Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 582–600 | Cite as

Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality to Aid Archaeological Phenomenology in the Landscape

Article

Abstract

Explorations of perception using GIS have traditionally been based on vision and analysis confined to the computer laboratory. In contrast, phenomenological analyses of archaeological landscapes are normally carried out within the particular landscape itself; and computer analysis away from the landscape in question is often seen as anathema to such attempts. This paper presents initial research that aims to bridge this gap by using augmented reality (AR). AR gives us the opportunity to merge the real world with virtual elements, including 3D models, soundscapes, and social media. In this way, aspects of GIS analysis that would usually keep us chained to the desk can be experienced directly in the field at the time of investigation.

Keywords

Phenomenology GIS Augmented reality Archaeological theory 

References

  1. Archeoguide (2010) ‘ARCHEOGUIDE’. http://archeoguide.intranet.gr/. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.
  2. ARToolKit (2010). ‘ARToolKit Home Page’. http://www.hitl.washington.edu/artoolkit/. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.
  3. Barrett, J. C., & Ko, I. (2009). A phenomenology of landscape: a crisis in British landscape archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology, 9, 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, B. (1995). Landscape: politics and perspectives. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bender, B., Hamilton, S., & Tilley, C. (2007). Stone worlds: narrative and reflexivity in landscape archaeology. California: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernardes, J. (2008). Augmented reality games. In O. Leino, H. Wirman, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Extending experiences. Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Breeze, D. J. (2006). J. Collingwood Bruce’s handbook to the Roman wall (14th ed.). Newcastle upon Tyne: Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar
  8. Citroen (2010). ‘NEW CITROËN DS3 official website’. http://www.ds3.citroen.com/uk/#/virtual-reality/. Accessed 12 Jan 2010.
  9. Crow, J. G. (1991). A review of current research on the turrets and curtain of Hadrian’s wall. Britannia, 22, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crytek (2010). ‘Crytek | CryENGINE2’ http://www.cryengine2.com/. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.
  11. Fleming, A. (2006). Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 16(03), 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frieman, C., & Gillings, M. (2007). Seeing is perceiving? World Archaeology, 39(1), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaffney, V., Stancic, Z., & Watson, H. (1996). Moving from catchments to cognition: tentative steps toward a larger archaeological context for GIS anthropology. In M. S. Aldenderfer & H. D. G. Maschner (Eds.), Anthropology, space, and geographic information systems (pp. 132–154). US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ghadirian, P., & Bishop, I. D. (2008). Integration of augmented reality and GIS: a new approach to realistic landscape visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(3–4), 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). US: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Gillings, M. (2009). Visual affordance, landscape, and the megaliths of alderney. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 28(4), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillings, M. & Goodrick, G. (1996) Sensuous and Reflexive GIS Exploring Visualisation and VRML. Internet Archaeology 1(1).Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, S., & Whitehouse, R. (2006). Phenomenology in practice: towards a p methodology for a ‘subjective’ approach. European Journal of Archaeology, 9(1), 31–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.Google Scholar
  20. Humphrey, N. (1976). The social function of intellect. In P. P. G. Bateson & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 303–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, M. (1999). Archaeological theory: an introduction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Llobera, M. (1996). Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70(269), 612–622.Google Scholar
  23. Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(2).Google Scholar
  24. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented-reality: a class of displays on the reality–virtuality continuum. Proceedings of Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, 2531, 282–292.Google Scholar
  26. Mlekuz, D. (2004). Listening to landscapes: modelling past soundscapes in GIS. Internet Archaeology 16.Google Scholar
  27. Neves, J., & Camara, A. (2005). Virtual environments and GIS. In P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems—principles, techniques, management and applications (pp. 557–565). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Ohta, Y., & Tamura, H. (1999). Mixed reality: merging real and virtual worlds. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Pujol, L., & Champion, E. (2011). Evaluating presence in cultural heritage projects. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(1), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Renfrew, C. (1997). Virtual archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.Google Scholar
  31. Schnabel, M.A. et al., (2007). From virtuality to reality and back. In Proceedings of the IASDR 2007 Conference. International Association of Societies of Design Research. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  32. Shanks, M. (2005). ‘The science question in archaeology’. http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/77. Accessed 17 Sept 2009.
  33. Shanks, M. (2008). Post-processual archaeology and after. In R. A. Bentley, H. Maschner, & C. Chippindale (Eds.), Handbook of archaeological theories (pp. 133–147). New York: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  34. Slater, M. (2004). How colorful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, D. W., & Thomasson, A. (2005). Introduction. In D. W. Smith & A. Thomasson (Eds.), Phenomenology and philosophy of mind (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone, R., et al. (2009). The virtual scylla: an exploration of ‘serious games’, artificial life and simulation complexity. Virtual Reality, 13(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sylaiou, S., Mania, K., Karoulis, A., & White, M. (2010). Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 68(5), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas, J. (2008). On the ocularcentrism of archaeology. In V. Jorge & J. Thomas (Eds.), Archaeology and the politics of vision in a post-modern context (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Tilley, C. (1997). A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., & Bender, B. (2000). Art and the re-presentation of the past. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6(1), 35–62.Google Scholar
  42. Turner, P. (2007). The intentional basis of presence. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (pp.127–134).Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, I., Broll, W., Jacucci, G., Kuutli, K., McCall, R., Morrison, A., et al. (2009). On the role of presence in mixed reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 18(4), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woolliscroft, D. (2001). Roman military signaling. London: NPI Media Group.Google Scholar
  46. Zahorik, P., & Jenison, R. L. (1998). Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 7(1), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations