Preface

Umberto Albarella, Keith Dobney and Peter Rowley-Conwy

This book is one of several volumes which form the published proceedings of the 9th meeting of the International Council of Archaeozoology (ICAZ), which was held in Durham (UK) 23rd–28th August 2002. ICAZ was founded in the early 1970s and has ever since acted as the main international organisation for the study of animal remains from archaeological sites. The main international conferences are held every four years, and the Durham meeting – the largest ever – follows those in Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, England (London), France, USA, Germany and Canada. The next meeting will be held in Mexico in 2006. The Durham conference – which was attended by about 500 delegates from 46 countries – was organised in 23 thematic sessions, which attracted, in addition to zooarchaeologists, scholars from related disciplines such as palaeoanthropology, archaeobotany, bone chemistry, genetics, mainstream archaeology etc.

The publication structure reflects that of the conference, each volume dealing with a different topic, be it methodological, ecological, palaeoeconomic, sociological, historical or anthropological (or a combination of these). This organisation by theme, rather than by chronology or region, was chosen for two main reasons. The first is that we wanted to take the opportunity presented by such a large gathering of researchers from across the world to encourage international communication, and we thought that this could more easily be achieved through themes with world-wide relevance. The second is that we thought that, by tackling broad questions, zooarchaeologists would be more inclined to take a holistic approach and integrate their information with other sources of evidence. This also had the potential of attracting other specialists who shared an interest in that particular topic. We believe that our choice turned out to be correct for the conference, and helped substantially towards its success. For the publication there is the added benefit of having a series of volumes that will be of interest far beyond the restricted circle of specialists on faunal remains. Readers from many different backgrounds, ranging from history to zoology, will certainly be interested in many of the fourteen volumes that will be published.

Due to the large number of sessions it would have been impractical to publish each as a separate volume, so some that had a common theme have been combined. Far from losing their main thematic focus, these volumes have the potential to attract a particularly wide and diverse readership. Because of these combinations (and because two other sessions will be published outside this series), it was therefore possible to reduce the original 24 sessions to 14 volumes. Publication of such a series is a remarkable undertaking, and we are very grateful to David Brown and Oxbow Books for agreeing to produce the volumes. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank the University of Durham and the ICAZ Executive Committee for their support during the preparation of the conference, and all session organisers – now book editors – for all their hard work. Some of the conference administrative costs were covered by a generous grant provided by the British Academy. Further financial help came from the following sources: English Heritage, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (ROB), County Durham Development Office, University College Durham, Palaeo- ecology Research Services, Northern Archaeological Associates, Archaeological Services University of Durham (ASUD), and NYS Corporate Travel. Finally we are extremely grateful for the continued support of the Wellcome Trust and Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) who, through their provision of Research Fellow- ships for Keith Dobney and Umberto Albarella, enabled us to undertake such a challenge.

As mentioned above, the concern to interpret zoo- archaeology within its wider context applied to all sessions and is reflected in all books of this series. It is, however, useful that one session – now volume – dealt explicitly with the need to integrate the study of faunal remains with other aspects of archaeological research or even different fields, such as history, art history, ethno- graphy, ecology etc. In a way we can regard this book with its emphasis on collaboration, sharing of ideas and the use of zooarchaeology in conjunction with other lines of evidence – as the trademark volume for the whole conference. We were very pleased when Mark Maltby proposed a session which attempts to break traditional boundaries between disciplines. Mark is not just one of the best known English zooarchaeologists, but he can also discuss research issues beyond the boundary of this discipline – as his work in England and Russia, some included in this volume, proves.

Zooarchaeology contributes to the investigation of the material remains of our past and it is either archaeology or nothing. The fact that it is not an independent dis- cipline but part of a more general field of study on past human behaviour does not diminish its importance but rather enhances it. Zooarchaeology is not palaeontology of the more recent past or zoology of ancient animals, and it is not even palaeoecology, unless with this term we want to emphasise the relation between humans and the biological elements of their ecosystems, which takes us back to archaeology. A correct and complete inter- pretation of animal remains from archaeological sites requires a full understanding of different aspects of the archaeological context. Sometimes zooarchaeologists can carry out this integration on their own, but more often this occurs as a consequence of a team effort, as several joint papers in this book eloquently prove. In other words, we can probably say that the completion of a zoo- archaeological study represents a beginning rather than an end. It is only when the results of our work are interpreted as pieces of a much larger jigsaw that we can really use them at their full potential.

Zooarchaeologists are in a much better position than many other researchers in understanding the importance of integration, for the simple reason that zooarchaeology is in itself an integrated discipline, which breaks the traditional boundaries between humanities and science. We use biological methods to address archaeological questions and we are more aware than most that the language of research is universal and discipline bound- aries can be artificial. Theoretically and practically, zooarchaeology has the potential to head archaeology in new directions and to challenge conservative attitudes in our field. As the impressive set of case studies presented in this book demonstrates, zooarchaeology cannot exist without archaeology, but it is also true that, without the contribution of the study of animal remains, archaeology would be a much-impoverished discipline.

9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002

Astragali through Time 131

Integrating Zooarchaeology (ed Mark Maltby) pp. 131–137

16. Astragali through Time

Jeremiah R. Dandoy

Astragali or knucklebones are ubiquitous as non-food material culture items. They have been used for at least 10,000 years as divination tools, gaming pieces, personal adornments, “worry beads”, and dice. Their presence has been documented throughout the world from the Middle East to Africa, Europe, and North and South America. Astragali have been depicted in a variety of art forms, replicated in natural and man-made materials, and found singly and in very large groupings in living quarters, temples, sanctuaries, tombs, simple graves and people’s pockets. They have been ground, polished, drilled, painted, dyed, incised and filled with metal. In games the bones’ sides have symbolised social strata, been used to tell fortunes, and provided choices for gambling. In short, the astragalus, in its many forms and uses, reflects societal changes over time. The paper also presents data from Gordion and Kaman-Kalehöyük, Turkey, which suggest that variations in the location of ground surfaces could indicate material culture horizon markers.

Introduction: the history of astagalus use

This paper has two aspects; 1) a review of astragali through the millennia, and 2) the author’s preliminary findings of worked astragali at Gordion, Turkey, which may indicate a material cultural horizon marker.

The astragalus, or talus, is also called a knucklebone apparently because of the definition of a knuckle as the rounded knob, formed by the bones at a joint. Worked and unworked astragali have formed part of non-food material culture in many societies, being used as divination tools, gaming pieces, amulets, “worry beads” and dice, amongst other things.

Astragali are depicted on ceramics, in statuary, on medallions and coins, in at least one oil painting, in Sunday newspaper comic pages. They have been found singly, severally, and in groupings of hundreds in sanctuaries, graves and tombs. Astragali also show up as skeuomorphs in a variety of materials, including plastic in a modern children’s game. In short, the astragalus is probably the most ubiquitous mammal bone in material culture.

Astragali occur over a wide spatial and temporal con- tinuum. Watson (1979) states that they are found in sites in northern Iraq (Halafian period of Banahilk), dating as early as 7,000 years ago, and astragali games are still being played in Iran. They turn up in Belgium as early as 8430 BC (Gilmour 1997, 171), in Ethiopia and in South African divination practices (Grandjouan 1969). Lewis (1988) discusses their appearance in the New World in the second millennium AD at sites in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. Cooper (1949) writes about several contemporary South American tribes using cattle and llama astragali in games of chance and in mortuary practices. He also mentions gaming uses by the Gauchos and “upper classes” of Argentina. Both Cooper and Lewis, as diffusionists, believed astragali uses in the Americas derived from Spain and therefore can be used as cultural horizon markers.

While their use in divination and as grave goods has diminished, Lewis (1988) mentions astragalus games played by modern Papago Indians of Arizona, and the author has documented four games now played by men and children in the Anatolian Highlands of Turkey (Dan- doy 1996, 54–7). The Tarahumara Indians of Mexico have also used astragali recently (Cooper 1949, 513), although none of those interviewed by the author in December 2001 could remember their use.

Fig. 1 Example of ground and unground plantar surface of an astragalus from Gordion.

