[Bonetools] Session for ICAZ 2027

[Alice Choyke]

PS. As soon as I know about when sessions can be submitted I will let you
know.

Best,
Alice

On Wed, Jul 1, 2026, 23:03 Jie Shen <jieshen9 at stanford.edu> wrote:

> Dear Alice,
>
> Thank you for proposing such a meaningful and pratical session. I would be
> very interested to join in since I'm a worked bone scholar with limited
> training in zooarchaeology. The collaboration between me and other
> zooarchaeologists are necessary but we usually do out work separately and
> lack of instant communication. I have noticed how the gap between our
> workflows and research focus may cause waste of time in repeated work in
> identification and data entry, or lead to missing some point becuase of
> lacking knowledge in both side. Please let us know when the paper
> submission is open and I would love to contribute to the session.
>
> Best,
> Jie
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bonetools <bonetools-bounces at listserv.niif.hu> on behalf of Alice
> Choyke <choyke at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 30, 2026 10:51
> *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
>
> 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
> Dear Colleagues,
>     It is with great pleasure that I can announce that our session:
>  '*The case of the missing waste bone data: Workflow gaps in**recognizing
> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260702/8f170f89/attachment.htm>