In 2014, Andreas Fickers and Annie van den Oever called for ‘a hands-on, ears-on, or an integral sensual approach toward media technologies’ (273). The idea behind this ‘experimental media archaeology,’ they explain, is that ‘doing historical re-enactments with old media artifacts [. . .] will offer new sensorial experiences and reflexive insights into the complex meanings and functionalities of past media technologies and practices’ (274). For Fickers and van den Oever, the researcher who assumes the role of a user by experimenting, tinkering, and playing with historical media objects produces a different kind of knowledge than the researcher who ‘stud[ies] textual and visual representations of past media technologies’ (275). Rather than aiming to reconstruct the meaning of historical media practices and experiences, experimental media archaeology makes the historian a co-constructor of their multiple meanings, past and present. The goal is not to recover some original knowledge attached to historical media practices and experiences but to use practice and experience as bases for producing new knowledge about old media. In this special issue, we answer Fickers and van den Oever’s call by exploring the relevance of experimental media archaeology to a relatively undertheorized topic: teaching early film and media histories. Our focus on teaching stemmed initially from an interest in finding new ways to engage students in thinking about old media, namely nineteenthand early-twentieth-century optical devices. We wondered, for example, what students in a history class might learn about the origins of cinema in nineteenth-century animation and optics by making their own zoetropes, stereographs, and chronophotographs; and how such creative experiments might change the common perception among students, particularly at the undergraduate level, that historical media are dead or obsolete, a perception that is fueled no doubt by what Barbara Stafford calls the ‘newer, more glamorous’ digital media landscape. We were also motivated by a sense that in courses on media archaeology, where experimental hands-on modes of pedagogy are common, students are more likely to engage with superannuated digital media than with older ancestral technologies that invite critical thinking about the proto-cinematic archive. In media archaeology classrooms, for example, retrogaming (playing historic video games or emulations of them) is an

中文翻译：

---

对象课程，新旧：课堂中的实验媒体考古学

2014 年，Andreas Fickers 和 Annie van den Oever 呼吁“对媒体技术采取“亲身体验、倾听或整体感性的方法”（273）。他们解释说，这种“实验性媒体考古学”背后的想法是“用旧媒体文物进行历史重演[。. .] 将提供新的感官体验和对过去媒体技术和实践的复杂含义和功能的反思性洞察（274）。对于 Fickers 和 van den Oever 来说，通过试验、修补和玩弄历史媒体对象来扮演用户角色的研究人员产生的知识与“研究过去媒体技术的文本和视觉表现的研究人员不同” ' (275)。而不是旨在重建历史媒体实践和经验的意义，实验媒体考古学使历史学家成为其过去和现在多重意义的共同构建者。目标不是恢复一些与历史媒体实践和经验相关的原始知识，而是将实践和经验作为产生关于旧媒体的新知识的基础。在本期特刊中，我们通过探索实验媒体考古学与一个相对理论不足的主题的相关性来回应菲克斯和范登奥弗的呼吁：教授早期电影和媒体历史。我们对教学的关注最初源于寻找新方法让学生思考旧媒体的兴趣，即十九世纪二十世纪初的光学设备。我们想知道，例如，历史课上的学生可以通过制作自己的 zoetropes、立体照片和计时照片来了解 19 世纪动画和光学中电影的起源；以及此类创造性实验如何改变学生（尤其是本科生）的普遍看法，即历史媒体已死或过时，芭芭拉·斯塔福德 (Barbara Stafford) 所说的“更新、更迷人”的数字媒体格局无疑助长了这种看法。我们的动机还在于，在媒体考古学课程中，实验性的实践教学模式很常见，学生更有可能使用过时的数字媒体，而不是那些邀请对原始电影档案进行批判性思考的古老技术. 例如，在媒体考古教室中，