Discussion of session 1 readings: Sengoku 2017 & Tanasi 2019

[gabrielbodard]

Please discuss the following two readings in this forum thread:

• K. Sengoku-Haga, 2017. "Polykleitos and his followers at work: how the Doryphoros was used." In J. M. Daehner et al. Artistry in Bronze: the Greeks and their Legacy. LA: Getty Conservation Institute. Available: http://www.getty.edu/publications/artistryinbronze/the-artist/10-haga-et-al/
• Davide Tanasi. 2019. "Best Practices for 3D Digital Recording and Global Sharing of Catacombs from Late Roman Sicily." Studies in Digital Heritage 3.1. Pp. 60.82. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v3i1.25290

Think in particular about the provenance of the papers (authors, projects, venue, peer review); relationship of technologies and methods to traditional classics/heritage disciplines and research agendas; how they fit into the overview of 3D imaging we have discussed in this session.

[Jessamyn-kcl]

The Sengoku-Haga article deals with identifying the sculptors of Greek sculpture from the Classical period: specifically whether the Doryphoros is the Polyklietan Canon figure that would form the base model for statues created by him and his disciples going forward, as this is a topic still very much under debate.

• They examine four statues attributed to Polykleitos using colour mapping to examine how similar in shape different sections of the statue bodies are, and valley-line drawing to examine similarities in the facial features of the statues.

• They examine the figures in separate pieces like this because they are working from Roman copies of the lost Greek statues, and the copies can vary significantly in overall shape, because the copy-makers would take plaster casts of individual parts of the statue body and then join them together, rather than casting the whole thing.

• Using colour mapping, they find significant similarities between the body parts of the statues, and the valley hill drawings indicate the faces too are remarkably similar, and that the variances between them may actually be as a result of the physical properties of the original clay Doryphoros, which would have shrunk over time.

• They are also able to identify the Diomedes statue as likely being the work of one of Polykleitos’ disciples instead of Kresilas, as it exhibits more similarities with the Doryphoros than with other works by Kresilas.

• Though the evidence seems very strong, this is examining a very small sample of statues, so further research is needed before anything can be said definitely.

I think it’s really interesting how much minor detail changes can trick your eye into seeing two figures as completely different, when they are so similar when examined using 3D imaging. Historically, teaching of classical art has focussed in on the works attributed to certain different Masters, such as Polyklietos, and whilst I think this can be a somewhat reductive approach, being certain that we are attributing these pieces to the correct workshops does allow us to better understand their provenance, and perhaps more accurately date them. As the article concludes, whilst the initial data is promising, it has currently been restricted to a small sample, so it would be interesting to see if the data is this reliable with less well known and well-studied works.

I also particularly appreciate how this article addresses material properties and manufacturing processes in the ancient world, because I think that can get lost often when we consider these statues from an art perspective – in previous classes on classical art, statues being over life-size has often been attributed to them being divine figures, without considering how the casting method might impact this.

[FabioDFernandes]

Hello all,

I will offer my brief summary of the Tanasi reading below, which, at least in my case, made a lot more sense in terms of its technical nature following the live Sunoikisis session. I personally found it really interesting to learn how 3D imaging is being used in areas as large as that discussed, for the sake of better documentation, preservation, teaching and to better facilitate study of the architectural layout of the site, as well as artistic and other minutiae.

