Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-2vlzw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-10T14:37:46.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel's edge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2015

Åsa Berggren ,
Nicolo Dell’Unto ,
Maurizio Forte ,
Scott Haddow ,
Ian Hodder ,
Justine Issavi ,
Nicola Lercari ,
Camilla Mazzucato ,
Allison Mickel  and
James S. Taylor
Åsa Berggren
Affiliation:
Sydsvensk arkeologi/Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, Box 192, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
Nicolo Dell’Unto
Affiliation:
Sydsvensk arkeologi/Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, Box 192, 221 00 Lund, Sweden
Maurizio Forte
Affiliation:
Department of Classical Studies, Duke University, 233 Allen Building, PO Box 90103, Durham, NC 27708–0103, USA
Scott Haddow
Affiliation:
Catalhöyük Research Project, Stanford Archaeology Center, Stanford University, PO Box 20446, Stanford, CA 94309, USA
Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305–2034, USA
Justine Issavi
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305–2034, USA
Nicola Lercari
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, University of California, 5200 North Lake Rd, Merced, CA 95343, USA
Camilla Mazzucato
Affiliation:
Catalhöyük Research Project, Stanford Archaeology Center, Stanford University, PO Box 20446, Stanford, CA 94309, USA
Allison Mickel*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305–2034, USA
James S. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of York, King's Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK
*
*Author for correspondence (Email: ajmickel@stanford.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavations at Çatalhöyük have been ongoing for over 20 years and have involved multi-national teams, a diverse range of archaeological specialists and a vast archive of records. The task of marshalling this data so that it can be useful not only at the post-excavation stage, but also while making decisions in the field, is challenging. Here, members of the team reflect on the use of digital technology on-site to promote a reflexive engagement with the archaeology. They explore how digital data in a fieldwork context can break down communication barriers between specialists, foster an inclusive approach to the excavation process and facilitate reflexive engagement with recording and interpretation.

