Fig 3 - uploaded by Paul Reilly
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mapping the extended Pompeian assemblage due to the fourth pyroclastic surge to the 'persistency versus permeability' grid of forces framework (after Lucas 2012, Fig. 12, p. 187, quadrant labels added).
Source publication
This paper explores some ontological aspects of archaeological voids and enclosures together with their translations and substitutions, and considers the nature of spaces within material archaeological deposits and artefacts. The dematerialized and rematerialized bodies of the victims of Vesuvius in CE 79 are reappraised as a case study. By problem...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... frames his first grid of forces as follows: 'One might think of [objects] (Fig. 3). This classification is relational. Fleeting and unfolding residues are characterized by their transient existence before they disappear from the record. Differentiated by their rela- tive impermeableness their separation is merely one of degree. Lucas positions exemp- lary objects within each force in his grid. 'Vegetable stew', for ...
Context 2
... does the extended assemblage emer- ging from the traces and residues of victims of the fourth surge fit into this analytical framework? Figure 3 is one possible map- ping. At the outset, I should stress that pla- cing the various traces and residues of these victims within this framework as coordinates gives a misleadingly static impression. ...
Similar publications
This article focuses on the introduction of the concept of circular economy into a Norwegian context by concentrating on two levels of subnational authorities against the backdrop of the national level. By drawing on recorded qualitative data collected in the region of Trøndelag and Oslo, we deploy the concept of domestication to analyse how the di...
Citations
... The evidence is supported by prior research, which has considered how the dynamics of space can change because the human desire to live together means that people will shape the space according to their needs, and the time factor plays a role in changing needs and desires (Asikin et al., 2016). An inscription becomes an immaterial interior element that describes these dynamics when seen from the standpoint of interiority, highlighting the spatial processes of the settings formed (Murray, 2000;Reilly, 2015;Marinic, 2018). Understanding spatial dynamics brings to light how space is created through the practical methods that link various social ties (Carlson, 2020). ...
Indonesia is entering Industry 4.0, but is still not using supportive technology, especially in residential areas. A compact house is one of the dwellings built on limited modern land, providing flexible use of space according to the activities carried out by residents. The current version of this type of residence, namely smart homes, is still far from what is expected. There is a need for the modern use of IoT in every room, which can adapt to the activities of residents to make it easier for residents to move. A grounded theory and descriptive approach was used to find the continuity of modern Industry 4.0 and IoT technology in smart homes with the compact house concept to find the novelty of design standards. The findings are in the form of lighting that can be adjusted via IoT to reduce the crime rates in abandoned homes or in homes that are not active because the residents are traveling.
... These are still images of digital objects. Digital objects are better understood as a web of interactions and relations rather than as finite objects and require much more theorising [52][53][54][55]. The digital images in Figures 1-3 confirm that there is no fixed, original, or final site or monument. ...
... In an analogous manner, we can bring together, align, and merge physically broken stones digitally. We can (re)present them phygitally-that is, both physically and digitally (e.g., Figures 8-11) [53,54]-and reimagine the various major temporal configurations of stone 9 interlaced within a timeshed. Figure 11 shows a materialised timeshed in which both the recumbent and the re-erected instantiations of stone 9 are temporally conjoined through synesthetic catachresis and improper digital materialisation (i.e., 3D printed in PLA). ...
@MDPIOpenAccess
Digital images are produced by humans and autonomous devices everywhere and, increasingly, ‘everywhen’. Legacy image data, like Mary Shelley’s infamous monster, can be stitched together as either smooth and eloquent, or jagged and abominable, supplementary combinations from various times to create a thought-provoking and/or repulsive Frankensteinian assemblage composed, like most archaeological assemblages, of messy temporal components combining, as Gavin Lucas sums it up, as “a mixture of things from different times and with different life histories but which co-exist here and now”. In this paper, we take a subversive Virtual Art/Archaeology approach, adopting Jacques Derrida’s notion of the ‘supplement’, to explore the temporality of archaeological legacy images, introducing the concept of timesheds or temporal brackets within aggregated images. The focus of this temporally blurred, and time-glitched, study is the World Heritage Site of the Neolithic to Common Era henge monument of Avebury, UK (United Kingdom).
