[Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

[Ariel Shatil]

Dear colleagues,
I'm working on the publication of the assemblage of bone objects from our
2008-2009 excavations in Jerusalem. The assemblage ranges from the Early
Roman to the Early Arab periods (1st cent to 11-12th cent CE), and consists
a few hundreds of items, of which about 75% are of Late Roman context.
As I am new to the discipline of bone objects research, I have a few
dilemmas I would like to hear your opinion about. In general, the big
question is what do you, as bone objects researchers, would expect from a
"complete" publication of bone objects and tools? I will try to break the
question down to smaller ones...
1. Assuming the assemblage consists items of a few periods -  would you have
a different section for each period describing in each one the finds
according to morphology and typology, which on the one hand may result in
describing some object types over and over, but on the other hand will
enhance the differences between the periods in terms of quantities and
morphologies. Or, would you have sections according to typology in which you
will also mention each period, which may produce the result of 'bluring' the
differences between the periods, or even the disappearance of periods which
produced only a few common items from the publication.
2. As researchers, would you prefer to see a publication of typical
examples, or of the complete assemblage? For example, if I had 25 pins of
the same type, would you prefer the publication (in text and picture) of one
or two of the items, or of all 25 of them.

I would also like to hear your thoughts about our assemblage in general - In
the reports and publications that I have studied from Israel, the
assemblages seems to be quite small. It is hard to say whether this is a
result of neglect of this certain field in the local archaeology, or whether
its just a fact that bone objects are not as common as other objects.
Ayalon's publication of the assemblage from Caesarea is a fine example of
how much one can learn and how complex and varied this field becomes once
things are done right, and it also hints to the first option - that of
neglect. To me, our assemblage seems to be unique in many terms - for
example, some Late Roman loci (rooms) produced as many as 30-60 bone and
Ivory objects, including pins, gaming peaces, inlays and more. Is that,
according to your knowledge, unique - or is it a common size of assemblage
in this period throughout the Levant or Roman World?

I would be happy to hear any thought, comments and ideas you have about the
subjects I raised, and in the future I hope to be able to share with you
some pictures of objects I'm having trouble recognizing.

Thank you!

Ariel Shatil
Institute of Archaeology
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20100107/efd777e4/attachment.htm>