Modelling Physical and Digital Replication: Bridging the Gap Between Experimentation and Experience

Andrea Dolfini,Rob Collins

doi:10.1515/opar-2018-0002

Abstract

Abstract The replication of objects lies at the heart of material culture research in archaeology. In particular, replication plays a key role in a number of core activities in our discipline including teaching, research, and public engagement. Despite its being fundamental to the archaeological process, however, replication comes across as an under-theorised field of artefact research. The problem is compounded by the recent development of digital technologies, which add a new layer of challenges as well as opportunities to the long-established practice of making and using physical copies of objects. The paper discusses a number of issues with artefact replication including aims, design, and methodology, from the standpoint of two research projects currently coordinated by the authors: the Bronze Age Combat project, which explores prehistoric fighting techniques through field experiments and wear analysis (Dolfini); and the NU Digital Heritage project, which centres upon the digital capture and modelling of Roman material culture from Hadrian’s Wall (Collins). Both projects have actively created replicas in physical or digital media, and direct comparison of the two projects provide a number of useful lessons regarding the role, uses, and limits of artefact replication in archaeology. Bronze Age Combat project: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/cias/research/bronzeagecombat/ NU Digital Heritage project: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/cias/research/nudigitalheritage/

Highlights

Archaeological objects are normally replicated in the context of experimental archaeology
The paper discusses a number of issues with artefact replication including aims, design, and methodology, from the standpoint of two research projects currently coordinated by the authors: the Bronze Age Combat project, which explores prehistoric fighting techniques through field experiments and wear analysis (Dolfini); and the NU Digital Heritage project, which centres upon the digital capture and modelling of Roman material culture from Hadrian’s Wall (Collins)
Experiment and experience are often conceptualised as irreconcilable pursuits, the former firmly located within the noble realm of scientific enquiry and the latter in the hazily defined, and perhaps embarrassing, sphere of ‘re-prefixed’ activities such as historical re-construction and re-enactment

Summary

Introduction

Archaeological objects are normally replicated in the context of experimental archaeology. According to Mathieu: Experimental archaeology is a sub-field of archaeological research which employs a number of different methods, techniques, analyses, and approaches within the context of a controllable imitative experiment to replicate past phenomena (from objects to systems) in order to generate and test hypotheses to provide or enhance analogies for archaeological interpretation. This definition has three important implications for our understanding of the context in which archaeological objects are replicated. The methodology employed for the construction and testing of the objects must be laid out explicitly It must ensure control of a number of significant variables and, at least ideally, it must be repeatable by other researchers interested in validating the experimental results independently. Lies, according to Mathieu, the real value of experimental archaeology, which offers a context for critically appraising the role of analogy in social enquiries (see Bell, 2015; Outram, 2008; Mathieu & Mayer, 2002)

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion