This is a clip from the movie Chinese Zodiac in which Jackie Chan plays a master thief who specializes in stealing historical artifacts. He secretly uses a glove with 3D scanning capabilities to quickly scan the artifacts, and the data is transmitted in real-time to a studio in another location. His colleagues can use this data to quickly conduct 3D printing of the object. The whole process is fast and clean.
Such a process may seem very sci-fi, but it is not beyond our reach. The existing technology is already very close to what the film has presented. For example, we have discussed The KAP recording system for archaeological excavation, which has a variety of digital recording tools, networks, and data storage centers that can record the entire process of archaeological excavation in real-time and in an efficient way. Meanwhile, it is with the ability to transmit, store and distribute data. As digital technology continues to advance, I believe we will soon be able to reach the technological level as shown in the film.
However, the tremendous improvement in digital archaeological technology is notable with ethical problems, just as the film shows. When I attended an academic conference in China, a professor pointed out straightly that the most advanced archaeological techniques and talents in China are not in the universities, but among the average public (such as tomb robbers and relic traffickers). This may be an overstatement, but as far as I know, the underground trafficking of fake antiques is rampant in China and many other Asian countries. Those who can utilize 3D scanning and printing technology to create highly simulated vases, porcelain, and other small objects would be able to produce and sell these things to people who cannot distinguish the authentic ones from the fake ones. As a result, while some might be excited and bright about advanced digital archaeological technology, I wonder whether scholars of this field are ready to confront, investigate, and scrutinize the grey or black industry affiliated to the new technology and its impact on the aesthetic and cultural values of the historical items. How would we evaluate such a profit-seeking phenomenon with the use of digital archeology?
1 comment:
This is a really interesting post! It never occurred to me that looters and relic traffickers could possess more advanced technology than archaeologists. But that does make sense now that you have pointed it out, and it is certainly a big risk to archaeological sites. I think that this is a great argument for why digital archaeology should be more widespread as were are going to have to keep up with this threat. I also wonder if the 3D models of artifacts being created and trafficked are artifacts in their own way, like when we discussed in class whether 3D models were more than just a replica of an artifact. This certainly muddles the water archaeologically speaking as there is no way to keep track of these replicas. Is there anything archaeologists have been doing to combat this? I am interested to learn more about this topic!
Post a Comment