Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Access brought to you by:

University of Southampton

Open Access

Volume 1, Issue 1 (Oct 2015)

Download full text pdf

Open Access

Additive Archaeology: An Alternative Framework for Recontextualising Archaeological Entities

Paul Reilly1

1Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BF, UK

© 2015 Paul Reilly. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Citation Information: Open Archaeology. Volume 1, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: 10.1515/opar-2015-0013, October 2015

Copyright Clearance Center

Publication History

Received:
2014-12-04
Accepted:
2015-09-23
Published Online:
2015-10-06

Abstract

Additive manufacturing poses a number of challenges to conventional understandings of materiality, including the so-called archaeological record. In particular, concepts such as real, virtual, and authentic are becoming increasingly unstable, as archaeological artefacts and assemblages can be digitalised, reiterated, extended and distributed through time and space as 3D printable entities. This paper argues that additive manufacturing represents a ‘grand disciplinary challenge’ to archaeological practice by offering a radical new generative framework within which to recontextualise and reconsider the nature of archaeological entities specifically within the domain of digital archaeology.

Keywords: 3D printing; additive manufacturing; archaeological record; digital archaeology; extended assemblages; ontology

References

  • [1] Buchli, V., Memory, Melancholy and Materiality, in: Boric, D. (ed.) Excavating Memories: The Archaeology of Remembering and Forgetting, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2010, 204-210.

  • [2] Jones, A.M. and Alberti B., Archaeology After Interpretation, In: Alberti, B., Jones, A.M., Pollard J., (eds.), Archaeology after Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, 2013, 13-35.

  • [3] Lucas, G., Understanding the Archaeological Record, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.

  • [4] De Landa, M. A New Philosophy of Society: assemblage theory and social complexity, Continuum, London, 2006.

  • [5] Jones, A.M. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.

  • [6] Latour, B., Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1987.

  • [7] Barad, K., Posthumanist Performativity: Towards an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter, Signs, 2003, 28 (3), 801-831.

  • [8] Latour, B. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1999.

  • [9] Fowler, C. Dynamic Assemblages, or the Past is What Endures: Change and the Duration of Relations, in: Alberti, B., Jones, A.M. and Pollard, J. (eds.), Archaeology after Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, 2013, 235-256.

  • [10] Basiliere, P. and Shanler, M. Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, Gartner, Stamford, 2014.

  • [11] Buchli, V. The Prototype: presencing the immaterial, Journal of VisualCommunications, 2010, 9, 273-286.

  • [12] Buchli, V. Presencing the Im-Material, in: Bille M., Hastrup F., Sorensen, T.F. (eds.), An Anthropology of Absence. Materializations of Transcendence and Loss, Springer, New York, 2010, 185-203.

  • [13] Jeffrey, S., Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty, aura and democratisation, Open Archaeology, 2015, DOI: 10.1515/ opar-2015-0008.

  • [14] Reilly, P. Palimpsests of Immaterial Assemblages Taken out of Context: Tracing Pompeians from the Void into the Digital, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 2015, DOI: 10.1080/00293652.2015.1086812.

  • [15] Lipson, H. and Kurman, M. 2013. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Indianapolis, Wiley.

  • [16] Oxman, N., Variable Property Rapid Prototyping, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 2011, 6 (1), 3-31.

  • [17] Chen, D., Levin, D.I.W., Didyk, P., Sitthi-Amorn, P. and Matusik, W. Spec2Fab: A reducer-tuner model for translating specifications to 3D prints, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2013, 32 (4) Article Number: 135. DOI: 10.1145/2461912.2461994.

  • [18] Hiller, J., Lipson, H. 2009. Design and analysis of digital materials for physical 3D voxel printing. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 15 (2), 137-149.

  • [19] Soe, S.P., Eyers, D.R., Jones, T. and Nayling, N., Additive manufacturing for archaeological reconstruction of a ship, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2012, 18 (6), 443-450.

  • [20] Loewe, P., Klump, J. and Wickert, J. Scientific 3D Printing: A Work in Progress Report, 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/ loewe/scientific-3D-printing-gfz-geoinformatics-kollquium-april-2012

  • [21] Krassenstein B. A 20-Year-Old 3D Printed Object Emerges From the Dust at MIT, 2015, http://3dprint.com/12179/old-3D prints-hagia-sophia/.

  • [22] Agrawal, S., Antunes, J.P., Theron, E., Truscott, M. and de Beer, D.J. Physical modelling of catchment area by rapid prototyping using GIS data, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 2009, 12 (2), 78-85.

  • [23] Reilly, P. Putting the Materials Back into Virtual Archaeology, in: Hookk, D. (ed.), Virtual Archaeology (Methods and Benefits), St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage Publishers, 2015, 12-21.

  • [24] Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F. and Kallmann, M. 3D Printing and Immersive Visualization for Improved Perception and Interaction with Ancient Artifacts, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 24 (3), forthcoming 2015.

  • [25] Clough, G.W., Best of Both Worlds. Museums, Libraries, and Archives in a Digital Age, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 2013.

  • [26] Earl, G., Basford, Ph., Bischoff, A., Bowman, A., Crowther, Ch., Dahl, J., Hodgson, M., Isaksen, L., Kotoula, E., Martinez, K., Pagi, H. and Piquette, K.E. Reflectance Transformation Imaging Systems for Ancient Documentary Artefacts, Electronic Visualisation and the Arts (EVA 2011), 2011, 147-154.

  • [27] Hameeuw, H. and Willems, G. New Visualization Techniques for Cuneiform Texts and Sealings, Akkadica, 2011, 132 (2), 163-17.

  • [28] Marko, A. The Modern Ancient Tablet. A curatorial intervention, 2014, http://curatorialpracticum.wordpress. com/2014/05/04/the-modern-ancient-tablet/

  • [29] Kaelin, B. Cornell Professors 3D Print Cuneiform Tablets, 2013, http://www.3dprinterworld.com/article/cornellprofessors- 3d-print-cuneiform-tablets.

  • [30] Sorensen, T.F. Original copies: seriality, similarity and the simulacrum in the Early Bronze Age, Danish Journal of Archaeology, 2012, 1 (1), 45-61.

  • [31] Gell, A. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998.

  • [32] Olivier, L. The Past of the Present. Archaeological Memory and Time, Archaeological Dialogues, 2004, 10, 204-213, DOI: 10.1017/S1380203804001254.

  • [33] Berry, D.M. Critical Theory and the Digital, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2014.

  • [34] Stiegler, B. Anamnesis and Hypomnesis. N.d. http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis

  • [35] Huggett, J. A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology, Open Archaeology, 2015, 1 (1), 86-95, DOI: 10.1515/ opar-2015-0003.

  • [36] AMF ASTM. F2915-13 Standard Specification for Additive Manufacturing File Format (AMF) Version 1.1, ASTM International. http://www.astm.org/Standards/ISOASTM52915.htm.

  • [37] Witmore, C.L. Prolegomena to Open Pasts: On Archaeological Memory Practices, Archaeologies, 2009, 5 (3), 511-544.

  • [38] Kirch, D. Comparing tangible and virtual exploration of archaeological objects, in: Forte M. (ed.), Cyber-Archaeology, BAR S2177, Archaeopress, Oxford, 2010.

  • [39] Otten, W. and Falconer, E. 3D printed soil reveals the world beneath our feet, 2014, http://www.abertay.ac.uk/about/ news/newsarchive/2014/name,15497,en.html.

  • [40] Miles, J. and Cox, G. Animation showing Computed Tomography of coin hoard and visualisation of the hoard, 2013, http:// vimeo.com/45452797. Last accessed 24th August 2014.

  • [41] Miles, J. Computed Tomography scanning of Roman Coins. 2012, http://acrg.soton.ac.uk/blog/1168/.

  • [42] Applebaum, B. Conservation Treatment Methodology, Butterworth, Oxford, 2007.

  • [43] Huggett, J., Disciplinary issues: challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archaeology, in: Earl, G., Sly, T., Chrysanthi A., Murrieta-Flores P., Papadoupoulos, C., Romanowsha, I. and Wheatley D. (eds.), Archaeology in the Digital Era. Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA’12). E-Proceedings, UK, 26-30 March 2012, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2013, 13-24.

  • [44] Huggett, J. Challenging Digital Archaeology, Open Archaeology, 2015, 1 (1), 79–85, DOI: 10.1515/opar-2015-0003.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.