3D virtual worlds as tools for knowledge repatriation in archaeology

Article

‘Breaking the fourth wall’: 3D virtual worlds as tools for knowledge repatriation in archaeology

Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3) 387–402 ! The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1469605311417064 jsa.sagepub.com

Peter Dawson Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Canada

Richard Levy Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Canada

Natasha Lyons Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Abstract Interactive 3-dimensional worlds and computer modeling can be used to excite interest in archaeology among indigenous groups such as the Inuit of the North American Arctic and Greenland. Using two case studies – a recently completed exhibition for the Virtual Museum of Canada on Thule Inuit whalebone houses and an interactive virtual world structured around the Siglit-Inuvialuit sod house – we explore how digital replicas might be used in the repatriation of traditional knowledge. This idea is examined through the experiences of nine Inuit Elders who explored our digital reconstructions of Thule and Siglit-Inuvialuit dwellings in 3D. Discussions with the Elders suggest that the generic sense of ‘presence’ generated by 3D viewing enhanced their feelings of connectedness to their past. This would imply that virtual reality and 3D technology might be useful in establishing new discourses in archaeological interpretation, as well as assisting in the exploration, construction, and maintenance of cultural identities through knowledge repatriation. Corresponding author: Peter Dawson, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW. Calgary, Alberta, Canada Email: [email protected]

388

Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3)

Keywords 3D laser scanning, computer modeling, indigenous archaeology, public archaeology, repatriation, virtual reality

Introduction The French philosopher Denis Diderot defined ‘the fourth wall’ as the imaginary boundary separating an audience from the world in a theatrical play (Bell, 2008). A popular trope in television and film in which a character acknowledges their fictionality by addressing the audience is called ‘breaking the fourth wall’ (Bell, 2008: 203; Wallis and Shepherd, 1998: 214). This has the effect of transporting the audience into the imaginary world of the play, film, or television show. In some cases, audience members are even solicited for advice by characters, rendering them active participants in the story. Diderot’s concept of a ‘fourth wall’ is an apt metaphor for framing the traditional relationship between indigenous peoples and archaeological discourse. Typically, indigenous communities have been relegated to the sidelines, passively observing as artifacts are interpreted from a western, rationalist perspective, where ‘facts’ are meant to be value free and beyond question (Brown, 2007, 2008; Cameron, 2007; Champion and Bharat, 2007; Deshpande et al., 2007; Witcomb, 2007). In order to engage indigenous peoples – and other traditional and descendant communities – in the practice of archaeological interpretation, new discourses need to be developed which are more inclusive, experiential, and meaningful (Brown, 2007, 2008). Emerging new media which provide a high degree of user interactivity, including virtual and augmented reality1 and computer gaming and modeling technologies, can be used to increase the interactivity and accessibility of archaeological knowledge by widening the reach of new discoveries and ideas (Dawson and Levy, 2005; Dawson et al., 2007, 2009; Levy and Dawson, 2009). Higher levels of user interactivity and greater reach can be achieved through the creation of digital archives, virtual heritage environments, and the like. In this article, we examine how 3D simulations of objects and places in virtual reality can be used to ‘break the fourth wall’ separating indigenous people from traditional archaeological discourse. At the same time, however, we acknowledge that there are a range of issues and caveats that require consideration. Such emerging technologies challenge the scope and application of conventional anthropological theory and method, particularly the issues of how people relate to real versus digitally replicated objects, and how these objects are defined, used, and conceived (Flynn, 2007b; Piquette, 2008). In this regard, the effectiveness of 3D virtual and augmented reality as a tool for developing new discourses in archaeological interpretation rests upon the concept of ‘presence’ – the subjective impression of being immersed in and surrounded by a virtual world rather than the real world in which the user is situated (Lombard and Ditton, 1997; Sadowski and Stanley, 2002). Presence is mediated through such technologies as telephones, HD

Dawson et al.

