brief history of museums and archaeology

7/27/2019 Brief History of Museums and Archaeology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brief-history-of-museums-and-archaeology 1/10

Article

Laia Pujol

Archaeology, museumsand virtual reality

http://www.uoc.edu/humfil/articles/eng/pujol0304/pujol0304.pdf

Digit·HVM. Revista Digital d’HumanitatsMay 2004 ISSN: 1575-2275 No. 6

www.uoc.edu/digithum



AbstractThis article looks at the idea tha t the virtua l archa eolog ical reconstructions seen in museums canno t be considered

Virtua l Rea lity (VR) as t hey a re based on a n a rtistic conception o f the discipline. The ca use is to be f ound in the o ri-gins of Archaeo log y, which bega n in the 18th century and was closely linked to the History of Art. In the era of New

Technolog ies, this concept ha s become bo th the ca use and t he conseq uence: de termining t he chara cteristics of VR

from w ithin the d iscipline, w hilst simulta neously reinfo rcing the virtua l reconstructions.

To a ssess the relat ionship bet w een VR and Archaeolog y, w e must f irst esta blish a d efinition of Virtua l Rea lity. Subse-

quent ly, we ca n ta ke a brief look at the history so as to be a ble to understa nd the evolution of Archaeology a nd muse-

ums. This leads us to t he a na lysis of some examples of VR in museums, from w hich we ca n gain conclusions on the

current use of VR. Finally, we look at the possibilities for VR in terms of publicising Archaeology.

Keywords

virtua l archaeo log ical reconstructions, virtual reality, museums, Archaeolog y

Introduction

The bo om in new techno logies, w hich aid the circulat ion of infor-

mat ion a t high speeds a nd in different fo rmats, is rad ically t rans-

forming the t raditiona l paradigm of communication. The fo rma-

tion of «cyberspace»has g iven way to «cyberculture», w hich, accordingto (Lévy 1999), can be seen to be a new era in the history of human-

ity, characterised by interconnection of different lesser contexts

to f orm a large virtual space tha t can be a ccessed remotely. This

lead s us to q uestion t he role of the t raditiona l forms of o bta ining

and transmitting know ledg e, pa rticularly in the ca se of a rchaeo l-

og y, which brings to get her computational techniques in the dif-

ferent pha ses of the research process, from f ieldw ork to publicising.

In this last a spect, museums have b een framed by t he tradi-

tional interchange of knowledge between archaeological research

an d the no n-specialist public. The ado ption of ICTha s accelerat -

ed the trends begun with the new museography that, since the

last third o f t he 20th century, ha s looked t o t ransform the Victo-

rian conception of the museum as a temple to know ledge, broad-

caster of a standardised a nd sta tic discourse based on ob jects, con-

verting it into a node to t ransmit a range o f information and circulate

ideas. This has led to a n enormo us increase in the importan ce of

educational and pedag og ic criteria.One of the most successful introductions has been that of vir-

tual reconstructions, which, show n a s exhibitions or w eb pa ges,

substitute the original remains. Most of these reconstructions

consist of closed, stat ic and hyperrealistic images o f ob jects, char-

act erised f or the ir high a rtistic or architectural va lue. This has

nothing to do w ith virtual reality, which is understood to be a dynam-

ic and explanat ory mod el. This difference means th at virtua l

reconstructions in a rchaeo logical museums are not ba sed on the

definition of virtual reality, instead being based on a completely

different concept.

© 2004 by Laia P ujol Tost 1© 2004 by FUOC

Digit·HVM. Revista Digital d’HumanitatsMay 2004 ISSN: 1575-2275 No. 6

Laia Pujol

Archaeology, museums and virtual reality*http://www.uoc.edu/humfil/articles/cat/pujol0304/pujol0304.pdf

Article

* This article is based o n the Post-Gra duat e Research Work presented a t th e Autonomous University of Barcelona (Pujol 2002). The w ork forms part of a PhD

thesis project that received a pre-PhD grant for personal researcher training (RT), aw arded b y the Cat alan regiona l government’s Department of Universities,

Research and Information Society (DURSI) within the framew ork of the 3rd Research Plan f or Cata lonia 2001/2004.



A complex concept

VR is not a univocal concept . This can b e seen in its o rigins, g iven

tha t successive terms were coined to designa te ea ch stag e in the

transformation of the technology:

Myron Krueger (1970s): Artificial Reality

Jaron Lanier (1989): Virtual Reality

William G ibson (1984): Cyberspace

1990s: Virtual Worlds or Virtual Environments

1990s: Enhanced or Augmented Reality

Indeed, these terms do not mean the same thing, instead t hey

refer to d ifferent, o ften o verlapping, a spects of the sam e complex

reality.

The origins of virtual reality

The fa ther o f virtual reality is Myron Krueger, w ho, in 1974, in

his PhD t hesis talked of «artificia l rea lity»as a digital substitute

to the real world. Myron Krueger’s definition already held the main

elements that characterised VR, in general terms:

It is w holly computer g enerated.

It is interactive.

Immersibility is also a fundamental characteristic at thisstage of development.

Artificial reality formed part of scientific theory, but soon

entered the collective imagination through science fiction litera-

ture and films (image 1). Its being made banal by the leisure indus-

try a nd t he technical impossibility o f reproducing such a complex

reality led to disappointment. It is for this reason tha t, to w ards the

mid-1990s, these expectat ions led to the conviction t hat the t rue

function of VR was to simulate the real world through inde-

pendent mathematical forms that allowed for the interpretation

of specific aspects thereof (Gillings and Goodrick, 1996).

The change from «artificial rea lity»to «virtua l reality»show s

the move from one reality w hich, as a substitute fo r the wo rld, ha d

to be w holly immersive to a «hyperreality»which looked to increase

knowledge of certain aspects or phenomena and, thus, merely

required a partial reconstruction. The adopt ion of this new conception

brought w ith it the a ppearance o f different branches within virtu-

al reality: immersive virtual reality and aug mented reality.

Immersive virtual reality

IVR can be considered to be a direct evolution from Myron

Krueger’s artificial reality. In this type of VR, the computer gen-erates a ll the information received w ithin a n isolat ed environment,

separated from the real w orld (Brooks, 1999, p. 16). Images 2, 3

and 4 show three possibilities for entering the virtual world.

In IVR, the reference fo r visualisat ion is the h ead, w hich con-

stitutes a nat ural interface fo r navigat ing through t he space. This

is shown on a human scale and has objects that can be interact-

ed with realistically, given that the virtual world can be manipu-

lated. Other resources for augmenting the feeling of reality include

stereoscopic vision and tactile and audio technologies (Beier,

2001). For this reason, a ccording to some experts (Broo ks, 1999,


Digit·HVM. Revista Digital d’Humanitats May 2004 No. 6

Archaeology, museums and virtual reality

Image 1. The Lawnmowerman . O ne of the first appearances

of virtual reality in cinemas

Image 2. Window on a World-type (WoW) virtual reality



p. 17), PCs cannot be considered IVR, as they d o not offer com-

plete and realistic immersion: it is as if the user were looking

through a w indow.

Augmented reality

For most specialists this does not co nstitute a separat e technique ,

but, as with IVR, a derivation of the general concept of VR. Its

objective is to improve people’s interaction w ith the real w orld by

providing them with information that cannot be perceived direct-

ly by their senses (More, 1995). Its characteristics are as follows:

Interaction in real time (shared with VR). 3D recordings (required, as the workplace is reality).

Combinat ion o f real and virtual worlds (specific to aug mented

reality).

The concept of AR differs to tha t of IVR as the latt er crea tes

a simulat ion based on the real wo rld, w hereas the former at tempts

to «aug ment»the surroundings, and this means that the sensa-

tion of physical presence in the real wo rld ha s to be ma intained.This difference in the relationship w ith the surround ings a lso

imposes technical needs: IVR has to adapt virtual images to

human mo vements; AR has to reproduce real images on w hich

the virtual images can be superimposed.

A general definition of the concept

Most definitions of VR can be classified as one of the two following

orienta tions: techno logical or epistemolog ical. They a re the tw o

possible dimensions of the concept, which need to be brought togeth-

er in a general definition.

The description of the t ype o f interface is a neutral approxi-

mation and can be applied to any example. Despite this, the

complexity o f the «uses»of VR are no t t aken into a ccount. Fig-

ure 1 orders all the possible meanings of the co ncept on t w o a xes.




Image 3. Head M ounted D isplay device

Image 4. CAVE

Figure 1. Definition of virtual reality

(Creating)Virtua l World

S cience Art

Model

Research

Manipulation

Illustration

Publicising

Observation(Augmenting)

Rea l World

The vertical axis represents the type o f VR: from the construction

of a virtual w orld (IVR) to the a ugmenting o f reality (AR). The point

in common is intera ction. The ho rizont al a xis represents t he uses

of VR: the closer to science, t he mo re it is conceived a s a research

model; the closer to art, the more it becomes a static image

designed for publication a nd cont emplat ion.

A brief history of archaeology

Interest in previous civilisations a nd their material vestiges w as t o be

seen as early as the Aztecs or Babylonians. In Europe, from the Renais-sance onw ards, «cabinets of curiosities»beg an to appear, w hich con-

tained a blend of a ntique and exotic natural objects. From the 18th

century onw ards, some ow ners started increasingly systematic exca-



vations of monuments that could be seen on their land, so as to recov-

er the a rchitectural remains and other objects of artistic value, w hich

they then classified in accordance w ith stylistic log ics. The b irth of

archaeology, as we know it, can be situated in the 19th century w henthe ag e of the human being w as recognised a nd demonstrated and

the bases for current research techniques and methodologies set. In

the 1960s, the new archaeologyrevolutionised this trad ition of his-

torical classification and a completely scientific discipline was pro-

posed. This ambition has been g reatly criticised by postmodernist pos-

tulates (Renfrew and Bahn, 1993, pp. 20-42).

The origin of the use of q uantitat ive method s and computa-

tional applications in a rchaeo log y da tes ba ck to the second ha lf

of the 20th century, w hen certain scientists used a rchaeo log ical

examples to verify solutions to their problems. Since the discov-

ery of ca rbon 14 an d ma ss access to computers, the «hard sci-

ences»have progressively impregnated each of the phases of the

archaeological research process, from the excava tion to the pub-

licising (Doran and Hodson, 1975, pp. 4-5). Despite the holding

of several international congresses, a concept has not spread

throughout t he practice and to a n even lesser extent t he gener-

al theory of archaeology: in most ca ses the old tradition centred

on the recovery and description of o bjects and st ructures persists.

The precedents to VR are to be seen in the models and draw -

ings which show monuments in a specific era. PCs brought added

advantages in terms of three-dimensional images that could be

easily transported and modified (Reilly, 1991, pp. 134-135). Like-

w ise, so me researchers see them a s more than simple illustrations:

they w ere dy namic visual research m ode ls (Reilly, 1992). Thesetwo conceptual lines are those currently developed.

A brief history of museums

The precedents to museums are also to be foun d in the «cab inets

of natural curiosities»of the 16th century, whose origins are

entw ined w ith t hose of archaeology. These collections of d iverse

objects were a sign of t he econo mic prestige of the social elite a nd

inaccessible to tho se out side a small exclusive group. Access to pri-

vate collections began to grow w ith the Enlightenment and , above

all, the workers’ revolts of the 19th century, but entrance contin-ued t o b e considered a privilege. The development of nat ionalist

thinking was the basis for the great national museums, universal

accumulators of objects, destined to show the State’s grandeur in

the past (founding civilisations) and present (imperialism). The 19th

century w as a lso funda mental, a s the g reat universal exhibitions con-

vinced curators of the need to open their collections to the wider

public and present the objects in a way that they could be under-

stood (Koester, 1993, pp. 5-6). During the 20th century, these col-

lections were not only designed to educate, but also to entertain.

