Visualisation in Archaeology 2008 Workshop

PROGRAMME VISUALISATION

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 23-24 OCTOBER 2008

V

iA

PROGRAMME

VISUALISATION

Wednesday 22 October 2008 Evening meal

Friday 24 October 2008 08.00 – 09.00 Registration and coffee 09.00 -- 10.30 Session Three Refreshments 11.00 – 12.30 Session Three 12.00 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 – 15.30 Session Four Refreshments 16.00 – 17.30 Session Four

Organising Committee Professor Stephanie Moser, University of Southampton Dr Simon James, University of Leicester Professor Sam Smiles, University of Plymouth Professor Steve Woolgar, Said Business School, University of Oxford Garry Gibbons, University of Southampton Sara Perry, University of Southampton

Visualisation in Archaeology funded by English Heritage under the HEEP scheme

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 23-24 OCTOBER 2008 ww w .vi ar c h.o r g.u k

Thursday 23 October 2008 08.00 -- 09.00 Registration and coffee 09.00 Opening Address: Professor Stephanie Moser 09.15 -- 10.30 Session One Refreshments 11.00 – 12.30 Session One 12.00 – 14.00 Lunch 14.00 – 15.30 Session Two Refreshments 16.00 – 17.30 Session Two 19.00 Evening meal

V

iA

SESSIONS & PAPERS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Session One

Session Two

Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

Sara Perry University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Capitalising on the Conventional: Experimenting with New Possibilities for “Old” Archaeological Visual Media

Megan Price Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Victorian Lanternslides: A Megalith at Avebury by H.M.J. Underhill

Chair: Professor Stephanie Moser

Professor Jarl Nordbladh Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden Images in Archaeology: The Will to Present and the Fancy for Sights.

Colleen Morgan University of California, Berkeley, California, USA Anna’s Shoulders: Visualization and Ekphrasic Narrative at Çatalhöyük, 1961-2008 Trevor Pearson English Heritage, York, UK ’The richest historical record we possess’: Challenges in Representing Archaeological Landscapes Joana Isabel Alves Ferreira University of Porto, Portugal Unpacking the Neolithic Package

Chair: Professor Sam Smiles

Judith Dobie English Heritage, Portsmouth, UK A Matter of Style: The Development of Conventions in Archaeological Illustration Nathan Schlanger Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (INRAP), Paris, France Drafting Continuums: Artefacts and Narratives of Progress in Pitt Rivers and Leroi-Gourhan Mirjam Brusius, M.A. Darwin College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK A Science “not yet ripe enough”: William Henry Fox Talbot’s Early Attempts to Advance Photography in Archaeology Stefanie Klamm, M.A. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany From Digging to Imaging: Practices of Visualisation in 19th Century German Excavations Deborah Harlan University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Institutionalizing Images

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

SESSIONS & PAPERS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Session Three

Session Four

Chair: Professor Steve Woolgar

Chair: Dr Simon James

How does Visualisation Communicate?

Professor Sheila Bonde Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA Professor Clark Maines Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, USA Re-presenting the Medieval Monastery Carl Smith Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, London, UK The Physical World as a Virtual Interface: Enhancing Access to the Units of Construction in Archaeological Data Sets Dr. Timothy Webmoor Metamedia Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA What Work Does the Visual Do? From Archaeological Representation to Mediation Stuart Dunn Centre for e-Research, King’s College, London, UK Helen Bailey University of Bedfordshire, UK Choreographing the Past: Interdisciplinary Crossovers between 3D Methods in Dance and Archaeology Dr Alistair Jones University of Southampton, UK Absurdity and Archaeology: Subverting the Visualisation of the Past

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Seeing a way Forward?

Professor Frederick N. Bohrer Hood College, Frederick, Maryland, USA Photography in Archaeology: The Problematics of Productivity Dr. Aaron Watson Monumental, UK Visions of the Past: Creative Image-making and Archaeology Camilla Bjarnö Moesgård Museum, Århus, Denmark Playing with the Past: Neolithic Online Games on the Internet Matthew Coller Monash University, Melbourne, Australia SahulTime: Rethinking Archaeological Representation in the Digital Age Nigel Nayling University of Wales Lampeter, UK ShipShape: Solid Modelling and Visualisation of the Newport Medieval Ship from 3D Digital Record

VISUALISATION

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP SESSION ONE

V

iA

Session One Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Capitalising on the Conventional: Experimenting with New Possibilities for “Old” Archaeological Visual Media

Sara Perry University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

With a growing number of archaeologists turning to new media technologies to grapple with the challenges of contemporary archaeological interpretation and audience engagement, it is now imperative that we return our attention to the potentials of traditional photographic and pen-and-paper-based media to similarly—if not more successfully—negotiate such challenges. Arguably, nearly forty years of critical visual analysis in the sciences and social sciences have been less effective at meaningfully reworking conventional forms of representation than at instigating a search for alternative means of communication. I question practitioners’ neglect of the possibilities of typical two-dimensional archaeological images, and aim to articulate a visual approach that not only capitalises on the critical affordances of traditional media, but “enskills” (after Ingold 2000) archaeologists in their application.

Drawing upon the methods of various playwrights, artists, archaeologists, visual and cultural theorists and culture jammers, along with the insights of symmetrical archaeology, this paper experiments with the manipulation of various 2D visual forms to enable disruptive, critical readings of the archaeological record and its associated texts.

Using Shanks and Tilley’s (1992) Re-Constructing Archaeology and (1987) Social Theory and Archaeology as case study materials, I endeavour to show how such experimentation can highlight the genealogies, mediations and entanglements behind past and present humans and things. Ultimately, I argue that rethinking our engagements with “old” pictorial media is crucial to offering everyday archaeologists a low-tech and accessible means for consistently approaching images in reflective, visually-informed ways.

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1992. Re-Constructing Archaeology. 2nd ed.

London: Routledge.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session One Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Images in Archaeology: The Will to Present and the Fancy for Sights.

Professor Jarl Nordbladh Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

Visualisation has always been part of the communication of knowledge.

In archaeology there is to be found a combination of representation of material things and the formation of ideas and explanations, which often are a sort of final results, presentations and memorial images, which have a life and history of their own. These are archaeological products which deserve study. Hopefully an imaginative analysis could bring fore more fruitful understandings than the metaphor of “text”, used recently.

I would be interested in discussions of relations between archaeology and techniques involved in image presentations, based on their social uses. There seems to be - from the beginning of a more scientific community - a sort of “cleaning” of the archaeological discipline to erase the entertainment role of presentation.

Important steps in the development are the beginning of congress times, panoramas and dioramas, models and wax cabinets, but also industrial production and advertising.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session One Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Anna’s Shoulders: Visualization and Ekphrasic Narrative at Çatalhöyük, 1961-2008

Colleen Morgan University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

Visually documented for almost fifty years, Çatalhöyük has become lacquered by multiple layers of archaeological interpretive gaze. The images taken at Çatalhöyük provide an excellent test case to further a visual methodology for investigating scopic regimes within major theoretical and technological shifts in archaeology. Using a method of visual content analysis developed by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), I hope to illustrate these shifts as well as provide a more rigorous methodology for site photography. Additionally, I will discuss visual narrative building in the practice of interpretation and a possible way to illustrate this iterative and highly contextual process.

Kress, G. and T. Van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge: London.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session One Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 ‘The richest historical record we possess’: Challenges in Representing Archaeological Landscapes

Trevor Pearson English Heritage, York, UK

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

It was claimed by W.G. Hoskins in the 1950s that ‘the English landscape itself . . . is the richest historical record we possess’. Quite typically in any area that record can span every period from early prehistory to the Cold War and conveying that complexity as a clear and effective illustration poses particular challenges in visualisation. An image may have to meet the needs of the public using the landscape for recreation; the needs of curators tasked to manage change and the needs of archaeologists themselves seeking to explain the landscape setting of a particular site or monument. This paper will draw on the experience of the landscape investigation and archaeological graphics teams in English Heritage where traditional approaches to representing the landscape as a 2D image are deployed alongside the use of 3D models and GIS. The paper will consider the techniques of landscape visualisation in use by English Heritage and assess how these might change in the future.

Session One Where is Visualisation in Archaeology Today?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Unpacking the Neolithic Package

Joana Isabel Alves Ferreira University of Porto, Portugal

This paper intends to discuss several images that are intrinsically associated with the Neolithic as the “founding myth of Western society”, itself one of the major themes of prehistoric archaeology. Since Gordon Childe, traces of the past and their representations have been lined by a “deep” historical materialism which associates the Neolithic with the “Advent of Food Production”. It is our proposal to present a comparative study regarding the main lines of this investigation and, consequently, of its interpretations. This allows us to visualize a picture of great complexity characterized by an enormous diversity of rhythms involving the so called “processes and modalities of transition from early Holocene hunting and gathering to food production”.

In order to place this issue within the context of knowledge production, we intend to perform a comprehensive study of extant archaeological data from Portugal. This permits us to turn our attention to the resulting images of investigation, while at the same time glimpsing those that are only subtlety suggested through readings and interpretations of the archaeological data, or the absence thereof.

The starting point of our critical analysis is an investigation of the different theories adopted by various researchers in their study of several Portuguese regions. It is argued that the paradigms of Diffusionism and Indigenism serve to influence and constrain the visuality of the Neolithic. This is problematized as a certain “monolinguisme du discours” (following Derrida) which is associated with an inherent desire to search for the origins and definition of “The Other”. In fact, the literature still follows a certain grammar which obeys the binary logic of the Western philosophical tradition. What remains is the idyllic image of a very structured, ordinate and quickly comprehensible prehistory. As a corrective, this paper seeks to contribute to a critical reflection of the representativeness of the Neolithic.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

VISUALISATION

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP SESSION TWO

V

iA

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Victorian Lanternslides: A Megalith at Avebury by H.M.J. Underhill

Megan Price Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

A collection of hand painted lanternslides marked The Great Stone Circles of Britain was discovered recently in the basement of the Archaeology Institute at Oxford University. Tracing the biography of this collection revealed evidence for the way the visual image was used during the late nineteenth century to convey historic and scientific knowledge. The slides were the work of H.M.J.Underhill of Oxford (1855-1920), a ‘High Class Provision Merchant’ and amateur artist and lecturer who was a member of The Oxfordshire Natural History Society and Field Club. Here he was a regular lecturer to ‘town and gown’ on subjects ranging from microscopic creatures, Japanese art, folktales to the ancient British landscape.

His talk on the British landscape indicates the growing amateur and academic interest shown in British prehistory in the late nineteenth century; The Great Stone Circles of Britain, consists of over 40 handpainted magic lantern slides showing Stonehenge, Avebury, the Rollright Stones and Wayland’s Smithy.

Today these lanternslides are an exceptional example of the educational use of visual images in the late nineteenth century. Lanternslides provided more than superficial entertainment; evidence shows that for both academic and public lectures, they were the equivalent of today’s PowerPoint for disseminating intellectual information in front of a large audience.

The use of this visual material should be included in a history of the growth of scientific knowledge as it highlights the often-overlooked aspect of the magic lantern as an educational medium. Further studies would reveal a clearer picture of the extent to which it contributed to public education and the knowledge of the British past.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 A Matter of Style: The Development of Conventions in Archaeological Illustration

Judith Dobie English Heritage, Portsmouth, UK

The archaeological drawing office of The Department of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, part of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, was formed in 1964. During the 1960s and 70s it was at the forefront in developing many of the conventions for archaeological illustration that continue in use today. In particular, the drawing office set high standards in the illustration of artefacts with a distinctive set of styles and conventions that owed much to line engravings of the 19th century and the thinking of archaeologists such as Mortimer Wheeler who believed that illustrations should lead the text.

This paper will look at the thinking which lay behind the development of the drawing office conventions and how they came to be adopted more widely in the profession through a commitment by the drawing office to training. This paper therefore provides a case study on how drawing styles and conventions develop, how they spread and how they persist across the decades. Does the longevity of a style or convention necessarily mean that it is fit for purpose?

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Drafting Continuums: Artefacts and Narratives of Progress in Pitt Rivers and Leroi-Gourhan

Nathan Schlanger Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives (INRAP), Paris, France

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Pictorial representations of scientific objects differ from textual ones in several respects. Not only they illustrate, as if benign and readily accessible renditions of some deeper verbal meaning, they can also serve to compensate for some temporary loss for theoretical words, or cover up rhetorical blind spots by literally filling the page in their stead.

This is notably the case when visual representations are composed of individual items assembled and aligned into series, meant to convey in a perceptible way an incremental continuum which is actually very difficult to grasp and argue by other means of communication. This potential is manifest in proposed demonstrations of progress in prehistoric, Palaeolithic times throughout the 19th century and up to the middle of the 20th. Of the two examples I expand on, that of Pitt Rivers should be familiar, though there is scope to show what 'imaginative' techniques he used to draw and enlist artefacts to his preferred vision of progress. The case of André Leroi-Gourhan is less well known – not only because of linguistic limitations, but also because he has rarely been explicit about his own resources and practices. Access to archival material on Leroi-Gourhan's research's programmes in the 1930 to 1960 enables me to show some transformations of images from initial 'raw' sketches to 'polished' published plates, with a corresponding construction and even consolidation, through the images, of the theories.

