Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation

Defining what constitute archaeological practices is a prerequisite for understanding where and how archaeological and archaeologically relevant information and knowledge are made, what counts as archaeological information, and where the limits are situated. The aim of this position paper, developed as a part of the COST action Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment (www.arkwork.eu), is to highlight the need for at least a relative consensus on the extents of archaeological practices in order to be able to understand and develop archaeological practices and knowledge work in the contemporary digital context. The text discusses approaches to study archaeological practices and knowledge work including Nicolini’s notions of zooming in and zooming out, and proposes that a distinction between archaeological and archaeology-related practices could provide a way to negotiate the ‘archaeologicality’ of diverse practices

Body Mapping the Digital: Visually representing the impact of technology on archaeological practice.

This paper uses a participatory, art-based methodology to understand how digital and analog tools impact individuals' experience and perceptions of archaeological recording. Body mapping involves the co-creation of life-sized drawings and narratives representing individuals' lived experiences, perceptions, and meanings within their social context. With data gathered during a series of focus groups, this paper explores body mapping as a visual research method in understanding the lived experiences of archaeologists with respect to changes brought about by digital technology. While still ongoing, this research aims to encourage archaeologists to consider their evolving relationships with technology. Preliminary studies suggest that there are significant pedagogical, cognitive, and professional implications to consider when replacing analog with digital approaches in archaeological recording

Art, Creativity and Automation. From Charters to Shared 3D Visualization Practices

In this study, we introduce the themes of the Special Issue on Art, Creativity and Automation. Sharing 3D Visualization Practices in Archaeology, and present the most important outcomes of a roundtable session involving prominent researchers in the field, organized by the authors during the Archon Winter School in February 2020. By assessing the diversity of research aims, artistic projects, creative practices and technology used in the contributions to the Special Issue, and drawing on the thoughts and perspectives generated during the roundtable discussion, we seek to identify shared challenges within the community of visualizers which could ultimately pave the way to shared practices. In this light, we assess whether established charters and guidelines are still relevant in a now matured digital archaeology, where visualization techniques have attained a central position in archaeological knowledge production. Although parts of the guidelines have become common practice, the remainder did not keep up with the fast pace of development of digital practice and its current fundamental role in archaeology, and as a result some of the guidelines risk becoming obstructive in archaeological creative practice.Material Culture Studie

Whither Digital Archaeological Knowledge? The Challenge of Unstable Futures

Digital technology increasingly pervades all settings of archaeological practice and virtually every stage of knowledge production. Through the digital we create, develop, manage and share our disciplinary crown jewels. However, technology adoption and digital mediation has not been uniform across all settings or stages. This diversity might be celebrated as reflecting greater openness and multivocality in the discipline, but equally it can be argued that such diversity is unsustainable, and that standards are insufficiently rigorous. Regardless, all positions face the possibility of being severely tested by some large-scale external event: on every continent we witness economic and political upheaval, violence and social conflict. How is digitally mediated knowledge created, managed, and disseminated by archaeologists today, and how secure are the means by which this is achieved? To investigate this question we apply the futurity technique of scenario analysis to generate plausible scenarios and assess their strategic strengths and weaknesses. Based on this analysis we propose some measures to place archaeology in a more robust knowledgescape without stifling digitally creative disruption

Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation

Defining what constitute archaeological practices is a prerequisite for understanding where and how archaeological and archaeologically relevant information and knowledge are made, what counts as archaeological information, and where the limits are situated. The aim of this position paper, developed as a part of the COST action Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment (www.arkwork.eu), is to highlight the need for at least a relative consensus on the extents of archaeological practices in order to be able to understand and develop archaeological practices and knowledge work in the contemporary digital context. The text discusses approaches to study archaeological practices and knowledge work including Nicolini’s notions of zooming in and zooming out, and proposes that a distinction between archaeological and archaeology-related practices could provide a way to negotiate the ‘archaeologicality’ of diverse practices

Informatica archeologica e archeologia digitale. Le risposte dalla rete

The article illustrates the most recent achievements of archaeological computing, through a systematic survey that starts with the very name of the discipline, as used at national and international levels. The aim is to examine if the distinction made between ‘archaeological computing’ and ‘digital archaeology’ can really be helpful in framing the discipline in its theoretical and methodological evolution. From the synthesis made, the dominance of technological aspects on the theoretical and methodological approach clearly emerges. For some time now, technology has governed the three main areas of archaeological practice: field work, laboratory analysis and cultural heritage management and promotion. Two other important aspects are today rapidly gaining ground: ‘Communicating archaeological research’ and ‘European digital infrastructures for archaeology’. Finally, particularly significant is the sector of Digital Heritage or Heritage Science, which today seems to be the focus of all digital archaeology involvements

Laying the foundation for a digital archaeology in Argentina: The role of e-research infrastructures

En el marco de las políticas públicas relacionadas con el desarrollo de la ciencia y técnica en la Argentina, es cada vez más evidente una orientación dirigida a la implementación de un modelo de ciencia abierta basado en la potencialidad ofrecida por los medios digitales. La arqueología no ha sido ajena a esto y, consciente o inconscientemente, se ha volcado hacia una práctica mediada por “lo digital”. Para este modelo de ciencia, la accesibilidad a los datos primarios y la construcción de infraestructuras digitales para la investigación son prioritarias. Siguiendo esta idea, se implementó el Repositorio Digital Institucional Suquía (IDACOR, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba-CONICET), centrado en datos arqueológicos. En esta infraestructura digital se incluyen diversos tipos de información, que comparten una característica común: su difícil acceso, tanto físico como virtual, en su formato original. Bases de datos, informes, imágenes de excavaciones, de objetos y colecciones arqueológicas, son algunas de las clases de archivos contenidos en el repositorio. Este nuevo tipo de infraestructura se propone como un elemento de cambio en cómo se piensa y realiza la práctica arqueológica, ya que permite el uso y reúso de datos generados por financiamiento público, tanto para la investigación arqueológica, la gestión del patrimonio y la divulgación científica, así como para interesados en la temática.In Argentina, public policies related to scientific and technological development foster an open science model that is based on the potential offered by digital media. Archaeological practice, mainly supported by public funding, has accordingly turned towards a digitally-mediated practice by. For this model of science, accessibility to primary data and to e-research infrastructures is a priority. To this end, the Suquía Institutional Digital Repository (IDACOR, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba-CONICET), focused on the archiving of archaeological data, was implemented. This e-research infrastructure includes various types of information that share a common characteristic: Low accessibility, both physical and virtual, in its original format. Databases, reports, images of excavations, archaeological objects and collections are just a few of the file types that can be found in the repository. This new infrastructure is proposed as a game-changer in how archaeological practice is thought of and carried out, since it allows the use and reuse of data generated by public funding for archaeological research, heritage management, and scientific knowledge dissemination.Fil: Izeta, Andres Dario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Prado, Isabel Edith. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Cattaneo, Gabriela Roxana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Instituto de Antropología de Córdoba; Argentin