Possibilities for the Dissemination of Knowledge Through Digital Media

        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.

-Kaylee 

References 

https://wildarchaeology.com/language-selection-front-page/home-en/

https://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.com/crmarchpodcast

https://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.com/heritagevoices

https://www.archaeologypodcastnetwork.com/archaeotech

https://biteable.com/animated/text/

The Wemyss Caves: Digital Reconstruction and Public Engagement

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?

Sources: 

https://scapetrust.org/

https://scapetrust.org/4d-wemyss-caves/

http://www.4dwemysscaves.org/

https://scapetrust.org/digital-future-for-wemyss-caves-pictish-carvings/

https://scapetrust.org/wemyss-caves-4d-continues/

https://vimeo.com/200385730

Future Archeology: Consider Survival in a Jammed Digital Space

    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. 

Public Engagement through Digital Technologies

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/

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?