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 A Science “not yet ripe enough”: William Henry Fox Talbot’s Early Attempts to Advance Photography in Archaeology

Mirjam Brusius Darwin College, University of Cambridge, UK

The two decades after 1830 seem to be the most productive years in the life of W. H. F. Talbot (1800-1877), universal scholar and inventor of photography. The period not only marks the moment of his first success in the field of photography but is also the link to Talbot’s successful scholarship beyond it. The paper aims to explore Talbot’s photographic achievements in connection to his significant scholarship in Archaeology, Classics and Assyriology, fields largely unexplored.

Only a few years after he had announced his photographic invention, Talbot suggested that the archaeologist Charles Fellows could use photography for his archaeological studies. Talbot considered photographic use on archaeological expeditions throughout Europe, advocated the photographing of Layard’s Assyrian cuneiform tablets in the British Museum, and verified advances in the particular area of archaeological photography. Thus, photography started to become an instrument of comparison and preservation for other scholars around Talbot and an institutional part of archaeology. While focusing on early photographic visualization of script and sculpture the paper wants to explore the fact that many archaeologists like Fellows hesitated to use photography in the first place and outline the advantage of the still wide-spread use of drawing, squeezes and other forms of visualization.

In phenomenological terms, photography and archaeology have some substantial characteristics in common. Both disciplines attempt to preserve fading objects. They keep them from falling into oblivion. Talbot offers an exceptional case study to show how the two disciplines have been closely linked to each other in practical terms, ever since photography was invented.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 From Digging to Imaging: Practices of Visualisation in 19th Century German Excavations

Stefanie Klamm, M.A. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany

In the mid-nineteenth century when classical archaeology began to emerge as an academic institution, also the new photographic technology recommended itself as a practicable means for the representation of scientific objects. However, other instruments of replication and reproduction were both proven and available at the same time; drawings, prints and plaster casts were used until the 20th century.

Obviously, the choice of and preference for certain illustrative techniques did not only depend on the status of the technical development but had specific epistemological reasons.

This paper is part of a research project that analyses the direct and indirect consequences of this ‘rivalry’ of media for the formation of knowledge in the archaeological discipline. On the basis of the German excavations in Greek Olympia and Asian Minor Pergamon in the late 19th century, it looks at the transformation of images as objects of inquiry in the different stages of the archaeological working-process, from the digging to the drawing and photography and finally the printed publication. Thus, the study takes into consideration different kinds of media applied, ranging from sketches in notebooks, diaries and official reports to actual drawings, photographs and master copies preserved.

An important point in the focus is the relationship between drawing and photography, thereby exploring the communication between scholars, draftsmen and photographers. Drawings have always been one of the main working instruments of archaeologists. Although photography was applied soon after its invention for archaeological purposes, drawings remained in use as well for a long time. The differences between drawings and photographs determined the argument about images in the discipline right from the beginning. This will also include the analysis of the specific styles of drawing, e.g. archaeological and architectural.

Understanding the historic uses of media is thus still relevant for contemporary discourse on visualising tools.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Two How did Visualisation in Archaeology Develop?

ABSTRACTS THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2008 Institutionalizing Images

Deborah Harlan University of Sheffield, UK

In the late 19th century, photographic and slide collections were being formed in a number of learned societies in Great Britain. The collections were primarily assembled from donations of images by members of those societies. These images were infinitely reproducible and made available for use by members – for study, publication, lecturing and teaching. I investigate examples of images of Aegean prehistory from the collections in the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the Royal Anthropological Institute. Both of these collections were formed in the last decade of the 19th century, shaped by the Oxford-based Aegean prehistorian, John Linton Myres.

There is a close relationship between the slide collections in these learned societies and University slide collections. This is particularly true of Oxford University, where a number of the same images can be found in the archaeology lanternslide teaching collection. Myres’ concept of prehistory was embedded within an anthropological framework and entailed the use of evidence “from physical breed, from language, from religious beliefs, from prehistoric remains, and from folk-memory” (Myres 1933). The images he used for teaching reflect this diverse body of evidence and make use of a range of imagery: pictures, hand-drawn graphs and charts, and maps.

