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/
