In my blog two weeks ago, I had been contemplating two project ideas. Thanks to many helpful comments, and after carefully researching the available information for each topic, I have decided to challenge Stephen Dyson’s statements that Classical archaeology’s ”big dig” is dying , and fieldwork research methods have become antiquated and ineffective at producing any form of innovative scholarship. I am limiting my data sample to 60 excavations in Pompeii, conducted between 2003-2010. The Fasti Online site provided an excellent source of information to begin my research, although one concern I had in using this site was the limited time frame of their online reports of excavations (2001-2010), and the fact that Dyson’s article was published in 1993. After exploring the site more closely, I discovered that many of the institutions researching and/or funding the excavations have separate websites that provide a general timeline of previous excavations, as well as the findings from their current fieldwork and their future research goals for the site.
The data I have compiled is organized into categories, specifically the Pompeian regions excavated during the 21st century, the seasons (years) in which a site was excavated, the type of fieldwork conducted, a historical timeline of excavations in a region, and the researching and funding institutions overseeing each excavation. The data I have analysed so far is providing conclusive evidence to validate my argument that Classical archaeology is far from dying, and that current fieldwork is thriving and producing valuable scholarship in the study of Ancient Greek and Roman art.
I have completed three visualizations for my project (I plan to have at least five), and I have downloaded my powerpoint to provide at least a preliminary view of the data. The map, downloaded from google site maps, is based on an excavation plan created by Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli in the mid-nineteenth century. The city is divided into nine regions, and each region is subdivided into numbered insulas. The black squares I placed on the map indicate the specific excavation sites that I am using as data to validate my argument.
The second visualization is a bar graph of the excavation seasons conducted within each region from 2003-2010. Although the graph documents peaks and lulls in the number of excavations, the data is misleading because the excavation reports published by the research and/or funding institutions document not only the season in which they physically excavated the site, but the many years of research before and after the excavations.
The third visualization is a pie chart documenting the types of fieldwork examined at each site, such as excavations of an entire insula (a block of buildings), a domus (house), or a taberna (shop/bar). The number of fieldwork projects is larger than the total number of sites because many individually listed excavations include work on mulitple projects located within one site. (ie: Reg VIII.7- insula, taberna, workshop, domus, urban gate).
Hopefully my explanation of the visuals provides at least a brief explanation of the data I have compiled and organized…I am far from finished. I anticipate at least two more graph type images, as I am also examining the research and funding institutions for each excavtion, as well as some type of historical timeline of excavations prior to 2003. I will have more information in my next blog, but any concerns, criticisms, or questions would be greatly appreciated.
It looks great Geri! I also like that you’re using the data to make an argument, rather than just putting all the info up there for the sake of having it.
Great start, Geri. I am not familiar with your data, but could you extract the years of excavation from the research years to generate a more accurate chart?
Also, in terms of the chart it might be better to use a line graph with the years on the X axis and each region as a separate line to better show the change over time.
It would be helpful if you could also provide an idea of the sort of funding behind each dig, how many people worked on the dig, and if any scholarship was produced as a result of the dig.
As far as the exact years of the excavation, I am planning to access as much of the current data from the research institutions, but the years prior will be more general, (most likely a time range) using the same technique as archaeological reports. The research and funding institutions are a graph I will be composing, but the exact dollar amount, the number of people woking the dig are not always readily accessible, or necessarily pertinent to justify my argument. With regard to published scholarship, I may mention it in my text, but not as a visual.
This is coming along nicely, but you might want to move from this stage 1 to adding some more interpretive metadata about the digs. E.g., could you categorize some as focused on social life vs. political or religious life? In other words, could you connect sites with the kinds of research normally done on those sites do show the shifting winds of scholarly interest?