It is not really known why the astragalus gained its stature alongside livers, kidneys, scapulae and their skeuomorphs in divination, nor why it became popular as a gaming piece. Gilmour (1997) has summarised several authors’ concepts about the bone’s ritual and funerary uses. These include the sanctity of animal life, animal worship, and the astragalus’ distinctive look, feel, and workability. Amongst the Bovidae, Cervidae, and Camelidae, the six-sided rectangular shape of the astragalus makes it well suited as a throwing or shooting piece. It is very suitable in size and weight to be handled by adults and children in the numerous divination practices and games that developed over the millennia, or to be simply carried around as a talisman or “worry bead”. The author has found several unworked astragali that are polished as if being rubbed with a soft material or from the oils in fingers and hands.

Divination

The use of any thrown or cast objects such as dice, sticks, stones, cards and astragali to predict or foretell an outcome can be seen as a form of gambling, even if the outcome is skewed by manipulation of the objects through slight of hand, weighting, balancing or other form of enhancing particular outcomes. The manipulation only changes the odds. The practice of divination can be put into the same category as gaming but in a ritualistic context. Such a context goes beyond simple gaming when the interpret- ation of the outcome is left up to the one who casts the objects. Only when all those who participate know the interpretations of the outcomes in advance does divination revert to gaming (whether or not manipulation is involved). Reese (1985, 389), noting that Tufnell et al. suggested that many astragali from the Fosse Temple at Lachish were used in astragalomancy, interpreted those found at Enkomi, Tamassos, Kourion, and Kition in the same way (1225–1075 BC). Gilmour (1997) drawing upon these and other sites came to the same conclusion. Pausanias ac- cording to Frazer (1965, 172–3) described a classical Greek divination using five astragali and a tablet of results based upon the combination of numbers thrown.

Gaming

Gaming using astragali probably evolved from the original primitive mystical acts of appeasement, approbation, questing and gratitude. One of the earliest game boards using astragali came from the tomb of Reny-Soube at Thebes (c.1800 BC – David 1962, Plate 2). Excavators called this game “Hounds and Jackals”, and it may have been similar to “Snakes and Ladders”.

The astragalus is six-sided but only one of four sides would be face up in a game on a surface without significant impediments. According to Erasmus (Bailey 1733, 462), and Pausanias (Frazer 1965, 173), each side was assigned a numerical value seemingly in accordance with the frequency with which that side landed face up when the astragalus was thrown. According to David (1962, 7), the medial = 1; the lateral = 6; the dorsal = 3; and the plantar = 4. Becq De Fouquieres (1873, 331) reversed the values given to the dorsal and plantar. According to David (1962, 7) the probabilities for a plantar or dorsal throw are each 4 in 10 and the probabilities for a medial or lateral throw are each 1 in 10. Given David’s probability argument, it would not make a great deal of difference if the values of the lateral and medial were reversed, or if the values of the plantar and dorsal were also reversed.

When the plantar and dorsal sides are ground they become flatter and the medial and lateral surface areas are reduced (Fig.1). Of 100 throws made with a single unworked astragalus the medial or lateral side came up 27 times (27%). David’s probabilities would indicate an 80–20 split between the plantar/dorsal and medial/lateral aspects. With an astragalus whose plantar and dorsal sides had been ground, the medial or lateral side came up only three times in 50 throws (6%).

In astragali games mentioned by Grandjouan (1969, 8) the name given to the plantar was “Thief”, the dorsal was “Baker”, the medial was “Vizier” and the lateral was “Sultan”. In Turkey today (no doubt a carry over from the Ottoman times) the names are respectively “Servant”, “Slave”, “Vizier” and “Sultan”. Grandjouan (ibid, 19–20) also enumerated several names for the sides used both in the Near East and in Europe. The lateral all had leaders’ names such as “Bey”, “King”, “Tsar” and “Judge”. The medial carried “Steward”, “Manager”, “Lieutenant” and “Hangman” or “instrument of torture” (the leader’s second in command or enforcer). The dorsal was named “Peas- ant”, “Man” and “Berger” (a free man or minor official). The plantar bore names of devalued persons such as “Thief” and “Slave”. There are reversals of the plantar and distal names but David’s probability statement makes the point mute. Amandry (1984, 349) reinforced the interchangeability of the plantar/dorsal and medial/lateral names. There is an interesting sidelight to the name of “Baker”. Apparently in the Byzantine period Theodorus forced captives to work in the state bakeshops (Grandjouan 1969, 20).

It is clear that in all these European and Near East cultures at least one astragali game represented class distinctions. The game in Turkey uses the Sultan to determine the punishment, the Vizier to meet it out to the Slaves, and the Servant to be in a passive role.

Skeuomorphs

Representations of astragali exist from many non-bone materials. Two from Ephesus (Archaic Period) are of blue glass (Reese 2000, 401). Three in glass and one in bronze were found in the Amanthus Tombs (Cypro-Archaic and Middle Cypriote Periods) (Reese 1992, 127). Amandry (1984, 348) reported finding two bronze, three marble, one glass, and one limestone skeuomorph at Korykeion Cave. Gilmour (1997, 170) listed several discoveries including examples from Delos, where several imitations were found made out of glass and ivory. At Amarna in Egypt, a green-glazed faience skeuomorph was discovered and there were two ivory astragali found in Tutankhamun’s tomb. At the necropolis at Varna in Bulgaria a gold replica (fifth millennium BC) was unearthed.

David (1962, 9) illustrated a carved stone astragalus (provenance not given). Petrie (1927, 75 and Plate XLIX) described three steatite astragali from the Hellenistic period, one with a carved female and male figure seemingly engaged in intercourse.

These imitations would indicate that the astragalus had cultural value exceeding that of a gaming piece, perhaps sometimes imbued with magical powers, a bearer of good luck, or a religious or pornographic artefact. Some of the decorations are not unlike those found on oil lamps. Metal filled (lead, copper, bronze, iron, and gold) astragali have been found on many sites, including ex- amples from Turkey, Syria, Greece, and Italy. Turkish informants state that the purpose today of filling drilled holes with metal is to make the ‘shooter’ or thrown astragalus used in some games heavier and more accurate.

Inscriptions

In the Athenian Agora the letter “epsilon” (e) was carved on one of three polished sides of an astragalus. At Delos a bone had “Eros” incised on it (Gilmour 1997, 170). Amandry (1984, 370–5) described 31 astragali incised with names including “Nike”, “Hercules”, “Ajax” and “Achilles” and 15 or more marked with single letters, in addition to several with incisions that cannot be interpreted as butchery marks. At Gordion, astragali with the names of “Hera”, “Achilles” (Fig.2), “Nike”, and “Hector” have been found (Dandoy 1996, 54–5). Several authors have surmised that these inscriptions were made on prized astragali to honour gods or heroes and/or to bring good luck to the wearer or in games of chance (Young 1962; Amandry 1984; Roller 1987).

Decoration

The drilling of astragali is commonplace with many variations as to the number and placement of the holes. However, not much has been suggested as to why people undertook this fairly time-consuming task, other than the observed phenomenon of filling holes with metal to make them heavier and therefore more accurate as “shooters” in games.

Some bone astragali found at Gordion have metal rings inserted through holes drilled plantar-dorsally. This sug- gests that they were either strung together in the form of a chain, or perhaps strung singly on leather or cloth to be worn about the neck or on an appendage.

Fig. 2 Incised astragalus from Gordion bearing name of “Achilles”.

Individuals could have used the astragalus as a form of decoration or talisman stemming from ritualistic uses and continuing as the bone travelled to its more mundane place as a gaming piece. Gilmour (1997, 172) also postulates the use of perforated astragali as amulets and talismans and further suggests that the presence of large quantities may constitute votive offerings.

Astragali in art and at play

Astragali show up in many art forms. The earliest of which the author is aware is one from an Egyptian tomb dated to c.3500 BC. (David, 1962, Plate I).

