Quote:
Originally Posted by Gereth
P.S. BTW Steely. Completely recreated = accurately perceived. While I'm sure examples exist, I'm confident it's not common pracite to recreate archeological discoveries. You mention precise 3D locations, but then site equipment that only offers 2 dimentions. Land height is determined by sea level and since 1 is no more constant then the other over time, rarely are they a reliable factor in geographical perception. More often then not in archeology, we know where'ish.. ...and that's frequently all we know geographically speaking. It's very common to be lost on "precise" details like how high, how wide, how big and so on, and that's the mystry of Archeology those of us love isn't it? Also a Virtual world doesn't change over time *tease* 
|
That's quite a lot of information compressed into a small paragraph; but it looks like my forum simplifications have run some issues together. First, it is true that this virtual world doesn't change, but in other games, like WurmOnline for example, players do have the ability to modify the virtual terrain.
I have taken forever to finish off my MA, in large because my internship had nothing to do with my thesis topic. My internship project was the implementation of my idea for a "constructed archaeological teaching site;" the site was ultimately installed on County property that is also the physical property of a well known archaeological type site. My purpose for constructing the site was to use it for public education, and to reduce visitor (including staff/volunteer guided) impacts on the sensitive natural archaeological sites distributed throughout the park. One of the things that I explicitly stated in my long-term intentions for the use of the site was the precise recreation of recorded sites (these units were intended for use by local grad/exceptional undergrad students).
Now, the Garmin 76 CSx does also provide an Altitude reading, and I've taken it to some USGS Benchmarks where I had decent satellite coverage and it came pretty close. I certainly wouldn't use it for final reporting without acknowledging the inaccuracy. Having said that, our game characters can access the game's x,y, coordinate system; we can't bring in a total station, or even a survey transit and stadia rod.
OK, now the big issue we need to tease apart...precision. What we "know," archaeologically speaking, at any given time is limited and imperfect; however, that isn't a reason to abandon precision in excavation or recording, and it definitely doesn't change that the fact that archaeological activities, especially excavation, are inherently destructive. The question I ask myself as I think about my ideal research design for any project, is how can I make sure that what I'll create will provide equal value for what I am going to destroy (and how will that "value" be realized, and by whom)? I definitely don't think we can hope to improve the holism of our understanding about the archaeologically/historically/linguistically/genetically preserved past by adopting less precise methodologies, or abandoning the concept of precision entirely. Ultimately, I accept that I don't have precise control over the research universe and that the extent of my own "knowledge" will always be imperfect, incomplete, and couched in my own research biases, but that only seems to enhance the importance of self-control.
In any case, environmental reconstruction should be part of any archaeological project, including the reconstruction of paleo-environments. We definitely don't want to suggest environmental determinism, but what is important is how people interacted with each other in their physical environment. So, back to the main point, our knowledge of the total archaeological, etc. catchment may be incomplete but that only accentuates our need to be as precise as possible in how we conciously choose to modify the archaeological record in the physical world.