EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies

Abstract

Inclusive approaches to archaeology (including queer, feminist, black, indigenous, etc. perspectives) have increasingly intersected with coding, maker, and hacker cultures to develop a uniquely ‘Do-It-Yourself’ style of disruption and activism. Digital technology provides opportunities to challenge conventional representations of people past and present in creative ways, but at what cost? As a critical appraisal of transhumanism and the era of digital scholarship, this article outlines compelling applications in inclusive digital practice but also the pervasive structures of privilege, inequity, inaccessibility, and abuse that are facilitated by open, web-based heritage projects. In particular, it evaluates possible means of creating a balance between individual-focused translational storytelling and public profiles, and the personal and professional risks that accompany these approaches, with efforts to foster, support, and protect traditionally marginalized archaeologists and communities.

Centering transgender consumers in conceptualizations of marketplace marginalization and digital spaces

“…In our study, they do so by creating a dedicated space of their own for individualized crowdfunding; however, this introduces unanticipated forms of harm as they take these chances. As Cook (2019, p. 409) writes, hashtag activism movements “have shone a light on the dark underbelly of taking chances: the demand for individuals to step forward and share their voice paints targets on the already vulnerable and marginalized for fear‐ and anger‐filled hate and aggression, repeatedly and relentlessly beating down the voices of change.” Even when a hashtag‐bounded digital space is created by and for marginalized consumers–such as in the case of #TransCrowdFund–the harmful forms of domination seep through its blurry borders. Future research should explore how other cases of crowdfunding through hashtag‐bounded digital spaces and how the dynamics of these highly individualized practices (e.g., crowdfunding for tuition, cancer treatment, adoption fees) unfold.…”

The Use and Challenges of Spatial Data in Archaeology

“…They have found ways of engaging low-resourced communities in digital storytelling and collaborative photogrammetry (Bria and Vasquez 2022), enabling citizen science that further reflects Indigenous communities' autonomy and priorities (Lim et al 2021), and contending with well-meaning but off-target advocational publics online (Emmitt 2022). The use of digital spaces for including Queer, feminist, Black, and Indigenous perspectives have been slowly included into digital archaeological spaces, despite limitations (Cook 2019). The conversation about ableism in archaeology (e.g., Heath-Stout et al 2022) will become increasing relevant in this conversation about not just who has access but how they can access information.…”

Confronting the Present: Archaeology in 2019

“…But the absence is also indicative of the risks that archaeologists take to create a more inclusive discipline. For a number of practitioners, conducting, promoting, or publishing on queer archaeology comes at the expense of their own personal and professional security (Cook 2019). The dilemma of queer archaeology is thus a reminder of the challenges of forging a future archaeology of inclusivity when it comes at the possible expense of its already marginalized and vulnerable members.…”

“…The epistemics and ethics of a more‐than‐human discipline have yet to be fleshed out. The bricolage of cyborg archaeology presents an opportunity for inclusive, disruptive, do‐it‐yourself archaeologies to abound (Cook 2019); for creative, rebellious, alternative pasts to flourish (Morgan 2019; Tringham 2019); for affinity‐based coalitions to assemble against the status quo (Haraway 1985). But are technology‐laden archaeologies better archaeologies (Chilton 2014)?…”