... These are still images of digital objects. Digital objects are better understood as a web of interactions and relations rather than as finite objects and require much more theorising [52][53][54][55]. The digital images in Figures 1-3 confirm that there is no fixed, original, or final site or monument. ...
... In an analogous manner, we can bring together, align, and merge physically broken stones digitally. We can (re)present them phygitally-that is, both physically and digitally (e.g., Figures 8-11) [53,54]-and reimagine the various major temporal configurations of stone 9 interlaced within a timeshed. Figure 11 shows a materialised timeshed in which both the recumbent and the re-erected instantiations of stone 9 are temporally conjoined through synesthetic catachresis and improper digital materialisation (i.e., 3D printed in PLA). ...
Digital images are produced by humans and autonomous devices everywhere and, increasingly, ‘everywhen’. Legacy image data, like Mary Shelley’s infamous monster, can be stitched together as either smooth and eloquent, or jagged and abominable, supplementary combinations from various times to create a thought-provoking and/or repulsive Frankensteinian assemblage composed, like most archaeological assemblages, of messy temporal components combining, as Gavin Lucas sums it up, as “a mixture of things from different times and with different life histories but which co-exist here and now”. In this paper, we take a subversive Virtual Art/Archaeology approach, adopting Jacques Derrida’s notion of the ‘supplement’, to explore the temporality of archaeological legacy images, introducing the concept of timesheds or temporal brackets within aggregated images. The focus of this temporally blurred, and time-glitched, study is the World Heritage Site of the Neolithic to Common Era henge monument of Avebury, UK (United Kingdom).
... Ideally, when new techniques and tools are introduced into an existing visualization practice, and deployed beyond mere automation of this practice, the technology could truly disrupt a tradition and produce new knowledge (Huggett, Reilly, & Lock, 2018;Reilly, 2015). Three-dimensional technology requires new types of actions and adaptation of the current operational sequence of archaeological visualization. ...
In this study, we introduce the themes of the Special Issue on Art, Creativity and Automation. Sharing 3D Visualization Practices in Archaeology , and present the most important outcomes of a roundtable session involving prominent researchers in the field, organized by the authors during the Archon Winter School in February 2020. By assessing the diversity of research aims, artistic projects, creative practices and technology used in the contributions to the Special Issue, and drawing on the thoughts and perspectives generated during the roundtable discussion, we seek to identify shared challenges within the community of visualizers which could ultimately pave the way to shared practices. In this light, we assess whether established charters and guidelines are still relevant in a now matured digital archaeology, where visualization techniques have attained a central position in archaeological knowledge production. Although parts of the guidelines have become common practice, the remainder did not keep up with the fast pace of development of digital practice and its current fundamental role in archaeology, and as a result some of the guidelines risk becoming obstructive in archaeological creative practice.
... So far our transdisciplinary collaborations have focussed on image making. Nowadays, it is a very small step from processing static 2D digital images into interactive 2.5D virtual simulacra, and from there through 3D physical fabrication technologies such as 3D printing into a plethora of material possibilities for artefacts and assemblages (e.g., Reilly, 2015aReilly, , 2015b. Consider Figure 17, #FlintFriday -Finds Tray is part of another ongoing collaboration between Dawson and Reilly. ...
In this art/archaeological study, we question the utility of the interrelated concepts of provenance, provenience, and paradata as applied to assemblages in art, archaeology, and cultural heritage contexts. We discuss how these overlapping concepts are used to establish values of authenticity and authoritative attributions. However, as cultural assemblages are increasingly being extended through virtualisation, they may exist digitally as well as physically, or as combinations of both, that is phygitally. We show how provenances and paradata can now become unstable and even detached from the assemblage. Through a sequence of collaborative projects, we expose two provenance illusions at the centre of archaeological recording and presentation practices. In these illusions, the archaeologists and much of the archaeology they record actually disappear from the authoritative reports that are published. Using a transdisciplinary, diffractive art/archaeology approach, these illusions are unpacked to reveal how superficially slight changes to traditional archaeological “drawings” and “photographs” have wrought fundamental ontological shifts in their modern phygital incarnations which undermines their provenances and associated paradata. We conclude that archaeology like fine art does not require conscious paradata in order to support statements of authority and interpretation. Instead, we argue that archaeologists should adopt an art/archaeology approach and subvert and dismantle established practices, methods, tools, techniques, and outputs. By highlighting and challenging inconsistencies in what we say we do with what we actually do, we expose gaps in our knowledge and data and shortcomings in our practices. These deficiencies can then be tackled by developing more robust (trans)disciplinary approaches.
... The current debate revolves around issues such as the difference is between "knowledge and 3D knowledge" (Huvila et al., 2017), how digital (3D) visualizations become meaningful conveyors of knowledge (Dell'Unto, 2018), and what kind of potential new archaeological insights they may generate. Others have investigated the meaning of digital palimpsests (Reilly, 2015) and the shifting perceptions towards physicality and digitality, which has resulted in a new phenomenon that has been recently dubbed phygitality (Dawson & Reilly, 2019; in this Special Issue). However, these pioneering archaeologists and their adoption and application of digital visualization technologies have not yet caused a fundamental shift in general archaeological thought, as these tools and methods tend to overshadow the underlying theoretical underpinnings (for a recent discussion of this phenomenon, see Perry & Taylor, 2018). ...
Visualization techniques may have changed over the years, but have they fundamentally changed archaeological visual literacy and the ways archaeologists create knowledge? Or do new digital tools merely disguise conventional practices? The answer may reside in a deeper understanding of the long tradition of visualization practice, from the Renaissance to the present, for which the foundation lies in the activities of antiquarians and artists, as well as artistic, technical, and scientific innovations. This paper presents an historical synopsis of two usually separated but complementary research areas, digital archaeology and archaeological visualization, and builds on previous research undertaken on these traditionally separated subjects. By taking a slightly Dutch perspective I will introduce a few visualizing protagonists who have left substantial traces in our collective visual memory, aiming to contribute to a more inclusive historical narrative on archaeological visualization. The overview ends with an integrated discussion on the shared creative visual practice and its epistemic role in archaeological knowledge production. A praxis-oriented and reflexive approach to the history of visualization provides a critical understanding of the current workings of 3D visualization as a creative practice, and how archaeology responds and acts upon innovations and the adoption of new visualization technology.
... Phygital transformations, moreover, may be multi-directional: digital objects can become physical and, conversely, material instantiations can be virtualised (Dawson & Reilly, 2019). In short, assemblages in the phygital nexus are not only physically, digitally, spatially, and temporally itinerant, they are also ontologically itinerant as objects mutate and glitch in accelerated transformations as they move through physical, digital, and hybrid realms (Opitz, 2019;Reilly, 2015b). ...
... However, it has only been in the last few years that 3D-printing has become popular in art and archaeology (e.g. Eve, 2018;Reilly, 2015aReilly, , 2015b. The 3D-printed works developed in Dawson's plastic studio are based on polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable polyester derived from corn starch. ...
This paper describes our creative responses to a surface assemblage (a scatter) of lithic artefacts encountered on either side of a worn track across a field early on in the pandemic. Our art/archaeology response takes place within a phygital nexus in which artefacts or assemblages can be instantiated either physically or digitally, or both. In the nexus we create, connect and explore an ontological multiplicity of – more or less – physical and digital skeuomorphs and other more standard forms of records for sharing (i.e. Latour’s immutable mobiles, such as photographs), but rendered with radically different properties and affordances, at different scales, with different apparatus. These include interactive Reflectance Transformation Images, graphical surface models, machine intelligence style transfer, and 3D prints, all of which were produced in a variety of isolated analytical “bubble” settings and transmitted to and from (both digitally and physically) a home office in an isolated Hampshire village and a home studio in a London suburb. Our approach is to describe, diffractively, the ontological shifts and itineraries associated with some of these objects and assess how this assemblage came to matter as an art/archaeology installation. Ultimately, some of these deterritorialised, (re)colourised, affective, biodegradable, and diffractively born metamorphic instars, now inscribed with new meanings, are returned to the original findspot of the lithics to be (re)discovered.
