As such, a visualization, for example a 3D scan, of an original artefact is different from the original when it is translated by a digital recording procedure and a heuristic, creative practice of the archaeologist/operator, and subsequently becomes an original virtual artefact in itself (after Huvila, 2018c). Visualization is an active definition because it functions as both a product and a practice, resembling Latour’s ( 1990) idea of inscriptions. However, the term “visualization” is differentiated in this paper from the more commonly used noun “representation.” Representation is rather static and implies a certain objectivity as the visual output should represent some actual state at a particular moment in time. Once transformed and translated to standardized modes of documentation, they can be mobilized from its locale to anywhere in the world where they will be further studied, analysed, and interpreted. Visualizations represent material remains transferred to a representational medium and therefore its interpretation, and the knowledge generated from this, is built from both the transferred material and translated representation. Visuals do not merely serve as a means of “scaffolding” text or guiding interpretative processes on the contrary, they are instrumental in the transformation and mobilization of archaeological material itself (Latour, 1990 Witmore, 2006, p. Visualization methods form an intrinsic part of the representation of practical and intellectual findings, being crucial to knowledge production in archaeology (Morgan & Wright, 2018 Moser, 2012 Wickstead, 2013).
Archaeology’s very foundations are built upon visual elements. Simply put, this act of visual translation, moving from the things that archaeologists find to reconstructing a narrative of past human behaviour, is as much a creative act as a scientific one. Archaeologists use a wide range of visualization methods to record, organize, interpret, and reconstruct complex narratives of the past and to communicate them to present-day peers and public. After the initial inspection, certain technology enters the picture to enhance the observations and analysis.
Visual observations on shape, style, size, and even forming technology permit preliminary classifications that lead to the most fundamental of archaeological processes – seriation. The very first thing an archaeologist does when a sherd is found is perform a visual inspection. A praxis-oriented and reflexive approach to the history of visualization provides a critical understanding of the current workings of 3D visualization as a creative practice, and how archaeology responds and acts upon innovations and the adoption of new visualization technology. The overview ends with an integrated discussion on the shared creative visual practice and its epistemic role in archaeological knowledge production. By taking a slightly Dutch perspective I will introduce a few visualizing protagonists who have left substantial traces in our collective visual memory, aiming to contribute to a more inclusive historical narrative on archaeological visualization. This paper presents an historical synopsis of two usually separated but complementary research areas, digital archaeology and archaeological visualization, and builds on previous research undertaken on these traditionally separated subjects.
Visualization techniques may have changed over the years, but have they fundamentally changed archaeological visual literacy and the ways archaeologists create knowledge? Or do new digital tools merely disguise conventional practices? The answer may reside in a deeper understanding of the long tradition of visualization practice, from the Renaissance to the present, for which the foundation lies in the activities of antiquarians and artists, as well as artistic, technical, and scientific innovations.
0 kommentar(er)
