My first draft PhD Proposal

Posted By mcarter on Sep 8, 2015 | 0 comments


**Update the final approved PhD Proposal can be viewed here**

 

First Draft:

VIRTUAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VIRTUAL LONGHOUSES AND “ENVISIONING THE UNSEEN” WITHIN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

ABSTRACT

In reimagining a 15th century Northern Iroquoian Longhouse within a virtual 3D environment we attempt to address issues of agency, authenticity, authority and most importantly, transparency within virtual heritage reconstructions. Virtual Archaeology and our ability to harness the technology in an applied, innovative and experiential way has allowed scholars, Descendants and the public to “envision the unseen” within the archaeological record. As such, archaeological virtual reconstruction through virtual reality has become a powerful tool in the interpretation of archaeological landscapes and artifacts as a means of knowledge building and meaning making. Thus, Virtual Archaeology is moving from being evidenced based to evidence informed through a natural progression allowed by the evolution of technology and growth of capabilities, user experience and expectation.

INTRODUCTION

In the 1960’s, Ivan Sutherland envisioned a time in the near future in which people would be able to physically enter into an alternative, “digital” world. With the ability to not only see the environment around them, but also the ability to touch, smell, hear and be affected by the environment itself; a unique digital phenomenological experience where the viewer becomes participant and builds on his or her own personal narrative in a non-linear almost life-like virtual experience (see Sutherland 1965).

Within the study and practice of archaeology, we have seen amazing leaps and bounds over the last 20 years in the use of digital technology to inform and scaffold the theories and methods of archaeological research. My proposal is to harness those technologies, theories and methodologies to approach virtual archaeology from a phenomenological perspective in order to empower stakeholders, may they be scholar, Descendent or public within archaeology proper. Dawson, Levy and Lyons called this phenomenological experience presence; “the emotional connectedness of being transported to another time and place” (see Dawson et al. 2011). Although their study group were descendent participants, can this same experience be true for non-descendants as well? Can archaeologist use this technology and methodology in a phenomenological way to envision what isn’t seen in the archaeological record to better inform current and future research (see Watts 2009)?

To situate this research, I propose to virtually reimagine a prototypical Northern Iroquoian longhouse within an interactive virtual 3D environment. Using existing archaeological data gleaned from excavations of Iroquoian longhouses, oral and historical accounts as well as theoretical opinions on longhouse construction methodologies; I will reimagine a 3D Iroquoian Longhouse within a virtual environment. By referencing the known archaeological data, I will attempt to build the longhouse step by step, which will hopefully inform and suggest what challenges and ingenuities Iroquoian builders faced themselves. Once built, I will place this reconstructed model within a virtual delivery platform so that stakeholders, namely heritage professionals, may experience a sense of “presence” within the virtual world. This will be accomplished with the addition of simulated atmospherics such as natural and artificial (fire hearth) light, particle systems that simulate dust, pollen and smoke as well as the addition of natural sounds that would accompany living within these massive architectural marvels. In following The London Charter, a template for working with heritage assets within the virtual environment, I hope to provide a weekly blog that will discuss the insights, challenges and discoveries as I build this virtual longhouse environment. Called “paradate”, this additional information of the process and decisions being made during the 3D assets building and implementation, will allow scholarly engagement and transparency as we continue along the path of virtual simulation.

Lastly, I intend to seek professional opinions from the archaeological community themselves, not only during the building stage through blogs, Twitter or personal outreach, but by allowing heritage professionals to experience the virtual environment first hand. These initial sessions and the reactions and opinions generated will lay the groundwork for future public and Descendent engagements as the project hopefully moves from the research to public deployment stage.

BACKGROUND and CONTEXT

I graduated with an Honours Bachelor in Visual Arts and Archaeology in 1993 and immediately went to work as a “Salvage Archaeologist” on a multi-stratified mitigation site that contained among other eras, a late Iroquoian level, over a 6 month period. During those long hours of labour intensive test pits, bad weather and accidently destroyed post hole stains, I envisioned and yearned for an alternative “computer aided archaeology” predictive methodology to determine longhouse pole placement and positioning. Something that would not only allow researchers to predict where the positions of poles would be but also allow stakeholders (researchers, descendants, the public) to enter in and interact with a 3D “virtual” recreation of a longhouse directly on site using the archaeological data as a starting point.

Paul Reilly had coined the term Virtual Archaeology in 1991 and the use of 3D visualization was starting to take hold in archaeological research and practice. Empowered with a vision to combine my archaeology and visual arts skills for 3D visualization, thus I applied to Sheridan College in 1994 for their Computer Graphics program and upon completion was accepted into their prestigious post-graduate Computer Animation program with the sole goal of learning the technology to enable “Virtual Archaeology of Longhouse Sites”. Unfortunately the practice and use of technology in archaeology was still in its infancy within Ontario and Canadian archaeology, so pressed with a career choice of multiple offers within the new and rapidly expanding 3D Animation and VFX industry or struggling to be heard within archaeology, I chose the latter which propelled me on a twenty year journey as a film and television 3D animation and VFX industry expert.

Virtual Archaeology has now become a highly debated topic that is now contested not only by the stakeholders it tries to serve, but the practitioners of the theories and methodologies who strive to improve academic rigor and the virtual experience for an ever sophisticated, participatory audience. As technology has increased, what was only a dream 20 years ago can now be made into reality. The process of creating virtual archeological landscapes, objects and environments has also become less of a “black art”, allowing for non-artists to engage in designing, developing and deploying more and more sophisticated heritage inspired virtual reconstructions.

The study of Northern Iroquoian longhouses is a mercurial archaeological endeavour. Fragments of these once grand physical manifestations of social, cultural and political agency within the Late Iroquoian phases of the Ontario complex (Birch & Williamson 2013) are little more than “ghosts” below the soil line within the archaeological landscape. Soil stains are all that remain of the supporting posts and exterior walls of these unique cultural buildings representing only a small glimpse into how these dwellings once functioned or even looked.

These soil stains and the cultural material associated in and around the boundaries of these transitory structures, as well as historical Eurocentric writings and drawings and the oral traditions of descendent cultural groups, are what now form our archaeological understandings of the lifecycle of a longhouse, and more importantly, the cultural significance these structures played within Iroquoian life (Woodworth 1998). However, the enigma is that our understanding arising from these data points is imaginatively speculative at best and thus the challenge is to not only visualize these lost cultural manifestations, but also to embody all of the senses that the archaeological landscape cannot preserve; the haptic, olfactory and auditory – in other words the phenomenological (see Watts 2009). The ability to experience the application of sight, sound, smell, and touch in context, helps to embody the overall phenomenological archaeological experience (Dawson et al. 2011) and in turn may provide further understanding to the archaeological record. These are some of the challenges that frame the current debate on what a longhouse is and how it shapes our understanding of the lifeway of the people who thrived within these architectural representations of Iroquoian culture.

PRIOR RESEARCH 

Longhouses occupy a special narrative amongst descendent Iroquoian societies and modern archeologists. An active and engaged oral tradition has given the longhouse a spiritual existence in which the North American modern day longhouse continues to be a powerful symbol of community for those descendent populations, representing an architectural lineage that exemplifies agency and a unique way of life (see Heidenreich 1972; Kapches 1994; Mohawk 1978; O’Gorman 2010; Watts 2009; Woodworth 1998).   At the base level, the longhouse represents community in both physical and metaphysical traditions, embodying the physical to convey societal, cultural and political worldviews (Hayden 1968; Heidenreich 1972; Mohawk 1978; O’Gorman 2010; Ramsden 2009; Varley & Cannon 1994). For Iroquoian culture, the longhouse was a symbol of how the community functioned and was politically structured within their larger world, forming the boundaries of their influence, and symbolic of the longhouse itself (see Allen & Williams-Shuker 1998; Heidenreich 1972; O’Gorman 2010; Mohawk 1978). Though limited physical remnants remain of these structures, they are subjectively alive in the contested colonial writings and descriptions of historical explorers, the oral traditions of cultural descendants and the visual imagination of modern writers and filmmakers (Boyden 2013; Heidenreich 1972; Thwates 1896-1901).

Although the archaeological record reveals several centuries of longhouse and village-like settlement patterns for the Late Woodland, the modern perception of what a longhouse hypothetically looked and felt like is really derived from the latter part of the Late Woodland (sometimes referred to as the Terminal Woodland; see Ferris and Spence 1995), where archaeological and historical data come together to provide a general “convention” for what a longhouse “should be” (Snow 1997; Williamson 2004; Wright 1995). Further, it is these idealized non-native interpretations that continue to reinforce not only the academic but also the public’s notion of what a longhouse was and is (Williamson 2004). It is from these qualitative and quantitative data points that we will explore what a longhouse is physically within the archaeological and historical record.

My understanding of the visualization of longhouses from the archaeological record arises principally from the work of four archaeologists; J.V. Wright, Mima Kapches, Christine Dodd and Dean Snow. Due to the lack of any real physical evidence, models of longhouse use, style, agency, and construction have been hotly contested for decades (see Kapches 1994; Snow 1997; Williamson 2004; Wright 1995). The work of these archaeologists, in combination with continued observations and challenges from other exemplary researchers, form a base of understanding that helps to frame how longhouses were constructed. Using Dodd’s extensive quantitative research gleaned from an exhaustive review of longhouse data derived from field excavations (1984) and based on the qualitative and quantitative observations of Wright (1971), Kapches (1994) and Snow (1997) among others, a basic template for the construction of longhouses emerges. It is this template we seek to replicate virtually.

With rapid advancements in technology, there now exists a cornucopia of progressively successful attempts to engage the archaeological record within virtual reality or virtual archaeology. As with most applications of theory in reality, there too is a split between the qualitative and the quantitative nature of the technology and how it is implemented. Reilly, Barceló, Frischer and others see the digital tools, the process and the outcomes as part and parcel of the quantitative, scientific nature of archaeological research; data that should be represented by and through scientific means. Dawson, Levy, Lyons and Forte, see virtual archaeology as a phenomenological emotional experience in which the participant isn’t a passive viewer, but an equal partner in the exploration of the multivocal archaeological landscape. Where the data, material culture and the visual (re)imagination of the archaeological environment are engaged through the users eyes.

The transformative nature of technology and in particular our ability to manipulate digital data freely, whether visual or not, has given form to a multivocal approach to the interpretation of the archaeological record (Forte 2011, 2014a, 2014b). Following Hodder, Forte sees multivocal engagement within virtual archaeology as the ability to allow for multiple voices to engage and contribute to the overall interpretation of the virtual archaeological environment (2008; 2011, 2014a, 2014b). This authentic multivocal experience can lead to new research questions and hypotheses, disrupting the notion of the archaeologist as the interpreter of the “truth” (Earl 2013; Forte 2014b). As (digital) archaeologists, we are no longer the singular authoritative voice, but providers of material and assets in which stakeholders and the public themselves can construct and reimagine their own cultural presence within virtual space (see Earl 2013 & Perry 2014; Dasgupta 2006; Forte 2011 & 2014b).

