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

Wed Oct 19 11:26:33 CEST 2016

have a look to :

BLANCHET-ROSSI, V., et POPLIN, F., 2013 - Pavages en os ou /knuckle 
bones floors /: complément d'enquête, in : Jura patrimoine : les 
passions de Robert Le Pennec, Saint-Claude,  Les Amis du Vieux 
Saint-Claude - A.P.A.H.J., 2014, p.245-248.

in : - l'adresse du site
http://www.jurapatrimoine.fr
- l'adresse de la page facebook
https://www.facebook.com/jurapatrimoine

Le 19/10/2016 à 11:05, Marloes a écrit :
>
> Dear Maria,
>
>
> This is a nice assemblage to reconstruct the production of bone 
> objects. It is not uncommon to split metapodials lengthwise to obtain 
> (four) longitudinal rods. Usually this is done from the proximal end, 
> see attachment. This photograph is a waste fragment from the 10th 
> century, The Netherlands, but this is quite the same for medieval and 
> post-medieval contexts. This kind of waste fragments are therefore 
> difficult to date. The finished objects could be a range of 
> longitudinal objects, depended on the period of time, such as needles, 
> ear cleaners, writing utensils, etc.
>
>
> Best wishes, Marloes
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Van:* Bonetools <bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu> namens 
> trzaska at lineone.net <trzaska at lineone.net>
> *Verzonden:* dinsdag 18 oktober 2016 17:02
> *Aan:* bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Bonetools] Worked cattle metapodials in urban 
> context from Lisbon: request for references and parallel cases
> 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 
> <https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bonetools mailing list
> > Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> > https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools 
> <https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonetools mailing list
> Bonetools at listserv.niif.hu
> https://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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20161019/af0e7454/attachment.html>