14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
Ancient repairs: techniques and social meaning
Renske Dooijes and Olivier P. Nieuwenhuyse
Objects have a life – the cultural biography
of objects
The concept of a cultural biography of objects refers to
the insight among archaeologists and cultural anthropologists
that they, in a way, have ‘social lives’. That is,
pottery vessels are not just ‘tools’ with a particular function,
they are also invested with social and symbolic
meaning1
. Moreover, their social, symbolic and economic
meaning is not static. It changes as the object moves
from one context of use to another in the course of its life.
In each new context, different groups of people move
into new relationships with each other and with the
object, thereby giving it a new meaning2
.
The notion of a cultural biography of objects was
introduced into archaeology by Igor Kopytoff to refer
to the often complex life histories of objects. Where,
when and how had an object been made? How was it
used? Which role did it play in society? What was
the value and meaning of the object during the various
stages of its life? Reconstructing the cultural biography
of an object may provide important insights into
past societies and about technical know-how in anti-
quity.
We may distinguish different stages within the object’s
cultural biography. This starts with the stage of production,
in this case in the pottery workshop. Then
life begins, during which various things happen to the
object. Archaeologists can often reconstruct the distribution,
consumption, circulation, exchange, and eventual
discarding of the object. However, as we all know, an
object’s useful life does not always end with discarding.
The object may be curated and brought into circulation
again, or it may be excavated by the archaeologist, after
which a whole new life cycle begins. To begin with, we
may draw an analytical distinction between the cultural
transformations and the physical transformations of an
object3
.
Cultural transformations refer to what we may call
changes in context. During its life span, archaeologists
distinguish four main stages for an object: production,
distribution, consumption and discarding. Greek (Attic)
vases found in Etruscan burials are a good example of
ceramic vessels changing context and hence socio-sym-
Introduction
At most archaeological excavations the biggest part of
the find assemblage consists of pottery sherds, preserved
owing to their extraordinary durability. The ceramics,
either fragments or complete objects, were lost or discarded
by their original owners and were buried to eventually
become part of the archaeological soil matrix.
Since the birth of scientific archaeology, archaeologists
have emphasized the investigation of pottery fabrics,
techniques and styles. More recently, the study of pottery
function and use, and the reconstruction of the social
and symbolic context of pottery, have come to the fore.
As the symposium ‘Konservieren oder Restaurieren’ testifies,
restorers and archaeologists have become increasingly
interested in ancient repairs. We study the technical
aspects of ancient repairs – what techniques and materials
were used? – but we have also become more and more
aware of the cultural and historical context in which
repairs were made.
When trying to reconstruct the complex biography of
ceramic objects, ancient repairs may play an important
role. Through time people have always repaired ceramic
objects. In this paper we argue that ancient repairs can
tell us something about the cultural values attached to an
object and the social role it played in the past. Ancient
repairs can tell us something not just about how the
object functioned, but also about its owner’s social identity
and status. Importantly, repairs make it possible
to investigate changes in the social meaning of an object.
Below, we discuss the notion of the cultural biography
of objects. One can argue that this concept may provide
a useful tool to explore changes in function and social
use of ceramic objects such as pottery. We shall present a
typology of archaeological pottery repairs, an essential
building block for any further investigation. There will
then be an examination of ancient pottery repairs from
excavated archaeological contexts, and an exploration as
to how they may help us gaining insight in the social role
and value of these objects.
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 17umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 17 18.10.2007 06:08:0118.10.2007 06:08:01
14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
18
bolic meaning. We know that the objects were made in
Greece; their find context tells us about changes in their
distribution and value. Likewise, the histories of contemporary
collections in archaeological museums give contextual
information about changes in distribution and
value of ancient objects taking place at the modern end of
those objects’ cultural biographies.
On the other hand, there are all sorts of physical transformations,
actual physical mutations of the object. For
example, traces left by the production process, erosion,
use traces, graffiti, breakage and, of course, repairs both
modern and ancient. These physical transformations
can all give crucial information about the cultural transformations
that happened to the object, about the way
the object was used, and about the change of its value
through time. Whereas conclusions concerning cultural
transformations with respect to context, distribution and
use often remain hypothetical, ancient repairs and other
physical transformations give a physical proof of certain
actions carried out on the object during its lifetime. An
ancient repair ‘marks’ it. These ‘marks’ can tell us about
the society in which the object played a part, about technical
knowledge at the time, but also about systems of
value and ethical and aesthetical perspectives in the past.
Physical transformations during its life therefore merit
careful consideration.
A typology of ancient repairs
It would not be an exaggeration to say that ancient
repairs as a topic for inquiry have been severely neglected
by archaeologists. This is somewhat surprising considering
the heavy emphasis on detailed material studies.
Repairs are generally ignored in archaeological find
reports, perhaps simply because they are deemed to be
so self-evident that they hardly need further exploration.
As a rule, archaeologists rarely make explicit mention
of the presence of repairs, if at all4
. That the objects were
occasionally repaired only comes to light from the illustrated
examples, and then only if the scholar made the
decision to show the actual remaining sherds in the
drawing, instead of reconstructed ‘complete’ shapes. If
repairs are mentioned at all, this is not usually done
systematically or in a statistically reliable manner5
. Thus
it is impossible to find out how representative the illustrated
repairs are, whether or not they were the only
types of repairs found, with what particular types of
objects specific types of repairs are associated, and so on.
In order to move forward, it is essential to start building
a clear typology of ancient repairs, as a crucial first
step for discussing the cultural biographies of objects.
This field of research has only just started. Restorers and
archaeologists alike have begun to realize the need for a
systematic collection of information on this topic6
. The
typology to be presented here is offered as a starting
point, to be elaborated upon in future research through
interdisciplinary work by restorers and archaeologists.
This typology primarily originates from a study of
ancient repairs on Greek ceramics, mainly from the Classical
Period7
. We have added a few examples from Near
Eastern prehistory. Some of the techniques discussed
here seem to be universal and can be found in any archaeological
collection of ceramics. Although a more extended
discussion of ancient pottery repairs would be beyond
the scope of this paper, we would like to point to a few
interesting examples: the bitumen-repairs from the Jebel
Aruda excavations on the Syrian Euphrates, dated to the
so-called Uruk period ca. 3200 B.C.8
, and the repairs to
mass-produced bowls using lime/gypsum in the Late
Bronze Age of the Near East9
.
Let us now take a look at three main groups of ClassicalPeriod
pottery repairs10
:
– drilling holes;
– the use of metal staples;
– the use of alien fragments;
The earliest repairs: drilling holes
The earliest repairs found on pottery vessels are based
on a simple principle. Holes are drilled along the
breakages, probably using a flint or obsidian tool. The
sherds are then tied together by stringing leather, rope
or another organic material through the holes (fig. 1).
In later periods people also used metal wire. We can
find examples of this technique as early as in the Neolithic
period when ceramics were first introduced. In
Greece this type of repair is found with sixth-millennium
ceramics from the Franchthi-cave (Southern Argolis,
Greece)11
. However, the technique is certainly not
limited to Greece. Painted Late Neolithic vessels from
Late Neolithic Syria, dated to about 6000 B. C., show the
technique very clearly (fig. 2).
Metal staples
From the moment people started to use metals, in
Greece from the Early Bronze Age onwards (c. 3000
B. C.), various types of staples were used to repair
pottery. The ‘Type A’ metal-staple technique was very
often used to repair ceramics. This technique resembles
the one described above. Here as well, holes were
drilled along the breakages of the fragments that had to
be reassembled. Then, instead of a piece of string, a
metal staple was put in place, usually made of bronze
or lead (fig. 3). Figure 4 shows an example of Type A
metal staples on fragments of a black glazed amphora
from Geraki, Greece, dating from the 4th–3rd Century
B. C.12
.
