Mapping can be defined as “the drawing, making, or provision of a map or maps; charting, recording, or setting out on or as on a map” (OED). I would add a technological component to this definition in order to capture mapping in the field of Digital Humanities. The OED does the same in order to specify specific types of mapping. In fact, the OED provides multiple definitions of mapping depending on the field of study. They have identified mapping for genetics, physiol, math, linguistics, and computing. However, one small problem with this approach is that mapping is used across disciplines. For example, in Fred Gibbs syllabus outline he incorporated many different types of fields into the course such as: cartography, geography, GIS, history, sociology, ethnography, computer science, and graphic design. In fact, many fields even share the same tools and materials to do the work; they are just using it in different ways in order to make different observations and conclusions. In class, we defined mapping as: “creating [or contributing to a digital]/computationally a process by visualizing structured relationships between concepts or things [data or capta] as viewed through a variety of dimessions such as time, space, power, and use etc. that carries semiotic value”.

Mixed Reality is a tool used by Stuart Eve and he describes many uses for it in his article “The Embodied GIS: Using Reality to explore multi-sensory archaeological landscapes”. He uses Mixed Reality “to didactically present or reconstruct archaeological sites or artefacts” (Eve). The one thing I like most about this tool is that it does not actually disturb the archeological sites, while displaying a faithful representation of ancient civilization. Instead it uses real elements mixed with additional elements (or data), which people themselves are actually able to manipulate in order to demonstrate a particular scenery.The tool can also be used for multiple senses, like sight, smell, and sound.

The one problem with this tool, as pointed out by Eve, is that archeologists have not adapted it for analysis and site exploration (Eve). The tool is also limited because it can only show us what humans have already discovered. The tool cannot dig for us (though there is potential should we wish to include ground-penetrating radars) or show exactly what the ancient huts or houses looked like – instead we rely on the archeological site, contemporary written work, and contemporary images. The fact that we are dependent on our modern interpretation and perception is another limitation we need to account for in mapping. While we can make claims based on evidence such as water levels at a certain location in a certain year, these conclusions are still arguable and variable to a degree. It is important to understand that perception and point of view are factors in mapping. I like how the author points this out. Perception and point of view need to be distinguished to an audience to ensure they are not necessarily taking things at face value. Different perceptions will also affect the way data is being presented.

Other limitations as pointed out by Diana D. Sinton is, like I mentioned in Visualization, that we (the collective we) cannot assume that readers know and understand the data/capta that is presented in front of them when they look at a map. In fact, more often than not, maps need text support to explain exactly what is shown. Finally, Sinton suggests that geographical data is best represented on a map; I do not agree as, depending on what exactly we are trying to convey or present or evaluate, data or capta may be better represented on a different type of visual representation.

Despite these limitations, I do believe there is also so many possibilities. The overlay of scenes, Eve discusses, gives us a new understanding of how these civilizations lives and what they may have seen/experienced based on the geographical landscape where their position. For example, with soundscape, we may be able to make conclusions about the cultural of death for certain civilizations based on the amount of people buried with a grave and those who are buried below the so called “safe-path”.

Finally, the last thing I really like about this approach is the ability to reconstruct without actually disturbing the remains. I think specifically of Arthur Evans and Knossos where we are unable to actually perform more digs because he has poured concrete over the site to rebuilt it as it “would have been” in the bronze age. This also brings other problems like when we think of Knossos in the present and how the work done by Evens is now starting to weather, do we fix the buildings despite inconsistencies with later evidence found, do we rebuilt it again as it should look like, or do we even bother?

Mapping has many positives, such as being a cross-disciplinary approach as shown in Fred Gibbs work. For example, English majors often use mapping to evaluate the structures of texts. Another example of mapping which is given by Sinton actually reminds me of video games. There are many different areas where mapping can be used and ways it can be used. I myself would be interested in seeing how the narratives of ancient sources who often have contrasting stories change depending on the writers location as compared to the person they are writing about and/or comparing writers who write closer to the date of the ‘expedition’ or much later.

##Tools: Different tools used in these various articles include: Geographic Information Systems (GIS). – recreate elements of human perception Data vs Capta: Johanna Drucker brings forth the idea that mapping, and all other forms of digital endeavours, use both data and capta. These two elements are distinguished based on the way they are procured and their uses.