The differences between a digitized artifact and and the real, physical copy are not insignificant. At least, the digitized version is rarely a perfect substitute for the original. For one, with a digital artifact, you are relying entirely on how well the digital version can represent the object as a viewable model. In my case, my object was passable, but the 3D model was low-poly, or in other words, it lacked the polygons to truly replicate the exact shape and texture of the object. It was jagged and pointy in areas in which it seemingly should not have been, and the texture applied to the object was of a medium resolution in some areas, and a very low resolution in others. As someone who is passingly familiar with 3D modeled items and environments, it was frankly jarring to see how this real, historical artifact could look so much worse than most background shelf decorations in modern 3D games. Although the Blackfoot Digital Library can hardly be blamed for that. Moreover, because of the way the object was presented, I have no sense of its scale. Even if dimensions are listed, that is no substitute for seeing it with your own eyes in person. How long is it? How dense? What does it feel like to touch and to hold? These are things that are beyond my knowledge as a result of the medium in which I interacted with it. In the end, I am glad to have had the ability to interact with this item, even digitally, as a series of still images would not have provided me with the same experience as the one I received. Still, it is a shame that although the technology for better digitalization exists, it has not been applied to these artifacts.