Taking Mobile Computing to the Field

A Google-Based Freeware Solution for Archaeological Field Survey and Onsite Artifact Analysis

“…The final set of requirements was related to the characteristics of the software and programming tools used for designing our data management workflow. Apple devices have been preferred for archaeological fieldwork (see, e.g., Fee et al 2013; Motz and Carrier 2013; Reed et al 2015). Android equipment, on the contrary, has been much less utilized, but does offer some major advantages, the most relevant of which is, in our opinion, price.…”

“…are relatively low-priced and user-friendly devices, data repositories and software solutions can be rather expensive or, in the case of free open-source options, complex to manage and integrate, requiring skills in programming that most researchers do not possess. Several solutions have been adopted in this context (Austin 2014): some projects hire programmers to develop custom software (Fee et al 2013), others simply adopt digital mobile technologies utilizing off-the-shelf applications to convert preexistent databases for use on mobile devices (e.g., Ellis and Wallrodt 2011; Houk 2012), and others make use of open-source platforms to modify prefabricated data forms or design new ones (e.g., Smith and Levy 2012).…”

Mobilization as Mediation

“…The media we employ for recording and aggregating ceramic data participate in concealing these processes. Methodological manuals (e.g., Orton and Hughes 2013; Rice 2015; Sinopoli 1991; Velde and Druc 1999) provide many useful suggestions about how typologies might be constructed and applied. In practice, however, much like the organization of labor in archaeological excavations (Leighton 2015, 2016), our classification procedures are generally treated as matters of common sense—steps that are so mundane and unvaried that they do not bear mention in publications and formal presentations of research results.…”

“…Mobile platforms promise a series of mechanical advantages over paper forms, including the possibility of accelerating the speed of data collection, enhancing data richness, and monitoring work in real time when tablets are synced to on-site servers. Published evaluations of the use of mobile devices in archaeology suggest that they are delivering on these promises, and it is likely that the number of projects employing mobile devices will continue to increase (e.g., Austin 2014; Averett et al 2016; Caraher 2013; Cascalheira et al 2017; Ellis and Wallrodt 2012; Fee et al 2013; Jackson et al 2016; Morgan and Eve 2012; Roosevelt et al 2015; Ross et al 2013; Serrano and Martínez 2014; Sobotkova et al 2016).…”

“…Like all typological tasks, ceramic classification entails problems of standardization—ensuring that users apply consistent criteria as they derive data from their observations of artifacts. Yet, while ceramic analysis manuals (e.g., Orton and Hughes 2013; Rice 2015; Sinopoli 1991) contain a great deal of information about the range of variables that the archaeologist should record when analyzing ceramics and address questions about how to organize typologies, they devote relatively little attention to questions of implementation, including how to train researchers, standardize observations, and employ visual guides. In this context, our reflection on using mobile devices to record ceramic data provides an opportunity to “lift the hood” on the affective dimensions of ceramic classification.…”