• Tanasi demonstrates how 3D digital techniques/imaging were deployed throughout the Catacombs of St. Lucy (Syracuse, Sicily) during excavations carried out between 2013 and 2015. He briefly alludes to comparable projects, such as the Domitilla Catacomb project (Rome), Project ROVINA and the 3D survey of the catacombs of St. John (Syracuse), before delving into the principal case study. • The large underground cemetery developed throughout the 3rd to 5th centuries AD, incorporating previous Greek and Early Imperial structures and hypogea used for funerary, cultural and industrial purposes that were then transformed into monumental burial chambers. In at least two regions of the catacombs, evidence of martyrial worship in the form of frescoes and devotional graffiti in oratories testify to a continued interaction with the site until the second half of the 13th century. One finds mostly Christian mortuary heritage, but also some earlier pagan (most notably the ‘Pagan Shrine’ dedicated to Zeus Peloros, dated to the 2nd-1st century BC). • The cemetery is now divided into four regions (A, B, C, D), though this does not correspond to the original plan. Region C, dating to post-Constantinian times (4th century) is the most remarkable part and receives the greatest focus. • 3D digital techniques (imaging, laser scanning) were used for various purposes: • To record archaeological units and create high-resolution virtual replicas/models of certain areas – of use particularly in areas facing decay, areas of relative inaccessibility to researchers, to make clearer high levels of artistic detail (frescoes in dark areas, very finely detailed art, different strata of paint and multiple layers of graffiti superimposed on each other, etc.), to facilitate documentation. • Moreover, architectural elements (various separate pieces) that were not properly catalogued and documented were subjected to 3D documentation via Image Based 3D Modelling – set on a wooden turntable and photographed (40-70 pictures for each object). • The Pagan Shrine of Zeus Peloros was the largest part of the project – a 3D model of the space was created using Digital Photogrammetry (as part of the wider scanning activity of Region C). Coded targets were set on the walls and a data-set of 310 pictures was produced using a Nikon D3300, covering every spot of the surfaces and then processed into a coherent model.

There is a lot of more minute detail regarding programmes and the scanning and imaging/scanning of many areas and elements of the catacombs, but I hope this is a clear, basic summary.

Fabio

[PAZHames]

@Jessamyn-kcl 'in previous classes on classical art, statues being over life-size has often been attributed to them being divine figures, without considering how the casting method might impact this.'

This is so true, I found this really helpful! I also have a question on this which may be pretty layman, so I apologise!

At the beginning of the article, Sengoku-Haga notes that most of the scans were made from plaster casts - would this not create problems in terms of accuracy? I'm not quite clear on how exact a plaster cast can be, although assumedly it does not suffer from the same shrinkage problem that clay/bronze would?

[PAZHames]

On the Tanasi, I was quite interested in the involvement of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology. In many ways they enabled the exploration of the Catacombs of St. Lucy, but reference is made to certain artefacts being left in their find spot, due to a call made by the PCSA. I thought this was quite an interesting tousle - between prioritising religious respect and research development. The fact that this conflict (if it is one?) existed within one body, was particularly interesting. Does it complicate the idea of a clear scientific purpose if findings might be excluded from reports based on their decision? What do you guys think?

[PAZHames]

Also re the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology, their mission statement as of 1852 is "to look after the ancient cemeteries, to conserve, explore, study and care for the memories of the first Christians, their monuments and the venerable Basilicas in Rome and on Roman soil together with the Ordinaries in other Dioceses,” (http://www.cultura.va/content/cultura/en/collegamenti/archeologia-sacra.html) - just an FYI re what they state their purpose to be - although possibly/hopefully this will have shifted/become more nuanced over the last c 200 years?

[Jessamyn-kcl]

At the beginning of the article, Sengoku-Haga notes that most of the scans were made from plaster casts - would this not create problems in terms of accuracy? I'm not quite clear on how exact a plaster cast can be, although assumedly it does not suffer from the same shrinkage problem that clay/bronze would?

No need to apologise! :) Plaster casts are remarkably accurate! it’s a method we still use a lot today (though we tend to cast the whole object, to avoid the inaccuracies of joining different parts together as mentioned in the article). There might be a little bit of shrinkage, but nowhere near as much as casting in clay or something like that. The museum of classical archaeology in Cambridge is entirely plaster casts, if you wanted to take a look at just how detailed they are! https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/museum/collections/museum-highlights/museum-highlights

[ChantalvanEgdom]

@Jessamyn-kcl Great overview Jessamyn! I really appreciate the way that this method can remove a large chunk of subjectivity when it comes to assigning pieces to different artists (as in the case with the assumption that the facial features of the Diadumenos being softer than those of the Doryphoros). I do however wonder about what Sengoku-Haga mentioned at the end of the discussion regarding the idea that copy makers would not have been able to make plasters from bronze statues in public spaces in the classical period (would it be a classical copyright thing?). Without explaining why this would not have been the case the whole discussion does seem to fall a bit more into the field of assumptions for me (apologies if there is something I'm missing though!). I'd appreciate anyone who would know why this practise would not have happened during the classical period!

