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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Although we must acknowledge that a computer model being run in the laboratory requires all of the variables to be either modelled or heavily simplified, as it is as yet impossible to create an acceptably accurate model of the whole world.

  2. 2.

    That the ‘player’ is assumed to be an average height male implies a number of things about the user and the situation. This height value can (and should) be changed dependent on the user.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frieman, C., & Gillings, M. (2007). Seeing is perceiving? World Archaeology, 39(1), 4.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gillings, M. & Goodrick, G. (1996) Sensuous and Reflexive GIS Exploring Visualisation and VRML. Internet Archaeology 1(1).

  18. Hallmark (2010). Hallmark | augmented reality. http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/article%7C10001%7C10051%7C/HallmarkSite/Cards/AUGMENTED_REALITY. Accessed 12 Jan 2010.

  19. Hamilton, S., & Whitehouse, R. (2006). Phenomenology in practice: towards a p methodology for a ‘subjective’ approach. European Journal of Archaeology, 9(1), 31–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Johnson, M. (1999). Archaeological theory: an introduction. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Llobera, M. (1996). Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70(269), 612–622.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(2).

  25. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. Mlekuz, D. (2004). Listening to landscapes: modelling past soundscapes in GIS. Internet Archaeology 16.

  28. 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 

  29. Ohta, Y., & Tamura, H. (1999). Mixed reality: merging real and virtual worlds. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pujol, L., & Champion, E. (2011). Evaluating presence in cultural heritage projects. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Renfrew, C. (1997). Virtual archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

  33. Shanks, M. (2005). ‘The science question in archaeology’. http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/77. Accessed 17 Sept 2009.

  34. 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 

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith, D. W., & Thomasson, A. (2005). Introduction. In D. W. Smith & A. Thomasson (Eds.), Phenomenology and philosophy of mind (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stone, R., et al. (2009). The virtual scylla: an exploration of ‘serious games’, artificial life and simulation complexity. Virtual Reality, 13(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Tilley, C. (1997). A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. Turner, P. (2007). The intentional basis of presence. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence (pp.127–134).

  44. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Woolliscroft, D. (2001). Roman military signaling. London: NPI Media Group.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zahorik, P., & Jenison, R. L. (1998). Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 7(1), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has only been possible due to generous funding provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and University College London Graduate School. Thanks are also due to Dr. Mark Lake, Dr. Andrew Gardner and Dr. Anna Collar. A version of this paper was presented at the ‘In Search of the Middle Ground’ conference held in Aberdeen in 2011, many thanks to Kirsty Millican and Dorothy Graves for inviting me to the conference and giving me permission to publish this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Eve.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eve, S. Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality to Aid Archaeological Phenomenology in the Landscape. J Archaeol Method Theory 19, 582–600 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9142-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Phenomenology
  • GIS
  • Augmented reality
  • Archaeological theory