It is assumed, in palaeography, papyrology and epigraphy, that a certain amount of
uncertainty is inherent in the reading of damaged and abraded texts. Yet we have
not really grappled with the fact that, nowadays, as many scholars tend to deal with
digital images of texts, rather than handling the texts themselves, the procedures for
creating digital images of texts can insert further uncertainty into the representation
of the text created. Technical distortions can lead to the unintentional introduction
of ‘artefacts’ into images, which can have an effect on the resulting representation. If
we cannot trust our digital surrogates of texts, can we trust the readings from them?
How do scholars acknowledge the quality of digitised images of texts? Furthermore,
this leads us to the type of discussions of representation that have been present in
Classical texts since Plato: digitisation can be considered as an alternative form of
representation, bringing to the modern debate of the use of digital technology in Classics
the familiar theories of mimesis (imitation) and ekphrasis (description): the conversion
of visual evidence into explicit descriptions of that information, stored in computer
files in distinct linguistic terms, with all the difficulties of conversion understood in the
ekphratic process. The community has not yet considered what becoming dependent
on digital texts means for the field, both in practical and theoretical terms. Issues of
quality, copying, representation, and substance should be part of our dialogue when
we consult digital surrogates of documentary material, yet we are just constructing
understandings of what it means to rely on virtual representations of artefacts. It is
necessary to relate our understandings of uncertainty in palaeography and epigraphy
to our understanding of the mechanics of visualization employed by digital imaging
techniques, if we are to fully understand the impact that these will have