[Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

Mon Jan 11 15:45:38 CET 2010

Dear Ariel,
    As unlucky as the former villa inhabitants were YOU are a very lucky
guy. All the more reason that you give us all a chance to see the variety of
bone/ivory objects used in daily life by upper class Romans. It would also
be interesting and important to know about *combined media* objects so
PLEASE don't leave out the complete description of these objects.

Alice

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Ariel Shatil
<ariel.shatil at mail.huji.ac.il>wrote:

> Thank you all for your comments. It was very helpful. I will do my best of
> course to produce a good catalogue of our bone objects.
> I agree with Ann, that a discussion on the subject of proper criteria for
> publications (of different kinds) is indeed very important and probably
> needed.
> Alice, I am about to meet Etan Ayalon this week.
> About the site and your comment of the Roman way of doing things, I believe
> that the finds in each room do belong to that specific room, or maybe to the
> second floor room that was right above it. The Villa we excavated was
> destroyed abruptly in the earthquake of 363AD. A very short time after the
> destruction, the layer of collapse was not levelled, but instead, the next
> occupants brought clean and sifted soil to cover the collapse with more than
> a meter high agricultural or garden terrace.
>
> Thank you all again!
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Alice Choyke <h13017cho at iif.hu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ariel,
>>     I hope you are in close contact with Etan Ayalon whose work on
>> Caesarea was about as complete as anything I could imagine.  Of course the
>> bone tools should be separated by period but please don't forget graphs and
>> spread sheets which represents quick and dirty ways of comparing data.
>> Personally, I think it is only necessary to define a type once. Typologies
>> are trick - it depends on the variables you use. It is very important to
>> include the species/skeletal elelment as object descriptors. It would be
>> useful  and fascinating to know if a type is maintained but the raw material
>> choices changed.
>>       Your site seems really very rich but PLEASE don't forget that the
>> objects in rooms might not belong there due to the nasty roman habit of
>> levelling and mushing their settlements this way and that. There are several
>> excellent publication on Roman material from outside your region, from the
>> western empire.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alice
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Ariel Shatil <
>> ariel.shatil at mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bonetools mailing list
>>> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
>>> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bonetools mailing list
>> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
>> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ariel Shatil
> Institute of Archaeology
> The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing list
> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20100111/7539b62d/attachment-0001.htm>