Virtual reality by definition is an interpretation of self within a different space, time or plane (see Sutherland 1965). It is narrative generating and thus both the technology and the process of creating virtual reality have borrowed heavily from the entertainment industry (see Frankland and Earl 2011 and Denard 2012). In doing so, by taking a creative approach to the interpretation of the archaeological data, the agency of that data is now layered upon and seen through the creators lens; what “artist’s impression” intend the virtual space to convey (see Earl 2013; Frankland and Earl 2011; Frischer et al. 2000; Moser and Smiles 2008; Perry 2015).

The digital reproduction of objects, landscapes and narratives have agency both in the real and virtual worlds and as such must be treated with equal consideration and respect (Earl 2013; Forte 2014a; Huggett 2012a, 2015; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Richardson 2013; Robb 2010). Virtual archaeology is moving from being evidenced based to evidence informed through a natural progression allowed by the evolution of technology and growth of capabilities, user experience and expectation.

Technology is at the point where we can provide an almost hyper-real experience to the participant viewer, may they be scholar, descendant or the public (Frankland and Earl 2011; Forte 2014a; Gabellone et al. 2013; Giddings 2015; Morgan 2009; Moser and Smiles 2008). Further, that same technology allows the particpant to interpret and modify the objects and material being displayed/provided, giving them the ability to reorder, reinterpret or remix at will (Fisher and Twiss-Garrity 2007; Frankland and Earl 2011). These are the machinations that now loom over virtual archaeology.

The London Charter has provided practitioners with a set of guidelines which attempt an assurance of authenticity and authority over Digital (virtual) archaeology (Denard 2012; Gabellone et al. 2013). Dawson, Levy and Lyons provide one example of how participants can obtain presence within a virtual archaeological landscape, as well as demonstrating that the foundations of The London Charter can be implemented effectively to maintain rigorous archaeological authority over the virtual material being provided. Our challenge is providing archaeological data to non-archaeologists in ways that are recognizable as visualizations and virtual experiences.

RESEARCH QUESTION(S) 

# 1

What is a longhouse? What data and assumptions within archaeological, historical, and oral traditions go into informing our understanding of what an ancestral northern Iroquoian “longhouse” was and is? What are the challenges and opportunities these divergent lines of evidence present to our efforts to build, engage, and research this form of habitation within virtual contexts?

#2

How has virtual reality been used in archaeology and heritage studies and what might be achievable in the future considering current and upcoming technological advances. How can virtual reconstructions facilitate transformative and innovative research in archaeology?

#3

Ancient, immersive archaeological landscapes and settings can provide audiences with a real sense of being in a place and space; but these are only approximations based on interpretation, supposition, and artistic license. How are issues of authenticity addressed, or not, when developing virtual spaces, and what are some of the main issues when immersive representations are presented as, or assumed to be, authentic? Should intended and unintended audiences only experience virtual representations of the past passively, or should they be able to engage with and challenge the context they explore against what “feels” right to them, whether they are scholar, Descendant or public?

GOALS

We have seen with Dawson, Levy and Lyons that an embodied experience for descendent stakeholders is not only empowering to the participant but beneficial to the archaeologist in unlocking unintended knowledge that further enriches the archaeological record (2011). That digital reproduction of objects, landscapes and narratives do have agency both in the real and virtual worlds and as such must be treated with equal consideration and respect (Earl 2013; Forte 2014b; Huggett 2012a, 2015; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Richardson 2013; Robb 2010). As such virtual archaeology is moving from being evidenced based to evidence informed through a natural progression allowed by the evolution of technology and growth of capabilities, user experience and expectation.

By using the archaeological record as it pertains to the physicality of longhouse construction and use, we are able to envision the unseen. Many cultural, economic, societal and environmental factors help to inform this inquiry, however my desire and goal is to develop both a theoretical and virtual model of the fundamental features of a longhouse that is the manifestation of the dynamic archeological landscape, oral and written histories as well as the creative imagination of the artists and technicians who will ultimately be tasked with digitally reimagining these elusive, iconic and culturally significant architectural symbols of the Northern Iroquoian existence (Watts 2009; Woodworth 1998).

Lastly, archaeological virtual reconstruction through virtual reality has become a powerful tool in the interpretation of archaeological landscapes and artifacts as a means of knowledge building and meaning making (see Dallas 2009, Earl 2013, Forte 2014a & 2014b, Huggett 2013 & Perry 2014). It has become a “mediating tool” allowing researchers to experiment with the data and to tease out the tensions that arise from a multivocal environment (see Dallas 2009 & Earl 2013). These alternate visions help to “stimulate interpretation” creating multi-channeled narratives which spur on additional and unforeseen research questions (Earl 2013). As such, what is apparent is that the practice/study/craft has transcended beyond the internal realm of archaeological study to be fully accepted externally as representative of archaeological studies without it really establishing itself as an accepted cannon of archaeological research (see Earl 2013 & Perry 2014).

METHODS

A strong theoretical foundation of my research will reflect elements such as agency, authority, authenticity and transparency as it is relates to virtual archaeology and archaeology in general. Using reflexivity and critical testing, I hope to understand and demonstrate the application of phenomenology, virtual reality and virtual archaeology to facilitate transformative and innovative research within Iroquoian archaeology, providing a template for future use and deployment within other fields of archaeological study.

My research will be informed by and include theoretical elements from Dawson, Levy and Lyons (phenomenology and presence), Reilly, Barceló, Frischer, Forte, Dallas, Huggett, Gillings (virtual archaeology) and Watts, Ferris, Robb, Frankland, Earl, Perry, Gosden, Denard (agency, authenticity, authority and transparency) among others.

