Many of us are familiar with the concept of in person academic conferences. However, digital spaces allow for such connectivity that there has been a movement towards conducting conferences online, and not only through Zoom. The Public Archaeology Twitter Conference (PATC) is just what the title implies; a conference for public archaeologists, held solely on twitter.
Participants present their papers via Twitter, during an allotted 15 minute time slot. They discuss their paper though 12-20 tweets, using the relevant hashtag. They then can respond to questions posed to them on twitter, and can use any kind of media in their presentations and responses, from photos to gifs. While a conference for this year has not yet been announced, you can access previous presentations through searching the designated hashtag for each year (#PATC1, #PATC2, #PATC3, #PATC4, and #PATC5). In previous years public archaeologists such as Kate Ellenberger, Lorna-Jane Richardson, Shawn Graham, Sara Head, Katherine Cook, and Charles Webster, among others, have participated in these conferences.
Below is part of Kate Ellenberger's (@precatlady) presentation in the PATC4 in 2019 as an example.
In my opinion, PATC is a wonderful opportunity for us to explore the ability of digital spaces, particularly social media, to connect us and allow for academia to become accessible to all. I'm wondering if you guys see the value in twitter conferences or do you feel that it's too disjointed, particularly because of the many different tweets this entails?
I think that using spaces such as Twitter is a really interesting idea because it removes some of the barriers to participating in conferences from an academic perspective, such as the financial burden of traveling to and participating in the actual event. You can essentially participate in this conference from anywhere in the world, without ever leaving your bed! Additionally, members of the public can easily access the conference and benefit from what's being shared. Online conferences on a public platform remove some of the gatekeeping aspect of conferences and academia in general. However, this also leaves conferences and their participants particularly open to vitriol from trolls and other particularly negative people on the internet. Do you think that this is something worth enduring for the benefit of the accessibility feature of online/twitter conferences? I'd love to hear some of your thoughts!
Throughout this course, we've often had discussions about what the actual impact of the digital materials/resources that we create are. These discussion have asked whether or not the materials or resources actually engage with the audiences for which they are intended and whether or not they have some form of value for an educational/research experience. In this blog post, I wanted to promote what I see as a story in which digital technologies were successfully impactful on both public engagement and bioarchaeological research.
This story comes from Kristina Killgrove, a bioarchaeologist, writer, and science communicator who has done a lot of work attempting to engage wider audiences in anthropological discourse. Her blog, Powered by Osteons, has received a lot of attention for its series "Who Needs an Osteologist?" in which Killgrove highlights osteological mistakes in popular media and the need for more professional engagement in material distributed to the public. This story, which was shared on the blog, relates to an email that Killgrove received about a 15 year-old whose science project was inspired by one of her articles that was published by Forbes magazine.
The Forbes article, titled "How To Print Your Own 3D Replicas Of Homo Naledi And Other Hominin Fossils" was published in September of 2015, following the release of a 3D reconstruction of a Homo naledi skull by the Rising Star Expedition. This situation was unique within the field of archaeology due to its relatively quick release and low cost. As Killgrove notes in the article, "The Rising Star Expedition's opening up of information so soon after discovery is unprecedented and very, very welcome. In the past, fellow researchers and teachers would have to wait multiple years -- and pay hundreds of dollars -- to get a cast of the new fossil. And wait many more years for all the data to be opened up" (Killgrove 2015). Killgrove's article details where individuals may find the Homo naledi and other fossil reconstructions so that they may print some for their own collection. Although, as she notes, "There are unfortunately only a small number of 3D models available... [N]ot all fossil remains have been digitized, not all researchers want them digitized, and not all companies that make and sell casts want them digitized and made freely available" (Killgrove 2015).
Image: Homo naledi skull reconstruction from the Forbes article (Killgrove 2015).
Killgrove's blog post "How 3D Hominin Models are Paving the Way for Future Palaeoanthropologists" details the email that she received from the father of 15 year-old Storm, who utilized the links provided by Killgrove's article to 3D print hominin fossils to use in her science fair project. The project looked at the placement of the foramen magnum and the posture of humnas, extant primates, and fossil specicimens which are thought to be human ancestors, and was chosen for the top 100 regional finalists for the Google Science Fair. Storm's father's email credits Killgrove's Forbes article as invaluable to Storm in gathering the resources to perform this rigorous project. As Killgrove quotes, "Collecting a wide enough variety of specimens was one of Storm's biggest frustrations, and so we were hoping her work could be used as an example to encourage more open access" (Killgrove 2019).
Video: A 2-minute video about Storm's Google Science Fair project (Thompson 2018).
As Killgrove's blog post shows, these materials do have an impact and they are reaching some of the audiences that we hope that they will. In this case, the availability of these resources through open-access sites and the sharing of these resources with the public gained the interest of a 15 year-old and facilitated her engagement in paleoanthropological research. I think that this aspect demonstrates the merit behind the attempts of many in the academic community to make archaeological research and resources more available and the benefit that it can have for introducing more people to the field of anthropology/archaeology. However, we must also remember that not everyone recognizes the once-living individual from which these remains come and so our efforts to make these reconstructed specimens more widely available must also address how we plan to contextualize these specimens as human ancestors that require respectful treatment and not just toys for our enjoyment.
References
Killgrove, K. (n.d.). Powered by Osteons. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/
Killgrove, K. (2015, September 19). How to Print your Own 3D Replicas of Homo Naledi and Other Hominin Fossils. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/19/how-to-print-your-own-3d-replicas-of-homo-naledi-and-other-hominin-fossils/?sh=140a310512c0
Killgrove, K. (2019, July 19). How 3D Hominin Models are Paving the Way for Future Palaeoanthropologists. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2019/07/how-3d-hominin-models-are-paving-way.html
Thompson, N. (2018, December 11). The Foramen Magnum and Posture in Human Ancestry. Retrieved March 31, 2021, from https://youtu.be/OcCCn_DXP2E
Most of the public is exposed to archaeology through media, as it is easily accessible and entertaining. It is likely that when the public thinks about an archaeologist they would think of characters like Indiana Jones, who is more akin to a looter. Perhaps this is part of the reason shows like Ancient Aliens can garner such a large and dedicated following. As TV programs such as Ancient Aliens grow in popularity, the public’s perception of archaeology and heritage becomes skewed to favor pseudoscience. Archaeologists are in part to blame for this, as there has traditionally been very little effort to disseminate archaeological information through media. Not that there has been no positive archaeology centric media, there are shows such as Wild Archaeology, and podcasts like The CRM Archaeology Podcast, Heritage Voices, and the ArchaeoTech Podcast. However, these garner much less viewership than the less credible, more sensationalistic forms of media. Do these fall into the cycle of archaeologists creating content which only circulates within the archaeological community? How can archaeologists better disseminate archaeological information through media?
Most archaeological information is circulated to other archaeologists through academic articles, something that the public cannot be expected to easily access or understand. To reach a wider audience archaeologists could attempt to tailor content in formats which are more easily digestible to the public such as short, but informational videos depicting the excavation of a site, the importance of the work, and the findings of their research. One potential solution is through streaming sites such as YouTube, which allows users to create a channel and post content. A YouTube channel could be linked through an affiliated museum website, a CRM company website, or it could be an archaeologist’s personal channel. Archaeologists could utilize these forms of digital media to promote the dissemination of information. Perhaps archaeologists should begin dedicating more resources to various social media platforms and the content being produced. Recoding site excavations via go pro or using drone footage in these videos could help the public to understand the archaeological process as well.
One way archaeologists could express ideas through digital media is by utilizing an animation style called kinetic typography. This animation style uses animated text to grab the viewers’ attention while explaining an idea or topic. Background images of archaeological sites or artifacts could be used and a voice over could be included to help to further the viewers’ understanding. I created the video below as an example of how archaeologists could use this type of animation.
This video only took about 20 minutes to create. Archaeologists have a responsibility to use the various forms of digital media to disseminate accurate information to the public, because the without it the public will be more widely exposed to pseudoscientific information. These short videos could be posted on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. to reach a wider audience. Promoting other forms of good archaeological media could be done through social media platforms as well. Should archaeologists be doing more to educate the public about the field of archaeology through media? Are there dangers to creating digital media content? Are these potential dangers worth the continued gatekeeping of archaeological information? Because as it stands now if you google ‘archaeology tv shows’ the first result is Ancient Aliens.
One of the many negative impacts of climate change is that archaeological sites around the world are facing increasing threat from extreme weather. Rising sea levels in particular threatens almost, if not all, coastal archaeological sites. The SCAPE Trust, along with the University of St. Andrews and Historic Environment Scotland undertake archaeological research projects on Scotland's coast. This is done by professional archaeologists, along with members of the public, using field excavation and digital archaeology methods. A significant aspect of the SCAPE Trust is the public engagement aspect; local archaeological groups, made up of non-archaeologists who have an interest in their area's archaeological past, monitor sites and provide SCAPE with data on erosion and requests for mitigation work.
One of SCAPE's most famous projects is their 4D reconstruction of the Wemyss Caves. These caves are located on the coastline between East Wemyss and Buckhaven in Fife, Scotland. These caves contain Pictish carvings and are under significant threat from coastal erosion. Additionally, these caves are of significant importance to local residents. In 2013, the York Archaeological Trust, along with SCAPE and the Save the Wemyss Ancient Caves Society (SWAC) spent a week took aerial photographs and laser scanned the Wemyss Coast. Notably, volunteers from SWAC and the general public undertook RTI photography and processed the carvings. The goal of these digital methods was to create a digital reconstruction of the Wemyss Caves and coastline, so that the caves can continue to exist and be engaged with in some capacity, as they are being lost to coastal erosion,
Members of the public undertaking RTI photography of the Wemyss Caves, source: https://scapetrust.org/wemyss-caves-4d-continues/, and https://scapetrust.org/digital-future-for-wemyss-caves-pictish-carvings/
Members of the public who did not partake in fieldwork, participated in the project in other ways. Local residents digitized additional information on the Wemyss Caves; they scanned old photos which were crowdsourced from local residents, as well as recorded discussions of their own memories of the Wemyss Caves.
A local ex-miner discussing a game which is traditionally played by locals in the Crown Cave of the Wemyss Caves, https://vimeo.com/200385730
The final 4D reconstruction of the Wemyss Caves can be found here, http://www.4dwemysscaves.org/. This reconstruction allows you "walk" within the caves and engage with and learn about different aspects of the caves, from the Pictish carvings to evidence of locals visiting the caves in more recent periods.
I think the SCAPE Trust's Wemyss Cave project is a wonderful example of the possibilities of digital methods in archaeology. The use of digital methods allows for the Wemyss Caves to be reconstructed in such a way that they are still accessible, even though the actual Caves are being lost to coastal erosion. It also allows for the Caves to be reached by a wider audience; would any of us know about the Wemyss Caves if they weren't reconstructed digitally by this project?
Additionally, the inclusion of the public allows community outreach, manpower, and for a wider interpretation of the archaeological material. I think this exemplifies that the value of an archaeological site is not only from their individual existence, but also from their placement within a wider cultural landscape.
What do you guys think? Do you think that digital technologies and methods such as these should be more widely applied to archaeological remains, especially those that are threatened? Is a digital reconstruction really a suitable substitute for the actual thing? Should we be making digital reconstructions of all archaeological sites, even those that aren't threatened, as a preemptive measure? If a digital reconstruction and the interpretations of the people who made it is all we have left, can we still learn from these? Or are we limited by this? Do you think including the public in such an in-depth way has value? Are there potential issues with having untrained people provide archaeologists with data on sites?
Recently, I encountered a book titled Finite Media: Environmental Implications of Digital Technologies written by Sean Cubitt in 2017. A few pages of reading his Energy chapter stimulates my thoughts for this post. He describes the fact that our online activities and the use of many digital platforms such as Google, YouTube, Twitter supported by the remote data centers and cloud computing techniques have been energy-intensive and thus ecologically hostile (each Google search emits 0.2 grams of co2, e.g.). One thing that especially catches my eye is that he states that the power cut event is instructive ( we would immediately recall the Texas power cut this year), in a way that it reminds us how profound we, as well as our devices that are critical to our routine lives, have been dependent on electricity. Without electricity, future archeologists will not be able to understand any of our digital language or practices because they cannot start the devices.
His few points make me think about how our taken-for-granted concept of progress (that technology can promise infinite development, that progress is linear, etc.) have shaped our thinking and application of digital archeology. While we are excited about the digital future of archeology, we seem to pay less attention to the issue of archeology going digital per se. According to Cubitt, energy is finite. This is not only because that energy is subjected to the law of physics (entropy), but also, I would add, to the finite capacity of the planet to absorb and dispense heat generated by energy emission. It is not insane to imagine (as this is already presented in the Japanese film Survival Family) that at some point the Earth or the Universe would go mad and humans lose electricity and magnetic power to use any digital and electronic devices. In a continuously degrading ecological environment, humans in the future might have to compete for the use of digital space within the limits of energy use and emission. And this hypothesis could pose challenging questions to the current and future digital archeology development. Since our political-economic pursuits are progress-led (provided it remains unchanged at the time), will the archeology be considered secondary and less important and thus deserve less digital resources since it is about preserving the past rather than looking to the future? Will the archeology be "sacrificed" to leave space to more routine (such as communications) and more urgent (such as sustainable planning) and more advanced (space exploration) needs? How could digital archeology prepare for a competitive digital landscape in the future? Please feel free to point out any problems with my hypothesis and questions.
I was recently reading an article from the Block Club Chicago which discusses the use of digital technologies by the Field Museum in Chicago to bring elements of their collection to a wider audience. This article comes from June of last year, when things with the pandemic were still relatively new and many museums weren't able to be open to visitors. During this time, The Field Museum partnered with Interspectral, a 3D-visulation software company, to release 3D models of the museum's mummies to the public through the company's software 'Inside Explorer'. The software is available through the application 'Steam' and the museum's content can be purchased as additional downloadable content for the software. The packages of downloadable content range from $4.65-$6.99 CDN and require the purchase of 'Inside Explorer' for $17.49 CDN in order to use it. While the museum is unlikely to be making enough profit from this downloadable content to subsidize the income they've lost from ticket sales during the pandemic, this could be seen as a relatively inexpensive and accessible way to get wider audiences interested in and engaged with museum content. Although the software has not received many reviews on Steam (with only three total), two out of the three reviews leave positive comments regarding the useability of content and price points. However, I think it is important to delve further into the purpose/intentions of this technology and whether or not it achieves its aims.
Video: Promotional video included on the Steam page for the "Inside Explorer: The Gilded Lady" dowloadable content.
The somewhat obvious answer for the purpose/intentions of the software is to allow individuals to engage with museum materials in a different way and perhaps draw in different audiences, particularly in a time when people aren't able to make it to the museum to engage with this content in person. This seems to be supported by the statement of JP Brown, the Regenstein conservator of the museum: "[We] want to 'reach an entirely new audience and hopefully evoke interest for natural science, biology, and history among people who are usually not exposed to this kind of scientific content'" (Chilukuri 2020). But what does it mean to have individuals engage with museum materials and what aspects are we looking for them to engage with? From looking at the video and images used to promote the downloadable content (sampled above and below), there appears to be little contextualization of the scanned remains as those of a once-living individual. Rather, they appear to be objectified; scanned and modeled as a commodity for "virtual dissection". There appears to be no discussion as to why CT scans and X-rays are a beneficial and often-utilized technology for studying bioarchaeological remains, nor caution for the risks of destructive analyses of these materials.
