Mai Lin Tjoa-Bonatz
Three categories of finds were distinguished during the excavation:
samples (soil or charcoal), bulkfinds, and small finds. The bulkfinds
include pottery, collections of stones, fired clay, or iron slag; within the
bulkfinds, only the pottery sherds received individual inventory numbers.
Small finds are artefacts with a distinct value due to their material, dating,
or function, and therefore received an individual inventory number. If
required, their exact location was mapped to facilitate three
Material-Cultural Turn: Event and Effect.” The Oxford Handbook of MaterialCultureStudies , Edited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 25-98. Jones, Andrew. Memory and Material Culture . Cambridge University Press, 2007. Kalthoff, Herbert, Torsten Cress, and Tobias Röhl, editors. Materialität: Herausforderungen für die Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften . Fink, 2016. Kroeber, Alfred Louis, and Clyde Kluckhohn, editors. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions . Peabody Museum, 1952. Kurin, Richard. The Smithsonian
This essay reprises the status of objects in relation to critical conversations that favor things and thing studies over other methodologies of material culture studies. Recent discussions have dismissed objects as passive foils that lack in meaning. Glossing the factor of representation, however, these discussions have also glossed over a factor crucial in shaping the way in which the distinction between objects and things is made accessible in theory and practice. Two examples taken from eighteenth-century American literary culture, an anecdote by Benjamin Franklin and a sales ad published by the Pennsylvania Gazette, illustrate how in the process of representation objects become imbued with significance that reaches beyond mere signification and object classification. Once conceived as ‘material signs,’ objects become participants in cognitive environments in which seemingly meaningless symbols foster meaningful engagement with materiality.
heritage as well as the history of its formation and development within the frameworks of Mongolian culture.
http://calenda.org/216883?file=1 (19.11.2014) In the past few decades it has become common for scholars working in the classical humanistic disciplines to look at material objects more closely. This trend has been accompanied by the development of new methodologies and theories in materialculturestudies, which have called for the investigation “through artifacts of the beliefs – values, ideas, attitudes, and assumptions – of a particular community or society at
The role of 3D modelling in archaeology is increasing exponentially, from fieldwork to architecture to material culture studies. For the study of archaeological objects the roles of digital and print models for public engagement has been much considered in recent literature. For model makers, focus has typically been placed on exceptional and visually striking objects with inherent appeal. In contrast, this paper explores some of the potential roles for 3D digital models for routine artefact research and publication. Particular emphasis is placed on the challenges this technology raises for archaeological theory and practice. Following a consideration of how 3D models relate to established illustration and photographic traditions, the paper evaluates some of the unique features of 3D models, focussing on both positive and negative aspects of these. This is followed by a discussion of the role of potential research connections between digital and craft models in experimental research. Our overall objective is to emphasise a need to engage with the ways in which this gradual development has begun to change aspects of longestablished workflows. In turn, the increasing use of this technology is argued to have wider ramifications for the development of archaeology, and material culture studies in particular, as a discipline that requires reflection.