Materializing Digital Archaeology: Managing 3D Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21900/j.alise.2024.1653Keywords:
digital curation, digital archaeology, 3D modeling, Complex digital resources, DigitizationAbstract
The archaeological record is fragmented yet the artifacts and data that comprise it are used to make vast claims about human nature and behavior, and about past and contemporary cultures and societies (Huggett, 2012; Huvila, 2019). The digital archaeological record is further fragmented by the rarity of digitization (due to resource and time constraints) and the loss of information through the digitization process Huvila & Huggett, 2018; Schroer & Mudge, 2017). Due to the lack of connection between the physical artifacts and their digital instantiations (as 3D models, metadata records, scanned images, etc.) it is difficult to understand what contextual information has been lost and/or altered from the physical data. This results in knowledge and information claims based on limited and biased data which can lead to an exacerbation of the silences and gaps in the archaeological record (Huggett, 2020) which 1) reduces the accuracy of archaeological research and 2) can differentially harm marginalized communities because, like archival records, the archaeological record can be used to assert “master” or “grand” narratives (Bastian, 2009; Carbajal & Caswell, 2021).
This Work-in-Progress poster is focused on information loss during the 3D modeling of archaeological artifacts. I posit that instead of understanding 3D models of artifacts as singular sources of information, they should be treated as one component of a complex resource. However, it has been difficult to find my way through the required reorientation of concepts like materiality from the digital humanities (Drucker, 2013; Kirschenbaum, 2012) and to implement this reorientation in practice.
References
Bastian, J. A. (2009). Flowers for Homestead: A Case Study in Archives and Collective Memory. The American Archivist, 72(1), 113–132. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.1.k751734304667050
Carbajal, I. A., & Caswell, M. (2021). Critical Digital Archives: A Review from Archival Studies. The American Historical Review, 126(3), 1102–1120. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhab359
Drucker, J. (2013). Performative Materiality and Theoretical Approaches to Interface. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 7(1). http://digitalhumanities.org:8081/dhq/vol/7/1/000143/000143.html
Huggett, J. (2012). Lost in information? Ways of knowing and modes of representation in e-archaeology. World Archaeology, 44(4), 538–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.736274
Huggett, J. (2020). Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge. Information, 11(5), 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050278
Huvila, I. (2019). Management of Archaeological Information and Knowledge in Digital Environment. In M. Handzic & D. Carlucci (Eds.), Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities (Vol. 7, pp. 147–169). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10922-6_8
Huvila, I., & Huggett, J. (2018). Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.6
Kirschenbaum, M. G. (2012). Mechanisms: New media and the forensic imagination (First MIT Press paperback edition). The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262517409/mechanisms/
Schroer, C., & Mudge, M. (2017). A Context Metadata Collection and Management Tool for Computational Photography Projects. Archiving Conference, 2017, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2168-3204.2017.1.0.99
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 N. Wise

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.