The pitfalls of virtual archaeology. (letters).

I would like to point out three issues that came to mind when I read your article on the digital conservation of historical sites and buildings, "Preserving the Past" (pg. 24, September 2001).

First is the need to distinguish between work that aims to represent artifacts, buildings, or sites and work that aims to document artifacts, buildings, or sites. The two aims are not incompatible, nor are they mutually exclusive. However, they are different enough that one must consciously aim for one or the other (rarely both).

It's important for the original scholar to provide data in forms that permit others to query the model for dimensions or otherwise investigate it on their own--using only standard software. In fact, I would argue that the best work begins with documentation that will retain its accuracy and scholarly utility while providing a base for a more visually appealing representation. It seemed to me that this distinction should have been more strongly stressed in the article. (Of course, as an archaeologist, I would naturally think that.)

Second, I think more emphasis should have been put on the inadequacy of even the best model to represent the real item. When we build our dimensionally accurate AutoCAD model of the entrance building to the Athenian Acropolis (see www.propylaea.org), we may have every dimension ...