Neils (1992) described the 7th and 6th century BC phormiskos from Morgantina in Sicily. Phormiskos were ceramic equivalents of astragali carrying-bags. Her article illustrates two vases, one showing the rectangular opening for the astragali to be removed or inserted, and the other a solid clay model of a phormiskos depicting astragali in relief. Neils states that it is appropriate that such phor- miskos carry chthonic imagery since astragali are used for divination and found as grave goods.

Becq De Fouquieres (1873, 354–6) described a Roman medallion that may have been used as an identifier to allow the holder to enter a gaming house. On one side is a female head to represent Fortune with the letters “C” and “S” that probably represent Casus Sortis (good or bad luck). The other side has four astragali and a Latin inscription translated loosely as “the one that plays gives a sufficient pledge”, meaning that the holder can cover any losses.

Becq De Fouquieres (ibid, 355) also illustrated a stone engraving with a garland on top, and a skull, on either side of which is a loaf of bread, a jug, and four astragali. The meaning of this imagery could be something like “eat, drink, and be merry (game), life is short and death awaits”. One of the more interesting images is from a 1559–60 oil painting by Pieter Bruegel entitled “Children’s Games”. Snow (1997, 156–7) interpreted the scene in this way. “Yet directly in front of the procession, only a few steps away, two older figures vie ominously for bones, and one collects her winnings in her aproned lap – an image at once of a malign fate and the cruel mother”. Snow added, “The drama of Bruegel’s single suspended bone is thus intense…. The three tali on the ground display the three most difficult aspects to throw: everything hinges on the fall of the bone suspended in mid-arc. In one respect the game thus seems to present an image of imminent good fortune… but the player who may be about to win looks so malign and fateful that the very prospect of her victory assumes an ominous cast”.

Fig. 3 Ground astragali from Gordion.

There are, to the author’s knowledge, no known European descriptions or depictions of astragali between the Classical Greek-Roman period and the 15th–16th centuries. David (1955, 8) ascribed this historical black hole to the Christian Church stating “the writers of the Ren- aissance make many references to bishops who write de aleatoribus or contra aleae ludum during the first fourteen hundred years of the Christian era. It is likely therefore that the bishops wished to get rid of the sortilege as a religious ceremony, and they succeeded to a certain extent in doing this”. We can be sure, however, that the use of astragali did not disappear. It was just not marked in the writings or art of the times. For example, there are abundant examples of worked, incised and perforated sheep/goat astragali in medieval Novgorod, north-west Russia but no documentation concerning their use has as yet been found (Mark Maltby pers. comm.).

In modern times, a strip of the comic Prince Valiant (Murphy 1997) described an astragalus game. In 1996 a game called ‘Crazy Bones” was introduced in Europe and became a best seller in the USA in 1999. According to the Spanish inventor it “has its roots in ancient Greece” (Pereira 1999). Pretorious (1988, 199–200) has illustrated a South African child’s toy consisting of a bovid mandible used as a wagon and astragali used as oxen that depict the daily life on the Great Trek.

Evidence from Gordion and Kaman-Kalehöyük

Gordion, or Gordium is located in the Central Anatolian Highlands about 80 km south-west of Ankara in Turkey. The site consists of a large flat-topped mound that forms the centre of a larger low-lying settlement that extended over an area of more than one square kilometre in some periods. Gordion has long been identified as the capital of the Phrygian Empire and the home of King Midas. The earliest known occupation at Gordion dates to the mid- 3rd millennium BCE. The stratigraphic sequence for the major occupational periods on the Citadel Mound extends from the Early Bronze Age (c.2300–2000 BCE) through the Phrygian periods (c.950–330 BCE), the Hellenistic and Galatian periods (c.330–189 BCE) and continues through to the Roman and Medieval periods (Voigt 1997). Since its initiation in 1950 by Rodney S. Young, the Gordion Archaeological Project has been under the aus- pices of the University of Pennsylvania Museum. Since 1988, the project has been under the general direction of G. Kenneth Sams. Mary M. Voigt is the director of excavation and surface survey. The author has been involved in the project since 1994.

All of the worked astragali catalogued since 1950, and all of those that have been excavated since 1988, for which a solid provenance had been determined, have been recorded onto a spreadsheet. “Worked” incorporates specimens that have been painted, dyed, incised, drilled, filled, or ground or cut on one or more sides.