... We argue that the perspective of interiority is helpful to emphasise the spatial processes of the settings that are informed by an inscription, rendering it an immaterial interior element that narrates such dynamics (Marinic, 2018;Murray, 2008;Reilly, 2015). The organic and dynamic nature of an interior is produced by the processes taking place in it (Marinic, 2018). ...
This paper explores inscription as a projection of the spatial dynamics of a setting, beyond a historical or cultural symbol in a context, and highlights that inscription—a written or carved message on a surface—is an element that immaterially demonstrates a more in-depth narrative of an interior. This paper focuses on exploring inscriptions embedded in various production settings in Jakarta and Central Java, collecting individual and observational accounts on the production of such inscriptions and their meanings. The study suggests that inscriptions demonstrate various roles, from providing information, mediating different spaces and performing as tools to assist activities. Inscriptions may traverse the trajectories of different spaces and exist in different layers of time, creating an interior connection across space and time. These layers and trajectories project the dynamics of material and bodily processes, assembling the immaterial interior.
... Besides practicing traditional field archaeological methods and techniques, Reilly has investigated the potential of alternative, virtual, digitally creative, archaeologies, exploring the craft aspects of digital archaeological practice (e.g. Reilly 1985Reilly , 1991Reilly , 1992Reilly , 2015aReilly , 2015bReilly 2017a, 2017b). Both archaeological and artistic ways of knowing are largely tacit and unspoken, until we started conversing. ...
In this article, we explore what we perceive as pertinent features of shared experience at the excavations of an Iron Age Hillfort at Bodfari, North Wales, referencing artist, archaeologist and examples of seminal art works and archaeological records resulting through interdisciplinary collaboration. We explore ways along which archaeological and artistic practices of improvisation become entangled and productive through their different modes of mark-making. We contend that marks and memories of artist and archaeologist alike emerge interactively, through the mutually constituting effects of the object of study, the tools of exploration and the practitioners themselves, when they are enmeshed in cross-modally bound activities. These include, but are not limited to, remote sensing, surveying, mattocking, trowelling, drawing, photographing, videoing and sound recording. These marks represent the co-signatories: the gesture of the often anonymous practitioners, the voice of the deposits, as well as the imprint of the tools, and their interplay creates a multi-threaded narrative documenting their modes of intra-action, in short, our practices. They occupy the conceptual space of paradata, and in the process of saturating the interstices of digital cognitive prosthetics they lend probity to their translations in both art form and archive.
... Besides practicing traditional field archaeological methods and techniques, Reilly has investigated the potential of alternative, virtual, digitally creative, archaeologies, exploring the craft aspects of digital archaeological practice (e.g. Reilly 1985Reilly , 1991Reilly , 1992Reilly , 2015aReilly , 2015b Beale and Reilly 2017a, 2017b). Both archaeological and artistic ways of knowing are largely tacit and unspoken, until we started conversing. ...
This themed issue of Internet Archaeology was conceived in order to allow archaeologists to explore these emerging traditions and to reflect upon their own digital practice. Some of these accounts describe the subtle influence of digital workflows upon existing forms of practice while others describe the conscious development of radical and highly distinctive digital archaeologies. What all of the articles presented here have in common is that they provide an impetus for archaeology to revisit questions of how we as archaeologists encounter things and manage the horizons of technological possibility. In many ways they serve as a rebuttal to the accusation of creative timidity that has been repeatedly levelled at the domain of computer-based and digital archaeological research.
