[Bonetools] The two pieces of the Louvre.

Sat Mar 23 10:26:41 CET 2013

Dear François,
      I think Francois makes a very good point that lines are not
necessarily parallel to each other but may be deliberately crossed. The
point about  the way we name things is also very well taken. I have thought
quite a bit about roaary beads but never considered the derivation and
meaning of the word 'bead'  in English- the volume on Beads as big little
sibling that is even more inetrnational ins scope and also very interesting.
     Just to add to the confusion around this ostensibly simple piece I
want to remind everyone that objects have 'lives'. I have no trouble
believing that this piece started out as one thing, broke and was
transformed into something else that meant that the holes began to wear
differently. From the degree of rounding and wear it looks like this was a
relatively long-lived object which may have undergone some interesting
re-incarnations in its lifetime. Probable each hole should be study
microscopically and in great detail with attention to the fine but
difficult work of our bone traceologist colleagues.

Alice

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:53 AM, François Poplin <poplin at mnhn.fr> wrote:

>  I prepared the following linez that night. I'll answer in your message
> afterwards.
>
> I did not want to tell you what I thought of the function before, in order
> not to kill the discussion. Just two remarks now, and an addition :****
>
> ** **
>
> - what is the question coming now ?****
>
> ** **
>
> - we have to pay attention to (for ?) words. In french, I would not speak
> of "écarteur de perles" but of "écarteurs de rangs de perles" (An "écarteur
> de perles" would be between two beads). In english, something as *bead
> row spacer*, but "spacer" is involved not inly in rows and files, but
> also in crosses, rings, etc., many kinds of arrangments in space.****
>
> ** **
>
> And : besides "perle" in french, are two terms in english, *pearl* and *
> bead*, the first being refered to (linked with) mother of the pearl, the
> second not. Formerly, *bead* had a brother in french, "grain" (ie. "de
> chapelet"). Do you know, without looking neither in the dictionnaries nor
> in Google, the origin of *bead* ? The prayer, whith (through ?) an old
> term *bede* related with (relative of) german *beten* "to pray" (the
> transformation is similar with *bed* and *Bett*). In french, a
> chaplet/rosary/beads maker (or bead, in that case ?) was called a
> patenôtrier, build on the beginning *Pater noster (qui es in ...).*****
>
> ** **
>
> Addition : I have seen recently, in a paper provided by my colleague Simon
> Davis as first author, such "spacers" made of bird bone. Would you like
> some more comments ?****
>
>
>
> Le 22/03/2013 19:47, FARRELL E.R. a écrit :
>
> Dear all,
>
> These spacer beads do seem to be the most similar form to what I have; the
> two from the Louvre, the neolithic Greek examples, and one from Dr.
> Ayalon's Caesarea Maritima publication all seem to be roughly the same size
> and shape with similar treatment of the holes.
>
>
> No. The neolithic thing of Kyrios Ifantidis are conical holes (from both
> sides, I presume), which is normal at that time with flint, etc. There is a
> chronology in piercing/drilling, and so forth.
>
>
> Based on the comparisons I suspect the object I am working with is a
> spacer bead, or at the very least that represents the most likely
> interpretation available at the moment. My one concern with my specific
> example is the wear pattern. The second picture of examples Mr. Ifantidis
> provided gives several different arrangements using a spacer bead and I can
> understand how the wear might be different depending on that arrangement.
>
> I cannot manage to figure out a way to arrange beadwork which would wear
> only one hole. Even the furthest hole on the obviously broken end (very
> little of that furthest hole remains, but it can be seen) shows no wear. It
> seems as if it should have wear on at least two holes at each end to have
> use as a spacer bead, which would imply that both ends have been broken and
> reshaped, and several centimeters in length are missing.
>
> Also, for the two examples at the Louvre, Dr. Poplin, do you know the date
> or culture they originate from? Considering I now know there are similar
> items from Neolithic Greece and Roman Syria I doubt I can make a judgement
> of date for my object based on comparisons, but I would still very much
> like to know, particularly if the Louvre objects are from an Egyptian
> collection.
>
>  Being in the coptic collection, the things comes definitely from Egypt.
> As quoted by Marie Delassus, the origine is old (Ils proviennent de la
> collection Clot-Bey acquise en juillet 1852", and without data - the same
> as for you. Dr Bey brought lots of things, even a (living) girafe, the
> skeleton of which is here in our collection.
>
> Simply typing "écarteur perles" on Google, you get lots of informations.
> The oldest case I know is paleolithic ; there are things like that in
> Mycenian, etc. I had in hand a marvelous book named "Beads", I would like
> to see again. But they are more then ten now on Google....
>
> I don't forget "A piece, two objects" ; i'll turn back later.
>
>
>
> As I was writing the above, a colleague saw the archaeological drawing of
> my artefact, and immediately suggested a particular type of loom spacer
> used to attach a tablet-woven border to a plain-woven cloth on a vertical
> loom. Apparently it would be tied only at the end (accounting for the odd
> wear), with loose thread separated in the remaining holes. I have not yet
> seen a photo or drawing of one of these so don't know if it is a feasible
> option, but is anyone else familiar with such an object? I know a couple
> people suggested this might be a weaving tablet early on. I will try to
> find an image, or at least a better description for comparison.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Erik Farrell
>
>  *From:* bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu [
> bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu] on behalf of Fotis Ifantidis [
> fotisif at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 22 March 2013 16:23
> *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] The two pieces of the Louvre.
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> To add to Erik’s inquiry on the interpretation of his multi-holed object,
> I have two bone objects from MN/LN Dispilio in Greece, which I am almost
> certain that are spacers for bead necklaces. Also attached is a figure from
> my 2006 MA study of similar finds from various contexts. I could also
> provide some other references if you wish.
>
> Best,
>
> Fotis
>
>
>
> http://auth.academia.edu/fotisifantidis
>
> visualizingneolithic.com
>
> theotheracropolis.com
>
> kalaureiainthepresent.org
>
> spondylus.wordpress.com
>
>
> 2013/3/22 François Poplin <poplin at mnhn.fr>
>
> Dear Erik Farrell
> and everybody
>
> the Providence gives only two pieces, but ideal ones : the one is
> complete, giving the dimentions and the number of holes, the other is
> broken (as yours), giving some "interior" comparison points and, maybe, the
> opportunity to go further into the material : would you go to histological
> prepartion/polishing on the breake? That was the question behind when I
> wrote "Haversian or not haversian, that's the question". I can at least ask
> at the Louvre.
>
> The two picture are property of the Musée du Louvre and unpublished.
> Please, no official use without permission  of
> dominique.benazeth at louvre.fr
>
> I have not seen yet the two pieces.
>
> Your's faithfully.
>
>
> ------- Message original --------  Sujet: RE: photos de deux objets en os
> de la section copte  Date : Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:38:47 +0100  De : Delassus
> Marie <Marie.Delassus at louvre.fr> <Marie.Delassus at louvre.fr>  Pour : 'François
> Poplin' <poplin at mnhn.fr> <poplin at mnhn.fr>
>
> Je vous fais parvenir sous forme numérique les deux photos que je vous ai
> imprimées mardi dernier. Ces deux objets sont inventoriés sous le numéro E
> 328 j.
>
> Ils proviennent de la collection Clot-Bey acquise en juillet 1852.
>
> Je vous en redonne les dimensions :
>
> -objet complet : L . : 4,5 cm ; l. : 0,8 cm ; ép. : 0,33 cm
>
> -objet fragmentaire : L. : 3,54 cm ; l. : 0,8 cm ; ép. : 0,32 cm
>
> Je suis tout à fait partante pour que vous diffusiez à vos collègues ces
> images.
>
>
> Marie Delassus
>
>
>
> --
>
> François POPLIN
>
>
>
> Directeur honoraire de l’UMR 7209 Archéozoologie, Archébotanique : sociétés, pratiques et environnements
>
>
>
> Responsable du Séminaire d'Anthropozoologie
>
>
>
> Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle
>
> CP 56
>
> Ancien Laboratoire d’Anatomie comparée
>
> 55, rue de Buffon
>
> 75005 Paris
>
> 01 40 79 33 11
>
> fax ------ 33 14
>
>
>
> francoispoplin.blogspot.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing list
> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing listBonetools at listserv.niif.huhttps://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools
>
>
>
> --
> François POPLIN
>
> Directeur honoraire de l’UMR 7209 Archéozoologie, Archébotanique : sociétés, pratiques et environnements
>
> Responsable du Séminaire d'Anthropozoologie
>
> Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle
> CP 56
> Ancien Laboratoire d’Anatomie comparée
> 55, rue de Buffon
> 75005 Paris
> 01 40 79 33 11
> fax ------ 33 14
> francoispoplin.blogspot.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130323/00625f67/attachment-0001.html>