My project will incorporate existing academic literature, research and data as it pertains to the knowledge in the construction methodologies and visualizations of Northern Iroquoian Longhouses primarily influenced by Dodd, Kapches, Wright, Snow and Williamson among others in the field.

I will test my hypothesis by engaging with the archaeological and heritage community to participate and engage with the project in a contextual manner, so as to measure their level of interest in using these techniques in their own areas of specialization and interest. To further determine if these methodologies meet the academic rigor while also providing an informed, innovative and experiential application of archaeological research and community engagement.

TIMELINE AND FUNDING

Year 1: Literature review and research on Northern Iroquoian Longhouse use and construction, the previous and current uses of Virtual Archaeology within archaeological discord and the theoretical and methodological concerns of the representation of heritage material and landscapes within virtual environments.

Year 2: Review and research the application of virtual reality production and virtual reality platforms suited to a robust, interactive and phenomenological multivocal virtual archaeological experience. This will also include gap-filling research on areas of concentration in Year 1 and the development of a “paradata” methodology to allow for the transparent engagement with the research process.

Year 3: The recruitment of computer animation knowledge experts, the development, creation and application of 3D assets, the decision and implementation of a virtual reality delivery platform and consolidation and the analysis of the final virtual reality experience by members of the archaeological community.

As I am a part-time PhD student, I am ineligible for research funding. However, as the full-time administrative Director of a graduate program in Digital Media at the Ryerson University, I have access to the technological hardware and software resources needed in the design, development and deployment of a virtual reality project. Further, this project is being generously funded by the Dr. Neal Ferris from the Museum of Ontario Archaeology/Sustainable Archaeology and Dr. Ron Williamson from Archaeological Services Inc. to allow for the hiring of artistic and technical specialists.

CONCLUSION / IMPLICATIONS, IMPACT AND DISSEMINATION

I am proposing to design, develop and implement a method for the visualization of archaeological data and speculative academic insight within virtual archaeological environments. That this method is grounded in the theories that have formed around the study of virtual archaeology, specifically: agency, authenticity, authority and transparency. In doing so, by using an area of personal interest, I hope to build upon the continued work of Dodd, Wright, Kapches and Snow with regards to Northern Iroquoian longhouse construction and use.

The potential implications of this project could entail the lack of sufficient archaeological, oral and historical data to effectively visualize a Northern Iroquoian longhouse. As such, academic and artistic license as well as time and cost of production will be required to enable only one potential visual interpretation. That the intended technology cannot delivery the virtual effect intended or that the artistic or technical talent required is either unavailable or beyond the scope of my personal skills.

The impact of this study could be substantial. Apart from the pioneering phenomenological work done by Dawson, Levy and Lyons, current research has indicated that no other project is attempting to phenomenologically recreate a 3D virtual Iroquoian Longhouse to the level and sophistication usually reserved for high-end gaming or film production. Further, following the recent development of The London Charter, this project will endeavor to develop a body of transparent knowledge, which is community based and encourages debate and opinion throughout the visualization process. Lastly this project will impact and contribute to the ongoing research and debate on virtual archaeology, it’s application, use and substantial contribution to the study and discipline of archaeology.

This project will be disseminated in multiple forms. The 3D virtual environment and all assets will be made available as an open source tool for the continued use by scholars, Descendants and the public. The accompanying blog and Twitter feeds will provide an ongoing deployment of “paradata” to support the development of continued debate and development of the virtual environment. A conference paper will be proposed and it is my intention to publish on the findings of this work.

PRELIMINARY BIBLIOGRPAHY

 

Barceló, Juan
2000 Visualizing what might be: an introduction to virtual reality techniques in archaeology. In Virtual Reality in Archaeology: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1998. BAR International Series 843, edited by Juan Barceló, Maurizio Forte, and D. Sanders, pp. 9–36. ArcheoPress. British Archaeological Reports (S843), Oxford.
2001 Virtual Reality for archaelogical explanation. Beyond“ picturesque” reconstruction. Archeologia e Calcolatori(12): 221–244.
2012 Computer simulation in archaeology. Art, science or nightmare? . Virtual Archaeology Review 3(5): 8–12.

Barker, Alex W.
2010 Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums. Annual Review of Anthropology.

Beacham, Richard
2006 Oh, to make boards to speak! There is a task! Towards a poetics of paradata. In: Greengrass M and Hughes L (eds) The Virtual Representation of the Past. Farnham: Ashgate: 171–178.

Beale, G, and P Reilly
2014 Additive Archaeology: the spirit of virtual archaeology reprinted. In Archaeological Research in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Greek Chapter (CAA-GR), Institute for Mediterranean Studies – Foundation of Research and Technology (IMS-FORTH), edited by C. Papadopoulos, E. Paliou, A. Chrysanthi, E. Kotoula, and A. Sarris, pp. 122–130. Rethymno.

Beauchamp, William Martin
1905 Aboriginal use of wood in New York. New York State Education Dept.

Birch, Jennifer, and Ronald F Williamson
2012 The Mantle Site: An Archaeological History of an Ancestral Wendat Community. AltaMira Press.
2013 Organizational complexity in ancestral Wendat communities. In From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation, edited by Jennifer Birch, 10:pp. 153–178. Routledge, New York.
2015 Navigating ancestral landscapes in the Northern Iroquoian world. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 139–150.

Brown, D., and G. Nicholas
2012 Protecting indigenous cultural property in the age of digital democracy: Institutional and communal responses to Canadian First Nations and Maori heritage concerns. Journal of Material Culture 17(3): 307–324.

Bursey, Jeffrey a.
2001 Storage Behavior in the Northeast: a Review of the Evidence. North American Archaeologist 22(3): 179–199.

Campbell, Ian D, and Celina Campbell
1994 The impact of late woodland land use on the forest landscape of southern Ontario. The Great Lakes Geographer 1(1): 21–29.

Cargill, Robert R
2009 An Argument for Archaeological Reconstruction in Virtual Reality. Near Eastern archaeology 72(1): 28–41.

Carrozzino, Marcello, and Massimo Bergamasco
2010 Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11(4): 452–458.

Ch’ng, Eugene
2009 Experiential archaeology: Is virtual time travel possible? Journal of Cultural Heritage 10(4): 458–470.

Chadwick, Edward Marion
1897 The People of the Longhouse. ICIBinding Corporation.

Chalmers, Alan, and Eva Zányi
2010 Multi-Sensory Virtual Environments for Investigating the Past. Virtual Archaeology Review 1: 13–16.

Chapdelaine, Claude
1993 The Sedentarization of the Prehistoric Iroquoians: A Slow or Rapid Transformation? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12(2): 173–209.

Charest, Michelle
2009 Thinking Through Living: Experience and the Production of Archaeological Knowledge. Archaeologies 5(3): 416–445.

Cooper, David
2003 A Virtual Dig—Joining Archaeology and Fiction to Promote Critical and Historical Thinking. The Social Studies.

Cooper, Martin S, M S Cooper, D a Robertson, and D a Robertson
1993 The Norton Site (AfHh-86): The Rediscovery of a Late Iroquoian Village in London, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 56(Figure 3): 0–33.

Cox, G.,
2010 The Shrine of the Hunters at Çatalhöyük. Video, https://youtu.be/pAV8z6NesOA, accessed June 3, 2015.

Creese, John L.
2012a The Domestication of Personhood: a View from the Northern Iroquoian Longhouse. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(03): 365–386.
2012b Post Molds and Preconceptions: New Observations about Iroquoian Longhouse Architecture. Northeast Anthropology(77): 47–69.
2012c The Domestication of Personhood: a View from the Northern Iroquoian Longhouse. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(03): 365–386.

Dasgupta , S.
2006 Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies. Hershey, PA : PA Idea Group Reference .

Dallas, Costi
2009 From artefact typologies to cultural heritage ontologies: or, an account of the lasting impact of archaeological computing. Archeologia e Calcolatori 20: 205–221.

Dawson, P., R. Levy, and N. Lyons
2011 “Breaking the fourth wall”: 3D virtual worlds as tools for knowledge repatriation in archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3): 387–402.

Denard, Hugh
2012 A new introduction to the London Charter. Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage Digital Research in the Arts and Humanities Series(Ashgate, 2012): 57–71.

Dobres, Marcia-Anne, and John Ernest Robb
2000 Agency in archaeology: Paradigm or platitude? BT – Agency in archaeology. In Agency in archaeology, edited by John Ernest Robb and Marcia-Anne Dobres, pp. 271. Psychology Press.

Dornan, Jennifer L
2002 Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4): 303–329.

Earl, Graeme
2013 Modeling in archaeology: computer graphic and other digital pasts. Perspectives on Science 21(2): 226–244.

Earl, Graeme, Tim Sly, Angeliki Chrysanthi, Patricia Murrieta-Flores, Constantinos Papadopoulos, Iza Romanowska, and David Wheatley
2013 Archaeology in the Digital Era. In 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), pp. 482. Amsterdam University Press.

Ferris, Neal
1999 Telling Tales : Interpretive Trends in Southern Ontario Late Woodland Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology 68: 1–62.

Fisher, Matthew, and Beth A Twiss-Garrity
2007 Remixing exhibits: Constructing participatory narratives with on-line tools to augment museum experiences. In Proceedings of the International Conference for Culture and Heritage Online.

Fitzgerald, William R
1979 The Hood site: Longhouse burials in an Historic Neutral village. Ontario Archaeology 32: 43–60.
1982 Lest the Beaver Run Loose: the Early 17Th Century Christianson Site and Trends in Historic Neutral Archaeology. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper Mercury Series. 111: 364.
1984 An introduction to the Raymond Reid (HiHa-4) hamlet. Arch Notes 84: 3–24.

Forte, Maurizio
2011 Cyber-Archaeology : Notes on the simulation of the past. Virtual Archaeology Review 2(4): 7–18.
2014a 3D Archaeology : New Perspectives and Challenges — The Example of Çatalhöyük. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2(1): 1–29.
2014b Virtual Reality and Cyberarchaeology. In 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Theory and best practices., edited by Fabio Remondino and Stefano Campana, pp. 3–6. ArcheoPress. British Archaeological Reports (S2598), Oxford.

Forte, Maurizio, Sofia Pescarin, Eva Pietroni, and Claudio Rufa
2006 Multiuser interaction in an archaeological landscape: The Flaminia project. BAR International Series 1568: 189.

Franchi, Jorge
1994 Virtual reality: An overview. TechTrends 39(1): 23–26.

Frankland, Tom, and Graeme Earl
2011 Authority and authenticity in future archaeological visualisation. Original Citation: 62.

Frischer, Bernard
2008 From digital illustration to digital heuristics. Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology 1805.

Frischer, Bernard, Franco Niccolucci, Nick Ryan, and Juan Barceló
2000 From CVR to CVRO: The Past, Present, and Future of Cultural Virtual Reality. VAST Conference on Virtual reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage, Arezzo, Italy.(November): 1–12.

Frischer, Bernard, and Premio Tartessos
2011 Art and Science in the Age of Digital Reproduction : From Mimetic Representation to Interactive Virtual Reality. Virtual Archaeology Review 2(4): 19–32.

Fritz, John M, and Fred T Plog
1970a The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity 35(4): 405–412.

Gabellone, Francesco, Ivan Ferrari, and Davide Tanasi
2013 The reconstructive study of the Greek colony of Syracuse in a 3D stereoscopic movie for tourists and scholars. In Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), 2013, 2:pp. 693–700. IEEE.

Gerard-Little, Peregrine a., Michael B. Rogers, and Kurt a. Jordan
2012 Understanding the built environment at the Seneca Iroquois White Springs Site using large-scale, multi-instrument archaeogeophysical surveys. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(7): 2042–2048.

Gibbons, Garry
2010 Visualisation in archaeology: connecting research and practice. Virtual archaeology review 1(2): 13–17.

Giddings, Seth
2015 Simknowledge: What Museums Can Learn from Video Games. In The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Media, edited by Michelle Henning, pp. 145–164. First Edit. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gill, Alyson A.
2009 Digitizing the Past: Charting New Courses in the Modeling of Virtual Landscapes. Visual Resources 25(4): 313–332.

Gillen, Julia
2012 Archaeology in a virtual world: Schome Park. In Discourse and Creativity, edited by R Jones. Pearson.

Gillings, Mark
2004 Using Computers in Archaeology: towards virtual pasts. Industrial Archaeology Review 26(2): 144–145.
2005 The real, the virtually real, and the hyperreal: The role of VR in archaeology. Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image: 223–239.

Goddard, P.
1999 Steve” Spaz” Williams & the Future of CGI. Take One: Film & Television in Canada, 8(24).

González-Tennant, Edward
2010 Virtual Archaeology and Digital Storytelling: A Report from Rosewood, Florida. The African Diaspora Archaeology Network 13(3 September): 1–27.

Gosden, Chris
2005 What do objects want? Journal of archaeological method and theory 12(3): 193–211.

Greengrass, Mark, and Lorna M. Hughes
2008 The Virtual Representation of the Past. The English Historical Review 1(512): 276.

Gregorio, Sergio
2009 Defining digital archaeology. In Archiving 2009: preservation strategies and imaging technologies for cultural heritage institutions and memory organizations: final program and proceedings, edited by William LeFurgy, pp. 92–95. IS&T’s Archiving Conference, 6. Society for Imaging Science & Technology.

Hall, Tony, Luigina Ciolfi, Liam Bannon, Mike Fraser, Steve Benford, John Bowers, Sten-olof Hellström, Shahram Izadi, Holger Schnädelbach, and Martin Flintham
2002 The Visitor as Virtual Archaeologist : Explorations in Mixed Reality Technology to Enhance Educational and Social Interaction in the Museum. Methods. VAST ’01: 91–97.

Harrower, Michael James, Kathleen M. O’Meara, Joseph J Basile, Clara J Hickman, Jennifer L Swerida, Ioana a Dumitru, Jacob L Bongers, Cameron J Bailey, and Edwin Fieldhouse
2014 If a picture is worth a thousand words…3D modelling of a Bronze Age tower in Oman. World Archaeology 46(1): 43–62.

Hart, John P, and Christina B Rieth
2002 Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change : A . D . 700 – 1300. Bulletin 4. New York State Museum, Albany, New York.

Hart, John P.
2000 New Dates on Classic New York State Sites: Just How Old Are Those Longhouses? Northeast Anthropology.

Hart, John P., and Bernard K. Means
2002 Maize and Villages: A Summary and Critical Assessment of Current Northeast Early Late Prehistoric Evidence. Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change: A.D. 700–1300 18: 345–358.

Hatch, James W, and Gregory H Bondar
2001 Late Woodland Palisaded Villages from Ontario to the Carolinas. In Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited by L P Sullivan and S C Prezzano, pp. 149–167.

Hayden, Brian
1977 Corporate Groups and the Late Ontario Longhouse. Ontario Archaeology(28): 3–16.

De Heras Ciechomski, Pablo, Branislav Ulicny, Rachel Cetre, and Daniel Thalmann
2004 A case study of a virtual audience in a reconstruction of an ancient Roman odeon in Aphrodisias. In VAST 2004: the 5th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage: incorporating 2nd Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage: Conscience-auditorium, Brussels and Ename Center, Oudenaarde, Belgium, edited by Yiorgos Chrysanthou, Kevin Cain, Neil Silberman, and Franco Niccolucci, pp. 9–17. EG workshop proceedings. Eurographics Association.

Hermon, Sorin.
2008 Reasoning In 3D: a Critical Appraisal of The Role of 3D Modelling and Virtual Reconstructions In Archaeology. In Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies As Tools For Discovery In Archaeology, pp. 36–45. Archaeopress Oxford.

Huggett, J.
2012a What lies beneath: lifting the lid on archaeological computing. In Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretative Process, edited by A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrietta, Flores, and C. Papadopoulos, pp. 204–214. Archeopress.
2012b Lost in information? Ways of knowing and modes of representation in e-archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4): 538–552.
2013 Disciplinary issues: challenging the research and practice of computer applications in archaeology. In Archaeology in the Digital Era, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 13–24.
2015 A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology. Open Archaeology 1(1): 86–95.

Huvila, Isto
2013 The Unbearable Complexity of Documenting Intellectual Processes: Paradata and Virtual Cultural Heritage Visualisation. Human IT 12(01).

Johnson, Matthew H.
2012 Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology*. Annual Review of Anthropology.

Jones, Eric E
2010 An analysis of factors influencing sixteenth and seventeenth century Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) settlement locations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(1): 1–14.
2014 Society for American Archaeology Using Viewshed Analysis to Explore Settlement Choice : A Case Study of the Onondaga Iroquois using viewshed analysis to explore settlement choice : a case study of the Onondaga Iroquois 71(3): 523–538.

Hodder, I.
2008 Multivocality and social archaeology. In Evaluating multiple narratives. pp. 196-20. Springer New York.

Jones, Eric E., and James W. Wood
2012 Using event-history analysis to examine the causes of semi-sedentism among shifting cultivators: A case study of the Haudenosaunee, AD 1500-1700. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(8): 2593–2603.

Jones, Quentin
1997 Virtual-Communities, Virtual Settlements & Cyber-Archaeology: A Theoretical Outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(3): 0–0.

Jordan, Kurt a.
2013 Incorporation and Colonization: Postcolumbian Iroquois Satellite Communities and Processes of Indigenous Autonomy. American Anthropologist 115(1): 29–43.

Kapches, Mima
1990 The spatial dynamics of Ontario Iroquoian longhouses. American Antiquity: 49–67.
2007 The Iroquoian longhouse: architectural and cultural identity. Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Reading and Research Sources: 174–188.

Keener, Craig S.
1999 An Ethnohistorical Analysis of Iroquois Assault Tactics Used against Fortified Settlements of the Northeast in the Seventeenth Century. Ethnohistory 46(4): 777–807.

Kemp, Simon
2015 Digital, Social & Mobile Worldwide in 2015. We Are Social.

Klein, Herbert
2007 From Romanticism to Virtual Reality: Charles Babbage, William Gibson and the Construction of Cyberspace. Interdisciplinary Humanities 24(1): 36–51.

Komlos, John
2003 An anthropometric history of early-modern France. European Review of Economic History 7(02): 159–189.

Lennox, Paul a, P a Lennox, J E Molto, and J E Molto
1995 The Archaeology and Physical Anthropology of the EC Row Site: A Springwells Phase Settlement, Essex County, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 60: 0–5.

Levy, Richard, and Peter Dawson
2009 Using finite element methods to analyze ancient architecture: an example from the North American Arctic. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(10): 2298–2307.

Limp, W F, A Payne, S Winters, A Barnes, and J Cothren
2010 Approaching 3D Digital Heritage Data from a Multi-technology, Lifecycle Perspective. In CAA’ 2010 Fusion of Cultures, edited by F Contreras and F J Melero, pp. 1–8. Granada, Spain.

MacDonald, Robert
1987 Notes on longhouse storage cubicles. Arch-Notes 87(3): 5–11.
1988 Ontario Iroquoian sweat lodges. Ontario Archaeology 48: 17–26.

MacNeish, Richard S
1952 A possible early site in the Thunder Bay district, Ontario. Edmond Cloutier, Queen’s Printer and Controller of Stationery.

Martinez, Philippe
2001 Digital realities and archaeology. In Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Virtual reality, archeology, and cultural heritage – VAST ’01, pp. 9. ACM Press.

Merriman, Nick
2004 Public archaeology. North. Routledge.

Miller, Paul, and Julian Richards
1995 The good, the bad, and the downright misleading: archaeological adoption of computer visualisation. BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES 600: 19.

Morgan, Colleen L.
2009 (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies 5(3): 468–487.

Morgan, Lewis Henry
1881 Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines. Volume IV. Vol. 4. US Government Printing Office, Washington.

Moser, Stephanie, and Sam Smiles
2008 Introduction: The Image in Question. In Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image, pp. 1–12. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Mullins, P. R
2001 Agency in archaeology. American Antiquity. Vol. 66.

Niccolucci, F.
2007 Virtual museums and archaeology: an international perspective. Archeologia e Calcolatori Supplement: 15–30.

Nicholas, George P., and Kelly P. Bannister
2004 Copyrighting the Past? Emerging Intellectual Property Rights Issues in Archaeology. Current Anthropology.

Noble, William C
1975 Corn and the development of village life in southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 25: 37–46.

Norcliffe, G B, and C E Heidenreich
1974 The preferred orientation of Iroquoian longhouses in Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 23(3): 3–30.

O’Gorman, Jodie A
2010 Exploring the Longhouse and Community in Tribal Society. American Antiquity 75(3): 571–597.

Paardekooper, Roeland
2010 Experimental archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, pp. 1345–1358. Elsevier Inc.

Palombini, Augusto, and Sofia Pescarin
2011 Virtual archaeology and museums, an Italian perspective. Virtual archaeology review 2(4): 151–154.

Papadopoulos, Constantinos, and Graeme Earl
2012 Formal three-dimensional computational analyses of archaeological spaces. In Spatial analysis and social spaces, pp. 135–166. DE GRUYTER, Berlin, Boston.

Papaioannou, Georgios, Evaggelia Aggeliki Karabassi, and Theoharis Theoharis
2001 Virtual Archaeologist: Assembling the past. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21(2): 53–59.

Patay-Horváth, András
2013 The virtual 3D reconstruction of the east pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia an old puzzle of classical archaeology in the light of recent technologies. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 1(1): 12–22.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt
2005 Agency in a postmold? Physicality and the archaeology of culture-making. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3): 213–237.

Perry, Sara
2015 Crafting knowledge with (digital) visual media in archaeology. In Material Evidence. Learning from archaeological practice., edited by R. Chapman and A. Wylie, pp. 189–210. Routledge, New York and London.

Pletinckx, Daniel, and Premio Tartessos
2011 Virtual Archaeology as an Integrated Preservation Method. Virtual Archaeology Review 2: 33–37.

Pringle, M J, and M R Moulding
1997 Applications for virtual reality, and associated information technology, in the illustration of archaeological material. Graphic archaeology: 22–34.

