<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear Ariel,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Sorry to come in son late on this thread. I support the
comments of Anne, Alice et al. wholeheartedly, but I’d like to add
one further plea: when you mention structuring your report by period, I
hope that you mean by *<b>stratigraphic phase</b>* rather than by typochronology.
Typology is fundamental to analysing any artefact, but (providing you have
decent phase data) it should not be used to *<b>create</b>* the chronology of
the artefacts, but rather as a tool for identifying patterning within those
phases. This is an obvious point, but one that constantly frustrates me
in artefact reports.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The balancing of ‘zooarchaeological’ and ‘artefactual’
observations is also tricky, as Alice intimates. While it is fundamental
that any analysis of worked bone takes full account of the truly zoological
nature of the material, we also need to remember that we are, after all,
dealing with objects. Too often we fall into the trap of analysing an
assemblage from a zoological or a cultural perspective; both should be
possible – in fact both are essential. If your data is to be
interpretable (by yourself, as well as others), it needs to take full account
of the material as both an environmental and a social product.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Good luck!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Steve Ashby<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu
[mailto:bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alice Choyke<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 11 January 2010 14:46<br>
<b>To:</b> Mailing list for archaeologists of the research group for the study
of object and waste of bone, antler. ivory and horn.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bonetools] Bone objects publication, and more<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Ariel,<br>
As unlucky as the former villa inhabitants were YOU are a
very lucky guy. All the more reason that you give us all a chance to see the
variety of bone/ivory objects used in daily life by upper class Romans. It
would also be interesting and important to know about <b>combined media</b>
objects so PLEASE don't leave out the complete description of these objects. <br>
<br>
Alice<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Ariel Shatil <<a
href="mailto:ariel.shatil@mail.huji.ac.il">ariel.shatil@mail.huji.ac.il</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thank you all for your comments. It was very helpful. I will
do my best of course to produce a good catalogue of our bone objects.<br>
I agree with Ann, that a discussion on the subject of proper criteria for
publications (of different kinds) is indeed very important and probably needed.<br>
Alice, I am about to meet Etan Ayalon this week.<br>
About the site and your comment of the Roman way of doing things, I believe
that the finds in each room do belong to that specific room, or maybe to the
second floor room that was right above it. The Villa we excavated was destroyed
abruptly in the earthquake of 363AD. A very short time after the destruction,
the layer of collapse was not levelled, but instead, the next occupants brought
clean and sifted soil to cover the collapse with more than a meter high
agricultural or garden terrace. <br>
<br>
Thank you all again!<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Alice Choyke <<a
href="mailto:h13017cho@iif.hu" target="_blank">h13017cho@iif.hu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Ariel,<br>
I hope you are in close contact with Etan Ayalon whose work
on Caesarea was about as complete as anything I could imagine. Of course
the bone tools should be separated by period but please don't forget graphs and
spread sheets which represents quick and dirty ways of comparing data.
Personally, I think it is only necessary to define a type once. Typologies are
trick - it depends on the variables you use. It is very important to include
the species/skeletal elelment as object descriptors. It would be useful
and fascinating to know if a type is maintained but the raw material choices
changed.<br>
Your site seems really very rich but PLEASE
don't forget that the objects in rooms might not belong there due to the nasty
roman habit of levelling and mushing their settlements this way and that. There
are several excellent publication on Roman material from outside your region,
from the western empire. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<span style='color:#888888'>Alice</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Ariel Shatil <<a
href="mailto:ariel.shatil@mail.huji.ac.il" target="_blank">ariel.shatil@mail.huji.ac.il</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Dear colleagues,<br>
I'm working on the publication of the assemblage of bone objects from our
2008-2009 excavations in Jerusalem. The assemblage ranges from the Early Roman
to the Early Arab periods (1st cent to 11-12th cent CE), and consists a few
hundreds of items, of which about 75% are of Late Roman context.<br>
As I am new to the discipline of bone objects research, I have a few dilemmas I
would like to hear your opinion about. In general, the big question is what do
you, as bone objects researchers, would expect from a "complete"
publication of bone objects and tools? I will try to break the question down to
smaller ones...<br>
1. Assuming the assemblage consists items of a few periods - would you
have a different section for each period describing in each one the finds
according to morphology and typology, which on the one hand may result in
describing some object types over and over, but on the other hand will enhance
the differences between the periods in terms of quantities and morphologies.
Or, would you have sections according to typology in which you will also
mention each period, which may produce the result of 'bluring' the differences
between the periods, or even the disappearance of periods which produced only a
few common items from the publication.<br>
2. As researchers, would you prefer to see a publication of typical examples,
or of the complete assemblage? For example, if I had 25 pins of the same type,
would you prefer the publication (in text and picture) of one or two of the
items, or of all 25 of them.<br>
<br>
I would also like to hear your thoughts about our assemblage in general - In
the reports and publications that I have studied from Israel, the assemblages
seems to be quite small. It is hard to say whether this is a result of neglect
of this certain field in the local archaeology, or whether its just a fact that
bone objects are not as common as other objects. Ayalon's publication of the
assemblage from Caesarea is a fine example of how much one can learn and how
complex and varied this field becomes once things are done right, and it also
hints to the first option - that of neglect. To me, our assemblage seems to be
unique in many terms - for example, some Late Roman loci (rooms) produced as
many as 30-60 bone and Ivory objects, including pins, gaming peaces, inlays and
more. Is that, according to your knowledge, unique - or is it a common size of
assemblage in this period throughout the Levant or Roman World? <br>
<br>
I would be happy to hear any thought, comments and ideas you have about the
subjects I raised, and in the future I hope to be able to share with you some
pictures of objects I'm having trouble recognizing.<br>
<br>
Thank you!<br>
<br>
Ariel Shatil<br>
Institute of Archaeology<br>
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>_______________________________________________<br>
Bonetools mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu" target="_blank">Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" target="_blank">https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bonetools mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu" target="_blank">Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" target="_blank">https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ariel Shatil<br>
Institute of Archaeology<br>
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bonetools mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu">Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" target="_blank">https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>