389

televisions, and 3D ‘theaters’ such as Cave Automated Virtual Environments (CAVEs). The degree to which presence in a virtual world appears non-mediated to users has been found to influence in turn the degree of enjoyment and pleasure in their experience (Mania and Robinson, 2005; Sadowski and Stanley, 2002; Sylaiou et al., 2009). For example, the use of large screens, 3D imagery, and sound has been found to positively affect the perception of presence (Slater, 1999a, 1999b; Slater et al., 2008). Because presence involves feelings of being transported to another place and time (‘you are there’) or of objects being transported from the virtual world into the user’s environment (‘it is here’), it may be a powerful way of connecting indigenous people to their past. We explore this idea by discussing recent demonstrations of two virtual worlds held for nine Inuit Elders using two types of 3D projection systems – a CAVE and a Portable Video Wall. The outcomes suggest that, for these Elders, emotional connectedness to objects and places is as important in a virtual world as it is in the physical one. These feelings of connectedness appear to have been enhanced by the greater sense of presence generated through the use of 3D. These observations lend credence to the hypothesis that the meanings attached to objects in the real world are sometimes transferable to digital replicas in virtual spaces (Brown, 2007, 2008). Furthermore, a generic sense of presence may positively affect these transferences. We believe this has definite implications for the use of interactive 3D worlds in repatriating knowledge to aboriginal peoples.

Engaging the public through the use of new media Archaeologists have traditionally struggled in their attempts to engage the public in their activities (Merriman, 2004). In response, many have shifted away from the aesthetics of objects in favor of approaches which focus more on the ideas and meanings they foster (Hooper-Greenhill, 2000a, 2000b; Pearce, 1992). One of the ways in which this has been accomplished is by telling stories about objects and artifacts. Historical narratives, be they fictional or based on fact, establish connectedness between museum objects, visitors, and the nature of their past context (Hoptman, 1992; Hoptman et al., 2000). This is because stories function as a mild form of virtual reality – effectively transporting the reader into the world devised by its author. An excellent example of this approach is Janet Spector’s narrative What This Awl Means (1993). Spector weaves a story around an object – an awl recovered from an archaeological site in Minnesota. The object acquires meaning because the reader witnesses how it is tied to the aspirations of a young woman attempting to bring recognition to her family through her prowess at producing beaded and quilted articles. When the young woman loses her prized awl, the reader empathizes with her plight. Encountering objects in this way alters one’s sense of self because we are touched or moved in ways that ‘rational’ object interpretation (artifact function, age, cultural affiliation, etc.) simply cannot achieve (Witcomb, 2007: 37).

390


Achieving emotional engagement in this way is seen by some archaeologists as a necessary, yet seldom used, dimension of interpretation (Tarlow, 2000: 714). Emotions such as fear and anger have been portrayed as playing an essential role in human adaptation (Mithen, 1991). Emotion is also learned, culturally encoded and performed through a range of social strategies (Tarlow, 2000: 717). The idea that artifacts can function as tokens of love or as mnemonics of loss or oppression indicates that they can become material manifestations of the emotional experiences of their users (2000: 718). For example, exhibiting the tiny shoes of a child victim of the Auschwitz concentration camp in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, embodies the death of her dreams, those of her family, and the loss of future generations (Cameron, 2007). These examples illustrate why the conjectural narrative in What This Awl Means is so affective. They demonstrate that finding ways to connect individuals with the past is an important means of communicating archaeological knowledge to the broader public. Exploring how people are connected to artifacts increases the accessibility of archaeological discourse because it involves shared human experiences (Chakrabarty, 2002). For example, most readers are able to imagine how the young woman in Spector’s story must have felt following the loss of her awl, or empathize with the plight of a small child interred in a concentration camp. Consequently, people often find these types of approaches more appealing than the traditional museum method of providing simple monothetical interpretations of an object’s function, cultural affiliation, or age (Flynn, 2007a; Gero and Root, 1996). Like stories, sources of new media such as the internet and 3D computer technology are also a powerful means of engaging the public with archaeology and museums (Antoniou and Lepouras, 2009; Bairstow, 2000; Bangert and Bangert, 1995; Bowen, 2000; Brown, 2007; Chim et al., 2003; Kwon et al., 2001; Liu and Jia, 2009; Pan et al., 2009; Stanney et al., 1998; Sylaiou et al., 2009). This is because technologically augmented story-centric approaches to artifacts and archaeological features transform passive observers into active participants (Sylaiou et al., 2009). Virtual and augmented reality, in particular, provide immersive experiences that may further enhance the level of connectedness felt by users to objects and places. Social networking sites and wikis have the added advantage of offering users a way of sharing their experiences with artifacts. We recently applied this approach in creating a computer game/simulation which uses an Inuit myth called ‘The Raven and the Whale’ as a backdrop. In the story, Raven flies into the jaws of a surfacing whale. Inside he finds a brightly lit iglu where a young woman sits on a sleeping platform tending a lamp (Lowenstein, 1993: 41). The game uses the idea of a ‘quest’ in which the lead character searches for objects imbued with special powers or information that provides important clues. Many of the narratives used in the game are offered by 3D likenesses of animals and mythical creatures in the Raven story, which are laser scans of actual Inuit carvings. The user is given a mission: to find the way home with the help of these mythical creatures. In the process of following the

Dawson et al.

