1. Introduction

Interactive Digital Narratives (IDNs) have specific affordances, such as participation and multiperspectivity, that open up opportunities for their application in diverse areas and specialties. In this extended abstract, readers are invited to explore the application of IDNs to participatory interpretation of cultural heritage, by providing access to published competing perspectives. The navigation through these perspectives provides for comparative analysis and individual preference allowing for co-development of interpretation. This approach is then generalized for other fields of study that feature multiperspectivity.

While history has been considered as an objective scientific endeavor (Ranke et al., 1824), it has also been evaluated subjectively through contemporary interpretation (Croce, 1921; Nietzsche, 1983). Competing interpretations create a level of uncertainty around history (Barbara & Haahr, 2023), that presents a complex phenomenon which is underserved by traditional narratives (Koenitz, 2023). Burke (1991) and Stroud (2019) suggest non-traditional, dynamic narratives that accommodate change and alternative interpretations. This aligns with historians embracing uncertainty due to limited evidence (Curthoys & Docker, 2013) and a shift in museum theory towards a constructivist approach, where visitors co-develop interpretations, rather than receive expert instruction (Dobbin, 2019; Tilden, 1977).

2. Challenge of prehistoric cultural heritage

While curators strive for accuracy, and are expected to present certainty (Davis & Kräutli, 2015) and representativeness (Curators Committee, 2009; ‘ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums’, 2006), this is exceptionally challenging for prehistoric cultural heritage, due to limited evidence for creator perspective, context, and use. Hence, interpretation depends heavily on archaeological perspectives, which are inherently subjective and evolve with new discoveries. Thus, the juxtaposition of these perspectives is necessary to give each perspective an equal opportunity to be considered by the visitor and help them form their own interpretation of the site or artefact.

3. IDN Application

IDNs’ support for multiperspectivity helps the interactor consider multiple interpretations, rather than succumb to a single authoritative narrative. IDN’s narrative form provides an opportunity to have a dialogue between scholars across time, while the interactive nature affords an exploration of these perspectives according to the interactor’s interests. The digital platform of Virtual Reality (VR) allows virtual contextualization of these perspectives in situ, such that text is supplemented by 3D visuals, while the encyclopedic nature of digital systems allows the diegetic presentation of published papers to substantiate said perspectives.

4. Case Study: Designing an IDN for the Tarxien Prehistoric Complex

The case study focuses on the competing interpretations of the Neolithic complex of Tarxien in Malta, a site composed of 4 multi-apse structures built over 1000 years during Malta’s Tarxien Period (3600 – 2500 BC) and then re-used again in the Bronze Age. Particularly, the interpretations of the site by Zammit (1916, 1917, 1920, 1930), Grima (2001, 2003, 2012, 2016), Malone (2007, 2008) and its artefacts by Attard Mallia (2018) are considered. The IDN Design process follows Serbanescu & Koenitz’ IDN Design Model (2024). The traditional narratives component is served by the abovementioned published interpretations, which are stored as paragraphs in an online database from which statements are extracted as evidence that support perspectives attributed to their authors. These perspectives are then shaped into a conversational narrative between these authors to be experienced by the interactor. A dependency link is created between these narratives such that a narrative is only made available once its dependency has been visited. These serve as narrative vectors to guide the narrative design. The visual assets of the IDN Design are composed of 3D models and photos of the site and its artefacts, taken on site or from exhibits at the National Museum of Archaeology in Valletta. The User Interface (UI) component is served by the VR platform, using a third-party LIDAR scan of the site as the digital environment. This serves to place the narratives around the site and its artefact, contributing an element of “environmental storytelling” (Carson, 2000; Jenkins, 2004). This leads to the procedural component of the IDN, in which the interactor is invited to explore the site with a virtual camera to reveal artefacts about which narratives are made available once found. These narratives present the authors’ perspectives about the artefact which the interactor then uses to justify their response to a number of questions posed to the interactor, serving as narrative goals for the experience.

5. Expected Outcomes and Benefits

By visiting the different perspectives, two main outcomes are expected, based on the desire for closure in storygames (Mitchell et al., 2020). Those seeking narrative closure will seek to choose the perspective that is most plausible to them, and use it to justify their own interpretation. Those seeking systemic closure, however, will understand that there is no singular true interpretation, and will embrace the uncertainty that surrounds the site or artefact. Benefits of using IDNs to expose these different perspectives include the ability for the audience to question set interpretations and to make history their personal story. Also, heritage curators can better understand their audience by seeing which interpretations are preferred, and researchers can benefit from the structural organization of the publications to identify lacunae in the source data, that merits further investigation.

6. Future Directions for IDNs

Beyond the specific case study of cultural heritage just described, the abstract presents an approach and framework that can help shape the future of the interdisciplinary field of IDNs. The constructivist approach adopted here offers a blueprint for educational IDNs across various subjects, fostering critical thinking, media literacy, and understanding in students and the general public. Presenting competing interpretations and encouraging critical engagement with uncertainty is not limited to history, but also applicable to other complex domains such as journalism, social policy debates, scientific controversies, and even ethical decision-making simulations in various industries. The framework for presenting evidence-based, multiperspective narratives is not limited to historical texts but can be applied to any context where different expert perspectives need to be explored. Finally, this publication-based framework can serve as a foundational model for building academically rigorous IDN systems.

References

1. Attard Mallia, J. (2018). Beyond the structure: Revisiting the Tarxien temples excavations. The Lure of the Antique: Essays on Malta and Mediterranean Archaeology in Honour of Anthony Bonanno, 54, 161.
2. Barbara, J., & Haahr, M. (2023). What Really Happened Here?: Dealing with Uncertainty in the Book of Distance: A Critical Historiography Perspective. 14384 LNCS, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47658-7_11
3. Burke, P. (1991). New perspectives on historical writing. Penn State Press.
4. Carson, D. (2000). Environmental storytelling: Creating immersive 3D worlds using lessons learned from the theme park industry. Gamasutra. Com, 1.
5. Croce, B. (1921). History: Its Theory and Practice (trns. D. Ainslee, New York. Harcourt, Brace and Co.
6. Curators Committee. (2009). Code of Ethics for Curators. American Association of Museums.
7. Curthoys, A., & Docker, J. (2013). The boundaries of history and fiction. The Sage Handbook of Historical Theory, 202–220. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247563
8. Davis, S. B., & Kräutli, F. (2015). The idea and image of historical time: Interactions between design and digital humanities. Visible Language, 49(3).
9. Dobbin, C. (2019). Exhibitions: What exactly is interpretation? The Media Majlis at Northwestern University in Qatar. https://mediamajlis.northwestern.edu/en/majlis/majlis360/exhibitions-what-exactly-is-interpretation
10. Grima, R. (2001). An iconography of insularity: A cosmological interpretation of some images and spaces in the Late Neolithic temples of Malta. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 12(1).
11. Grima, R. (2003). Image, order and place in Late Neolithic Malta.
12. Grima, R. (2012). Monuments and landscapes in late Neolithic Malta. Archaeology International, 6(1).
13. Grima, R. (2016). Water, geomythology and cosmology in late Neolithic Malta.
14. ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. (2006). International Journal of Cultural Property, 13(4), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S094073910606022X
15. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game design as narrative architecture. Computer, 44, s3.
16. Koenitz, H. (2023). Understanding Interactive Digital Narrative: Immersive Expressions for a Complex Time. Taylor & Francis.
17. Malone, C. (2007). Ritual space and structure—The context of cult in Malta and Gozo. Cult in Context: Reconsidering Ritual in Archaeology, 23–34.
18. Malone, C. (2008). Metaphor and Maltese Art: Explorations in the Temple Period. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 21(1).
19. Mitchell, A., Kway, L., & Lee, B. J. (2020). Storygameness: Understanding repeat experience and the desire for closure in storygames. Proceedings of DiGRA 2020 Conference: Play Everywhere.
20. Nietzsche, F. W. (1983). On the uses and disadvantages of history for lifeOn the uses and disadvantages of history for life. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812101.007
21. Ranke, L. von, Dennis, G., & Armstrong, E. (1824). History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations (1494 to 1514). (No Title).
22. Serbanescu, A., & Koenitz, H. (2024). The IDN Design Model: A Proposal for an Extended SPP Model. International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, 279–288.
23. Stroud, K. (2019). A Neolithic World View Lost in Translation: The Case of the Tarxien Temples. Journal of Skyscape Archaeology, 5(2).
24. Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). University of North Carolina Press.
25. Zammit, T. (1916). VI.—The Hal-Tarxien Neolithic Temple, Malta. Archaeologia, 67, 127–144.
26. Zammit, T. (1917). IX.—Second Report on the Hal-Tarxien Excavations, Malta. Archaeologia, 68, 263–284.
27. Zammit, T. (1920). VII.—Third Report on the Hal-Tarxien Excavations, Malta. Archaeologia, 70, 179–200.
28. Zammit, T. (1930). The prehistoric remains of the Maltese Islands. Antiquity, 4(13), 55–79.