Creating and Using Virtual Reality: A Guide for the Arts and Humanities
Website : http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/vr_guide/index.html

This site sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS) offers a comprehensive outline of the uses and applications of virtual reality in archaeology (and other disciplines in the humanities). The site includes a brief history of virtual reality including an overview of methods, techniques, and documentation as well as archiving practices. Basic VR definitions concerning

the different VR techniques, levels of immersion, and different types of software are also included. The site has a fairly extensive bibliography and also includes a case study library that examines several of the current virtual reality projects being conducted in the humanities. These synopses are complete with the projects' descriptions, method details (including the different VR techniques and softwares), and results. Overall, this website is a good information source for studying and understanding the use of virtual reality and other digital techniques in archaeology and the humanities.

“How real is your reality?: Versimilitude standards for the visualization of cultural heritage” by Cliff Ogleby
Website : http://cipa.icomos.org/papers/99c207.pdf

Photogrammetry is now being used as a basis for the 3D reconstruction and visualization of culture heritage monuments and sites. Issues of photorealism, versimilitude, subjectivity, and authenticity are all valid concerns in the creation of these VR models. Ogleby briefly discusses the visualization process “from photogrammetry to virtual reality” and provides examples from the Ayutthaya project of how to make VR models more accurate and truthful to the reality of which they represent. He also suggests that creators of VR models provide an index of “model creation steps” to further validate the information presented in a 3D visualization.

“Realism Vs. Reality: Creating Virtual Reconstructions of Prehistoric Architecture” by John Kanter.
Website : http://sipapu.gsu.edu/SAA00/

“How real should we make our models?” In this article, Kanter discusses the issue of balancing archaeological reality (what is known about a site) with model realism (what is portrayed about a site). Often times, the line between what is real in a model verses what has been incorporated to add a more realistic appeal is difficult to discern. Kanter sites several factors that when properly evaluated in a model's inceptive stage can help resolve these issues. According to Kanter, one of the most important things to consider are the goals of the project and the model's intended audience. Other influential factors are the consideration of the desired product, the quality and quantity of archaeological data available, and technological capabilities. Kanter discusses as an example one of his best known works, the Sipapu Chetro Ketl Great Kiva reconstruction. He sites the goals of his project, major decisions he made, and how he confronted and resolved the challenges of the project. Kanter emphasizes the need to document the process of model construction which should include descriptions of the original data along with descriptions of critical interpretations that were made in the modeling process. Overall, model creators simply should be aware of their ability to misrepresent the past and most importantly, they should strive to maintain its integrity.

“Content and Creativity in Virtual Environment Design” by Clive Fencott
Website : http://wheelie.tees.ac.uk/users/p.c.fencott/vsmm99/

This article presents more of a theoretical discussion of modeling and design principles in the creation of virtual environments (VE's). Such considerations include the content of VE's and how they are structured which ultimately affect the manner in which information is presented to the user in the virtual medium. How do designers structure a VE so that the user “accumulates an appropriate set of experiences so as to discover and remember the intended purpose of the VE?” Other abstract concepts such as the use of virtual space and the perception of the user (his presence) in the VE are also discussed. The author sites three “perceptual opportunites” of VE's that can enhance the user's VE experience. These are sureties, surprises, and shocks. Sureties are the elements in a VE that are conventional and predictable, surprises are exactly as the term suggests, “the nonmundane details” and shocks are brought about more as glitches in the system and VE design. Examples of each of these elements are provided in the text along with a description of a case study of the Cliff Lift at Saltburn.

“Documenting and Validating Virtual Archaeology” by Nick Ryan
Website : http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/nsr/cvro/ryan.pdf

This article presents some of the concerns in validating the information content of virtual reconstructions in archaeology. A case study of a Roman temple reconstruction of Canterbury is thoroughly examined and used as an example to explicate some of the problems concerning model documentation and to further advocate the role and development of metadata standards to resolve some of these issues. According to the author, the development of a universal metadata standard for VR projects in archaeology would “extend the critical apparatus we take for granted in scientific papers into the world of Virtual Archaeology,” in other words it will assign credibility and authenticity to these models. Within the text, three principle types of metadata formats in the XML language group are explored. Each of these are presented in detail and include languages for multimedia applications (SMIL), vector graphics (SVG), and virtual reality (X3D) applications. The author concludes the article by proposing an outline for a Virtual Archaeology Metadata Profile that could be further developed and used as a universal standard for VR systems creation in archaeology.