[Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more

Mon Jan 11 18:12:36 CET 2010

Dear Ariel,
      Steve's point about  looking at Stratigraphic phases rather than
phases based on index finds is crucial for avoiding circular reasoning and
understanding the true temporal variability in your assemblage.

Alice

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:05 PM, <spa105 at york.ac.uk> wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100111/6b764b28/attachment-0001.htm>