Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Open Archaeology

1 Issue per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

Interpretation at the Controller’s Edge: Designing Graphical User Interfaces for the Digital Publication of the Excavations at Gabii (Italy)

Rachel S. Opitz
  • Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies and Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, 1 University Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72701
/ Tyler D. Johnson
  • Department of Classical Studies, University of Arkansas, 1 University Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Published Online: 2016-03-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0001


This paper discusses the authors’ approach to designing an interface for the Gabii Project’s digital volumes that attempts to fuse elements of traditional synthetic publications and site reports with rich digital datasets. Archaeology, and classical archaeology in particular, has long engaged with questions of the formation and lived experience of towns and cities. Such studies might draw on evidence of local topography, the arrangement of the built environment, and the placement of architectural details, monuments and inscriptions (e.g. Johnson and Millett 2012). Fundamental to the continued development of these studies is the growing body of evidence emerging from new excavations. Digital techniques for recording evidence “on the ground,” notably SFM (structure from motion aka close range photogrammetry) for the creation of detailed 3D models and for scene-level modeling in 3D have advanced rapidly in recent years. These parallel developments have opened the door for approaches to the study of the creation and experience of urban space driven by a combination of scene-level reconstruction models (van Roode et al. 2012, Paliou et al. 2011, Paliou 2013) explicitly combined with detailed SFM or scanning based 3D models representing stratigraphic evidence. It is essential to understand the subtle but crucial impact of the design of the user interface on the interpretation of these models. In this paper we focus on the impact of design choices for the user interface, and make connections between design choices and the broader discourse in archaeological theory surrounding the practice of the creation and consumption of archaeological knowledge. As a case in point we take the prototype interface being developed within the Gabii Project for the publication of the Tincu House. In discussing our own evolving practices in engagement with the archaeological record created at Gabii, we highlight some of the challenges of undertaking theoretically-situated user interface design, and their implications for the publication and study of archaeological materials.

Keywords: Design; Intra-site applications; Close Range Sensing; Virtual Reality and Cyber-Archaeology; Digital Publication


  • Adkins, L., & Adkins, R.A. (1989). Archaeological illustration. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

  • Andreoli, R., De Chiara, R., Erra, U. and Scarano, V. (2005). July. Interactive 3d environments by using videogame engines. In Information Visualisation, 2005. Proceedings. Ninth International Conference on Computer Applications in Archaeology, 515-520.

  • Biehl, P. (2004). April. Communicating archaeology via multimedia. Multimedia archaeology in Goseck, Germany. In Proceedings of the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference, Prato 2004, 13-17.

  • Boast, R. and Biehl, P. (2011). Archaeological knowledge production and dissemination in the digital age. Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration, 119-55.

  • Bolter, J.D., and Gromala, D. (2006). Transparency and reflectivity: Digital art and the aesthetics of interface design. In Paul Fishwick (eds.), Aesthetic Computing, Cambridge: MIT Press, 369-382.

  • Brödner, P. (2013). Reflective design of technology for human needs. AI and Society, 28(1), 27-37.

  • Caraher, B. (2014). Toward a slow archaeology (part 2). https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/toward-a-slow-archaeology-part-2/ (accessed 12 July 2015).

  • Caraher, B. (2015). More slow archaeology. https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/5778/ (accessed 27 Dec 2015).

  • Carlson, E.S. (2014). Representation and Structure Conflict in the Digital Age Reassessing Archaeological Illustration and the Use of Cubist Techniques in Depicting Images of the Past. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 2(4), 269-284.

  • Chadwick, A. (1998). Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage, 3, 97-117.

  • Chrysanthi, A., Flores, P., & Papadopoulos, C. (2012). Archaeological computing: Towards prosthesis or amputation? In A. Chrysanthi, P. Flores, & C. Papadopoulos (eds.), Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretive Process, Oxford: Archaeopress, 7-13.

  • Dallas, C. (2015). Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure. Open Archaeology, 1(1), 176-207.

  • Dell’Unto, N., Leander, A.M., Ferdani, D., Dellepiane, M., Callieri, M. and Lindgren, S. (2013). Digital reconstruction and visualization in archaeology: Case-study drawn from the work of the Swedish Pompeii Project. In Digital Heritage International Congress (Digital Heritage), 2013 (Vol. 1), 621-628. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743804. [Crossref]

  • De Clercq, W., Machteld B., Bourgeois, J., Crombé, P. De Mulder, G., De Reu, J. Herremans, D. (2012). Development-led archaeology in Flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990-2010. In Development-led Archaeology in North-west Europe: Proceedings of a Round Table at the University of Leicester 19th-21st November 2009, 29-55.

