Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:01:02.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtual Avebury revisited

In defence of maps and plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Mark Bowden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In their article ‘Romancing the stones: towards a virtual and elemental Avebury’ (Archaeological dialogues 1998, 5.2, 143–64), Joshua Pollard and Mark Gillings argued that traditional cartography no longer suffices to understand sites like Avebury. In the absence of excavation, new technological possibilities like Virtual Reality and GIS were according to them more than electronic gadgets but genuine alternatives to the usual maps and plans. Mark Bowden takes issues with what he perceives to be exaggerated criticisms of traditional archaeological survey techniques. In particular, he suggests that, far from being ‘sterile’ as Pollard and Gillings state, conventional survey plans are imbued with meaning, and are essential tools of analysis and interpretation. Users of archaeological earthwork plans must study them carefully and be critically aware to get the greatest benefit from them. Innovative new approaches must be pursued vigorously, but well-tested traditional techniques which still have value should not be abandoned lightly, Bowden argues. Pollard and Gillings reply to this challenging criticism.

Keywords

AveburycartographychronologyearthworkexperienceVirtual-Reality
Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , September 2000 , pp. 84 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, P. and Board, C., 1993: Tales from the map room: fact and fiction about maps and their makers, London.Google Scholar
Barrett, J.C., 1994: Fragments from Antiquity: an archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900–1200 B.C., Oxford.Google Scholar
Bewley, R., Cole, M., David, A., Featherstone, R., Payne, A. and Small, F., 1996: New features within the henge at Avebury, Wiltshire: aerial and geophysical evidence, Antiquity 70, 639–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, M. (ed.) 1999: Unravelling the landscape: an inquisitive approach to archaeology, Stroud.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 1997: ‘To see is to have seen’: craft traditions in British field archaeology, in Molyneaux, B.(ed.), The cultural life of images: visual representation in archaeology, London, 62–72.Google Scholar
Chapman, H., 1999: Understanding wetland archaeological landscapes: GIS, environmental analysis and landscape reconstruction – pathways and narratives, (paper delivered at the NATO advanced research workshop, Beyond the map: archaeology and spatial technologies).Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L., 1977: Spatial information in archaeology, in Clarke, D.L. (ed.) Spatial archaeology, London, 1–32.Google Scholar
Duncan, J. and Ley, D., 1993: Introduction: representing the place of culture, in Duncan, J. and Ley, D. (eds), Place/culture/representation, London, 1–21.Google Scholar
Evans, C., 1998: Constructing Houses and Building Context: Bersu's Manx Round-House Campaign, Proceedings of the prehistoric society 64, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillings, M., 1999: Engaging place: exploring the potential of VR in experiential landscape studies, in Dingwall, L., Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Lafflin, S. and van Leusen, M. (eds) Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology: proceedings of the 25th anniversary conference,university of Birmingham,April 1997,Oxford.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., (in press a): Plans, elevations and virtual worlds: the development of techniques for the routine construction of hyperreal simulations, in Barcelo, J. (ed.), Virtual reality applications in archaeological research.Google Scholar
Gillings, M., (in press b): Virtual archaeologies and the hyperreal or, what does it mean to describe something as virtually-real?, in Fisher, P. and Unwin, D. (eds), VR and geography, New York.Google Scholar
Gillings, M. and Pollard, J., 1999: Non-portable stone artefacts and contexts of meaning: The tale of Grey Wether (museums.ncl.ac.uk/Avebury/stone4.htm), World archaeology 31, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihde, D., 1993: Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context, Evanston.Google Scholar
Reybrouck, D. van, 1997: Imaging and imagining the Neanderthal: the role of technical drawings in archaeology, Antiquity 72, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J., 1993: The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape, in Bender, B. (ed.), Landscape: politics and perspective, Oxford, 19–48.Google Scholar
Thrower, N.J.W., 1972: Maps and man: an examination of cartography in relation to culture and civilisation, Hemel Hempstead.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1994: A phenomenology of landscape, London.Google Scholar
Welfare, H.G., 1989: John Aubrey – the first archaeological surveyor?, in Bowden, M., Mackay, D. and Topping, P. (eds), From Cornwall to Caithness: some aspects of British field archaeology – papers presented to Norman V Quinnell, Oxford, 17–28.Google Scholar
Wheatley, D.W. and Earle, G., (in press): Will the real Avebury please stand up? VR as an analytical tool for interpretative archaeology, in Wheatley, D.W. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 Computer applications in archaeology United Kingdom conference,Oxford.Google Scholar