Brian Johnson
Archaeology mid Term
3/24/2015
Professor Shani
Archaeological Technologies/ Types In chapter 8 of Fagan’s Archaeology book I found one of the most interesting topics that were discussed were about the technologies of the past and how we interpret them in the present. In the reading we learn about, 4 distinctive types of artifacts we first learn about the descriptive type which is mostly elementary descriptions, based solely on the form of the artic at physical or external properties. The descriptive type is used even when the use or cultural significance of the object or practice is known. The next type is chronological type. This is defined by form but is time markers. These are the artifacts we can use to see difference in time periods. Next we have functional types which are based on cultural use or role rather than on outward form or chronological position. Finally there is stylistic types which can be commonly associated with dress because of style is often used to convey information by displaying it in public. In this paper I would like to use the types and relate them to Greek archaeological findings, and to be more specific Greek pottery. Under the context of Chronological type I found an article describing some of the distinct methods and findings that will classify them in the chronological time of the Greek empire. The Greek empire was known for some of the greatest archaeological finds, as that is considered to many scholars as the most intriguing and ingenious time period. One of their greatest productions was there pottery. Not only were they known for their distinctive shapes, their pottery often entailed stories of war and others that were easily if found by archaeologist distinctive to that time period. The article begins by telling us how amazing they were. “Greek Pottery from c. 1000 to c. 400 BCE provides not only some of the most distinctive vase shapes from antiquity but also some of the oldest and most diverse representations of the cultural beliefs and practices of the ancient Greeks. Further, pottery, with its durability (even when broken) and lack of appeal to treasure hunters, is one of the great archaeological survivors and is, therefore, an important tool for archaeologists and historians in determining the chronology of ancient Greece. Whatever their artistic and historical value though, the vast majority of Greek vases, despite now being dusty museum pieces, were actually meant for everyday use and, to paraphrase Arthur Lane, it is perhaps worth remembering that standing on a stone pavement and drenched with water, they would have once gleamed in the Mediterranean sun.” (Cartwright). The first distinction I found very interesting is there distinctive methods of how the pots were made and their tools needed. After reading I found out they mainly only had (Keramos) aka clay to produce the pottery. There were differences in clay however to show distinctive in class. The finest class was Attick Clay which is with a high iron content that gave off that very distinctive and rich orange red color. (Cartwright). I related this to this distinctive type of descriptive and as well chronological type. I say both because not only does the simple matter of clay type play a role in the lasting of the pot, but also distinguished a social class structure. It must have been at that time the richer would have pots made for decoration, and those wealthier would have a better clay material then others. The next topic that I saw the use of the functional type is the distinctive shape and form of the pots. “Although Greek pottery provides us with a wide range of shapes from cups to plates to massive amphorae, many of the forms remained relatively constant over centuries. This is