broken bone combs were given the chancefor a new life. The number of such artefacts, however, was rather small.Repaired or curated artefacts certainly occur among other objects aswell, and such artefacts made from a variety of different materials andwith different functions definitely offer a number of possibilities forfollowing the life histories of artefacts. The reasons why some of thebroken objects were given a new "lease on life" may vary butit is certain that a person was behind each of these opportunities--anindividual who gave another opportunity to the artefact. Undoubtedlythis person was an important factor in the biography of the artefact,but sometimes the mended and reused artefact may have been alsoimportant for the person who did not have the heart to throw it away. AsDaniel Miller (1987, 85 ff.) stresses, the relationship between thehuman subject and the material object is a dialectical one, in whichartefacts make people, just as people make artefacts (Thomas 2007, 18). Acknowledgements I would like to thank Jody Joy and Kristin Armstrong Oma fororganizing session "The biographical approach: were do we go fromhere?" at the 14th annual meeting of the European Association ofArchaeologists. I am grateful to Arvi Haak and Martin Malve for theirhelp and permission to publish finds from their recent excavations. Ialso thank Enno Valjal, Erki Russow, Herki Helves and Andres Vindi fortheir help with photos and finds, and Liis Soon who translated thispaper. My special thanks go to Alice Choyke for her kind help andadvice. References Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics ofvalue.--The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective.Ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3-63. Caple, C. 2000. Conservation Skills. Judgement, Method and DecisionMaking. Routledge, London. Caple, C. 2006. Objects. Reluctant Witnesses to the Past.Routledge, London. Choyke, A. M. 2006. Bone tools for a lifetime: experience andbelonging.--Normes techniques et pratiques sociales. De la simplicitedes outillages pre- et protohistoriques. XXVIe. rencontresinternationales d'archeologie et d'histoire d'Antibes.Eds L. Astruc, F. Bon, V. Lea, P.-Y. Milcent & S. Philibert.Editions APDCA, Antibes, 49-60. Choyke, A. M. 2007. Objects for a lifetime--tools for a season: thebone tools from Ecsegfalva 23.--The Early Neolithic on the GreatHungarian Plain. Investigations of the Koros Culture Site of Ecsegfalva23, County Bekes. Vol. II. Ed. A. Whittle. (Varia ArchaeologicaHungarica, XXI.) Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici AcademiaeScientiarum Hungari, Budapest, 641-666. Choyke, A. M. & Daroczi-Szabo, M. In print. The complete &usable tool: some life histories of prehistoric bone tools inHungary.--Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Worked Bone ResearchGroup at Nanterre, August 27th-31st, 2007. Choyke, A. M. & Kovats, I. In print. Tracing the personalthrough generations: Late Medieval and Ottoman combs.--Bestial Mirrors:Using Animals to Construct Human Identities in Medieval Europe. (VIAVIAS.) The Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science, University ofVienna. Choyke, A. M., Vretemark, M. & Sten, S. 2004. Levels of socialidentity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle BronzeAge Szazhalombatta-Foldvar, Vatya culture, Hungary.--Behavior BehindBones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity.Proceedings of the ICAZ 9th Conference, Durham, August 2002. Eds S.Jones O'Day, W. van Neer & A. Ervynck. Oxbow Books, Oxford,177-189. Christophersen, A. 1980. Handverket i forandring. Studier i horn-og beinhandverkets utvikling i Lund c:a 1000-1350. (Acta ArchaeologicaLundensia, Series in 4, 13.) Rudolf Habelt Verlag, CWK Gleerup, Bonn. Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography ofobjects.--The Cultural Biography of Objects. Eds Y. Marshall & C.Gosden. (World Archaeology, 31: 2.) Routledge, London, 169-178. Haak, A 2005. Tartu varava eeslinna tekkest, havingust ningtaaskujunemisest Uusi andmeid arheoloogilistelt kaevamistelt 1996-2005.(Viljandi Muuseumi aastaraamat, 2005.) Viljandi, 68-87. Heege, A. 2002. Einbeck im Mittelalter. Einearchaologisch-historische Spurensuche. (Studien zur EinbeckerGeschichte, 17.) Isensee Verlag, Oldenburg. Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological Artefacts as Material Culture.Routledge, London. Johanson, K 2006. The contribution of stray finds forstudying everyday practices--the example of stone axes.--EJA, 10: 2,99-131. Joy, J. & Armstrong Oma, K 2008. The biographical approach:where do we go from here? Session abstract.--The Fourteenth AnnualMeeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Malta, 16-21September 2008. Abstracts Book. University of Malta, 206-207. Kondrat'eva, O. A. 1999. = [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.],80-88. Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things:commoditization as process.--The Social Life of Things. Commodities inCultural Perspective. Ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 64-91. Lubar, S. & Kingery, W. D. 1993. Introduction.--History fromThings. Essays on Material Culture. Eds S. Lubar & W. D. Kingery.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, viii-xvii. Luik, H. 1998. Muinas- ja keskaegsed luukammid Eestis. (MT, 6.)Tallinn. Luik, H. 1999. Kammikujulised luu- ja pronksripatsid Eestis.--EAA,3: 2, 131-159. Luik, H 2005. Luu- ja sarvesemed Eesti arheoloogilisesleiumaterjalis viikingiajast keskajani. (Dissertations archaeologiaeUniversitatis Tartuensis, 1.) Tartu Ulikooli Kirjastus, Tartu. Malve, M 2008. Arheoloogilised uuringud Tartu toomkirikus 2008.Report in preparation. Miller, D. 1987. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell,Oxford. Rawson, J. 1993. The ancestry of Chinese bronze vessels.--Historyfrom Things. Essays on Material Culture. Eds S. Lubar & W. D.Kingery. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 51-73. Roes, A. 1963. Bone and Antler Objects from the FrisianTerp-Mounds. H. D. Tjeenk Willink & zoon, Haarlem. Salve, K 2000. Oh mu hiusta ilusta. Uskumus, tavand, kujund.(Sator, 1.) Tartu, 85-101.http://www.folklore.ee/rl/pubte/ee/sator/sator1/sator1-6.pdf Shanks, M. 1998. The life of an artifact in an interpretivearchaeology.--Fennoscandia archaeologica, XV, 15-30. Smirnova, L. 2005. Comb-Making in Medieval Novgorod (950-1450). AnIndustry in Transition. (British Archaeological Reports. Internationalseries, 1369.) Archaeopress, Oxford. Thomas, J. 2007. The trouble with material culture.--Overcoming theModern Invention of Material Culture. Proceedings of the TAG SessionExeter 2006. Eds V. O. Jorge & J. Thomas.--Journal of IberianArchaeology, 2006/2007, 9/10, 11-23. Tvauri, A. 2001. Muinas-Tartu. Uurimus Tartu muinaslinnuse ja asulaasustusloost. (MT, 10.) Tartu. Tvauri, A. 2002. Louna-Eesti noorema rauaaja linnuste ja kuladearheoloogilise leiumaterjali erinevused.--Keskus--tagamaa--aareala.Uurimusi asustushierarhia ja voimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Ed. V.Lang. (MT, 11.) Tallinn, 275-300. Ulbricht, I. 1978. Die Geweihverarbeitung in Haithabu. (DieAusgrabungen in Haithabu, 7.) Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumunster. Ulbricht, I. 1984. Die Verarbeitung von Knochen, Geweih und Horn immittelalterlichen Schleswig. (Ausgrabungen in Schleswig. Berichte undStudien, 3.) Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumunster. (1) This article is based on the paper presented at the 14th annualmeeting of the European Association of Archaeologists held in Malta on18-20 September 2008. Heidi Luik, Institute of History, Tallinn University, 6 Ruutli St.,10130 Tallinn, Estonia; heidi.luik@ai.ee