Question 7

Presenting the figurines and other objects from the site in video format allows for the viewer to get more of a feel for the "reality" of the archaeological finds; 2-D photographs only allow for one point of view, the point of view that the photographer chose as the most important or informative. With the 3-D video exploration of each object, the viewer has the opportunity to examine the piece from multiple points of view, along with getting an idea of the heft and balance for the object in a way that's impossible from a simple photograph. However, the videos prove somewhat frustrating at the same time: to be able to react to the object instead of interacting with it is difficult, and it's strange to see someone pointing in a way that suggests there's information being offered verbally at the same time. (TL)

When figurines are presented in drawings and photographs, they lose there dimensionality and are ultimately only shown from one viewpoint. When the object becomes static, the viewer of the figurine must deduce its size, all other sides of it, and its function. That is, photos hide the majority of a figurine. When watching the videos, I had a better sense of the size of objects in relation to a person's hand. It was easier to visualize how the object may have been used. It allowed me to imagine holding the figurine myself, and thus it forced me to think about the texture and weight of the object as well. This mode of representation, in 3D, takes the object out of a static, pictorial view and gives the viewer a better sense of how it could be used (KP).

I think it's important to note that although these videos are going a step farther in terms of bridging this gap between the reality of these objects and their common forms of representation, video itself is still a two dimensional medium; it differs in that it offers some sense of motion and environment. In one sense, we are physically farther removed from the figurines than if we were viewing them in person, but by presenting the objects to us as they are - handled by a specialist in a lab presumably on site - we, especially those of us that are non-archaeologists, are brought in some small way closer to the archaeological environment and process of examining these objects rather than the objects themselves. [L.M.R.]

In the pursuit of preservation, I see figurines being not only represented as static objects but also being treated as such. I think it is difficult to treat them as connected to their sites of production and discard, since it is human tendency to isolate anything we see as valuable that cannot be directly reproduced. No one would ever, for example, think of touching up the Mona Lisa to make her a bit brighter. This could be said to limit the dynamic relation ship of people to the painting, but at some point this isolation is necessary in preference for an object’s essential destruction. It might be interesting to try to reconstruct figurines from sources and with materials similar to those available at the time of their production, like we do with arrowheads in Intro to Prehistoric Archaeology, but this would be subject to the modern individuals doing the work and influencing how it is perceived. (CBL)