Archaeology and the Moving Image

Abstract

Archaeological filmmaking is a relatively under-examined subject in academic literature. As the technology for creating, editing, and distributing video becomes increasingly available, it is important to understand the broader context of archaeological filmmaking; from television documentaries to footage shot as an additional method of recording to the informal 'home videos' in archaeology. The history of filmmaking in archaeology follows innovations within archaeological practice as well as the availability and affordability of technology. While there have been extensive analyses of movies and television shows about archaeological subjects, the topic of archaeological film has been characterized by reactions to these outside perspectives, rather than examinations of footage created by archaeologists. This can be understood to fall within several filmic genres, including expository, direct testimonial, impressionistic, and phenomenological films, each with their own purpose and expressive qualities. Footage taken on site can also be perceived as a form of surveillance, and can modify behaviour as a form of panopticon. Consequently, there are considerations regarding audience, distribution, and methods for evaluation, as these films are increasingly available on social media platforms. This paper explores the broad context for archaeological filmmaking and considers potential futures for the moving image in archaeology.keywords archaeological film, video, history of film in archaeology, social media, digital archaeology

Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge

“…262-264). Their approach is akin to what Morgan [96] (p. 334) characterizes as the phenomenological genre of video recording, providing the viewer with the gaze of the archaeologist and conveying their personal experience of the excavation process, unlike the direct testimonial approach [96] (p. 331) which creates authoritative summaries presenting the conclusions rather than the processes.…”

“…Symbolic experiential knowledge is comparable to Relational Tacit Knowledge (or weak tacit knowledge): knowledge that can be made explicit [86] (pp. [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]. Nonsymbolic experiential knowledge is equivalent to Somatic Tacit Knowledge (or medium tacit knowledge) and is associated with the properties of human bodies and brains, and physical things [86] (pp.…”

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

“…Moreover, the number of disciplines using even the same digital methods and tools is not limited to digital geoarchaeology and digital archaeology. For example, digital dissemination strategies such as open access publishing, repositories, wikis, blogs, photo and video platforms are of highest importance for digital archaeology as well as for nearly all other scientific disciplines nowadays (Bauer et al, 2015;Morgan, 2015;Xia, 2012). Furthermore, the question is if an autonomous discipline arises because of the usage of digital methods.…”

Cine documental y arqueología, una forma de contar el pasado

“…Estas realizaciones audiovisuales son producidas por documentalistas/cineastas y arqueólogos y se utilizan diversos recursos cinematográficos para que un tema de arqueología pueda presentarse como una historia coherente. Son producciones cuyo fin es alcanzar audiencias diversas y heterogéneas, en las que se les permite a los arqueólogos contar sus propias interpretaciones e incluyen entrevistas, relatos y tomas del paisaje (Morgan 2014). Se presenta como un formato que da lugar a una mirada actualizada y descontracturada de la ciencia.…”