Renske Dooijes and Oliver P. Nieuwenhuyse
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 18umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 18 18.10.2007 06:08:0118.10.2007 06:08:01
14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
19
The ‘Type B’ metal-staple repair differs from Type A
because of the groove that was carved into the sherd,
between the opposite holes. A metal staple was set into
this groove, which kept the staple neatly in place (fig. 5).
As far as we can presently gauge, this type of staple was
always made of lead. It seems very likely that liquid lead
was poured into the groove, thus creating the staple in
situ. The technique can be seen very clearly on a red
figured crater from the collection of The Louvre, dating
to 510-500 B. C. (color pl. 1).
The ‘Type C’ staple repair, finally, consisted of a metal
strip made of iron or bronze, with small nails attached to
it at both sides. This type of staple did not go completely
through the sherd. It seems likely that the small nails
were ‘hammered’ in place (fig. 6). An interesting example
of this technique can be seen on a red figured crater
from the collection of The Louvre dating to 440–430
B. C. (color pl. 2).
The use of ‘alien’ fragments
Perhaps the most intriguing type of repair is where the
ancient restorer made use of a fragment of pottery that
Fig. 1 Representation of the earliest type of repair: drilling holes
and tying the sherds together using rope or leather.
Fig. 3 Representation of ‘Type A’ metal-staple technique.
Fig. 2 Fragment of a painted vessel from Late Neolithic Syria
(6000 B. C.), showing drilled holes along the breakages,
Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities, excavations at
Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria.
Fig. 4 Fragments of a black glazed amphora (4th–3rd century
B. C.) showing ‘Type A’ staples still in place, University of
Amsterdam excavations at Geraki, Greece.
ANCIENT REPAIRS: TECHNIQUES AND SOCIAL MEANING
Fig. 5 Representation of ‘Type B’ metal-staple technique. Fig. 6 Representation of ‘Type C’ metal-staple technique.
•••Abb.3und5sindidentisch•••
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 19umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 19 18.10.2007 06:08:0118.10.2007 06:08:01
14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
20
did not belong to the object itself. The ‘alien’ part was cut
to size, and fastened into, or onto, the gap. A famous
example is the black-figured neck amphora from the
Bareiss painter, dated to 530-520 B.C., from the collection
of the J. P. Getty Museum. This amphora was
repaired in antiquity with the upper neck and mouth of
another amphora of about the same dimensions. Type B
bronze staples made from lead were set in carved grooves
and joined the two parts (color pl. 3).
Case studies
Having pointed out the main techniques for repairing
pottery in Classical Greece, we will now briefly explore
some case studies, showing how investigation of ancient
repairs can teach us something about the value an object
had in the past.
Case study A: a red figured crater from the collection
of the Louvre
It seems that during the Greek Classical Period, restorers
sometimes tried to make their repairs as aesthetically
pleasing as possible. The red figured crater discussed
above (color pl.1), repaired with Type B metal
staples, shows an example of this preference. It can be
clearly seen that the staples were placed in the dark
parts of the sherds as far as possible. By using Type B
staples, made of lead, the repair was made as invisible as
possible. Significantly, the lead staples would in time
darken through a natural patina. Further, the grooves
would in theory allow the repair to be filled-in, obscuring
it even further, using some kind of filling material
on top of the staple. Admittedly, no traces have been
found of this possible filling, although it is likely that it
existed.
Case study B: a neck amphora from the collection
of the J. P. Getty Museum
Making a repair ‘invisible’ means that the ancient restorer
strove to bring the object back to its original state as far
as possible. This expresses a desire to regain the aesthetic
qualities of the complete, undamaged object. The neck
amphora from the Bareiss Painter (color pl.3) shows
this kind of aesthetic principle. As we modern restorers
would say today, the vase was restored instead of
repaired. Whereas repairs to an object are mostly functional,
restoration is usually associated with notions of
value, authenticity and exclusivity of an object. Investigating
the techniques that were chosen to restore pottery
in antiquity allows to tentatively reconstruct the value
of the object in this stage of its history. These repairs
tell us about ethical and aesthetic choices made by
people in antiquity. In the two examples discussed above,
visual aesthetics and ideas of authenticity were apparently
deemed important. Could this have been a conscious
strategy to preserve, or enhance, the social-symbolic
value of the original, intact object and possibly the
status or social identity of the owner? In this case it may
be suggested that a visible restoration would have conflicted
with the aim of extending the social life of the
object. Interestingly, the ‘new’ neck of the amphora was
taken from a vase about 20 years younger in age13
. The
alien fragment would therefore give us the terminus
postquam for the dating of the ancient repair.
Case study C: a storage jar from Geraki
When scholars describe ancient restorations, they usually
take it for granted that the object had value. Just
because it was restored, it must have symbolized status
and prestige in the past; and vice versa, its symbolic
value must have constituted the main reason for the
repair. Indeed, one may argue for a special, elevated
status for the two examples discussed above. However,
we must keep in mind that there are different types of
value; for instance economic, religious, personal (familyrelated)
and aesthetic value. Can a repair give an insight
into the kind of value involved? A nice example of
what appears to be a purely functional repair may be
seen on a pithos found recently at Geraki, Greece (fig.7).
In this case the damaged base was repaired by filling
it with lead. In this particular example the restorer
does not seem to have aimed at making the repair invisible.
This was a large, plain storage vessel. It could be
argued that the object had a mainly utilitarian value, and
that the aesthetic principles alluded to above did not
apply. Even with a visible repair the vessel could continue
its service life, probably with the same function as
before.
The identity of the ancient restorer
A final issue we briefly touch upon concerns the identity
of the ancient restorer. Who restored and repaired
Fig. 7 Section of a pithos (4th–3rd century B. C.), showing a lead
plug in the damaged base. University of Amsterdam excavations
at Geraki, Greece.
Renske Dooijes and Oliver P. Nieuwenhuyse
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 20umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 20 18.10.2007 06:08:0518.10.2007 06:08:05
14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
21
ceramics, and where did this work take place? The earliest
type of repair using string and simple perforations
could easily have been carried out in or around the home
and fits a domestic mode of production. As soon as
metal staples come into the picture, we may assume that
the repairs were made in a specialized metal workplace.
Only in the specialist workshop sufficiently high temperatures
could be created to work the metal staples. In
the light of the vast scale of pottery production in Classical
Greece, a central place where such repairs were carried
out sounds logical.
Concluding remarks
To conclude, we once again emphasize the importance
of studying ancient repairs in a systematic manner.
Archaeologists and museums alike have neglected the
different aspects of ancient repairs, their technology and
their potential for reconstructing aspects of the cultural
biography of objects. We are still poorly informed
about the frequency of repairs in archaeological contexts,
as well as in museum collections. Most examples
we have now seen are from museum collections
and therefore may reflect modern collection policies
rather than past practices. We simply cannot know
precisely how representative these collections really are.
To be able to give answers to the many questions
referred to in this paper, we must have more information
from carefully excavated archaeological contexts. Furthermore,
pottery restorations should no longer be
treated as a haphazard by-product of archaeological
find processing and publication. As this conference testifies,
they merit careful consideration in their own
right.
Past stages in the object’s cultural biography are just
as important as the biography we can reconstruct for
its more recent history. In fact, it is difficult to define
a clear dividing-line between the past and the present, as
is shown by the growing interest in the cultural meanings,
and changes therein, of the 19th
century repairs to
Greek ceramics found in most museum collections14
. The
very same considerations that apply to ancient repairs
also apply to more recent ones: they provide insight into
aesthetic choices, changing cultural values, and cultural
choices. In the past, restorers tended to remove ancient
repairs or fill them in, and retouch the grooves and holes
in the sherds. By doing so, they removed part of the cultural
biography of the object, and at the same time added
a new stage. Today this is no longer common practice,
and ancient repairs are increasingly left untouched, thereby
giving new, contemporary meaning to these earlier
stages in the object’s biography.