Image: Promotional image included on the Steam page for the "Inside Explorer: The Gilded Lady" downloadable content, letting individuals know that "if [they] drag the scissor tool toward the mummy, [they] can open up the skull and see the resin inside."
While this simplified focus on "what's inside" fits well with the content of the software and may have been the educational focus for the museum, should this be considered a sufficient goal? Should we be prioritizing the evidence we find over information about the processes or people behind them? It could be argued that it is beneficial to present information in a contained way, so as not to overwhelm the audience with information. However, I would argue that museum materials that don't allow for an acknowledgement of the nuance, subjectivity, and lived experience behind these remains limit the ability of the audience to think critically about the content with which they are engaging, and in so doing, do a disservice to the public, the collection, and academic communities.
But, I'd like to hear the opinions of others. Do you see a benefit for technologies such as this in museum practices? Do you think that the current standard of these technologies is sufficient? And do you see a future for this technology in museums, particularly with the large-scale changes in educational industries following Covid-19?
References
Chilukuri, S. (2020, June 26). What's inside a mummy? Field museum will let you explore 3d models of mummies from your couch. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/26/whats-inside-a-mummy-field-museum-will-let-you-explore-3d-models-of-mummies-from-your-couch/
Interspectral. (n.d.). Inside Explorer: The Gilded Lady. Retrieved March 23, 2021, from https://store.steampowered.com/app/1338870/Inside_Explorer_The_Gilded_Lady/
The University of Illinois has recently developed a game-based virtual archaeology
field school that students can use to fulfill their field school
requirement.In this virtual field
school, students can excavate a cave site that was modelled after a real archaeological
site excavated in the 1930s.Students must learn how to
operate various tools within the game, as well as perform excavations, catalogue
materials, and even perform laboratory analyses.There are also actual risks when digging in-game, if
the students are not careful while excavating the walls of their unit can
collapse. They designed this virtual field school with accessibility in mind, as many students often have to take time
out of their summer to participate in field schools, often forgoing summer
jobs.This can be a financial burden, as
traditional field schools can be quite pricey as well.The virtual field school is much more
inclusive for students who have physical disabilities which can prevent them
from participating in traditional field schools.
Technological
advancements, such as this, are certainly great methods of increasing
the accessibility of archaeology. These types
of virtual programs are no doubt of significant importance in this time of
Covid as well. There are aspects of this
program, such as the lab analysis, which are not always present in traditional
field schools and can add to the student's understanding of the full process of
archaeology. This program will likely be
fine-tuned as it is taught to more students, and they submit their end-of-term course
reviews detailing what can be improved. How will this program change
over the years? As VR technology continues to advance, perhaps the realism of
this field school will advance with it.
Will we begin to see programs like this being adopted by other
universities? Does a program like this really prepare students for the reality
of archaeological fieldwork? Are there aspects of a real-world excavation,
such as the physicality of it, that students will be left unprepared for? They state that this is not a replacement for field school but if students can fulfill their field school requirement with this course is it not acting as a replacement? It is interesting to think about applications
for this outside of academia as well. Maybe we will begin to see this being
used in CRM companies as a training tool for new employees. Another possibility is that it could be added
to a gaming platform like Steam as an archaeology simulator. Overall, we should expect to see quite a few
developments in this area in the next few years.
The rate of
CRM projects related to development in Ontario is high. Sites are being
excavated rapidly and the textual and photographic records (print and digital)
are stored for safe keeping and potential future use. We know that excavation
records are only as useful as they are detailed and well-documented. In terms
of print records, handwriting can be difficult to read, field documents can get
lost, and the usefulness of the field records are at the mercy of those
recording the data. Handwritten records digitized after the fact are subject to
human error and interpretation of the documents. Records that are produced
digitally using a field computer and other technologies reduces the risk of
misreading the text and helps to keep records organized. The more automated a
process is, the less risk there is of human error and inconsistencies.
Digital
recording technologies like apps and cameras are useful but are still mediated
by their human users and the decisions they make. At the same time, the user is
limited by the technologies’ capabilities. As technologies become more advanced
and user friendly, they become more accessible to users and become useful for
the average archaeologist conducting survey and excavation. The example that
comes to mind is a handheld GPS mobile mapper. This
is more advanced than earlier models of the same, and the original compass and
map. As our society becomes more accustomed to using handheld devices and
applications that cater to the non-tech savvy folk, using technologies like a
mobile mapper or even a UAV to survey a landscape or site, will produce more
information accurately in a shorter amount of time than using less advanced or
non-digital method. If cost is not an issue, using data collecting technology is
arguably more efficient and effective allowing time and human resources to be
used elsewhere and data to be neatly stored to be used later.
If data
collection is becoming more efficient, would it not make sense to collect as
much information as possible in as many forms as possible to create a more thorough
record of a site? Field notes, photos, UAV imagery, and other digital photography
and mapping can add so much information to the site record to be used by future
archaeologists interested in a site that has been long excavated.
I see great
potential in the use of 3D landscape or site modelling throughout the
excavation process to capture more in-depth documentation of the stratigraphy, spatial
information, and other aspects of each stage of an excavation. If the 3D
modelling technology being used can produce models with enough precision and
detail, future archaeologists wanting to review a site excavation or who is wanting
to answer a new question not previously explored at an excavated site, they
would have more data to use which ideally would allow for better interpretation
of the site in retrospect. Furthermore, the more variety of media used, the
more likely it is that information missing in one part of the documentation will
be revealed through other media (e.g., video, photographs, or models can fill
in the gaps of vaguely or poorly written field notes.