The most important change to museums came in the 20th cen-

tury and w as due to a series of interrelat ed fa ctors: the arrival of

the information society, market influences through competitionin the leisure and tourism sector, democratising of access to

knowledge and, finally, the changes in educational theory and prac-

tices (Hooper-Greenhill, 1998).

In this context of chang e, ICT(the Internet, expert systems,

databases, multimedia, etc.) accelerated the process through

w hich museums aband oned their traditiona l function as centres

broadcasting a standa rdised and authoritat ive discourse based o nobjects and became no des for communicat ion, informat ion, inter-

action and dynamics.

The reality of virtuality

Tw enty yea rs af ter the g reat b oo m in VR in museums, the ir rela-

tionship is still difficult to def ine. It is increasingly used, but irreg-

ularly and superficially as the transformation in museology and

museography of t he 20th century has not w holly permeated the

sector. The social role of th e museum ha s been mo dified, as ha ve

the not ion and mea ns for communicat ion, but the a im is still a t ra-ditional one. It is for this reason that technology is seen to be some-

thing alien to museums: it is negative competition, yet necessary

as it a tt racts visito rs. To justify t heir reticence, museum managers

produce technical arguments, but, at heart, this reticence comes

from the h isto rical and philosophical roots of museums (San ders,

2002). This lack of confidence comes from t he fa ct tha t they still

understa nd VR in terms of the old conception, ie, a s being a per-

fect substitute for reality. They a lso ha ve doub ts as to t he credi-

bility of virtual reconstructions as they do not consider them to

have any value beyond being attractive images.

It is evident that VR cannot be used properly w ithout there being

a change in the museographic conceptions and the remova l of the

object from the centre of t heir universe. VR also requires a chang e

as it proposes a d ifferent pa radigm fo r communicat ions, replacing

passivity with interactivity, the contemplation of artistic values

with the construction of knowledge, elitism with social and intel-

lectual diversity. VR is a computational technology for the inter-

active simulation of reality. It constructs virtual models that have

certain properties that have to be understood and a nalysed dynam-

ically, ie, through the transformation of the model in response to

the data introduced (Barceló, 2001). Even the choice between immer-

sive and aug mented virtual reality ensures the introduction of a bet-

ter approach for understanding the phenomenon, process, etc.

The evolution o f a rchaeo logy shares some po ints w ith t hat of

museums, as the discipline was born from within the history of

art. Despite an obvious evolution (in part caused by ICT), the co n-

cept o f a rchaeo logy and its publicising continues to be closely linked

to o bjects and mo numents a nd their artistic value. This can be seen

if w e a nalyse examples of the virtual reconstructions of a rchae-

ological sites in Europe: they are more akin to an artist’s impres-

sion than to the scientific mode l propo sed in the de finition of VR.

Some examples of virtual realityin museums

A window on the past

Dudley Castle (Boland and Johnson, 1997) (image 5) represents

the most common a pplication: the virtua l world appears on screen






In both ca ses, the aud ience plays a passive role a s an o bserv-

er and, a t most, can na viga te through highly realistic imag es.

Augmenting reality

ARCHEOGUIDE (image 8) provides information in situ on the archae-

ological remains and completes them with a superimposed virtu-

al imag e o f their sta te in th eir «moment o f splendour». Different

w ays of na turalising the interface and integrat ing the t echnolog -

ical resources in the exhibition’s discourse are explored in the

three types of mobile unit.

Ename974 (Calleba ut, 2002) (image 9) is ano ther exam ple of

a hybrid: it is a solution that falls between AR and traditional VR,

w hich w e co uld call «sta tic AR», a s the images a re superimposed

from fixed boxes d istributed throughout the site.

AR proposes a new type of visit as it can combine a physical

visit w ith na viga tion through space a nd t ime, w hich is perfect fo rarchaeolog y. Despite this, in a ctua l applicat ions it is still focusing




Image 5. Dudley C astle

and can b e ob served or na viga ted though from a superficial point

of view.