In this field, interdisciplinary cooperation is crucial. This
paper therefore urges museums, restorers and those who
participate in archaeological excavation projects to join
hands and focus more closely on ancient repairs. Restorers
can do much more than mere conservation work in
a museum. By carefully studying the ancient repairs
they find, they can actively contribute to archaeological
and culture-historical debates. Repairs, either ancient or
modern, are not the end but the beginning of a new stage
in the biography of the object, in the present museum
context as well as in the past.
PHOTO CREDITS
Fig. 1. 3. 5. 6. Drawing by E. M. Dooijes-Hoogwijk.
Fig. 2 Courtesy of Dr P. M. M. G. Akkermans, photo by O. P. Nieu-
wenhuyse.
Fig. 4. 7 Courtesy of Dr J. H. Crouwel, photo by R. Dooijes.
Color pl. 1 Courtesy of Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Color pl. 2 Courtesy of Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Pierrick
Jan.
Color pl. 3 The J. Paul Getty Museum, Villa Collection, Malibu,
California.
NOTE
1 D. P. Braun, Pots as tools, in: J. A. Moore – A. S. Keene (eds.),
Archaeological Hammers and Theories (New York 1983)
108–134.
2 I. Kopytoff, The cultural biography of things: commodization
as process, in: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of
Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge 1986)
64–94.
3 With this terminology we follow very loosely the American
archaeologist Michael Schiffer (M. B. Schiffer, Formation Processes
of the Archaeological Record (Albuquerque 1987), without
subscribing to the processual mode of archaeological rea-
soning.
4 For instance, the key words ‘repair’ and ‘restoration’ are not
included in the index of some major text books on pottery
for archaeologists, e. g. W. K. Barnett – J. W. Hoopes (eds.),
The Emergence of Pottery (Washington 1995); C. Orton –
P. Tyers – A. Vince, Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge 1993);
F. R. Matson, Ceramics and Man (Chicago 1965).
5 But see J. Chapman – B. Gaydarska, Parts and Wholes. Fragmentation
in Prehistoric Context (Oxford 2007).
6 See the various contributions to this conference. For archaeology,
Chapman – Gaydarska, cited at note 5, provides a
detailed review and stimulating discussion. Two studies that
include a systematic discussion of archaeological repairs from
the Near East are O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, Plain and painted Pottery,
PALMA III (Turnhout 2007), and K. Duistermaat, The
Pots and Potters of Assyria – Technology and Organization of
Production, Ceramic Sequence, and Vessel Function at Late
Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, PALMA IV (Turnhout, in
press).
7 R. Dooijes, Antieke reparaties, technieken toegepast op marmer,
brons en aardewerk (Ancient repairs, techniques applied to
marble, bronze and ceramics), MA thesis in Classical Archaeology,
University of Amsterdam (Amsterdam 2000).
8 R. Dooijes – O. P. Nieuwenhuyse (in prep.), Ancient pottery
repairs from the Jebel Aruda.
9 Duistermaat, cited at note 6.
ANCIENT REPAIRS: TECHNIQUES AND SOCIAL MEANING
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 21umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 21 18.10.2007 06:08:0518.10.2007 06:08:05
14014806_beck_cva_beihefte_III inddCS2 se
22
10 The typological designations are after Dooijes, cited at
note 7.
11 K. Vitelli, Franchthi Neolithic Pottery, Vol. 1, Classification
and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2, in: T. W. Jacobsen (ed.), Excavations
at Franchthi Cave, Greece, 8 (Bloomington 1993).
12 Courtesy of Dr J. H. Crouwel, director of the University of
Amsterdam excavations at Geraki, Greece.
13 M. B. Moore – D. Von Bothmer, A neck-Amphora in the Collection
of Walter Bareiss, AJA 76, 1976, 1–11.
14 See the various other contributions to this volume.
Renske Dooijes and Oliver P. Nieuwenhuyse
umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 22umb_cva_beihefte_III.indd 22 18.10.2007 06:08:0518.10.2007 06:08:05