[Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

[François Poplin]

Ariel Shatil a écrit :
> 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
*Which ivory (-ies) ? I am very interested in the question of Hippo in 
these late periods *(I identified some at Caesarea). I'll probably go to
Jerusaelm some day  for ivories which are at the french biblical School).

, including pins, gaming pieces, 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  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing list
> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>