VITA ANTIQUA ISSN 2522-9419 (Online), 2519-4542 (Print)
Center for Paleoethnological research
VITA ANTIQUA 15, 2024, METHODS FOR MONITORING AND RESEARCH OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE OBJECTS
Anastasiia Husak 1
“Traditional” archaeological drawing : a future vestige or a necessity
¹ National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy"
1 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7995-4813
DOI: 10.37098/VA-2024-15-93-101
https://doi.org/10.37098/VA-2024-15-93-101
ABSTRACT
This article explores the role of archaeological drawing (especially its traditional form) in the development of archaeological knowledge, while also illustrating the generalized process behind the cognitive and mental models of archaeological thought. Archaeological drawing, being subjective in its interpretative nature, serves as an important method of critical observation and analysis of archaeological objects and artifacts.
The main discussion focuses on the necessity of preserving the «traditional» type of drawing in modern archaeology amid rapid digitalization. A comparison of how digital and traditional drawing are perceived allows for an understanding of the cognitive level of two seemingly similar, but in fact, different methods of archaeological recording.
Digital drawing, despite its many advantages, such as speed of execution and the ability to easily process images, is not always able to provide as deep an interaction with archaeological artifacts. When using digital drawing, researchers often focus on the technical aspects of the work, which can distract them from critical analysis of the artifacts themselves.
The nature of traditional archaeological drawing makes it an indispensable tool in research, as it fosters a high-quality interaction with artifacts. Visualizing findings through such drawing is a process that combines cognitive and sensory aspects of perception, leading to a deeper understanding of the object. In addition, traditional drawing remains a reliable pedagogical tool; helping new generations of archaeologists not only master technical skills but also develop critical thinking abilities.
Overall, the decline in the use of the «traditional drawing» method, although not yet observed in Ukrainian archaeology, could eventually alter the perception of archaeological finds. The spread of digital recording methods creates a risk that archaeologists may lose important aspects of research that are tied to deep interaction with artifacts. However, digital technologies continue to integrate into modern science, promoting a faster pace of work and access to research results. Combining traditional and digital approaches allows, ensuring both speed and depth of analysis for more comprehensive results.
In conclusion, while modern technologies continue to influence all aspects of science, including archaeology, traditional archaeological drawing remains an important tool. Its preservation and integration with new methods can contribute to the development of archaeological science, maintaining a balance between speed and accuracy, between the demands of modern science and the deep knowledge provided by the traditional approach.
Key words: archaeological drawing, mental models, traditional drawing, digitalization, cognitive archaeology, archaeological knowledge.
Language: Ukrainian
PDF
Cite as:
Husak, A.M. 2024. “Tradytsiinyi” arkheolohichnyi maliunok: maibutnii perezhytok chy neobkhidnist [“Traditional” archaeological drawing: a future vestige or a necessity]. VITA ANTIQUA, 15. Methods for Monitoring and Research of Archaeological Heritage Objects, 93-101.
References:
Asare, S., Walden, P., Aniagyei, E.D., Emmanuel, M.K. 2023. A Comparative Study of Traditional Art Techniques versus Digital Art Techniques in the Context of College Visual Art Education. American Journal of Arts, Social and Humanity Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 21-34. https://doi.org/10.47672/ajashs.1556 .
Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. North-Holland: In: Advances in psychology. Vol. 52, pp. 139-183.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, No. 6. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FS3zSKAfLGMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&ots=win8Q-hKKj&sig=-Qc9aKsnRjQ3mENVh1rLaimQtTQ
Jones, N.A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., Leitch, A. 2011. Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecology and Society. Vol. 16, No. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268859 .
Kennedy, H., McKenzie, H. 2024. Art & Archaeology: Employing Drawing as an Observational Technique. Pathways, No. 4, pp. 27-44.
Morgan, C., Petrie, H., Wright, H., Taylor, J.S. 2021. Drawing and Knowledge Construction in Archaeology: The Aide Mémoire Project. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 614-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2021.1985304 .
Sapirstein, P. 2020. Hand Drawing Versus Computer Vision in Archaeological Recording. Studies in Digital Heritage, Vol. 4, pp. 134-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/sdh.v4i2.31520 .
Stengers, I., Muecke, S. 2018. Another Science is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. John Wiley & Sons, 220 p.