Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:17:08.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Cyborgs! On Significant Otherness, Material Absence, and Virtual Presence in the Archaeology of Roman Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2019

Eva Mol Open the ORCID record for Eva Mol [Opens in a new window]
Eva Mol*
Affiliation:
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, Brown University, Providence (RI), USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I explore different ways archaeologists can contribute to and learn from theorizing the digital world beyond the traditional functionalistic means of applying computational methods. I argue that current digital technologies can be a very constructive tool to create non-human experience and awareness. I pursue this argument by presenting ideas from a work-in-progress project experimenting with the post-human and the virtual, and by exploring significant otherness in Roman religion and the dark spots in human perception, through the analysis of an absent temple in Rome. Applying post-human philosophies and an expanded concept of virtuality beyond the digital makes it possible to change our approach to object/human/divine relations in Roman cults and how we present Roman heritage towards a post-humanist framework. Through this, digital archaeology can become one of the ways of re-examining and reinventing our ideas of the human, the past and the digital.

Cet article considère de quelle manière les archéologues peuvent contribuer à la théorie et à l'apprentissage du monde numérique au-delà de l'application des méthodes traditionnelles et mécaniques du numérique. On soutiendra ici que les technologies numériques actuelles, bien que rarement employées de cette façon en archéologie, peuvent s'avérer utiles, capables de créer des expériences et une prise de conscience non-humaines. On défendra cette position à travers la présentation d'un projet en cours qui manipule expérimentalement le virtuel et le post-humain et qui explore les notions d'altérité dans la religion romaine et les zones d'ombre dans la perception humaine à partir de l'analyse d'un temple à Rome disparu. Le recours à la philosophie post-humaine et à un concept élargi de la virtualité au-delà du numérique permet de modifier nos idées sur les relations entre le divin, l'humain et les objets dans les cultes romains et d'inscrire notre conception du patrimoine dans un cadre post-humaniste. Par ce biais l'archéologie numérique pourra devenir un des moyens permettant de réexaminer et de réinventer nos idées sur ce qui est humain, sur le passé et sur le numérique. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Dieser Artikel betrifft die verschiedenen Arten, wie die Archäologen zu den Fragestellungen der digitalen Welt über die Anwendung von traditionellen und mechanistischen rechnerischen. Methoden beitragen und lernen können. Es wird den Standpunkt vertreten, dass die aktuellen digitalen Technologien, obschon sie selten in dieser Weise in der Archäologie angewendet werden, ein sehr konstruktives Instrument zur Schaffung von nicht-menschlichen Erfahrungen und Bewusstsein sein können. Diese Argumentationslinie wird durch die Darstellung eines laufenden Projekts, das mit den virtuellen und posthumanen Bereichen experimentiert, verfolgt; das aussagekräftige Anderssein in der römischen Religion und die dunkeln Seiten der menschlichen Wahrnehmung werden durch die Analyse eines verschwundenen Tempels in Rom auch untersucht. Die Anwendung der posthumanen Philosophie und eines erweiterten Virtualitätsbegriffs über den digitalen Bereich ermöglicht es, unsere Einstellung zu den Verhältnissen zwischen Gegenständen, das Menschliche und das Göttliche in römischen Kulten zu ändern und das römische Erbe in einen posthumanistischen Rahmen einzufügen. Auf dieser Art kann sich die digitale Archäologie zu einem der Mittel der Nachprüfung und Neuerfindung unserer Vorstellungen über das Menschliche, die Vergangenheit und die digitale Welt entwickeln. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

post-humanismvirtualityvirtual archaeologyRoman religionanimismheritagepost-humanismevirtualitéarchéologie virtuellereligion romaineanimismepatrimoinePosthumanismusVirtualitätvirtuelle Archäologierömische ReligionAnimismuskulturelles Erbe
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 64 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2019

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

Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B. & Bray, T.L. eds. 2009. Animating Archaeology: Of Subjects, Objects and Alternative Ontologies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal (special section), 19: 337–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleöff Lyons, S. & Brown Jaloza, L. 2016. More Human than Non/Human: Posthumanism, Embodied Cognition, and Video Games as Affective Experience. The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, Malta 2016: 1–15 [online] [accessed 5 April 2019]. Available at: <http://pocg2016.institutedigitalgames.com/site/assets/files/1015/appleoff_lyons_jaloza__more_human_than_non-human-1.pdf>>Google Scholar
Badmington, N. 2000. Posthumanism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badmington, N. 2003. Theorizing Posthumanism. Cultural Critique, 53: 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, G. & Reilly, P. 2017. After Virtual Archaeology: Rethinking Archaeological Approaches to the Adoption of Digital Technology. Internet Archaeology, 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.1Google Scholar
Bergson, H. 2007. Matter and Memory. New York: Cosimo.Google Scholar
Berthier, D. 2004. Méditations sur le réel et le virtuel. Impacts des nouvelles technologies. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bloch, M.E.F. 1998. How We Think They Think: Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory, and Literacy. Boulder (CO) and Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Bogost, I. 2012. Alien Phenomenology, or What It's Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolter, J.D. & Grusin, R. 1999. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bommas, M. 2012. The Iseum Campense as a Memory Site. In: Bommas, M., Harrison, J. & Roy, P., eds. Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostrom, N. 2008. Why I Want to Be a Posthuman When I Grow Up. In: Gordijn, B. & Chadwick, R., eds. Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity. New York: Springer, pp. 107–37.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brenk, F.E. 2018. The Iseum Campense and Animal Worship: Becoming Egyptian to Be Roman. In: Versluys, M.J., Bülow Clausen, K. & Capriotti Vittozzi, G., eds. Iseum Campense in Rome: Temple, Monument, Lieu de Mémoire. Rome: Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome, pp. 113–27.Google Scholar
Bussels, S. 2012. The Animated Image: Roman Theory on Naturalism, Vividness, and Divine Power. Berlin: Akademie Verlag & Leiden: Leiden University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. 2003. Natural-born Cyborgs Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1991. Bergsonism. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and Repetition (trans. by Patton, Paul). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 2002. The Actual and the Virtual. In: Deleuze, G. & Parnet, C., eds. Dialogues II (trans. by Albert, E.R.). New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 148–52.Google Scholar
Delwin, J. & Brown, A., 2014. The color lexicon of American English. Journal of Vision, 14: 17.Google Scholar
Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Camporesi, C., Galeazzi, F. & Kallmann, M. 2015. 3D Printing and Immersive Visualization for Improved Perception of Ancient Artifacts. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 24: 243–64. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Giuseppantonio di Franco, P., Matthews, J.L. & Matlock, T. 2016. Framing the Past: How Virtual Experience Affects Bodily Description of Artefacts. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 17: 179–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanska, E. 2005. Toward the Archaeontology of the Dead Body. Rethinking History, 9: 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642520500307602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domanska, E. 2018. Is This Stone Alive? Prefiguring the Future Role of Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 51: 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2018.1553060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, Y., Webb, M., Harvey, C., Debattista, K. & Chalmers, A. 2017. Multisensory Virtual Experience of Tanning in Medieval Coventry. In: Schreck, T., Weyrich, T., Sablatnig, R. & Stular, B., eds. Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. Goslar: Eurographics Association, pp. 93–97. https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20171297Google Scholar
Elsner, J. 2007. Roman Eyes: Visuality and Subjectivity in Art and Text. Princeton (NJ) & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ensoli, S. 1998. L'Iseo e Serapeo del Campo Marzio con Domiziono, Adriano e i Severi: l'assetto monumentale e il culto legato con l'ideologia e la politica imperiale. In: Bonacasa, N., Naro, M.C., Portale, E.C. & Tullio, A., eds. L'Egitto in Italia dall'Antichità al Medioevo. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Roma CNR–Pompeii, 13–19 Novembre 1995. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, pp. 407–38.Google Scholar
Eve, S. 2017. The Embodied GIS: Using Mixed Reality to Explore Multi-sensory Archaeological Landscapes. Internet Archaeology, 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.3Google Scholar
Eve, S. 2018. Losing Our Senses: An Exploration of 3D Object Scanning. Open Archaeology, 4: 114–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favro, D. 2006. Virtual Reality Re-creations and Academia. In: Haselberger, L. & Humphrey, J., eds. Imaging Ancient Rome: Documentation, Visualization, Imagination (JRA Supplementary Series 61). Portsmouth (RI): Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 321–34.Google Scholar
Frieman, C. & Gillings, M. 2007. Seeing is Perceiving? World Archaeology, 39: 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallace, A., Ngo, M.K., Sulaitis, J. & Spence, C. 2012. Multisensory Presence in Virtual Reality: Possibilities & Limitations. In: Ghinea, G., Andres, F. & Gulliver, S., eds. Multiple Sensorial Media Advances and Applications: New Developments in MulSeMedia. Hershey (PA): IGI Global, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Gatti, G. 1943–44. Topografia dell'Iseo Campense. Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, 20: 117–63.Google Scholar
Graham, E. 2002. Representations of the Post Human: Monsters, Aliens, and Others in Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, E.A. 2001. Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grusin, R. ed. 2015. The Nonhuman Turn. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y. 2013. Archaeology and the Senses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D.J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D.J. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago (IL): Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D.J. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Harbisson, N. 2012. I Listen to Color. TED-talk, 12 July 2012. TED Global [online] [accessed 5 April 2019]. Available at: <https://www.ted.com/talks/neil_harbisson_i_listen_to_color/transcript?language=en>>Google Scholar
