Graphics and Archaeology: Interpreting the Past

Snowbird, Utah
20-23 May 2000

 

Presentation:

Visualising African Prehistory

Presenters:

  • Anne Solomon

Presentation Resources:

Summary:

Anne considered three main areas of CG relevance to her work (although she was still growing in her awareness of the field):

  • recording
  • digital archiving
  • display and education

Here plan is to start with a recording and digitizing approach. Rock art (paintings and engravings) are deteriorating at a significant rate. South African San art has experienced significant attention and vandalism.

Current methods of archiving have been limiting. Archival methods of black and white (B&W) line art and photos lose too much color context. B&W photos tend to flatten the recorded art and the diminish the spatial context of the site.

Digital technologies have the potential to address some of these issues. Photos often provide only a fixed, limited perspective. Digital reconstructions would permit multiple points of view and also aid in understanding the relationships of images within the site.

Digital access would also increase the availability of some 15-18,000 images currently archived.

Every medium has its own consequences. The possible problems with CG is the long term storage of digital data. Will media and formats remain viable? Also, accurate color recording and reproduction are a concern, especially with adequate resolution for future study. Currently, some of their slides are over 40 years old - they may not last as backup to the digital information.

Potential future projects and funding was mentioned. For example, lighting does affect perception - recording at different times of day is an issue. Proper simulation might assist here in interpretation. In archiving sessions, yellow pigments were difficult to record and retain. White colouring disappears the fastest over time. Ochres and pigmentacious materials are currently under study - this is parallel to work by Alan Chalmers.

Public display and education is also of interest. Priority of socially merited projects is becoming more important. Effective visual display (exhibitions) would help reduce the variety of descriptions necessary (Zulu, Afrikaans, etc.) Interactive displays in the museum would be welcome in the future, too, for they would help with visitor enticements (the suggestion that if you see something today, it wouldn't be the same thing you see in 10 years as is the current perception).

Costs are prohibitive right now. The reception of technology by different cultural contexts is varied and sometimes awkward. Technology-poor visitors are often not there by their own choosing. There is a need to have exhibits geared towards mass access.

Finally, there were some philosophical questions still to be considered. These are listed first in the issues section below.

Conclusions / Issues:

  • What if technology can produce results more impressive than the real thing? (Glossy books can create unrealistic expectations - often disappointing when the first-person experience can be attained)
  • High-tech presentation of low-tech cultural materials and work - if done poorly, it may have an adverse effect on perceptions of San art, for example.
  • First-hand experience of rock art is more significant than those exhibited in a museum - there is a concern for computer displays lacking the context and authenticity of the artifact.
  • Hyper-realism of computer technologies may confuse some visitors into believing the artifice is real.
  • Based upon discussion from the previous night - use of sand art within a computer game could be deemed offensive or sacrilegious to its cultural origins.
  • General discussion from the group had multiple perspectives on whether or not to digitize the large library of images. While the technology may be available, the expense could become too prohibitive. It was also noted that color fidelity in an entire system (imaging media, scanning, projection or display on a monitor) could cause huge variances in recording and final perception.
  • Future discussions might wish to address how light perception could alter interpretation - computer monitors vs. light boxes vs. recording directly at the scene - all would be highly different.
  • Note - significant discussion centered around whether or not Solomon's department should even embark on a conversion of their slide archive.
    • would the volume be too high?
    • would the reproduction be adequate for future work?
    • would formats and media last into the future [the biggest concern]?
  • While there might be fear of using such tools by archaeologists and some tools may not be available to them in their immediate area, there was a need for them to "jump in" and learn about the advantages and limitations. Moving forward, trying something, attempting an approach even if proven weak later is all about the process of learning.

 

[ Previous ] [ Index ] [ Next ]