3.6.5 Phenomenology and Virtual Archaeology.3.7.3 Archaeogaming Projects Past and Present.3.7.4 Is Archaeogaming Archaeology? A Future of the Discipline.3.8 Social Media as Public Engagement & Scholarly Communication in Archaeology.3.8.2 Social Media to Keep Current on Research.Launch the ‘Introduction to Jupyter’ notebook 6 On the Horizons: Where Digital Archaeology Might Go Next.5.2 Sustainability & Power in Digital Archaeology.5 Digital Archaeology’s Place in the World.4.4 Artificial Intelligence in Digital Archaeology.4.3 Place-based Interpretation with Locative Augmented Reality.4.2 3D Printing, Raspberry Pi and “Maker” Archaeology.3.8.3 Four Moves, or, Getting at the Truth. If you are holding this book in your hands, via a device or on paper, or looking at it on your desktop, you might wonder why we feel it necessary to even ask the question. It is important at the outset to make the argument that digital archaeology is not about ‘mere’ tool use. Andrew Goldstone in Debates in the Digital Humanities discusses this tension (Goldstone 2018). He has found (and Lincoln Mullen concurs with regard to his own teaching, Mullen ( 2017)) that our current optimism about teaching technical facility is misplaced. Tools first, context second doesn’t work. Alternatively, theory first doesn’t seem to work either. We can’t simply turn students loose on a dataset (or worse, ask them to build their own) and expect ‘learning’ to happen.Īnd finally, for anything to work at all, datasets have to be curated and carefully pruned for their pedagogical value. Our approach in this volume is to resolve that seeming paradox by providing not just the tools, and not just the data, but also the computer itself. This puts our volume in dialogue with the work of archaeologists such as Ben Marwick, who makes available with his research, the code, the dependencies, and sometimes, an entire virtual machine, to enable other scholars to replicate, reuse, or dispute his conclusions. We want you to reuse our code, to study it, and to improve upon it. We want you to annotate our pages, point out our errors and make digital practice better. For us, digital archaeology is not the mere use of computational tools to answer archaeological questions more quickly. Rather, we want to enable the audience for archaeological thinking to enter into conversation with us, and to do archaeology for themselves. This is one way to practice inclusivity in archaeology.ĭigital archaeology of the 21st century is necessarily a public archaeology. Public archaeology seeks to promote awareness of what archaeology is, how it is done, and why it matters amongst members of the general audience.
Engagement or working with various publics where there are clear differences in power is central in public archaeology, efforts that are highly variable and contingent on local circumstances.
This is the principal difference with digital work that has come before, for never forget, current scholarship is preceded by at least a half-century of innovative use of computational power for archaeological knowledge building (Ethan Watrall 2017).
Geospatial, digital and Web-based tools are now central to carrying out archaeological research and to communicating archaeological information in a globalized world. Until recently, the accumulation and effective management of digital archaeological data were the primary focus of archaeologists (T. Under this model, scholars emphasize the ‘integration’ into archaeology of computing technologies, and how, by utilizing current available computing memory and processor speed, one does archaeology, only better (P.
0 kommentar(er)