Campana and
Remondino (2014) explain that there has been quite a bit of 3D modelling of
artifacts, unexcavated or fully excavated sites, and reconstructed material
culture, but that the lack of 3D modelling to assist with site interpretation
is a shame (40). They state that “3D [modelling] should constitute a bridge
between knowledge and communication” (40).
If the
excavation process is better documented, the interpretations of the site can be
questioned, reviewed, and supported or critiqued. This allows for better
engagement with other archaeologists and allows for a more transparent practice.
Moreover, the 3D data can be used to view the site from different angles, with
different lighting, and can be used to add more accurate spatial data to the
record. I see this method as being particularly useful for CRM sites in Ontario
that are quickly excavated but may be used for future studies.
Here is a short, but interesting example of this in
action:
Do you see a future in archaeological excavation that
uses 3D modelling of a site excavation process as standard practice? What benefits
or obstacles do you see limiting the fruition of such a practice?
This is a clip from the movie Chinese Zodiac in which Jackie Chan plays a master thief who specializes in stealing historical artifacts. He secretly uses a glove with 3D scanning capabilities to quickly scan the artifacts, and the data is transmitted in real-time to a studio in another location. His colleagues can use this data to quickly conduct 3D printing of the object. The whole process is fast and clean.
Such a process may seem very sci-fi, but it is not beyond our reach. The existing technology is already very close to what the film has presented. For example, we have discussed The KAP recording system for archaeological excavation, which has a variety of digital recording tools, networks, and data storage centers that can record the entire process of archaeological excavation in real-time and in an efficient way. Meanwhile, it is with the ability to transmit, store and distribute data. As digital technology continues to advance, I believe we will soon be able to reach the technological level as shown in the film.
However, the tremendous improvement in digital archaeological technology is notable with ethical problems, just as the film shows. When I attended an academic conference in China, a professor pointed out straightly that the most advanced archaeological techniques and talents in China are not in the universities, but among the average public (such as tomb robbers and relic traffickers). This may be an overstatement, but as far as I know, the underground trafficking of fake antiques is rampant in China and many other Asian countries. Those who can utilize 3D scanning and printing technology to create highly simulated vases, porcelain, and other small objects would be able to produce and sell these things to people who cannot distinguish the authentic ones from the fake ones. As a result, while some might be excited and bright about advanced digital archaeological technology, I wonder whether scholars of this field are ready to confront, investigate, and scrutinize the grey or black industry affiliated to the new technology and its impact on the aesthetic and cultural values of the historical items. How would we evaluate such a profit-seeking phenomenon with the use of digital archeology?
Collecting archaeological data digitally, assuming the
person doing so are competent with the technology, allows archaeologists to
manage (record, store, search, and manipulate) data both efficiently and effectively.
Using a GPS mobile mapper or UAV technology to map a site, for example, can
provide an accurate and detailed record of where sites, features, and artifacts
are in relation to each other and where they are located in space. Using these
technologies to map sites compared to the traditional methods of using hand drawn
maps and a compass has made site map making easier and more reliable. This is one
simple example, but the possibilities of efficient data collection and
management using digital tools are vast and exciting. However, I think that many
users of these fieldwork improving technologies are amazed at the capabilities
and promise of them but neglect to consider the work it takes to ensure the continued
recollection and use of the data and the maintenance required for it. Early in
the development of the field of digital archaeology, Ross and Gow (1992) did in
fact explore this topic. They comprehensively examined and outlined the work required
in ensuring data remains digitally accessible and relevant. The authors discuss
the issues of technological obsolescence, physical damage and use wear of hardware,
incompatibilities between newer and older software and hardware, and other threats
to data. Machines need to be physically maintained; cleaning, software updating,
special storage needs (e.g., humidity-controlled rooms), and specialists in specific
technologies (especially of obsolete technologies) are required. What happens if
a fire or natural disaster wipes out a data storage facility? Of course, we have
reached new levels of protection with internet clouds backing up data, but this
is still a threat for unbacked up data. More relevant to our present-day circumstances,
what if someone hacks into a database or data becomes corrupted in some way
making it irretrievable or unreadable? The list of possible threats and
safeguards is long, but my point is not to address these threats, but rather to
remind archaeologists (and other professionals) new to digital methods of data
collection and storage of the resources required for upkeep and ensuring long-term
usability. It might be easy to get caught up with how technology is benefitting
one’s research methods without making a comprehensive long term data management
plan. As a responsible archaeologist engaging with digital methods and tools,
this is imperative to ensuring the data collected is available and useable for
future generations.
Reference:
Ross, S. and Gow, A.1999. Digital Archaeology: Rescuing Neglected and
Damaged Data Resources. A JISC/NPO Study within the Electronic Libraries (eLib)
Programme on the Preservation of Electronic Materials. Project Report. Library
Information Technology Centre, South Bank University, London. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/100304/
Our upcoming class for this week is going to include a conversation with Dr. Shawn Graham as well as discussions on archaeology and social media. These upcoming discussions have had me actively thinking about an issue relevant to archaeology that I think a lot of us are unaware of: the human remains trade on social media. I think most of us are aware of the illicit antiquities trade; when archaeological sites are looted and destroyed for the purpose of selling artifacts on the worldwide antiquities market. However, this is not limited to material remains. Human remains are frequently sold on the global antiquities market, particularly via social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram.
In the case of Instagram, the platform's terms of service prohibit "illicit activities". However in reality a variety of illegal activities, from the sale of drugs to exotic animals to human remains, go relatively unchecked on the platform. Additionally, legislation on the sale of human remains varies depending on local jurisdiction and often focuses primarily on the de-accessioning of museum collections. Therefore, the sale of human remains on Instagram tends to fall within various loopholes.
It might seem that the trade in human remains on social media is removed from the discipline of archaeology. However, this practice is reminiscent of archaeology's colonial past; when Western antiquarians and early archaeologists plundered artifacts from archaeological sites and brought them home, and filled cabinets of curiosities. Those cabinets of curiosities eventually became museums, and the discipline has since begun the work of addressing its colonial past through repatriation and discourse on decolonizing archaeology. However, the ideas, rhetoric, and jargon behind cabinets of curiosities is alive and well on social media sites. Commonly used terms on posts related to the sale and modification of human remains include "oddity", "oddities", "macabre", "curiosity", "curiosities", and "antique".
The human remains trade on social media is a relatively new area of research. It highlights questions of power, agency, commodification, and connectivity. For many collectors of human remains, there does not appear to be an ethical problem. The language which is used to describe human remains acts to remove all humanity and agency from these remains. They are no longer human, rather they are objects without agency which can therefore be bought and sold "legally". Additionally, collectors partake in a practice that allows them to curate their own assemblage of artifacts and apply their own value to these remains, while creating feelings of community and connectivity with other collectors. Overall, the sale of human remains online invites us to reflect on the legacy of archaeology. While we might be working to decolonize the field of archaeology, archaeology's colonial past is alive and well in the public sphere and goes relatively unchecked on these platforms. Are we doing enough as archaeologists do counter the legacy of archaeology outside of the bubble of academia?
Sources:
Huffer, D. and Graham, S. 2018. Fleshing Out the Bones: Studying the Human Remains Trade with Tensorflow and Inception. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1 (1), pp. 55-63. http://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.8
Huffer, D. and Graham, S. 2017. The Insta-Dead: The rhetoric of the human remains trade on Instagram. Internet Archaeology, 45. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.45.5
Climate
change has drastic effects around the globe, the risk of sea levels rising from
the melting ice caps present a danger for archaeologists as coastal
archaeological sites are put at a high risk of erosion. However, GIS technology has given
archaeologists an opportunity to better visualize the rates of coastal erosion
and at-risk archeological sites. A current example of this would be at the coastal town of Tuktoyaktuk
in the Northwest Territories, Canada. This
image, taken from Mike O’Rourke’s Ph.D.
thesis (2018), shows the erosion rate of the coastline
at Toker Point, near Tuktoyaktuk. O’Rourke
uses GIS technology to map the rate of coastal erosion in this area. The red line displays the coastline from the 1950s and the green line shows the coastline in 2004. This research displays that there has been a
significant loss of land around Tuktoyaktuk from both rising sea levels and
coastal erosion. O’Rourke’s research also
assists with predicting which archaeological sites on the coast are at risk
from this rapid erosion. The rate of
coastal erosion was found to pose a severe risk to the current-day occupants of
the town of Tuktoyaktuk as well.
Another example of this from Reeder, et
al., (2012) which looks at the use of GIS in California’s Santa Barbara
Channel region. Reeder et al.,
(2012) focuses on coastal erosion from climate change as well as the potential for
urban development in the area. This
image displays archaeological sites which were coded according to a cultural
resource vulnerability index. Red
indicates a site at high-risk, and blue indicates a low-risk site. The aim of this research was to quantify the most vulnerable archaeological sites in the Santa Barbara Channel and it was found that 57 sites were classifiedas very high-risk and 270 sites were at high-risk.
Both examples utilize GIS to identify high-risk
archaeological sites, and this research could assist with the mitigation
of these sites. Although it would be
impossible to excavate all at-risk sites, it certainly helps archaeologists to
determine where archaeological work should be performed. Can this work also be used to increase
collaboration with descendent communities? Could descendent communities gain more agency in archaeological work by informing archaeologists which
of the at-risk sites should be prioritized? If archaeologists were to disseminate this information, in the form of the maps seen above, assist with public engagement in archaeology? At the very least, these maps can clearly illustrate the impact of climate change and coastal erosion on coastal communities. Please leave any thoughts you have in the comments below!
We are all aware of the unethical practices of early
explorers, anthropologists, and archaeologists who have taken cultural objects
to study, preserve, and display in museums to the broader public. In response
to this colonial act, and the subsequent separation of cultural material from
descendant communities, some researchers are looking to virtual or digital
repatriation of cultural objects as a solution or, in some cases, an interim
solution to repatriating material objects to the communities they belong to. In
situations where laws like the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) do not apply, such as between international borders,
creating digital access to cultural materials seems like the next best option.
