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

Wed Oct 19 13:49:27 CEST 2016

Thank you for your input, Marloes and Ian. (Also thank you for the photo
and references attached.)

Marloes — in my context most of the chopping was done not at the proximal
end of the metapodials, but at the peripheral parts of the trochlea. Either
to shape the distal end of the metapodials or to use those peripheral parts
for something. If the latter, I'm wondering for what—that's a rather spongy
part of the bone.

Ian—The waste I found is mostly of worked bone still on its earlier stages
of "sketch". There are a few products, though, that can be helpful. The
archaeologist interpreted them as needles, but after seeing them, I don't
think they are such (specially the bottom specimen, that shows a distinct
shape in one of its edges). I'm including a photo for your own observation.

All very nice clues on how to proceed from now on...

-- MJ

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Marloes <
marloesrijkelijkhuizen at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20161019/47baf790/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: P1000363a.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 163557 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20161019/47baf790/attachment-0001.jpe>