1. High-Resolution Imaging

• High-resolution photography allows for detailed examination of an artifact's surface, which can reveal manufacturing techniques, decorative patterns, and signs of wear that indicate how the object was used.

2. Multi-Angle Photography

• Capturing images from multiple angles provides a comprehensive view of the artifact, helping to reconstruct its original form and understand its functional design. This is especially useful for fragmented objects like vase pieces.

3. Macro Photography

• Macro lenses can capture very fine details, such as tool marks, engravings, or other subtle features that are not visible to the naked eye. These details can provide clues about the object's purpose and the culture that produced it.

4. Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI)

• RTI uses a series of photos taken with different lighting angles to create a composite image that can be manipulated to show surface details under varying light conditions. This technique is particularly effective for revealing inscriptions, engravings, and other surface characteristics.

5. 3D Scanning and Modeling

• 3D scanning creates a digital model of the artifact, which can be used to virtually reassemble broken pieces or to simulate the object in its complete form. This helps in understanding the shape and size of the original item, which is crucial for discerning its function.

6. Infrared and Ultraviolet Photography

• Infrared and ultraviolet photography can reveal hidden details, such as underlying pigments or repairs, which may not be visible in normal light. These details can provide information on the artifact's history and usage.

7. X-ray and CT Scanning

• X-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans allow researchers to see inside the artifact without damaging it. This can help in identifying internal structures, contents, or any alterations made over time, which might suggest the object's intended use.

8. Comparative Analysis

• Comparing the photographic recreations with similar known artifacts from the same period or region can provide context and help in deducing the function. If there are similar items with known uses, this can give a good indication of the function of the artifact in question.

9. Digital Reconstruction and Simulation

• Using software to digitally reconstruct the artifact and simulate its use can also provide insights into its functionality. For example, if you have fragments of a vase, a digital reconstruction can show how the vessel would have looked when whole and how it might have been used (e.g., for storage, serving, or ritual purposes).

Shaochen, I like best your answers 8 and 9 for my case study, though all nine are great categories to be included in the session to recruit abstracts. I think with your permission I shall use this itemization form you listed, and cite you. My topic under the session format is specifically re-interpretation via generating a synthetic memory via comparative analysis and digital reconstruction, stimulating a correlational mental image relationship between modern brain state and prehistoric mental state if the brain’s biochemical system is healthy (Kolotilova, et al, 2005, & Foster & Scheinost, 2024), in stimulating greater active audience participation. Silvia

Silvia Stein ..... Silvia, we have an array of tools techniques and recent AI to suggest what the shape fragments might form. Adding our evidence (more or less our current best guesses) of the local culture’s ability to form tools and objects can inform their use. But there’s another factor that comes into the discussion. Its all to easy to look upon the artifacts of the past and impose our own ideas and values on them. For example; we’re often quick to suggest what is art, a religious object or a utilitarian object. Along with the intelligence of ancient people. Our ideas of neanderthal, prehistoric and of ancient people’s lives and cultures change as our tools and insights into the past evolve. I suggest you define “actual function” in this context as well as our tendency to add our values to past civilizations. One last thought; leave room for the possibility that ancient people, like us, make things with no regard for function, that is, they had fun doing it,

Silvia, the linked articles are an example of how we change how descriptions of ancient artifacts and human remains. Our past assumptions were correct. But we need to remember to understand the limits of our analytic tools as a current but not not final version of the past. As described below:

Quote: With DNA, Pompeii Narratives Take a Twist

Quote___ Narratives were spun around the more evocative casts: a group consisting of a child and two adults, one of whom wore wrist jewelry and whose lap held a youngster, became known as the Family of the House of the Golden Bracelet, while a pair of bodies locked in what appeared to be a poignant embrace were famously named the Two Maidens.

Now, genomic testing on skeletal remains embedded in the casts has challenged both interpretations. As reported Thursday in the journal Current Biology, the DNA evidence shows that the identities and relationships of the deceased do not match the longstanding assumptions, which had largely been based on physical appearance, the positioning of the casts and romantic notions promoted by literature and Hollywood films.___Unquote

A)__ Link to Journal of Current Biology

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(24)01361-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982224013617%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

B)__ Link (share) to New York Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/science/archaeology-dna-pompeii.html?smid=url-share