3D scans of artifacts and related artifact or site information can be shared
with communities. New technological advances in high resolution imagery, such
as UAV (drone) imagery, 360⁰ photos, and virtual reality increase the ways
in which communities can interact with and reconnect with their material
culture. Although these technologies increase opportunities to reconnect
communities with their material past and promote cultural learning, I question
what is lost by not repatriating the physical object. Can we equate digital
repatriation of material culture with repatriation of the actual artifacts?
Two issues come to mind. The first is that
researchers, often not affiliated with the descendant culture, are choosing
which objects to represent and how to display them. There is a sort of lens,
influenced by the creator’s decision-making and the technological limitations
surrounding the digitizing project. As a result, the people interacting with
the digital material are viewing the material culture after it has been
filtered through the processes. This could lead to objects being represented in
culturally inappropriate or irrelevant ways. This issue could be mitigated, of
course, by including descendant communities in the digitization and curatorial
process to ensure their cultural values are being represented. Despite
collaborative efforts, what might still be lacking in a digital representation,
compared to the real artifact?
The second issue that comes to mind is about
artifacts whose value is intrinsic in their physical properties. For example,
an object belonging to a deceased family member might be valuable because that
person owned, touched, and used that object. What about objects that are considered
sacred or have some sort of spiritual quality assigned to them? In most cases,
the digital representation of these objects would not suffice.
How then do we speak about digital or virtual
repatriation? Do we equate it with material repatriation? Do we differentiate
it as something lesser than material repatriation, as in an option we take when
material repatriation is not possible? Or are there other considerations we
must examine?
If you would like to learn more about how virtual/digital repatriation
is being practiced, take some time to explore these projects:
You may recall we were talking about authenticity, accuracy and immersiveness when it came to computer games like the Assassin's Creed series of games, and I provided you earlier with a link to a video of one of the historical tours of the Origins game in the series, set during the Peloponesian Wars in Athens, plus or minus 2400 years ago. Well check out this video of two Classical Scholars touring the game, including Kathleen Lynch from the University of Cincinnati, an archaeologist who's worked for 25 years on the archaeology of Athens. It is an insightful, and impressed, reaction to the effort at accuracy offered up by Ubisoft, the game designers. But was this level of detail necessary, do you think? What does this level of archaeology "Easter egg" accuracy in the game impart, beyond one part impressing an expert, and one part inviting quibbles over details? Is this something archaeology should be trying to do more broadly to immersive people in the pasts we explore?
When I was searching the video display of Assassin's Creed on Youtube, I encountered an animated Chinese painting named Qing Ming Shang He Tu (清明上河图 1085-1145) . It is a painting showcasing the prosperity of the daily life of Bianjing, the capital of Northern Song China (960-1127), during the Qingming Festival (a traditional Chinese festival for reverence of ancestors). I have known this painting since I took history courses in my middle school. And I was very surprised to learn the antique painting is digitalized and animated now. The painting is famous for depicting the street scenario and natural landscape along the river in a very specific and delicate way: over 800 people along with a number of livestock, ships, buildings, vehicles, trees, etc. are included in the painting. When I looked at the animated painting, and followed the movement of the scope that zooms in and out the living details, not only I obtained a deep aesthetic experience (the video is also accompanied with music), but I was also amazed by the way digitalization, especially the Virtual Reality (VR) technique, could play a role in learning the history and its products.
Qing Ming Shang He Tu
Animated Version
Similar to Assassin's Creed, the Chinese painting takes advantage of VR to mimic a historical space where it can immerse audience experience in an established setting. The audiences are expected to gain more interactive experience while they are placed in the space: they could orient towards where they want to see, stop at any point they want to scrutinize, or choose their own route to explore the scene. Different from Assassin's Creed, the VR setting of the painting is based on an existing material, which supplies enough details and contextual information to the animated version, while the setting of Assassin's Creed is completed with incomplete historical data and imagination of the technicians (I had a bit more elaboration about this in my comments to on February 2, 2021). Moreover, the aims of the game and of the Chinese painting are different: the former is more entertainment-oriented, while the latter is more conservation- and education-oriented. (feel free to disagree with me)
Qing Ming Shang He Tu
VR Version
The worsening environmental condition caused by climate change, economic development projects, and other man-made damages have been posing threat to the preservation of historical sites and objects. How to effectively protect cultural heritage has become an urgent problem. And the solution to this does not merely rest on national departments, scholars and organizations. The public should also be involved in this process of retaining the material completeness of the common history. And to achieve this, the public needs to be educated and motivated. In this case, can VR be a promising tool in this regard? My understanding is that, through VR technology, people can either enter the space of the historical site by wearing VR glasses, and they can freely rotate their bodies to see the details in different directions; or they can exercise close observation of the historical collection by simply clicking the mouse or tapping the screen. The process could be made fun and exciting as much as possible with this more interactive technology. Distance between humans and objects is thus dissolved. However, whether and how this could be a start point to build deeper connections, and raise public awareness of historic preservation, is still unclear. Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comment box.
I previously introduced the idea of storing archaeological data with DNA encoding. Unfortunately, there are some concerns if this technology is further explored in archaeology. In theory, this technology should help remove some bias from future historical narratives and data sets, ensuring we don’t have to personally decide what digital data we have room to store or whether it’s worth transferring old data to new storage technology to avoid it being lost or forgotten. Without needing to prioritize information, everything could be encoded for the future. However, is this okay? Or could this lead us blindly into ‘preservation by record’?
Although we have the potential to preserve “everything,” the number of decisions leading to the data encoding cannot be forgotten. Future researchers must not assume the record is “everything.” Our interpretation of archaeological and heritage material needed to transform the material into a binary code itself is a potentially problematic procedure. Different forms of digital archaeology already risk the loss of cognitive and experiential aspects of heritage. After this heavy alteration from being transformed into binary computer code, transformed into a strain of DNA, and then reversed in processual to the original digital data set, distance from these aspects is, even more, a risk. This could cause a potentially damaging distance between the material and its cultural context, an issue that has already been discussed in lecture.
Also, is it our right to preserve archaeological and heritage material “forever”? Some communities require images of deceased individuals to be destroyed to let the individual pass to their next life. Some material culture also requires burying or destroying when no longer in use. Would storage in organic, living material affect these issues?
The proper care, handling, and long-term storage of material in archaeology is an ethical disciplinary problem that must be considered. Is the potential for LONG term digital storage a proper solution to this? Would this method be any better than storing material in locked boxes, warehouses, off-site facilities, out of sight and out of mind? Could the potential distance created between material and context exacerbate this issue? Or do you believe this technological advancement could drive critical discussions on ethics and improve our practice?
One thing is for sure, this technology would require interdisciplinary teams and descendant communities must work together to ensure proper care of archaeological and heritage material. The blessing of our discipline is the constant ethical concerns to consider. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Thursday 28 January 2021
Following up on our discussion today, I wanted to share with you one of the historical tours from Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. Here is a video of a tour of the Acropolis in Athens.
For those of you who don't interact with this digital format, this
video will give you a sense of the historical detail worked into this
open world game, and a sense of the kind of tours the game provides.
Take a look and a listen. Why do you think Ubisoft puts such detail in
the game environments,
and tries to capture such accuracy (note the different columns, for
example, and how their placement "makes sense" with various episodes of
building on the Acropolis). Doing so certainly invites both a more
immersive experience, and a sense of authenticity. But can you think of
any issues this practice can raise? Also, this is not an educational
format, per se, definitely a commercial enterprise... so how is the
digital heritage of Athens being leveraged here...and how does it (or
does it?) link to digital archaeological and historical practices?
Archaeologists, well really everyone, are well aware of the fast-paced evolution of technology which drives previous technology to become obsolete. This has become an increasing problem with data being lost, trapped on old forms of technology like floppy disks. Also, if a technology doesn’t become obsolete, the computers and hard drives the information is stored on degrades and becomes unreliable in only a few decades at most. This becomes problematic when previously-collected archaeological assemblages are lost for future researchers and descendent communities. But what if we were able to utilize a storage medium for archaeological data that will never become obsolete? While the future is impossible to guarantee, we may be closer than we know.
What I’m referring to is deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly known as DNA. It already stores all the biological information of living organisms. DNA is made of four organic bases; Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), and Thymine (T). A codon is the combination of three bases (ex. GCA) and instructs cells to create each of the proteins in our bodies. However, this code system can be used for other things too. With 64 possible codons, alphabets and codes are able to be translated into codons as long as the coder and decoder are using the same key. In fact, in 1999 scientists in New York did exactly this, substituting each possible codon for a letter, number, or grammar symbol. By sequencing the strand of DNA, they were able to perfectly decode their secret message after sending it to themselves through the mail. This signalled the rise of DNA cryptography.
However, this doesn’t end with science-enthusiastic spies. By translating the 1’s and 0’s of binary code from the digital archaeological data into DNA codons, data could be translated and stored within synthetic DNA. This method has been proven by UK scientists in 2012 who successfully coded and decoded all 154 Shakespeare sonnets. Following this achievement, Microsoft and the University of Washington encoded 200 megabytes of data, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all in strands of DNA. The theoretical storage capacity of DNA is endless, as synthetic DNA strands can be as long as required. With the half-life of DNA being 500 years, the possibility of data storage is greatly increased. Storing DNA in a cold dark environment enables the possibility of DNA to be preserved for hundreds of thousands of years as well. The oldest human DNA ever sequenced was about 430,000 years old from Spain and the DNA of an extinct ape dating 1.9 million years old from China has even been successfully sequenced. Scientists have also been able to sequence synthetic DNA within a bacterium that allows reproduction for at least 100 generations with zero original data loss incurred. With life sciences and biology continuing to advance and receive funding, it is possible this technology will expand to every market, enabling archaeologists to explore this new form of digital data storage. As long as biological organisms exist, so will DNA.
My next post will explore some ethical considerations that must accompany this technology if it is introduced to archaeological practice.
You may have noticed that we will be reading a couple of articles from an issue in the Journal of Field Archaeology on digital practice in archaeology. As a conference proceedings, it tends to be all over the place in theme. But what is interesting is a take on this publication that talks of archaeology "finally" embracing digital humanities' approach to practice. Interesting, given how deep digital practices and reflexivity we've seen has been in archaeology for so long. In my mind, there is this "re-discovering" the digital in archaeology (the archaeology in the digital?) that pops up again and again, though it tends to re-invent the past in the re-discovery. What tends to happen, mostly, though, is that it tends to widen the definition further... or water it down, depending on your perspective. This have been going on since archaeologists first brought their data to the "computer room/building" to advance new insights... which ironically are now inviting new material research on the making of punch cards !