The codification of image collections in learned societies and their use in university teaching reinforced a shared view of the discipline of archaeology at the turn of the 19th/20th century as shown in the case of Myres’ slides. However, these collections were not static and as ideas changed collections changed – new images added and older images depreciated. Slide collections are one aspect of the control intellectual communities had on the dissemination of archaeological knowledge and reflect the way in which the discipline evolved.

Myres, J. L. 1933. ‘The Cretan Labyrinth: A Retrospect of Aegean Research’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 63: 269-312.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

VISUALISATION

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP SESSION THREE

V

iA

Session Three How does Visualisation Communicate?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Monks, Time and Landscape: Visualizing Change in Monastic Archaeology

Professor Sheila Bonde Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA Professor Clark Maines Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, USA

Archaeologists and art historians have largely relied upon site plans and photographs to re-present the monasteries they study. These capture what scholars most want to communicate, typically providing static, extra-temporal views of buildings. Another standard in the representational repertoire has been the taxonomic comparison that emphasizes differences between monastic orders. Three aspects are generally omitted in these representations: the people, the larger landscape context, and the changes to both people and landscape across time.

Our paper will attempt to imagine the possibilities for future re-mediations of monastic representation. We use the term “re-mediation” advisedly, to signal not only the translation from stone and mortar to drawing, film or digital media, but also to remind ourselves at the outset of the deliberate and non-transparent changes wrought by representation.

The field of Digital Humanities has adopted the concept of ontology from philosophy to engage in what digital humanists call “Knowledge Representation.” Knowledge Representation encourages us to recognize the problematized fidelity between the representation and its referent, emphasizing rather than suppressing the ways in which representations are deliberately mediated surrogates.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

We will focus on work in progress at our research site, the Augustinian abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes in Soissons (France), and will engage with the challenges of representing time, people and space. “The” monastery was, in reality, many monasteries. That flux can be hard to represent. So hard, in fact, that we seldom attempt to represent change, choosing instead to show a “typical” or optimal moment—often thirteenth-century Gothic for medieval monasteries. We will examine the potential of phased plans and CAD reconstructions of both the monastic site and landscape for suggesting change. Using GIS (Geographic Information Systems), we will also explore strategies for mapping the landed domain of monastic properties owned by a house, as well as the larger social domain, including monks, servants and donors, as both domains shifted across time.

Session Three How does Visualisation Communicate?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 The Physical World as a Virtual Interface: Enhancing Access to the Units of Construction in Archaeological Data Sets

Carl Smith Learning Technology Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Architecture, Archaeology, Art History and Design are just some of the disciplines where dynamic access to their units of construction is essential. Distinct forms of knowledge can be detected at different scales of analysis. In order to discern the visual processes and distinct construction methodologies present in these subjects (to see across as opposed to from a particular fixed point of view), networks are required for increasing the range of the dialogue.

New visualisation methods are beginning to offer a whole new range of critical methods for the internal and external analysis of objects and texts. Audiences are now able to investigate networks of disparate objects in ways their original individual authors fundamentally could not.

Whereas printed media provide us with a single, static version of such knowledge, these new networks provide us with dynamic content which allows us to trace changes over time and space.

The key research issue is how to make models that answer questions. In order to contribute to current academic debate it is essential that the whole range of information that might be encountered in the objects’ lifecycle is communicated as an integral part of the product. The units and the process of construction must be imbedded into the history of the network.

An archaeological learning environment will be used to explore this question of whether more can be learnt about a specific building or style of architecture if that building or style is itself treated as an interface.

The subsequent process of data-mining hierarchies of evidence (intellectual transparency) in the quest for constituent parts, key narratives and evolutions of form, will also be explored.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Three How does Visualisation Communicate?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 What Work Does the Visual Do? From Archaeological Representation to Mediation

Dr. Timothy Webmoor Metamedia Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

Archaeology is traditionally thought of as a 'down and dirty' profession, done 'out there' in the field; archaeologists equally at home before a bookshelf or a mountain. Yet, for a set of closely related reasons (epistemological and ontological), it is especially beholden to technological desires. Why? By some accounts, bridging the gap of 'record' to generalization, technology, specifically the tried-and-true instruments of technoscience, assures the objectivity of 'second order observations'. The complex, polysemous and rich quality of archaeological materials could be transformed through instruments' reproducible procedures into 'data'. They are neutral devices. We can count with/on them. Consequently, the process of visualization, as an algorithmic alchemy, has come to play an important role in warranting archaeological knowledge. Secondly, at the end of the day (or fieldwork season) we need something to point to when we make our claims. Visual media serve as 'stand-fors' the vestiges of the past. This is particularly so with a discipline that irrevocably transforms through archaeological excavation and survey. Often all that remain at-hand are our visual media. These outputs of visualization become the guarantors of what was once 'out there'; the anchors to what we say.

