Citizen archaeologists. Online collaborative research about the human past

Abstract

Archaeology has a long tradition of volunteer involvement but also faces considerable challenges in protecting and understanding a geographically widespread, rapidly dwindling and ever threatened cultural resource. This paper considers a newly launched, multi-application crowdsourcing project called MicroPasts that enables both community-led and massive online contributions to high quality research in archaeology, history and heritage. We reflect on preliminary results from this initiative with a focus on the technical challenges, quality control issues and contributors motivations.

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology

“…While the specific forms of these events vary they tend to be time (and money) limited and aim to provide the public with experience of archaeological skills and methods, as well as insights into the heritage of their local area. Increasingly these opportunities for public involvement are moving away from excavations towards museum and archive archaeology, including outreach by archaeological archives and online crowdsourcing of archaeological data (Bevan et al 2014). The instigation and execution of projects of this kind are almost always in the hands of the professional archaeologists, sometimes working in partnership with organisations such as schools or community groups (Dhanjal et al 2015;Nevell 2014;.…”

“…see Bonacchi 2012a; Richardson 2013). For instance, one of the drivers behind the eagerness of galleries, libraries, archives and museums to embark on the design of digital engagement programmes is frequently that of reaching out to younger people, who are today (as they have been for decades) under-represented amongst heritage audiences (Bonacchi 2012b(Bonacchi , 2014Merriman 1991;Piccini 2007;Swain 2007). These efforts have proved to be entirely achievable on a substantial number of occasions (e.g.…”

“…CommonSites, DigVentures and MicroPasts). MicroPasts has been the first to experiment jointly with the crowdsourcing of archaeological data, forum discussions about the uses of such data to fuel novel research and the crowdfunding of community archaeology initiatives (Bevan et al 2014). 2012), Perry and Beale (2015) remind us of these potential issues and stress how little is known and researched about the impacts of the 'archaeology-themed' or 'archaeology-relevant' social web on the selfrepresentations of users/ producers, on the discipline of archaeology, on institutional workflows and on societal structures.…”

“…Nevertheless, the 'provision' of archaeology via television and radio broadcast remains worthy of consideration and scrutiny for its function of 'agenda setting', its long-lasting societal impacts (e.g. see Bonacchi 2013), and its more democratic reach amongst audiences with different levels of formal education if compared, for instance, to museum or heritage site visitation (Bonacchi 2014;Piccini 2007). A broadcasting approach to digital engagement can also be embraced directly by heritage organisations and archaeologists.…”

“…This is the case for that kind of crowdsourcing where citizens are asked to help with the recording and digitisation of data (see case study 5.1). Examples are the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which was set up to document metal finds collected by members of the public (often via metal detecting) in England and Wales (Pett 2010(Pett , 2014; or Pleiades, where online contributors help to match 'attested names' of places from the Greek and Roman past with 'measured locations' (Harris 2012: 586).…”