The image-based discourse on clay figurines that treated them as merely artistic representations, the meaning of which needs to be deciphered through various iconological methods, has been severely critiqued and challenged in the past decade. This discourse, however, has largely shaped the way that figurines are depicted in archaeological iterations and publications, and it is this corpus of images that has in turn shaped further thinking and discussion on figurines, especially since very few people are able to handle the original, three-dimensional, physical objects. Building on the changing intellectual climate in figurine studies, we propose here a framework that treats figurines as multi-sensorial, affective and dynamic objects, acting within distinctive, relational fields of sensoriality. Furthermore, we situate a range of digital, computational methods within this framework in an attempt to deprive them of their latent Cartesianism and mentalism, and we demonstrate how we have applied them to the study of Neolithic figurines from the site of Koutroulou Magoula in Greece. We argue that such methodologies, situated within an experiential framework, not only provide new means of understanding, interpretation and dissemination, but, most importantly, enable researchers and the public to explore the sensorial affordances and affective potential of things, in the past as well as in the present.

Museums have been increasingly investing in their digital presence. This became more pressing during the COVID-19 pandemic since heritage institutions had, on the one hand, to temporarily close their doors to visitors while, on the other, find ways to communicate their collections to the public. Virtual tours, revamped websites, and 3D models of cultural artefacts were only a few of the means that museums devised to create alternative ways of digital engagement and counteract the physical and social distancing measures. Although 3D models and collections provide novel ways to interact, visualise, and comprehend the materiality and sensoriality of physical objects, their mediation in digital forms misses essential elements that contribute to (virtual) visitor/user experience. This article explores three-dimensional digitisations of museum artefacts, particularly problematising their aura and authenticity in comparison to their physical counterparts. Building on several studies that have problematised these two concepts, this article establishes an exploratory framework aimed at evaluating the experience of aura and authenticity in 3D digitisations. This exploration allowed us to conclude that even though some aspects of aura and authenticity are intrinsically related to the physicality and materiality of the original, 3D models can still manifest aura and authenticity, as long as a series of parameters, including multimodal contextualisation, interactivity, and affective experiences are facilitated.

The fluctuating role and status of digital humanists—for example as adjunct technicians, hybrid cross-disciplinary scholars, para-academics, or so-called Alt-Acs—is not solely contingent on disciplinary challenges in the academy. Uncontrollable external factors such as economic instability, political change, and technological disruption can radically change and redefine roles and career trajectories. Therefore, the possibility of having to deal with the consequences of not just constant change but also potentially massively disruptive upheaval needs to be considered seriously on an ongoing basis. To avoid, or mitigate, the destructive aspects of such destabilizing change to the Digital Humanities we apply the futurity technique of scenario analysis. In this analysis, we develop and explore four plausible, contesting, but not mutually exclusive, potential futures and ask three fundamental questions to inform future organizational designs and development plans: What could happen? What would be the impact? What needs to be done to be ready and able to respond effectively (to all scenarios)? We conclude that, to remain relevant and resilient in a world constantly threatened by disruption, the Digital Humanities should adopt more flexible and less hierarchical divisions, open processes, and policies, and embrace flatter organizational structures, incorporating extended and inter-operable networks of communities, sources, and technologies, while employing a blended basket of criteria that will prevent identified schisms from becoming dangerous chasms.

Abstract

Photorealism and reconstruction are two misunderstood and long‐debated terms in digital archaeology. Both words have been used as a basis to discuss accuracy, transparency, and authenticity in the implementation of three‐dimensional (3D) modeling and computer‐based visualizations as a process of producing and sharing knowledge about the past. Discussions have focused on the fact that any attempts to revive the past by using reconstructions—which by definition only comprise interpretations of past reality in the present—are futile, since the past cannot be ever fully known. Criticisms also emphasize that their high levels of visual stimulus can deceive end‐users into thinking that these are precise accounts of past reality based on the evidence unearthed in archaeological fieldwork and accurately interpreted by archaeologists, the authoritative agents of the past. However, their potential to become analytical tools and thinking mechanisms to aid archaeological interpretations has been relatively underexplored.