[Jessamyn-kcl]

Not sure about this either - I think display context would probably come into it for pieces displayed on plinths/high up on buildings?

[ChantalvanEgdom]

Ah that would make sense!

[FabioDFernandes]

On the Tanasi, I was quite interested in the involvement of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology. In many ways they enabled the exploration of the Catacombs of St. Lucy, but reference is made to certain artefacts being left in their find spot, due to a call made by the PCSA. I thought this was quite an interesting tousle - between prioritising religious respect and research development. The fact that this conflict (if it is one?) existed within one body, was particularly interesting. Does it complicate the idea of a clear scientific purpose if findings might be excluded from reports based on their decision? What do you guys think?

I'd suppose it very much depends where the line is drawn between religious heritage still in use and religious heritage that is considered only now for its historical value and no longer of spiritual significance. We won't go into a cemetery and dig up people there from even the past few hundred years, but Egyptian mummies don't seem to be subject to those same morals. So, I would imagine that having a religious institution like the PCSA decide to restrict conventional research in such a way might come with the limitations of not being able to study certain artefacts in depth, though at the same time, perhaps it means more emphasis can be put into studying artefacts in their original contexts more intensively (obviously this depends on a range of factors). So, I would think it complicates a clear scientific purpose to some extent, but so do a whole range of other ethical issues that researchers face.

[FabioDFernandes]

Just a small thought. Beyond the scope of individual masters and their works of art, I also wonder to what extent the implication could be made that plaster casts might have been used by workshops for 'mass production' of renowned works of art (though not in an anachronistic industrial sense), especially in the later tradition of Roman copies.

[ChantalvanEgdom]

On the Tanasi, I was quite interested in the involvement of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology. In many ways they enabled the exploration of the Catacombs of St. Lucy, but reference is made to certain artefacts being left in their find spot, due to a call made by the PCSA. I thought this was quite an interesting tousle - between prioritising religious respect and research development. The fact that this conflict (if it is one?) existed within one body, was particularly interesting. Does it complicate the idea of a clear scientific purpose if findings might be excluded from reports based on their decision? What do you guys think?

I'd suppose it very much depends where the line is drawn between religious heritage still in use and religious heritage that is considered only now for its historical value and no longer of spiritual significance. We won't go into a cemetery and dig up people there from even the past few hundred years, but Egyptian mummies don't seem to be subject to those same morals. So, I would imagine that having a religious institution like the PCSA decide to restrict conventional research in such a way might come with the limitations of not being able to study certain artefacts in depth, though at the same time, perhaps it means more emphasis can be put into studying artefacts in their original contexts more intensively (obviously this depends on a range of factors). So, I would think it complicates a clear scientific purpose to some extent, but so do a whole range of other ethical issues that researchers face.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this

[K-Doering]

I think it’s really interesting how much minor detail changes can trick your eye into seeing two figures as completely different, when they are so similar when examined using 3D imaging. Historically, teaching of classical art has focussed in on the works attributed to certain different Masters, such as Polyklietos, and whilst I think this can be a somewhat reductive approach, being certain that we are attributing these pieces to the correct workshops does allow us to better understand their provenance, and perhaps more accurately date them. As the article concludes, whilst the initial data is promising, it has currently been restricted to a small sample, so it would be interesting to see if the data is this reliable with less well known and well-studied works.

I also particularly appreciate how this article addresses material properties and manufacturing processes in the ancient world, because I think that can get lost often when we consider these statues from an art perspective – in previous classes on classical art, statues being over life-size has often been attributed to them being divine figures, without considering how the casting method might impact this.

