Keywords

Is it possible to combine computational methods with the study of sensory archaeologies? To answer this question, it is important to reflect on what lies behind the concept of ‘sensoriality’ and its relevance for archaeological discourse. A sensory-informed approach to the analysis of landscape was sought long before any statistical inferential method was in use within the discipline. When thinking about the definition of archaeology as the discipline dealing with ‘thought transmuted into things’ (Frothingham 1911), it is quite apparent that the material manifestation of past human existence can inform us about the mindset of peoples of the past.

What an archaeology of the senses can allow us to do is perhaps to define new modalities through which we can engage with ‘the Past’. It is therefore crucial to reinforce the concept of perception as a pivotal element in linking the world to our knowledge about the world: to put it simply, perception can be understood as the relationship between sensation and cognition (Frieman and Gillings 2007). In this respect, as stated by Pollock (1967), ‘the data of all our senses are combined in perception to make us aware of the entire object at once’. If we take perception as an essential part of our process of understanding the world, then the experience, intended as the synesthetic sum of multiple perceptual stimuli through which we gain knowledge about the external reality, becomes the key point for us to interpret and infer also about a past reality.

When it comes to the definition of experiential or phenomenological approaches, there is still the problem of replicating and verifying what has been found, which is typically the result of a single researcher’s personal observation (Day 2013).

For us as modern people, the main challenge is to define possible workflows to reach as close as possible to a plausible insight into the world of the past or to quote Lock (1995:13) ‘to make coherent and meaningful statements of it’. To fulfil this scope, archaeology typically combines the study of material culture with the examination of multiple sources. When it comes to the definition of methods applicable to the study of material culture, it is possible to identify at least two macro-categories: the autoptic, individual examination of the objects under scrutiny and the formal examination conducted through inferential, quantitative methods.

Autoptic examination is conducted by the archaeologist who typically approaches any form of material culture (artefacts, buildings, landscapes) and raises hypotheses and interpretations about their significance or cultural value based solely on his/her own observation. Phenomenological, experiential approaches have been widely applied throughout the last 30 years (Tilley 1994; Fleming 1999; Brück 2005; Hamilton et al. 2006; Skeates 2010; Johnson 2012; Hamilton and Whitehouse 2020) with embodiment representing an important aspect reflecting the role of body as a metaphor (Meskell 1996; Hamilakis et al. 2002; Joyce 2005; Crossland 2010) through which our modern selves get in touch with our past predecessors. One of the main limitations with this approach is the bias of the individual experience that can hardly be generalised to allow us to get plausible conclusions on past humans’ behaviours and their relationship with the landscape (Fleming 2006; Tringham 2013).

1 The Role of GIS-based Visual Studies/Space Syntax Analysis

A way to cope with the ‘subjectivity’ inducted by most of the traditional phenomenological studies is to introduce formal methods of enquiry. Early attempts to investigate the archaeological landscape through quantitative/statistical methods are described by Lake et al. (1998) who refer to works conducted by a few scholars during the 1980s and termed ‘non-GIS visibility studies’. Although these methods were not based on computational approaches, the idea to adopt formal procedures to test assumptions and formulate hypotheses around the perception of sites or monuments based on their relational (visual) structure with the surrounding landscape laid the foundation for a more digitally informed post-processual archaeology that developed during the 1990s (Gaffney and Stančić 1991; Wheatley 1995; Llobera 1996, 2003; van Leusen 1999; Lock et al. 2014). That approach was characterised by the attempt to include an understanding of the symbolic dimension of past space based on the theoretical strands raised by processual cognitive archaeology (Renfrew 1994). Prehistoric monuments, mounds, cairns and other prominent features in the landscape became the target of such studies, where the visual impact, but also the movement (Van Leusen 1999; Verhagen and Jeneson 2012; Herzog 2013), was assessed in order to find possible patterns connected to the way prehistoric peoples lived and interacted with their surrounding landscape.

On a similar note, Space Syntax methods, first introduced by Hillier and Hanson (1984), developed with the goal of generating insights into the architectural configuration of ancient buildings, relying on concepts intimately related to a perceptual dimension of the space, such as accessibility, movement and exposure/concealment (Banning and Byrd 1989; Van Dyke 1999; Chatford Clark 2007; Stöger 2015).

In this context, and partially as a consequence of the ‘phenomenological turn’, Gillings and Goodrick (1996) questioned the role of GIS and its very static nature as a tool not really capable of grasping the complexity of the social aspects of ancient space. The main points of criticism focussed on the significant limitations imposed by computational capabilities and traditional map visualisation standards, which reflected on the impossibility of providing a detailed representation of the palaeo-landscape. For this reason they introduced the notion of a sensuous GIS, where the simulation of the past reality becomes a pivotal element. Indeed, it was essential to explore alternative ways to data representation and to find a suitable option to integrate multi-dimensional contents in order to cope with the complexity of an experiential approach to the past landscapes. The authors proposed VR as a possible means to provide a more ‘humanised’ perspective of the (pre)historic space and subsequently VRML as a standard computing language for representing VR contents.

2 VR-based Applications

It is thus partly due to the dramatic advances in computer graphics and partly to the discussion of the role of more dynamic landscape representations raised in the frame of post-processual archaeology (Ingold 1993; Tilley 1994; Llobera 1996) that more scholars started to focus their interest on digitally oriented (multi)sensory approaches to the investigation of archaeological or ancient space. This included some of the first experiments with sound analysis of prehistoric monuments (Watson and Keating 1999; Watson 2001). In the Iron Age site of Danebury, Earl (1999) presents an analytic use of VRML in combination with CAD software for creating controlled viewpoints in a digital landscape where a rendered view is derived and first-person view associated to each viewpoint. This visually based simulation provided some insights into the original functions associated with the hillfort and allowed archaeologists to question the defensive scope of that space (Earl 1999). The role of senses in relation to the development of a digital ecosystem capable of providing the user with an experience similar (but not equal) to the one lived by the original inhabitant of a prehistoric space is then discussed by Forte (2003), drawing upon Barcelo’s idea of developing models to reproduce complex behaviours of agents (human and non-human) interacting with the landscape (Barceló 2001). The main challenge at this point was to move on to an interpretative use of 3D modelling in archaeology (Earl and Wheatley 2002), in which multi-dimensionality and sensory-enriched virtual reconstructions could have provided the users with a formal set of tools for evaluating the experiential qualities of a landscape.

In the attempt to overcome limitations due to the 2–2.5-D visualisation of digital landscapes, texture viewshed was presented as a possible analytical tool to be applied in combination with 3D modelling software to perform visibility analysis in a virtually reconstructed built space of a Roman villa (Earl 2005), where visual prominence, impact and control were measured as a way to understand the sensory-mediated meaning of the social space in an ancient building. In this respect, a more comprehensive and systematic work for interpreting the architectural and iconographic apparatus within the Minoan palace of Akrotiri along with their agency in the frame of liturgical processions is conducted by Paliou (2011), who integrates 3D modelling and GIS functions to perform the analysis. On a related note, Paliou also tried to combine visual and acoustic analysis to explore the sensory dimension of Byzantine churches (Paliou and Kinight 2013).

Additional efforts were made in the attempt to cope with the issue of natural and artificial illumination, an aspect often neglected in most VR-based reconstructions but that has an important agency in affecting the actual perception of an object in the space (Papadopoulos and Earl 2009; Earl et al. 2013).

To further improve the reliability of the visual assessment for ancient or prehistoric monuments, simulated through VR application, Opitz (2017) proposed an assessment based on the evaluation of visual acuity and the capability of the human eye to discern details in an object’s view. Richards-Rissetto (2017) explored instead multisensory modalities of analysis for the Mayan site of Copan by combining well-established GIS-based spatial analysis techniques with VR-oriented solutions for increasing the experiential value of the experiment.

3 Where Are We Now?

Throughout its chapters, organised according to a chronological order of the different case studies presented, this volume provides an insight into state-of-the-art research on digital methods and sensory-based studies of the past and the contribution they can bring to the discipline.

In Chap. 2, Eve and Gillings invite the reader to overcome the traditional reliance on representation and analysis of sensory modalities, to explore affects and invitations-to-act engendered by such sensory encounters. To demonstrate this, the authors present a case study in which a combination of GIS-based mapping and analysis plus virtual, mixed, augmented reality approaches are employed to evoke affects.

A special role in sensory-based investigation of the ancient space is played by the study of sacred or ritual space. In this respect, Sullivan in Chap. 3 explores the sacred space of an Egyptian necropolis by combining multiple sources including textual, art historical and archaeological evidence, with 3D GIS-based technology for answering questions related to the way ancient people create a physical and emotional sense of specialness or distinction in their ritual places.

Concerning the role of Virtual Reality and sensory immersion for archaeological enquiry, in Chap. 4, Sciuto et al. introduce and examine a few case studies where VR was used, respectively, (a) to support the interpretation process in a Mesolithic site in northern Sweden, (b) to capture the intangible art of Roman pantomime in the virtually reconstructed theatre of Pompeii and (c) to study through an immersive approach the photogrammetric models of mediaeval rock-cut settlement and to assess VR Google Earth as an educational students learning ancient topography.

In Chap. 5, Dunn introduces some reflections on the role of digitisation as a freeze-frame process to represent natural movement. Drawing upon a selection of case studies, the author explores and compares the possibilities provided by digital tools to cope with the problem of representing a dynamic phenomenon such as movement in order to improve our understanding of past landscapes and their inhabitants.

Visibility and acoustic analyses represent an important tool also for increasing our understanding of ancient architecture and the original structure of Roman theatres. In Chap. 6, Manzetti introduces an analytical approach to hypothesise the original architecture of Roman theatres in Crete. Her analysis is based on the combination of multiple data source, including ‘legacy’ data that form the basis for 3D reconstructions that were further analysed in 3D GIS.

A synesthetic investigation of a Mayan urban landscape is presented by Rissetto et al. in Chap. 7. The authors take advantage of GIS, 3D and acoustic tools to create multisensory experiences in VR with spatial sound using an immersive headset and touch controllers for movement. Interestingly, the authors explore the role of landscape in facilitating movement, sending messages and influencing social interaction.

Concerning the possibilities for artefact study and dissemination offered by sensory-oriented digital tools, in Chap. 8, Bozia presents a research project focussed on possibilities for natural interaction, physicality and contextualisation of digitally acquired artefacts and the opportunities provided by 3D printing for hands-on study and experience of the artefacts.

In Chap. 9, Pasquinucci and Landeschi illustrate the contribution that integrated sources can provide to reconstruct a narrative of the past based on a sensory account of a few coastal landscapes in Northwestern Etruria as they were perceived and described by ancient authors. The study of these passages is compared with the output of recent integrated research in the same districts described by the ancient authors.

In Chap. 10, Piccoli discusses about the use of 3D digital reconstructions for providing users with visual cues to increase their perception and so their understanding of historical places by relying on a transparent and philological process of digital anastylosis based on heterogeneous data set which includes the surviving architecture of a room in a seventeenth-century Dutch home.

Misharina and Betts, in Chap. 11, present a methodology for recording sensory data in an urban landscape and consider how the results of such sensory surveys might enable multisensory mapping of ancient urban spaces. This work draws upon Lefebvre’s philosophy of social space, according to which it is impossible to make a single map of a city without overlapping temporal, monumental, social and sensory spaces.