Implications of a Virtual Archaeology Field School

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.    

References 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200129123353.htm

https://www.vrchaeology.com/

Shackelford, L., David Huang, W., Craig, A., Merrill, C., & Chen, D. (2019). Relationships between motivational support and game features in a game-based virtual reality learning environment for teaching introductory archaeology. Educational Media International, 56(3), 183-200.

-Kaylee Woldum

3D Modelling and Archaeological Excavation

 

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:

Excavation at Akko - Documenting the Site in 2D and 3D

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?

Reference:

Campana, Stefano and Fabio Remondino. 2008. Fast and Detailed Digital Documentation of Archaeological Excavations and Heritage Artifacts. Conference Paper presented at the CAAs 2007, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236903295_Fast_and_Detailed_Digital_Documentation_of_Archaeological_Excavations_and_Heritage_Artifacts , Accesses on March 18, 2021,

Ethics in the Application of Digital Archaeological Technology

    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?

Digital Data Collection, Storage, and Future Use: recognizing the resources required to preserve digital data

 

    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/

Archaeology and Social Media: the Trade in Human Remains

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

Use of Geographic Information System (GIS) in Climate Change Archaeology

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 classified as 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!   

-Kaylee       

Virtual/ Digital vs. Material Repatriation: are they equal?

    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: 

Digital repatriation of biocultural collections: connecting scientific and indigenous communities of knowledge in Amazonia

Inuvialuit Living History Project: A Case of Access

 

-Ash