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

Luik, Heidi

Introduction

The idea that objects, like people, have biographies was first suggested by Igor Kopytoff (1986). Since that time the biographical approach 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 been tackled by Andres Tvauri (2001, 165 ff.; 2002, 276 ff.) and Kristiina Johanson (2006, 100). In the biographical approach, according to Chris Caple, the object is treated as part of a production and use sequence, in which materials are transformed into products, using skills of craftsmen who, in turn, use the available tools and facilities (Caple 2000, 76; 2006, 13 ff., fig. 3.1). Besides "biography" and "life history", the term "use life" has been employed (Gosden & Marshall 1999, 170). Linda Hurcombe stresses that the use life of an object can outlast its maker (e.g. Choyke 2006, 2007), objects could have been used in different ways and have meant different things; she presents these object-people interactions through time as spirals (Hurcombe 2007, 22 ff., fig. 2.3). But although the biographical approach has successfully dealt with the births and deaths of objects, it is often difficult to say something about their lives between their birth and death (Joy & Armstrong Oma 2008).

In the present article I discuss biographies of artefacts analyzing their possibilities for a "new life" through mending or modifying. Artefacts do not have biographies without people. Both the birth and death of an artefact, but also its life, are connected with people. As Julian Thomas (2007, 17) puts it, "we might wish to say that artefacts too have a past, but only by virtue of their engagement and involvement in a human world".

Perhaps in the case of a repaired or recycled object it would be possible to trace more persons who might have had some connection with that artefact. What could we find out about these people? Is it possible to find out who tried to give a new life to the broken artefact, and why? How many persons were connected with the "new life" of an artefact? Was it just one person, the owner, who repaired it and used it again? Or was there a craftsman involved in the process of giving a new life to it? Or maybe the owner discarded it and someone else found it and repaired, recycled or reused it?

People made decisions whether to discard the artefact or whether to repair it. Why were some artefacts discarded after breaking and others were repaired or recycled (Choyke & Daroczi-Szabo in print; Choyke & Kovats in print)? Were practical reasons most important--maybe it was not easy to get a new one? Were only valuable things repaired? What was the value? Did the artefact need to be expensive or imported or maybe it had to have some sentimental value or some meaning because of which the artefact was seen as worthy of a new life? Or could it sometimes happen just by chance? In the present article I try to find answers to these questions using the biographies of combs from different periods as case studies.

Different possibilities for a broken comb

Fine comb teeth that often broke were the weakest part of bone combs (e.g. Luik 1998, pls I-IV). There were two possibilities in the subsequent life of such a comb--it was either thrown away or repaired. If repaired, the broken part could be replaced or the shape of the artefact was modified. The possibility chosen might have depended on the skills of the repairer. In both cases, the biography of the comb would continue having the same function and meaning as before breaking. Sometimes it was not possible to repair the comb so that it could be used 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 which extent they were replaced. On some combs a tooth plate with broken teeth was replaced by a new one. Sometimes, for example on a comb from Haithabu, a single tooth was carefully replaced (Ulbricht 1978, 66, pl. 33: 3). Sometimes the end plate or connecting plate were replaced, as suggested by a different ornament or shape, or sometimes even different material (e.g. a bone plate on a comb, which otherwise is made of antler). 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 fine teeth of the curved end plate are not sharpened while the teeth of the other plates are. The comb from Viljandi has different ornaments on the end plate and the connecting plates (Fig. 1), although usually a comb with end plates decorated with dots and circles also has the same pattern on connecting plates (e.g. Luik 1998, figs 74 ff.). It should be mentioned as well that the end plate seems to be made more carelessly than the connecting plates. That this comb had been mended is also suggested by the fact that the saw marks on the connecting plate differ slightly in terms of the gaps between teeth (Fig. 2). It appears that the tooth plates were moved a little during replacement of some detail(s). It is possible that one of the tooth plates was also replaced, 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 such occasions the broken part was cut off, trying to give the comb a better look or more convenient shape (e.g. Roes 1963, 10, pl. II: 6). For instance, 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 such repair work have been found in Schleswig (Ulbricht 1984, pl. 23: 7, 10) and Novgorod (Smirnova 2005, 106, fig. 4.1). A large single comb was found at the hill fort of Rouge in Estonia, one side of which was cut off, probably because it was broken. The cut surface was carefully smoothed 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 from the Dome Church of Tartu, discovered in summer 2008 (Malve 2008). It is not a comb, but a brush with bone back. A side or sides of the brush were probably broken, after which both sides were cut smooth again (Fig. 4). Although the result was a narrow object with only two rows of bristles, it was evidently still possible to use it as a brush.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Substantial modification of the object--does the new shape also mean a new meaning?