Thank you for this summary and insight, Jessamyn!

In line with what you say about the article's address of material properties and manufacturing processes, I found it quite interesting that models may have been available or used by those also in the workshops of the named artisans we know today. The use of color mapping in replication is certainly a valuable technology in comparing evolving techniques and tracing provenance. I thought also of how this technology could help researchers to electronically map the use of mathematic ratio in ancient sculpture -- especially as the process pertains to casting methods.

[K-Doering]

On the Tanasi, I was quite interested in the involvement of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology. In many ways they enabled the exploration of the Catacombs of St. Lucy, but reference is made to certain artefacts being left in their find spot, due to a call made by the PCSA. I thought this was quite an interesting tousle - between prioritising religious respect and research development. The fact that this conflict (if it is one?) existed within one body, was particularly interesting. Does it complicate the idea of a clear scientific purpose if findings might be excluded from reports based on their decision? What do you guys think?

I'd suppose it very much depends where the line is drawn between religious heritage still in use and religious heritage that is considered only now for its historical value and no longer of spiritual significance. We won't go into a cemetery and dig up people there from even the past few hundred years, but Egyptian mummies don't seem to be subject to those same morals. So, I would imagine that having a religious institution like the PCSA decide to restrict conventional research in such a way might come with the limitations of not being able to study certain artefacts in depth, though at the same time, perhaps it means more emphasis can be put into studying artefacts in their original contexts more intensively (obviously this depends on a range of factors). So, I would think it complicates a clear scientific purpose to some extent, but so do a whole range of other ethical issues that researchers face.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this

To add, I also think established, contemporary leadership for the religion is quite important. Because this study was undertaken in Italy regarding Catholic burials I do think it would be possible to undertake the project without permission from a Church entity or the Church itself. It would be hard to imagine the same practice wouldn't be undertaken for Egyptian burials if the Egyptian priesthood was still in existence today.

I do think an offer to digitally research the sites and not 'disturb' them would be a welcome compromise for the study of more sensitive projects in the future (e.g. relics, active but ancient/historical places of worship, etc.). Or, per our seminar, not to directly handle human remains as teaching tools.

[FabioDFernandes]

Kéyah - yes, that's another way of considering it. I imagine that it is in the interest of the Church now to study its heritage from antiquity and understand its very early past (they do open up their sites to archaeological/historical enquiry as it is) in a way that is respectful and as you put it, does not 'disturb' anything. To leave sensitive elements as they are and study them at a distance can definitely be facilitated with the aid of digital technologies, certainly a welcome compromise.

[despinaborcea]

To build on a side note mentioned by Fabio in his summary on Davide Tanasi's article, apart from the advantages of 3D imaging and modelling techniques applied to the Catacombs of St. Lucy, the point-cloud of the Basilica of Domitilla and the catacomb beneath it struck me as particularly useful in terms of visualisation. The layered concentration of archaeological material in Rome in general is impressive and not limited to underground architecture, as buildings from various centuries are built ‘on top of the other’ or nearby. It would be interesting to see how, say, the Forum would have looked like in a point-cloud time lapse. It would also be exciting to extend this beyond antiquity – some churches have older temple columns built in their side walls or foundations of different buildings in their own bases (e.g., Aquileia), which could be compared and contrasted.

[PAZHames]

At the beginning of the article, Sengoku-Haga notes that most of the scans were made from plaster casts - would this not create problems in terms of accuracy? I'm not quite clear on how exact a plaster cast can be, although assumedly it does not suffer from the same shrinkage problem that clay/bronze would?

No need to apologise! :) Plaster casts are remarkably accurate! it’s a method we still use a lot today (though we tend to cast the whole object, to avoid the inaccuracies of joining different parts together as mentioned in the article). There might be a little bit of shrinkage, but nowhere near as much as casting in clay or something like that. The museum of classical archaeology in Cambridge is entirely plaster casts, if you wanted to take a look at just how detailed they are! https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/museum/collections/museum-highlights/museum-highlights

This was so useful, thanks so much for clearing this up for me!