Harvey, G. 2017. If Not All Stones Are Alive: Radical Relationality in Animism Studies. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 11: 481–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayles, N.K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayles, N.K. 2017. Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hookk, D.Y. 2016. From Illusions to Reality: Transformation of the Term ‘Virtual Archaeology’. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 8: 647–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, A. 2016. Reviving Roman Religion: Sacred Trees in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihde, D. 1993. Postphenomenology. Evanston (IL): Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ihde, D. 2002. Bodies in Technology. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
IJsselsteijn, W.A., Freeman, J. & de Ridder, H. 2001. Presence: Where Are We? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 4: 179–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jallouli, J. & Moreau, G. 2012. An Immersive, Multisensory, and Interactive Approach for Landscape Study in Virtual Environments: The Wind Turbines’ Case. Semantic Scholar [online] [accessed 5 April 2019]. Available at: <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-immersive-%2C-multisensory-and-interactive-for-in-Jallouli-Moreau/e63318e3d2127f067cd4727eb1aba7c7e9b06839>>Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R. 2005. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Lanciani, R. 1883. L'Iseum e Serapeum della Regione IX. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 11: 33–60.Google Scholar
Lembke, K. 1994. Das Iseum Campense in Rom: Studie über den Isiskult unter Domitian. Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2014. Boundary Work: Post- and Transhumanism. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 4: 52–56.Google Scholar
Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. 1992. The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post-Photographic Era. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mol, E. 2018. Present in Absence: The Imagination, Reconstruction, and Memory of Egypt and the Iseum Campense in Rome. In: Versluys, M.J., Bülow Clausen, K. & Capriotti Vittozzi, G., eds. Iseum Campense in Rome: Temple, Monument, Lieu de Mémoire. Rome: Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome, pp. 339–62.Google Scholar
Morgan, C.L. 2009. (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies, 5: 468–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C.L. 2018. Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43: 136–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müskens, S. 2017. Egypt Beyond Representation: Materials and Materiality of Aegyptiaca Romana. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Nayar, P. 2014. Posthumanism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ovid. Fasti (trans. by Boyle, A.J. & Woodard, R.D., 2000). London & New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, K., Hamilakis, Y., Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. & Díaz-Guardamino, M. in press. Digital Sensoriality: The Neolithic Figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece. Cambridge Journal of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Pausanias. Description of Greece (trans. by Jones, W.H.S. & Ormerod, H.A., 1918), 4 vols. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, K.A. 2002. Philosophy and the Adventure of the Virtual: Bergson and the Time of Life. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutarch. De Iside e Osiride (trans. by Gwyn Griffiths, J., 1970). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, P. 1991. Towards a Virtual Archaeology. In: Rahtz, S. & Lockyear, K., eds. CAA90, Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1990 (BAR International Series 565). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, pp. 132–39.Google Scholar
Riggio, A.A. 2015. Transhuman Remains all Too Human, or, What's the Point of Bio-Technological Enhancement If You'll Still be the Same Old Jerk? Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 4: 5–9.Google Scholar
Roden, D. 2013. Nature's Dark Domain: An Argument for a Naturalised Phenomenology. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 72: 169–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roden, D. 2015, Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roullet, A. 1972. Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaman, M.J. 2007. Becoming More (Than) Human: Affective Posthumanisms, Past and Future. Journal of Narrative Theory, 37: 246–75. https://doi.org/10.1353/jnt.2008.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M. 2012. The Archaeological Imagination. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Shield, R. 2002. The Virtual. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smelik, K.A.D & Hemelrijk, E.A. 1984. Who knows Not What Monsters Demented Egypt Worships? Opinions on Egyptian Animal Worship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient Conception of Egypt. In: Haase, W., ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 17.4. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter, pp. 1852–2000.Google Scholar
Smith, G.A. 2008. How Thin Is a Demon? Journal of Early Christian Studies, 16: 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley-Price, N. 2009. The Reconstruction of Ruins: Principles and Practice. In: Richmond, A. & Bracker, A., eds. Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas, and Uncomfortable Truths. New York and Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
Stewart, P. 2007. Gell's Idols and Roman Cult. In: Osborne, R. & Tanner, J., eds. Art's Agency and Art History. Oxford & Malden (MA): Blackwell, pp. 158–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swink, S. 2009. Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Publishing.Google Scholar
Ten, A. 2017. Roma, Il culto di Iside e Serapide in Campo Marzio: alcuni aggiornamenti. Vincio Oriente, 21: 273–77.Google Scholar
Veale, K. 2015. Affect, Responsibility, and How Modes of Engagement Shape the Experience of Videogames. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 2: 129–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, A.N. [1929] 1978. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. 2010. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar