Church Floor Artifact: Difference between revisions
ChurchesB12 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
ChurchesB12 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Tombs=== | ===Tombs=== | ||
A tomb, or ''tomba'', is the most common form of floor artifact. These tombs mark the location of an actual burial at one point in time. Due to health concerns and flooding, the body may have been moved | A tomb, or ''tomba'', is the most common form of floor artifact. These tombs mark the location of an actual burial at one point in time. Due to health concerns and flooding, the body may have been moved and may no longer be in the Church. A tomb marker may be either a large rectangle or small square, depending on the type of burial and the wealth of the family. Both types can be seen below. | ||
<gallery> | <gallery> | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
==Condition Evalutation== | ==Condition Evalutation== | ||
In order to create a ranked list of | In order to create a ranked list of artifact damage, an equation that takes into account the five different types of damage assessed by past WPI projects was created. The types of damage are fading and wear, text readability, cracks, holes and joint gaps. <ref>Gagnon, David Thompson, Kelly, Ruscitti, Eric. ''Embedded Heritage: A Study of Venetian Church Floors.'' An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2005. </ref> The equation was developed through experimentation with different weights in the equation so that could be seen visually (such as surface damage and text wear) could be expressed numerically. After using the following equation to standardize the rankings assigned to each artifact, the conditions were divided into five categories of damage. | ||
(.25)(Fading and Wear) + (.25)(Readability) + (.20)(Cracks) + (.05)(Holes) + (.20)(Joint Gaps) | (.25)(Fading and Wear) + (.25)(Readability) + (.20)(Cracks) + (.05)(Holes) + (.20)(Joint Gaps) | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
'''Low Damage''': The artifact has very little damage on its surface. The text is nearly flawless adn only minimal efforts would need to be made in order to maintain the artifact. | '''Low Damage''': The artifact has very little damage on its surface. The text is nearly flawless adn only minimal efforts would need to be made in order to maintain the artifact. | ||
'''Minimal Damage''': The artifact has hardly any damage, all the text and | '''Minimal Damage''': The artifact has hardly any damage, all the text and artwork is readable. At this time, there is no need for preservation.<ref>Dechaine, Danielle, Hennessey, Meghan, Orszulak, Jeffrey, Rullmann, Kevin. ''Treasures Underfoot: Preserving Venice's Church Floor Artifacts.'' An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2012.</ref> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
For a complete list of Churches in Venice, see [[Churches]]. For statistics on these foor artifacts found in the | For a complete list of Churches in Venice, see [[Churches]]. For statistics on these foor artifacts found in the churches of Venice, see [[Church Floor Artifacts]]. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 15:42, 21 December 2012
This article contains information on a typical Church Floor Artifact.
For a list of Churches, see Churches. For a more information on the artifacts, see Church Floor Artifacts.
 | |
| Total Number of Artifacts | 2221 |
|---|---|
Classification
Tombs
A tomb, or tomba, is the most common form of floor artifact. These tombs mark the location of an actual burial at one point in time. Due to health concerns and flooding, the body may have been moved and may no longer be in the Church. A tomb marker may be either a large rectangle or small square, depending on the type of burial and the wealth of the family. Both types can be seen below.
-
A rectanguar tomb -
A smallet tomb marker
Plaques
A plaque, or placca, is the second type of artifact. A plaque has an inscription, but is not a tomb. They often represent years of constuction/restoration or prominet contributers. More importantly, they do not mark the final resting place of someone. Plaques are less common than tombs and are often smaller. An example can be seen here.
Condition Evalutation
In order to create a ranked list of artifact damage, an equation that takes into account the five different types of damage assessed by past WPI projects was created. The types of damage are fading and wear, text readability, cracks, holes and joint gaps. [1] The equation was developed through experimentation with different weights in the equation so that could be seen visually (such as surface damage and text wear) could be expressed numerically. After using the following equation to standardize the rankings assigned to each artifact, the conditions were divided into five categories of damage.
(.25)(Fading and Wear) + (.25)(Readability) + (.20)(Cracks) + (.05)(Holes) + (.20)(Joint Gaps)
The five catagories of damage are as follows:
Excessive Damage: The artifact is too far degraded that no more information would be saved if the artifact were to undergo restoration.
High Damage: The artifact is in need of preservation in order to maintain the image or text visable on the artifact. The text is still readiable, but is in danger of being worn away to an extentent that would lose all information on it.
Intermediate Damage: The artifact has sustained some damage in any of the mentioned types of damage, but is still mostly readable. Preservation could occur, but the artifact is not yet in critical condition.
Low Damage: The artifact has very little damage on its surface. The text is nearly flawless adn only minimal efforts would need to be made in order to maintain the artifact.
Minimal Damage: The artifact has hardly any damage, all the text and artwork is readable. At this time, there is no need for preservation.[2]
See Also
For a complete list of Churches in Venice, see Churches. For statistics on these foor artifacts found in the churches of Venice, see Church Floor Artifacts.
References
- ↑ Gagnon, David Thompson, Kelly, Ruscitti, Eric. Embedded Heritage: A Study of Venetian Church Floors. An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2005.
- ↑ Dechaine, Danielle, Hennessey, Meghan, Orszulak, Jeffrey, Rullmann, Kevin. Treasures Underfoot: Preserving Venice's Church Floor Artifacts. An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2012.
Bibliography
S. Hoey, M. Kahan, P Marchetti, K Mazza. Convents, Palaces and Churches: Transformation of Historic Buildings and the Impact on Venice’s Neighborhoods. An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2003.
Santos,Luiz G., Petrowski,Craig Peter, Kristant,Elaine Hazel, Delaive,Amanda Leigh. The Church Floors in Venice, Italy -- an Archeological Study and Analysis. An Interactive Qualifying Project for Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 2002.
External Links
None