These two roles for visualization commit archaeology to a strong belief in a correspondence theory of truth; media-as-mimesis. Much recent scholarship from across the academy, though, highlights a more pragmatic view; media-as-prosthesis. What binds visual practices together from across disciplines, and indeed cultures, may have less to do with visually transcribing the world than working on the world.

Visualization not as representation - an expressive fallacy - but as mediation.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

The implications are that selective fidelity, imaginative dissonance and low resolution may be more important principles for visualization than would be expected. Underscoring these principles is the example of new media and the ‘platform shift’ arising from Web 2.0. Rather than ‘high res’, mimetic renderings, new media technology aims to satisfy a different suite of functionalities: user-generated content, mixing and mashups, database proliferation, customization and collaborative architectures. SecondLife, an open source, partially immersive 3-D environment already hosting several archaeological re-creational sites, is emblematic of just such a visual logic of mediation. Overall, the digital turn in both society and the discipline portends a user-centered role for visualization; a personal and pragmatic use that converges with the ‘paradigm shift’ toward greater public participation and outreach in heritage management.

Session Three How does Visualisation Communicate?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Choreographing the Past: Interdisciplinary Crossovers between 3D Methods in Dance and Archaeology

Stuart Dunn Centre for e-Research, King’s College, London, UK Helen Bailey University of Bedfordshire, UK

The interpretation of the past is dependent on realistic and schematic visualization of data. The use of maps, diagrams, section drawings, Harris matrices, and photorealistic digital imaging are commonplace.

However the striking similarities between archaeologists’ requirements in this area and those of communities involved with the documentation and analysis of human movement in the performative arts, is a rich and little-explored area. Recent developments in the application of advanced motion capture and recording techniques in the performing arts render this even more acute.

The e-Dance project records and captures dance motion, with human movement tracked and captured in graphical forms known as ‘choreographic morphologies’ (Bailey, Hewison and Turner 2008: see http://www.ahessc.ac.uk/e-dance) . This allows the inherently transitory and ‘disembodied’ process of dance to be captured and viewed in reusable (and reviewable) form. In the same way, archaeology is concerned with evidence that is transitory, recalled (through the process of recording and onsite documentation) and whose context is almost invariably lost in the destructive process of excavation. This paper will seek to provide a basis for exploring the relationship between the 3D recording of dance and the 3D recording of archaeology, by considering some broad areas including: The impact of location and surrounding on human decisionmaking – e.g. how understanding the decisions made by dancers/choreographers in a particular place can be used to understand the historical decisions that created material culture; The way excavators in the field interact with space, and use physical presence to explore and explain the complex environment around them, both consciously and unconsciously; The limitations of recording data both spatially and temporally/sequentially.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

There are well established methods for doing these separately, with one simply an attribute of the other, in dance and archaeology; but expressing space and time meaningfully together is a challenge for both.

Session Three How does Visualisation Communicate?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Absurdity and Archaeology: Subverting the Visualisation of the Past

Dr Alistair Jones University of Southampton, UK

If we accept the idea that popular representations of the archaeological past construct knowledge about history, then as those involved in the presentation of this past we should also accept the potential of using our privileged positions to construct alternative, even subversive views of heritage and of our profession. In this we can act upon audience expectations to our advantage and by utilising a sense of the ‘absurd’ we may even turn some of these around. We may challenge popular preconceptions, just as the artists of the Dada and subsequently Surrealist movements challenged critic expectations of the artwork during the early to mid 20th century. Frequently, early 20th century artists also dismissed the museum as an arena of tradition and thus as an enemy of modern art. To quote the Futurist, F.T. Marinetti: ‘Museums: public dormitories where one lies forever beside hated or unknown things…Turn aside the canals to flood the museums!’

(Marinetti 1909: 4) Archaeology was subject to similarly scornful remarks, for instance Tristan Tzara stated in his Dadaist manifesto of 1918: ‘Dada: abolition of archaeology.’