391

paths of various narratives, the user learns about Inuit mythology, sea mammals, the kayak, and the hazards of a sea ice environment. The effectiveness of any virtual world is based on the degree to which the user or player feels transported to the world in which it is set. In the case of virtual reality, this is accomplished when the illusion of being somewhere other than one’s actual location is achieved through the use of particular types of media (i.e. CAVEs, high definition computer screens, television) (Cao et al., 2005; Lombard and Ditton, 1997; Sylaiou et al., 2009). The more the user’s awareness of the media delivering the experience is minimized, the greater is their sense of presence in the virtual world. But what exactly constitutes presence?

‘You are there’ – virtual reality and perception of the past Lombard and Ditton (1997) define seven different conceptualizations of presence in the social media literature. These range from feelings of warmth, sensitivity, and intimacy when interacting with other people within the virtual world (Short et al., 1976), to the body giving up its sensorial awareness to the reality engine of the computer, experiencing feelings of movement such as acceleration or falling (Sadowski and Stanley, 2002). These often lead to situations in which a user might behave in the virtual environment as if she/he were in the real world. By way of illustration, participants interacting with digital museum objects in virtual reality perceived they were sharing the same physical space as the object itself (Sylaiou et al., 2009). Researchers have been able to demonstrate that this type of presence is positively correlated with a heightened sense of enjoyment among viewers, making their experiences more pleasurable (2009: 251). Many of these definitions suggest that feeling present in a virtual world or sensing the presence of virtual objects in the real world might also intensify feelings of being connected to an artifact or place. Depicting objects as ‘nested’ within contextually appropriate settings such as dwellings and landscapes can evoke a sense of presence in virtual spaces. Human beings create places through interwoven sets of individual and shared experiences (Thomas, 1993; Tilley, 1994). Whitridge articulates this idea in his characterization of artifact associations within Thule houses as networks of practical activity that define the phenomenological experiences of family life (2004: 233). In a similar way, ‘placed’ objects can be used to evoke meaningful associations between people and objects in a virtual world, such as the gendered use of space or notions of public and private. Feelings about a place can also be evoked by creating a certain atmosphere via the distribution of light and shadow within a dwelling, the generation of weather patterns across a virtual landscape, or the sounds of wind, rain, and wildlife (Dawson et al., 2007; Earle, 2006). All of these approaches were used to construct two virtual worlds centered on Inuit archaeology in the western and eastern Canadian Arctic. Both worlds were created using StudioMAX2010 Modeling Software, and Virtools 5.0 for Real Time World Development.

392


The Thule Whalebone House The first virtual world simulates the experience of living in a Thule culture whalebone house in the Canadian Arctic hundreds of years ago. Thule people are the cultural and biological ancestors of contemporary Inuit. After migrating from Alaska sometime during the thirteenth century, Thule peoples began constructing semi-subterranean houses for the long winter season. In the absence of wood, whalebone recovered from large baleen whales was used as a primary framing material in the central and eastern Canadian Arctic (McCartney, 1979, 1980; Mathiassen, 1927; Maxwell, 1985). A 3D computer model of a Thule whalebone house from the central Arctic was constructed from archaeological data, using digital replicas of bowhead whalebones that were architecturally and/or symbolically significant to Thule peoples (Dawson and Levy, 2005; Dawson et al., 2007, 2009; Levy and Dawson, 2009). A series of ethnographic and archaeological objects were next selected from the collections of the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. These include such items as bow drills, skin bags, ulu knives, needle cases, harpoons, and toys. Digital replicas of these objects were created using a Cyberware laser scanner. While Inuit Elders in our demonstrations experienced this virtual world in 3D, they can also be accessed via an interactive webpage hosted by the Virtual Museum of Canada (Dawson et al., 2008).2 There are two worlds to explore. The first depicts the exterior of the whalebone dwelling where the structure literally builds itself in sections, illustrating various architectural features unique to these dwellings. The second world portrays the interior spaces and their contents. In order to evoke a sense of presence, aspects of the ambient environment are simulated (Figure 1). The luminance and character of interior lighting emitted by sea mammal oil lamps, and influenced by the suspension of particulate matter (soot) in the air, provide the user with an opportunity to reflect on how light and shadow might have mediated the use of space (Dawson et al., 2007). For example, low levels of light might have influenced where activities associated with high levels of visual acuity, such as sewing and hide working, occurred within the house. Thule families lived, worked, and played together in these dwellings, so digital replicas of artifacts used by men, women, and children were placed inside, in accordance with archaeological knowledge about Thule space use and patterns of household organization. Our objective here was to create an impression that the family had only recently left, thereby adding to the sense of travelling to another place and time. Users can interact with these objects by moving panoramically around the interior space (Figure 1). Clicking on an artifact brings up a 3D model of the object that slowly rotates, allowing the user to inspect it at all angles. The smoky, dark atmosphere of these dwellings was also rendered in virtual reality, as a means of evoking a sense of presence.