An analysis of ovicaprid (sheep/goat) astragali revealed interesting chronological variations (Fig.3). A preponderance of those that had been ground on both the plantar and dorsal surfaces came from more recent periods, and most of those ground on both the medial and lateral surfaces came from earlier periods.

The 14 astragali that are ground on both the medial and lateral sides date from the 10th Century BC or earlier, one coming from the Early Phrygian/Early Iron Age, 11 from the Early Iron Age, and two from the Late Bronze Age. That would place these specimens into the Hittite/Neo- Hittite cultural milieu. In contrast, 44 out of 47 8th century BC and later ground specimens were ground on the plantar and dorsal surfaces. It would seem from this information that one could draw a fairly solid conclusion of a material cultural change between the Hittite and the Phrygian periods.

Fig .4 Ground astragali from Kaman-Kalehöyük.

Ovicaprid astragali information has also been gathered from the Japanese excavation at Kaman-Kalehöyük (Fig.4). This is a site about 200 km east of Gordion with a similar cultural history. One specimen of each grinding pattern came from Bronze Age (Hittite) levels. Fourteen specimens ground on the plantar/dorsal aspects came from 8th–4th century BC (Phrygian/Achaemenid) deposits, and another came from the 16th–17th century (Islamic) levels. While this site exhibited the same pattern as Gordion with plantar/ dorsal ground astragali dominant in the later samples, the small sample size of the medial/lateral ground astragali did not provide clear statistical evidence of a material cultural horizon marker. However, the results are worthy of further research. Data from other sites in the region have produced the following results.

In an Iron Age temple at Kommos (late 7th century BC), two of ten ovicaprid astragali found were ground on the medial and lateral surfaces and both were holed P/D (Reese 1992).

In 28 of the 276 published Amanthus Tombs in Cyprus Reese (ibid) recorded 193 astragali, of which 180 were ovicaprid specimens dated between c.850 BC through the Roman period, none were ground on the medial and lateral surfaces and five were ground on the plantar/dorsal aspects. Of those ground on only one side, five were dorsal, one was lateral, and one was medial.

Of the 984 mostly ovicaprid ground or cut astragali from the Korykeion cave near Delphi on Parnassos, (6th– 3rd century BC), 375 were cut or ground on the plantar/ dorsal aspects and 139 were ground on the medial and lateral surfaces. That is almost a 3:1 ratio. Eighty-two were ground on all four sides (Amandry 1984, 356).

These findings statistically substantiate the Gordion and Kaman grinding patterns pointing to a shift in the manner in which astragali were shaped during the 10th to 8th centuries BC. If this typological variation really does exist, it probably did not occur because of a change in divination and/or gaming practices, since grinding one, two, or three sides markedly changes the probabilities of each throw from those of the unworked astragalus. Suggestions as to why it occurred are left up to the reader and further research.

Conclusion

Stewart Culin (1907: 809) writing on the games of North American Indians, states “…morphologically they (the games including those using astragali) are practically identical and universal among all tribes”. And, “…they agree in general and particular with certain widespread ceremonial observances found on the other continents, which observances, in what appear to be their oldest and most primitive manifestations, are almost exclusively divinatory”.

It seems clear that Camelidae, Bovidae, and Cervidae astragali have for at least 10,000 years been used as objects to express man’s wish to foretell the future, to be successful, and to “win the big one”. Current research on Near Eastern specimens has begun to develop more rigorous methods of recording and investigation of these objects. Preliminary results suggest that it may be possible in some cases to use typological variations as cultural markers. Future research should be able to extract further understanding regarding the manufacture, use and meaning of these objects in different societies.

Acknowledgments

An article by Rodney S. Young (1962) aroused my curiosity about astragali used as gaming pieces and dice. I thank Dr. Omura Sachihiro, director of the Kaman-Kale- höyük excavation for access to their collection of astragali and to Dr. Hitomi Hongo for her assistance in their interpretation. I also appreciate the time and help provided by Dr. Mary Voigt, College of William and Mary as director of excavations at Gordion under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

References

Amandry, P. 1984. Os et coquilles, Chapter IX in L’Antre Corycien II Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (Supplement IX). Paris: Ecole Francaise D’Athenes.

Bailey, N. 1733. All the Familiar Colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus of Roterdam concerning Men, Manners and Things (English translation 2nd edition). London: J. J. and P. Knapton.

Becq De Fouquieres, L. A. V. 1873. Les Jeux des Anciens (2nd edition). Paris: Librarie Academique.

Cooper, J. M. 1949. Handbook of South American Indians. Volume 5 (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143). Washington: Government Printing Office.

Culin, S. 1907. Games of the North American Indian (Bureau of American Ethnology 24th Annual Report). Washington: Govern- ment Printing Office.

Dandoy, J. R. 1996. Astragali, the ubiquitous gaming pieces.

Expedition 38, 51–8.

David, F. N. 1955. Dicing and gaming (a note on the history of probablilty). Biometrika 42, 1–15.

David, F. N. 1962. Games, Gods and Gambling. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.

Frazer, J. G. 1965. Pausanias’s Description of Greece, Volume I

(English translation). New York: Biblo and Tannen.

Gilmour, G. H. 1997. The nature and function of astragalus bones from archaeological contexts in the Levant and Eastern Medi- terranean. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 167–75.

Grandjouan, J-O. 1969. L’Astragale et Le Pari. Paris: G. P. Mason- neuve et Larose.

Halliday, W. R. 1913. Greek Divination: a Study of its Methods and Principles. London: Macmillan.

Lewis, R. B. 1988. Old World dice in the protohistoric Southern United States. Current Anthropology 29, 759–68.

Neils, J. 1992. The Morgantina Phormiskos. American Journal of Archaeology 96, 225–34.

Murphy, J. C. 1997. Hal Foster’s Prince Valiant. Philadelphia Inquirer (March 30, 1997). Philadelphia.

Pereira, J. 1999. Sixty goofy-looking little figures spark a toy craze.

The Wall Street Journal.

Petrie, F. 1927. Objects of Daily Use. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quartich.

Pretorius, C. 1988. OP TREK: die daaglikse Lewe Tydens die Goot Trek. Pretoria: Scripta Africana.

Reese, D.S. 1985. Appendix VIII (C), pp. 382–90 in Karageorghis, V., Excavations at Kition V, Part 2. Nicosia: Cyprus Department of Antiquities.

Reese, D. S. 1992. Shells and animal bones, pp. 123–41 in Kara- georghis, V. and Picard, O. (eds.), Etudes Chyproites XIV La Necropole d’Amathonte Tombes 113–167 VI Bijous, Amres, Verre, Astragales et Coquillages, Squelettes. Nicosia: Im- primerie Imprinta Ltd.

Reese, D. S. 2000. Worked astragali, pp. 398–401 in Shaw. J.W. and Shaw, M.C. (eds.), Kommos IV the Greek Sancturary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Roller, L. 1987. Hellenistic epigraphic texts from Gordion. Ana- tolian Studies 37, 103–33.

Snow, E. A. 1997. Inside Pieter Bruegal: The Play of Images in Children’s Games. New York: North Point Press.

Voigt, M. M. 1997. Gordion, pp. 426–31 in, Encylopedia of Near Eastern Archaeology. London: Oxford University Press.

Watson, P. J. 1979. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Young, R. S. 1962. The 1961 campaign at Gordion. American Journal of Anthropology 66, 153–68.

Jeremiah R. Dandoy

Gordion Project,

University of Pennsylvania Museum, USA

Integrating Zooarchaeology

Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002

Series Editors: Umberto Albarella, Keith Dobney and Peter Rowley-Conwy

Copyright

Integrating Zooarchaeology

Edited by Mark Maltby

Oxbow Books

Published by Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

© Oxbow Books and the individual authors 2006 ISBN 978 1 842 17123 3 1 84217 123 2

A CIP record for this book is available from The British Library

Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe, Chippenham

Jeremiah R. Dandoy

Gordion Project,

University of Pennsylvania Museum, USA

Jeremiah R. Dandoy