  • Demetrescu, E. (2015). Archaeological stratigraphy as a formal language for virtual reconstruction. Theory and practice. Journal of Archaeological Science, 57, 42-55.

  • De Reu, J., Plets, G., Verhoeven, G., De Smedt, P., Bats, M., Cherrette, B., De Maeyer, W, et. al. (2012). Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 1108-1121.

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4-17.

  • Favro, D. (2013). To be or not to be in past societies. In Bonde, S. and Houston, S. (eds.), Re-presenting the Past, Providence: Oxbow, 151-168.

  • Forte, M., Dell’Unto, N., Issavi, J., Onsurez, L. and Lercari, N. (2012). 3D archaeology at Çatalhöyük. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 1(3), 51-378.

  • Frost, A. (2012). What phenomenology in archaeology needs is more Dear Esther. http://www.afrost.co.uk/blog/dear-esther-is-what-archaeology-needs.html (accessed 12 July 2015).

  • Fuchs, M. and Eckermann, S. (2001). From first person shooter’ to multi-user knowledge spaces. Proceedings of Computational Semiotics for Games and New Media (COSIGN), 83-87.

  • Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M. and Tarlow, S. (eds.). (2002). Thinking through the body: Archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

  • Hashimoto, S, and Masui, T. (2013). The furniture of ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing Adjunct Publication, 845-852.

  • Hermon, S. (2008). Reasoning in 3D: a Critical Appraisal of the Role of 3D Modelling and Virtual Reconstructions in Archaeology, in Frischer B. and Dakouri-Hild, A. (eds.), Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology, B.A.R. International Series 1805, Archaeopress: Oxford, 36-45.

  • Hermon, S. and Kalisperis, L. (2011). Between the real and the virtual: 3D visualization in the cultural heritage domain-expectations and prospects. Virtual Archaeology Review, 2(4), 59-63.

  • Hodder, I. (1997). ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71(273), 691-700. [Crossref]

  • Hodder, I. (eds.) (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

  • Hodder, I. (2003). Archaeological reflexivity and the ‘local’voice. AnthropologicalQuarterly, 76(1), 55-69.

  • Huggett, J. (2012) Lost in information? Ways of knowing and modes of representation in e-archaeology. World Archaeology, 44(4), 538–552. [Crossref]

  • Huggett, J. (2015). Challenging digital archaeology. Open Archaeology, 1(1), 79-85.

  • Ishii, H. (2008). Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, xv-xxv.

  • James, S. (2015). Visual competence in archaeology: a problem hiding in plain sight. Antiquity, 89(347), 1189-1202. [Crossref]

  • Johnson, P. and Millett, M. (eds.). (2012). Archaeological Survey and the City. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

  • Johnson, T. (2015). Interpretation at the controller’s edge: The role of graphical user interfaces in virtual archaeology. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas MA thesis.

  • Joyce, R.A. and Tringham, R.E. (2007). Feminist adventures in hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 328-358.

  • Kansa, E.C., Kansa, S.W. and Watrall, E. (2011). Archaeology 2.0: New approaches to communication and collaboration. Cotsen Digital Archaeology series.

  • Kansa, E.C. (2015) Click Here to Save Archaeology. Working Draft: To be submitted for Mobilizing the Past edited E. Walcek Averett, J. Gordon, D. Counts. Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota. https://ekansa-pubs.github.io/click-here-to-save-archaeology/ (Accessed 6 January 2016).

  • Kapell, M.W. and Elliott, A.B. (eds). (2013). Playing with the past. New York: Bloomsbury.

  • Kateros, S., Georgiou, S., Papaefthymiou, M., Papagiannakis, G. and Tsioumas, M. (2015). A comparison of gamified, immersive VR curation methods for enhanced presence and human-computer interaction in digital humanities. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 4(2), 221-233.

  • Keogh, B. (2014). Across worlds and bodies: Criticism in the age of video games. Game Criticism, 1.

  • Kjellman, E. (2012). From 2D to 3D: a photogrammetric revolution in archaeology? Tromsø: University of Tromsø MA thesis.

  • Kyriakou, P. and Hermon, S. (2013). Building a dynamically generated virtual museum using a game engine. In Digital Heritage International Congress (Digital Heritage) 2013 (Vol. 1), 443-447

  • Landeschi, G., Dell’Unto, N., Lundqvist, K., Ferdani, D., Campanaro, D.M. and Touati, A.M.L., (2016). 3D-GIS as a platform for visual analysis: Investigating a Pompeian house. Journal of Archaeological Science, 65, 103-113.

  • Landsdale, M. and Ormerod, T. (1994). Understanding interfaces: A handbook of human-computer dialogue. New York City: Academic Press.

  • Lercari, N., Onsurez, L. and Schultz, J. (2013). Multimodal reconstruction of landscape in serious games for heritage: An insight on the creation of Fort Ross Virtual Warehouse serious game. In Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), 2013 (Vol. 2), 231-238.

  • Lerma, J.L., Navarro, S., Cabrelles, M. and Villaverde, V. (2010). Terrestrial laser scanning and close range photogrammetry for 3D archaeological documentation: The Upper Palaeolithic cave of Parpallo as a case study. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(3), 499-507.

  • Loizides, F., El Kater, A., Terlikas, C., Lanitis, A. and Michael, D. (2014). Presenting cypriot cultural heritage in virtual reality: A user evaluation. In Digital Heritage. Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8740, 572-579.

  • McGowan, E. (2006). Experiencing and experimenting with embodied archaeology: Re-embodying the sacred gestures of Neopalatial Minoan Crete. ArchaeologicalReview from Cambridge, 21(2), 32-57.`

  • Morgan, C. (2009). (Re)building Çatalhöyük: Changing virtual reality in archaeology. Archaeologies, 5(3), 468-487. [Crossref]

  • Morgan, C. and Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44(4), 521-537.

  • Molyneaux, B.L. (2013). The cultural life of images: visual representation in archaeology. London: Routledge.

  • Moser, S. (1992). The visual language of archaeology: a case study of the Neanderthals. Antiquity, 66(253), 831-844. [Crossref]

  • Moser, S. (2012). Early Artifact Illustration and the Birth of the Archaeological Image. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, Second Edition, 292-322.

  • Olsen, B. (2010). In defense of things: Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

  • Opitz, R. and Nowlin, J. (2012). Photogrammetric modeling + GIS: Better methods for working with mesh data. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0312/photogrammetric-modeling-plus-gis.html (accessed 12 July 2015).

  • Opitz, R., Terrenato, N., Frischer, B. and Meliconi, I. (2013). ‘21st c. data, 21st. c. publications. 3D model publication and building the peer reviewer community’, workshop held at the Digital Heritage Congress, Marseille, France, 28 October-1 November 2013.

  • Opitz, R. and Limp, F. (2015). Recent Developments in HDSM for Archaeology: Implications for Practice and Theory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 347-364. [Crossref]

  • Oswald, D. (2013). Dynamic sense-making in use processes of digital products. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress of the International Association of Societies of Design Research, Tokyo.

  • Paliou, E., Wheatley, D. and Earl, G. (2011). Three-dimensional visibility analysis of architectural spaces: Iconography and visibility of the wall paintings of Xeste 3 (Late Bronze Age Akrotiri). Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 375-386.

  • Paliou, E. (2013). Reconsidering the concept of visualscapes: Recent advances in three-dimensional visibility analysis. In Bevan, A. and Lake, M. (eds.), Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 243-264.

  • Pavel, C. (2012). Archaeological Recording: Form and Content, Theory and Practice. Atek Na [En la tierra], 2, 33-74.

  • Perry, S (2009). Fractured media: challenging the dimensions of archaeology’s typical visual modes of engagement. Archaeologies, 5(3), 389-415. [Crossref]

  • Perry, S. (2013). Archaeological Visualization and the State of Disciplinary Theory. In Alberti, B. Jones, A. and Pollard, J. (eds.), Archaeology After Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory, 281-303.

  • Perry, S. (2015). Crafting knowledge with (digital) visual media in archaeology. In R. Chapman&A. Wylie (eds.), Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Perry, S., and Johnson, M. (2014). Reconstruction art and disciplinary practice: Alan Sorrel and the negotiation of the archaeological record. The Antiquaries Journal, 94, 323-352.

  • Piggott, S. (1965). Archaeological Draughtsmanship: Principles and Practice Part I: Principles and Retrospect. Antiquity, 39(155), 165-176. [Crossref]

  • Piggott, S. (1978). Antiquity depicted: Aspects of archaeological illustration. London: Thames and Hudson.

  • Quanjer, A.J. (2013). Make me think: Guidelines for designing reflective interfaces. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.

  • Reilly, P. (1989). Data visualization in archaeology. IBM Systems Journal, 28(4), 569-79.

  • Reinhard, A. (2015). Review of Never Alone [game]. Internet Archaeology, 38. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue38/6/reinhard.html (accessed 12 July 2015).

  • Riedel, A. and Bauer, T. (2008). Three-dimensional computer models as a working tool for documentation and investigation in building archaeology –ipretty and useful?. In Posluschny, A., Lambers, K. and Herzog, I. (eds.) Layers of Perception: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 35, 141(on disc).

  • Sánchez, J.A. (2013). To be or not to be? Public archaeology as a tool of public opinion and the dilemma of intellectuality. Archaeological Dialogues, 20(1), 5-11. [Crossref]

  • Scollan, R. (2007). Designing a pleasurable interface: Emotion in human‐computer interaction. http://beccascollan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/emotionhci.pdf (accessed 12 July 2015).

  • Sengers, P., Boehner, E, David, S. and Kaye, J. (2006). Reflective design. In CC ‘05: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing, 49‐58.

  • Shanks, M. (1992). Experiencing the past: On the character of archaeology. London: Routledge.

  • Shanks, M. (1997). Photography and archaeology. In Molyneaux, B. (ed.) The Cultural Life of Images: Visual Representation in Archaeology, New York: Routledge, 73-107.

  • Shanks, M. (2007). Digital media, agile design and the politics of archaeological authorship. In Brittain, M. and Clack, T. (eds.), Archaeologyand the Media, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 273-289.

  • Shanks, M. (2012). The archaeological imagination, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

  • Sharon, I., Dagan, Y., and Tzionit, G. (2004). The [awful?] truth about GIS and archaeology. British School at Athens Studies, 11, 151-162.

  • Shinkle, E. (2003). Gardens, games, and the anamorphic subject: Tracing the body in the virtual landscape. Paper presented at the 5th International Digital Arts and Culture Conference, Melbourne.

  • Smiles, S. and Moser, S. (2005). Envisioning the Past: Archaeology and the Image, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Snyder, L.M. (2014). September. VSim: Scholarly Annotations in Real-Time 3D Environments. In DH-CASE II: Collaborative Annotations on Shared Environments: Metadata, Tools and Techniques in the Digital Humanities, New York:ACM, 2.

  • Swink, S. (2008). Game feel: A designer’s guide to virtual sensation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  • Tarlow, S. (2000). Emotion in archaeology. Current Anthropology 41(5), 713-745.

  • Tilley, C. (1994). A phenomenology of landscape: Places, paths and monuments. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Travis, R. (2015). Living epic: Video games in the ancient world. http://livingepic.blogspot.com/(accessed 31 December 2015).

  • van Dyke, R.M. (2006). Seeing the past: Visual media in archaeology. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 370-375. [Crossref]

  • van Roode, S., Corsi, C., Klein, M., Vermeulen, F. and Weinlinger, G. (2012). Radiography of a townscape. Understanding, visualising and managing a Roman townsite. In Sjoerd J., Kluiving, K. and Guttmann-Bond, E. (eds.), Landscape archaeology between art and science: from a multi- to an interdisciplinary approach. Proceedings of the 1st landscape archaeology conference. LAC2010, Amsterdam, 26th ha28th January 2010, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 429-441.

  • von Schwerin, J., Richards-Rissetto, H., Remondino, F., Agugiaro, G., and Girardi, G. (2013). The MayaArch3D project: A 3DWebGIS for analyzing ancient architecture and landscapes. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28 (4), Special Issue ‘Digital Humanities 2012: Digital Diversity: Cultures, Languages and Methods, 736–753.

  • Watterson, A. (2015). Beyond digital dwelling: Re-thinking interpretive visualisation in archaeology. Open Archaeology, 1(1).

  • Wolle, A.C. and Tringham, R. (2000). Multiple Çatalhöyüks on the world wide web. In Hodder, I. (ed.) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük by members of the Çatalhöyük teams, Oxford: Oxbow, 207-218.

  • Woolford, K. and Dunn, S. (2013). Experimental archaeology and games: Challenges of inhabiting virtual heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 6(4),16-30.

  • Wright, D.J., Goodchild, M.F., and Proctor, J.D. (1997). Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as ‘tool’ versus ‘science. The Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(2), 346-362. [Crossref]

About the article

Received: 2015-12-07

Accepted: 2016-01-24

Published Online: 2016-03-15

Citation Information: Open Archaeology, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0001. Export Citation

© 2016 . This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in