Pujol Tost, L
2004 Archaeology, Museums and Virtual Reality. DigitHUM Revista Digital dHumanitats(6).

Pujol Tost, Laia
2008 Does virtual archaeology exist? In Layers of perception: proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Berlin, Germany, April 2-6, 2007, edited by Axel Posluschny, Karsten Lambers, and Irmela Herzog, pp. 101–107. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Bd. 10. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.

Punzalan, Ricardo L
2014 Understanding virtual reunification. The Library 84(3).

Reilly, P.
1989 Data visualization in archaeology. IBM Systems Journal 28(4): 569–579.
1991 Towards a Virtual Archaeology. CAA90. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1990: 132–139.
2015 Putting the materials back into Virtual Archaeology. St. Petersburg.

Richards-Rissetto, Heather, Fabio Remondino, Giorgio Agugiaro, Jennifer Von Schwerin, Jim Robertsson, and Gabrio Girardi
2012 Kinect and 3D GIS in archaeology. In Proceedings of the 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, VSMM 2012: Virtual Systems in the Information Society, pp. 331–337.

Richardson, Lorna
2013 A Digital Public Archaeology? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 23(1): 1–12.

Robb, John
2010 Beyond agency. World archaeology 42(4): 493–520.

Rua, Helena, and Pedro Alvito
2010 Reliving the Past: 3D Models and Virtual Reality as Supporting Tools for Archaeology and the Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage: The case study of the Roman Villa of Freiria. In Virtual Reality, pp. 1–10.

Ryan, Nick
2001 Documenting and validating Virtual Archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 12: 245–273.

Salmond, Amiria
2012 Digital subjects, cultural objects: Special issue introduction. Journal of Material Culture 17(3): 211–228.

Schrecker, Anne
1976 Spatial Concepts in Primitive Building: Toward A Phenomenology of Architectural Form. University of Toronto.

Slator, B.M., J.T. Clark, J., III Landrum, A. Bergstrom, J. Hawley, E. Johnston, and S. Fisher
2001 Teaching with immersive virtual archaeology. Proceedings Seventh International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia.

Styliani, Sylaiou, Liarokapis Fotis, Kotsakis Kostas, and Patias Petros
2009 Virtual museums, a survey and some issues for consideration. Journal of Cultural Heritage.

Sutherland, Ivan E.
1965 The Ultimate Display. In Proceedings of IFIP Congress 1965, pp. 506–508.

Thomas, Julian
1996 Time, culture, and identity : an interpretative archaeology. Material cultures. Routledge.

Watts, Christopher M.
2009 Coming to our Senses: Toward a Unified Perception of the Iroquoian Longhouse. In Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-Modern Context, edited by J. Thomas and V. Jorge, pp. 209–224. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Wilk, R., and W. L. Rathje
1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist.

Williams-Shuker, Kimberly, and Kathleen M S Allen
1998 Longhouse Remains at the Carman Site: Paper Presented at the Cayuga Museum Northeast Archaeological Symposium, October 23-24, 1998.

Williamson, Ronald F.
2004 Replication or Interpretation of the Iroquoian Longhouse. In The Reconstructed Past: Reconstrucions in the Public Interpretation of Archaeology and History, edited by John H. Jameson, Jr., pp. 147–166. Altamira Press, New York.
2007 The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians. Ed. Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye. The taking and displaying of human body parts as trophies by Amerindians. Interdisciplinary contributions to archaeology. Springer US, Boston, MA.
2009 Longhouse Heating Experiment Ska-Nah-Doht Village, Longwoods Conservation Authority (1979). Toronto.

Williamson, Ronald F, and Robert I MacDonald
2015 Echoes of the Iroquois Wars: Contested Heritage and Identity in the Ancestral Homeland of the Huron-Wendat. In Identity and Heritage, edited by Peter F. Biehl, Douglas C. Comer, Christopher Prescott, and Hilary A Soderland, pp. 97–106. SpringerBriefs in Archaeology. Springer International Publishing, New York.

Williamson, Ronald F., David G Smith, Robert J Pearce, and Rodolphe J. Fecteau
1979 The Longhouse Experiment : An Experience In Iroquoian Archaeology. Toronto.

Wintemberg, William J
1900 Indian village sites in the counties of Oxford and Waterloo. Annual Archaeological Report of the Ontario Provincial Museum appended to the Report of the Minister of Education: 37–40.

Wintemberg, William John
1939 Lawson Prehistoric Village Site, Middlesex County, Ontario. Vol. 94. JO Patenaude, printer.
1972 Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenville County, Ontario.

Woodwark, J.
1991 Reconstructing history with computer graphics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 1:18-20.

Zimbra, D., A. Abbasi, and H. Chen
2010 A Cyber-archaeology Approach to Social Movement Research: Framework and Case Study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 16(1): 48–70.

Zubrow, E.
2006 Digital Archaeology. Digital Archaeology. Bridging method and theory, London, pp. 10-31.

Zuk, T, S Carpendale, and W D Glanzman
2005 Visualizing temporal uncertainty in 3D virtual reconstructions. In VAST 2005: the 6th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Intelligent Cultural Heritage, incorporating 3rd Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage: ISTI-CNR Pisa, Italy, November 8-11, 2005, pp. 99–106. Eurographics Association.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. My second draft PhD Proposal - theskonkworks - […] is my second draft of my PhD Proposal.  My first is located here to compare.  In this round, I…
  2. My third draft PhD Proposal - theskonkworks - […] here is my third draft of my PhD research proposal.  In comparison, my first draft can be viewed here…

Leave a Reply