[Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

Mon Jan 11 16:05:17 CET 2010

Dear Ariel,

Sorry to come in son late on this thread.  I support the comments  of Anne,
Alice et al. wholeheartedly, but I'd like to add one further plea:  when you
mention structuring your report by period, I hope that you mean by
*stratigraphic phase* rather than by typochronology.  Typology is
fundamental to analysing any artefact, but (providing you have decent phase
data) it should not be used to *create* the chronology of the artefacts, but
rather as a tool for identifying patterning within those phases.  This is an
obvious point, but one that constantly frustrates me in artefact reports.

The balancing of 'zooarchaeological' and 'artefactual' observations is also
tricky, as Alice intimates.  While it is fundamental that any analysis of
worked bone takes full account of the truly zoological nature of the
material, we also need to remember that we are, after all, dealing with
objects.  Too often we fall into the trap of analysing an assemblage from a
zoological or a cultural perspective; both should  be possible - in fact
both are essential.  If your data is to be interpretable (by yourself, as
well as others), it needs to take full account of the material as both an
environmental and a social product.

Good luck!

Steve Ashby

From: bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu
[mailto:bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu] On Behalf Of Alice Choyke
Sent: 11 January 2010 14:46
To: Mailing list for archaeologists of the research group for the study of
object and waste of bone, antler. ivory and horn.
Subject: Re: [Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

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/20100111/7695ff57/attachment.htm>