Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access October 6, 2015

Additive Archaeology: An Alternative Framework for Recontextualising Archaeological Entities

  • Paul Reilly
From the journal Open Archaeology

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.

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. Search in Google Scholar

[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. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Lucas, G., Understanding the Archaeological Record, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. 10.1017/CBO9780511845772Search in Google Scholar

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

[5] Jones, A.M. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. Search in Google Scholar

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

[7] Barad, K., Posthumanist Performativity: Towards an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter, Signs, 2003, 28 (3), 801-831. 10.1086/345321Search in Google Scholar

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

[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. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Basiliere, P. and Shanler, M. Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, Gartner, Stamford, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Buchli, V. The Prototype: presencing the immaterial, Journal of VisualCommunications, 2010, 9, 273-286. 10.1177/1470357210372718Search in Google Scholar

[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. 10.1007/978-1-4419-5529-6_11Search in Google Scholar

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

[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. 10.1080/00293652.2015.1086812Search in Google Scholar

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

[16] Oxman, N., Variable Property Rapid Prototyping, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 2011, 6 (1), 3-31. 10.1080/17452759.2011.558588Search in Google Scholar

[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. 10.1145/2461912.2461994Search in Google Scholar

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

[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. 10.1108/13552541211271983Search in Google Scholar

[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 Search in Google Scholar

[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/. Search in Google Scholar

[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. 10.1108/13552540610652410Search in Google Scholar

[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. Search in Google Scholar

[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. 10.1162/PRES_a_00229Search in Google Scholar

[25] Clough, G.W., Best of Both Worlds. Museums, Libraries, and Archives in a Digital Age, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 2013. 10.5479/si.9780981950013Search in Google Scholar

[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. 10.14236/ewic/EVA2011.27Search in Google Scholar

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

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

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

[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. 10.1080/21662282.2012.750446Search in Google Scholar

[31] Gell, A. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. Search in Google Scholar

[32] Olivier, L. The Past of the Present. Archaeological Memory and Time, Archaeological Dialogues, 2004, 10, 204-213, DOI: 10.1017/S1380203804001254. 10.1017/S1380203804001254Search in Google Scholar

[33] Berry, D.M. Critical Theory and the Digital, Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

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

[35] Huggett, J. A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology, Open Archaeology, 2015, 1 (1), 86-95, DOI: 10.1515/ opar-2015-0003. 10.1515/opar-2015-0002Search in Google Scholar

[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. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Witmore, C.L. Prolegomena to Open Pasts: On Archaeological Memory Practices, Archaeologies, 2009, 5 (3), 511-544. 10.1007/s11759-009-9112-1Search in Google Scholar

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

[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. Search in Google Scholar

[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. Search in Google Scholar

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

[42] Applebaum, B. Conservation Treatment Methodology, Butterworth, Oxford, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

[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. Search in Google Scholar

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

Received: 2014-12-4
Accepted: 2015-9-23
Published Online: 2015-10-6

© 2015 Paul Reilly

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Downloaded on 19.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opar-2015-0013/html
Scroll to top button