The Igluryuaq or sod house of the Siglit-Inuvialuit The second world is a recreation of a traditional Siglit-Inuvialuit Igluryuaq, or sod house, from the Mackenzie Delta region of the western Canadian Arctic.

Dawson et al.

393

Figure 1. Interior of Thule whalebone house model. Digital replicas of various household items placed inside the virtual world of the Thule whalebone house.

This reconstruction is based on architectural data from several archaeological sites located on the east channel of the Mackenzie River. As with the Thule whalebone house, the Inuit Elders experienced the four virtual worlds that were constructed for this project in 3D. However, these four virtual worlds are also accessible via an interactive website,3 produced as part of the BOREAS ‘Home, Hearth, and Household in the Circumpolar North’ Project, a European Science Foundation (ESF) initiative supported by the European Commission (Arnold et al., 2010). This project uses the focal metaphors of hearth, home and household to understand northern ecological narrative, cultural resilience, and the use of space. The first world is a 3D reconstruction of an Igluryuaq, as seen through the eyes of nineteenth-century European explorers. A drawing of an Igluryuaq made by Lieutenant George Back during an expedition to the Mackenzie River in 1824–6 is rendered in 3D, providing the user with an opportunity to see, first hand, the artistic license used by Europeans when depicting Inuit life. From here, the user can enter a second world where they witness the construction of an Igluryuaq. Digital replicas of tools used to build the house are distributed around the edges of the house pit. Unlike the virtual world of the whalebone house, these tools are animated so that their movements demonstrate how the object was used – essentially placing it within a kinetic context. The next world shows the interior of the Igluryuaq, with digital replicas of men’s, women’s, and children’s artifacts distributed in accordance with ethnohistoric and archaeological observations of space use (Figure 2). Like the exterior world, artifacts in this virtual space are animated in accordance with how they were used. Low levels of lighting

394


Figure 2. Interior virtual world of the Igluryuaq or sod house of the Siglit-Inuvialuit. Household objects are animated according to the actions and activities they are associated with.

associated with sea mammal oil lamps were used to illuminate the interior of the house, thereby enhancing the sense of being present in the space. The sounds of activities such as drum dancing, along with natural sounds like wind and bird songs, complete the ambience of this virtual world.

Demonstrating virtual worlds to Inuit Elders In 2008 and 2010 we were given the opportunity to demonstrate these virtual worlds to visiting Inuit Elders from the Kivalliq District and Baffin Region of Nunavut. These Elders are among the last Inuit to move off the land and into settled communities. All share the concern that knowledge of this traditional lifeway is being lost. As a result, they are actively seeking out ways to excite interest in traditional knowledge among young Inuit. To this end, we invited them to view the virtual worlds. We were especially interested in obtaining feedback about how 3D experiences might enhance the archaeological and traditional knowledge contained in the virtual worlds. Two types of 3D media systems were used for these demonstrations. The first is a CAVE located at the University of Calgary’s Schlumberger iCenter. This virtual reality theater employs three high definition rear projection screens and a floor which serves as a down-projecting screen. Images are projected onto these screens using high resolution projectors controlled by a cluster of desktop PCs. The second is a portable Video Wall that uses a passive

Dawson et al.

395

stereo system incorporating two Epson WXGA projectors (1280 x 800) with Infitec filters. The hardware uses a Quadro NVIDIA video card with NVIDIA stereo drivers. This second system has the advantage of being transportable to First Nations and Inuit communities – something we plan to do in the near future.

