Getting to the point: making, wayfaring, loss and memory as meaning-making in virtual archaeology
Keywords:virtual archaeology, digital archaeology, 3D modelling, making, wayfaring, agency
AbstractThe initial construction of a digital virtual object is the three-dimensional (3D)point. Using the notions of making, wayfaring, meshwork and agency, this discussion focuses on Ingold’s (2011) theoretical approach to these comments as a means for the construction of archaeological knowledge as applied to the 3D virtual landscape. It will demonstrate that 3D points, whether constructed or captured, can be considered to be agents within an actor network, have agency and are subject to memory and loss within the digital archaeological record. By their interconnections they become a mesh work that can exchange and retain unique attributes of materiality. As such, they challenge our notions of meaning-making beyond the rote actions of visualizing within archaeology to a form that is more theoretically deeper. By viewing the construction and capture and the production of 3D or 2D visual data through a different lens but within theoretical archaeological terms, we can begin to understand our role in the creation of meaning within virtual archaeology.
Beale, G.,& Reilly, P.(2015). Additive archaeology: the spirit of virtual archaeology reprinted. In C. Papadopoulos, E. Paliou, A. Chrysanthi, E. Kotoula, & A. Sarris (Eds.),Archaeological research in the digital age. Proceedings of the 1st conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology Greek chapter (CAA-GR), 6–8 March 2014 Rethymno, Crete(pp.120–128). Rethymno: Institute for Mediterranean Studies –Foundation of Research and Technology (IMS-Forth).
Belozerskaya, M. (2009).To Wake the Dead: A Renaissance Merchant and the Birth of Archaeology. New York: W.W.Norton & Company, Inc.
Carrillo Gea, J., Toval, A., Fernández Alemán, J., Nicolás, J., & Flores, M. (2013). The London Charter and the Seville Principles as sources of requirements for e-archaeology systems development purposes. Virtual Archaeology Review, 4(9),205–211.http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2013.4275
Denard, H.(2012).A new introduction to the London Charter.In A. Bentkowska-Kafel, H. Denard, &D. Baker, (Eds.),Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities Series (Ashgate, 2012)(pp. 57–71).New York, USA: Routledge.
Forte, M. (2011).Cyber-archaeology: notes on the simulation of the past. Virtual Archaeology Review, 2(4),7–18.http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2011.4543
Frischer, B.(2011).Art and science in the age of digital reproduction: from mimetic representation to interactive virtual reality. Virtual Archaeology Review, 2(4), 19–32.http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2011.4544
Gosden, C. (2005).What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12(3), 193–211.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-005-6928-x
Huggett, J. (2012).What lies beneath: lifting the lid on archaeological computing. In A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrietta, Flores, &C. Papadopoulos (Eds.),Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretative Process(pp. 204–214).Oxford: Archeopress.
Huggett, J. (2015).Manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology. Open Archaeology, 1(1), 86–95.http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0002
Ingold, T. (2007).Materials Against Materiality. Archeological Dialogues, 14(1),1–16.
Ingold, T. (2011).Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2013).Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Knappett, L. (2008).The neglected networks of material agency: artefacts, pictures and texts. Material Agency: towards anon-anthropocentric approach. Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_8
Latour, B.(2005).Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. Vol.1. Oxford University Press.
Moshenska, G. (2009).Resonant materiality and violent remembering: archaeology, memory and bombing. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(1),44–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250902746062
Pletinckx, D. (2011). Virtual archaeology as an integrated preservation method. Virtual Archaeology Review, 2(4), 33–37.http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/var.2011.4545
Reilly, P. (1985).Computers in field archaeology: agents of change? Current Issues in Archaeological Computing, 271, 63–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3724.4322
Reilly, P.(2015).Additive archaeology: an alternative framework for recontextualising archaeological entities. Open Archaeology, 1(1), 225–235.http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0013
Spector, J. (1993).What this Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society Press.
Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, L. (2010).Remembering and forgetting: The relationship between memory and the abandonment of graves in nineteenth-and twentieth-century Greek cemeteries. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 14(2),285–301.
Watts, C.(2009).Coming to our Senses: Toward a Unified Perception of the Iroquoian Longhouse. In J. Thomas and V. Jorge (Eds.),Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-Modern Context(pp. 209–224). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wylie, A. (2002).Thinking from Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. London, UK: Univ.of California Press, Ltd.
How to Cite
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.