The aim of this presentation was to shift the focus of 3D modeling in archaeology and cultural heritage to consider the ways in which a more active motivation and engagement of their users (whether professionals or general public) might lead to the long-term sustainability of the models and visualizations. Currently the life expectancy of 3D models in installations or on-line is generally quite short. My argument is that engagement with the models should be measured not so much how many users/visitors a model receives, but in how long and through how many re-visits the users wish to visit the same model. I am guessing that for most users, the visit is a one-time short event. I identify five major strategy foci that might lead to longer and more specific usage of the models and thus to their longer-term sustainability; these are: 1) active user participation, 2) meaningful exploration, 3) cultural presence, 4) multi sensorial experience, and 5) the education of attention, with greatest emphasis given to the latter. I end with idea that these five foci in fact could all be embraced within the gamification of the models, not necessarily as video games, but as media-rich non-linear narratives that go by various terms, such as Walking Simulator, Interactive Digital Stories, and Alternative Reality Games that take advantage of a mixed environment of Augmented and Mixed Reality as well as the more “traditional” Virtual Reality modeling. I finally point out that such gamification could potentially make powerful contributions to draw attention to socio-political and ethical issues of cultural heritage and archaeology.

1. PROWESS-INGTHE PAST:
CONSIDERINGTHE AUDIENCE
Keynote Presentation at Modeling Culture:
3D Archaeology and the Future of the Past,
UC Santa Cruz,April 1, 2016
RuthTringham
University of California Berkeley (Anthropology)
CoDA
Center for Digital Archaeology
Abstract
The aim of this presentation was to shift the focus of 3D modeling in archaeology and cultural heritage to consider the ways in which a more active motivation and
engagement of their users (whether professionals or general public) might lead to the long-term sustainability of the models and visualizations. Currently the life
expectancy of 3D models in installations or on-line is generally quite short. My argument is that engagement with the models should be measured not so much how many
users/visitors a model receives, but in how long and through how many re-visits the users wish to visit the same model. I am guessing that for most users, the visit is a
one-time short event. I identify five major strategy foci that might lead to longer and more specific usage of the models and thus to their longer-term sustainability; these
are: 1) active user participation, 2) meaningful exploration, 3) cultural presence, 4) multi sensorial experience, and 5) the education of attention, with greatest emphasis
given to the latter. I end with idea that these five foci in fact could all be embraced within the gamification of the models, not necessarily as video games, but as media-
rich non-linear narratives that go by various terms, such as Walking Simulator, Interactive Digital Stories, and Alternative Reality Games that take advantage of a mixed
environment of Augmented and Mixed Reality as well as the more “traditional” Virtual Reality modeling. I finally point out that such gamification could potentially make
powerful contributions to draw attention to socio-political and ethical issues of cultural heritage and archaeology.
Bibliographic references on slide 41-45

2. ARETHERE
SOMETHINGS
THAT WE HAVE
MORE FUN
CREATING
THAN USING?
Are there some things that we have more fun creating than using ?
JS Bach is famous for writing music that he certainly got tremendous creative satisfaction and enjoyment from writing because of its musical intricacy, and
we have fun performing it, such as the St.John’s Passion; but it has the reputation of being very “hard” to listen to, that is, not audience-friendly

3. IS ARCHAEOLOGY MORE FUNTO
DOTHANTOVISIT?
Çatalhöyük,
Turkey
Children’s excavation of
Mellaart spoil heap, 2004
School visit to the BACH
Area
Tour visit of the “frozen”
Building 77, 2008
Is archaeology more fun to do, even vicariously while watching, than to visit when no one is there working?

4. ARE 3D MODELS MORE FUNTO
CREATETHANTOVISIT OR USE?
Dig@Lab, Duke
University
Vulci 3000:
Envisioning the
Digital
Landscape
Does the process of creating 3D models give more creative satisfaction than the product? Let’s be honest. Who does not have fun creating the 3D models,
getting the accuracy right, creating the illusion of reality, creating visualizations of landscapes, the GIS maps, the snazzy websites? There is nothing wrong
with this; on the contrary it is to be expected. BUT Who amongst you has thought about your users, consumers, visitors, whether they have as much fun as
you? Do they want to keep coming back to re-visit or use the virtual places you have created?

5. APRIL FOOL’S DAY?
Creators,
Authors
Users,
Visitors.
Audienceintentions expectations
expectations pre-conceptions
as expected disappointing
Evaluation
My keynote presentation - you are now thinking - is a truly April Fool’s Day event! Not only have I never created a 3D model or GIS map, but I am talking
about writing, performing and listening to Classical music! And Thank you, Cameron and Elaine that you risked inviting me to do a keynote address on
April Fool’s Day.
Lest you get too disheartened, let me assure you that this no April Fool’s talk. I am quite serious as I bring its focus on to the users and visitors of all these
examples of technological prowess that have been demonstrated here today. What are the expectations and pre-conceptions of the audience? How do they
use the awesome different products we have heard about? And how will they be changed by them and inspired towards their own creativity?
And what are the intentions and aims of the creators? Who are the intended and expected audience/users of the products of your prowess? How are they
intended to use the products? And for how long?
And do the evaluations of use and visits (especially re-use and re-visit) actually mesh with these intentions and expectations? And if not, do you think it
matters? and if it does, what can we do to change that?

6. CREATORS: 3D APPLICATIONS
Virtual
Archaeology
Virtual Restoration
Archaeological
Heritage
Virtual
Reconstruction
Comprehensive
Management
Virtual Recreation
International Principles ofVirtual
Archaeology, Seville, 2011
The Seville Principles of Virtual Archaeology (2011) categorizes the different kinds of applications with increasing distance from the empirical source of
information (Lopez-Menchero 2013):
Virtual archaeology: is the scientific discipline that researchers and develops computer-based visualisation for the management of archaeological heritage
Archaeological heritage: the tangible assets that are the source of knowledge on the history of humankind studied using archaeological methodology
Comprehensive management: paperless and paper-full documentation, preservation, presentation, access and public use of the material remains of the
past.
Virtual restoration: using a virtual model to reconstitute available material remains in order to visually recreate something that existed in the past.
Virtual reconstruction: A virtual model that visually recovers a building or object made in the past from their physical evidence, along with scientifically-
reasonable comparative inferences carried out by archaeologists and other experts.
Virtual recreation: a virtual model that visually recovers an archaeological site at a given moment in the past, along with its material culture, environment,
landscape, customs, and general cultural significance.

7. CREATORS: 3D APPLICATIONS
In Fieldwork and Lab
surrogates
representations
Afterlives
representations
Documentation
data
media
GIS
Visualizations
reconstructions,
simulations,
virtual worlds
installations
Diverse Intentions
Diverse Interpretations
In order to understand the differing intentions and audience expectations of these different formats, I look in a slightly different way at the same thing.
I make a distinction between, on the one hand documentation (data, media, GIS etc) that is the result of fieldwork and labwork, and that involves
constructing both surrogates and representations of reality; and, on the other hand, what I like to call “the Afterlives” of documentation work: mostly
involving visualizations in various formats that are representations not surrogates.

8. DOCUMENTATION (IN FIELD)
Intentions
Interpretations
Media and Data are surrogates for or
accurate representations of objective
reality
• Media and data should be archived for
the long-term; preserve and even
replace physical record of cultural
heritage (tangible and intangible)
• should be accessible and shareable
• should be added as empirical support
for visualization models
In considering documentation in the field and lab, I make a distinction between the documenters assumptions in their Interpretations and their aims as the
basis of their Intentions/Expectations

9. VISUALIZATION (AFTERLIVES)
Intentions
Interpretations
Visualizations truthfully and
unambiguously represent real-world
authentic original objects, sites and events
•precisely (rather than accurately)
visually reconstitute, simulate, and
reconstruct buildings and sites
•enable immersive experience of living
and moving in the past
•enable interaction whereby user
actively engages with the experience
•not all archived for the long-term
I make the same distinction for the creators of Visualizations (Afterlives) between the assumptions behind their Interpretations and the aims behind their
Intentions.
Watterson (2012):has characterized archaeological visualization as “a complex area of research which exists at the convergence of evidence, interpretation,
scientific data collection and storytelling”. Visualizing the whole from fragments found by archaeologists is challenging because it involves the
interpretation of what is missing; and that involves ambiguity and moving away from authenticity. Which is fine as long as it is made transparent.
That being said, many creators of afterlives interpret their visualizations as truthfully and unambiguously representing real-world authentic original
objects, sites and events ( although that’s probably not true of the creators in this audience). Their intentions/expectations are that their visualizations:
• precisely (arguably, accurately) visually reconstitute, simulate, and reconstruct buildings and sites
• enable immersive experience of living and moving in the past
• enable interaction whereby user actively engages with the experience
• not all archived for the long-term

10. DIVERSITY OF CREATORS
According to
Worldview
Experience
Archaeological epistemology
Digital Literacy
There are other forms of diversity among the creators than what I have listed here, but this is the cue for the slide that follows.

11. EPISTEMOLOGY CREATES DIVERSITY OF INTENTIONS
Epistemology Culture History
Processualism
(Modernism)
Post-Processualism
(CriticalTheory)
Content Architecture
Environment/
Landscape
Lived spaces
(people,places,things)
Focus
Monuments,
tangible heritage
Economy,
tangible heritage
Daily life,
life-histories, intangible
heritage
Scale Macroscale Macroscale
Multiscalar include
intimate
Aim
Visualization,
Immersion
Visualization,
Analysis
Comprehension,
Storytelling
Goal Description of record Explanation Interpretation
User Sight/awe Intellect Multisensoriality,
empathy
Interaction Navigation
Navigation,
manipulation
Manipulation,
alteration
Format VR Closed Model
documentation,VR
Model + metadata
AR, Mixed Reality,
Gamification
after Pujol (2016) University of York Heritage Seminars (https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/yohrs/laia-pujol
I have adapted an interesting chart from Laia Pujol-Tost’s recent (February 2016) presentation at University of York (UK) showing how archaeological
epistemology affects the diversity of intentions and design of 3D applications and visualizations. I have added a row for “scale” and some things to the
other cells. Of course, it is a simplification to assign creators to a particular epistemology. Laia Pujol is the first to say that a creator’s favored
epistemology, like their worldview, might change over time, is the product of their intellectual history, and a complex mix of epistemological elements.
Even so, such an essentializing of the major paradigmatic shifts in archaeology serves to clear the air a little about the diversity.

12. THE AUDIENCE/USER EXPERIENCE OF
DIGITAL HERITAGE
Use
Action
Visit/Watch
Mixed
online mapping,
online database
online library
cloud sharing
media collection
website
information
re-use
education
Physical
re-enactment
skill apprentice
workshop
social media
pervasive games
augmented reality
EXPERIENCE
Physical
Museum
CH site
Reconstruction
Digital
3D Model
Virtual World
Movie
Visualization
Digital
MMRP video game
Critical Play
instructional game
Turning to the Audience, Users and Visitors, their experiences are also very diverse, and I have attempted in this simplified chart to make sense of this
diversity, by making a distinction between those:
• that involve using (and, rarely, re-using) digital documentation/information, mostly on-line via the Internet and Cloud-based services.
• that involve visiting or watching 3D installations either by physical visitation or by sitting in front of a computer or mobile device. These tend to be
relatively passive experiences for the user.
• that involve active participation by the user, either by a physical experience (eg. re-enactment) or digitally, as simulated action (eg.video game)
• that involve both active and passive participation, with mobile devices

13. AUDIENCES/USERS ARE ALSO DIVERSE
According to:
Pre-knowledge
Digital and Media literacy
Critical awareness
Experience, Education and Opportunity
Imagination
Thirst for Knowledge
Empathy
Culture, Community
The audience of 3D visualizations and virtual applications themselves are diverse, ranging from consumers, users, children, visitors, to professionals from
archaeology, cultural heritage and museums. Many factors can account for their diversity including those listed in this slide. However (Watterson 2015:127)
suggests that “people, regardless of background [RET both academic and general], harbour particular expectations and presumptions about the role of
visualisation within archaeology. More often than not this pertains to an expectation that visualisation can and should present a singular truth about the
past…. These are not problems which can be resolved easily.”

14. EXPECTATIONS OF CREATORS AND AUDIENCE
Some general expectations: Virtual cultural heritage will
• disseminate knowledge about cultural heritage sites and what the past was like
• raise public awareness of cultural heritage and archaeological sites and their preservation
Evaluation projects: most systematic evaluations based in
• museums: number of visitors, responses toVR installations, learning, guiding
• K-16 schools: learning, cognitive development, guiding
What they are not monitoring
• how many visitors/users repeat a visit and/or access to virtual heritage websites/installations?
• how many visitors/users access and re-mix the content of virtual heritage?
Expectations of this conference
“…maintain a traditional concern for the types of close studies of
human experience that characterize the humanities”
Both creators and audience expect that Virtual cultural heritage will help to disseminate knowledge about cultural heritage sites and what the past was like,
and raise public awareness of cultural heritage and archaeological sites and their preservation.
One of the expectations of this conference that interested me personally was that the focus on innovative applications of digital technologies would not
detract from the “traditional concern for the types of close studies of human experience that characterize the humanities.” For me in this instance, “close”
means interpretation (more than analysis) at a micro- or intimate scale, as in “microhistories”. I hope you will see how this interpretation emerges as this
talk proceeds.
To bring this presentation around to its ultimate aim - the evaluation of the extent to which these expectations have been met - in this slide I note that
systematic evaluations of Virtual Archaeology have been based largely on the responses of museum visitors and (more rarely) heritage sites to in-place VR
installations. Rarely, if ever, are questions posed about re-visiting an installation (apart from “recommend it to friend?”), and almost never about access,
re-use and recontextualization of on-line heritage content (Champion 2008).

15. SOME EVALUATION RESULTS
20082006
2011
International standards for digital cultural heritage geared towards user/audience
Some evaluation results
growth of online audience
focus on content
not technology
about process
to product
more engagement more stories more people
connection to real world
do while looking
more social
Evaluators of Virtual Heritage and 3D installations in museums (Pujol, Roussou, Economou, Watterson, Biocca and others) note that the viewers are still
mostly passive observers and recipients of information. It is a perennial question for educators, as well as as museum and cultural heritage professionals:
how can we get “users” to participate more actively and ‘make it their own’, that is, turn information into knowledge? At the top of this slide are just some
phrases that I have collected from both evaluators and evaluatees of Virtual Archaeology and Virtual Heritage that I will follow up in the rest of this
presentation. Read them in a clockwise fashion starting in the top left :-)
At the bottom of the slide, I mention three significant initiatives that have been established in the last 10 years by both creators and users of 3D
Visualizations in cultural heritage:
In 2006, the London Charter for Computer-based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage (http://www.londoncharter.org/introduction.html ) (Denard 2012) was
conceived as a means of “ensuring the methodological rigour of computer-based visualization, essentially promoting a framework of intellectual
transparency supported by paradata that document the intellectual process behind the creation of the visualization”.
The ICOMOS Ename Charter (2008) broadened the London Charter with inclusiveness of non-expert stakeholders, multiple interpretations, and a focus on
intangible heritage. (http://www.enamecharter.org/)
The Principles of Seville (2011) (International Principles of Virtual Archaeology) established a need for a theoretical debate on the practice of Virtual
Archaeology and Virtual Heritage with which to implement both the the London and Ename charters (Lopez-Menchero 2013).