(Tzara 1918: 7) Drawing from elements of a burgeoning research project, this paper poses the questions: is heritage truly the enemy of the future or, by adopting ideas similar to those of the Dadaists, Surrealists and other radical movements, may we as the presenters of archaeology redeem the objects and the displays of the past as a source of challenge to a contemporary status quo? Furthermore, is it really possible to achieve these aims whilst still attracting a wide audience?

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

VISUALISATION

AND

KNOWLEDGE

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP SESSION FOUR

V

iA

Session Four Seeing a way Forward?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Photography in Archaeology: The Problematics of Productivity

Professor Frederick N. Bohrer Hood College, Frederick, Maryland, USA

Photography has long been a prime method of visualization in archaeology, if not the fundamental paradigm of archaeological image-making. This presentation will consider photography as “the engine of visualization” in two ways it has applied to archaeological process and product: as a spur toward archaeological activity, and as a privileged means of visualization. Each demands treatment in historical, cultural and technological terms, over the full historical sweep of the interaction between archaeology and photography, starting in the mid-19th century.

In this presentation, I want to examine what is at stake in these two modes of photographic visualization, using a few selected images and statements of archaeologists, photographers and critics, drawn from throughout the history of archaeological photography. Photography has served as spur to archaeology for its promise for faithful reproduction and objective circulation of information. Yet even in the 19th century a tendency arose to set photography above objects themselves, virtually reversing the value relation between image and object, and constraining fundamentally the visual apprehension of archaeological material. One can begin to explain this by tracing the imbrications of the camera’s own unique structure. The photographic imprint clearly registers marks of power as much as of light, and must be seen as a cultural tool as much as a physical one.

The historical development of archaeological photography suggests an oscillation in the treatment of photography, based on changing levels of trust in photography among archaeologists. The current “crisis” of photographic representation is a perfect point to consider this system in both retrospect and prospect. If photography was adopted in archaeology, has it fulfilled expectations? Much as it may be indispensable for material answers, it brings a host of questions for visualizing, and conceptualizing, archaeology.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Four Seeing a way Forward?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Visions of the Past: Creative Image-making and Archaeology

Dr. Aaron Watson Monumental, UK

Archaeology envisions the past in its own image. Established visual traditions of research, fieldwork and publication generate maps, section drawings, artefact illustrations, site photography, and so on. While these images help to define the spaces within which interpretation takes place, the method of their production is often more concerned with reproducing established traditions of representation than with promoting new ways of engaging with the archaeological record.

While working alongside archaeological surveys and excavations I have often been struck by the relationship between fieldwork and publication.

Method serves to objectify the experiences of the fieldworker through the use of tape measures, survey machines, gridded drawings and photography. Yet these techniques are predominantly geared towards the production and transmission of knowledge as images within journals and monographs. In this way, the limited capacity for printed media to convey information is effectively back-projected upon the fieldwork process. Fieldwork thereby engages with the archaeological record as if it were already fixed upon the printed page - monochrome, two-dimensional, static, and silent.

My research performs a creative approach to archaeological image-making, expressed through collage, photography, painting, and multimedia. Unconstrained by traditional methods, these demand unorthodox approaches to fieldwork recording, evidence and communication. In turn, this creates the potential for new and unexpected visions of the past.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Session Four Seeing a way Forward?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 Playing with the Past: Neolithic Online Games on the Internet

Camilla Bjarnö Moesgård Museum, Århus, Denmark

How can our archaeological knowledge of the Neolithic period be visualised? An online Neolithic adventure game and a 3D website are two different ways. We at Moesgård Museum in Århus, Denmark, have attempted to visualise the Neolithic and it has definitely been a learning experience.

The Gateway to Sarup – A Story of Life and Death in the Neolithic.

The project is supported by both The Danish Ministry of Culture and The Danish Ministry of Education, and the end product is to be used for education in the sixth grade in the public school. It is a product of close cooperation between Archaeologists and a Graphic Artist and in all stages of the Project sixth graders are involved in developing and evaluating the product, thus creating a shortcut directly from the archaeologists to the classroom -- and vice versa. The end product will be an online Neolithic adventure game in a stylistic comic style. The game is supplemented by a knowledge base where we try to loosen up our somewhat rigid and very interpretive visualisation of ancestral rituals and daily life thereby making the interpretation more flexible as we go behind the scene. This way we establish the scientific foundation of the game resulting from more than 30 years of dedicated archaeological research in the Sarup area -- which makes it the best researched Neolithic site in Denmark.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

