Digital archaeological projects and their influence on the perception of cultural identities in different regions

Download article
Article

Digital archaeological projects and their influence on the perception of cultural identities in different regions

Olena Khomenko

Received 15.07.2025, Revised 05.11.2025, Accepted 09.12.2025

https://doi.org/10.67524/verus5/1.2025.50

Retrieved from Vol. 1, No. 1, 2025

Pages 50-61

Abstract

The digitalisation of archaeological heritage was transforming the methods of storing, visualising, and interpreting archaeological data, whilst also influencing the perception of cultural identities across various regional and institutional contexts. The aim of this study was to determine how the application of computational tools in the study of archaeological heritage alters conceptions of collective memory, historical belonging, and modes of interpreting the past in colonial and postcolonial societies. The research methodology was grounded in a theoretical-analytical approach and encompassed qualitative content analysis, comparison and systematisation, the logical-analytical method, and theoretical generalisation. Data analysis identified the principal forms of digital archaeological projects: three-dimensional documentation of archaeological sites and digital twins; three-dimensional reconstructions; digital archives; integrated research infrastructures; geoinformation projects; virtual museums and interactive exhibitions; and digital repatriation. It was established that digital repositories, three-dimensional models, and integrated research infrastructures broaden access to archaeological materials beyond their physical storage locations. It was determined that three-dimensional reconstructions construct a spatial image of the past but necessitate a demarcation between verified and hypothetical elements. Regional analysis enabled the identification of infrastructural, documentary, landscape-analytical, reconstructive-managerial, and archival-epigraphic models of digital archaeological heritage. Consequently, it was revealed that the decolonisation of the digital archaeological narrative depends on the transparency of object provenance, the participation of source communities in the description of materials, and the possibility of updating metadata. The findings of this research can be utilised by researchers, museum specialists, digital archive developers, and educational institutions when creating digital projects related to archaeological heritage and cultural identity