16. ENGAGEMENTRecommendations
from Roussou(2008),
Champion (2008,
2011),
Economou and
Pujol ((2011),
Pujol and
Champion(2012),
Silberman (2008),
NMC (2016),
Labrador and Chilton
(2009)
Watterson (2012),
and others
to foster
engagement with
interpretive cultural
heritage projects
*NMC=New Media Consortium Horizon Reports
These are some of the focus words I have garnered from reading the critical and evaluation accounts of 3D applications in archaeology/cultural heritage.
Some of the authors of those accounts are listed here, with others in a bibliography at the end of this presentation.
What is it that engages or might engage users in the VR model or other digital visualization product? Why do we frequently revisit a an amusement park or
the zoo, but rarely a VR installation? What is it that might motivate revisitation and re-use of in-place and online installations? I’ll consider in the next part
of this presentation what are some of the most important factors, most of which have popped up on this wordle.

17. ENGAGING
THE AUDIENCE
EXPLORATION
PARTICIPATION
CULTURAL
PRESENCE
EDUCATION
OF ATTENTION
MULTISENSORIAL
EXPERIENCE
This next part of the presentation has been very hard to organize. In taking the many recommendations and expectations for installations and models
involving 3D visualizations of the past, I have tried to isolate certain major aspects that would certainly (for me) lead to greater audience engagement. But
no sooner do I isolate them, than I realize they are all interconnected, as I have tried to express in this diagram. You could say these are all aspects of
making interactivity more meaningful to diverse audiences and academic fields, including the humanities. Since I think you have seen enough models and
other digital wonders today, I will focus mostly on brain-work, exploring each of these circles in greater depth. In doing this, I will touch only very lightly
on my own creative endeavors.

18. PARTICIPATION
user based
participation
transparency,
ambiguity,
authenticity
social
networking,
communities of
practice
mobile
technology, mixed
reality
inclusive
access to
content and
interpretive
process
ACTIVE
Angela Labrador and Elizabeth Chiltern (2009) remarked, with reference to digital heritage databases (but they might as well be talking about
visualizations) ”they do little to engage end users in the interpretive process. In doing so they centralize the meaning-making process and limit authority
and access for non-expert users. They presume a single knowable community/heritage audience. They presume a single (consensual) interpretation of
content.”
Participation is not the same as interaction. Eric Champion (2011:124) suggested that a user engages with virtual cultural environments “…as an interactive
process of observation, instruction, and active participation”. This remark is true of an engagement with any kind of cultural environment, including that of
the world of archaeological interpretation.
Moreover, all of the published evaluation studies, and especially the Horizon Reports of the New Media Consortium (Freeman et al. 2016, Johnson et al.
2016), point to the need for active participation through the incorporation of social networking and communities of practice into museum and heritage
projects (see also Ridge 2013). Mixed Reality formats such as Augmented Reality, using mobile devices, have an enormous advantage in this respect, in that
input as well as output is in the hands,as well as eyes and ears of the visitor, as will be shown, for example in the CHESS project that I discuss later.

19. AUTHENTICITY AND AMBIGUITY OF
VIRTUAL REALITY (VR) 3-D DIGITAL
RECONSTRUCTIONS
Catalhöyük “shrine”: Emele
et al. 1998
Gabii Goes Digital
http://gabiiserver.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu/
gabiigoesdigital/gabii_unity_sandbox.html
Pompeii: ESRI City Engine
https://youtu.be/iDsSrMkW1uc
In spite of the criticisms that have been addressed about 3D visualizations, there is something enchanting and seductive about them, especially when
enhanced by dreamy synthesized music. However, I still have the impression that an implicit unreflexive assumption underlies the creation of the 3D
models - a message that is transmitted subliminally to the audience - that the model authentically reconstructs and reconstitutes the original from its
remains. In this way, the ambiguity of interpretation - the fact that many models could be constructed from the same remains - is hidden from viewers
who are not given the opportunity to participate in the interpretive process.
In documenting the responses to her impressionistic film about Skara Brae (Digital Dwelling), Alice Watterson similarly noted (2015:123) that “expectations
placed upon techniques of reconstruction and visualization in the academic and public eye has caused an inflexible and problematic attitude towards the
consumption of these images. Despite the consistent use of phrases such as ‘the artist’s impression’ and insistent captions declaring that these images
only depict ‘what the site might have looked like in the past’, audiences continue to make assumptions about the authority of an image based on media
and context. In order to remedy the situation, interpretive visual material must be presented to audiences in a way which reflects the broader processes of
archaeological interpretation.” This is a clear call for the transparency that the London Charter (Denard 2012) demanded.

20. EXPLORATION
navigation
meaningful
interaction
visiting,
discovery
mobile
technology
wayfinding
tracking
MEANINGFUL
Exploration is at the heart of what a visitor to a VR world does, and the continuing challenge for museum designers as well as VR modelers is how to
make exploration interesting and meaningful. Tim Ingold (2007) made a distinction between transporting oneself from point to point, where the
destinations are the main point of the travel, and wayfaring with no destination but with an endless unfolding of a path as you move, where the process of
movement itself is the main point of travel.
Thus exploration in a virtual world can be carried out in either of these modes (Ingold 2016); the creator has the ability to enable, encourage, or restrict
exploration through their design; movement may be structured around a series of fixed intended destinations, perhaps with information provided at each.
But, as Rachel has pointed out in this conference, what do we look at as we fly, race, or if you’re lucky walk, navigating from point to point - usually not a
lot, except looking for the next destination?
The alternative is to design a virtual environment as a labyrinth in which the aim is not to reach the destination (i.e. its exit) but to enjoy walking and
wayfaring along its many paths that are enhanced by meaningful interaction provided by interesting features, dead ends, mysterious doors, surprising
discoveries, an unfamiliar sight or a movement in the corner that your eye will light on, or a story snippet that resonates or reminds you of a past
experience. I will come back to this contrast between the Ingold’s maze and labyrinth throughout the rest of this presentation.

21. THE CHESS PROJECT
Çatalhöyük, Turkey,
2013-2014
http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/cultivating-
mobile-mediated-social-interaction-in-the-museum-towards-group-
based-digital-storytelling-experiences/
The Chess (Cultural Heritage Experiences through Socio-personal interactions and Storytelling) Project (Vayanou et al. 2014, Rousseau et al. 2015; Katifori
et al. 2016) has an interesting standpoint on all of the factors leading to engagement of visitors to museums and heritage sites. I introduce it here under
“meaningful exploration” since the professed aim of the project is to stimulate and engage visitors while they explore museums and sites. One of its test
sites is the archaeological/heritage site of Çatalhöyük, Turkey, where we had several years before given birth to the Remediated Places project (Tringham
et al. 2007). In the latter, as in Ingold’s labyrinth, we had encouraged visitors to use their imaginations as they walked on the paths around the site,
making these the focus of their attention rather than the traditional destinations of excavation areas. On your mobile device (at that time, an iPod) you
would choose a combination of media items (video, audio, images) that would create a story along different themes of past and present.
While the Remediated Places project was designed for devices that the technology of that time (2004-8) could not support, the CHESS project takes
advantage of all the mobile communication technology available now (2011-2014), including Augmented Reality. Through the CHESS project, visitors
receive a combination of rich media cues, clues, and stories in branching narrative trajectories provided for them on an iPad.They are encouraged to visit in
pairs or small groups. The aim is to facilitate discussion and critical reflexivity amongst group members about the content and interpretations that occur
on different iPads in the group (as each participant follows a different story branch) and as they together observe the physical remains as the site emerges
during their tour.

22. SPEED OF EXPLORATION
Pompeii with ESRI City
Engine
https://youtu.be/iDsSrMkW1uc
The Roman Forum at 10 am on June 21, 400 AD,
(Frischer, B., Favre, D.,Abernathy, D. UCLA CVR Lab 2003)
It is questionable what meaningful interaction can be provided by the soul-sickening fly-through pace, much favored in the past by VR modelers - and still
is, as evidenced by the upper reconstruction of Pompeii. It was certainly meaningful to the creator. But digital media can now express movement of the
first person through space at a human wandering exploratory pace. The lower example on the slide is a VR exploration the Roman Forum from 2003
(previously on the Web, but no longer accessible) (Frischer et al. 2004) on plan and model, which provides a slower paced guided -albeit dehumanized -
navigation. So why is such a pace still so rare? Is the expectation that the audience will lose interest if exploration takes too long?

23. https://youtu.be/qSfATEZiUYo
Museum of London iPhone Augmented Reality/ Re-Photography app
MEANINGFUL EXPLORATION?
The physical can be augmented by digital visualizations that in the eyes of some (Stuart Eve 2012, Laia Pujol 2016) give a greater understanding of the present as it is
juxtaposed with the past and vice versa. Mobile technology with Augmented Reality apps, using techniques that involve re-photography, can make a huge contribution
when linked to social media to make inhabitants of their world and visitors to it aware of some of the hidden secrets, events, and stories about the past, or a building that is
no longer there, as seen here in the Museum of London’s app for mobile devices.

24. CULTURAL
PRESENCE
arc of
intentionality,
affordances,
experience
presence theory
continuum of
mixed reality
immediacy,
immersion
affect,
imagination,
empathy
Since the beginning of Virtual Reality, the delight for audience - and aim of creators - was to be able to create an ‘authentic’ immersive experience, the
’feeling of being there’; telepresence morphed into “presence” - the perceptual illusion of immediacy, in which the ‘user’ acts in a mediated environment
as if the mediation is not there (Pujol & Champion 2012; Gibson 1986; but see Biocca 2001). With the new millennium, the aim for creators of VR
representations of archaeological and heritage places was to expand “Presence” into “Cultural or Social Presence”, so that the illusion of “Presence” in a
building was developed into an illusion of “Presence” in a designed cultural and social context. In other words, the Virtual Space or Environment became a
Virtual Place. Each person experiences cultural presence differently, depending on their own personal history and cultural experience.

25. PRESENCE IN A PAST AND“OTHER” PLACE
PRESENCE
affective
intentionality
social
intentionality
corporeal
intentionality
cognitive/perceptual
intentionality
cognitive/perceptual
affordances
corporeal
affordances
social
affordances
affective
affordances
most agree that ‘presence’ means the perceptual illusion of non-mediation; the ‘user’ is acting in a
mediated environment as if the mediation is not there.That is, they behave the same way in a virtual or
augmented environment as they do in the real world (Stuart Eve 2012, 588 and fig.3)
events
things
people
embodied
experiences
It has been claimed that ‘“Presence” is what everyone who is re-mediating cultural heritage - the past - is aiming at for their audiences’. As Stuart Eve
(2012)(following Phil Turner (2007)) points out in this diagram, a sense of presence in real, augmented or virtually real world requires the “Arc of
Intentionality” to be maintained. If something in the coupling of the internal embodied experience (intentionality) with the corresponding environmental
affordance (provided by events, things or people) is not quite as expected, then engagement - the sense of presence (or rather the suspension of disbelief)
- will be broken. The concept of Cultural Presence enriches the more traditional idea of corporeal presence by the inclusion of social, affective (emotional),
and cognitive (including multisensorial) experience.

26. THE CONTINUUM OF MIXED REALITY
Real (physical )
environment(RE)
Augmented
reality (AR)
Augmented
virtuality (AV)
Virtual reality, world,
or environment (VE)
after Eve (2012) who took it from Milgram 1994
Dead Man’s Eyes
Laia Pujol-Tost (2016) pointed out that Cultural Presence is a tool with which to experience and understand the world; it is not something that can be
measured. What is important for a visitor is not how real the world is, but how you interact with the world and (as creator) how you enhance your users’
world with affordances. This is an important point in terms of evaluating the different engagement of audience in cultural environments along the
Continuum of Mixed Reality. Several authors, including Stuart Eve (2012) and Laia Pujol (2016), have recently suggested that the total immersion of users
in Virtual Reality worlds which one enters to the exclusion of physical reality, might be less engaging than Mixed Reality (Augmented Reality and
Augmented Virtuality) environments which elements of the real (physical) world are combined with virtual elements, without necessarily making the latter
the focus of activity. Such a viewpoint (with which I agree by the way) allows for a rather different set of ways through which an engaging Cultural and
Social Presence may be articulated, in which the user is given space for their own creativity, imagination, and participation in their own cultural world and
that of the “other” simultaneously. In this argument, breaking the suspension of disbelief does not necessarily lead to disengagement of the audience; it
may have quite the opposite effect by enhancing engagement.

27. MULTISENSORIAL
EXPERIENCE
sense of
place
embodiment
moving, walking,
falling, flying
multiscalar
rhythms
haptic
technologies,
3Dprinting
In his book “Archaeology and the Senses” (2013), Yannis Hamilakis draws attention to some aspects of the expansion of multi-sensorial experience
created for the audiences of cinematic productions (p.61-65) that are highly relevant to the discussion of engagement of audiences of Virtual Archaeology
installations. He calls this “Cinesthesia”, reminding us of the power of synesthesia (Biocca 2001, 2002) in which visual cues, especially if movement/
animation is incorporated, can trigger sensation of other senses, or where visuals can support the illusion of expected sounds such as wind, thunder,
footsteps etc. “In immersive virtual environments, inputs from the visual, auditory, and somatosensory systems contribute to a coherent spatial mental
model…..We hypothesize that the richer the mental model of the virtual environment, the greater the level of presence(Biocca 2001, 253).” This is certainly
the case of players of video games, but is it true of museum and heritage in-place and on-line installations?
The human body and mind never stops moving from the time we are born, even when sleeping. Lets think for a minute what we the audience are doing
while we watch and experience these different forms of immersive environments. In a movie theater in the West, we sit still with many others in a dark
theater, but, nevertheless, feel excitement and empathy, sometimes with our heart racing, as we watch the movie. In many other cinema-watching
traditions, the audience are less restricted in their bodily responses and move. In watching video games, the excitement is generated by the competitive
action, the speed and much upper bodily movement.

28. SENSORIAL EXPERIENCE ON OKAPI ISLAND
IN SECOND LIFE
Walking up the path to
the BACH (Berkeley
Archaeologists @
Çatalhöyük) shelter in
in the virtual world of
Second Life and in the
real-time videographic
record: remediation
and re-re-remediation
Open Day to visitors from all over the planet at Okapi Island in November 2007
The only time that I have experienced anything close to the same multisensorial experience in a virtual environment was in moving through my avatar around our model of
Çatalhöyük - Okapi Island - in Second Life (Morgan 2009, Tringham 2009). In the examples from Okapi Island in this slide you can see in the upper half my avatar walking
up the virtual path to our BACH shelter while “holding” a videographic representation of the same path. Next to it this same event is remediated one step further away
from “reality” in the live stream to Okapi Island of a lecture about Second Life that is being watched by other avatars in the Neolithic houses of Çatalhöyük.
One especially affective experience, that is the focus of the lower video and image, was provided in 2007 when we hosted on Okapi Island a worldwide Open Day. I sat
round a virtual bonfire (seen on the lower right) renewing acquaintances (or, rather, their avatars) from our project at Çatalhöyük mirroring an event that happened every
Thursday night during the project. So I come back to wondering what would enable a 3D immersive environment to create the same degree of excitement and engagement
(several videos of Okapi Island can be viewed in this collection: https://vimeo.com/album/147589.
The rhythm of movement and its repetitions lies at the heart of what is called REALITY and a sense of place. This means the rhythm of the contact between human
individual and material or other human - the footstep, gestures of storytelling, hand on obsidian core, hand stirring soup; the rhythm of daily repetition, such as food-
sharing; seasonal rhythms; annual rhythms, such as plastering walls; the longer rhythms of the life-cycle of people and the village(s); the demographics of a growing or
aging population in a building, accidents and illness that might occur at a crucial time in these rhythms to create change. Thus an engaging sense of place, whether as it
exists now or as it existed in the past, cannot be captured through static constructions of buildings and sites that are empty of other people and their multiscalar lives.
From this point of view a virtual 3D immersive environment is very different from the sensorial experience and sense of place at the physical site of interest itself, where
you can feel wind, temperature, see moving clouds, hear birds, and, most importantly, you move freely. From this point of view, Augmented Reality and other Mixed
Reality formats have a huge advantage and is an important reason why I think they holds greater promise for future visualization and interpretive projects. Likewise, the
potential that 3D printing has for tactile sensing over immersive haptic technologies is worth considering.

29. EDUCATION
OF ATTENTION
storytelling
participant
observation,
cultural
transmission
digital literacy
media literacy
guides,
scaffolding,
informants
enactive
learning, practice-
based learning
One of the aims of 3D (and 2d) visualizations of archaeology is to transmit something of the cultural meaning of what is being visualized to the viewer. As
we have seen, sometimes, this comprises “what life was like in the past”; at other times the intention is to transmit something of the ambiguity of
interpreting the past. In 2000 Tim Ingold (apparently inspired by Gibson 1986:254) made this (to me) awe-inspiring statement that “…information, in itself, is not
knowledge, nor do we become any more knowledgeable through its accumulation. Our knowledgeability consists, rather, in the capacity to situate such information, and understand its meaning, within the context
of a direct perceptual engagement with our environments.And we develop this capacity, I contend, by having things shown to us.The idea of showing is an important one.To show something to somebody is to
cause it to be seen or otherwise experienced ….. by that other person. It is, as it were, to lift a veil off some aspect or component of the environment so that it can be apprehended directly. In that way, truths that
are inherent in the world are, bit by bit, revealed or disclosed to the novice.What each generation contributes to the next, in this process, is an education of attention. Placed in specific situations, novices are
instructed to feel this, taste that, or watch out for the other thing.Through this fine-tuning of perceptual skills, meanings immanent in the environment – that is in the relational contexts of the perceiver’s
involvement in the world – are not so much constructed as discovered.”(Ingold 2000:21-22).
Tim Ingold has never really applied what he writes to the digital world, but, on more careful listening and understanding of the concept of education of
attention, I think this statement is relevant to understanding what we might hope to achieve for audiences of Virtual Archaeology.

30. STORYTELLING: USINGYOUR IMAGINATION
alterity (outsiders)
natively (insiders),
ethnographers
speakers, stories,
gestures, responses
artifacts, buildings,
village plans
continuum of cultural transmission
After Erik Champion 2011, and beyond
Learning from the
living through
(participant)
observation,
instruction, trial and
error
Archaeologist
interpretation
imagination
awarenessunderstanding
use imagination to
incorporate own culture
into an understanding
of past worlds through
explicitly facing the
challenge of ambiguity
of the tangible
remnants of those
worlds
In Erik Champion’s view of digitally learning about other cultures (2011:178): “Cultural learning could be summarized as learning through observation, instruction, or by trial and error.Therefore,
there are two major ways of transmitting culture: through other social agents……., and through artifacts……The former seems necessary for understanding a culture natively (from the inside as vicarious
experience), and the latter seems necessary for extending cultural knowledge or developing cultural awareness of alterity (from the outside as observation or as extrapolated experience).The notion of Cultural
Learning as a spectrum covering awareness to understanding, and nativity to alterity, is also important for evaluation” of digital visualizations, even though, as Champion points out, it is seldom
used as such.
The same continuum spans from observations of living cultures that are informed by their living participants to observations of dead cultures that are informed by the live
interpretation of tangible remnants of long-dead participants. Does this mean that archaeologists are forever assigned to the far end of alterity of the spectrum and
limited to understanding culture through tangible remains?
But, as pointed out by several brave archaeologists, historians, and artists (Tringham 1994, 2014, Van Dyke & Bernbeck 2014, Watterson 2012, Clarke et al. 2015 ),
empirically informed imaginations can be harnessed in different creative ways to extend our reach beyond the restrictions of the tangible remains towards an
understanding of past worlds. Some use the medium of fictional narratives which are certainly popular with a broader public, but, I believe, suffer (unless they are
extraordinarily well conceived and written) from some of the same problems as virtual reconstructions - that is, there is not enough space left for the reader to participate
by using their own imagination; the creator’s view of the past is not ambiguous enough. I believe many of the digital archaeological visualizations suffer from the same
lack of “creative imagination space”.
Some of the most successful uses of the archaeologist’s imagination, in my opinion, - whether analog or digital - have been those that make obvious - rather than hide -
their their own culture, values, and practices, incorporating them into an understanding of past worlds through an explicit face-off with the challenge of ambiguity of the
tangible remnants of those worlds (Silberman 2008). The thread of optimism for Augmented and Mixed Reality environments that has thru through this presentation
would support this.
As an example that incorporates digital visualization, you might appreciate Alice Watterson’s self-reflexive, poetic, multilayered digital project - Digital Dwelling (2015,
https://digitaldirtvirtualpasts.wordpress.com/skara-brae/) - at Skara Brae, that is a story about her own engagement with the archaeological record at Skara Brae. It
portrays the past as it is experienced in the present; unfamiliar, emotive, dynamic and transforming.

31. EDUCATION OF ATTENTION
OR CULTURAL REPRODUCTION
Knowledge and information cannot be
transmitted separately from their
practical enactment. The good
teacher or guide will provide a
scaffold of hints, stories, and support
to help move the novice along. But for
the most part the novice must watch,
copy, improvise, and in the end
creatively make the knowledge their
own. This is the education of attention.
There is no straight line from
information to practice, only a crooked
one that gradually fills out. It starts
with enactive knowledge which is not
just for babies but rides with us
throughout our lives.
adapted from Tim Ingold (2011, 2015)
Karl Heider: Dani
Whereas the hermeneutic virtual cultural environments of Erik Champion (2011, 2014) are a way of transmitting knowledge and culture, Tim Ingold’s
model (2000, 2016) of the education of attention focusses on knowledge and cultural reproduction, aligned very clearly with practice-based and
apprentice-based social models of education and enactive learning (learning by doing that precedes iconic and symbolic learning) (Lave&Wenger 1991;
Vygotsky 1978). In Ingold’s view, knowledge and information cannot be transmitted separately from its practical enactment. I find this model quite
inspiring for engendering engagement in visualization and 3D modeling in archaeology.
Ingold's model of wayfaring, trail-following in a labyrinth, whose journey is more important than the destination is expanded to the reproduction of
knowledge and culture, rather than their transmission. “…stories do not, as a rule, come with their meanings already attached, nor do they mean the same for different people.
What they mean is something that listeners have to discover for themselves, by placing them in the context of their own life histories. Indeed it may not be until long after a story is told that its
meaning is revealed, when you find yourself retracing the very same path that the story relates.Then, and only then, does the story offer guidance on how to proceed.A great deal of flexibility,
creativity, and improvisation and patience is needed to learn a skill from a teacher.”(Ingold 2011:162)
The good teacher or guide will provide a scaffold of hints, stories, and support to help move the novice along. But for the most part the novice must watch,
copy, improvise, and in the end creatively make the knowledge their own. This is the education of attention. There is no straight line from information to
practice, only a crooked one that gradually fills out. It starts with enactive knowledge which is not just for babies but rides with us throughout our lives.
The education of attention demands revisiting a virtual model or world so that cumulative knowledge of the virtual world may be built up gradually. Its
putting the responsibility of knowledge on the user creates an engaging environment of exploration. But it is also the responsibility of the creators of such
environments to provide the equivalent of the labyrinth with scaffolded hints, surprises, mysteries, hidden elements to which the wanderer/explorer can
respond.