Analysis of Elders’ responses to the virtual worlds While our time with the Elders was limited, we were interested to see if this sense of ‘presence’ might also increase feelings of connection to objects and places in the virtual world – especially if the places and objects were deeply embedded in the personal histories and cultural identities of the users. Researchers have attempted to measure presence among participants using standardized questionnaires and physiological measures such as blood pressure, heart rate, and skin conductivity (Sadowski and Stanley, 2002; Slater, 1999b; Slater et al., 2010). However, both these approaches are problematic for our purposes. Physiological approaches were too invasive, and the complexities of translating the standardized questionnaires used by other researchers (i.e. Slater et al., 1998) into Inuktitut were impractical. Furthermore, our time with the Elders was somewhat constrained by the scheduling of other events during their visit. As a result, we decided to keep the demonstrations relatively unstructured, allowing the Elders to talk amongst themselves and to ask questions about what they were experiencing. During the demonstrations conducted in 2008 and 2010, nine Inuit Elders donned stereoscopic glasses to tour each virtual world, where they experienced the sensation of being inside these ancient dwellings (Figure 3). Within seconds, they were surrounded by virtual structures of hide supported by frameworks of whalebone ribs, jaws, skulls, driftwood, and sod. The Elders sat together in each virtual world, attempting to touch digital objects such as lamps and drums, as they gestured and whispered amongst themselves in their native Inuktitut. ‘All the stories I used to hear when I was young are coming back to me,’ said Mark Kalluak as he navigated around the Thule virtual dwelling. ‘It really makes me think about what it would have been like to live in my ancestors’ home.’ Another Elder, Donald Uluadluak, explained in Inuktitut that he felt like a magician: ‘No one has ever seen these buildings before. Now we are able to and it will help us understand who we are.’ The experience of being able to view the architecture of the Thule whalebone house in 3D also reminded Mark Kalluak of a traditional Inuit tale about a man who lived inside a whale. ‘Maybe this legend comes from when we lived in these kinds of houses,’ he suggested. ‘It’s hard to imagine something if you’ve never seen it before and something like this makes it so much easier to imagine what life was like in the old days than just reading about it in a book,’ said Nunia Qanatsiaq with the Government of Nunavut’s curriculum and school services division, who accompanied the Elders in 2008 to Calgary. For Mark Kalluak, exploring traditional lifeways using computer animation is exciting because it may stimulate interest in younger Inuit

396


Figure 3. Paatlirmiut Inuit Elders (from left): using 3D glasses, Louis Angalik, Mark Kalluak and Donald Uluadluak experience the Java 3D-enabled CAVEÕ Automated Virtual Environment, University of Calgary.

who are becoming increasingly computer literate. ‘A lot of young people don’t seem too interested in learning about the old ways, but I think they would with something like this,’ he said. ‘It’s a new way for them to learn and that is always valuable.’ The experiences of six Inuit Elders from the southwestern coast of Baffin Island in 2010 were very similar. Much of the discussion with these Elders centered on the variability that exists among Inuit cultures, past and present. Several Elders pointed out that the Siglit-Inuvialuit Igluryuaq was significantly different from the sod houses they remembered using in their youth. They also marveled at the ingenuity of their Thule ancestors who, unlike the Inuvialuit, had to rely on whalebone as a primary construction material. One Elder had brought along a scale model of a wooden kayak he had made in the traditional style of the Baffin region. He remarked that the computer models functioned in a similar way to his model kayak, in that they served an illustrative purpose when discussing traditional knowledge. All of the Elders spoke of how these computer models, and the virtual worlds in which they were placed, would no doubt capture the attention of young people who often seem disinterested in traditional knowledge and ways of doing things. All agreed that this knowledge was essential for young people to learn, and saw great benefit in using these kinds of media as armatures for transferring such knowledge to their grandchildren and great grandchildren. In the absence of formal questionnaires and other forms of quantitative assessment, what if anything can we take away from the experiences of these Elders? Comments

Dawson et al.

397

shared with us suggest that their encounters with the digital whalebone house, Igluryuaq, and the objects they contained were both emotive and effectual. The Elders seemed genuinely moved by their experiences, as seen in such comments as, ‘All the stories I used to hear are coming back to me now’ and ‘[i]t really makes me think about what it would have been like to live in my ancestors’ home’. Mark Kalluak’s recollection of an Inuit story involving a man who lived inside a whale also indicates the power of virtual heritage environments to evoke memories and stories.

‘Presence’ and the repatriation of knowledge The results of our demonstrations, while largely qualitative, suggest that the sense of presence generated by 3D immersion is associated with a higher level of connectedness to the objects and places simulated in virtual worlds. The Inuit Elders who participated in our demonstrations seem to have been transported to a time and place in their own histories when values such as self-reliance, independence, and ingenuity were key to survival. This would seem to lend support to our hypothesis that the use of virtual and augmented reality, especially when experienced in 3D, might be powerful tools for repatriating indigenous knowledge to indigenous communities. There are several models in place for examining how these ideas and approaches might be further developed in the Canadian North. Deidre Brown’s work examining how the Maori of New Zealand conceptualize and use new media for managing and displaying digital aspects of their own culture is especially instructive (2007, 2008). Brown’s work shows how Maori communities have adopted technologies such as laser scanning and motion capture (recording and translating human movement onto a digital model) for preserving their cultural heritage (2007, 2008). This appropriation of new media involves actively negotiating how these technologies mesh with traditional Maori cultural values (Tuhiwai Smith, 2005). It is in this regard that Brown’s research raises important questions that need to be considered. Among these is the issue of authenticity and the degree to which meanings associated with the original object are transferred to its digital replica (Brown, 2007, 2008; Witcomb, 2007). Tangible objects carry the weight of aura, evidence, the passage of time, and the evocation of power through the authority, knowledge, and privilege we assign them. In contrast, multi-media products such as digital images, which lack this clear materiality, are often seen as temporary, immediate, surficial, and modern (Witcomb, 2007: 35). This does not appear to be the case for the Maori, who regard rendered images as living presences, in the same way as the original objects. This perception changes how an individual may or may not interact with virtual objects. For example, the Auckland Art Gallery requires that online users refrain from viewing Maori images while in close proximity to food, mirroring the museum practice of storing collections in locations well away from rooms where food may be consumed (Brown, 2008: 70). The same also holds true for the digitizing of human bodies using motion capture technology. Digitally capturing the movements of a Maori dancer requires that this virtual person be placed

398


in an appropriate physical and social context. As back views are considered a customary insult, the viewing angle of the virtual person is therefore culturally determined and critical (Brown, 2008: 68). Deciding which qualities are transferred or not is determined by cultural constraints; within Maori communities, these principles are an outcome of the customary process of consensus (Brown, 2007: 80). Do Inuit perceive digital replicas of traditional objects and dwellings or landscapes in the same way as the Maori? Our limited time with nine Inuit Elders suggests they do, to varying degrees and depending on circumstances. Future research we are planning will explore this issue in much greater depth. The Portable Wall 3D projections system used in our demonstration is easily transportable, and we are currently planning a visit to the Inuit community of Arviat to show the Thule and Inuvialuit virtual worlds and their associated objects to Inuit school children. We are also working with new media scholars at the University of Calgary to develop questionnaires, which will be used to measure presence in both virtual and augmented reality among Inuit users. Finally, we are planning to assemble the first of many community-based focus groups to examine such issues as what objects can and cannot be digitally replicated, and how Inuit culture should be portrayed within virtual heritage environments. If digital replicas of artifacts and virtual worlds have value in education and knowledge repatriation, then the developing consensus on such issues is essential.

Conclusions Our work with Inuit Elders reveals that we share a common problem, and it is this problem that dedicates us to a common purpose. As we struggle to make archaeological knowledge accessible to the broader public, Inuit Elders struggle to make traditional knowledge accessible to their young people. Virtual reality and 3D computer modeling may offer partial solutions to both our dilemmas by ‘breaking the fourth wall’ that separates archaeological discourse from indigenous peoples. Some may see the use of these technologies as simply a novelty, and wonder whether communities might benefit more from the repatriation of actual objects, or the dollars spent on producing virtual content. In response, it is worth pointing out that young Inuit are already engaged with these kinds of technologies through computing gaming, as well as social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. The Elders participating in our demonstrations recognize that this is precisely why 3D virtual worlds will be an effective way of mobilizing traditional knowledge to their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Inuit have proven themselves to be active participants in the recording of their cultural heritage. From the 1930s Inuit photographer Peter Pitseolak of Cape Dorset, who documented traditional Inuit culture using a still image camera and developed his film in iglu’s, to Inuit filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk, director of the celebrated films Atanarjuat (The Fast Runner) and The Journals of Knud Rasmussen, Inuit have a long history of using new media to capture and preserve traditional culture. No doubt, virtual reality, augmented reality and 3D projection will soon become a part of this legacy. Regardless, the theoretical and

Dawson et al.