As a case study, an open-work antler pendant from the Viking Age Rouge hill fort is presented. At first sight, it does not appear to be a comb at all (Fig. 5). However, several comb-shaped pendants with open-work upper part have been found in Rouge as well as elsewhere in south-eastern Estonia and comparing their ornamentation with the object under study here reveals that in its first life this object must have been 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 upper section that many of these pendants were broken. Other pendants, however, were no longer used after they broke. Nevertheless, the broken side of this comb-shaped pendant was cut smooth and it was probably used as a pendant again. The question arises whether the modified pendant had the same meaning as the original comb-shaped pendant or whether it changed after acquiring a new shape?

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

An object with quite a different function and meaning--gambling with a comb

Sometimes it may happen that all teeth of a double comb, or most of them, 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 and its probable fate is to be cast away. Still, it may happen that a new function can be found even for such an object. The example of such possibility 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 piece from this comb--i.e. an object with quite a different function and meaning.

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

Discussion: who and why?

Is it possible, regarding combs, to draw any conclusions about who has mended or reused them, and why?

As for mended combs with replaced parts, it is important to observe the level of workmanship used to manufacture it to assess whether the work was carried out by a professional craftsman (who might be the person who made the comb, as well as somebody else). For instance, for replacing a plate a person who undertook it must have been able to rivet the missing detail to its place, to saw sufficiently thin teeth, and, sometimes, to ornament it. For all these tasks, special tools were evidently required, tools possessed only by masters of this craft. Why were artefacts mended? Usually it has been presumed that only valuable and precious objects were mended (Christophersen 1980, 228, 230; Choyke et al. 2004, 185; Caple 2006, 189). With combs it can be observed that mended specimens are more numerous among the earlier, Viking Age combs, which were abundantly decorated. These were time-consuming handicraft products, evidently specially made for a certain customer. With later combs, cheaper and less labour-consuming, made for a wider market and anonymous customers, mending occurred less frequently (Christophersen 1980, 228). In the case of the Viljandi comb (Figs 1-2) it seems that the person who repaired the comb was less skilled than the craftsman who had originally made it.

Concerning the other possibility--changing the shape of an artefact--it seems more likely that the owner of the artefact tried to make it usable. Considering the small number of Viking Age combs found in Estonia, as well as the complete absence of production refuse typical to manufacturing such combs, it seems plausible that the half of a comb found at Rouge hill fort (Fig. 3) was an imported object which could have been considered valuable. Most likely there was no master in the neighbourhood at that time who was able to mend such a comb and therefore 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 most likely adjusted for use by its owner. Maybe as an amulet this pendant possessed a very special (maybe very personal or sentimental) meaning for its wearer, and that was the reason the artefact was not thrown away when it broke. The symbolic meaning of comb-shaped pendants can be related to combing and to hair, to which magic meaning has often been attributed (Luik 1999, 151-152; 2005, 114). From folklore it is known that the ritual combing of the bride's hair before wedding was connected with fertility magic, where the comb teeth imitated rain. The custom of dipping the comb in honey or wine before combing was also related to watering and fecundity (Kondrat'eva 1999, 84). The ritual combing of the bride's hair has been also mentioned in Karelian, Vepsian and Estonian folklore; for example Setu folk songs contain instances where combing the bride's hair was meant to make her livestock and grains crops fertile (Salve 2000, 89 ff.). Could the symbolic meaning related to combing hair have survived even though the artefact was modified? I suppose it could, because the person who knew its original shape. For example, written sources from the 16th-17th centuries in Russia show that comb was one of the gifts brought to a bride, and in the Volga region comb pendants were part of the bridal costume, having the function of protective magic and symbolizing social status--maturity (Kondrat'eva 1999, 85). Such an object could certainly possess sentimental value for its owner, so that a desire to preserve and use the broken object is understandable.

Concerning the "gambling comb" from Viljandi (Fig. 8), I would suggest that the person who tried to modify the artefact was probably not its former owner. Sometimes stones or potsherds, which have been cut round, just like the comb from Viljandi, were used as gaming pieces (e.g. Heege 2002, 320, fig. 694). Hence, it was something that was available at that moment, a piece of worked bone which could be re-used relatively easily. I suppose that the Viljandi comb, having become utterly unusable, was thrown away by its owner and incidentally picked 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 chance for a new life. The number of such artefacts, however, was rather small. Repaired or curated artefacts certainly occur among other objects as well, and such artefacts made from a variety of different materials and with different functions definitely offer a number of possibilities for following the life histories of artefacts. The reasons why some of the broken objects were given a new "lease on life" may vary but it is certain that a person was behind each of these opportunities--an individual who gave another opportunity to the artefact. Undoubtedly this person was an important factor in the biography of the artefact, but sometimes the mended and reused artefact may have been also important for the person who did not have the heart to throw it away. As Daniel Miller (1987, 85 ff.) stresses, the relationship between the human subject and the material object is a dialectical one, in which artefacts make people, just as people make artefacts (Thomas 2007, 18).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jody Joy and Kristin Armstrong Oma for organizing session "The biographical approach: were do we go from here?" at the 14th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. I am grateful to Arvi Haak and Martin Malve for their help and permission to publish finds from their recent excavations. I also thank Enno Valjal, Erki Russow, Herki Helves and Andres Vindi for their help with photos and finds, and Liis Soon who translated this paper. My special thanks go to Alice Choyke for her kind help and advice.

References

Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value.--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 Decision Making. Routledge, London.

Caple, C. 2006. Objects. Reluctant Witnesses to the Past. Routledge, London.

Choyke, A. M. 2006. Bone tools for a lifetime: experience and belonging.--Normes techniques et pratiques sociales. De la simplicite des outillages pre- et protohistoriques. XXVIe. rencontres internationales 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: the bone tools from Ecsegfalva 23.--The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Koros Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Bekes. Vol. II. Ed. A. Whittle. (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XXI.) Publicationes Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Hungari, Budapest, 641-666.

Choyke, A. M. & Daroczi-Szabo, M. In print. The complete & usable tool: some life histories of prehistoric bone tools in Hungary.--Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group at Nanterre, August 27th-31st, 2007.

Choyke, A. M. & Kovats, I. In print. Tracing the personal through generations: Late Medieval and Ottoman combs.--Bestial Mirrors: Using Animals to Construct Human Identities in Medieval Europe. (VIA VIAS.) The Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science, University of Vienna.

Choyke, A. M., Vretemark, M. & Sten, S. 2004. Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from the Middle Bronze Age Szazhalombatta-Foldvar, Vatya culture, Hungary.--Behavior Behind Bones. 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 Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 4, 13.) Rudolf Habelt Verlag, CWK Gleerup, Bonn.

Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects.--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 ning taaskujunemisest Uusi andmeid arheoloogilistelt kaevamistelt 1996-2005. (Viljandi Muuseumi aastaraamat, 2005.) Viljandi, 68-87.

Heege, A. 2002. Einbeck im Mittelalter. Eine archaologisch-historische Spurensuche. (Studien zur Einbecker Geschichte, 17.) Isensee Verlag, Oldenburg.

Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological Artefacts as Material Culture. Routledge, London. Johanson, K 2006. The contribution of stray finds for studying 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 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Malta, 16-21 September 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 in Cultural Perspective. Ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 64-91.

Lubar, S. & Kingery, W. D. 1993. Introduction.--History from Things. 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 arheoloogilises leiumaterjalis viikingiajast keskajani. (Dissertations archaeologiae Universitatis 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.--History from 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 Frisian Terp-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 interpretive archaeology.--Fennoscandia archaeologica, XV, 15-30.

Smirnova, L. 2005. Comb-Making in Medieval Novgorod (950-1450). An Industry in Transition. (British Archaeological Reports. International series, 1369.) Archaeopress, Oxford.

Thomas, J. 2007. The trouble with material culture.--Overcoming the Modern Invention of Material Culture. Proceedings of the TAG Session Exeter 2006. Eds V. O. Jorge & J. Thomas.--Journal of Iberian Archaeology, 2006/2007, 9/10, 11-23.

Tvauri, A. 2001. Muinas-Tartu. Uurimus Tartu muinaslinnuse ja asula asustusloost. (MT, 10.) Tartu.

Tvauri, A. 2002. Louna-Eesti noorema rauaaja linnuste ja kulade arheoloogilise 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. (Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu, 7.) Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumunster.

Ulbricht, I. 1984. Die Verarbeitung von Knochen, Geweih und Horn im mittelalterlichen Schleswig. (Ausgrabungen in Schleswig. Berichte und Studien, 3.) Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumunster.

(1) This article is based on the paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists held in Malta on 18-20 September 2008.

Heidi Luik, Institute of History, Tallinn University, 6 Ruutli St., 10130 Tallinn, Estonia; heidi.luik@ai.ee