[Bonetools] FW: The two pieces of the Louvre.

Sat Mar 23 18:37:04 CET 2013

Dr. Ayalon,

If my object is associated with a vertical loom - and I would be grateful for any insight your textile expert may have - it should not be an issue. The object comes through a mostly Egyptian collection, but is of otherwise unknown provenance. There are vertical looms in use beginning in the New Kingdom; my problem then would be that it is somewhat contentious if any tablet weaving occurred in Egypt at that time. I have attached a scan detailing how an intact version of a similar object might be used. Image is from Gleba, M. (2007) Textile Production in Proto-historic Italy  from Ancient Textiles: Production, Craft and Society (Gillis, C. and Nosch, M-L. editors). It is drawn from Italy rather than Egypt, which is problematic, but is the best illustration of this form I have found so far. I am continuing to research this line.

Dr. Choyke,

The probability of multiple periods of use is something I am considering, and will be included in the report to the curator. It is, I suspect, the source of a great deal of the confusion this artefact has caused me, as it is quite difficult to establish any sort of chronological sequence in which features were formed. I will also certainly include a recommendation that microscopic analysis be carried out to obtain more detail as to the working of the object. I doubt funding is available at the moment, but I would very much like to see this in the hands of someone who knows what to look for far better than I do.

Dr. Poplin,

The distinction in terms between a "spacer bead" and "bead row spacer" is very helpful. Linking rows in more complex shapes than simple concentric bands does open up the possibility of uneven wear, though I will still have to consider carefully what areas are broken and reshaped.

The point of "one piece, two objects" is well made, and is something I am keeping in mind. The problem I have is in trying to determine what exactly the tow or more different periods of use might have been; it is difficult to read these 'two objects' when the forms are blended together and broken.

Also, many thanks for the information on the Louvre objects. Even without a date, they are the closest in shape that I have seen which can be attributed to Egypt. I am glad to know that there is a similar object from a similar context.

Thanks to all,
Erik

________________________________
From: bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu [bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu] on behalf of Etan Ayalon [etana at eretzmuseum.org.il]
Sent: 23 March 2013 16:40
To: Mailing list for archaeologists of the research group for the study of object and waste of bone, antler. ivory and horn.; bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
Subject: Re: [Bonetools] The two pieces of the Louvre.

Dear Eric,
We have an expert in Israel on textile and weaving, Dr. Orit Shamir. I'll send her your question about the vertical loom tomorrow. However there is a difficulty if these pieces originated in a loom: I'm not sure there were vertical looms in use in Neolithic Greece (in Egypt, for instance, horizontal looms were the earliest and only in the Chalcolithic period), and in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods in Palestine (i.e. 2nd-7th centuries CE) vertical looms have already been replaced by diagonal ones (i.e. without loom weights).
And yes, I think Prof. Poplin wrote earlier that the Louvre items were Egyptian.
Etan

________________________________
מאת: bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu בשם FARRELL E.R.
נשלח: ו 22/03/2013 20:47
אל: bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
נושא: Re: [Bonetools] The two pieces of the Louvre.

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.

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.

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<http://visualizingneolithic.com/>
theotheracropolis.com<http://theotheracropolis.com/>
kalaureiainthepresent.org<http://kalaureiainthepresent.org/>
spondylus.wordpress.com<http://spondylus.wordpress.com/>

2013/3/22 François Poplin <poplin at mnhn.fr<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:Marie.Delassus at louvre.fr>
Pour :  'François Poplin' <poplin at mnhn.fr><mailto: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<http://francoispoplin.blogspot.com/>

_______________________________________________
Bonetools mailing list
Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu<mailto:Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu>
https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20130323/d9dbb8a7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AncientTextiles_74b.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 105956 bytes
Desc: AncientTextiles_74b.jpg
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20130323/d9dbb8a7/attachment-0001.jpg>