As an aside to this interesting discussion, some years ago I talked to
whalebone carvers in Newfoundland and Labrador. They said that the
whalebone they used had to have been weathering for 30-50 years before
it was workable, as before this point the grease made it unusable for
their purposes. This meant that the bone used had to be curated in
some way; traditionally it had been sourced by visiting old Inuit
sites. One carver said he had tried using whalebone which had been
dredged up from the sea near an old whaling station, and thus pretty
old, but the cold water had delayed decomposition and the bone was
still too greasy and smelly to be used.
At our own excavations at Old Scatness in Shetland, one of the Living
History interpreters who was also a skilled bone carver tried to make
a replica weaving comb from whalebone given to him by a Shetlander,
which had been taken from a beach as clean bone some years previously.
The remaining grease made the bone extremely difficult to work and it
certainly could not have been used as a weaving comb without further
preparation. It suggests that bone carvers in the past must have
either curated whalebone for a considerable time before use, or had
some other method of preparing the bone. Burial in a compost or manure
heap sounds like a definite possibility.
Julie
Quoting Peter Wilson <[log in to unmask]>:
> I would definitely agree on the manure/composting for something that
> size, based on my own experience and what I've read and seen others
> do with cetaceans of all sizes. Soil alone tends to stain and often
> eventually gives the bone a consistency of rotten wood. Sometimes
> industrial strength ammonia hydroxide is used but for something
> large there's probably a high chance of damaging yourself with the
> quantities needed. According to some studies that have been done at
> the Smithsonian, it's less effective than composting anyway and
> rather time consuming.
>
> For bleaching, hydrogen peroxide is used at a concentration of about
> 3%, soaking the bones for a week. Again, with larger bones this
> probably isn't practical without the appropriate facilities, but is
> probably unnecessary anyway.
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 05/09/2012 21:21, Anne Jensen wrote:
>> I can second that recommendation. I also saw those whales, and they really
>> looked very nice. No smell to speak of, clean, not damaged. They did
>> mention that it might be possible to "overcook" the smaller bones, so
>> recommended checking frequently. As I recall, one of the curators lived on
>> a farm, so they had the manure available, and took the whales to the manure.
>> I'd talk to the folks at the Burke.
>>
>> Anne M. Jensen, PhD, RPA
>>
>> PI, Nuvuk Archaeology Project
>> General Manager/Senior Scientist
>> UIC Science, LLC
>> Box 577
>> Barrow, AK 99723
>> 907-852-0924 (office and messages), 907-852-0931 (Nuvuk Lab), 907-852-5763
>> (fax), 907-230-8228 (cell), ajatnuvuk (Skype)
>> Replies to: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don O'Meara
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 11:37 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: preparing whale bones
>>
>> Julie,
>> if you look back on the zooarch pages from the 18th of July (on the topic
>> bone degreasing problems) Christyann Darwent sent a message to Pam Cross
>> about degreasing bones. He mentions work at the Burke Museum in Seattle
>> where they have been burying whales in large compost piles of manure and
>> wood chips. He mentions there is little smell and they come out clean.
>> It might be worth considering if your neighbours don't mind a little compost
>> heap.
>> Don.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
|