an explore these spaces asking exactly the same questions as our natural-world counterparts. I’m willing to bet that what we find will not be that dissimilar.
In the Preface to 2008’s Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. (Left Coast Press), editors Bruno David and Julian Thomas identify three broad themes of landscape archaeology (p. 20):
- Landscapes are fields of human engagement as in Heidegger’s notion of dwelling. These include both explorations on conceptual ways of approaching, and experiences of landscapes as fields of engagement, as the “in” of “being-in-the-world.”
- Landscapes are physical environmental contexts of human behavior (such as investigations of the tree cover or topography of the environments).
- We should also reflect on representations of landscapes, such as in landscape art, or the identification of colonial tropes in landscape analysis of textual preconceptions.
Both natural and synthetic landscapes share these three themes: 1) For synthetic worlds, players are very much “in-the-world”, completely engaged with their surroundings as they explore and play; 2) synthetic worlds do provide physical environmental contexts, which can include understanding vegetation and topography that can (and often do) dictate player behavior; and 3) synthetic worlds very much provide representations of landscapes, typically created by one or more designers, based on what they conceive of landscapes appear, as well as how they advance narrative or drive player behavior.
When we engage with synthetic worlds, we occupy a place within a place within a place, inhabiting multiple landscapes at the same time. We sit in the natural world before engaging with the synthetic. And once inside the synthetic landscape, we visit multitudes of places dotting our field of vision and beyond. The landscape beckons us in, and affords us new frontiers.
Landscape archaeology seems to be preoccupied with human presence and engagement within the spaces they occupy over time. It doesn’t matter if that space is natural or synthetic. Synthetic worlds have nearly infinite space with which players can engage, creating lived-in environments where players can spend more time than in the natural world. Players inhabit these spaces, invest time, money, and resources, and create their own culture side-by-side with any synthetic culture pre-built by developers and/or algorithms. Some synthetic worlds (e.g., Minecraft and No Man’s Sky) offer players the chance to manipulate the landscape themselves for whatever reason, be it for entertainment, or for something more practical. Create a real or synthetic garden. Dig a hole to see where it goes and what resources might lie beneath your feet.
Every landscape (natural or synthetic) can contain material remains and networks connecting agents, materials, and places. A goal of the landscape archaeologist is to connect the two. While this can be easy in designed games (synthetic worlds where everything has been crafted by the software developer), it becomes increasingly more difficult (and arguably more “real”) in worlds where everything is procedurally generated. This is especially true when algorithms are entrusted with the task of building a world and populating it with things for the archaeologist to discover. This placement is almost random, but bears some logic based on the landscapes discoverable within the synthetic world. The landscape shows the archaeologist where to look.
A landscape, either natural or synthetic, can be interpreted in any number of ways. A synthetic world’s designers interpret their digital built environments from the perspective of narrative, player engagement, and aesthetics. From the player’s perspective, the landscape exists as something to explore, as something to be traversed, and as a provider of materials for quests and recipes. In the natural world, one must also consider the landscape from the indigenous perspective(s), understanding how the landscape is a permanent resident, a host of memories, and perhaps a space of spiritual resonance. How do non-human denizens of synthe