Transdisciplinary Archaeology and the Future of Archaeological Practice: Citizen Science, Portable Science, Ethical Science

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

The Proximity of Communities to the Expanse of Big Data

“…In fact, closeness needs to be a starting point for proximity to be a priority. This is different from consulting with communities as a means of ground-truthing hypotheses developed through big data analysis, or the engagement of communities online-something often discussed as a means of making community engagement as expansive as big data collection (Beck 2012;Milek 2018;Richardson 2013;Waterton 2010). Neither of these approaches center on the place-basis and partiality that characterize proximity.…”

A four stage approach to community archaeology, illustrated with cases studies from Dorset, England

“…This recognition of the broad scope of 'community archaeology' is why the guidance itself also has to be broad and general. I have also been told on numerous occasions that there is no need for broad guidance for community archaeology; however, this is directly contradicted by the calls for critical evaluation and ethical practice as discussed above (Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez 2015;Gould 2016;Milek 2018;Brown et al 2018;Oldham 2018).…”

“…However, good practice is not guaranteed and poor practice can be extremely damaging to all involved. This has been recognised and there have been calls for critical evaluation (Gould 2016) and ethical practice (Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez 2015;Milek 2018). Several method and guidance tools for planning and critiquing community archaeology have been published, but most are limited in their application.…”

“…The methods above predominantly assume that community archaeology should be collaborative, communities working in partnership with academic or other archaeologists; however, many archaeologists consider community archaeology to include other forms of working with communities including one-way communication, outreach and educational approaches (Roberts 2017). This article addresses concepts discussed by Milek (2018) under the name 'Open Archaeology,' including citizen science, indigenous archaeology and other forms of participatory archaeology. Simpson and Williams (2008) published two methods for evaluating community archaeology.…”

Decoupling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage

“…The contributions to this issue, themed around 'open archaeology', are positioned in response to discussions of the future of archaeology in a conference session celebrating NAR's 50th anniversary in 2018 (and published in that year's anniversary issue). 2019, the 50th anniversary of Shelley Arnstein's 'ladder of participation' (Arnstein 1969), is a timely year in which to unsettle the assumptions underpinning the common-sense claim that 'Open Archaeology is a pathway to a more ethical archaeological practice' in the future (Milek 2018). My issue with this statement is not that 'open' approaches that invite non-archaeologists to participate in archaeology, often by mobilising new digital technologies, cannot be ethical, but the overly simplistic claim that they necessarily are.…”