Online Tribes and Digital Authority: What Can Social Theory Bring to Digital Archaeology?

Abstract

From early discussions of the disruptive potential of computer technologies for archaeological applications, to the present era of digital archaeology as the technical underpinning of modern archaeological practice, we have continued to debate the potential impacts of digital communication and digital capture and storage on our knowledge, profession and communications. The increased use of digital tools and methods for archaeological research and dissemination, as well as what Roosevelt (2015) has referred to as the shift to the digital paradigm within archaeological practice, leads us to suggest that the impact of this paradigm shift requires careful and critical examination. This article will examine the edges of the disciplines of archaeology and sociology, where we aim to advance our understanding of the relationship between digital technologies and archaeological knowledge from a uniquely social perspective, using the theoretical approaches of both classic and modern sociologists. The application of this lens of sociology to digital archaeology equips us to understand how archaeology and archaeological practice is situated in a social world, which is especially relevant in the Global West, where digital technology is ubiquitous. Through a critical consideration of the complexity of use of digital technologies within digital archaeology, we can begin to shift our focus away from the character and method of tools and workflow, to the background of intellectual power and influence.

Ethical Challenges in Digital Public Archaeology

“…This list is not exhaustive and as Perry and Beale (2015: 160) write, 'that virtually no practitioners have voiced any concern whatsoever about the ramifications of such practice in larger disciplinary and global political economies is disturbing'. We do not yet pay attention enough to the bigger social and political landscape within which our projects, participants and audiences are firmly embedded (Richardson & Lindgren 2017).…”

Whither Digital Archaeological Knowledge? The Challenge of Unstable Futures

“…state, commercial, academic, or public) they are described euphemistically as 'independent' archaeologists. This growing digitally mediated online tribe (O'Neil 2009;Richardson & Lindgren 2017) does not have the backing of, or concomitant obligations to, corporate resources and their associated financing of policies. The archaeological knowledgescape is therefore fragmenting: outside the shrinking national cultural and memory institutions and organisations, independent archaeologists are accumulating discrete and unique knowledge, practices, and personal digital archives, and have little incentive to expend their earnings making available their unique knowledge and source of employment.…”

Towards a Prosthetic Archaeology

“…This kind of digital consciousness is generally rare across the discipline and throughout diverse archaeological projects. Scholars have noted this critical lack (Carter, unpublished manuscript; Coppelstone and Dunne, 2017; Dallas, 2015; Garstki, 2017; Huggett, 2015a, 2015b; Huvila and Huggett, 2018; Morgan, 2012; Perry, 2018; Perry and Beale, 2015; Richardson and Lindgren, 2017; Shanks and Webmoor, 2012; Stobiecka, 2018), which can lead to alarming forms of techno-optimism or even techno-fetishism.…”