Kongehøjen – Visualisation in 3D. Kongehøjen is a digital pioneer project, supported by The Danish Ministry of Culture, which focused on 3D visualisation. The main feature of the website is a photogrammetric model of Kongehøjen – a spectacular megalithic grave from Mariager Fjord in Denmark. Besides providing a realistic recording of the present state of the monument, it also makes it possible to make a virtual visit and thereby allow us to exhibit monuments of a scale and nature otherwise not suited for exhibiting in a museum. Hotspots on the model give us the opportunity to highlight and explain details of the construction, which are not an option at the physical site and also can be difficult to see for the untrained eye. 3D-visualisations of finds allow you to study the object in detail from all sides and are the nearest you can get to have the object in your hand. A special feature is the 3D online game (one player) where, step-by-step, the palyer builds a megalithic passage grave (Jordhøj). The setting is a 3D reconstruction of the landscape dating to 3200 B.C.

Session Four Seeing a way Forward?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 SahulTime: Rethinking Archaeological Representation in the Digital Age

Matthew Coller Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

After a decade of progress toward the "Digital Earth" concept, radical new systems such as GoogleEarth now provide a connected view of the world across all spatial scales. However, the initially promised "time-warp" feature through ancient time has never been delivered in commercial Digital Earth systems, perhaps due to the epistemological issues associated with reconstructing space-time models of the ancient Earth. Yet generating and communicating archaeological knowledge frequently involves interrelating different concepts over time and space, always with attendant uncertainty, a task largely unsuited to the traditional paper-based format of research publication.

The SahulTime Project is an experimental, top-down approach to representing archaeological knowledge in the context of changing geography. This Web-deliverable system incorporates a zoomable geographic view with an equally zoomable timeline, coordinated with time-enabled detail windows. SahulTime demonstrates the feasibility of a unified, collaborative approach to combining time-based concepts into a single information-rich interactive environment. A working prototype developed in Flash is viewable directly online at the SahulTime website: http://sahultime.monash.edu.au Originally conceived for communicating concepts in Australian archaeology over the glacial timescale, SahulTime uses sea level curves to reconstruct ancient coastlines, lakes and ice-sheets over time. A treatment of palaeoclimate and land-cover change is now under investigation. Onto this geographical model, archaeological knowledge such as carbon dates can be represented as time-aware icons linked to time-graphs, while morphed reconstructions of changing landscape can be 'geotagged', like photographs in GoogleEarth.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

A key focus in the SahulTime initiative is finding appropriate visual metaphors to reflect the uncertainty fundamental to archaeological knowledge. Age-depth curves can be used to relate excavation stratigraphy to the relevant moment in the timeline, incorporating a literally 'fuzzy' component to the representation. Other aspects of the project highlight the challenges of generating rigourous visual constructions of archaeological knowledge.

We are keen to talk with researchers undertaking localised investigations, toward linking their site-based visualisations into the overall SahulTime representation.

Session Four Seeing a way Forward?

ABSTRACTS FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2008 ShipShape: Solid Modelling and Visualisation of the Newport Medieval Ship from 3D Digital Record

Nigel Nayling University of Wales Lampeter, UK

Ancient ship and boat finds constitute arguably the most complex machines encountered in medieval and earlier archaeological contexts.

Traditional methods of understanding and describing these machines employ a range of technical and highly specific terminologies and 2D illustrative conventions. These draw on traditions developed in the fields of nautical architecture, shipbuilding and seafaring which are a challenge to the comprehension of maritime archaeologists let alone wider audiences.

This paper presents early results from an AHRC-funded research programme seeking to build on the 3-dimensional, digital recording of thousands of timbers from the Newport medieval Ship to develop dynamic physical scale models and interactive two- and three-dimensional virtual objects and animations. These are intended to act both as research tools and as focal points in a temporary exhibition which, amongst other objectives, seeks to engage the interest and responses of a wide range of audiences from the wider community.

Potentially, such approaches may revolutionise techniques employed in the analysis, dissemination and display of ancient boats and ships.

V

iA

Visualisation in Archaeology

LOCATION Archaeology School of Humanities Avenue Campus University of Southampton Highfield Road Southampton SO17 1BF Phone: +44 (0)23 8059 4439 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 3032 Email: arch@soton.ac.uk

VISUALISATION

Avenue Campus

AND

KNOWLEDGE

Highfield

Road

ww w .vi ar c h.o r g.u k

The Avenue

FORMATION VISUALISATION IN ARCHAEOLOGY:WORKSHOP UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON 23-24 OCTOBER 2008

V

iA