399

ethical dimensions of such research need to be addressed. We need to better understand how indigenous users perceive the digital replicas we create, and under what conditions meanings are transferred, either in whole or in part, from the real object to its digital ‘replicant’. We also need to more fully explore the concept of ‘presence’ among indigenous users. Much of the work that has been done on defining and measuring presence is based on the experiences of Western European participants. It clearly needs to be expanded to include indigenous users if we are to better understand the role it might play in repatriating knowledge to younger generations. Acknowledgements In addition to the authors of this article, participants/contributors to this project included Charles Arnold, former director of the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, and Gerald Oetelaar, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary. The authors would like to thank the Department of Education, Government of Nunavut, for their help in organizing the Elders’ visit to Calgary. Special thanks to Charles Arnold, Gerald Oetelaar, Shirley Tagalik, Joe Karetak, Gerry Conaty, the Glenbow Museum. Thanks also to A. Kate Peach for her comments on an earlier draft of this article. The authors would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of Mark Kalluak.

Notes 1. Virtual reality is a computer simulation of a physical presence in places in either a real or an imaginary world. Augmented reality is the integration of digital media in the user’s real environment, usually in real time. 2. See http://www.glenbow.org/thule/ 3. See http://www.inuvialuitsodhouse.ca

References Antoniou A and Lepouras G (2009) Meeting visitors’ expectations – the perceived degree of museumness. Csedu 2009: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Vol. 2. Setubal: INSTICC Press, 187–192. Arnold C, Levy RM, Dawson PC, Lyons N and Oetelaar G (2010) The Inuvialuit House. Available at: http://www.inuvialuitsodhouse.ca. Bairstow J (2000) Visit Science Museum in Florence, or take a virtual tour from home. Laser Focus World 36(10): 172–173. Bangert J and Bangert C (1995) Pictures on the net – the virtual museum. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 15(3): 22–23. Bell E (2008) Theories of Performance. Los Angeles: SAGE. Bowen J (2000) The virtual museum. Museum International 52(1): 4–7. Brown D (2007) Te Ahua Hiko: Digital cultural heritage and indigenous objects, people, and environments. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 77–91. Brown D (2008) ‘Ko to Ringa Ki Nga Raku a Te Pakeha’ – virtual Yaonga Maori and museums. Visual Resources 24(1): 59–75. Cameron F (2007) Beyond the cult of the replicant: Museums and historical digital objects – traditional concerns, new discourses. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 49–76.

400


Cao XY, Makino M, Shirai H and Shinoda S (2005) An interactively stereoscopic visual simulation on the CAVE for reliability and security of mobile communications systems. System Simulation and Scientific Computing Vols 1 and 2, Proceedings, 461–465. Chakrabarty D (2002) Museums in late democracies. Humanities Research IX(1): 5–12. Champion E and Bharat D (2007) Dialing up the past. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 333–334. Chim J, Lau RWH, Leong HV and Si A (2003) Cyberwalk: A web-based distributed virtual walkthrough environment. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 5(4): 503–515. Dawson PC and Levy RM (2005) Constructing a 3D model of a Thule whalebone house using laser scanning technology. Journal of Field Archaeology 30: 443–455. Dawson PC, Levy RM and Conaty G (2008) Thule Whalebone House. Available at: http:// www.glenbow.org/thule/. Dawson PC, Levy RM, Gardner D and Walls M (2007) Simulating the behavior of light inside Arctic dwellings: Implications for assessing the role of vision in task performance. World Archaeology 39(1): 17–55. Dawson PC, Levy RM, Oetelaar G, Arnold C, Lacroix D, Mackay G (2009) Documenting Mackenzie Inuit Architecture Using 3D Laser Scanning. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 7(2): 29–44. Deshpande S, Geber K and Timpson C (2007) Engaged dialogism in vitual space: An exploration of research strategies for virtual museums. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 261–277. Earle G (2006) At the edges of the lens: Photography, graphical constructions and cinematography. In: Evans TL and Daley P (eds) Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. London: Routlege, 191–210. Flynn B (2007a) Digital knowledge as archaeological spatial praxis. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Brisbane, Australia. Flynn B (2007b) The morphology of space in virtual heritage. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 349–369. Gero J and Root D (1996) Public presentations and private converns: Archaeology in the pages of National Geographic. In: Preucel R and Hodder I (eds) Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Blackwell: Oxford, 531–548. Hooper-Greenhill E (2000a) Changing values in the art museum: Rethinking communication and learning. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(1): 9–31. Hooper-Greenhill E (2000b) Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge. Hoptman GH (1992) The virtual museum and related epistemological concerns. In: Barrett E (ed.) Sociomedia, Multi Media, Hypermedia and the Social Construction of Knowledge. New York: MIT Press, 141–159. Hoptman GH, Latimer JP and Weiner M (2000) Virtual objects and real education: A Prolegomenon version.1. In: Museums and the Web 2000, Selected Papers from an International Conference. Pittsburgh: Archives and Museum Informatics, 97–102. Kwon YM, Kim IJ, Ahn SC, Ko H and Kim HG (2001) Virtual heritage system: Modeling, database and presentation. VSMM 2001: Seventh International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Proceedings, 137–146. Levy RM and Dawson PC (2009) Using finite element methods to analyze ancient architecture: An example from the North American Arctic. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(2): 298–307.

