Digital Archeology Is Here (and Has Been for a While)

Abstract

Keywords: archeology, opinion, history of archeology, digital archeology, computers in archeology, computational archeologyArchaeology is now fully in a period of experimenting with the computer and gradually adopting it as one of its major tools for research (Whallon, 1972; p. 29).[The volume] is an examination of how approaches to archaeology, both methodological and theoretical, need to intelligently utilize the world of Information and Communication Technology and how this can redefine the potential of archaeology in the twenty-first century (Evans and Daly, 2006; p. 4).The creation of a large databank is to begin soon (Whallon, 1972; p. 41).I want to stop talking about digital archeology. I want to continue doing archeology digitally. This is what Frontiers in Digital Archaeology is about. I echo (Morgan and Eve, 2012; p. 523) the statement that "we are all digital archaeologists. " This statement wants to be radical but is in fact a mundane recognition of a state of normality that has existed for at least 20 years and has described a significant segment of the archeological community for at least 40 years.Evidence of the reality of digital archeology is all around us in the discipline's data collection and curation (Roosevelt et al., 2015), analysis [mainly through GIS, see Conolly and Lake (2006) (2006) and work that builds on it]. Perhaps, the best evidence is the growing prominence of archeology blogs in driving the dissemination and interpretation of results (see Colleen Morgan's middlesavagery or John Hawks' weblog for notable examples in very different regions of the discipline).In this first editorial, I would like to lay the groundwork for the journal as a place primarily to do archeology digitally, rather than as a place to discuss digital archeology. In the social sciences and humanities, we have an unfortunate tendency to make approaches and tools into objects of study (literally, we essentialize them) and to organize the conversation around them.There are meaningful and even heavy conversations about the implications in other fields of the use of new digital tools. We will have those conversations in this journal. But those conversations in other fields have tended to facilitate rather than impede the setting up of things, such as Genbank 1 and arXiv.2 Those conversations have been immensely productive, but they have been more focused and results oriented than I feel they have been so far in archeology. I must admit that I am a bit embarrassed at the public expense involved in the numerous rather sterile meetings in which I have participated about the digital turn in archeology and the setting up of public archives, community GIS, etc., for what so far I consider very little result. The carbon footprint of some of these meetings must have been stupendous. All the right people were at the table (I mean that sincerely), all the right things were said, all the right anxieties were aired out, and all the right authorities were cited. But I do not think the expense so far has been justified by the...

Whither Digital Archaeological Knowledge? The Challenge of Unstable Futures

“…They are difficult to identify clearly and it is very difficult to propose ways of progressing them, let alone execute them. Here we diverge from Costopoulos (2016) who has argued that there is too great a focus on debating digital approaches and tools as objects of study and there is a greater need to emphasise practical applications of these digital tools within archaeology. There remains a need for intellectual engagement, while recognising too much introspective debate can become self-defeating (Huggett 2015b: 89).…”

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

“…Hagmann, 2017a;Langendorf et al, 2017;Morgan, Eve, 2012;Trognitz et al, 2017). However, digital archaeology seems to be neither an archaeological sub-discipline nor its own specialisation, but rather a pool of different theoretical and practical aspects of information technology and their corresponding applications within archaeology (Costopoulos, 2016;. Applying digital methods in archaeology expands the possibilities of creating insights and generating knowledge (Zubrow, 2006).…”

Linking Ontological Classes and Archaeological Forms

“…However, although languages and tools seem to be available and effective, there exist, in general, many limits concerning sharing and standardization of data [3]. A very recent survey made within the AriadnePlus project 6 reports that researchers are not very aware of the issues of data sharing and Linked Data.…”