[Bonetools] Worked cattle metapodials in urban context from Lisbon: request for references and parallel cases

Tue Oct 18 17:02:18 CEST 2016

Dear Maria,

Apologies that it has taken me so long to reply to this email. It is a difficult assemblage to date 
precisely but one of the clues may lie in what is missing, rather than what is present. What does 
the waste tell us about the finished products ? Can they be identified in any way ? I have tried to 
do that in the past, in the attached contributions. The Lundenwic article has much earlier material 
but might be interesting for the methodology.

I enclose a couple of my own texts on waste material of this type plus a contribution by Benoit 
Clavel for the Compiegne volume, which dealt with 15-16th century material. Ingrid Ulbricht dealt 
with medieval worked bone in her 1984 Schleswig volume, also very useful. I hope that this helps a 
little,

Ian Riddler

----Original Message----
From: mvalente.ualg at gmail.com
Date: 11/10/2016 15:45
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>
Subj: Re: [Bonetools] Worked cattle metapodials in urban context from Lisbon: request for 
references and parallel cases

Hello Alice — That is the problem: the chronology is more shadowy than I
anticipated (long timeframe, somewhere between the 15th to 20th century; my
preliminary info was that it was 15-16th century). Marta Moreno García does
have some bone tool workshop with metapodials from the 19th century, but
they don't show the trochlea cuts (although the shaft fragments, considered
as debris, is indeed similar). I suppose that's why she suggested the list
contact.

Thanks and my best as well,

-- MJ

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Alice Choyke <choyke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for sending these images to the list - I have NEVER seen
> trochlea cut like this. Have you compare this technical style to other
> contemporary Christian bone tool workshops in Spain?
>
> Best,
> Alice
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:40 PM, mjvualg <mvalente.ualg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>> This is my first post to the BoneTool list*, since my regular research
>> doesn't lead me often to worked bone. However, I'm now analyzing a faunal
>> assemblage from the old moorish parish of Lisbon (Portugal) in which one of
>> the contexts includes some interesting worked bone materials. I'm attaching
>> some photos for you see and, eventually, if possible, help me find some
>> parallel works and/or materials.
>>
>>
>> (*thank you Marta Moreno-García for the suggestion and Alice Choyke for
>> the nice welcome)
>>
>>
>> Here some data on the archaeological context in question:
>>
>>
>> Chronology. Although located in a site that has context units dating from
>> the 14th to the 20th century, my colleague who did the field work just
>> confirmed to me that he's not sure on the chronology of this specific unit:
>> it could be sometime from the 15th to 20th century (alas!).
>>
>>
>> Materials. The unit itself was relatively homogeneous and the worked bone
>> collection (see photo 1 for part of it)  included mostly:
>>
>> (1) Cattle metapodial distal ends, many cut on the distal end of the
>> diaphysis (perpendicular to the axis of the bone) (photo 2).
>>
>> (2) Many metapodials have the edges (lateral and medial) of the trochleas
>> cut (parallel to the axis of the bone) (photos 3 & 4).
>>
>> (3) The context also yielded several elongated bone blocs (multifaceted
>> shaft fragments, photo 5), probably to produce tools like needles (one was
>> recovered; I don't have a picture of it at the moment).
>>
>> (4) In all I have a collection of 90+ metapodials plus 60+ multifaceted
>> shaft fragments. The first ones are in different stages of process (or can
>> be divided in different “subtype” classes; see preliminary sketch included
>> in Draft Scheme image).
>>
>>
>> I’d be very grateful for any help that goes on the lines of:
>>
>>
>> 1) Similar objects and their function. That might be very helpful to
>> limit the chronological frame and their usage. I’m mostly wondering about
>> usage of the trochleas lateral and medial cut extremities like shown in
>> photos 3 & 4.
>>
>> 2) Recommendations for their full study, i.e. methodology references on
>> how to study this kind of materials, other than typological and basic
>> descriptive analyses.
>>
>>
>> My best regards to all,
>>
>>
>> -- MJ
>>
>>
>> *Maria João Valente*
>>
>> Professora Auxiliar
>>
>>
>> Universidade do Algarve
>>
>> Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais
>>
>> Campus de Gambelas
>>
>> 8000-117 Faro – Portugal
>>
>> Email: mvalente at ualg.pt
>>
>> Telefone: +351 289 800 900 (ext. 7625)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2012 Lundenwic Bedford St.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2902519 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20161018/d539bf2f/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2007 Launceston Castle Post Medieval Worked Bone.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 807144 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20161018/d539bf2f/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1997 Clavel Compiegne.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1959997 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20161018/d539bf2f/attachment-0005.pdf>