This post is a reprint of a 2011 Theoretical Archaeology paper I wrote in my first year of PhD studies. Recently I was challenged by my supervisory committee to point to a theoretical framework that I would use for my PhD research and in those notes was a comment about Tim Ingold’s book Being Alive which we read extensively. In the four years since that course, I had completely forgotten about Ingold, although his books always seemed to be physically in the way on my desk! I took the weekend to read it again and found, as I did four years ago, that his take on wayfaring blended nicely with the 3D animation/virtual reality process.
The paper below was my way of figuring out how Ingold and wayfaring fit within my initial research on developing an interactive 3D longhouse builder which eventually became Longhouse 1.0. I hope you enjoy it for what it is, but I thank my committee for reminding me of Ingold’s influence on my research.
To really understand the impact of the 3D CGI digital taskscape within the archaeological landscape, one needs to envision a virtual environment, empty of traditional senses. A black void of infinite 3D space, entirely dependent on user input, direction and purpose. A habitat entirely dependent on the coming into being, capture or importing of a single point, surface or object for any form of wayfaring to begin. This requires a paradigm shift of unparalleled magnitude, as the virtual world is a meshwork of organic, ever evolving tissue, influenced by an infinitesimal amount of inputs, properties or attributes. By breaking down the virtual world, to its most simplistic nuclei, the point, archaeologists can begin to understand the ramifications and rewards of digital archaeological methods, while formulating a new theoretical language to enhance the understanding of what digital means to archaeological study.
The point in 3D space, leads a curious existence. Without it, there is no marker or reference within the landscape. Visualization within archaeology has always been to the point, so to speak. Humanists, the early archaeologists of the modern age would spend countless years, using points, lines and renderings to bring antiquities, namely sculptures and architecture back to their contemporaries from faraway lands, preserving a visual history of cultures past (Belozerskaya 2009, p.11). Points on maps became methods of wayfaring for explorers, seeking new discoveries, but also connecting ancient and new pathways (Ingold 2011, pp.142-143). Ancient explorers used the environment to navigate, within 3D space, the point becomes a waypoint for the digital explorer. Once the digital explorer understands their habitat, then the process of wayfaring begins.
How do we as archaeological theorists, develop research methodologies to enable the points contribution, understand its power, and ultimately determine its validity in the field of archaeological research? Wayfaring is one of those theories that may have a direct impact on how digital archaeologist might find a base to start. As described by Ingold, wayfaring is a process in which human and non-human beings inhabit the world (2011, p.143). Wayfaring is living, moving constantly, weaving, and interacting within an organic habitat of experiences, pathways and landscapes (Ingold 2011, pp.12-13). In the same sense, points within 3D CGI space exhibit the same characteristics. It is from this viewpoint that we will look at wayfaring and waypoints within the digital archaeological context.
Fig. 1 A meshwork polygonal rendering of a 3D object.
Points, Pixels and Voxels
A point can occupy 2D or 3D space. In its purist form, the binary code that creates a point digitally is basically saying “I‟m here” or more specifically, “I‟m on”. It can be stationary or have movement, store endless amounts of physical and temporal data, as well as connect with other points to create a meshwork or network of interrelated lines, surfaces, objects and ultimately, 3D computer generated images or CGI for short (Fig. 1).
Fig. 2 A vectorized point in 2D.
In its digital 2D or 3D form, a point is only a point within a vectorized digital environment such that its micro and macro visual representation is infinitely rounded or spherical (Fig. 2). As a 2D object, it occupies X and Y space with its 3D counterpart adding Z or depth to its dimension. Both 2D and 3D points can be animated in a fluid motion respectively in their dimensions and various degrees thereof. Amongst the myriad of other “attributes” they can possess, the point has the ability to take on colour, shade or textures, which can also be animated. Ingold calls these attributes, properties (2011, pp. 29-30).
Fig. 3 A rasterized point in 2D.
Unlike a pixel, which is a square, rasterized and a singularly 2D representation of images that must work with multiple pixels to create a visual representation of a point, a vectorized point is a unique single entity. Pixels occupy space, but are less organic in their movement. They are restricted to rigid constraints of moving from one pixel to another. Visually a pixel is not infinite, which means its visual representation at the micro level becomes lost (Fig. 3).
Fig. 4 A network of voxels within a 3D environment (source: http://naarvoren.nl/artikel/3d/).
