![]() ![]() From spade-work to screen-work: new forms of archaeological discovery in digital space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Įdgeworth, M. Photography in archaeology and conservation. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, 29, 1–34.ĭorrell, P. George Andrew reisner on archaeological photography. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 1108–1121.ĭer Manuelian, P., & Reisner, G. Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. New York: Zone Books.ĭe Reu, J., Plets, G., Verhoevan, G., De Smedt, P., Bats, M., Cherretté, B., De Maeyer, W., Deconynck, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Van Meirvenne, M., & De Clercq, W. A fragmented past: (re)constructing antiquity through 3D artefact modelling and customised structured light scanning at Athienou-Malloura, Cyprus. Silva (Ed.), Urban Planning in North Africa. Broadening the study of North Africa’s planning history: urban development and heritage preservation in protectorate-era and postcolonial Tunis. Archäologische Untersuchungen auf Samothrake. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.Ĭonze, A. Counts (Eds.), Crossroads and boundaries: the archaeology of past and present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus (pp. Cypriot Pan at the crossroads in late classical and Hellenistic Cyprus: the evidence from Athienou- Malloura. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 5(3), 416–445.Ĭofer, C. Thinking through living: experience and production of archaeological knowledge. Campana (Eds.), 3D recording and modelling in archaeology and cultural heritage: theory and best practices (pp. ![]() 3D modelling in archaeology and cultural heritage-theory and best practice. Kenderdine (Eds.), Theorizing digital cultural heritage: a critical discourse (pp. Beyond the cult of the replicant: museums and historical digital objects-traditional concerns, new discourses. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 1-18.Ĭameron, F. Things in the eye of the beholder: a humanistic perspective on archaeological object biographies. Art Documentation: Journal of the Art Libraries Society of North America, 33(2), 148–167.īurnström, N. Digital facsimiles and the modern viewer: medieval manuscripts and archival practice in the age of new media. Stanford: Stanford University Press.īurns, E. Re-presenting the past: archaeology through text and image. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.īonde, S., & Houston, S. The social consequences of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.īijker, W. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Stratford, CT: Bellarmine Museum of Art.īenjamin, W. Deupi (Eds.), An archaeologist’s eye: the Parthenon drawings of Katherine A. Antiquity depicted: the drawings of Katherine Schwab and the tradition of archaeological illustration in Greece. New York: Routledge.Īverett, E., & Martens, B. ![]() Woolgar (Eds.), Visualization in the age of computerization (pp. Objectivity and representative practices across artistic and scientific visualization. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 36(5), 14–19.Īmbrosio, C. 3D modeling of the weary Herakles statue with a coded structured light system. It is therefore necessary for archaeologists to be aware of the subjectivities and biases that exist during this productive act as we move into a more integrated field of digital, representational technologies.Īkca, D., Gruen, A., Alkis, Z., Demir, N., Breuckmann, B., Erduyan, I., & Nadir, E. If the current trend continues, digital artifact modeling will become as indispensable to archaeology as traditional photography. The result of the digital movement in archaeology is a more interactive experience with artifacts, allowing researchers and the public alike digital access to archaeological collections. The creation of a new representation of the artifact (in the form of a photograph or digital model) provides a new dimension to our interactions with these artifacts. Through this production, the digital form is decoupled from the original physical artifact. In doing so, I will argue that the creation of a 3D digital artifact is a productive process, just as any form of media used to document and interpret the archaeological record. I propose that we look to a much older technology, photography, to inform the way that these digital artifacts are dealt with as we move into an increasingly digital field. The rapid growth and acceptance of these technologies into the discipline leaves us in a position where we must engage with how these tools fit our epistemologies. As new digital technologies now pervade the discipline of archaeology, the practice of creating digital 3D representations of artifacts has become widespread. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |