It feel likes media archaeology, according to Wolfgang Ernest’s theory, is always at the “inbetween”. It isn’t satisfied with the mainstream subjective, narrative voice of based on media studies and history, while on the other hand it is is also ambiguous because of its vague definition in academia and approach to the multi-dimensional aspect of humanities. I enjoyed the fact that Ernest focused greatly on “investigation” and “technicality” within the fluid subject, focusing on media as a somewhat “material” archieve to study its interventions, mechanisms and evolution in space and time, and the extent to which it participates in changing our bodies, senses and cognition. However, the definition is still confusing, as archaeology is about preserving artifacts and establishing relationships between them and the past culture, yet media archaeology, as it inevitably involves modern day perceptiona and understanding, are bound to add a new layer of subjectivity in the process. In addition, if past media is recreated and celerbrated using modern technology, then to what extent does it become a process of mimicry? This also relates to the idea of electronic texturality and “Primary record” in both of the digital humanities writing. I was especially intrigued by the example of textual materiality of the image swapping upon click (Milton text), and I think it is a very powerful demonstration of is paradoxal argument of context v.s. content in media archaeology. How does software culture change our understanding of the media? How is the interface and content development toolbox continuously reshaping the aesthetics and visual language of contemporary media design? and is that a good reflection of the humanities as a technological-driven machine. Material restoration is the primary focus for the development of traditional / conventional archaeology, while searching for heterogeneity and reassessing its value seems to be the primary value of media archaeology.