Animal Rib Tools in Bronze Age Mining: Insights from Great Orme (UK) and Kartamysh (Ukraine)

Animal Rib Tools in Bronze Age Mining: Insights from Great Orme (UK) and Kartamysh (Ukraine) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Animal Rib Tools in Bronze Age Mining: Insights from Great Orme (UK) and Kartamysh (Ukraine) Olga Zagorodnia This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper presents the results of a functional analysis of a relatively underexplored category of bone tools – primarily made from animal ribs – discovered within Bronze Age copper mining contexts. The study examines 30 bone artefacts from the Great Orme mines (North Wales, UK), associated with copper ore extraction, and draws comparative insights from rib tools documented at the well-studied bone tools collection from the mines (Eastern Ukraine). Functional evidence enables the reconstruction of tool kinematics and offers new interpretations that challenge previous assumptions about their roles. Building on experimental research at Kartamysh, which identified a distinct class of bone tools used for stirring and sweeping copper ore particles during wet beneficiation, this study explores the potential functions of similar artefacts from Great Orme. A brief review of other ore-processing sites employing wet beneficiation is also presented. Findings from both sites suggest variability in how ancient miners utilized rib tools for extraction and ore processing activities. However, the Great Orme collection requires further detailed examination and additional experimental research. Bone tools Bronze Age copper mine experiment Great Orme Kartamysh ore processing (beneficiation) traceology and wet ore processing (gravitation) Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Introduction Mining and metallurgy fundamentally shaped technological progress, cultural and economic exchange, and social development in prehistoric societies (e.g. see O’Brien 2013, 2015). Copper ore mining and copper metal production in the Bronze Age comprised a complex sequence of operations requiring specialist knowledge, technical organisation, and dedicated tools. Archaeological sources indicate that, in some communities, all technological stages (from ore mining, ore processing, smelting, to further production processes) were integrated, while in others, only certain stages were performed. Among the most common artefacts from these sites are tools made from stone, bone, and antler. The choice of materials was influenced by environmental and geological conditions. For stone tools, raw material sources included both modified and unmodified pebbles and nodules. Bone tools were shaped not only by practicality but also by various sociocultural factors. In pastoral Bronze Age societies, cattle husbandry provided abundant raw material. Bone offered advantages such as accessibility, ease of working, and functional physical properties, making it a versatile resource for various economic activities. Despite this, the functional study of bone production tools remains underdeveloped in mining archaeology. Until recently, large assemblages of antler and bone tools from mining contexts and sites had not undergone complex functional analysis (including traceology and experimentation). This need has become increasingly urgent with the accumulation of significant material from Bronze Age copper mines like Great Orme – one of the largest known, surviving prehistoric mines in Europe. The Great Orme copper deposits lie within a limestone formation in north-west Llandudno, North Wales. Copper mineralisation occurs along 40 north-south veins associated with dolomitised limestone bands. The main copper-bearing mineral is chalcopyrite, which in the upper levels has been transformed into malachite by supergene weathering (Lewis 1996, p. 5). Radiocarbon dating suggests copper ore was extracted from approximately 1700 to 800 BC, with peak activity around 1600-1300 BC, when Great Orme was likely the principal source of copper for bronze production in the British Isles (Williams 2023, pp. 80-82). Excavations between 1989-2006 and 2016-2019 revealed a vast network of Bronze Age tunnels (Williams 2023). Around 2,500 stone tools and fragments have been recovered from underground and surface deposits, which can be categorised into mining tools (hammers) and ore-processing implements. Hammerstones were mainly hand-held, with a minority showing signs of hafting. Copper ore-processing tools included stone slabs with single or multiple depressions, as well as hand-held pestles and grinders. Within the extensive osteological material, more than 35,000 bone fragments and complete specimens have been recovered, mainly from surface waste heaps and, to a lesser extent, early underground workings. Previous studies have shown that more than half of these bones are from cattle, with the remainder from pigs, sheep, and goats (Hunt 1993; Hamilton-Dyer in Dutton & Fasham 1994; Lewis 1996; James 2011). Earlier studies primarily addressed preservation, provenance, species composition, morphological classification, and spatial distribution (Lewis 1996, p. 121). In current research on Bronze Age mining and metallurgy, a pressing issue is the functional analysis of bone and antler tools – an aspect not previously prioritised in earlier studies. This entails identifying manufacturing techniques and operational roles for each tool within the production process. Such analysis is key to reconstructing mining technologies and understanding the organisation of ancient mining practices. An additional important question is whether certain tool types reflect distinct cultural traditions or represent widespread, temporally persistent technological solutions across regions. Background Archaeological and ethnographic data gathered by mining researchers suggest that Bronze Age mining involved a series of sequential tasks – chipping, crushing, sorting – each requiring durable tools and advanced extraction techniques. Alongside stone and bronze implements, ancient miners used bone, antler, and wooden wedges for splitting rock (Agricola 1556; O’Brien 2015, p. 94). Bone and antler tools have been recorded at Bronze Age mining sites throughout Eurasia [1] . In some cases, ore processing was conducted near the mine and in adjacent settlements showing evidence of smelting and metalworking. Tools found in underground contexts, particularly alongside hammerstones, have often been attributed to ore mining. Horn and long bone tools fashioned into wedge-like forms have typological similarities to metal picks. Negative impressions and imprints on tunnel walls at sites like Great Orme and Mitterberg support this association (O'Brien 2015, p. 211). Thousands of long bone wedges were discovered at Gorny (Kargaly, Russia) (Antipina 2004), and similar finds have come from Aibunar (Bulgaria) (Chernykh 1978), Rudna Glava (Serbia) (Jovanović & Ottaway 1976; Jovanović 1982), El Aramo and El Milagro (Spain) (O'Brien 2015, p. 94) and Pioch Farrus and Saint-Véran (France) (O'Brien 2015, pp. 111, 119; Ambert 1996: Fig. 14). However, the toolkit extended beyond wedges and was not limited to picks made of horn and long bones. Tools made from animal ribs – with polished, rounded working edges – have been found in mining sites at Great Orme (UK) (James 2011), Kartamysh (Ukraine) (Zagorodnia 2014a), and mining sites in Russia – Kargaly in the Urals (Antipina 2004), and a mine near Mikhailo-Ovsyanka (Samara Region) (Gorashchuk & Kolev 2004). Rib tools are also known in copper mines of Schwaz/Brixlegg (North Tyrol) and Ross Island (Ireland), but so far in much smaller quantities (Rieser & Schrattenthaler 2004; Staudt et al. 2019; O’Brien 2004) (Figs. 1 and 5). Though less durable and robust than tubular bones, these rib tools are thought to have been used for lighter operations such as scraping oxidised copper minerals (e.g. malachite and azurite) from the surface of rocks (Bogdanov & Musikhin 2001; Pankowsky 2005), or for sorting ore and scraping copper-rich sandstone during extraction (Kileynikov 1997; James 2011; Rieser & Schrattenthaler 2004, p. 83). Some other studies and their researchers have proposed alternative uses for rib tools, such as ore beneficiation – grinding ore particles in water-filled leather containers (Gorashchuk & Kolev 2004), or leatherworking (Antipina 2004, p. 225), based on typological similarity and wear patterns. Importantly, rib tools have been identified not only in copper mining contexts but also in sites associated with tin and gold extraction, confirming their broader functional and geographic use. Similar rib implements have been recorded at the tin mines of Karnab (Uzbekistan), Mušiston (Tajikistan), and the gold mine at Sakdrisi (Georgia) – further evidence and support for their association with ore beneficiation and/or sorting activities (Doll 2003; Stöllner et al. 2014). A particularly illustrative case comes from Ross Island (Ireland), where thirteen rib tools and fragments – mostly flat, wide, and made from cattle – exhibited polish and superficial linear striations along the working edges, indicative of scraping and raking oxidised ore on relatively soft materials, possibly leather (O’Brien 2004, pp. 378-379). Their natural curvature made them especially well-suited to sorting and raking tasks. Most working edges were located at the sternal end, although in one instance both ends appear to have been used. At Great Orme, early researchers observed that many bone tools exhibited rounding and visible wear at the conical end, with the opposite end often shaped for comfortable gripping. Andy Lewis (1993) was among the first to suggest these bones were used as gouging, scraping, or chiselling tools. Building on this, A. Hunt (1993), in his master’s thesis, established typological criteria for identifying modified bone implements. He emphasised the importance of anatomical shape selection in their manufacture (Hunt 1993, p. 13). He also noted that ribs required little or no modification, appearing to have been used more gently than other types of bone, particularly long bones [2] (Hunt 1993, p. 30). Hamilton-Dyer similarly concluded that ribs most likely functioned as scrapers or gouges rather than chisels, given their relative fragility for removing harder material (Hamilton-Dyer in Dutton & Fasham 1994; Lewis 1996, p. 126). Despite such early insights, featureless bone artefacts have historically received less analytical attention than more readily interpreted tools such as hammerstones, metal wedges or casting moulds. Functional hypotheses have typically relied on contextual associations and typological similarities, often without support from detailed traceological or experimental analysis. The few exceptions – most notably the doctoral research of S. James (2011) and the author's own work (Zagorodnia 2014) – demonstrate the potential value of comprehensive methodological investigation. James examined over 16,000 bone specimens from Great Orme – roughly half the entire assemblage. Her aim was to assess species representation and taphonomic processes across the material, as well as to identify samples used as tools. Due to limitations in research equipment at the time, James was unable to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or capture high-resolution images. Nevertheless, she successfully identified use-wear through a combination of careful visual examination and low-power optical microscopy. She observed a consistent preference for cattle ribs, particularly those with a flattened cross-section. Use-traces were typically found along the natural sternal edge and frequently included rounding and polish, suggestive of repeated use. Notably, she identified tools with wear concentrated at one end, while the opposing end remained unmodified – reinforcing the hypothesis of simple handheld use. To test her functional interpretations, S. James conducted controlled experiments using replica tools fashioned from cattle tibiae (two specimens) and ribs (one specimen). These were used to excavate dolomitised limestone, replicating site conditions at Great Orme. The tubular bones proved stronger and more ergonomic, while the rib fractured under pressure. On this basis, she proposed that ribs were more likely used for raking or scooping decomposed limestone into containers – such as leather bags or shovels – rather than for penetrating solid rock. The modest wear observed on some working ends may reflect limited or short-term use. James’s findings underscored the need for further experimental research using a broader range of bone types commonly found in archaeological contexts. Her study highlights the underutilised potential of bone as a functional material, and its role within the chaîne opératoire of Bronze Age copper mining. It contributes valuable data to reconstructions of ancient tool use, production processes, and the organisation of metallurgical activity within prehistoric societies. The present author’s doctoral research, “ Metalwork Tools of the Berezhnovsko-Maevka Srubnaya Culture (Based on the Materials of the Kartamysh Archaeological Area)” , conducted at the Kartamysh archaeological complex in eastern Ukraine, complements and expands upon this approach and line of inquiry (Zagorodnia 2014b). Dated to the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200 BC) according to the Eastern European chronology, the Kartamysh complex encompasses settlement remains, ore-sorting and ore-processing areas, copper mines, open quarries, and metallurgical workshops – offering a uniquely preserved context for studying mining and metallurgical activity across all stages of production. Systematic research in this area has yielded a representative collection of stone and bone tools. It thus enables a detailed reconstruction of the full chaîne opératoire – the entire metal production process from copper ore mining to manufacture and processing of metal products, revealing not only technical choices but also socio-cultural dynamics of ancient miners and metallurgists. Through a combined traceological and experimental methods, 484 bone artefacts were analysed. Of these, 399 were classified as a previously unrecognised functional category: tools used for stirring copper ore concentrate during wet ore processing (gravitational separation) (Figs. 5a and 6). These implements, predominantly made from cattle ribs – with additional examples crafted from scapulae and long tubular bones – had been previously misclassified as leatherworking tools or ore-mining implements. Detailed traceological study revealed a consistent pattern of wear, including rounded working edges, superficial linear striations on the end faces and flanks, and localised zones of polish indicative of repetitive stirring or agitation movements (Figs. 6b, 6c, 6d). To validate these interpretations, a comprehensive experimental programme was conducted (Fig. 7). Replica tools were used in three key processes: mining argillite, loosening compacted copper-rich sandstone, and stirring crushed copper ore in water-filled leather containers. The latter reproduced wear patterns that closely matched those on the original archaeological artefacts – particularly rounded edges, fine striations, and polished zones. As a result of this work, a comparative reference database was established to document both micro and macro-scale deformations associated with specific tool types, tasks, and materials. This dataset enables systematic identification of use-wear patterns and offers a robust analytical framework for distinguishing functional categories of bone tools. It now serves as a critical resource for future researchers aiming to assess and compare bone tool use across other Bronze Age mining and metallurgical contexts (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2014b; 2021). Methods This study presents the initial results of a functional analysis of a relatively underexplored category of tools from mining contexts – artefacts fashioned from ribs and tubular bones, characterised by a distinctively rounded working end. The examined assemblage includes 28 rib tools and 2 limb bone tools. The methodology for traceological analysis of osseous materials is well established, drawing foundational principles from S.A. Semenov’s pioneering work on prehistoric technologies (Semenov 1957). Bone and antler were often employed by prehistoric populations with minimal or no modification, meaning that traces of use often constitute the only available evidence for functional interpretation (see e.g. Bone modification 1989; Binford 1981; Campana 1980; Khlopachev & Girya 2010; Fernandez-Jalvo & Andrews 2016; Fisher 1995; From Hooves to Horns… 2005; Maigrot 2003). The primary aim of the experimental and traceological investigation was to identify diagnostic wear traces on bone tools and to determine their association with ore processing and mining activities. This is a challenging analytical task, given the complexity of ancient technological behaviours and the variability in wear patterns. The methodical framework is grounded in the kinematics of manual labour, with a focus on both linear striations (geometry) and volumetric alterations (topography) as indicators of tool movement and contact (Semenov 1957, p. 11). The study also considered the physical properties of bone, antler, and tusk, with attention to their plastic and structural behaviour under stress (Semenov 1957, p. 9). Key diagnostic features include striations, micro-chipping, cracking, smoothing of protrusions, and polish – all of which aid in reconstructing tool function. Species identification followed the criteria outlined by Hunt (1993). Preservation across the sample was generally good. Based on raw material structure, the tools were classified into two groups: long arcuate bones (ribs) and limb bones. The research methodological procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Visual Examination of All Bone Samples. The initial stage focused on identifying manufacturing methods such as splitting, chopping, and sawing. This revealed a pattern from complete tools to fragmented artefacts and production waste. Many tools retained their natural anatomical form with minimal intentional shaping. Morphological categorisation and metric recording were conducted at this stage. 2. Macroscopic Observation of Surface Traces. Low-magnification optical microscopy (×5 to ×20) was used to assess surface alterations. Both natural (e.g. root etching, microbial activity, trampling, colour changes, post-depositional damages) and anthropogenic (e.g. striations, edge rounding, impact traces, polishing, hafting wear) modifications were recorded. Representative specimens were selected for higher magnification and photographic documentation. 3. Macro Photography. A Canon EOS 60D camera with Canon EF-S 60 mm and MP-E 65 mm f/2.8 1–5× macro lenses was used. Mounted on a tripod and fitted with an “Altami” micro-focusing stage and variable, adjustable side-lighting and brightness, the system allowed detailed visual capture at ×2–5 magnification. Focus bracketing and stacking in Helicon Focus software ensured high-resolution, fully-focused imagery. 4. Microscale Observation and Imaging . Microwear features were recorded using a Keyence digital microscope and a scanning electron microscope (SEM, Hitachi S-3700N), at magnifications of ×20 to ×100. In the case of a SEM, two types of signal were detected: the backscattered electrons (BSE) and the secondary electron (SE). SEM was particularly effective for recording fine striations and topographic features. 5. Identification and Interpretation of Wear Traces/Marks. Archaeological traces were compared with a reference dataset developed through prior experimental replication studies (Zagorodnia 2014a). Wear pattern analysis employed an Olympus metallographic (a reflected light) microscope, with high-resolution photo-documentation of experimental results (Figs. 6b, 6c, 6d and 7d, 7h, 7j). Those integrated methods allowed for a productive balance between macro and micro-scale trace identification. SEM offered excellent resolution for linear and volumetric wear, while digital microscopy enabled analysis of polish zones and contributed to 3D modelling (Fig. 2c- C ). In summary, these methods provide robust and replicable data, enhancing the reliability of functional interpretation. The observed wear patterns are fully documented in the accompanying visual material to follow. Results As part of the project, 150 relatively well-preserved bone specimens from the Great Orme copper mines were subjected to traceological analysis. These specimens were recovered through systematic excavations in the Vivian Shaft trenches and face sections (VIV-90, VIV-91, VIV-94), as well as from extended surface clearance of Victorian spoil heaps (VIV-93, VIV-95, VIV-99, VIV-00, VIV-02, L-37, VIV-18). Of these, 78 specimens from the excavations in 1991 had been previously identified to species level by an archaeozoologist (Hunt 1993), revealing a predominance of cattle, with lesser representation from pigs, sheep, goats, red deer, and horses. The excellent preservation of bone remains at the mine site and in nearby waste heaps is attributed to the host rock limestone-dolomite geological environment, which produces neutral to slightly alkaline pH conditions (7–8). These tend to neutralise acidity generated by the oxidation of chalcopyrite ores (Lewis 1996, p. 125). More than 95% of the bone materials show a uniform greenish staining due to mineralisation by copper (0.9%) (e.g. Fig. 2a-c) and iron (0.5%) (Fig. 3), with some darker patches from manganese (1.6%) (Fig. 2d) (Jenkins & Lewis 1991, p. 156). The intensity of colour varies from pale to dark green, occasionally interspersed with black areas. Mineral staining is confined to the outermost approximate 0.5 mm of the bone surface. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis suggests this is due to mineral impregnation rather than replacement (Lewis 1996, p. 125). Larger animal bones – particularly ribs and limb bones (predominantly tibia, femur, humerus) – were selected for tool use. Less frequently, shoulder blades, pelvic sections, and other fragments were utilised. Numerous fragments exhibit extensive damage attributable to both intensive use and the various stages of tool manufacture, with some debris clearly identifiable as technological waste without any signs of use. Within this sample assemblage, several tool categories were identified including: mining tools, ore-processing tools, household tools, and technological waste. This paper focuses and presents results on the least studied group – 30 bone artefacts linked to copper ore extraction and possible processing activities. Current investigation findings suggest that the manufacture and use of these tools required minimal modification, likely due to both the availability of cattle bones and the fragility of the raw material. Cattle ribs were often employed in their natural state (i.e. requiring no processing), with their anatomy lending itself well to specific tasks. Smaller ribs from pigs and sheep appear to have been of less and limited practical use as mining tools, likely due to insufficient strength. Both human and non-human modifications were observed. Human-induced traces include impact marks, flake negatives, cut marks, polish, and clusters of linear scratches and grooves. Natural (non-human) modifications include microbial activity (Figs. 2c- A, 2c- B ), root etching – sinuous U-shaped lines caused by organic acids – and post-depositional abrasion, which produced superficial, multidirectional scratches, likely resulting from contact with sediment. It remains unclear whether the acids are secreted directly by roots or by fungi associated with root decomposition (Lyman 1994; Fisher 1995). The patterns of dismemberment provide valuable insight into the technological strategies and functional roles of the bone tools, alongside their potential secondary use in food processing or marrow extraction. Two principal categories of human modification were identified: (1) cut marks – such as narrow, V-shaped incisions caused by a sharp blade, consistent with the slicing or separation of soft tissues during butchery; and (2) impact fractures, typically conchoidal in form, likely resulting from forceful blows using a stone tool. These forms of wear are well documented and diagnosable, with previous studies offering robust interpretive frameworks (Binford 1981; Fisher 1995). Of the 30 analysed mining-related tools, 28 were made from ribs and 2 from limb bones (Figs. 4b and 4c). Wide, flattened cattle ribs were selected, typically slightly curved (N o 5-8 in the rib row); only two were long and strongly curved. In terms of technology, two principal manufacturing strategies were identified in rib tools: Complete anatomical utilisation. Two specimens were fashioned using the entire rib without modification. These retained both the natural, rounded sternal end and the vertebral head, suggesting that the anatomical shape was functionally sufficient without further shaping. Partial anatomical utilisation. In several other examples, the vertebral end of the rib was removed, typically by chopping (Fig. 2b). The sternal end – with its naturally rounded form – served as the working edge, while the grip was formed from the remaining shaft, with the rib head either preserved or partially removed. Chopping and fracturing appear to have been the primary techniques for adapting these tools. However, it cannot be ruled out that some marks resulted from earlier food processing stages, particularly butchery. The dual-use potential – first for food, then for tool – may underlie some of the observed patterns. Classification of Rib and Limb Bone Tools: Morphology and Use-Wear Given variation in the arrangement and preservation of working surfaces and handles, tools were categorised into three functional groups: tools with a single working edge (15+1 specimens) [3] ; tools with two opposing working edges (4+1 specimens) [4] ; fragments bearing wear traces but lacking preserved ends (9 specimens). Macro-observations of surface wear indicate that, through use, the natural sternal end of rib tools often became either rounded or subtly pointed, symmetrically or asymmetrically (Figs. 2c, 2d). At the proximal end, the working edge varied – either straight or bevelled – depending on how the rib was dismembered (Fig. 4a). 1. Rib tools with a single working edge (15 specimens) In 11 cases, the working edge was located at the distal (sternal) end (Table 1, samples 6-16); in the remaining four, it was formed at the proximal (vertebral) end (Table 1, samples 18-21), which had previously been cut or split. Some tools in this group are fragments where only one working edge is preserved, though both ends may originally have served a working function (Figs. 3a, 3b and 4a). Microwear was recorded on the end face, flat surfaces, and longitudinal edges. The degree of wear varied significantly. Some specimens displayed extensive coverage of striations and polish (Fig. 2d), while others bore only localised traces (Fig. 2e). On the longitudinal edges, rough, intersecting scratches were oriented perpendicularly or at an angle to the tool’s axis – also visible on the working end (Figs. 2a- A, 2b -A, 2d -C and 4b -A ). Medial and lateral surfaces exhibited groups or isolated linear abrasions, ranging from fine to coarse texture, generally perpendicular or oblique to the bone’s long axis (Figs. 2c- B , 2d- B ). The convex (lateral) surface typically showed heavier wear, suggesting more sustained contact with the material being processed (Fig. 2b- B ). 2. Rib tools with two opposite working edges (4 specimens) (Fig. 2c) (Table 1, samples 1-4) In this group, the rib head was removed prior to use. The wear traces are similar to those observed on single-edged tools but are distributed along the entire length of the rib. This pattern suggests that both ends were alternately used as active working edges and grip zones. Polish consistent with hand contact is visible at both ends. 3. Fragments of rib tools (9 specimens) (Table 1, samples 22-30) These fragments originate either from mid-sections (4 specimens) or proximal parts (5 specimens) of ribs and lack preserved working ends. Measuring between 4.8 and 13.2 cm in length, they exhibit wear consistent with active use, though less intensely than complete tools. Two mid-sections (Table 1, samples 26 and 27) were pale, poorly preserved, and difficult to interpret, likely due to prolonged surface exposure. One fragment, broken at the proximal end and lacking wear traces, may represent a prepared blank – split intentionally to create a usable tool form with a more manageable working surface. Across all specimens, the degree of use is reflected in the density and texture of polishing and striations, which range from scattered single marks to concentrated wear zones. Particularly diagnostic are the side-edge and end-face zones: these display densely packed, rougher, and deeper striations than the flatter surfaces (Figs. 3b- C, 3c- D ). These linear abrasions – transverse to the long axis – are especially pronounced on the convex side of curved ribs, supporting interpretations of tool motion. Their absence in the grip zone further confirms kinematic differentiation. Limb Bone Tools (2 specimens) (Table 1, samples 5 and 17) Limb bones were also used to produce functionally similar tools. These were longitudinally split diaphysis, with one or both epiphyses removed. One sample had dual working edges (Fig. 4b; Table 1, sample 5); the other, a single edge (Fig. 4c; Table 1, sample 17). Wear traces are comparable to rib tools: the originally bevelled edges became rounded and polished, with visibly coarse, regular striations on the end (Figs. 4b- B , 4b- C ) and side margins (Figs. 4b- A , 4c- B, 4c- C ). So called “comets” caused by touching fine-grained particles ( copper ore concentrate or dolomitised limestone? ), also were observed on the side margins (Fig. 4c- D ). On the wider faces, transverse and oblique scratches of mixed depth and coarseness were recorded (Figs. 4c- B, 4c- C ). Comparative Wear Interpretation The wear pattern observed on long bone tools corresponds closely to that of rib-based tools. Rounded, polished working ends with visible linear striations and abrasions suggest repeated contact with fine, abrasive materials – most likely decomposed dolomitised limestone, sandy materials, or possibly leather or wood. These observations support earlier functional hypotheses suggesting rib tools were used to scrape or loosen soft mineral layers, such as dolomitised limestone – especially in narrow mining contexts (Lewis 1993; James 2011). The consistent morphology of the working edges and wear types across tools reinforces this interpretation. However, a few atypical/anomalous samples – two complete ribs (Table 1, samples 7 and 8) and two fragments (Table 1, samples 19 and 23) – show markedly lighter wear, with superficial striations and minimal polish. The larger size of the complete samples (29.3 cm and 44.2 cm) and less intensive wear may indicate an alternative function or an early stage of use. Their length also seems impractical for manipulating materials in confined, narrow mining spaces, suggesting functional variability within this tool type. Experiments As part of the author’s doctoral research, in 2009-2011 a series of experimental reconstructions was undertaken to test the functional hypotheses concerning archaeological bone tools. These experiments aimed to reproduce distinctive use-wear patterns by employing replica tools in operations analogous to those inferred from archaeological contexts. Activities included argillite mining, loosening crushed copper-rich sandstone layers, and gravitational separation – specifically, wet ore processing of copper ore (chalcocite) that had already been finely crushed (Zagorodnia 2014a). For these experiments, replicas were crafted from cattle ribs with a naturally flattened cross-section (Fig. 7a). Their vertebral ends had already been removed during food processing. Prior to use, the bones were boiled and cleaned of tendons to ensure consistent preparation. The mining experiment took place at the ore-processing site Chervone Ozero-I in the vicinity of Kartamysh mine, where a cleared section of sedimentary rock – argillite – was used (Fig. 7b). To produce similar traces, nine samples were used. Three student participants acted as miners, splitting host rock and creating depressions in the substrate. Tool-use kinematics varied depending on the density of the sediment, with the participant diggers intuitively adopting the most effective grip and working posture. Over the course of six hours, approximately 0.5 m² was excavated to a depth of 20 cm using just three tools. The task proved labour-intensive and yielded low productivity. Macro-observation of the replica tools after use revealed that two had developed rounded working edges (Fig. 7c). Because the tools were frequently rotated in the hand, wear was evenly distributed. Clay compacted into the spongy ends of the tools during use. Microscopic examination showed grooves and wear features oriented transversely, obliquely, and longitudinally relative to the bone’s axis (Fig. 7d). These traces were deep, rough, and varied in texture. Notably, no polish was recorded. The observed wear patterns closely mirror those described by S.A. Semenov (1952) for digging tools. Further experiments were conducted to simulate the wet ore processing (gravity-based process) by washing the crushed fine fraction of copper ore (chalcocite) (Fig. 7e). To this end, a leather bag – 20 cm high and 19 cm wide when fully expanded – was constructed from ram hide and stabilised within a 3.5-litre container. Cattle rib tools were used to stir slurry of finely crushed copper ore. Two replicas retained the natural rib form (Figs. 7g and 7i); one had a deliberately cut edge. The crushed material was mixed with impurities from a prior dry-crushing experiment using a sandstone slab and pestle. To simulate ore beneficiation, the slurry was stirred continuously with rib tools, keeping the bone in contact with the bag’s walls and base (Fig. 7e). Heavier ore particles sank, while lighter material either floated or dissolved. The water was periodically replaced until only the heavier concentrate and no residual impurities remained at the bottom. Microwear on the experimental tools manifested as bright polish, smooth surfaces, and numerous scratches oriented at angles or perpendicular to the side edges – clearly linked to the tool movement (Figs. 7h and 7j). These marks developed on both the side faces and ends due to the abrasive action of suspended ore particles. After six hours of use, one tool’s edge had transformed completely, forming a rounded and bevelled tip. Polishing at the extreme tip likely resulted from contact with the leather container. The entire tool surface developed a greenish hue due to copper staining. Comparison of these microwear traces with bone artefacts from Kartamysh mining area confirmed strong similarities. The wear observed differs markedly from that produced during excavation and is consistent with soft-surface agitation and ore-slurry mixing. These findings reinforce the interpretation that rib tools were used during wet ore beneficiation processes (gravitational separation). Nonetheless, the results also highlight the importance of contextual caution: microwear patterns are influenced by multiple variables, including ore type, host rock composition, and waste removal methods during mining operations. As such, experimental reference tools must be compared carefully in future, making sure to take local geological and procedural differences into account. Discussion Based on current findings, although the rib tools from the two Bronze Age copper mines show typological similarity, a degree of functional differentiation appears more likely. At Kartamysh, the bone tools (ribs) were primarily used as stirrers in wet ore processing. This interpretation is supported by traceological analysis, experimental replication, and contextual evidence. At Great Orme, even a relatively small assemblage of bone tools reveals some differences in the location of working zones and in striation patterns. Although at first glance the working edges may appear similar in shape, polish, and striations, high-magnification analysis reveals distinct differences. These range from soft wear with superficial scratches to rougher grooves on the side and flat surfaces. The orientation of the grooves – consistently transverse or at a slight angle to the axis – reflects the kinematics of the tools in use. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that these rib tools were not used as levers, wedges, or picks for splitting rock (which are typically marked by longitudinal striations and rougher wear). Instead, they were most likely used to rake fine-grained substrate such as sandy dolomitised limestone or crushed ore concentrate. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude they were used as stirrers. Enlarging the archaeological sample set and conducting further experimental studies – particularly on mining and wet ore processing – would help clarify their possible differentiation and functional roles. It is relevant to briefly summarise current knowledge of wet ore-processing sites in the vicinity of ancient mines and the possible tools or devices involved. It is important to consider whether any archaeological evidence for stirring or raking tools exists, particularly if such implements were used and have survived. It should be noted that ore-processing areas in ancient copper mining regions of Eurasia were often situated near water sources (O’Brien 2015, p. 222). Beneficiation is the second essential stage in metal production, following copper ore extraction. Ancient miner-metallurgists carried out operations such as sorting, crushing/grinding, and washing. Initial manual sorting and crushing of large ore-contained rock fragments were typically done in the immediate vicinity of the mining area (Hegde & Ericson 1985, p. 63; O’Brien 2015, p. 233). The goal at this early stage was to separate high-grade ore-bearing material from gangue or ore-poor fragments. Further crushing and grinding were accomplished using pestles (grinding stones) and stone mortars – abrasive tools essential for breaking down hard ore minerals. However, the resulting mix often included sandy gangue, which became embedded in the ground ore substrate. The next stage – separating copper sulphide from gangue after grinding – depended largely on differences in specific gravity between copper ore itself and the host rock (Agricola 1556; Tylecote 1992). For smelting, the ore concentrate needed a copper content of at least 10% to justify/offset the cost of fuel. This separation could be achieved via winnowing or wet ore processing. Jones (1994, pp. 37-38) outlined several criteria for identifying wet ore-processing sites. The most likely features include waste heaps, trenches, and proximity to water sources. To locate beneficiation zones, it is critical to consider the geological context – namely, the types of copper ores that could or were exploited, and the nature of the host rock. Rock and ore concentrations at a distance from their source may indicate human intervention. Among the most reliable archaeological indicators of wet ore processing are waste heaps composed of ground, sandy rock fractions. These heaps may also yield a variety of associated material culture: stone tools and fragments; bone tools (preserved in neutral or alkaline soils); wooden implements (in acidic soils, where bone rarely survives); containers such as ceramic vessels or small wooden bowls; and stone slab structures. The accessibility of these sites from the mine itself – enabling ore to be transported for processing – is also an important consideration. Topographical indicators further include the presence of natural or artificial water sources – stream beds, sloped areas with flowing water, water-supply channels from reservoirs or wetlands, collection pits, or even dams. Some systems also included engineered channels to direct water from more distant sources. In some cases, water flow was directed to production areas from remote sources via specially constructed channels. A notable example comes from the Dzhezkazgan ore deposit, where a complete system of interconnected spring-fed pits was preserved near ancient mine workings. Each pit was associated with areas containing ore-processing waste (Margulan 1966, p. 268). It is important to point out that identifying and interpreting wet ore-processing sites presents several challenges. Firstly, difficulties in recording them, as sedimentary layers are highly mobile and susceptible to erosion, especially on slopes, where stratigraphy is often indistinct or later waste dumps from continued mining activities may obscure original deposits. The preservation of bone and wood tools is affected by soil composition, potentially distorting the archaeological record. Furthermore, culturally attributable material is rarely present in these contexts, complicating efforts to date them (see e.g. Timberlake 1991). Secondly, although experiments on copper smelting are relatively common, controlled experiments on wet ore processing remain rare (Modl 2015; Timberlake 2019). Of the few conducted, only one has used bone tools subjected to microwear analysis – at Kartamysh (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2014b). So, what evidence do we currently have for gravity separation (primarily applicable to sulphide ores) within Bronze Age mines? This could have been achieved through either winnowing or wet ore processing (as discussed above) , depending on environmental conditions and ore characteristics. The winnowing process is suitable only when the gangue has a specific physical form – such as being rich in talc or mica schist. Once crushed, these lighter particles could be thrown into the wind, allowing heavier mineral particles to fall closer to the source (Tylecote 1987, p. 61). Research suggests that this method was employed as early as the Early Bronze Age at the Timna copper mines in Israel , likely due to arid conditions that made wet processing impractical (Hegde & Ericson 1985). In such cases, winnowing may have been the only viable beneficiation method, particularly in regions where sulphide ores were exploited and water sources were limited. However, archaeologists do not always succeed in recording direct evidence of wet ore processing. These sites are difficult to locate because they often lack clear stratigraphy, occur on mobile slope deposits prone to erosion, or have been disturbed by later mining activity (e.g. see Wager 2024; Stöllner 2014). Moreover, the infrastructure required – such as channels, pits, or ditches – was often made of perishable materials, and its remnants can be subtle. Successful implementation of wet processing depended on reliable access to water – either via natural streams or through artificially constructed supply systems – making topography a key factor in site identification. The Kartamysh site in Ukraine offers a particularly compelling case for early wet ore processing. A partially investigated stream bed – stratigraphically the earliest feature recorded at the site – was located on an inclined plane in a ravine, likely designed to collect spring and rainwater (Fig. 8) (Brovender 2012). This trench extended over 12 metres from northeast to southwest, measured 1.6 - 2.2 m in width and 0.4 - 0.6 m in depth, and was filled with thick layers of beneficiation waste, including finely ground copper sandstone and localised accumulations of tailings (small fragments of waste rock) (Figs. 8a- D, 8a- E ) (Zagorodnia 2014a). Within this layer, numerous artefacts were recovered: tools made of bone (notably ribs) (Fig. 8a- B ) and stone (pestles and mortars), fragments of four ceramic vessels (Fig. 8a- C ) – one of which contained a concentration of enriched copper ore at its base – and the remains of a shallow wooden bowl discovered at the lowest point of the stream bed (Fig. 8a- A ). Two box-like structures composed of vertically positioned sandstone slabs were also identified. The first structure featured a slab measuring 0.7 × 0.4 m, with adjacent slabs up to 0.2 m high (Fig. 8b- A ). The second, stratigraphically later, consisted of two upright slabs and a flat base slab. These constructions likely served to slow water flow, creating settling zones where heavy ore particles could accumulate while lighter sediment was carried away. Ceramic pots, shallow wooden bowls, or leather containers immersed in water likely have been involved for washing crushed copper ore. Rib tools – abundant among the finds – appear to have been used to stir and rake the slurry, as confirmed by traceological analysis and experimental replication (Figs. 7e and 7f) (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2021). In similar contexts elsewhere, wooden stirrers may have fulfilled this function, though their preservation is rare in the archaeological record. After washing, the ore concentrate would have been raked to the side and left to dry in preparation for smelting. Supporting this interpretation, remains of slag, matte, and fragments of slagged ceramics were also found in the area, indicating that ore beneficiation and smelting were likely carried out in close proximity and in sequence. Tylecote (1987) describes another benefaction technique – the well-known method of ‘panning’, whereby ore concentrate is placed in a shallow container and washed using circular motions in water. This action causes lighter gangue particles to float and be removed, while denser mineral fractions settle at the bottom (Tylecote 1987, p.61). O’Brien (2015) has suggested that Beaker pottery vessels might have served this function at the Ross Island mine in Ireland, although only a single fragment has been recovered. A more advanced and continuous form of this principle is seen in ‘buddling’, where ore slurry is passed along an inclined water channel fitted with vertical boards that slow the flow. These barriers cause heavier mineral particles to settle while lighter material is carried away. Agricola (1556, p. 62) illustrates a system employing a series of such obstacles for ore processing in the 16th century (Fig. 9). The best evidence for the use of ore concentrate washing techniques comes from archaeological investigations at Bronze Age copper mines in Austria . Wooden launders (sluices or channels) have been found at Kelchalm, Mitterberg/Troiboden (Stöllner 2011; 2019) (Fig. 10a), and the Mauk mines near Brixlegg (Wager & Ottaway 2019). At Kelchalm, water reservoirs, two wooden launders, and several wooden and earth channels were recorded (Preuschen & Pittioni 1954). These channels transported clean water to the ore-processing areas and discharged waste water via simpler earth channels. The launders, approximately 175 × 80 cm, featured transverse wooden crossbars – similar in function to wash boxes at Troiboden near Mühlbach (Stöllner et al. 2012; Stöllner 2019) – to slow the flow and allow heavier ore particles to settle. At "Scheidehalde 32," a wooden box-like structure originally thought to be a waste pit by Preuschen and Pittioni has more recently been interpreted as a beneficiation facility for wet ore processing (Koch Waldner & Klaunzer 2015). In addition, numerous artefacts have been recovered in this area, including pottery fragments, animal bones, and bronze items (Klaunzer 2008; Timberlake 2019). Two additional wet-processing sites in the Mitterberg region of Austria were identified during a survey in the Salzach Valley near the ancient Brandergang copper mine. Finds there included stone tool fragments, occasional pottery, animal bone, and parts of wooden crossbars (Gale 1995, p. 143; Stöllner 2019). Overall, the artefacts from Austrian Bronze Age mines reflect advanced mining and ore-dressing techniques – particularly primary crushing, grinding, and wet concentration – all appearing, through material analysis, to have formed an integrated and inseparable process. Typologically similar stirrers to those made of rib bone, but crafted from wood, have also been found in Mitterberg region mines (Stöllner 2019) (Fig. 10b, 10c). These wooden tools – flat and wide-bladed – were likely used for mixing ore concentrate in water-filled containers (Timberlake 2019). In publications, they are often referred to as knife-like tools due to the presence of a wide "blade" portion. Later described by Georgius Agricola (1556) as standard tools for ore-washing, they appear in waste dumps at Kelchalm (Preuschen & Pittioni 1937). A similar pattern emerges in Russia . The author’s superficial examination of rib and scapula tools from Late Bronze Age mines at Gorny (Kargaly) (Fig. 5 b) and Mikhailo-Ovsyanka (Fig. 5c) revealed morphological parallels to Kartamysh specimens in Ukraine. Seven cattle rib tools from Gorny, analysed under a microscope, showed wear patterns consistent with stirring actions used in gravity separation. These findings strongly support reinterpreting the broader rib tool corpus and suggest that targeted experimental and traceological studies could greatly enhance our understanding of their functional roles in ore processing. In France , artificial ditches cut into schist were discovered at the Roque Fenestre complex within the Cabrières copper mines (Ambert 1996). These four parallel ditches functioned as beneficiation basins. Their sedimentary fills included crushed dolomite and quartz, layers of sandy sediment indicating the washing of ore concentrate, charcoal, slag, and metallic inclusions – alongside small hammerstones, grinding stones, mortars with cup-like depressions (on one or two working surfaces), two scoops made from sheep scapulae, and numerous pottery fragments (Espérou 1993). The archaeological sequence reveals distinct ore-dressing phases: 1) sorting, crushing, and grinding; 2) washing; and 3) roasting. The site, active from the early 3rd millennium BC, provides an unusually complete record of ore-to-metal transformation (Ambert 1996, p. 16). At Vetriolo in northern Italy (Trento), the only known Italian beneficiation site lies at an altitude of 1,630 metres above sea level (Bellintani et al. 2010; Cierny et al. 2004; Perini 1992; Preuschen 1962; 1973). Long washing dumps, up to 300 metres, stretch along both sides of a mountain stream. Only a portion of the ore could be processed at the high-altitude extraction point due to limited water availability; the majority had to be washed at the watercourse (Preuschen 1962, pp. 3-7). Porphyry grinding stones were recovered, but diagnostic pottery was scarce and no C14 dates were obtained. The Bronze Age attribution is based solely on the morphology of the tools used for crushing the ore (Silvestri et al. 2015; 2019, p. 263). One of the most sophisticated examples of wet ore processing comes from the Laurion silver-lead mining district in Attica, Greece (5 th -4 th centuries BC). In this water-scarce region, large stone reservoirs lined with mortar were constructed – often carved partly into bedrock – to store and manage water supplies for beneficiation. To maximise water use, complex systems were developed, including rectangular ore-washeries with integrated components: cisterns featuring jet outlets, near-horizontal "washing floors," and adjacent "drying floors" surrounded by four channels with sunken containers to collect fine tailings (Jones 1988, p. 11). Analyses of slag revealed that heavy minerals such as iron pyrite settled at the bottom, while lighter components like sand and limestone were washed away (Tylecote 1987, p. 63). A less common, round "helicoidal" washery type – also documented at Laurion – employed shallow, cup-shaped depressions to trap dense ore particles (Jones 1988, pp. 20-21; Tylecote 1987, p. 64, Fig. 2.12). This system was very similar to a riffled buddle, though whether it was as effective remains unclear, and while later in date and context, these installations reflect key mechanical principles of gravity separation that likely have earlier antecedents. Beyond Europe, a distinctive and interesting copper ore-processing technique has been seen in Aravalli Hills in India , though its Bronze Age attribution remains unconfirmed. Near the entrances of several mines, large waste dumps containing gravel-sized debris and fragments of malachite ore were identified, alongside groups of crushing pits positioned near the foothills. After primary crushing, the ore appears to have been gravity-separated at smelting sites typically located on streambanks. One notable feature consisted of a smooth, gently sloping rock surface marked with multiple rows of round, shallow pits – each approximately 7-10 cm in diameter and 3-4 cm deep. Finely crushed ore was flushed down this surface in thin water flows. As the mixture moved slowly over the pits, repeated passes allowed most of the lighter gangue to be removed, leaving behind the denser copper-bearing material (Hegde & Ericson 1985, p. 63). Though undated, this technique represents another variation of ancient gravity separation, adapted to the specific topography and hydrology of the region. Returning to the present day, recent work conducted in Wales in the United Kingdom , around the Great Orme copper mine has considerably expanded our understanding of early ore processing. Surface surveys conducted in the late 20th century identified eight active streams, alongside redeposited dolomitised limestone deposits exhibiting unnatural texture and copper mineralisation –interpreted as waste from beneficiation activities (Lewis 1990; 1996; Jones 1994; Field 2017; Wager & Ottaway 2019) (Fig. 11). These deposits often occur near water sources and display hummocky topography and dolomitic sands, with additional indicators including the presence of copper-tolerant metallophytes (Lewis 1996, p. 167). Early 20th-century documentation suggested four potential washing areas, and excavation in 1990 at Ffynnon Galchog revealed artefacts – bone fragments, some possibly tools, and worked stone – analogous to Bronze Age assemblages at the Pyllau Valley mine. Although the only radiocarbon date from that trench (680-960 cal AD) is anomalous, likely due to redeposited material, later discoveries provided stronger evidence. Landslides in 1993 exposed crushed limestone deposits embedded with artefactual material, including charcoal, stone tools, bones stained green with copper, and a flint scraper. The size and distribution of the material suggest deliberate crushing and possible application of wet gravity separation techniques on sloped ground (Jones 1994, p. 64). Excavations at Ffynnon Rhufeinig further clarified the picture: four trenches revealed stratified layers of dolomitised limestone and gravel, oxidised mineral fragments, and washing residues consistent with experimental criteria for identifying Bronze Age ore-processing waste (Modl 2015). Trench 3 yielded 27 copper-impregnated bone fragments and stone artefacts. Crucially, two animal bones from a well-defined washing layer (Context 312) produced radiocarbon dates of 3360 ± 70 BP, calibrated to 1877-1499 cal. BC – placing them among the earliest phases of activity at Great Orme (Ottaway & Wager 2000; Wager & Ottaway 2019). The configuration of features in Trench 4 – a system of channels and basins fed by spring water – suggests that crushed ore was deliberately transported here from the mine for final wet concentration before smelting. While further excavation and more comprehensive dating are essential to firmly establish the Bronze Age attribution of all these sites, the accumulating archaeological, botanical, and geo-stratigraphic evidence underscores the importance of renewed research. Reassessing Great Orme’s beneficiation landscape not only strengthens our understanding of early copper production in northwest Europe but also provides a model for identifying similar overlooked evidence elsewhere. Conclusion Evidence from Bronze Age mining sites at Great Orme and Kartamysh supports the deliberate selection of bone – particularly rib – for use in mining and ore-processing tasks alongside stone and bronze tools. The morphological features and wear patterns on these tools, especially those recovered from stratified contexts, reveal a more complex functional role than previously assumed. At Kartamysh (Ukraine), traceological analysis and experimental replication have demonstrated that tools made from ribs and long bones were employed to stir and rake fine ore fractions during gravity separation in wet ore-processing installations (Zagorodnia 2014a). The tools' form and associated wear traces directly link them to beneficiation stages, notably ore stirring in water-filled containers. This research contributes to a growing comparative database of bone tools from mining contexts, aiding in functional interpretation. Similar rib and long bone tools have been found in other Bronze Age copper mining regions, including Gorny (Kargaly) and Mikhailo-Ovsyanka in Russia, Schwaz/Brixlegg in Austria, and Ross Island in Ireland (Fig. 5). While these parallels are compelling, interpretation must consider local context, wear trace specificity, and site formation processes. The case of Great Orme mines presents a more complex picture. Rib tools have long been viewed as implements used exclusively for ore extraction. However, recent excavations at presumed Bronze Age wet ore-processing sites – such as Ffynnon Rhufeinig – have recovered bone tools from well-stratified washing deposits. These tools were found alongside pestles, stone slabs, and indicators of beneficiation activity (Wager & Ottaway 2019), which prompted this reconsideration of their functional scope. Could they have served a dual purpose – used both for scraping during extraction and stirring during beneficiation? Preservation conditions and post-Bronze Age site disturbance at Great Orme complicate interpretation. Much of the assemblage was recovered from re-deposited waste or heavily worked-out areas. Nonetheless, the occurrence of rib tools in both surface and underground Bronze Age contexts suggests versatility and repeated use in ore-related activities. To date, no dedicated beneficiation structures – such as lined basins or wooden launders – have yet been conclusively identified at Great Orme. This is likely due to surface erosion, later mining, and limited excavation. However, stratified washing contexts, associated artefacts, and a radiocarbon date of 3360 ± 70 BP (cal. 1877-1499 BC) from bone within beneficiation waste (Ottaway & Wager 2000) indicate early and deliberate wet ore-processing practices. This is the first study to propose a sustained interpretive link between rib tools at two major Bronze Age mining sites. It repositions these tools not only as extraction implements but also as active components in ore beneficiation. Further research, including the ongoing analysis of wedges and picks from both rib and long bone, will refine our picture of tool use and labour organisation in early mining economies. The examination of the Great Orme bone collection continues, with a comprehensive study of other tool categories – such as wedges used for splitting rock – and the results of further experiments to be presented in a separate publication. In conclusion, the study of bone tools from Bronze Age mines represents an underexplored but promising avenue. As shown here, integrating microwear analysis with broader archaeological and environmental data can yield new insights into ancient technologies. This interpretive framework should serve not as a final word, but as a foundation for renewed interdisciplinary research into the overlooked material evidence of ore processing – setting a clear agenda for future exploration. Contextual excavation, comparative analysis, and experimental modelling will be critical to advancing our understanding. Declarations Acknowledgements This research was conducted at the Department of Scientific Research, British Museum, and supported by the Researchers at Risk Fellowships Programme, led by the British Academy in partnership with Cara (the Council for At-Risk Academics) [grant numbers RaRR\100494, RaRFe\100277]. I am deeply grateful to Carl Heron (Head of Scientific Research), Michela Spataro, and Nigel Meeks for their valuable advice, support, and generous assistance with laboratory facilities. I would like to thank the Directors and management team of Great Orme Mines Ltd – Tony Hammond, Andy Lewis, Harriet White, and Nick Jowett – for granting access to the bone tools collection and for their support and discussions related to this work. Thanks are also due to the British Museum Publication Fund and the Department of Scientific Research for supporting image copyright and open access fees. Funding Research was funded by The British Academy/Cara/Leverhulme Researchers at Risk Research Support Funding [project code LTRSF\100459]. References Agricola G (1556) De Re Metallica. Trans. from Latin by Hoover HC & Hoover LH (1950). Dover Publications, New York Antipina EE (2004) – Антипина ЕЕ (2004) Археозоологические материалы. Каргалы. Т. III: Селище Горный: Археологические материалы; Технология горно-металлургического производства; Археобиологические исследования. Сост. и науч. ред. Черных Е.Н. М: Языки славянской культуры, cc 182–239 Ambert P (1996) The copper mines of Cabrières (France) and results of the experimental metallurgy. Archéologie en Languedoc 20-1:13-19 Bellintani P, Mottes E, Nicolis F, Silvestri E, Stefan L, Bassetti M, Degasperi N, Cappellozza N (2010) New Evidence of Archaeometallurgical Activities During the Bronze Age in Trentino. In: Anreiter P et al (eds) Mining in European history and its impact on environment and human societies: Proceedings for the 1st Mining in European History-Conference of the SFB-HIMAT. Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp 277-282 Binford LR (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myth. Academic Press, New York Bogdanov SV, Musikhin GD (2001) – Богданов СВ, Мусихин ГД (2001) Костяные скобели Чкаловского поселения – оригинальный тип орудий горняков-металлургов срубной культуры. XV Уральское археол. совещание: тез. докл. междунар. науч. конф. Оренбург, c 67 Bone modification (1989) Bonnichsen R, Sorg MH (eds) Center For The Study of The First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono Brovender YuM (2012) – Бровендер ЮМ (2012) Итоги исследований комплекса горно-металлургических памятников на Картамышском медном рудопроявлении Донбасса. Проблеми дослідження пам’яток археології Східної України: матерiали ІІІ Луганської міжнародної історико-археологічної конференції, присвяченої пам’яті С. Н. Братченка. Луганськ, cc. 551–556 Campana D-V (1980) An Analysis of the Use-wear Patterns on Natufian and Proto-Neolithic Bone Implements. PhD dissertation. Columbia University. University Microfilm International Chernykh YeN (1978) Aibunar – A Balkan Copper Mine of the Fourth Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44:203-217 Cierny J, Marzatico F, Perini R, Weisgerber G (2004) Der spätbro nzezeitliche Verhüttungsplatz Acqua Fredda am Passo Redebus (Trentino). In: Weisgerber G, Goldenberg G (eds) Alpenkupfer. Rame delle Alpi. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 17. Bochum, pp 155–164 Doll M (2003)Men and Animals in Mines. In: Stöllner Th, Körlin G, Steffens G, Cierny J (eds) Man and Mining – Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 16. Bochum, pp 113-126 Dutton A, Fasham PJ, Jenkins DA, Caseldine AE, Hamilton-Dyer S (1994) Prehistoric Copper Mining on the Great Orme, Llandudno, Gwynedd. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60:245-286. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00003455 Fernandez-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2016) Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer Netherlands. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1 Field D (2017) A Bronze Age Brownfield Site? A geoarchaeological investigation of a potential ore washing site at Ffynnon Galchog: The Great Orme. MSc dissertation, The University of Reading Fisher JW (1995) Bone surface modification in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2-1:7-68 From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present (2005) Luik H, Choyke AM, Batey CE, Lõugas L (eds) Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group. Tallinn Book Printers, Tallinn Gale D (1995) A comparative study of the Earliest European copper mining tools. In: Petrović P, Đurđekanović S (eds) Ancient mining and metallurgy in Southeast Europe: international symposium. Belgrade, pp. 47-53 Gorashchuk IV, Kolev YuI (2004) – Горащук ИВ, Колев ЮИ (2004) Каменные и костяные орудия с рудника бронзового века Михайло-Овсянка в Самарской области. Вопросы археологии Урала и Поволжья 2:89-104 Hegde KTM, Ericson JE (1985) Ancient Indian copper smelting furnaces. In: Craddock P, Hughes MJ (eds) Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity. British Museum Occasional Paper 48. London, pp 59-69 Hunt A (1993) An Analysis of Bone Assemblages from the Bronze Age Copper Mines of the Great Orme, Llandudno. BSc thesis, Sheffield University James S (2011) The economic, social and environmental implications of faunal remains from the Bronze Age Copper Mines at Great Orme, North Wales. Dissertation, University of Liverpool Jenkins DA, Lewis CA (1991) Prehistoric mining tor copper in the Great Orme, Llandudno. In: Budd P (ed) Archaeological Sciences 1989. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 9, pp 151-161 Jones EJ (1988) The Athenians silver mines of Laurion and the British School at Athens Excavation in Agrileza. In: Ellis Jones J (ed) Aspects of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy. Bangor, pp 11-22 Jones SG (1994) Deciphering the ‘Metallic Arts’ of the Bronze Age: A proposed criteria for the identification of ore-washing sites associated with early copper mining in Wales. MSc dissertation, University of York Jovanović B (1982) Rudna Glava: Najstarije rudarstvo bakra na Centralnom Balkanu [Rudna Glava: The oldest copper mine in the central Balkans]. Arheološki Institut, Belgrade Jovanović B, Ottaway BS (1976) Copper mining and metallurgy in the Vinča group. Antiquity 50: 104-113 Khlopachev GA, Girya YeYu (2010) – Хлопачев ГА, Гиря ЕЮ (2010) Секреты древних косторезов Восточной Европы и Сибири: приёмы обработки бивня мамонта и рога северного оленя в каменном веке (по археологическим и экспериментальным данным). Наука, СПб Kileynikov VV (1997) – Килейников ВВ (1997) Костяные орудия труда с рудника Червонэ озеро Картамышского рудопроявления. Археология Восточно-Европейской лесостепи 10. Пятьдесят полевых сезонов археологов Воронежского университета: 128-135 Klaunzer M (2008) Studien zum spätbronzezeitlichen Bergbau auf der Kelchalm und Bachalm Bez. Kitzbühel, Nordtirol. MSc dissertation, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck Koch Waldner T, Klaunzer M (2015) Das prähistorische Bergbaugebiet in der Region Kitzbühel. In: Stöllner Th, Oeggl K (eds) Bergauf Bergab, 10.000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen. Bochum, pp 165-173 Lewis CA (1996) Prehistoric mining at the Great Orme. Criteria for the identification of early mining. MSc dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor Lyman RL (1994) Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Maigrot Y (2003) Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matières dures animales: la station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). PhD dissertation. University of Paris Margulan A et al (1966) – Маргулан АХ, Акишев КА, Кадырбаев МК, Оразбаев АМ (1966) Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана. Наука, Алма-Ата Modl D (2015) Experimentelle Archäologie zu ostalpinen Aufbereitungs- und Hüttenprozessen. In: Stöllner Th, K. Oeggl K (eds) Bergauf Bergab, 10.000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen. Bochum, pp 221-224 Ottaway BS, Wager E (2000) Ffynnon Rhufeinig, Great Orme, Llandudno (SH7655 8386). Archaeology in Wales 40:73 O'Brien W (2004) Ross Island. Mining, Metal and Society in Early Ireland. Bronze Age Studies 6. National University of Ireland, Galway O'Brien W (2013) Bronze Age copper mining in Europe. In: Fokkens H, Harding A (eds) Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572861.001.0001 O'Brien W (2015) Prehistoric Copper Mining in Europe. 5500-500 BC. Oxford University Press, Oxford Pankowsky WB (2005) – Панковський ВБ (2005) Деякі результати технологічного та функціонального аналізу кістяних знарядь Червоного озера-I. Проблеми гірничої археології: матеріали II-го міжнародного Картамиського польового археологічного семінару: 189-192 Perini R (1992) Evidence of metallurgical activity in Trentino from Chalcolithic times to the end of the Bronze Age. In: Antonacci Sanpaolo E (ed) Archeometallurgia. Ricerche e prospettive, Atti delcolloquio Internazionale di Archeometallurgia, Bologna – Dozza Imolese 18-21 ottobre 1988, pp 54-80 Preuschen E (1962) Der urzeitliche Kupferbergbau von Vetriolo (Trentino). Der Anschnitt 14-2: 3-7 Preuschen E (1973) Estrazione mineraria dell’età del Bronzo nel Trentino. Preistoria Alpina 9:113-150 Preuschen E, Pittioni R (1937) Untersuchungen im Bergbaugebiete Kelchalpe bei Kitzbühel, Tirol 1. Bericht. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 3, Wien Preuschen E, Pittioni R (1954) Untersuchungen im Bergbaugebiet Kelchalm bei Kitzbühel, Tirol 3. Bericht über die Arbeiten 1946-53 zur Urgeschichte des Kupferbergwesens in Tirol. Archaeologia Austriaca 15:3-97 Rieser B, Schrattenthaler H (2004) Prähistorischer Kupfer bergbau im Raum Schwaz/Brixlegg (Nordtirol). Geländebe funde und experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Schlägelschäftung. In: Weisgerber G, Goldenberg G (eds) Alpenkupfer Rame delle Alpi, Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 17. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 75-94 Semenov SA (1952) – Семенов СА (1952) Костяные землекопные орудия из палеолитических стоянок Елисеевичи и Пушкари I. СА 16:120-128 Semenov SA (1957) – Семенов СА (1957) Первобытная техника (Опыт изучения древнейших орудий и изделий по следам работы). МИА 54. Изд-во АН СССР, Москва Silvestri E, Bellintani P, Nicolis F, Bassetti M, Biagioni S, Cappellozza N, Degasperi N, Marchesini M, Martinelli N, Marvelli S and Pignatelli O (2015) New excavations at smelting sites in Trentino, Italy: archaeological and archaeobotanical data. In: Hauptmann A, Modaressi-Tehrani D (eds) Archaeometallurgy in Europe III. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 26. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 369–376 Silvestri E, Bellintani P, Hauptmann A (2019) Bronze Age copper ore mining and smelting in Trentino (Italy). In: Turck R, Stöllner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 42. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 261-278 Staudt M, Goldenberg G, Scherer-Windisch M, Nicolussi K, Pichler Th (2019) Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age fahlore mining in the Lower Inn Valley (North Tyrol, Austria). In: Turck R, Stöllner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 42. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 115-142 Stöllner Th (2011) Das Alpenkupfer der Bronze- und Eisenzeit: Neue Aspekte der Forschung. In: Schmotz K (ed) Vorträge des 29. Niederbayerischen Archäologentages, Deggendorf, pp 25-70 Stöllner Th, Breitenlechner E, Fritzsch D, Gontscharov A, Hanke K, Kirchner D, Kovács K, Moser M, Nicolussi K, Oeggl K, Pichler T, Pils R, Prange M, Thiemeyer H, Thomas P (2012) Ein Nassaufbereitungskasten vom Troiboden. Interdisziplinäre Erforschung des bronzezeitlichen Montanwesens am Mitterberg (Land Salzburg, Österreich). Jahrbuch RGZM 57:1-32 Stöllner Th (2014) Methods of mining archaeology (Mon tanarchäologie). In: Roberts BW, Thornton CP (eds) Archaeometallurgy in global perspective: methods and syntheses. Springer, New York, pp 133-159 Stöllner Th (2019) Between Mining and Smelting in the Bronze Age – Beneficiation Processes in an Alpine Copper Pro-ducing district. Results of 2008 to 2017 excavations at the Sulzbach-Moos Bog at the Mitterberg (Salzburg, Austria). In: Turck R, Stöllner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 42, pp 165-190 Timberlake S (1991)New evidence for early prehistoric mining in Wales – problems and potentials. In: Budd P et al (eds) Archaeological Sciences 1989. Oxford, pp 179-193 Timberlake S (2019) Some provisional results of experiments undertaken using a reconstructed sluice box: an attempt to try and reproduce the methods of washing and concentrating chalcopyrite at the Middle Bronze Age ore processing site of Troiboden, Mitterberg, Austria. In: Turck R, Stöllner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beihert 42, pp 191-206 Tylecote RF (1987) The Early history of metallurgy in Europe. Longman, London & New York Tylecote RF (1992) Extraction metallurgy: historical development and evolution of the processes. In: Antonacci Sanpaolo E (ed) Archeometallurgia. Ricerche e prospettive, Atti delcolloquio Internazionale di Archeometallurgia, Bologna – Dozza Imolese 18-21 ottobre 1988, pp 25-42 Wager E, Ottaway B (2019) Optimal versus minimal preservation: two case studies of Bronze Age ore processing sites. Journal of Historical Metallurgy 52-1: 22-32 Wager E (2024) Community, Technology and Tradition: A Social Prehistory of the Great Orme Mine. Sidestone Press, Leiden Williams RA (2023) Boom and Bust in Bronze Age Britain: The Great Orme Copper Mine and European Trade. Archaeopress, Oxford Zagorodnia O (2014a) – Загородня ОМ (2014a) Про призначення однієї з категорій кістяних знарядь Картамишу. Археологія 1:15-28 Zagorodnia O (2014b) – Загородняя ОН (2014b) Орудия металлопроизводства бережновско-маевской срубной культуры (по материалам Картамышского археологического микрорайона). Диссертация … канд. ист. наук, Институт археологии НАН Украины Zagorodnia O (2021) Functional analysis of metal-production tools of the Late Bronze Age in Eastern Ukraine. In Beyries S, Hamon C, Maigrot Y (eds) Beyond Use-Wear Traces: Going from Tools to People by Means of Archaeological Wear and Residue Analyses. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp 265-279 Footnotes [1] In most cases, bone remains from Chalcolithic and Bronze Age mines in Eurasia that were used as mining tools are represented by horn picks. [2] The study provides a detailed description of wear marks on rib tools, including multidirectional scratches at the end and transverse striations relative to the tool’s axis, along with a softly rounded working tip. In contrast, short wedges made from long bones exhibit heavy wear, with horizontal scratches concentrated across the first 10 mm of the tip (p. 20). However, the researcher’s interpretation – that ribs functioned as levers for chipping off rock – departs from the observed wear patterns. Lever use would typically produce rougher traces and differently oriented striations, creating some interpretive inconsistencies. [3] (15+1 specimens) indicates 15 rib tools and 1 limb bone. The descriptions of the two limb bones are provided separately below the descriptions of the three groups. [4] (4+1 specimens) indicates 4 rib tools and 1 limb bone, as described above. Table 1 Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.doc Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 04 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 20 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 06 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7050041","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":485136822,"identity":"f5ea1651-edb3-4cee-ae88-1a2559e8cd4c","order_by":0,"name":"Olga Zagorodnia","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The British Museum","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Olga","middleName":"","lastName":"Zagorodnia","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-05 02:38:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-026-02407-7","type":"published","date":"2026-03-04T15:58:17+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86806980,"identity":"23226f9f-8ae8-439a-8c9a-b124e476c0de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3779806,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEuropean Bronze Age mining sites with rib bone tools:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1 - Ross Island, Ireland; 2 - Great Orme, North Wales, UK; 3 - Schwaz – Brixlegg, Austria;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4 - Kartamysh, Ukraine; 5 - Mikhailo-Ovsyanka, Russia; 6 - Gorny, Kargaly, Russia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGPS locations of the two main sites discussed in the text: Great Orme (N53.194935, W3.504940);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKartamysh (N48.350900; E38.231240)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1Map.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/e2e1cc57efcaf1fa5095f437.png"},{"id":86806979,"identity":"4ba4091c-21d3-400a-934b-aee3616cc334","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17356847,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(a-e)\u003c/strong\u003e Rib bone tools. Great Orme Mines. Images by O. Zagorodnia, (\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) copyright of the Trustees of The British Museum\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/58cc0249ae97e7433c75e43b.png"},{"id":86806976,"identity":"e17747e5-db89-49c8-b019-5e7f3c873f29","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9958115,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003ea, b\u003c/strong\u003e) Rib bone tools. Great Orme Mines. Images by O. Zagorodnia, (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eB-D\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eB-D\u003c/em\u003e) copyright of the Trustees of The British Museum\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/d49f9aaa0465dc84f1210fea.png"},{"id":86806977,"identity":"4ecbf196-cb92-4ec2-9b62-cc8458f0f4bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16100272,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) Rib and (\u003cstrong\u003eb, c\u003c/strong\u003e) long bone tools. Great Orme Mines. Images by O. Zagorodnia, (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eB-D\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eB-D\u003c/em\u003e) copyright of the Trustees of The British Museum\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/b4bb1c20367fa5499be5b2b1.png"},{"id":86806978,"identity":"632d9864-c037-4bde-8430-c5d6e09aa18b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3356287,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRib bone tools from other European Bronze Age Copper Mines: (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) Kartamysh, Ukraine; (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) Gorny, Kargaly, Russia; (\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e) Mykhailo-Ovsyanka, Russia; (\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e) Schwaz – Brixlegg, Austria; (\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e) Ross Island, Ireland\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/f51448ee58c71944f07dbe41.png"},{"id":86806985,"identity":"dab8f4a6-e385-44b0-bac2-258b336b863f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46440682,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003ea-c\u003c/strong\u003e) Rib and (\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e) long bone tools. Kartamysh, Ukraine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImages by O. Zagorodnia. (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e) (\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e) Microphotos made with an Olympus\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emetallographic microscope (Zagorodnia, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/372c8dc9e2e13c39c7a79d5c.png"},{"id":86806983,"identity":"4e0fc26c-a554-4923-92b1-637e83446b5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18671162,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExperiments with rib tools: (a-d) argillite mining; (e-j) wet ore-processing. Images by O. Zagorodnia. (d, h, j) Microphotos made with an Olympus metallographic\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emicroscope (Zagorodnia, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/85fb8d5b7e0b5cd4db50321b.png"},{"id":86807395,"identity":"d96172db-d0cf-480a-9e7d-f8956a48726e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:42:12","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":21118938,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOre-processing site Chervone ozero-I in the vicinity of Kartamysh mines: (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) remains of a stream bed: (\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e) wooden bowl; (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e) bone and stone tools in situ; (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) ceramic vessel;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cem\u003eD, E\u003c/em\u003e) beneficiation waste, including tailings, stone and bone tools, and ceramic fragments in situ;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) remains of a stream bed: (\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e) box-like stone structure. Photo by O. Zagorodnia\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/9a88da3b343c8d5ff9342404.png"},{"id":86806974,"identity":"fbd666be-ffb2-48fd-8561-96b10c6cf9bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:11","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5414531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWet beneficiation – ‘buddling’ (Agricola 1556, p. 62, 291)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/88ad3c586a695fdae03633ab.png"},{"id":86806975,"identity":"185ca3ec-e989-4397-bc82-5305bcd36ee1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:11","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":6519331,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWet beneficiation boxes from Troiboden:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(a) during excavation (photo: DBM/RUB, J. Schröder);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(b) wooden “knife” from the excavation (drawings:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRuhr-Universität Bochum, A. Kuczminski, E. Neuber);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(c) “knives” and “stirrers” at work (reconstruction)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(graphics: DBM/RUB, Th. Stöllner);\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(d) reconstruction at the Deutsche Bergbau-Museum, Bochum\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/97adaa5dc8314f445c5e62d0.png"},{"id":86806982,"identity":"04600ebc-f6c5-41cf-8f9c-ec11a070fdc0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:12","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":865643,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLocation of the springs around the Great Orme, with the area of the Pyllau Valley Mines, Ffynnon Galchog, and Ffynnon Rhufeinig highlighted in blue (after Jones, 1994, p. 48)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/505d90eeb1feec7cf2a4e66b.png"},{"id":104250928,"identity":"d13c1fd6-eb57-40e9-9049-16bf93b77791","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-09 16:11:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":139653682,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/d4024102-de7d-4e4b-808a-8186d8ff64c3.pdf"},{"id":86806973,"identity":"d8080023-4f99-40b1-b305-db4c97c378c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-15 18:34:11","extension":"doc","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":164864,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.doc","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7050041/v1/69efa181a45896491d7f46e7.doc"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Animal Rib Tools in Bronze Age Mining: Insights from Great Orme (UK) and Kartamysh (Ukraine)","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMining and metallurgy fundamentally shaped technological progress, cultural and economic exchange, and social development in prehistoric societies (e.g. see O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2013,\u0026nbsp;2015). Copper ore mining and copper metal production in the Bronze Age comprised a complex sequence of operations requiring specialist knowledge, technical organisation, and dedicated tools. Archaeological sources indicate that, in some communities, all technological stages (from ore mining, ore processing, smelting, to further production processes) were integrated, while in others, only certain stages were performed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the most common artefacts from these sites are tools made from stone, bone, and antler. The choice of materials was influenced by environmental and geological conditions. For stone tools, raw material sources included both modified and unmodified pebbles and nodules. Bone tools were shaped not only by practicality but also by various sociocultural factors. In pastoral Bronze Age societies, cattle husbandry provided abundant raw material. Bone offered advantages such as accessibility, ease of working, and functional physical properties, making it a versatile resource for various economic activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this, the functional study of bone production tools remains underdeveloped in mining archaeology. Until recently, large assemblages of antler and bone tools from mining contexts and sites had not undergone complex functional analysis (including traceology and experimentation). This need has become increasingly urgent with the accumulation of significant material from Bronze Age copper mines like Great Orme \u0026ndash; one of the largest known, surviving prehistoric mines in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Great Orme copper deposits lie within a limestone formation in north-west Llandudno, North Wales. Copper mineralisation occurs along 40 north-south veins associated with dolomitised limestone bands. The main copper-bearing mineral is chalcopyrite, which in the upper levels has been transformed into malachite by supergene weathering (Lewis 1996, p. 5). Radiocarbon dating suggests copper ore was extracted from approximately 1700 to 800 BC, with peak activity around 1600-1300 BC, when Great Orme was likely the principal source of copper for bronze production in the British Isles (Williams 2023, pp. 80-82). Excavations between 1989-2006 and 2016-2019 revealed a vast network of Bronze Age tunnels (Williams 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAround 2,500 stone tools and fragments have been recovered from underground and surface deposits, which can be categorised into mining tools (hammers) and ore-processing implements. Hammerstones were mainly hand-held, with a minority showing signs of hafting. Copper ore-processing tools included stone slabs with single or multiple depressions, as well as hand-held pestles and grinders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the extensive osteological material, more than 35,000 bone fragments and complete specimens have been recovered, mainly from surface waste heaps and, to a lesser extent, early underground workings. Previous studies have shown that more than half of these bones are from cattle, with the remainder from pigs, sheep, and goats (Hunt 1993; Hamilton-Dyer in Dutton \u0026amp; Fasham 1994; Lewis 1996; James 2011). Earlier studies primarily addressed preservation, provenance, species composition, morphological classification, and spatial distribution (Lewis 1996, p. 121).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn current research on Bronze Age mining and metallurgy, a pressing issue is the functional analysis of bone and antler tools \u0026ndash; an aspect not previously prioritised in earlier studies. This entails identifying manufacturing techniques and operational roles for each tool within the production process. Such analysis is key to reconstructing mining technologies and understanding the organisation of ancient mining practices. An additional important question is whether certain tool types reflect distinct cultural traditions or represent widespread, temporally persistent technological solutions across regions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eArchaeological and ethnographic data gathered by mining researchers suggest that Bronze Age mining involved a series of sequential tasks \u0026ndash; chipping, crushing, sorting \u0026ndash; each requiring durable tools and advanced extraction techniques. Alongside stone and bronze implements, ancient miners used bone, antler, and wooden wedges for splitting rock (Agricola 1556; O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2015, p. 94).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBone and antler tools have been recorded at Bronze Age mining sites throughout Eurasia\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In some cases, ore processing was conducted near the mine and in adjacent settlements showing evidence of smelting and metalworking. Tools found in underground contexts, particularly alongside hammerstones, have often been attributed to ore mining. Horn and long bone tools fashioned into wedge-like forms have typological similarities to metal picks. Negative impressions and imprints on tunnel walls at sites like Great Orme and Mitterberg support this association (O\u0026apos;Brien 2015, p. 211). Thousands of long bone wedges were discovered at Gorny (Kargaly, Russia) (Antipina 2004), and similar finds have come from Aibunar (Bulgaria) (Chernykh 1978), Rudna Glava (Serbia) (Jovanović\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Ottaway 1976;\u0026nbsp;Jovanović\u0026nbsp;1982), El Aramo and El Milagro (Spain) (O\u0026apos;Brien 2015, p. 94) and Pioch Farrus and Saint-V\u0026eacute;ran (France) (O\u0026apos;Brien 2015, pp. 111, 119; Ambert 1996: Fig. 14).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the toolkit extended beyond wedges and was not limited to picks made of horn and long bones. Tools made from animal ribs \u0026ndash; with polished, rounded working edges \u0026ndash; have been found in mining sites at Great Orme (UK) (James 2011), Kartamysh (Ukraine) (Zagorodnia 2014a), and mining sites in Russia\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eKargaly in the Urals (Antipina 2004), and a mine near Mikhailo-Ovsyanka (Samara Region) (Gorashchuk \u0026amp; Kolev 2004). Rib tools are also known in copper mines of Schwaz/Brixlegg (North Tyrol) and Ross Island (Ireland), but so far in much smaller quantities (Rieser \u0026amp; Schrattenthaler 2004; Staudt et al. 2019; O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2004) (Figs. 1 and 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThough less durable and robust than tubular bones, these rib tools are thought to have been used for lighter operations such as scraping oxidised copper minerals (e.g. malachite and azurite) from the surface of rocks (Bogdanov \u0026amp; Musikhin 2001; Pankowsky 2005), or for sorting ore and scraping copper-rich sandstone during extraction (Kileynikov 1997; James 2011; Rieser \u0026amp; Schrattenthaler 2004, p. 83).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome other studies and their researchers have proposed alternative uses for rib tools, such as ore beneficiation \u0026ndash; grinding ore particles in water-filled leather containers (Gorashchuk \u0026amp; Kolev 2004), or leatherworking (Antipina 2004, p. 225), based on typological similarity and wear patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, rib tools have been identified not only in copper mining contexts but also in sites associated with tin and gold extraction, confirming their broader functional and geographic use. Similar rib implements have been recorded at the tin mines of Karnab (Uzbekistan), Mu\u0026scaron;iston (Tajikistan), and the gold mine at Sakdrisi (Georgia) \u0026ndash; further evidence and support for their association with ore beneficiation and/or sorting activities (Doll 2003; St\u0026ouml;llner et al. 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA particularly illustrative case comes from Ross Island (Ireland), where thirteen rib tools and fragments \u0026ndash; mostly flat, wide, and made from cattle \u0026ndash; exhibited polish and superficial linear striations along the working edges, indicative of scraping and raking oxidised ore on relatively soft materials, possibly leather (O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2004, pp. 378-379). Their natural curvature made them especially well-suited to sorting and raking tasks. Most working edges were located at the sternal end, although in one instance both ends appear to have been used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Great Orme, early researchers observed that many bone tools exhibited rounding and visible wear at the conical end, with the opposite end often shaped for comfortable gripping. Andy Lewis (1993) was among the first to suggest these bones were used as gouging, scraping, or chiselling tools. Building on this, A. Hunt (1993), in his master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, established typological criteria for identifying modified bone implements. He emphasised the importance of anatomical shape selection in their manufacture (Hunt 1993, p. 13). He also noted that ribs required little or no modification, appearing to have been used more gently than other types of bone, particularly long bones\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[2]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e(Hunt\u0026nbsp;1993, p. 30).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHamilton-Dyer similarly concluded that ribs most likely functioned as scrapers or gouges rather than chisels, given their relative fragility for removing harder material (Hamilton-Dyer in Dutton \u0026amp; Fasham\u0026nbsp;1994; Lewis\u0026nbsp;1996, p. 126).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite such early insights, featureless bone artefacts have historically received less analytical attention than more readily interpreted tools such as hammerstones, metal wedges or\u0026nbsp;casting moulds. Functional hypotheses have typically relied on contextual associations and typological similarities, often without support from detailed traceological or experimental analysis. The few exceptions \u0026ndash; most notably the doctoral research of S. James (2011) and the author\u0026apos;s own work (Zagorodnia 2014) \u0026ndash; demonstrate the potential value of comprehensive methodological investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames examined over 16,000 bone specimens from Great Orme \u0026ndash; roughly half the entire assemblage. Her aim was\u0026nbsp;to assess species representation and taphonomic processes across the material, as well as to identify samples used as tools. Due to limitations in research equipment at the time, James was unable to perform scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or capture high-resolution images. Nevertheless, she successfully identified use-wear through a combination of careful visual examination and low-power optical microscopy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe observed a consistent preference for cattle ribs, particularly those with a flattened cross-section. Use-traces were typically found along the natural sternal edge and frequently included rounding and polish, suggestive of repeated use. Notably, she identified tools with wear concentrated at one end, while the opposing end remained unmodified \u0026ndash; reinforcing the hypothesis of simple handheld use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test her functional interpretations, S.\u0026nbsp;James conducted controlled experiments using replica tools fashioned from cattle tibiae (two specimens) and ribs (one specimen). These were used to excavate dolomitised limestone, replicating site conditions at Great Orme. The tubular bones proved stronger and more ergonomic, while the rib fractured under pressure. On this basis, she proposed that ribs were more likely used for raking or scooping decomposed limestone into containers \u0026ndash; such as leather bags or shovels \u0026ndash; rather than for penetrating solid rock. The modest wear observed on some working ends may reflect limited or short-term use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJames\u0026rsquo;s findings underscored the need for further experimental research using a broader range of bone types commonly found in archaeological contexts. Her study highlights the underutilised potential of bone as a functional material, and its role within the \u003cem\u003echa\u0026icirc;ne op\u0026eacute;ratoire\u003c/em\u003e of Bronze Age copper mining. It contributes valuable data to reconstructions of ancient tool use, production processes, and the organisation of metallurgical activity within prehistoric societies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present author\u0026rsquo;s doctoral research, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMetalwork Tools of the Berezhnovsko-Maevka Srubnaya Culture (Based on the Materials of the Kartamysh Archaeological Area)\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e, conducted at the Kartamysh archaeological complex in eastern Ukraine, complements and expands upon this approach and line of inquiry (Zagorodnia 2014b). Dated to the Late Bronze Age (1600-1200 BC) according to the Eastern European chronology, the Kartamysh complex encompasses settlement remains, ore-sorting and ore-processing areas, copper mines, open quarries, and metallurgical workshops \u0026ndash; offering a uniquely preserved context for studying mining and metallurgical activity across all stages of production. Systematic research in this area has yielded a representative collection of stone and bone tools. It thus enables a detailed reconstruction of the full \u003cem\u003echa\u0026icirc;ne op\u0026eacute;ratoire\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; the entire metal production process from copper ore mining to manufacture and processing of metal products, revealing not only technical choices but also socio-cultural dynamics of ancient miners and metallurgists.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough a combined traceological and experimental methods, 484 bone artefacts were analysed. Of these, 399 were classified as a previously unrecognised functional category: tools used for stirring copper ore concentrate during wet ore processing (gravitational separation) (Figs. 5a and 6). These implements, predominantly made from cattle ribs \u0026ndash; with additional examples crafted from scapulae and long tubular bones \u0026ndash; had been previously misclassified as leatherworking tools or ore-mining implements. Detailed traceological study revealed a consistent pattern of wear, including rounded working edges, superficial linear striations on the end faces and flanks, and localised zones of polish indicative of repetitive stirring or agitation movements (Figs. 6b, 6c, 6d).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo validate these interpretations, a comprehensive experimental programme was conducted (Fig. 7). Replica tools were used in three key processes: mining argillite, loosening compacted copper-rich sandstone, and stirring crushed copper ore in water-filled leather containers. The latter reproduced wear patterns that closely matched those on the original archaeological artefacts \u0026ndash; particularly rounded edges, fine striations, and polished zones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a result of this work, a comparative reference database was established to document both micro and macro-scale deformations associated with specific tool types, tasks, and materials. This dataset enables systematic identification of use-wear patterns and offers a robust analytical framework for distinguishing functional categories of bone tools. It now serves as a critical resource for future researchers aiming to assess and compare bone tool use across other Bronze Age mining and metallurgical contexts (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2014b; 2021).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study presents the initial results of a functional analysis of a relatively underexplored category of tools from mining contexts \u0026ndash; artefacts fashioned from ribs and tubular bones, characterised by a distinctively rounded working end. The examined assemblage includes 28 rib tools and 2 limb bone tools.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe methodology for traceological analysis of osseous materials is well established, drawing foundational principles from S.A.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSemenov\u0026rsquo;s pioneering work on prehistoric technologies (Semenov 1957). Bone and antler were often employed by prehistoric populations with minimal or no modification, meaning that traces of use often constitute the only available evidence for functional interpretation (see e.g. Bone modification 1989; Binford 1981; Campana 1980; Khlopachev \u0026amp; Girya 2010; Fernandez-Jalvo \u0026amp; Andrews 2016; Fisher 1995; From Hooves to Horns\u0026hellip; 2005;\u0026nbsp;Maigrot 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary aim of the experimental and traceological investigation was to identify diagnostic wear traces on bone tools and to determine their association with ore processing and mining activities. This is a challenging analytical task, given the complexity of ancient technological behaviours and the variability in wear patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe methodical framework is grounded in the kinematics of manual labour, with a focus on both linear striations (geometry) and volumetric alterations (topography) as indicators of tool movement and contact (Semenov 1957, p. 11). The study also considered the physical properties of bone, antler, and tusk, with attention to their plastic and structural behaviour under stress (Semenov 1957, p. 9). Key diagnostic features include striations, micro-chipping, cracking, smoothing of protrusions, and polish \u0026ndash; all of which aid in reconstructing tool function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecies identification followed the criteria outlined by Hunt (1993). Preservation across the sample was generally good. Based on raw material structure, the tools were classified into two groups: long arcuate bones (ribs) and limb bones.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research methodological procedure consisted of the following steps:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. \u003cem\u003eVisual Examination of All Bone Samples.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial stage focused on identifying manufacturing methods such as splitting, chopping, and sawing. This revealed a pattern from complete tools to fragmented artefacts and production waste. Many tools retained their natural anatomical form with minimal intentional shaping. Morphological categorisation and metric recording were conducted at this stage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. \u003cem\u003eMacroscopic Observation of Surface Traces.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow-magnification optical microscopy (\u0026times;5 to \u0026times;20) was used to assess surface alterations. Both natural (e.g. root etching, microbial activity, trampling, colour changes, post-depositional damages) and anthropogenic (e.g. striations, edge rounding, impact traces, polishing, hafting wear) modifications were recorded. Representative specimens were selected for higher magnification and photographic documentation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. \u003cem\u003eMacro Photography.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Canon EOS 60D camera with Canon EF-S 60 mm and MP-E 65 mm f/2.8 1\u0026ndash;5\u0026times; macro lenses was used. Mounted on a tripod and fitted with an \u0026ldquo;Altami\u0026rdquo; micro-focusing stage and variable, adjustable side-lighting and brightness, the system allowed detailed visual capture at \u0026times;2\u0026ndash;5 magnification. Focus bracketing and stacking in Helicon Focus software ensured high-resolution, fully-focused imagery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. \u003cem\u003eMicroscale Observation and Imaging\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicrowear features were recorded using a Keyence digital microscope and a scanning electron microscope (SEM, Hitachi S-3700N), at magnifications of \u0026times;20 to \u0026times;100. In the case of a SEM, two types of signal were detected: the backscattered electrons (BSE) and the secondary electron (SE). SEM was particularly effective for recording fine striations and topographic features.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5. \u003cem\u003eIdentification and Interpretation of Wear Traces/Marks.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArchaeological traces were compared with a reference dataset developed through prior experimental replication studies (Zagorodnia 2014a). Wear pattern analysis employed an Olympus metallographic (a reflected light) microscope, with high-resolution photo-documentation of experimental results (Figs. 6b, 6c, 6d and 7d, 7h, 7j).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThose integrated methods allowed for a productive balance between macro and micro-scale trace identification. SEM offered excellent resolution for linear and volumetric wear, while digital microscopy enabled analysis of polish zones and contributed to 3D modelling (Fig. 2c-\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, these methods provide robust and replicable data, enhancing the reliability of functional interpretation. The observed wear patterns are fully documented in the accompanying visual material to follow.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs part of the project, 150 relatively well-preserved bone specimens from the Great Orme copper mines were subjected to traceological analysis. These specimens were recovered through systematic excavations in the Vivian Shaft trenches and face sections (VIV-90, VIV-91, VIV-94), as well as from extended surface clearance of Victorian spoil heaps (VIV-93, VIV-95, VIV-99, VIV-00, VIV-02, L-37, VIV-18). Of these, 78 specimens from the excavations in 1991 had been previously identified to species level by an archaeozoologist (Hunt 1993), revealing a predominance of cattle, with lesser representation from pigs, sheep, goats, red deer, and horses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe excellent preservation of bone remains at the mine site and in nearby waste heaps is attributed to the host rock limestone-dolomite geological environment, which produces neutral to slightly alkaline pH conditions (7\u0026ndash;8). These tend to neutralise acidity generated by the oxidation of chalcopyrite ores (Lewis 1996, p. 125).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMore than 95% of the bone materials show a uniform greenish staining due to mineralisation by copper (0.9%) (e.g. Fig. 2a-c) and iron (0.5%) (Fig. 3), with some darker patches from manganese (1.6%) (Fig. 2d) (Jenkins \u0026amp; Lewis 1991, p. 156). The intensity of colour varies from pale to dark green, occasionally interspersed with black areas. Mineral staining is confined to the outermost approximate 0.5 mm of the bone surface. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis suggests this is due to mineral impregnation rather than replacement (Lewis 1996, p. 125).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarger animal bones \u0026ndash; particularly ribs and limb bones (predominantly tibia, femur, humerus) \u0026ndash; were selected for tool use. Less frequently, shoulder blades, pelvic sections, and other fragments were utilised. Numerous fragments exhibit extensive damage attributable to both intensive use and the various stages of tool manufacture, with some debris clearly identifiable as technological waste without any signs of use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this sample assemblage, several tool categories were identified including: mining tools, ore-processing tools, household tools, and technological waste. This paper focuses and presents results on the least studied group \u0026ndash; 30 bone artefacts linked to copper ore extraction and possible processing activities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrent investigation findings suggest that the manufacture and use of these tools required minimal modification, likely due to both the availability of cattle bones and the fragility of the raw material. Cattle ribs were often employed in their natural state (i.e. requiring no processing), with their anatomy lending itself well to specific tasks. Smaller ribs from pigs and sheep appear to have been of less and limited practical use as mining tools, likely due to insufficient strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth human and non-human modifications were observed. Human-induced traces include impact marks, flake negatives, cut marks, polish, and clusters of linear scratches and grooves. Natural (non-human) modifications include microbial activity (Figs. 2c-\u003cem\u003eA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2c-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e), root etching \u0026ndash; sinuous U-shaped lines caused by organic acids \u0026ndash; and post-depositional abrasion, which produced superficial, multidirectional scratches, likely resulting from contact with sediment. It remains unclear whether the acids are secreted directly by roots or by fungi associated with root decomposition (Lyman 1994; Fisher 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe patterns of dismemberment provide valuable insight into the technological strategies and functional roles of the bone tools, alongside their potential secondary use in food processing or marrow extraction. Two principal categories of human modification were identified: (1) cut marks \u0026ndash; such as narrow, V-shaped incisions caused by a sharp blade, consistent with the slicing or separation of soft tissues during butchery; and (2) impact fractures, typically conchoidal in form, likely resulting from forceful blows using a stone tool. These forms of wear are well documented and diagnosable, with previous studies offering robust interpretive frameworks (Binford 1981; Fisher 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 30 analysed mining-related tools, 28 were made from ribs and 2 from limb bones (Figs. 4b and 4c). Wide, flattened cattle ribs were selected, typically slightly curved (N\u003csup\u003eo\u003c/sup\u003e 5-8 in the rib row); only two were long and strongly curved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn terms of technology, two principal manufacturing strategies were identified in rib tools:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eComplete anatomical utilisation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eTwo specimens were fashioned using the entire rib without modification. These retained both the natural, rounded sternal end and the vertebral head, suggesting that the anatomical shape was functionally sufficient without further shaping.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePartial anatomical utilisation.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eIn several other examples, the vertebral end of the rib was removed, typically by chopping (Fig. 2b). The sternal end \u0026ndash; with its naturally rounded form \u0026ndash; served as the working edge, while the grip was formed from the remaining shaft, with the rib head either preserved or partially removed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChopping and fracturing appear to have been the primary techniques for adapting these tools. However, it cannot be ruled out that some marks resulted from earlier food processing stages, particularly butchery. The dual-use potential \u0026ndash; first for food, then for tool \u0026ndash; may underlie some of the observed patterns.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eClassification of Rib and Limb Bone Tools: Morphology and Use-Wear\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven variation in the arrangement and preservation of working surfaces and handles, tools were categorised into three functional groups: tools with a single working edge (15+1 specimens)\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[3]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; tools with two opposing working edges (4+1 specimens)\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[4]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; fragments bearing wear traces but lacking preserved ends (9 specimens).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMacro-observations of surface wear indicate that, through use, the natural sternal end of rib tools often became either rounded or subtly pointed, symmetrically or asymmetrically (Figs. 2c, 2d). At the proximal end, the working edge varied \u0026ndash; either straight or bevelled \u0026ndash; depending on how the rib was dismembered (Fig. 4a).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e1. Rib tools with a single working edge (15 specimens)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 11 cases, the working edge was located at the distal (sternal) end \u003cstrong\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1,\u0026nbsp;samples 6-16); in the remaining four, it was formed at the proximal (vertebral) end \u003cstrong\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1,\u0026nbsp;samples 18-21), which had previously been cut or split. Some tools in this group are fragments where only one working edge is preserved, though both ends may originally have served a working function (Figs. 3a, 3b and 4a).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicrowear was recorded on the end face, flat surfaces, and longitudinal edges. The degree of wear varied significantly. Some specimens displayed extensive coverage of striations and polish (Fig. 2d), while others bore only localised traces (Fig. 2e). On the longitudinal edges, rough, intersecting scratches were oriented perpendicularly or at an angle to the tool\u0026rsquo;s axis \u0026ndash; also visible on the working end (Figs. 2a-\u003cem\u003eA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2b\u003cem\u003e-A,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2d\u003cem\u003e-C\u003c/em\u003e and 4b\u003cem\u003e-A\u003c/em\u003e). Medial and lateral surfaces exhibited groups or isolated linear abrasions, ranging from fine to coarse texture, generally perpendicular or oblique to the bone\u0026rsquo;s long axis (Figs. 2c-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e, 2d-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e). The convex (lateral) surface typically showed heavier wear, suggesting more sustained contact with the material being processed (Fig. 2b-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e2. Rib tools with two opposite working edges (4 specimens)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(Fig. 2c)\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1, samples 1-4)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this group, the rib head was removed prior to use. The wear traces are similar to those observed on single-edged tools but are distributed along the entire length of the rib. This pattern suggests that both ends were alternately used as active working edges and grip zones. Polish consistent with hand contact is visible at both ends.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e3. Fragments of rib tools (9 specimens)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1, samples 22-30)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese fragments originate either from mid-sections (4 specimens) or proximal parts (5 specimens) of ribs and lack preserved working ends. Measuring between 4.8 and 13.2 cm in length, they exhibit wear consistent with active use, though less intensely than complete tools. Two mid-sections (Table 1, samples 26 and 27) were pale, poorly preserved, and difficult to interpret, likely due to prolonged surface exposure. One fragment, broken at the proximal end and lacking wear traces, may represent a prepared blank \u0026ndash; split intentionally to create a usable tool form with a more manageable working surface.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross all specimens, the degree of use is reflected in the density and texture of polishing and striations, which range from scattered single marks to concentrated wear zones. Particularly diagnostic are the side-edge and end-face zones: these display densely packed, rougher, and deeper striations than the flatter surfaces (Figs. 3b-\u003cem\u003eC,\u003c/em\u003e 3c-\u003cem\u003eD\u003c/em\u003e). These linear abrasions \u0026ndash; transverse to the long axis \u0026ndash; are especially pronounced on the convex side of curved ribs, supporting interpretations of tool motion. Their absence in the grip zone further confirms kinematic differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimb Bone Tools (2 specimens)\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Table\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1, samples 5 and 17)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLimb bones were also used to produce functionally similar tools. These were longitudinally split diaphysis, with one or both epiphyses removed. One sample had dual working edges (Fig. 4b; Table 1, sample 5); the other, a single edge (Fig. 4c; Table 1, sample 17). Wear traces are comparable to rib tools: the originally bevelled edges became rounded and polished, with visibly coarse, regular striations on the end (Figs. 4b-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e, 4b-\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) and side margins (Figs. 4b-\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e, 4c-\u003cem\u003eB,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e4c-\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e). So called \u0026ldquo;comets\u0026rdquo; caused by touching fine-grained particles (\u003cem\u003ecopper ore concentrate or dolomitised limestone?\u003c/em\u003e), also were observed on the side margins (Fig. 4c-\u003cem\u003eD\u003c/em\u003e). On the wider faces, transverse and oblique scratches of mixed depth and coarseness were recorded (Figs. 4c-\u003cem\u003eB,\u003c/em\u003e 4c-\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComparative Wear Interpretation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe wear pattern observed on long bone tools corresponds closely to that of rib-based tools. Rounded, polished working ends with visible linear striations and abrasions suggest repeated contact with fine, abrasive materials \u0026ndash; most likely decomposed dolomitised limestone, sandy materials, or possibly leather or wood.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese observations support earlier functional hypotheses suggesting rib tools were used to scrape or loosen soft mineral layers, such as dolomitised limestone \u0026ndash; especially in narrow mining contexts (Lewis 1993; James 2011). The consistent morphology of the working edges and wear types across tools reinforces this interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, a few atypical/anomalous samples \u0026ndash; two complete ribs \u003cstrong\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esamples 7 and 8) and two fragments \u003cstrong\u003e(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esamples 19 and 23) \u0026ndash; show markedly lighter wear, with superficial striations and minimal polish. The larger size of the complete samples (29.3 cm and 44.2 cm) and less intensive wear may indicate an alternative function or an early stage of use. Their length also seems impractical for manipulating materials in confined, narrow mining spaces, suggesting functional variability within this tool type.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Experiments","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs part of the author\u0026rsquo;s doctoral research, in 2009-2011 a series of experimental reconstructions was undertaken to test the functional hypotheses concerning archaeological bone tools. These experiments aimed to reproduce distinctive use-wear patterns by employing replica tools in operations analogous to those inferred from archaeological contexts. Activities included argillite mining, loosening crushed copper-rich sandstone layers, and gravitational separation \u0026ndash; specifically, wet ore processing of copper ore (chalcocite) that had already been finely crushed (Zagorodnia 2014a).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor these experiments, replicas were crafted from cattle ribs with a naturally flattened cross-section (Fig. 7a). Their vertebral ends had already been removed during food processing. Prior to use, the bones were boiled and cleaned of tendons to ensure consistent preparation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe mining experiment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e took place at the ore-processing site Chervone Ozero-I in the vicinity of Kartamysh mine, where a cleared section of sedimentary rock \u0026ndash; argillite \u0026ndash; was used (Fig. 7b). To produce similar traces, nine samples were used. Three student participants acted as miners, splitting host rock and creating depressions in the substrate. Tool-use kinematics varied depending on the density of the sediment, with the participant diggers intuitively adopting the most effective grip and working posture. Over the course of six hours, approximately 0.5 m\u0026sup2; was excavated to a depth of 20 cm using just three tools. The task proved labour-intensive and yielded low productivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMacro-observation of the replica tools after use revealed that two had developed rounded working edges (Fig. 7c). Because the tools were frequently rotated in the hand, wear was evenly distributed. Clay compacted into the spongy ends of the tools during use. Microscopic examination showed grooves and wear features oriented transversely, obliquely, and longitudinally relative to the bone\u0026rsquo;s axis (Fig. 7d). These traces were deep, rough, and varied in texture. Notably, no polish was recorded. The observed wear patterns closely mirror those described by S.A. Semenov (1952) for digging tools.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther experiments were conducted to simulate \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ethe wet ore processing\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(gravity-based process) by washing the crushed fine fraction of copper ore (chalcocite) (Fig. 7e). To this end, a leather bag \u0026ndash; 20 cm high and 19 cm wide when fully expanded \u0026ndash; was constructed from ram hide and stabilised within a 3.5-litre container. Cattle rib tools were used to stir slurry of finely crushed copper ore. Two replicas retained the natural rib form (Figs. 7g and 7i); one had a deliberately cut edge. The crushed material was mixed with impurities from a prior dry-crushing experiment using a sandstone slab and pestle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo simulate ore beneficiation, the slurry was stirred continuously with rib tools, keeping the bone in contact with the bag\u0026rsquo;s walls and base (Fig. 7e). Heavier ore particles sank, while lighter material either floated or dissolved. The water was periodically replaced until only the heavier concentrate and no residual impurities remained at the bottom.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMicrowear on the experimental tools manifested as bright polish, smooth surfaces, and numerous scratches oriented at angles or perpendicular to the side edges \u0026ndash; clearly linked to the tool movement (Figs. 7h and 7j). These marks developed on both the side faces and ends due to the abrasive action of suspended ore particles. After six hours of use, one tool\u0026rsquo;s edge had transformed completely, forming a rounded and bevelled tip. Polishing at the extreme tip likely resulted from contact with the leather container. The entire tool surface developed a greenish hue due to copper staining.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparison of these microwear traces with bone artefacts from Kartamysh mining area confirmed strong similarities. The wear observed differs markedly from that produced during excavation and is consistent with soft-surface agitation and ore-slurry mixing. These findings reinforce the interpretation that rib tools were used during wet ore beneficiation processes (gravitational separation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonetheless, the results also highlight the importance of contextual caution: microwear patterns are influenced by multiple variables, including ore type, host rock composition, and waste removal methods during mining operations. As such, experimental reference tools must be compared carefully in future, making sure to take local geological and procedural differences into account.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on current findings, although the rib tools from the two Bronze Age copper mines show typological similarity, a degree of functional differentiation appears more likely. At Kartamysh, the bone tools (ribs) were primarily used as stirrers in wet ore processing. This interpretation is supported by traceological analysis, experimental replication, and contextual evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Great Orme, even a relatively small assemblage of bone tools reveals some differences in the location of working zones and in striation patterns. Although at first glance the working edges may appear similar in shape, polish, and striations, high-magnification analysis reveals distinct differences. These range from soft wear with superficial scratches to rougher grooves on the side and flat surfaces. The orientation of the grooves \u0026ndash; consistently transverse or at a slight angle to the axis \u0026ndash; reflects the kinematics of the tools in use. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that these rib tools were not used as levers, wedges, or picks for splitting rock (which are typically marked by longitudinal striations and rougher wear). Instead, they were most likely used to rake fine-grained substrate such as sandy dolomitised limestone or crushed ore concentrate. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude they were used as stirrers. Enlarging the archaeological sample set and conducting further experimental studies \u0026ndash; particularly on mining and wet ore processing \u0026ndash; would help clarify their possible differentiation and functional roles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is relevant to briefly summarise current knowledge of wet ore-processing sites in the vicinity of ancient mines and the possible tools or devices involved. It is important to consider whether any archaeological evidence for stirring or raking tools exists, particularly if such implements were used and have survived. It should be noted that ore-processing areas in ancient copper mining regions of Eurasia were often situated near water sources (O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2015, p. 222).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeneficiation is the second essential stage in metal production, following copper ore extraction. Ancient miner-metallurgists carried out operations such as sorting, crushing/grinding, and washing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInitial manual sorting and crushing of large ore-contained rock fragments were typically done in the immediate vicinity of the mining area (Hegde \u0026amp; Ericson 1985, p. 63; O\u0026rsquo;Brien 2015, p. 233). The goal at this early stage was to separate high-grade ore-bearing material from gangue or ore-poor fragments. Further crushing and grinding were accomplished using pestles (grinding stones) and stone mortars \u0026ndash; abrasive tools essential for breaking down hard ore minerals. However, the resulting mix often included sandy gangue, which became embedded in the ground ore substrate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe next stage \u0026ndash; separating copper sulphide from gangue after grinding \u0026ndash; depended largely on differences in specific gravity between copper ore itself and the host rock (Agricola 1556; Tylecote 1992).\u0026nbsp;For smelting, the ore concentrate needed a copper content of at least 10% to justify/offset the cost of fuel. This separation could be achieved via winnowing or wet ore processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJones (1994, pp. 37-38) outlined several criteria for identifying wet ore-processing sites. The most likely features include waste heaps, trenches, and proximity to water sources. To locate beneficiation zones, it is critical to consider the geological context \u0026ndash; namely, the types of copper ores that could or were exploited, and the nature of the host rock. Rock and ore concentrations at a distance from their source may indicate human intervention. Among the most reliable archaeological indicators of wet ore processing are waste heaps composed of ground, sandy rock fractions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese heaps may also yield a variety of associated material culture: stone tools and fragments; bone tools (preserved in neutral or alkaline soils); wooden implements (in acidic soils, where bone rarely survives); containers such as ceramic vessels or small wooden bowls; and stone slab structures. The accessibility of these sites from the mine itself \u0026ndash; enabling ore to be transported for processing \u0026ndash; is also an important consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTopographical indicators further include the presence of natural or artificial water sources \u0026ndash; stream beds, sloped areas with flowing water, water-supply channels from reservoirs or wetlands, collection pits, or even dams. Some systems also included engineered channels to direct water from more distant sources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn some cases, water flow was directed to production areas from remote sources via specially constructed channels. A notable example comes from the Dzhezkazgan ore deposit, where a complete system of interconnected spring-fed pits was preserved near ancient mine workings. Each pit was associated with areas containing ore-processing waste (Margulan 1966, p. 268).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is important to point out that identifying and interpreting wet ore-processing sites presents several challenges. Firstly, difficulties in recording them, as sedimentary layers are highly mobile and susceptible to erosion, especially on slopes, where stratigraphy is often indistinct or later waste dumps from continued mining activities may obscure original deposits. The preservation of bone and wood tools is affected by soil composition, potentially distorting the archaeological record. Furthermore, culturally attributable material is rarely present in these contexts, complicating efforts to date them (see e.g. Timberlake 1991). Secondly, although experiments on copper smelting are relatively common, controlled experiments on wet ore processing remain rare (Modl 2015; Timberlake 2019). Of the few conducted, only one has used bone tools subjected to microwear analysis \u0026ndash; at Kartamysh (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2014b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSo, what evidence do we currently have for gravity separation (primarily applicable to sulphide ores) within Bronze Age mines?