32. ENGAGING
THE AUDIENCE
EXPLORATION
PARTICIPATION
CULTURAL
PRESENCE
EDUCATION
OF ATTENTION
MULTISENSORIAL
EXPERIENCE
What I have suggested to you from the overview of the themes that will motivate and engage audiences is that one of the greatest assets that is claimed for
3D visualizations in archaeology and cultural heritage - namely, that they provide a QUICK overview of what a place was like in the past, what life was like,
travel to the past etc. - will not make any difference to learning about or engagement with the past. What will make a difference is:
• slowing down the process of learning,
• revisiting numerous times and long-term,
• make scaffolding rather than prescribed, didactic knowledge transfer the main purpose of guiding,
• allow the audience to participate actively in the interpretive process and use their imaginations to fill in purposeful blanks,
• enable social interaction to be involved,
• make the whole thing story-based and personalized.
Following on from the latter suggestion, we might seek to emulate the scale of interpretation at which novels, theatre, film, TV soap operas, that we love to
revisit, are created; it is not the scale of history-writ-large, but the scale of the small intimate group that is the basis of our most engaging stories. The
archaeological record and heritage places are made from small stories, if only we had the patience to use digital and virtual technologies to harness them.
The power of networked small stories to engage large audiences is supported by the planning and results of the CHESS project (Vayanou et al. 2014;
Roussou et al. 2015; Katifori et al. 2016).
How can this to be achieved? Is it already being achieved?

33. VIRTUAL (CULTURAL) WORLDS
Digital Songlines
https://youtu.be/lgy0bU8J6C8
City of Uruk in Second Life (2008) and
Unity (2015) https://youtu.be/ZY_04YY4YRo
Place Hampi
www.place-hampi.museum
Erik Champion:
Palenque
Many researchers and virtual world creators have begun to take up this challenge (Chapman 2015, Champion 2011, 2015, Watterson 2012, Frankland 2012). At Place
Hampi, for example, the installation offers an alternative to the ready-made information acquisition by offering an environment “in which the transactions between viewers
and virtual “others” are able to evolve or “co-evolve” reflexively in real time, ensuring a tangible level of viewer self-reflectivity corroborated by the presence of virtual
“others” (Kenderdine et al. 2007; http://www.place-hampi.museum/contents/place-hampi_exhibition.html.
Laia Pujol has also suggested that the solution is to go beyond the “cultural presence” aim of Virtual Reality (2016). She and Alice Watterson (2012) of Digital Dwelling
have suggested that the aim is not to simulate reality, but to create surreality, offering perspectives that you could not have in reality (under the ground, in a grave); do
things that you could not do in reality (see a ghost of an ancestor); storytelling from a mouse’s point of view; personalization; and yes, go beyond the limits of the
empirical data, but using their foundations. I am also for such playfulness!
Erik Champion (2011, 2015) is especially in favor of what he calls “hermeneutic environments” over the more numerous activity-based and very common inert explorative
virtual environments. In designing … a hermeneutic environment, “the aim is to engage the visitor in another culture where a participant begins to use and develop the
codes of other cultures in order to orient and solve tasks, and to communicate the value and significance of those tasks and goals to others.” (Champion 2011:55)
In the “Digital Songlines" (now unfortunately defunct) the aim was “to communicate the culture, history, rituals and stories, and association with the country through 3D
virtual worlds, by presenting these in the context of the originating country…..The importance of this work is in the way it demonstrates an appreciation of the natural
environment and the Aboriginal affinity to this land.” However, this project was not without problems in the issue of remediating sacred space in virtually(Brett Leavy et al.
2007, Wyeld et al. 2007; https://youtu.be/lgy0bU8J6C8)
The “City of Uruk” (https://youtu.be/ZY_04YY4YRo) offers an intimate view of emotional daily life at 3000BC in a classic game environment based on a small story. It was
created in Second Life (2008) and more recently in Unity (2015)(Bogdanovych et al. 2009, 2012). As yet the user can only passively visit and observe. The characters do
not speak (or text) and have few gestures. The challenge of incorporating Non-Playing Characters (NPCs) into an environment without breaking the “Arc of Intentionality”
is one that has been severely criticized by users of Second Life and games in general (Morgan 2009). The alternative is to depend on the technological leap required of
Artificial Intelligence that has been addressed by the City of Uruk authors by creating “autonomous agents” that are activated by genetic algorithms of everyday life
independent of any “users”.

34. VIRTUAL(CULTURAL) WORLDS
Okapi Island (Çatalhöyük) in Second Life 2009
RuthTringham, Colleen Morgan, 12 UCB students
Life at 7500BC. Consciously introduces modern
participants. Group based. Low tech, not believable,
surreal, but is student made and student used.Avatars are
of real people not bots.Also story-based.
Okapi Island (a simulated model of the East Mound at Çatalhöyük), like City of Uruk 3000 BC, comprised the development of one of the very few
archaeological sites in the on-line “world” of Second Life. We started the project in Spring 2006 because we believed that there is great potential of this
platform for educational and research projects about archaeological places. Even if you can afford it, Second Life is not ideal answer for various reasons. But
it does give users/audience an opportunity to engage as as a group in enactive learning, albeit through the medium of an avatar, and creative user-driven
role-playing stories as in this “machinima” by UCB students (https://youtu.be/n86eZOr-9xE).

35. GAMIFICATION
Games
specific
goal, defined
outcome
rules
abstract
challenges Content Gamification
add and change content to
stimulate motivation and
engagement
game
mechanics
rewards, rules,
hints,
game
elements
story, challenge,
curiosity, mystery,
characters, learner
becomes part of story
game
thinking
scaffolding, self-
determination
theory
Real-Life
Simulation
learners
practice real-
life skills
Gamification
I think that ideally what we are looking for as a way to bring these elements of engagement with Virtual Archaeology together is not so much Computer or
Video Games and Worlds, but ways of applying the principles of Gamification to audio-visualizing the past, specifically Content Gamification (Kapp 2012).
Content Gamification refers to applying game elements (story, challenge, curiosity, imagination, mystery, characters), game mechanics (rewards,rules), and
game thinking to alter the content to make it more game-like; the audience become part of the story (the game) and they can add to it. We do this in
teaching, inquiry-based teaching, studio courses, but it is not mainstream. You will see how gamification relates to what I have been saying earlier in this
presentation when we consider Game Thinking.

36. GAMETHINKING/META-THEORIES
why is gamification good for engagement, motivation and
attention?
ScaffoldingTheory
Guidance and support for the user to reach
to the next level of skill and understanding
provided by avatar or real guide/mentor,
buttons, cues etc.
Self-determinationTheory
• Autonomy: people are motivated when they
feel they have a sense of control and are able
to determine the outcome of their actions
• Learning: people are motivated when they
feel skilled, or at least competent
• Relatedness: people want to feel connected
to other people
Distributed Learning
Very similar theory to the Education of
Attention: a little bit at a time; revisit the
same problem, but each time with more
experience
TheZenofLearning
Game Thinking or Game Meta-Theories make gamification good for engagement, motivation, and attention (Kapp 2012), especially the following:
Scaffolding: Guidance and support for the user to reach to the next level of skill and understanding; may be provided by an avatar or real guide or
mentor, buttons, cues etc.
Self-determination theory: A meta-theory with three underlying elements. 1) autonomy: people are motivated when they feel they have a sense of control
and are able to determine the outcome of their actions—this is called.
2) learning: people are motivated when they feel skilled or at least competent.
3) relatedness: people want to feel connected to other people
Distributed Learning: Very similar theory to the Education of Attention: a little bit at a time; revisit the same problem, but each time with more experience

37. CRITICAL PLAY
Urgent Evoke
(2010)
Jane McGonigal, Institute
for the Future
Global Conflicts:
Palestine (2007)
Serious Games Interactive(defunct
series)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=3ANbDOKmJ6s/
Mary Flanagan
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/
critical-play
create or occupy play
environments and
activities that represent
questions about aspects
of human life…
characterized by a
careful examination of
social, cultural, political,
or even personal
themes that function as
alternates to popular
play spaces
walking simulators
creative expression,
debating contested
heritage places and
environments,
alternative
interpretations
Edward González-Tennant in his contribution to this conference, has also pointed out that gamification holds great promise for engaging broadened
audiences for archaeology. There are many forms that such gamification can take. There is of course a large literature on “Serious Games” in history
and archaeology, but some of the more interesting forms are those that focus on a rich content, based in non-linear narratives, relatively low tech
modelling, and reachable on the Internet streaming or download that go by such names as Walking Simulator (Gone Home,
https://youtu.be/ORsSxYDmPx8), Interactive Digital Narratives (the CHESS project, King of Dragon Pass, https://youtu.be/9uETh9Hu-9Y), and my own take
on Lev Manovich’s Database Narratives (Dead Women Do tell Tales, Tringham 2013, 2015).
I personally have been drawn especially to an idea of how gamification of archaeology and cultural heritage can provide a way of engaging broader
audiences in serious issues, such as “Who Owns the Past”, of the kind that Ed is proposing in his planned Walking Simulator: Rosewood (http://
www.virtualrosewood.com/). This is the genre of gamification created by Jane McGonigal’s Urgent Evoke (which has ended but is described in her 2011
book, https://youtu.be/_48Fd5IJQh8), the Global Conflict series (https://youtu.be/3ANbDOKmJ6s)(defunct), Byzantine:the Betrayal (https://youtu.be/T2WQzygiphM)
(defunct) and by Mary Flanagan in her book (2013) Critical Play. What if certain play environments or spaces provided not outlets for visualizing and
learning about the past, but as a means of creative expression, or a medium for debating contested heritage places; or as virtual environments and
simulations to “play with” alternative interpretations of archaeological content? There are some interesting attempts to do this for history , but
almost none for archaeology and cultural heritage. Or the use of a gamified crowdsourcing project to fill in the metadata of a cultural heritage archive
(Paraschakis 2013). The possibilities seem endless.
Jane McGonigal gave her 2010 TED talk the title: “Gaming can make a better world.” And I agree!

38. WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT ENGAGINGTHE
AUDIENCE/USERS?
Intimate User Interfaces/Database Narratives
The status of many of the examples I have shown here, and an equal number that I have not, as defunct, also speak to the fragility of 3D visualizations as
online interfaces, museum 3D installations, and game interfaces. Their short lifespans can be the result of a number of factors: lack of updating the
interface to keep up with changing fashions of genre and format and the unending march of technological transformation leaves the interface or
installation stranded in a cyber-netherworld (or if they are lucky, the Internet Archive).
The lack of updating leading to the demise of digital objects is the equivalent of lack of maintenance of physical objects leading to their becoming
archaeological. In a recent article (Law and Morgan 2014, Tringham and Ashley 2015) we wrote that the rules of physical sustainability through regular use
and maintenance apply to digital things as well.
One of the most interesting recommendations - for the purposes of this presentation -by Julian Richards (2002) to increase sustainability is that (virtual)
archaeologists should plan to encourage the accessibility, usability and re-usability of their digital objects by a broad audience. That such regular use of a
digital object is most likely to encourage its updating and maintenance, and thus increase its longevity. John Rick in this conference has re-confirmed this.
Throughout this presentation I have been recommending thinking about the audience’s visiting behavior, not so much about how long a visitor spends on
the visit, nor how many people visit the site (online or physical), but how many times does the same user revisit and how many users access the
documented media and re-use and re-contextualise them. A single visit (online or physically) will not lead to sustained engagement with a digital object,
and its short life can almost be guaranteed.

39. q
SOURCE DATA
Documentation
AFTERLIVES
Visualizations
As a devil’s advocate, I could argue that the short life of many digital visualizations of the past is not disastrous. In fact several of mine are already defunct. My response
to this may not be the same as yours. I don’t really mind. Sure, a lot of work went into the Chimera Web and into Okapi Island; but these are just some of a number of
narratives that can be drawn out of the LHotH database. We cannot keep everything on the web or the Cloud (Richards 2002, Michael Ashley 2010)
In this slide, the source data (LHotH) for any number of “afterlives”, are safely archived in digital form with metadata organized in meaningful and useful content
management systems and need to be carefully curated and made safe and accessible for re-use. The user interfaces, visualizations, games, database narratives that
disseminate the data in different genres and allow the broader public to interact with the primary sources are worth curating, but are less of a priority; they are more
ephemeral, and can be replaced by new interfaces as long as the source data are intact.
Thus for me, the afterlives are not the ultimate publication medium of the BACH project. Other narratives can be produced by other authors. …as long as the database or
documentation is intact, meaningful, and accessible. But for many of you 3D modelers you may not feel the same; you have spent many joyful and maybe challenging
hours creating what is beautiful, valuable, and what you love. So for you, I would say: look to your audience!

40. • For this presentation, I have been inspired by the work
and comments of Erik Champion, Maria Roussou,
Maria Economou, Laia PujolTost,Alice Watterson, and
Tim Ingold, and many of the people at this conference
• I have benefited enormously from conversations with
my colleagues at CoDA (Center for Digital
Archaeology)
• All of the outrageous exaggerations of or mistakes in
what you feel is the truth, however, are my own
responsibility

41. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 41
References
Ashley, Michael
2010 Digital Conservation and Access: Saving Humanity's History in the Petabyte Age.
Virtual Archaeology Review 1(1):9-12.
Biocca, Frank
1988 Opposing Conceptions of the Audience: The Active and Passive Hemispheres of
Mass Communication Theory. Communication Yearbook 11:51-80.
2001 Inserting the Presence of Mind into a Philosophy of Presence: a response to
Sheridan and Mantovani and Riva. Presence 10(5):546-556.
Biocca, Frank, Inoue Yasuhiro, Andy Lee, Heather Polinsky and Arthur Tanf
2002 Visual cues and virtual touch: Role of visual stimuli and intersensory
integration in cross-modal haptic illusions and the sense of presence.
Proceedings of the Proceedings of Presence conference 2002. Porto, Portugal.
Bogdanovych, Anton, Alex Cohen and Michelle Roper
2009 The City of Uruk: Virtual Institutions in Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the
HCSNet 2009 Workshop on Interacting with Intelligent Virtual Characters held.
Bogdanovych, Anton, Kiran Ijaz and Simeon Simoff
2012 The City of Uruk: Teaching Ancient History in a Virtual World. Proceedings of the
Intelligent Virtual Agents 12th International Conference (IVA) 2012, LNAI 7502, :28-35.
Champion, Erik
2008 Explorative Shadow Realms of Uncertain Histories. In New Heritage: New
Media and Cultural Heritage, edited by Y. Kalay, T. Kvan and J. Affleck, pp. 185-
206. Routledge, London and New York.
2011 Playing with the Past. Springer, London.
2014 History and Cultural Heritage in Virtual Environments. In The Oxford Handbook of
Virtuality, edited by M. Grimshaw. Oxford Handbooks Online, Oxford, UK.
2015 Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage. Ashgate, Farnham,
Surrey, UK.
Chapman, Adam
2015 Challenge the Past/Diversify the Future: Reflections on Historical Game Studies
and the Study of Historical Representation across Disciplines. In PlaythePast.
http://www.playthepast.org/?p=5177

42. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 42
Clarke, Annie, Ursula Frederick and Steve Brown (editors)
2015 Object Stories: artifacts and archaeologists. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Denard, Hugh
2012 A new Introduction to The London Charter. In Paradata and Transparency in
Virtual Heritage, edited by A. Bentkowska-Kafel, D. Baker and H. Denard, pp. 57-71.
Ashgate.
Economou, Maria and Laia Pujol-Tost
2008 Educational tool or expensive toy? Evaluating VR evaluation and its relevance for
virtual heritage. In New Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, edited by Y. Kalay,
T. Kvan and J. Affleck, pp. 242-260. Routledge, London and New York.
Eve, Stuart
2012 Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality to Aid Archaeological
Phenomenology in the Landscape. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
19:582-600.
Flanagan, Mary
2009 Critical Play: Radical Game desgn. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Frankland, Tom
2012 A CG Artist's Impression: Depicting Virtual Reconstructions using Non-
photorealistic Rendering Techniques. In Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological
computing and the interpretive process, edited by A. Chrysanthi, P. M. Flores and C.
Papadopoulos, pp. 24-39. BAR International series 2344, Oxford, UK.
Freeman, Alexander, Samantha Becker, Michele Cummins, E. McKelroy, C. Giesinger and B
Yuhnke
2016 NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Museum Edition. The New Media Consortium.
http://www.nmc.org/publication-type/horizon-report/.
Frischer, Bernard
2004 The Digital Roman Forum Project of the Cultural Virtual Reality
Laboratory: Remediating the Traditions of Roman Topography. Paper presented
at the 2nd Italy-United States Workshop,: The Reconstruction of Archaeological
Landscapes through Digital Technologies, Rome, Italy.
http://www.cvrlab.org/research/images/FrischerWorkshopPaperIllustratedWeb.htm
Gibson, James
1986 The ecological approach to visual perception. 1st edition 1979 ed. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.

43. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 43
Hamilakis, Yannis
2013 Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, uk.
Ingold, Tim
2000 The perception of the environment : essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill.
Routledge, London ; New York.
2007 Lines: A brief History. Routledge, London ; New York.
2011 Making, Growing, Learning: Two lectures presented at UFMG, Belo Horizonte,
October 2011. Educaçao em Revista, Belo Horizonte 29(3):297-325.
2016 The maze and the labyrynth: walking, imagining and the education of attention. In
Psychology and the conduct of everyday life, edited by E. Schraube and C. Hojholt, pp.
99-110. vol. 21. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Johnson, Lawrence, Alexander Freeman, Samantha Becker, Michele Cummins, V. Estrada
and C. Hall
2016 NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. The New Media
Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/publication-type/horizon-report/.
Kapp, Karl
2012 The Gamification of Learning and Instruction. John Wiley and Sons.
Katifori, Akrivi, Sara Perry, Maria Vayanou, Laia Pujol, Angeliki Chrysanthi, Vassilis Kourtis
and Yannis Ioannidis
2016 Cultivating mobile-mediated social interaction in the museum: Toward a
group-based digital storytelling experience. Paper presented at the Museums and
the Web 2016, Los Angeles, CA.
http://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/cultivating-mobile-mediated-social-
interaction-in-the-museum-towards-group-based-digital-storytelling-experiences/;
http://www.chessexperience.eu/
Kenderdine, Sarah, Jeffrey Shaw, Dennis del Favero and Neil Brown
2008 Place-Hampi: Co-evolutionary narrative and augmented stereographic
panoramas, Vijayanagara, India. In New Heritage: New Media and Cultural
Heritage, edited by Y. Kalay, T. Kvan and J. Affleck, pp. 275-293. Routledge,
London and New York.
Labrador, Angrela and Elizabeth Chilton
2009 Re-locating Meaning in Heritage Archives: A Call for Participatyory Heritage
Databases. Paper presented at the Computer Applications in Archaeology (CAA) 2009,

44. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 44
Williamsburg, VA.
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Law, Matt and Colleen Morgan
2014 The Archaeology of Digital Abandonment: Online Sustainability and
Archaeological Sites. Present Pasts 6(1):1-9.
Leavy, Brett, Theodor Wyeld, Joti Carroll, Craig Gibbons, Brendan Ledwich and James Hills
2007 Evaluating the Digital Songlines Game Engine for Australian Indigenous
Storytelling. Proceedings of the VSMM 2007: proceedings of the 13th conference on
Virtual Systems and Multimedia. Brisbane, Australia.
Lopez-Menchero, Victor
2013 International Guidelines for Virtual Archaeology: The Seville Principles. In Good
Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics:Non-invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological
Sites, edited by C. Corsi, B. Slapšak and F. Vermeulen, pp. 269-283. Springer.
McGonigal, Jane
2011 Reality is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How they can Change the
World. The Penguin Press.
Morgan, Colleen
2009 (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology.
Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 5(3):468-487.
Paraschakis, Dimitris
2013 Crowdsourcing cultural heritage metadata through social media gaming. Masters,
School of Technology, Department of Computer Science, Malmö University, Sweden.
Pujol-Tost, Laia and Erik Champion
2012 Evaluating presence in cultural heritage projects. International Journal of
Heritage Studies 18(1):83-102.
Pujol-Tost, Laia
2016 Being There and Then: Introducing Cultural Presence in Archaeology. In York
Heritage Research Seminars edited by S. Perry. February 2016.
https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/yohrs/laia-pujol
https://prezi.com/9ztxvzxccxqi/yohrs/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
Richards, Julian
2002 Digital Preservation and Access. European Journal of Archaeology 5(3):343-366.

45. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 45
Ridge, Mia
2013 From Tagging to Theorizing: Deepening Engagement with Cultural Heritage
through Crowdsourcing. Curator: The Museum Journal 56(4):435–450.
Roussou, Maria
2008 The components of engagement in virtual heritage environments. In New
Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, edited by Y. Kalay, T. Kvan and J.
Affleck, pp. 225-241. Routledge, London and New York.
Roussou, Maria, Laia Pujol, Akrivi Katifori, Angeliki Chrysanthi, Sara Perry and Maria Vayanou
2015 The museum as Digital Storyteller: Collaborative participatory creation of
interactive digital experiences. Paper presented at the Museums and the Web 2015,
Chicago, Ill.
Silberman, Neil
2008 Chasing the Unicorn? The quest for "essence" in digital heritage. In New
Heritage: New Media and Cultural Heritage, edited by Y. Kalay, T. Kvan and J. Affleck,
pp. 81-91. Routledge, London and New York.
Tringham, Ruth
1994 Engendered Places in Prehistory. Gender, Place, and Culture 1(2):169-
203.
2009 Second Life as an Archaeological Tool, NCPTT podcast 5:
http://www.ncptt.nps.gov/second-life-as-an-archaeological-tool/
2013 Pivoting and Jumping through the Fabric of Çatalhöyük to an Imagined World of
People with Faces, Histories, Voices, and Stories to Tell. In Presentation given at the
conference on“Engendering Landscape and Landscaping Gender” conference,
organized by Will Meyer for theInstitute of European andMediterranean
Archaeology(IEMA), at the University of Buffalo,April 13-14, 2013.
2015 Creating Narratives of the Past as Recombinant Histories. In Subjects and
Narratives in Archaeology, edited by R. M. Van Dyke and R. Bernbeck, pp. 27-54.
University Press of Colorado, Denver, Colorado.
Tringham, Ruth and Michael Ashley
2015 Becoming Archaeological. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 2(1):29-41.
Tringham, Ruth , Michael Ashley and Steve Mills
2007 Senses of Places: Remediations from text to digital performance
http://chimeraspider.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/remediated-places-final-draft/

46. Tringham/UCSC Modelling Culture/ 4-1-2016 46
Turner, Philip
2007 The intentional basis of presence. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 10th
Annual International Workshop on Presence:127–134.
Van Dyke, Ruth M. and Reinhard Bernbeck (editors)
2015 Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology. University Press of Colorado, Denver,
Colorado.
Vayanou, Maria, Akrivi Katifori, M. Karvounis, M. Kyriakidi, Maria Roussou, M. Tsangaris,
Yannis Ioannidis, O. Balet, T. Prados, J. Keil, T. Engelke and Laia Pujol
2014 Authoring Personalized Interactive Museum Stories. Paper presented at the The
Seventh International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (ICIDS 2014), LNCS
8832, Singapore.
Vygotsky, Lev
1978 Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Watterson, Alice
2012 The Value and Application of Creative Media to the Process of Reconstruction
and Interpretation. In Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological computing and the
interpretive process, edited by A. Chrysanthi, P. M. Flores and C. Papadopoulos, pp.
14-23. BAR International series 2344, Oxford, UK.
2015 Beyond Digital Dwelling: rethinking interpretive visualisation in archaeology.
Open Archaeology 1(1):119-130.
Wyeld, Theodor, Patrick Crogan and Brett Leavy
2007 A conversation on the Efficacies of the Game Engine to address notions of
Sacred Space: The Digital Songlines Project and Transgressions of Sacredness.
Proceedings of the VSMM 2007: proceedings of the 13th conference on Virtual Systems
and Multimedia. Brisbane, Australia.