Walking through a virtual world

The CAVE system is bet ter than a screen a s it can hold g roups (muse-

um experiences are always collective) and reproduces the actualatmosphere at given sites with a greater level of realism, for

example the Dunhua ng caves (Weidenhausen a nd Stricker, 2000)

(image 6).

Image 6. Dunhuang caves, C AVE system

The Virtua l Thea tre (imag e 7) a lso increa ses the levels of

understanding o f objects in their original context. It allow s for scenes

to b e view ed a t 1:1 scale on a large panoramic screen and, thus,

is very useful for showing landscapes and urban environments (Guidaz-zoli, 2002). VTis the mid-point between WoW and CAVE, as it

takes the idea of the image as the media for communicating

information and extends it until it becomes semi-immersive.

Image 7. Virtual Theatre

Image 8. ARCHEOGUIDE



overly on the presentat ion of t he w ay the ob jects or monuments

originally looked.

Virtual reality in Catalonia

In Spain, Ca ta lonia is pioneering in research into ICTtha nks to th e

great number of initiat ives being pursued at its public an d private

institutions. From amo ng all the examples ava ilable, three cases have

been cho sen tha t best reflect the «Ca ta lan»conceptions of VR.

The reconst ruction of the Iberian site a t Els Vilars (Junyent and

Lorés, 2000) (image 10) is seen as an extension of the archaeo-logical record. The mo del uses different med ia for com munica-

tion (the museum, the Internet and visit in situ ), to w hich the char-

acteristics of VR are adapted. Navigation from the natural surroundings

to the inside of the houses allows for the visualisation and greater

understanding of the archaeological remains. At the Virtual Mur

Castle (Sancho, 2001) (image 11), however, the reconstruction

has been designed to support university ed ucation as a metaphor

for navigat ion through the know ledg e on t he da ily life in the late

Middle Ages. The Baths of Baet ulo (G urri Co sta a nd G urri Cost a,

2000) (image 12) also offer information on the daily life of theRomans using the archaeological remains, but the level is not as




Image 9. ENAM E974

Image 10. Iberian site at Els Vilars

Image 11. Virtual M ur Castle



museums, reinforced by the current definition of heritage

and its associat ed legislat ion.

The a rrival of virtua l heritag e is a response to this phenome-non: it represents the artistic point of view on VR, in detriment

to its actual capabilities. VH defines virtual reconstructions as a

vehicle for preservation, a ccess and economic development a t the

service of archaeological remains valued for their artistic qua lities.

It offers deta iled a nd sta tic illustrations of the mo nument a t a pre-

vious time, showing undeniable truths from life in the past.

It seems that t he technological evolution of VR depends on the

interrelat ion betw een realism and interactivity, w hich leads to their

stimulat ing or limiting each other. Despite this, in the case o f a rchae-

ology, resources have been systematically destined to illustrative hyper-

realism, w ithout taking into account the scientific and didactic pos-

sibilities offered by interactivity. As a result, only very recently haslow cost VR sta rted to be developed (Anderson, 2003; Meister and

Boss, 2003) (image 13). It represents the opposite of virtual her-

itag e, as it demonstrates that to understand most a rchaeological phe-

nomena a high level of realism is not required, w ith dy namic mod-

els to simulate spat ial data proving mo re effective. Low cost VR is

a possibility for the future fo r the f ollow ing reasons:



Image 12. Baths of Baetulo

complex as it has been designed for the w ide rang e of a udience

visiting the museum.

The a bove exa mples show that VR is seen in Ca talonia a s a

part of the multimedia environment designed to transmit know l-

edg e on da ily life in the pa st. This holds two implicit ideas: the assim-

ilat ion of heritag e and the past, and the sta tic conception of VR.

In this wa y, then, interactivity co mes from the flexibility of the mul-

timedia environment, not from the reconstruction, despite, in

the second case, its being used as a metaphor to organise the infor-

mation. This also show s the existence o f different European trends

in terms of the practical meaning of VR: in Catalonia, it is used

for teaching a nd educa tion; in Italy, it is more to do w ith the d oc-

umentat ion of the herita ge a nd in the Anglo-Saxon w orld it used

to a greater extent as a t ool for manag ement.

What can we say about virtual reconstructions?

The analysis of the different examples chosen, compared w ith the

definition of VR and the t heoretical conception of archaeology,

brings us to three conclusions:

The level of realism always depends on the technological capac-

ities and not the ty pe of interface, use of th e model or orig-

inal a rchaeo log ical da ta . VR does not explain life in the com-

munities during a specific historical period; instead, it offers

a static hyperrealistic description of the monument, which does

not d istinguish betw een the actual remains and hypo theses.

Virtual reconstructions allow for naviga tion, but this is a pure-

ly technical interaction. Despite emphasising the potential

of VR for learning, it is impossible to alter the model: it is

not seen as an exchange, but a s a one-wa y broadcast of infor-

mation.

There is an imba lance be tw een the pot ential possibilities of

VR and its current use in exhibition discourse. This is duenot o nly to an uncritical ad option imposed by fashion and

economic interests, but also and ab ove a ll by a descriptive

and artistic conception of archaeology and archaeological

Image 13. Low cost VR

It is less expensive.

It allow s for the rapid creation of large mo dels.

Virtual worlds can be populated.

It has an enormous interactive capability.

The videog am es industry invests heavily and the quality of

graphics improves rapidly.

Low cost VR show s tha t there a re different types of VR, each

designed for a different environment, objective, etc. In each case,

they ha ve to sha re a common element, interactivity; if not, they

canno t be considered «virtual rea lity».

Virtual reality as a tool for scienceand publicising

If archaeology is defined as a scientific discipline that looks to explain

present phenomena through the material remains from t he past,VR has to be an especially useful tool as it is interactive and can

reproduce spatial links and bodies. VR accomplishes the follow-

ing functions:




Virtua l model; tha nks to its dynamism, it allow s for the va l-

idating of hypotheses (architectural solutions, reconstruc-

tion of fragmented objects, transformation of an element

over time, etc.).

It is a flexible tool for visualising the site and its surround-

ings. It can aid in the management and protection of the

excavation b y simulat ing the original context.

It contributes t o d efining ab stract ideas a nd providing evi-

dence fo r spatial patterns.

It aids the storage o f da ta, w hich instead of being d ispersed

is organised in a coherent model which takes a visual form.

Virtua l reconstructions become objects for study in their ow n

right. As an interpreta tive model, they show the inferential

chain and, thanks to this transparency, contribute to spe-

cialised theoretical debate.

As w ith a ny o ther lang uag e, VR serves to transmit informa-

tion over different media (Forte, Kay et al., 2003). In the specif-

ic area of museums:

VR helps preserve the herita ge tha nks to virtual replicas or

reuniting d isperse remains (reconstruction o f ob jects and mo n-

uments linked to their original context).

Use in situ and o ver the Internet means that conta ct betw een

the public and herita ge is not lost w hen a ccess is closed d ue

to restoration o r conservation need s.

VR allows for the relating of objects and ideas through

coherent, flexible and non-linear discourse; this avoids com-

prehension that is overly abstract or deferred.

As a meta phor for naviga tion, it offers a conceptual and spa-

tial preview of a place and allows for a more comfortable

exploration of the exhibition.

Thanks to t he interact ivity, th is explorat ion is not limited t o

passive contemplation: the visitor has to actively construct

their know ledg e a nd this increases mot ivation.

As part o f a multimedia environment, the different f ormats

for presenting information can be adapted to individuals’

skills; whilst all of them together complement and rein-

force learning. Understanding of the archaeological methodology and time

processes is aided through simulations.

It transcends the walls of the museum as it shows realities

that this cannot conta in, such as land scapes, houses, etc.

It also allows for experiments with machines and mecha-

nisms to aid understanding of how they work.

At the site, AR offers permanent assistance to visitors; it serves

as a spatial guide and offers a rang e of information in real time.