Dawson et al.

401

Liu SY and Jia JL (2009) Design and implementation of virtual culture museum. ICCSSE 2009: Proceedings of 2009 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Education, 686–689. Lombard M and Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication 3(2). Lowenstein T (1993) Ancient Land, Sacred Whale. The Inuit Hunt and Its Rituals. London: Bloomsbury. McCartney A (1979) A processual consideration of Thule whale bone houses. In: McCartney A (ed.) Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective. Ottawa: National Museum of Man Mercury Series, 301–324. McCartney A (1980) The nature of Thule Eskimo whale use. Arctic 33(5): 17–41. Mania K and Robinson A (2005) An experimental exploration of the relationship between subjective impressions of ilumination and physical fidelity. Computers and Graphics 29(1): 49–56. Mathiassen T (1927) Archaeology of the Central Eskimos. Cophenhagen: Glydendalske Boghandel. Maxwell M (1985) Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. New York: Academic Press. Merriman N (2004) Introduction: Diversity and dissonance in public archaeology. In: Merriman N (ed.) Public Archaeology. London: Routledge, 1–19. Mithen S (1991) A cybernetic wasteland? Rationality, emotion and Mesolithic foraging. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57(2): 9–14. Pan ZG, Chen WZ, Zhang MM, Liu JF and Wu GS (2009) Virtual reality in the digital Olympic museum. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 29(5): 91–95. Pearce SM (1992) Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Piquette K (2008) Ancient symbols, archaeological theory, modern media: The potential for qualitative analysis of written evidence with new technologies. Theoretical Archaeology Group 30 Conference, Southhampton. Sadowski W and Stanley K (2002) Presence in virtual environments. In: Stanney KM (ed.) Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 791–806. Short J, Williams E and Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecomunications. London: Wiley. Slater M (1999a) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6: 603–616. Slater M (1999b) Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionaire. Presence 8(5): 560–565. Slater M, Perez-Marcos D, Ehrsson HH and Sanchez-Vives MV (2008) Towards a digital body: The virtual arm illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2(6). Slater M, Spanlang B, Sanchez-Vives MV and Blanke O (2010) First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PloS ONE 5(5): e105674. Slater M, Steed A, McCarthy J, Maringelli F (1998) The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Human Factors 40(3): 469–477. Spector J (1993) What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at the Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society Press. Stanney KM, Mourant RR and Kennedy RS (1998) Human factors issues in virtual environments: A review of the literature. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7(4): 327–351.

402


Sylaiou S, Mania K, Karoulis A and White M (2009) Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. International Journal of Computer Studies 68: 243–253. Tarlow S (2000) Emotion in archaeology. Current Anthropology 41(5): 713–746. Thomas J (1993) The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In: Bender B (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg, 15–20. Tilley C (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg. Tuhiwai Smith L (2005) On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Wallis M and Shepherd S (1998) Studying Plays. London: Arnold. Whitridge P (2004) Landscapes, houses, bodies, things: ‘Place’ and the archaeology of Inuit imaginaries. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(2): 213–250. Witcomb A (2007) The materiality of virtual technologies: A new approach to thinking about the impact of multimedia museums. In: Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage: A Critical Discourse. New York: MIT Press, 35–48.

Author Biographies Dr. Peter Dawson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, and a research associate at the Arctic Institute of North America. He specializes in Arctic archaeology, and the theory and application of computer technology in archaeology. Dr. Richard Levy is a Professor in Environmental Design, Adjunct Professor in Computer Science, and Director of Computing at the University of Calgary. His research interests included digital design, virtual reality, 3D imaging and computer modeling and simulation. Dr. Natasha Lyons is an independent heritage consultant who works throughout Western Canada and the Arctic. Her research is situated within a community-based practice, with a particular focus on the development of culturally appropriate models for research.