Voxels are a curious blend of attributes from points and pixels within 3D space. They are as interrelational as pixels however they occupy and manipulate volume and elements within X, Y and Z space (Fig. 4). These are characterized as a solid form within a 3D space. A voxel is a 3D pixel.
My own bias as a 3D specialist leans towards the assumption that a “point” is only a point in a CGI space when perfectly round, infinitely visually sustained and occupied within a vectorized environment. This is obviously not the case, as a point can have many meanings and visual representations. However, in moving forward to discuss points in 3D space, we should adopt this bias to fully understand the capabilities and pitfalls within computer aided 3D archaeological research.
3D Points and Improvisation within the Taskscape
Fig. 5 A point cloud image of a 3D object.
To get to the point, when using digital techniques such as 3D scanning, GPRS, GIS, or even creating entirely new virtual CGI models, the point is the key element in the visualization of data. As archaeologists we rely on a complex set of digital instructions to capture the “likeness” of an artifact, site or position. These instructions are based on rational assumptions that are programmed into the software and hardwired into the hardware of the tools we use. For GPRS, they take into account the density of the ground material, or the satellite triangulation in GIS or even the presumed height of the survey equipment out in the field. Hence, the point‟s existence when captured is arbitrary and dependent on the initial design of the equipment and the application to any one application of the tool set.
Upon capturing the point, the user is given a mass of data, both visual and technical and presumably representative of the object or application it has just captured (Fig. 5). One makes the presumption because the technology does what it‟s told; it captures data. In layman‟s terms we call this a point cloud.
After the capture stage, it is now our responsibility to sift through the data to determine the relevancy of each point and it‟s interconectiveness with the rest of the points and data within that cloud. We can rely on the technology to “clean up” or optimize this mass, but doing so begins the process of improvisation (Ingold 2011, p.216). One would argue that this process begins the moment that the technology attempts to capture data of any type, but I see the human decision to manipulate freshly captured data as the starting point to when this data is first given meaning.
The technology in question is not biased. During a process, it will record or capture any data, whether relevant or not. At the capture stage, the user has the ability to set standards for the collection of data which in most cases, eliminates material that is unassociated with the object, survey, or site being captured. However, this technology and process is based on a programmer‟s assumptions potentially made years in advance and, in the case of most archaeological applications of any technology, was written by people who have never experienced the archaeological process.
The important point is that data captured is never entirely accurate. It is representative, and in most cases, is the start of a long chain of improvisations that end with data or assumptions exponentially distant from its original source.
Agency, ANT and Wayfaring in Points
How many archaeologists have sat starring at the mass of points on their computer, fretting about where to go next? A point cloud is nothing less than an archaeological dig in itself; layer upon layer of virtual artifacts, some relevant and some completely arbitrary. I equate this somewhat to sculpting. The sculptor starts with a material and either builds or reduces its mass. He works by physically visualizing a temporal image. Based on the type of material, the environment or even the remembrance of the temporal image, the end product is extensively “worked” but highly improvised from the original impetus (Ingold 2011, p.216). Each improvisation, from the selection of the material, its fundamental physical makeup, to the end product, has been given agency (Gosden 2005, p.196). As discussed previously, the technology will capture everything allowed by the user. Once captured, we have to sift through the layers and in most cases, arbitrarily realize the data into a manageable and recognizable form.
Fig. 6 A polygon meshwork of a 3D object.
That single point, in a mass of millions is powerful. Its neighbour and the point at the furthest position away are all interconnected and equally important. In many cases we are reducing point numbers by determining which are necessary or not to visualize. Sometimes we add points as our perception of the final image, is not what was captured. Like a sculptor, we manipulate the material to meet our aesthetic and artistic needs. In the case of 3D visualization, a point is like an agent within an actor network (Knappett 2008, pp.141-142). Although you only need two points to make a line or what in CGI terminology is called a spline, one requires a minimum of three points to make a surface or a polygon. To make a second surface, all one needs is an additional point and so on. These networks of interconnected triangulated surfaces create the visual shell or mesh network of the object we have just captured (Fig. 6).