Conclusions

As a rule, a rchaeo log ists dema nd ma ny t hings (imag e 14): a pre-

cise reproduction of the a rchaeo logical record, a flexible da taba se,

a scientific tool for data interpretation, etc. VR makes all this




Image 14

possible, a s it meet s all these co nditions: it is a rea listic visualisa-

tion, a data manag ement tool and contains a geometric data base

tha t can be a nalysed spatially. It is also a lang uag e for communi-

cation that shows the public archaeological methodologies and

conclusions, adapting them to their characteristics and to the

elements reconstructed.

The public’s perception of the t echnology is alwa ys cond itioned

by technical, social, cognitive and other factors, but there is an

invariable element: visualisation is more than the simple passive

contemplation of things; it is an a ctive construction ba sed on a n

explanatory simulation of the reality. Its use depends on the toolstha t a ccompany it, ie, the type a nd level of interaction. In the same

w ay as there a re different w ays o f conceiving or presenting time

and space, so there have to be different types of VR.

References

ANDERSON, M. (2003). «Computer games and a rchaeo logical

reconstruct ion: The low cost VR». In: W. BÖ RNER; J. EHRENHÖ FER;

M. GO RIANY. Enter the past. The e-way int o the fou r dimensions of

cultu ral heritage. Vienna , C AA2003: in press.

BARCELÓ, J. A. (2001). «Virtua l reality for a rchaeo logical explanat ion.Beyon d picturesque reconst ruction». Archeologia e Calcolato ri . Iss. 12,

pp. 221-244.

BEIER, K.P. (2001). Virtual reality: A short introduction, virt ual realit y

laboratory. University of Michiga n, 2002.

BOLAND, P.; JO HNSON, C. (1997). «Archa eolog y a s comput er

visualisat ion: ‘ Virtua l tours’ o f Dudley Cast le c. 1550». In: T. HIG GINS;

P. MAIN; J. LANG. Imaging the past . Electroni c imaging and computer

graphics in museums and archaeology . Londo n: The British Museum.

Iss. 114, pp. 227-234.

BROO KS, F.P. (1999). «What ’s real a bout virtual rea lity? ». IEEE

Comput er Graphics and Applicati ons [online article]. Iss. 19

(November-December), pp. 16-27.

<http://w w w.cs.unc.edu/~ brooks/WhatsReal.pdf>CALLEBAUT, D . (2002). «The experiences of the Ename 974 project

with new media: Where and how do virtual reality and interactivity fit

in?»In: F. NICCO LUCC I. Virt ual Archaeology . Proceedings of the



VASTEuroconference (Arezzo, November 24th-25th 2000). Oxford:

Archaeopress , Iss. 1075, pp. 179-185.

DO RAN, J.E.; HO DSO N, F.R. (1975). Mathematics and comput ers .

Camb ridge: Harvard Un iversity Press.FORTE, M.; KAY, S.J. et al. (2003). «Aksum project: a virtual rea lity multi

platform for reconst ructing a rchaeological landscapes». In: W. BÖRNER,

J. EHRENHÖFER, M. GORIANY. Enter the past. The e-way into t he four

dimensions of cultural herit age. Vienna, CAA2003: in press.

GILLINGS, M.; GO OD RICK, G. (1996, aut umn). «Sensuous and

reflexive GIS. Exploring visualisat ion and VRML». Internet Archaeology

[online article]. Iss. 1.

<http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/gillings_toc.html.>

GUIDAZZOLI, A. (2002). «Experiences o f immersive g raphics f or

cultural herita ge». In: F. NICCO LUCCI. Virt ual Archaeology .

Proceedings of the VASTEuroconference (Arezzo, November 24th-

25th 2000). Oxford: Archaeopress . Iss. 1075, pp. 89-92.

GURRI CO STA, J.; G URRI CO STA, E. (2000). «The b at hs of Bae tulo:from archa eolog ical to virtual rea lity». In: J. A. BARCELÓ ; M. FORTE;

D.H. SANDERS. Virt ual Reality i n Archaeology . Oxford: Archaeopress .

Iss. 843, CD -ROM .

HOOPER-GREENHILL, E. (1998). Los museos y sus visit antes . G ijón:

Ediciones Trea .

JUNYENT, E.; LORÉS, J. (2000). «Virtua l reality a s an extension of the

archaeological record: reconstruction of the Iron Age fortress Els Vilars

(Arbeca , Ca ta lonia, Spain)». In: J.A. BARCELÓ ; M . FO RTE; D.H.

SANDERS. Virt ual Reality in Archaeology . Oxford: Archaeopress . Iss.

843, CD-ROM.

KOESTER, S.E. (1993). Interactive mult imedia in American museums .

Archives &Museum Info rmat ics. Technical Report s, 16.

LÉVY, P. (1999). Ciberespai i cibercultura . UO C. 2002.

MEISTER, M.; BOSS, M. (2003). «O n using sta te o f the art co mputer

ga me eng ines to visualise archaeo logical structures in interactive

tea ching and resea rch». In: W. BÖ RNER; J. EHRENHÖFER; M.GORIANY. Enter the past. The e-way into the four d imensions of

cultural herit age. Vienna , CAA2003: in press.

MORE, M. (1995). Virt ue and vi rtuali ty. From enhanced senses to

experience machines . [online article]. [Date of cita tion: 2002].

<http://www.maxmore.com/virtue>

PUJO L, L. (2002). «Arqueo logia i realitat virtua l: una a proximació a

part ir de les recon struccions virtua ls als museus». Antro pologia Social i

Prehistòria . Barcelona: Universitat Autòno ma d e Barcelona , Iss. 121.

REILLY, P. (1991). «Tow ards a virtua l Archa eo log y». In: K. LOCKYEAR,

S.P.Q . RAHTZ. Computer appli cations and quantitati ve methods in

Archaeology 1990 . Oxford: Archaeopress . Iss. 565, pp. 133-139.

REILLY, P. (1992). «Three-dimensional mo delling and primary

arch aeological da ta ». In: P. REILLY, S.P.Q. RAHTZ. Archaeology and the Information Age. A global perspective . London: Routledge, pp. 147-176.

RENFREW, P.; BAHN, P. (1993). Arqueología. Teoría, métodos y

práct ica . M adrid: Akal.

SANCHO, M. (2001). El castell de Mur virt ual . UO C. 2002.

SANDERS, D.H. (2002). «Virtua l archae ology a nd m useums: Where a re

the exhibits?»In: F. NICCO LUCC I. Virt ual Archaeology . Proceedings of

the VASTEuroconference (Arezzo, November 24th-25th 2000).

Oxford: Archaeopress . Iss. 1075, pp. 187-194.

WEIDENHAUSEN, J.; STRICKER, D. (2000). «New technolog ies for

cultural herita ge: The Siena ca thedra l and the Dun huang cave.

Prospects of aug ment ed reality in Europea n cultural heritag e sites». In:

M. ROUSSOU. Peania , Intracom, S.A., pp. 29-38.



To cite this document, you could use the following reference:

PUJOL, Laia (2004). «Archaeolog y, museums and virtua l reality». Digithum [online article]. UO C. No. 6. [Date of citat ion: dd/mm/yy].

<http://www.uoc.edu/humfil/articles/eng/pujol0304/pujol0304.pdf>

ISSN 1575-2275

Laia PujolResearcher (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

[email protected]

She studied at the U niversity o f Bordeaux - I (Maîtr ise ) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona, where she graduated

in History in 1999 and w as a w arded a n extraordinary Prize for the course. She is currently a researcher at this university a nd

developing her PhD t hesis project, und er the t itle: Archaeology, museums and computers: analysis of t he use of vi rtual real-

it y in t he publi cising of archaeology through the design of a museographic proj ect . Her areas for research are prehistory,

quantitative archaeology and teaching archaeology, in relation to which she has produced several publications and collabo-

rated in the organisation of seminars and congresses.

brief history of museums and archaeology

Documents