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e This could have been achieved through either \u003cstrong\u003ewinnowing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eor\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ewet ore processing (as discussed above)\u003c/strong\u003e, depending on environmental conditions and ore characteristics. The winnowing process is suitable only when the gangue has a specific physical form \u0026ndash; such as being rich in talc or mica schist. Once crushed, these lighter particles could be thrown into the wind, allowing heavier mineral particles to fall closer to the source (Tylecote 1987, p. 61). Research suggests that this method was employed as early as the Early Bronze Age at the \u003cstrong\u003eTimna copper mines in Israel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e likely due to arid conditions that made wet processing impractical (Hegde \u0026amp; Ericson 1985). In such cases, winnowing may have been the only viable beneficiation method, particularly in regions where sulphide ores were exploited and water sources were limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHowever, archaeologists do not always succeed in recording direct evidence of wet ore processing.\u003c/strong\u003e These sites are difficult to locate because they often lack clear stratigraphy, occur on mobile slope deposits prone to erosion, or have been disturbed by later mining activity (e.g. see Wager 2024; St\u0026ouml;llner\u0026nbsp;2014). Moreover, the infrastructure required \u0026ndash; such as channels, pits, or ditches \u0026ndash; was often made of perishable materials, and its remnants can be subtle. Successful implementation of wet processing depended on reliable access to water \u0026ndash; either via natural streams or through artificially constructed supply systems \u0026ndash; making topography a key factor in site identification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eKartamysh site\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ukraine\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003eoffers a particularly compelling case for early wet ore processing. A partially investigated stream bed \u0026ndash; stratigraphically the earliest feature recorded at the site \u0026ndash; was located on an inclined plane in a ravine, likely designed to collect spring and rainwater (Fig. 8) (Brovender 2012). This trench extended over 12 metres from northeast to southwest, measured 1.6 - 2.2 m in width and 0.4 - 0.6 m in depth, and was filled with thick layers of beneficiation waste, including finely ground copper sandstone and localised accumulations of tailings (small fragments of waste rock) (Figs. 8a-\u003cem\u003eD,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e8a-\u003cem\u003eE\u003c/em\u003e) (Zagorodnia 2014a).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this layer, numerous artefacts were recovered: tools made of bone (notably ribs) (Fig. 8a-\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e) and stone (pestles and mortars), fragments of four ceramic vessels (Fig. 8a-\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e) \u0026ndash; one of which contained a concentration of enriched copper ore at its base \u0026ndash; and the remains of a shallow wooden bowl discovered at the lowest point of the stream bed (Fig. 8a-\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e). Two box-like structures composed of vertically positioned sandstone slabs were also identified. The first structure featured a slab measuring 0.7 \u0026times; 0.4 m, with adjacent slabs up to 0.2 m high (Fig. 8b-\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e). The second, stratigraphically later, consisted of two upright slabs and a flat base slab. These constructions likely served to slow water flow, creating settling zones where heavy ore particles could accumulate while lighter sediment was carried away.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCeramic pots, shallow wooden bowls, or leather containers immersed in water likely have been involved for washing crushed copper ore. Rib tools \u0026ndash; abundant among the finds \u0026ndash; appear to have been used to stir and rake the slurry, as confirmed by traceological analysis and experimental replication (Figs. 7e and 7f) (Zagorodnia 2014a; 2021). In similar contexts elsewhere, wooden stirrers may have fulfilled this function, though their preservation is rare in the archaeological record.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter washing, the ore concentrate would have been raked to the side and left to dry in preparation for smelting. Supporting this interpretation, remains of slag, matte, and fragments of slagged ceramics were also found in the area, indicating that ore beneficiation and smelting were likely carried out in close proximity and in sequence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Tylecote (1987) describes another benefaction technique \u0026ndash; the well-known method of \u0026lsquo;panning\u0026rsquo;, whereby ore concentrate is placed in a shallow container and washed using circular motions in water. This action causes lighter gangue particles to float and be removed, while denser mineral fractions settle at the bottom (Tylecote 1987, p.61). O\u0026rsquo;Brien (2015) has suggested that Beaker pottery vessels might have served this function at the Ross Island mine in Ireland, although only a single fragment has been recovered.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA more advanced and continuous form of this principle is seen in \u0026lsquo;buddling\u0026rsquo;, where ore slurry is passed along an inclined water channel fitted with vertical boards that slow the flow. These barriers cause heavier mineral particles to settle while lighter material is carried away. Agricola (1556, p. 62) illustrates a system employing a series of such obstacles for ore processing in the 16th century (Fig. 9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe best evidence for the use of ore concentrate washing techniques comes from archaeological investigations at Bronze Age copper mines in \u003cem\u003eAustria\u003c/em\u003e. Wooden launders (sluices or channels) have been found at Kelchalm, Mitterberg/Troiboden (St\u0026ouml;llner 2011; 2019) (Fig. 10a), and the Mauk mines near Brixlegg (Wager \u0026amp; Ottaway 2019). At Kelchalm, water reservoirs, two wooden launders, and several wooden and earth channels were recorded (Preuschen \u0026amp; Pittioni 1954). These channels transported clean water to the ore-processing areas and discharged waste water via simpler earth channels. The launders, approximately 175 \u0026times; 80 cm, featured transverse wooden crossbars \u0026ndash; similar in function to wash boxes at Troiboden near M\u0026uuml;hlbach (St\u0026ouml;llner et al. 2012; St\u0026ouml;llner 2019) \u0026ndash; to slow the flow and allow heavier ore particles to settle.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt \u0026quot;Scheidehalde 32,\u0026quot; a wooden box-like structure originally thought to be a waste pit by Preuschen and Pittioni has more recently been interpreted as a beneficiation facility for wet ore processing (Koch Waldner \u0026amp; Klaunzer 2015). In addition, numerous artefacts have been recovered in this area, including pottery fragments, animal bones, and bronze items (Klaunzer 2008; Timberlake 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo additional wet-processing sites in the \u003cem\u003eMitterberg region of Austria\u003c/em\u003e were identified during a survey in the Salzach Valley near the ancient Brandergang copper mine. Finds there included stone tool fragments, occasional pottery, animal bone, and parts of wooden crossbars (Gale 1995, p. 143; St\u0026ouml;llner 2019). Overall, the artefacts from Austrian Bronze Age mines reflect advanced mining and ore-dressing techniques \u0026ndash; particularly primary crushing, grinding, and wet concentration \u0026ndash; all appearing, through material analysis, to have formed an integrated and inseparable process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTypologically similar stirrers to those made of rib bone, but crafted from wood, have also been found in Mitterberg region mines (St\u0026ouml;llner 2019) (Fig. 10b, 10c). These wooden tools \u0026ndash; flat and wide-bladed \u0026ndash; were likely used for mixing ore concentrate in water-filled containers (Timberlake 2019). In publications, they are often referred to as knife-like tools due to the presence of a wide \u0026quot;blade\u0026quot; portion. Later described by Georgius Agricola (1556) as standard tools for ore-washing, they appear in waste dumps at Kelchalm (Preuschen \u0026amp; Pittioni 1937).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA similar pattern emerges in \u003cem\u003eRussia\u003c/em\u003e. The author\u0026rsquo;s superficial examination of rib and scapula tools from Late Bronze Age mines at Gorny (Kargaly) (Fig. 5 b) and Mikhailo-Ovsyanka (Fig. 5c) revealed morphological parallels to Kartamysh specimens in Ukraine. Seven cattle rib tools from Gorny, analysed under a microscope, showed wear patterns consistent with stirring actions used in gravity separation. These findings strongly support reinterpreting the broader rib tool corpus and suggest that targeted experimental and traceological studies could greatly enhance our understanding of their functional roles in ore processing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn \u003cem\u003eFrance\u003c/em\u003e, artificial ditches cut into schist were discovered at the Roque Fenestre complex within the Cabri\u0026egrave;res copper mines (Ambert 1996). These four parallel ditches functioned as beneficiation basins. Their sedimentary fills included crushed dolomite and quartz, layers of sandy sediment indicating the washing of ore concentrate, charcoal, slag, and metallic inclusions \u0026ndash; alongside small hammerstones, grinding stones, mortars with cup-like depressions (on one or two working surfaces), two scoops made from sheep scapulae, and numerous pottery fragments (Esp\u0026eacute;rou 1993). The archaeological sequence reveals distinct ore-dressing phases: 1) sorting, crushing, and grinding; 2) washing; and 3) roasting. The site, active from the early 3rd millennium BC, provides an unusually complete record of ore-to-metal transformation (Ambert 1996, p. 16).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Vetriolo in northern \u003cem\u003eItaly\u003c/em\u003e (Trento), the only known Italian beneficiation site lies at an altitude of 1,630 metres above sea level (Bellintani et al. 2010; Cierny et al. 2004; Perini 1992; Preuschen 1962; 1973). Long washing dumps, up to 300 metres, stretch along both sides of a mountain stream. Only a portion of the ore could be processed at the high-altitude extraction point due to limited water availability; the majority had to be washed at the watercourse (Preuschen 1962, pp. 3-7). Porphyry grinding stones were recovered, but diagnostic pottery was scarce and no C14 dates were obtained. The Bronze Age attribution is based solely on the morphology of the tools used for crushing the ore (Silvestri et al. 2015; 2019, p. 263).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the most sophisticated examples of wet ore processing comes from the Laurion silver-lead mining district in Attica, \u003cem\u003eGreece\u003c/em\u003e (5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e-4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e centuries BC). In this water-scarce region, large stone reservoirs lined with mortar were constructed \u0026ndash; often carved partly into bedrock \u0026ndash; to store and manage water supplies for beneficiation. To maximise water use, complex systems were developed, including rectangular ore-washeries with integrated components: cisterns featuring jet outlets, near-horizontal \u0026quot;washing floors,\u0026quot; and adjacent \u0026quot;drying floors\u0026quot; surrounded by four channels with sunken containers to collect fine tailings (Jones 1988, p. 11). Analyses of slag revealed that heavy minerals such as iron pyrite settled at the bottom, while lighter components like sand and limestone were washed away (Tylecote 1987, p. 63). A less common, round \u0026quot;helicoidal\u0026quot; washery type \u0026ndash; also documented at Laurion \u0026ndash; employed shallow, cup-shaped depressions to trap dense ore particles (Jones 1988, pp. 20-21; Tylecote 1987, p. 64, Fig. 2.12). This system was very similar to a riffled buddle, though whether it was as effective remains unclear, and while later in date and context, these installations reflect key mechanical principles of gravity separation that likely have earlier antecedents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond Europe, a distinctive and interesting copper ore-processing technique has been seen in Aravalli Hills in \u003cem\u003eIndia\u003c/em\u003e, though its Bronze Age attribution remains unconfirmed. Near the entrances of several mines, large waste dumps containing gravel-sized debris and fragments of malachite ore were identified, alongside groups of crushing pits positioned near the foothills. After primary crushing, the ore appears to have been gravity-separated at smelting sites typically located on streambanks. One notable feature consisted of a smooth, gently sloping rock surface marked with multiple rows of round, shallow pits \u0026ndash; each approximately 7-10 cm in diameter and 3-4 cm deep. Finely crushed ore was flushed down this surface in thin water flows. As the mixture moved slowly over the pits, repeated passes allowed most of the lighter gangue to be removed, leaving behind the denser copper-bearing material (Hegde \u0026amp; Ericson 1985, p. 63). Though undated, this technique represents another variation of ancient gravity separation, adapted to the specific topography and hydrology of the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReturning to the present day, recent work conducted in \u003cem\u003eWales\u003c/em\u003e in \u003cem\u003ethe United Kingdom\u003c/em\u003e, around the Great Orme copper mine has considerably expanded our understanding of early ore processing. Surface surveys conducted in the late 20th century identified eight active streams, alongside redeposited dolomitised limestone deposits exhibiting unnatural texture and copper mineralisation \u0026ndash;interpreted as waste from beneficiation activities (Lewis 1990; 1996; Jones 1994; Field 2017; Wager \u0026amp; Ottaway 2019) (Fig. 11). These deposits often occur near water sources and display hummocky topography and dolomitic sands, with additional indicators including the presence of copper-tolerant metallophytes (Lewis 1996, p. 167). Early 20th-century documentation suggested four potential washing areas, and excavation in 1990 at Ffynnon Galchog revealed artefacts \u0026ndash; bone fragments, some possibly tools, and worked stone \u0026ndash; analogous to Bronze Age assemblages at the Pyllau Valley mine. Although the only radiocarbon date from that trench (680-960 cal AD) is anomalous, likely due to redeposited material, later discoveries provided stronger evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLandslides in 1993 exposed crushed limestone deposits embedded with artefactual material, including charcoal, stone tools, bones stained green with copper, and a flint scraper. The size and distribution of the material suggest deliberate crushing and possible application of wet gravity separation techniques on sloped ground (Jones 1994, p. 64). Excavations at Ffynnon Rhufeinig further clarified the picture: four trenches revealed stratified layers of dolomitised limestone and gravel, oxidised mineral fragments, and washing residues consistent with experimental criteria for identifying Bronze Age ore-processing waste (Modl 2015). Trench 3 yielded 27 copper-impregnated bone fragments and stone artefacts. Crucially, two animal bones from a well-defined washing layer (Context 312) produced radiocarbon dates of 3360 \u0026plusmn; 70 BP, calibrated to 1877-1499 cal. BC \u0026ndash; placing them among the earliest phases of activity at Great Orme (Ottaway \u0026amp; Wager 2000; Wager \u0026amp; Ottaway 2019). The configuration of features in Trench 4 \u0026ndash; a system of channels and basins fed by spring water\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; suggests that crushed ore was deliberately transported here from the mine for final wet concentration before smelting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile further excavation and more comprehensive dating are essential to firmly establish the Bronze Age attribution of all these sites, the accumulating archaeological, botanical, and geo-stratigraphic evidence underscores the importance of renewed research. Reassessing Great Orme\u0026rsquo;s beneficiation landscape not only strengthens our understanding of early copper production in northwest Europe but also provides a model for identifying similar overlooked evidence elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEvidence from Bronze Age mining sites at Great Orme and Kartamysh supports the deliberate selection of bone \u0026ndash; particularly rib \u0026ndash; for use in mining and ore-processing tasks alongside stone and bronze tools. The morphological features and wear patterns on these tools, especially those recovered from stratified contexts, reveal a more complex functional role than previously assumed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt Kartamysh (Ukraine), traceological analysis and experimental replication have demonstrated that tools made from ribs and long bones were employed to stir and rake fine ore fractions during gravity separation in wet ore-processing installations (Zagorodnia 2014a). The tools\u0026apos; form and associated wear traces directly link them to beneficiation stages, notably ore stirring in water-filled containers. This research contributes to a growing comparative database of bone tools from mining contexts, aiding in functional interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar rib and long bone tools have been found in other Bronze Age copper mining regions, including Gorny (Kargaly) and Mikhailo-Ovsyanka in Russia, Schwaz/Brixlegg in Austria, and Ross Island in Ireland (Fig. 5). While these parallels are compelling, interpretation must consider local context, wear trace specificity, and site formation processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe case of Great Orme mines presents a more complex picture. Rib tools have long been viewed as implements used exclusively for ore extraction. However, recent excavations at presumed Bronze Age wet ore-processing sites \u0026ndash; such as Ffynnon Rhufeinig \u0026ndash; have recovered bone tools from well-stratified washing deposits. These tools were found alongside pestles, stone slabs, and indicators of beneficiation activity (Wager \u0026amp; Ottaway 2019), which prompted this reconsideration of their functional scope. Could they have served a dual purpose \u0026ndash; used both for scraping during extraction and stirring during beneficiation?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreservation conditions and post-Bronze Age site disturbance at Great Orme complicate interpretation. Much of the assemblage was recovered from re-deposited waste or heavily worked-out areas. Nonetheless, the occurrence of rib tools in both surface and underground Bronze Age contexts suggests versatility and repeated use in ore-related activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo date, no dedicated beneficiation structures \u0026ndash; such as lined basins or wooden launders \u0026ndash; have yet been conclusively identified at Great Orme. This is likely due to surface erosion, later mining, and limited excavation. However, stratified washing contexts, associated artefacts, and a radiocarbon date of 3360 \u0026plusmn; 70 BP (cal. 1877-1499 BC) from bone within beneficiation waste (Ottaway \u0026amp; Wager 2000) indicate early and deliberate wet ore-processing practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is the first study to propose a sustained interpretive link between rib tools at two major Bronze Age mining sites. It repositions these tools not only as extraction implements but also as active components in ore beneficiation. Further research, including the ongoing analysis of wedges and picks from both rib and long bone, will refine our picture of tool use and labour organisation in early mining economies. The examination of the Great Orme bone collection continues, with a comprehensive study of other tool categories \u0026ndash; such as wedges used for splitting rock \u0026ndash; and the results of further experiments to be presented in a separate publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the study of bone tools from Bronze Age mines represents an underexplored but promising avenue. As shown here, integrating microwear analysis with broader archaeological and environmental data can yield new insights into ancient technologies. \u003cem\u003eThis interpretive framework should serve not as a final word, but as a foundation for renewed interdisciplinary research into the overlooked material evidence of ore processing \u0026ndash; setting a clear agenda for future exploration.\u003c/em\u003e Contextual excavation, comparative analysis, and experimental modelling will be critical to advancing our understanding.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research was conducted at the Department of Scientific Research, British Museum, and supported by the Researchers at Risk Fellowships Programme, led by the British Academy in partnership with Cara (the Council for At-Risk Academics) [grant numbers RaRR\\100494, RaRFe\\100277]. I am deeply grateful to Carl Heron (Head of Scientific Research), Michela Spataro, and Nigel Meeks for their valuable advice, support, and generous assistance with laboratory facilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI would like to thank the Directors and management team of Great Orme Mines Ltd \u0026ndash; Tony Hammond, Andy Lewis, Harriet White, and Nick Jowett \u0026ndash; for granting access to the bone tools collection and for their support and discussions related to this work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThanks are also due to the British Museum Publication Fund and the Department of Scientific Research for supporting image copyright and open access fees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eResearch was funded by The British Academy/Cara/Leverhulme Researchers at Risk Research Support Funding [project code LTRSF\\100459].