Within these meshworks, points can transmit unique attributes or properties to other points, or can share and blend attributes with other points (Ingold 2011, p.70). At its basic form, points take on the qualities of a knot. They can retain their own unique, user defined, properties while transmitting or passing through data from other points throughout the meshwork of points and surfaces (Ingold 2011, p.70; Knappett 2008, pp.143-144). Points thus retain agency while also working within an actor network as well as forming a meshwork (Gosden 2005, p.196; Knappett 2008, pp.141-142). It is a symbiotic relationship that can be altered with the simple deletion of a point.
Points can take on characteristics of wayfaring. If a point is deemed irrelevant at a particular time, ignoring it will cause forgetting and forgetting will likely result in the co-opting of its existence or deletion. Only later when the networks and meshworks are broken does remembrance take hold and we are forced to retrace our steps to reintroduce a discarded point (Moshenska 2008, p.52)(Tzortzopoulou-Gregory 2010, p.300). However, if that point lives in a procedural network, rather than a linear one, wayfaring becomes organic in the CGI visualization process where remembering and forgetting is negated through a visual interactive and historical state.
Procedural networks within 3D visualization are a dynamic building block. One starts with an input like a point cloud, and attaches operators which do very specific tasks such as, the deleting or connecting of a point that is added to model to visualize the data. As the original material input is reworked digitally, each operator provides a map or a waypoint which is dynamically linked to the operation prior and post. This dynamic mapping allows the user flexibility to change any operation, like the deleting of a point, without destroying the history of the end product. Dynamically, this helps to maintain the originality of the data captured while rapidly prototyping, or easily visualizing, multiple organic changes to determine a best fit. CGI proceduralism however, is another paper!
Artistic Wayfaring
Fig. 7 A surface rendered image of a 3D object.
The technologist, archaeologist or artist who is tasked to make sense of the captured digital landscape, relies on training, instinct and creativity. As Ingold points out, artists are “itinerant wayfarers” making their way through the taskscape (2011; p.216). In many ways, the artist is interpreting the cloud of points against the actual landscape. Through slight variations, although seemingly repetitive (Ingold 2011, pp.50-62), the artist is changing the material and visual nature of the object, continuously correcting (Ingold 2011, p.217) what it is being referenced. Ingold states; „any formal resemblance between the copy and model is not given in advance, but is rather a horizon of attainment, to be judged in retrospect’ (2011, p.216). However, unlike the artist, the archaeologist wants an exact digital copy, unstylized and free of improvisation (Fig. 7).
Like the Paleo hunter-gatherer who has wandered off in search of better hunting or gathering, artistic wayfaring like the digital point themselves, are dynamic and always in a state of movement. It is this dynamic process, when working with the data and manipulating it within the taskscape, that we must recognize as something entirely new in its final form. The original path is altered and organically, the point has been given new agency.
Conclusion
From the moment of data capture, the 3D vectorized point in its purist form is a waypoint. It is given agency when artistic wayfaring begins yet it also retains characteristics of an actor network when combined with other captured waypoints. Its interconnectivity creates a wayfaring meshwork, which can transmit and retain unique properties or attributes. Through forgetting and remembrance, multiple waypoints when joined, become a new virtual object built through millions of improvisations by itinerant wayfaring. The final digital artifact is thus defined not by its original source, but by the waypoints and the processes that have moulded it.
This has been a personal journey of theoretical exploration. The literature dealing with digital methodologies or theory within archaeology is scarce to non-existent. Although I had not intended to reference Tim Ingold as much as I have, his observations and that is what I will call them for now, do lend themselves organically to the task of developing theories suitable for digital archaeology. It is in this spirit, that I have taken Ingold‟s theories and reworked them to suit my purpose in understanding how digital archaeology is not only a method but also a theory.
References
Belozerskaya, M. 2009 To Wake the Dead: A Renaissance Merchant and the Birth of Archaeology. New York: W.W.Norton & Company, Inc.
Gosden, C. 2005 “What do objects want?” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):193-211.
Ingold, T. 2011 Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge.
Knappett, L. 2008 “The Neglected Networks of Material Agency: Artefacts, Pictures and Texts.” Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Berlin: Springer.
Moshenska, G. 2009 “Resonant Materiality and Violent Remembering: Archaeology, Memory and Bombing. International Journal of Heritage Studies 15(1): 44-56
Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, L. 2010 “Remembering and Forgetting: The Relationship Between Memory and the Abandonment of Graves in Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century Greek Cemeteries.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14:285-301.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks