[Bonetools] Session for ICAZ 2027

[Bradfield, Justin]

[like]  Bradfield, Justin reacted to your message:
________________________________
From: Bonetools <bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu> on behalf of Alice Choyke <choyke at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2026 17:51:46
To: ZOOARCH <ZOOARCH at jiscmail.ac.uk>; 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: [Bonetools] Session for ICAZ 2027


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Johannesburg. DO NOT open any content (links and attachments) if the sender is unknown.

Dear Colleagues,
    It is with great pleasure that I can announce that our session:
 'The case of the missing waste bone data: Workflow gaps inrecognizing hard osseous manufactured material'
has been accepted by the scientific committee for the next ICAZ meeting in 2027 in Vancouver Canada.  A number of us have felt frustrated by the lack of coordination between faunal analysts and specialists in worked bone as concerns identification of waste bone from manufacturing - among other problems. We are expecting papers from people who have found solutions to this common problems as well as hearing from specialists who are still wrestling with the problem.
     We see this session as more of a brain-storming opportunity with the aim of ultimately producing a reference book to help faunal analysts recognize waste bone. The long version of the abstract I submitted to ICAZ is copied below.

Best,
Alice Choyke

The case of the missing waste bone data: Workflow gaps in
recognizing hard osseous manufactured material

This methodological, hybrid session aims at improving cooperation between bone tool specialists and general faunal analysts. The goal is to create an open-source, downloadable, digital identification book, available to all academic, archaeology-related institutions. Ideally, access to this reference book should help faunal analysts to recognize less obvious, bone fragments that are likely associated with manufacturing activities as well as very fragmented pieces of worked bone. Since what constitutes worked bone and manufacturing will differ significantly depending on geographical location, time-period and degree of serial, industrial production the reference book will need to be continually revised.
In the best of all possible worlds, these two groups of specialists work together in an organic fashion. However, Although there are places where faunal analysts and specialists in worked hard osseous materials work together organically as a team, the stark reality is that financial and time constraints often, make such direct cooperation difficult. Debris from manufacturing can be very difficult to recognize. Furthermore, the presence of very fragmented or unusually used objects can also be signaled by the presence of macroscopically visible areas of polish from heavy use or even ritual handling of bone which was essentially unworked (or only minimally worked). Such objects must be properly identified during microscopic analysis, but their surfaces often have visible polish or minor (but sometimes very specific) modifications, visible at low magnifications, which can
provide grounds for their preliminary classification.
The session would revolve around developing general protocols to define what both groups of specialists would be interested in adding to their research repertoire and different possibilities of transmitting basic know-how between these two tightly related fields. Papers should be kept short and be closely concerned with what waste bone from manufacturing sequences looks like in their research area
Possible points to cover:
1. Recognition/identification of waste and worked hard osseous material.
a. What type of tool marks are associated with bone tool reduction and where are they typically located?
b. How can these marks be distinguished from butchery marks and taphonomic damage (or can they be)?
c. What is the best way to disseminate this information?
d. What kind of information about worked hard osseous materials would be of most practical use to faunal analysts?
2. When there is no bone tool specialist - what minimal but basic information do zooarchaeologists need to take into account about the worked hard osseous materials they find in the faunal sample?
3. How should worked bone specialists organize their workflow in the absence of a zooarchaeologist?
4. Structural, storage problems with separation of small finds assemblages and objects found in the faunal assemblage.
5. How can the study of worked hard osseous material be included in zooarchaeology courses?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20260701/3e61c1c8/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RSImage-1504.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84436 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20260701/3e61c1c8/attachment-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RSImage-1423.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10571 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20260701/3e61c1c8/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RSImage-782.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2916 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://listserv.niif.hu/pipermail/bonetools/attachments/20260701/3e61c1c8/attachment-0003.png>