Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Archaeology

Editor-in-Chief: Harding, Anthony

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-6560
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Pottery Goes Public. Performing Archaeological Research Amid the Audience

Loes Opgenhaffen
  • Corresponding author
  • ACASA – Department of Archaeology, University of Amsterdam, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Martina Revello Lami
  • Material Culture Studies & Archaeological Sciences, Faculty of Archaeology - University of Leiden, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ivan Kisjes
  • ACASA – Department of Archaeology, University of Amsterdam, 1012 XT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-03-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0004

Abstract

The project Pottery Goes Public explores the potential of 3D analytical tools to assess to what extent they can provide us with new interpretations and insights into the technological aspects of ancient pottery manufacturing. However, developing innovative 3D imaging techniques for ceramic analysis is not the only aim of the project. Since its inception, Pottery Goes Public has been designed to involve a wider audience not only into the study of ancient potting techniques, but also into the very process of carrying out the research. As advocated by the proponents of a reflexive approach to archaeology, in order to make the past relevant to contemporary society it is imperative for the archaeologist to include all interested parties into every stage of the analysis, from the formulation of the research questions to the dissemination of outputs. In this sense, the deployment of modern 3D technologies proved to be an indisputably powerful medium of communication and interaction with the public at large. Performing live archaeological research with cutting edge tools is a key step towards opening up academic research to multiple actors and actively engaging them with the archaeological interpretative process.

Keywords : 3D scanning; 3D reproduction and printing; archaeology and public; multivocality; pottery technology

References

  • Berggren, Å., Dell’Unto, N., Forte, M., Haddow, S., Hodder, I., Issavi, J., Lercari, N. Mazzuccato, C., Allison, M. & Taylor, J. S. (2015). Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge. Antiquity, 89 (344), 433-448.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bernab. Brea, L., & Cavalier, M. (1985). Archeologia subacquea nelle isole Eolie,. Archeologia Subacquea 2, 11-127.Google Scholar

  • Blanck, H. (1978). Der Schiffsfund von der Secca di Capistello bei Lipari. Mitteilungen des Deutsches Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 85, 91-111.Google Scholar

  • Bolger, D. (2014). Gender, labor, and pottery production in prehistory. In D. Bolger (Ed.), A companion to gender prehistory. (pp. 161-179). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Burgersdijk, D., Calis, R., Kelder, J., Sofroniew, A., Tusa, S. & Beek, R. van (Eds.). (2015). Sicily and the Sea. Zwolle: WBooks.Google Scholar

  • Costin, C. L. (2000). The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7 (4), 377-403.Google Scholar

  • Di Giuseppe, H. (2012). Black-Gloss Ware in Italy. Production management and local histories. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 2335).Google Scholar

  • Dobres, M. A. (2010). Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1), 103-114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gliozzo, E. & Memmi Turbanti, I. (2004). Black Gloss Pottery: Production Sites and Technology in Northern Etruria, Part I: Provenance Studies. Archaeometry, 46 (2), 201-225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grosman, L. (2016). Reaching the Point of No Return: The Computational Revolution in Archaeology. Annu.Rev.Anthropol, 45, 129-145.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (1991). Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity, 56 (1), 7-18.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (1997). ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71 (273), 691-700.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (No. 28). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (2003). Archaeological Reflexivity and the “Local” Voice. Anthropological Quarterly, 76 (1), 55-69.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (2005). Reflexive methods. In H. D. Maschner & C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook of archaeological methods (Vol. 1). (pp. 643-649). Lanham, MD: Rowman AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

  • Knappett, C. (1999). Tradition and innovation in pottery forming technology: wheel-throwing at Middle Minoan Knossos. Annual of the British School at Athens, 94, 101-12.Google Scholar

  • Kohring, S. (2006). Let’s NOT talk technology? Bringing production into a discussion of technological knowledge. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 21 (1), 98-116.Google Scholar

  • Llobera, M. (2011). Archaeological Visualization: towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18, 193-223.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Louwaard, M. (2007). Ceramica a vernice nera. In M. Gnade (Ed.), Satricum. Trenta anni di scavi olandesi. (pp. 176-179). Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

  • Maaskant-Kleibrink, M. (1991). Early Latin settlement plans at Borgo Le Ferriere (Satricum). Bulletin antieke beschaving (BaBesch), 66, 51-114.Google Scholar

  • Maschner, H. D. G., Schou, C. D. & Holmes, J. (2013). Virtualization and the Democratization of Science: 3D Technologies Revolutionize Museum Research and Access. In: A. C. Addison, G. Guidi, L. De Luca, S. Pescarin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), Volume 1. (pp. 265-271). Marseille: IEEE.Google Scholar

  • Mirti, P. & Davit, P. (2001). Technological Characterization of Campanian Pottery of Type A, B and C and of Regional Products from Ancient Calabria (Southern Italy). Archaeometry, 43 (1), 19-33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morel, J.-P. (1969). Etudes de céramique campanienne, I: L’atelier des petites estampilles. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 81 (1), 59-117.Google Scholar

  • Morel, J.-P. (1981). Céramique campanienne: les formes. Rome: École française de Rome (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 244).Google Scholar

  • Morel, J.-P. (2004). Quatre épaves des Îles Éoliennes dans le contexte méditerranéen. In: P. Pelagatti, G. Spadea (Eds.), Dalle Arene Candide a Lipari. Scritti in onore di Luigi Bernabò Brea, Atti del Convegno (Genova, 3-5 febbraio 2001). Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, (pp. 75-102) (Bolletino d’arte, 124).Google Scholar

  • Morgan, C. & Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44 (4), 521-537.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, C. (2015). Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and Practice. AP: Journal of Online Public Archaeology, 5, 123-146.Google Scholar

  • Olcese, G. (2012). Atlante dei siti di produzione ceramica (Toscana, Lazio, Campania e Sicilia): con le tabelle dei principali relitti del Mediterraneo occidentale con carichi dall’Italia centro meridionale: IV secolo aC-I secolo dC. Roma: Quasar.Google Scholar

  • Pedroni, L. (1989). Nuova matrice per decorazioni a rilievo da Cales. Samnium, 62, 225-230.Google Scholar

  • Revello Lami, M., Opgenhaffen, L. & Kisjes, I. (2016). Pottery goes digital. 3D laser scanning technology and the study of archaeological ceramics. In: S. Campana, R. Scopigno, G. Carpentiero, M. Cirillo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference ‘Keep the Revolution Going’ (CAA, 30 March - 3 April 2015), University of Siena (pp. 421-432). Siena. Oxford: Archaeopress,.Google Scholar

  • Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B. V., Krasny, M. E. & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design, Ecology and Society 17(2): 29, https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss2/art29/CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stanco, E. A. (2009). La seriazione cronologica della ceramica a vernice nera etrusco-laziale nell’ambito del III secolo aC.Google Scholar

  • Suburbium II, In V. Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M. A. Tomei, R. Volpe (Eds.), Suburbium II. Il Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V-II sec. a.C.). Atti del Convegno (Roma 16 novembre, 3 dicembre 2004, 17-18 febbraio 2005) (pp. 157-93). Roma.Google Scholar

  • Tringham, R. & López, M. A. (2001). The Democratization of Technology. In: L. Addison & H. Thwaites (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM’01). (pp. 271-279). Berkeley: UC Berkeley.Google Scholar

  • Wendrich, W. (Ed.). (2013). Archaeology and apprenticeship: Body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-03-30

Accepted: 2018-01-01

Published Online: 2018-03-15


Citation Information: Open Archaeology, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 62–80, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0004.

Export Citation

© 2018. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in