\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgricola G (1556) De Re Metallica. Trans. from Latin by Hoover HC \u0026amp; Hoover LH (1950). Dover Publications, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAntipina EE (2004) \u0026ndash; Антипина ЕЕ (2004) Археозоологические материалы. Каргалы. Т. III: Селище Горный: Археологические материалы; Технология горно-металлургического производства; Археобиологические исследования. Сост. и науч. ред. Черных Е.Н. М: Языки славянской культуры, cc 182\u0026ndash;239\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmbert P (1996) The copper mines of Cabri\u0026egrave;res (France) and results of the experimental metallurgy. Arch\u0026eacute;ologie en Languedoc 20-1:13-19\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellintani P, Mottes E, Nicolis F, Silvestri E, Stefan L, Bassetti M, Degasperi N, Cappellozza N (2010) New Evidence of Archaeometallurgical Activities During the Bronze Age in Trentino. In: Anreiter P et al (eds) Mining in European history and its impact on environment and human societies: Proceedings for the 1st Mining in European History-Conference of the SFB-HIMAT. Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp 277-282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBinford LR (1981) Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myth. Academic Press, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBogdanov SV, Musikhin GD (2001) \u0026ndash; Богданов СВ, Мусихин ГД (2001) Костяные скобели Чкаловского поселения \u0026ndash; оригинальный тип орудий горняков-металлургов срубной культуры. XV Уральское археол. совещание: тез. докл. междунар. науч. конф. Оренбург, c 67\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBone modification (1989) Bonnichsen R, Sorg MH (eds) Center For The Study of The First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrovender YuM (2012) \u0026ndash; Бровендер ЮМ (2012) Итоги исследований комплекса горно-металлургических памятников на Картамышском медном рудопроявлении Донбасса. Проблеми дослідження пам\u0026rsquo;яток археології Східної України: матерiали ІІІ Луганської міжнародної історико-археологічної конференції, присвяченої пам\u0026rsquo;яті С. Н. Братченка. Луганськ, cc. 551\u0026ndash;556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampana D-V (1980) An Analysis of the Use-wear Patterns on Natufian and Proto-Neolithic Bone Implements. PhD dissertation. Columbia University. University Microfilm International\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChernykh YeN (1978) Aibunar \u0026ndash; A Balkan Copper Mine of the Fourth Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44:203-217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCierny J, Marzatico F, Perini R, Weisgerber G (2004) Der sp\u0026auml;tbro nzezeitliche Verh\u0026uuml;ttungsplatz Acqua Fredda am Passo Redebus (Trentino). In: Weisgerber G, Goldenberg G (eds) Alpenkupfer. Rame delle Alpi. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 17. Bochum, pp 155\u0026ndash;164\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoll M (2003)Men and Animals in Mines. In: St\u0026ouml;llner Th, K\u0026ouml;rlin G, Steffens G, Cierny J (eds) Man and Mining \u0026ndash; Mensch und Bergbau. Studies in Honour of Gerd Weisgerber on Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 16. Bochum, pp 113-126\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDutton A, Fasham PJ, Jenkins DA, Caseldine AE, Hamilton-Dyer S (1994) Prehistoric Copper Mining on the Great Orme, Llandudno, Gwynedd. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60:245-286. doi:10.1017/ S0079497X00003455\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFernandez-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2016) Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer Netherlands. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField D (2017) A Bronze Age Brownfield Site? A geoarchaeological investigation of a potential ore washing site at Ffynnon Galchog: The Great Orme. MSc dissertation, The University of Reading\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher JW (1995) Bone surface modification in Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2-1:7-68\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrom Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present (2005) Luik H, Choyke AM, Batey CE, L\u0026otilde;ugas L (eds) Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group. Tallinn Book Printers, Tallinn\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGale D (1995) A comparative study of the Earliest European copper mining tools. In: Petrović P, Đurđekanović S (eds) Ancient mining and metallurgy in Southeast Europe: international symposium. Belgrade, pp. 47-53\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorashchuk IV, Kolev YuI (2004) \u0026ndash; Горащук ИВ, Колев ЮИ (2004) Каменные и костяные орудия с рудника бронзового века Михайло-Овсянка в Самарской области. Вопросы археологии Урала и Поволжья 2:89-104\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHegde KTM, Ericson JE (1985) Ancient Indian copper smelting furnaces. In: Craddock P, Hughes MJ (eds) Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity. British Museum Occasional Paper 48. London, pp 59-69\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunt A (1993) An Analysis of Bone Assemblages from the Bronze Age Copper Mines of the Great Orme, Llandudno. BSc thesis, Sheffield University\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJames S (2011) The economic, social and environmental implications of faunal remains from the Bronze Age Copper Mines at Great Orme, North Wales. Dissertation, University of Liverpool\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins DA, Lewis CA (1991) Prehistoric mining tor copper in the Great Orme, Llandudno. In: Budd P (ed) Archaeological Sciences 1989. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 9, pp 151-161\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones EJ (1988) The Athenians silver mines of Laurion and the British School at Athens Excavation in Agrileza. In: Ellis Jones J (ed) Aspects of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy. Bangor, pp 11-22\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones SG (1994) Deciphering the \u0026lsquo;Metallic Arts\u0026rsquo; of the Bronze Age: A proposed criteria for the identification of ore-washing sites associated with early copper mining in Wales. MSc dissertation, University of York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJovanović B (1982) Rudna Glava: Najstarije rudarstvo bakra na Centralnom Balkanu [Rudna Glava: The oldest copper mine in the central Balkans]. Arheolo\u0026scaron;ki Institut, Belgrade\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJovanović B, Ottaway BS (1976) Copper mining and metallurgy in the Vinča group. Antiquity 50: 104-113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhlopachev GA, Girya YeYu (2010) \u0026ndash; Хлопачев ГА, Гиря ЕЮ (2010) Секреты древних косторезов Восточной Европы и Сибири: приёмы обработки бивня мамонта и рога северного оленя в каменном веке (по археологическим и экспериментальным данным). Наука, СПб\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKileynikov VV (1997) \u0026ndash; Килейников ВВ (1997) Костяные орудия труда с рудника Червонэ озеро Картамышского рудопроявления. Археология Восточно-Европейской лесостепи 10. Пятьдесят полевых сезонов археологов Воронежского университета: 128-135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlaunzer M (2008) Studien zum sp\u0026auml;tbronzezeitlichen Bergbau auf der Kelchalm und Bachalm Bez. Kitzb\u0026uuml;hel, Nordtirol. MSc dissertation, Leopold-Franzens-Universit\u0026auml;t Innsbruck\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoch Waldner T, Klaunzer M (2015) Das pr\u0026auml;historische Bergbaugebiet in der Region Kitzb\u0026uuml;hel. In: St\u0026ouml;llner Th, Oeggl K (eds) Bergauf Bergab, 10.000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen. Bochum, pp 165-173\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis CA (1996) Prehistoric mining at the Great Orme. Criteria for the identification of early mining. MSc dissertation, University of Wales, Bangor\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLyman RL (1994) Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaigrot Y (2003) Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l\u0026apos;outillage en mati\u0026egrave;res dures animales: la station 4 de Chalain (N\u0026eacute;olithique final, Jura, France). PhD dissertation. University of Paris\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMargulan A et al (1966) \u0026ndash; Маргулан АХ, Акишев КА, Кадырбаев МК, Оразбаев АМ (1966) Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана. Наука, Алма-Ата\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eModl D (2015) Experimentelle Arch\u0026auml;ologie zu ostalpinen Aufbereitungs- und H\u0026uuml;ttenprozessen. In: St\u0026ouml;llner Th, K. Oeggl K (eds) Bergauf Bergab, 10.000 Jahre Bergbau in den Ostalpen. Bochum, pp 221-224\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOttaway BS, Wager E (2000) Ffynnon Rhufeinig, Great Orme, Llandudno (SH7655 8386). Archaeology in Wales 40:73\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Brien W (2004) Ross Island. Mining, Metal and Society in Early Ireland. Bronze Age Studies 6. National University of Ireland, Galway\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Brien W (2013) Bronze Age copper mining in Europe. In: Fokkens H, Harding A (eds) Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572861.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Brien W (2015) Prehistoric Copper Mining in Europe. 5500-500 BC. Oxford University Press, Oxford\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePankowsky WB (2005) \u0026ndash; Панковський ВБ (2005) Деякі результати технологічного та функціонального аналізу кістяних знарядь Червоного озера-I. Проблеми гірничої археології: матеріали II-го міжнародного Картамиського польового археологічного семінару: 189-192\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerini R (1992) Evidence of metallurgical activity in Trentino from Chalcolithic times to the end of the Bronze Age. In: Antonacci Sanpaolo E (ed) Archeometallurgia. Ricerche e prospettive, Atti delcolloquio Internazionale di Archeometallurgia, Bologna \u0026ndash; Dozza Imolese 18-21 ottobre 1988, pp 54-80\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreuschen E (1962) Der urzeitliche Kupferbergbau von Vetriolo (Trentino). Der Anschnitt 14-2: 3-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreuschen E (1973) Estrazione mineraria dell\u0026rsquo;et\u0026agrave; del Bronzo nel Trentino. Preistoria Alpina 9:113-150\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreuschen E, Pittioni R (1937) Untersuchungen im Bergbaugebiete Kelchalpe bei Kitzb\u0026uuml;hel, Tirol 1. Bericht. Mitteilungen der Pr\u0026auml;historischen Kommission 3, Wien\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreuschen E, Pittioni R (1954) Untersuchungen im Bergbaugebiet Kelchalm bei Kitzb\u0026uuml;hel, Tirol 3. Bericht \u0026uuml;ber die Arbeiten 1946-53 zur Urgeschichte des Kupferbergwesens in Tirol. Archaeologia Austriaca 15:3-97\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRieser B, Schrattenthaler H (2004) Pr\u0026auml;historischer Kupfer bergbau im Raum Schwaz/Brixlegg (Nordtirol). Gel\u0026auml;ndebe funde und experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Schl\u0026auml;gelsch\u0026auml;ftung. In: Weisgerber G, Goldenberg G (eds) Alpenkupfer Rame delle Alpi, Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 17. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 75-94\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemenov SA (1952) \u0026ndash; Семенов СА (1952) Костяные землекопные орудия из палеолитических стоянок Елисеевичи и Пушкари I. СА 16:120-128\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemenov SA (1957) \u0026ndash; Семенов СА (1957) Первобытная техника (Опыт изучения древнейших орудий и изделий по следам работы). МИА 54. Изд-во АН СССР, Москва\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilvestri E, Bellintani P, Nicolis F, Bassetti M, Biagioni S, Cappellozza N, Degasperi N, Marchesini M, Martinelli N, Marvelli S and Pignatelli O (2015) New excavations at smelting sites in Trentino, Italy: archaeological and archaeobotanical data. In: Hauptmann A, Modaressi-Tehrani D (eds) Archaeometallurgy in Europe III. Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 26. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 369\u0026ndash;376\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilvestri E, Bellintani P, Hauptmann A (2019) Bronze Age copper ore mining and smelting in Trentino (Italy). In: Turck R, St\u0026ouml;llner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 42. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 261-278\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaudt M, Goldenberg G, Scherer-Windisch M, Nicolussi K, Pichler Th (2019) Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age fahlore mining in the Lower Inn Valley (North Tyrol, Austria). In: Turck R, St\u0026ouml;llner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 42. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, pp 115-142\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026ouml;llner Th (2011) Das Alpenkupfer der Bronze- und Eisenzeit: Neue Aspekte der Forschung. In: Schmotz K (ed) Vortr\u0026auml;ge des 29. Niederbayerischen Arch\u0026auml;ologentages, Deggendorf, pp 25-70\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026ouml;llner Th, Breitenlechner E, Fritzsch D, Gontscharov A, Hanke K, Kirchner D, Kov\u0026aacute;cs K, Moser M, Nicolussi K, Oeggl K, Pichler T, Pils R, Prange M, Thiemeyer H, Thomas P (2012) Ein Nassaufbereitungskasten vom Troiboden. Interdisziplin\u0026auml;re Erforschung des bronzezeitlichen Montanwesens am Mitterberg (Land Salzburg, \u0026Ouml;sterreich). Jahrbuch RGZM 57:1-32\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026ouml;llner Th (2014) Methods of mining archaeology (Mon tanarch\u0026auml;ologie). In: Roberts BW, Thornton CP (eds) Archaeometallurgy in global perspective: methods and syntheses. Springer, New York, pp 133-159\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSt\u0026ouml;llner Th (2019) Between Mining and Smelting in the Bronze Age \u0026ndash; Beneficiation Processes in an Alpine Copper Pro-ducing district. Results of 2008 to 2017 excavations at the Sulzbach-Moos Bog at the Mitterberg (Salzburg, Austria). In: Turck R, St\u0026ouml;llner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 42, pp 165-190\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimberlake S (1991)New evidence for early prehistoric mining in Wales \u0026ndash; problems and potentials. In: Budd P et al (eds) Archaeological Sciences 1989. Oxford, pp 179-193\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTimberlake S (2019) Some provisional results of experiments undertaken using a reconstructed sluice box: an attempt to try and reproduce the methods of washing and concentrating chalcopyrite at the Middle Bronze Age ore processing site of Troiboden, Mitterberg, Austria. In: Turck R, St\u0026ouml;llner Th, Goldenberg G (eds) Der Anschnitt. Beihert 42, pp 191-206\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTylecote RF (1987) The Early history of metallurgy in Europe. Longman, London \u0026amp; New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTylecote RF (1992) Extraction metallurgy: historical development and evolution of the processes. In: Antonacci Sanpaolo E (ed) Archeometallurgia. Ricerche e prospettive, Atti delcolloquio Internazionale di Archeometallurgia, Bologna \u0026ndash; Dozza Imolese 18-21 ottobre 1988, pp 25-42\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWager E, Ottaway B (2019) Optimal versus minimal preservation: two case studies of Bronze Age ore processing sites. Journal of Historical Metallurgy 52-1: 22-32\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWager E (2024) Community, Technology and Tradition: A Social Prehistory of the Great Orme Mine. Sidestone Press, Leiden\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams RA (2023) Boom and Bust in Bronze Age Britain: The Great Orme Copper Mine and European Trade. Archaeopress, Oxford\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZagorodnia O (2014a) \u0026ndash; Загородня ОМ (2014a) Про призначення однієї з категорій кістяних знарядь Картамишу. Археологія 1:15-28\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZagorodnia O (2014b) \u0026ndash; Загородняя ОН (2014b) Орудия металлопроизводства бережновско-маевской срубной культуры (по материалам Картамышского археологического микрорайона). Диссертация \u0026hellip; канд. ист. наук, Институт археологии НАН Украины\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZagorodnia O (2021) Functional analysis of metal-production tools of the Late Bronze Age in Eastern Ukraine. In Beyries S, Hamon C, Maigrot Y (eds) Beyond Use-Wear Traces: Going from Tools to People by Means of Archaeological Wear and Residue Analyses. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp 265-279\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003cp\u003e[1]\u0026nbsp;In most cases, bone remains from Chalcolithic and Bronze Age mines in Eurasia that were used as mining tools are represented by horn picks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[2] The study provides a detailed description of wear marks on rib tools, including multidirectional scratches at the end and transverse striations relative to the tool\u0026rsquo;s axis, along with a softly rounded working tip. In contrast, short wedges made from long bones exhibit heavy wear, with horizontal scratches concentrated across the first 10 mm of the tip (p. 20). However, the researcher\u0026rsquo;s interpretation \u0026ndash; that ribs functioned as levers for chipping off rock \u0026ndash; departs from the observed wear patterns. Lever use would typically produce rougher traces and differently oriented striations, creating some interpretive inconsistencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[3] (15+1 specimens) indicates 15 rib tools and 1 limb bone. The descriptions of the two limb bones are provided separately below the descriptions of the three groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[4] (4+1 specimens) indicates 4 rib tools and 1 limb bone, as described above.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e\n"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Bone tools, Bronze Age, copper mine, experiment, Great Orme, Kartamysh, ore processing (beneficiation), traceology, and wet ore processing (gravitation)","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper presents the results of a functional analysis of a relatively underexplored category of bone tools – primarily made from animal ribs – discovered within Bronze Age copper mining contexts. The study examines 30 bone artefacts from the Great Orme mines (North Wales, UK), associated with copper ore extraction, and draws comparative insights from rib tools documented at the well-studied bone tools collection from the mines (Eastern Ukraine). Functional evidence enables the reconstruction of tool kinematics and offers new interpretations that challenge previous assumptions about their roles. Building on experimental research at Kartamysh, which identified a distinct class of bone tools used for stirring and sweeping copper ore particles during wet beneficiation, this study explores the potential functions of similar artefacts from Great Orme. A brief review of other ore-processing sites employing wet beneficiation is also presented.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings from both sites suggest variability in how ancient miners utilized rib tools for extraction and ore processing activities. However, the Great Orme collection requires further detailed examination and additional experimental research.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Animal Rib Tools in Bronze Age Mining: Insights from Great Orme (UK) and Kartamysh (Ukraine)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-15 18:34:07","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7050041/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-07T12:43:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-20T20:16:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"194795743145771962452195981991625488244","date":"2025-08-22T17:28:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-11T11:16:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"153752612969552627528230220355297914964","date":"2025-07-14T11:57:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-13T15:51:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-07T05:49:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-06T22:15:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","date":"2025-07-05T02:27:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e9e933e5-eb23-4ca8-84db-da445b4c8da9","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 15th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T16:06:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7050041","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-026-02407-7","journal":{"identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-04 15:58:17","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 4th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-15 18:34:07","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s12520-026-02407-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-026-02407-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7050041","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7050041","identity":"rs-7050041","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}