References
  1. Archaeology Data Service. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/.
  2. Basset, S. (2020). Retrieved from https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/producing-metadata-for-archaeological-datasets/.
  3. ARIADNEplus. (2023). Retrieved from https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/.
  4. Barzaghi, S., Bordignon, A., Gualandi, B., Heibi, I., Massari, A., Moretti, A., Peroni, S., & Renda, G. (2024). A proposal for a FAIR management of 3D data in cultural heritage: The Aldrovandi Digital Twin case. Data Intelligence, 6(4), 1190-1221. doi: 10.3724/2096-7004.di.2024.0061.
  5. Belteki, D., Rees, A.J., & Sichani, A.M. (2025). Datafication and cultural heritage collections data infrastructures: Critical perspectives on documentation, cataloguing and data-sharing in cultural heritage institutions. Journal of Open Humanities Data, 11, article number 14. doi: 10.5334/johd.277.
  6. Archaeological Survey of India. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bharatshri.org/.
  7. Bitelli, G., Forte, A., Tini, M.A., Belfiori, F., & Tirincanti, A. (2025). High-detail 3D reconstruction and digital strategies for the enhancements of archaeological properties in museums. Heritage, 8(2), article number 49. doi: 10.3390/heritage8020049.
  8. Bonacchi, C. (2021). Heritage transformations. Big Data & Society, 8(2). doi: 10.1177/20539517211034302.
  9. British Museum. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/.
  10. Canuto, M.A., et al. (2018). Ancient lowland Maya complexity as revealed by airborne laser scanning of northern Guatemala. Science, 361(6409), article number eaau0137. doi: 10.1126/science.aau0137.
  11. Champion, E., & Rahaman, H. (2020). Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms. Virtual Archaeology Review, 11(23), 1-15. doi: 10.4995/var.2020.13226.
  12. Chen, G., Tong, Y., Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Liu, Z., & Huang, J. (2025). Reconstruction of cultural heritage in virtual space following disasters. Buildings, 15(12), article number 2040. doi: 10.3390/buildings15122040.
  13. CyArk. (n.d.a). 3D documentation projects and virtual tours. Retrieved from https://www.cyark.org/projects/.
  14. CyArk. (n.d.b). Retrieved from https://www.cyark.org/.
  15. Dolcetti, F. (2025). Crafting digital experiences: Embedding human-centred and participatory design into archaeological practice. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 18(1), article number 3. doi: 10.1145/3700880.
  16. Pixelated Realities. (2025). The first 3D objects from Pixelated Realities are now available on Europeana. Retrieved from https://pixelatedrealities.org/en/news-en/the-first-3d-objects-from-pixelated-realities-are-now-available-on-europeana/.
  17. Eyssette, J. (2025). Algorithmic heritage and AI-assisted museums in Morocco and Egypt: From clouded coloniality to techno-cultural empowerment. Heritage, 9(1), article number 8. doi: 10.3390/heritage9010008.
  18. Hostettler, M., Buhlke, A., Drummer, C., Emmenegger, L., Reich, J., & Stäheli, C. (Eds.). (2024). The 3 dimensions of digitalised archaeology: State-of-the-art, data management and current challenges in archaeological 3D-documentation. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-53032-6.
  19. Huggett, J. (2021). Algorithmic agency and autonomy in archaeological practice. Open Archaeology, 7(1), 417-434. doi: 10.1515/opar-2020-0136.
  20. Huggett, J. (2024). Changing theory and practice? CAA and archaeology’s digital turn. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 7(1), 316-331. doi: 10.5334/jcaa.144 .
  21. ICOMOS. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/2019/Project_Anqa_Final_Report_20190419.pdf.
  22. Jamil, O., & Brennan, A. (2025). Immersive heritage through Gaussian Splatting: A new visual aesthetic for reality capture. Frontiers in Computer Science, 7, article number 1515609. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2025.1515609.
  23. Liritzis, I., & Volonakis, P. (2021). Cyber-Archaeometry: Novel research and learning subject overview. Education Sciences, 11(2), article number 86. doi: 10.3390/educsci11020086.
  24. Liu, W., Lu, M., Chen, Y., & Yan, K. (2024). Digital twin applications in an archaeological site: A virtual reconstruction of the Pishan site, Zhejiang, China. Journal of Chinese Architecture and Urbanism, 6(1), article number 1735. doi: 10.36922/jcau.1735.
  25. Mohammed, A. (2025). Retrieved from https://heritagemanagement.org/beyond-access-rethinking-ownership-justice-and-decolonization-in-digital-repatriation-initiatives/.
  26. Pereda, J., Willcox, P., Candela, G., Sanchez, A., & Murrieta-Flores, P.A. (2025). Online cultural heritage as a social machine: A socio-technical approach to digital infrastructure and ecosystems. International Journal of Digital Humanities, 7(1), 39-69. doi: 10.1007/s42803-025-00097-6.
  27. Perry, S., et al. (2025). Towards new futures for archaeological data production: Challenging archaeonormativity through storytelling. Journal of Field Archaeology, 50(8), 796-815. doi: 10.1080/00934690.2025.2504235.
  28. Poske, C. (2024). Digital repatriation of cultural heritage. In I. Saloul & B. Baillie (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of cultural heritage and conflict (pp. 1-5). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61493-5_148-1.
  29. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1895497&&reg=48&lang=2.
  30. re3data.org. (n.d.). tDAR. Retrieved from https://www.re3data.org/repository/r3d100010347.
  31. Spallone, R., Lamberti, F., Olivieri, L.M., Ronco, F., & Castagna, L. (2022). AR and VR for enhancing museums’ heritage through 3D reconstruction of fragmented statue and architectural context. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVI-2/W1-2022, 473-480. doi: 10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVI-2-W1-2022-473-2022.
  32. Spano, I., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Indigenous data sovereignty in intangible cultural heritage governance: A complementary approach to public-private partnerships. International Journal of Cultural Property, 32(2), 167-193. doi: 10.1017/S0940739125100064.
  33. Stacchio, L., Balloni, E., Gorgoglione, L., Mancini, A., Giovanola, B., Tiribelli, S., & Zingaretti, P. (2024). An ethical framework for trustworthy neural rendering applied in cultural heritage and creative industries. Frontiers in Computer Science, 6, article number 1459807. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2024.1459807.
  34. Tenzer, M., Pistilli, G., Brandsen, A., & Shenfield, A. (2024). Debating AI in archaeology: Applications, implications, and ethical considerations. Internet Archaeology, 67. doi: 10.11141/ia.67.8.
  35. The Digital Archaeological Record. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.tdar.org/about/.
  36. Zoldoske, T. (2024). Metadata for discovery: Planning for an information network. Internet Archaeology, 65. doi: 10.11141/ia.65.6.
Suggested citation
Khomenko, O. (2025). Digital archaeological projects and their influence on the perception of cultural identities in different regions. Journal of Digital Humanities and Cultural Innovation, 1(1), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.67524/verus5/1.2025.50