Keywords

ÇatalhöyükNeolithicreflexive archaeologyGIS3D visualisationdigital recording

Information

Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 89 , Issue 344 , April 2015 , pp. 433 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd., 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agisoft . 2014. Agisoft Photoscan. Available at: http://www.agisoft.com (accessed 4 December 2014).Google Scholar
Atalay, S. 2010. ‘We don't talk about Çatalhöyük, we live it’: sustainable archaeological practice through community-based participatory research. World Archaeology 42: 418–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2010.497394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology: research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Atalay, S. In press. Community-based archaeology at Çatalhöyük: participatory planning in cultural tourism, heritage management, and community development, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000–2008 season. Los Angeles (CA): British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Bartu, A. 2000. Where is Çatalhöyük? Multiple sites in the construction of an archaeological site, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 101–10. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Bender, B., Hamilton, S. & Tilley, C.Y.. 2007. Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Berggren, Å. 2001. Swedish archaeology in perspective and the possibility of reflexivity. Current Swedish Archaeology 9: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, Å. & Hodder, I.. 2003. Social practice, method, and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 421–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3557102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, Å. & Nilsson, B.. In press. Going back, looking forward: reflexive archaeology or reflexive method?, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Integrating Çatalhöyük: themes from the 2000–2008 season. Los Angeles (CA): British Institute at Ankara and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Callieri, M., Dell’Unto, N., Dellepiane, M., Scopigno, R., Soderberg, B. & Larsson, L.. 2011. Documentation and interpretation of an archaeological excavation: an experience with dense stereo matching, in Artusi, A. & Fellner, D. (ed.) VAST: the 11th international symposium on virtual reality, archaeology and cultural heritage: 33–40. Goslar: Eurographics Association.Google Scholar
Carver, G. 2011. Reflections on the archaeology of archaeological excavation. Archaeological Dialogues 18: 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1380203811000067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 2009. Archaeological investigation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carver, M.O.H. 2011. Making archaeology happen: design versus dogma. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Castaneda, Q.E. 2008. The ‘ethnographic turn’ in archaeology: research positioning and reflexivity in ethnographic archaeologies, in Castaneda, Q.E. & Matthews, C.N. (ed.) Ethnographic archaeologies: reflections on stakeholders and archaeological practices: 25–62. Lanham (MD): Altamira.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 1998. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage 3: 97–117.Google Scholar
Chadwick, A. 2003. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies: towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues 10: 97–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1380203803001107 Google Scholar
Dellepiane, M., Dell’Unto, N., Callieri, M., Lindgren, S. & Scopigno, R.. 2013. Archeological excavation monitoring using dense stereo matching techniques. Journal of Cultural Heritage 14: 201–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.01.011 Google Scholar
Dell’Unto, N. 2014. The use of 3D models for intra-site investigation in archaeology, in Campana, S. & Remondino, F. (ed.) 3D surveying and modeling in archaeology and cultural heritage: theory and best practices (British Archaeological Reports international series 2598). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
DeTore, K. & Bria, R.E.. 2013. Explorations in digital data collection in the remote Andes of Peru. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu, 3–7 April 2013.Google Scholar
Earl, G. 2013. Modeling in archaeology: computer graphic and other digital pasts. Perspectives on Science 21: 226–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00096 Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M. (ed.). 2006. Ethnographies of archaeological practice: cultural encounters, material transformations. Lanham (CA): Altamira.Google Scholar
Ellis, S. & Wallrodt, J.. 2012. Pompeii and the iPad: an update. Paper presented at the 2012 Computer Applications in Archaeology conference, Southampton, 26–29 March 2012.Google Scholar
ESRI. 2012. Multipatches. ArcGIS Resource Center. Available at: http://help.arcgis.com/en%20/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#//00q8000000mv000000 (accessed 4 December 2014).Google Scholar
Esteva, M., Trelogan, J., Rabinowitz, A., Walling, D. & Pipkin, S.. 2010. From the site to long-term preservation: a reflexive system to manage and archive digital archaeological data. Archiving Conference 2010 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forte, M., Dell’Unto, N., Issavi, J., Onsurez, L. & Lercari, N.. 2012. 3D archaeology at Çatalhöyük. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era 1: 351–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/2047-4970.1.3.351 Google Scholar
Grossner, K., Hodder, I., Meeks, E. & Engel, C.. 2014. A living archive for Çatalhöyük. Poster presented at the 2014 Computer Applications in Archaeology conference, Paris, 22–25 April 2014.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. 2000. Faultlines: the construction of archaeological knowledge at Çatalhöyük, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 119–28. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1997. ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 71: 691–700.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2000a. Developing a reflexive method in archaeology, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 3–14. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2000b. Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2003. Archaeological reflexivity and the “local” voice. Anthropological Quarterly 76 (1): 55–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/anq.2003.0010 Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2005. Reflexive methods, in Maschner, H.D.G. & Chippindale, C. (ed.) Handbook of archaeological methods: 643–49. New York: Altamira.Google Scholar
Levy, T.E. 2013. Cyber-archaeology and world cultural heritage: insights from the Holy Land. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 66: 26–33.Google Scholar
Levy, T.E., Tuttle, C.A., Vincent, M., Holland, M., Richter, A.M., Petrovic, V. & Kuester, F.. 2013. The 2012 Petra cyber-archaeology cultural conservation expedition: Temple of the Winged Lions and environs, Jordan. Antiquity 87 (335 Project Gallery). Available at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/levy335/ (accessed 4 December 2014).Google Scholar
Mickel, A. In press. Reasons for redundancy in reflexivity: the role of diaries in archaeological epistemology. Journal of Field Archaeology.Google Scholar
Moser, S., Atalay, S., Camurcoglu-Cleere, D., Hodder, I., Orbasli, A. & Pye, E.. 2010. Protecting and exhibiting Çatalhöyük. Turkish Academy of Sciences Journal of Cultural Inventory 8: 155–66.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2013. Debating the legacy of postprocessualism: visual reflexivity at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Paper presented at the Institute for Archaeologists conference, Birmingham, 17–19 April 2013.Google Scholar
Silliman, S.W. (ed.). 2008. Collaborating at the trowel's edge: teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Spence, C. 1993. Recording the archaeology of London: the development and implementation of the DUA recording system, in Harris, E.C., Brown, M.R. III & Brown, G.J. (ed.) Practices of archaeological stratigraphy: 23–46. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swogger, J. 2000. Image and interpretation: the tyranny of representation?, in Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük: 143–52. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. & Stevanović, M. (ed.). 2012. Last house on the hill: BACH area reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, G. 2011. Taking computer vision aloft: archaeological three dimensional reconstruction from aerial photographs with photoscan. Archaeological Prospection 18: 67–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/arp.399 Google Scholar
Yalman, N. 2005. Ethnoarchaeology, analogy, and problems. Ethnoarchaeological Investigations in Rural Anatolia: 15–26.Google Scholar
Yarrow, T. 2003. Artefactual persons: the relational capacities of persons and things in the practice of excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36: 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650307296 Google Scholar