The Social Web and Archaeology’s Restructuring: Impact, Exploitation, Disciplinary Change

• Autorzy: Sara Perry , Nicole Beale
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

From blogs to crowdfunding, YouTube to LinkedIn, online photo-sharing sites to open-source community-based software projects, the social web has been a meaningful player in the development of archaeological practice for two decades now. Yet despite its myriad applications, it is still often appreciated as little more than a tool for communication, rather than a paradigm-shifting system that also shapes the questions we ask in our research, the nature and spread of our data, and the state of skill and expertise in the profession. We see this failure to critically engage with its dimensions as one of the most profound challenges confronting archaeology today. The social web is bound up in relations of power, control, freedom, labour and exploitation, with consequences that portend real instability for the cultural sector and for social welfare overall. Only a handful of archaeologists, however, are seriously debating these matters, which suggests the discipline is setting itself up to be swept away by our unreflective investment in the cognitive capitalist enterprise that marks much current web-based work. Here we review the state of play of the archaeological social web, and reflect on various conscientious activities aimed both at challenging practitioners’ current online interactions, and at otherwise situating the discipline as a more informed innovator with the social web’s possibilities.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

social web; archaeology; digital; heritage; social media; skill; labour; heteromation; neoliberalism; cognitive capitalism

• Wydawca: Sciendo
• Czasopismo: Open Archaeology
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 1
• Numer: 1

Daty

otrzymano

2014-12-12

zaakceptowano

2015-04-14

online

2015-05-19

Twórcy

autor

Sara Perry

• Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, YO1 7EP, UK

autor

Nicole Beale

• Centre for Digital Heritage, University of York, York, YO1 5DD, UK

Bibliografia

• [1] Reilly, P., Rahtz S., Archaeology and the Information Age: A Global Perspective, Routledge, London, 1992
• [2] Miller, P., Richards, J., The good, the bad, and the downright misleading: Archaeological adoption of computervisualisation. In Huggett, J., Ryan, N. (Eds.) Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1994,British Archaeological Reports International Series 600, 1995, 19-22
• [3] Henson, D., Digital media and public engagement in archaeology: an opinion piece, Archäologische Informationen, 2013,36, 13-20
• [4] Smith, L., The Uses of Heritage. Routledge, Abingdon, 2006.
• [5] Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., Ferguson, T., Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities,Altamira, Lanham, 2008
• [6] Conkey, M. Dwelling at the margins, action at the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeologies, Archaeologies,2005, 1(1), 9-59
• [7] Moshenska, G., Schadla-Hall, T. Mortimer Wheeler’s theatre of the past, Public Archaeology, 2011, 10 (1), 46–55
• [8] Shanks, M., Tilley, C. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, 1992
• [9] Tarlow, S., Nilsson-Stutz, L. Can an archaeologist be a public intellectual?, Archaeological Dialogues, 2013, 20 (1), 1-5[Crossref]
• [10] Bintliff, J., Gaffney, C.F. (Eds.) Archaeology at the Interface: Studies in Archaeology’s Relationships with History,Geography, Biology, and Physical Science, British Archaeological Reports, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, 1986,300(i–iv)
• [11] Kintigh, K., Altschul, J., Beaudry, M., Drennan, R., Kinzig, A., Kohler, T., Grand challenges for archaeology, AmericanAntiquity, 2014, 79 (1), 5-24
• [12] Berners-Lee, T., Fischetti, M., Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by itsInventor, Harper, San Francisco, 1999
• [13] Gruber, T., Collective knowledge systems: Where the social web meets the semantic web, Web Semantics: Science,Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2008, 6 (1), 4-13
• [14] Walker, D., Antisocial media in archaeology? Archaeological Dialogues, 2014, 21 (2), 217-235[Crossref]
• [15] Moscati, P., Towards a history of archaeological computing: An introduction, 2014, http://caa2014.sciencesconf.org/46082/document
• [16] Scollar, I., 25 years of computer applications in archaeology. In Dingwall, L., Exon, S., Gaffney, V., Laflin, S., van Leusen,M. (Eds.), Archaeology in the Age of the Internet: CAA 97, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1997, 5-10
• [17] Zubrow, E., Digital archaeology: A historical context. In Evans, T., Daly, P. (Eds.), Digital Archaeology: Bridging Methodand Theory, Abingdon, Routledge, 2006, 10-31
• [18] Graham, S., Watrall, E., A digital archaeology of digital archaeology: work in progress, November 6, 2014, http://electricarchaeology.ca/2014/11/06/a-digital-archaeology-of-digital-archaeology-work-in-progress/
• [19] Kansa, E., Kansa, S., Watrall, E. (Eds.) Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration, CotsenInstitute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, 2011, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb
• [20] Jeffrey, S., A new digital dark age? Collaborative web tools, social media and long-term preservation, World Archaeology,2012, 44 (4), 553-570[Crossref]
• [21] Sayer, F., Politics and the development of community archaeology in the UK, The Historic Environment: Policy andPractice, 2014, 5 (1), 55-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1756750513Z.00000000041/[Crossref]
• [22] Phillips, L.B., The temple and the bazaar: Wikipedia as a platform for open authority in museums, Curator: The MuseumJournal, 2013, 56 (2), 219-235
• [23] Spiliopoulou, A., Mahony, S., Routsis, V., Kamposiori, C., Cultural institutions in the digital age: British Museum’s use ofFacebook Insights, Participations, 2014, 11 (1), 286-303
• [24] Richardson, L., Twitter and archaeology: an archaeological network in 140 characters or less. In Bonacchi, C. (Ed.),Archaeologists and the Digital: Towards Strategies of Engagement, Archetype, London, 2012, 15-24
• [25] Terras, M., The digital wunderkammer: Flickr as a platform for amateur cultural and heritage content, Library Trends,2011, 59 (4), 686-706[Crossref]
• [26] Huvila, I., Engagement has its consequences: The emergence of the representations of archaeology in social media,Archäologische Informationen, 2013, 36, 21-30
• [27] Harris, T., Interfacing archaeology and the world of citizen sensors: Exploring the impact of neogeography andvolunteered geographic information on an authenticated archaeology, World Archaeology, 2012, 44 (4), 580-591[Crossref]
• [28] Richardson, L., The Day of Archaeology: Blogging and online archaeological communities, European Journal ofPost-Classical Archaeologies, 2014, 4, 421-446
• [29] Rocks-Macqueen, D., Webster, C. (Eds.) Blogging Archaeology, 2014, www.digtech-llc.com/s/2014-Blogging-Archaeology-eBook-35vc.pdf
• [30] Bonacchi, C., Bevan, A., Pett, D., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A., Developing crowd- and community-fuelled archaeologicalresearch. Early research from the MicroPasts project. In Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology:CAA14, Paris, April 22-25, 2015
• [31] Steinbach, L., Digital cultural heritage is getting crowded: Crowdsourced, crowd-funded, and crowd-Engaged. In Din, H.,Wu, S. (Eds.), Digital Heritage and Culture: Strategy and Implementation, London, World Scientific, 2014, 261-294
• [32] Jameson Jr., J. H., Toward multivocality in public archaeology: Public empowerment through collaboration. In Scott-Ireton,D. (Ed.), Between the Devil and the Deep: Meeting Challenges in the Public Interpretation of Maritime Cultural Heritage,Springer, New York, 2013, 3-10
• [33] Alcock, S., Dufton, A., Durusu-Tanriover, M., Archaeology for the people: First foray into the world of MOOCs,Anthropology News, 2013, 54 (11-12), 24
• [34] Earl, G., First thoughts from the Portus MOOC, Hestia2 Seminar: Digital pedagogy: How are new technologiestransforming the interface between research and learning?, 2014, 6 June, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LBArmT3XAY
• [35] Ducke, B., Natives of a connected world: free and open source software in archaeology, World Archaeology, 2012, 44 (4),571-579, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.743259[Crossref]
• [36] Bonacchi, C. (Ed.) Archaeology and the Digital: Towards Strategies of Engagement, Archetype, London, 2012
• [37] Giaccardi, E. (Ed.) Heritage and Social Media: Understanding Heritage in a Participatory Culture, Routledge, London, 2012
• [38] Kansa, E., New directions for the digital past. In Kansa, E., Kansa, S., Watrall, E. (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New Approachesto Communication and Collaboration, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, 2011, 1-25, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb
• [39] Law, M., Morgan, C., The archaeology of digital abandonment: Online sustainability and archaeological sites, PresentPasts, 2014, 6 (1), 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.58[Crossref]
• [40] Beale, N., Local Authority Museums and the Web: New Directions for Curatorial Practice, University of Southampton,Southampton, UK, forthcoming, Unpublished PhD thesis
• [41] Richardson, L., Public Archaeology in a Digital Age, University College London, London, UK, 2014, Unpublished PhDthesis http://figshare.com/authors/Lorna_Richardson/606491
• [42] Walker, D., Towards a Decentered Museum: Authority, Museums, and the Web, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK,forthcoming, Unpublished PhD thesis
• [43] Colley, S., Archaeological Communication and Digital Technology Use, in prep.
• [44] Colley, S., Social media and archaeological communication. An Australian survey, Archäologische Informationen, 2014,36, 65-80
• [45] Perry, S., Shipley, L., Osborne, J., Digital media, power and (in)equality in archaeology and heritage, InternetArchaeology, 2015, 38, http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.38.4
• [46] Richardson, L., Online survey data from Twitter and archaeology surveys 2011-2013, Journal of Open Archaeology Data,2014, 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joad.ae
• [47] Perry, S., Changing the way archaeologists work: Blogging and the development of expertise, Internet Archaeology, inpress
• [48] Sylaiou, S., Basiouka, S., Patias, P., Stylianidis, S., The volunteered geographic information in archaeology, ISPRS Annalsof the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 2013, II-5/W1, 301-306
• [49] Pietrobruno, S., Between narratives and lists: Performing digital intangible heritage through global media, InternationalJournal of Heritage Studies, 2014, 20 (7-8), 742-759, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2013.807398[Crossref]
• [50] Austin, M., Archaeological blogging and engagement. In Rocks-Macqueen, D., Webster, C. (Eds.), Blogging Archaeology,2014, 9-19, www.digtech-llc.com/s/2014-Blogging-Archaeology-eBook-35vc.pdf
• [51] Williams, S., Terras, M., Warwick, C., What do people study when they study Twitter? Classifying Twitter related academicpapers, Journal of Documentation, 2013, 69 (3), 384-410
• [52] Clack, T., Brittain, M. (Eds.), Archaeology and the Media, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, 2007
• [53] Perry, S., The Archaeological Eye: Visualisation and the Institutionalisation of Academic Archaeology in London,University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 2011, Unpublished PhD thesis
• [54] Walker, D., Decentering the discipline? Archaeology, museums and social media. Online Journal in Public Archaeology,2014, 1, 77-102
• [55] Richardson, L., A digital public archaeology?, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2013, 23, 10, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.431[Crossref]
• [56] Limp, W.F., Web 2.0 and beyond, or on the web nobody knows you’re an archaeologist. In Kansa, E., Kansa, S., Watrall,E. (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press,Los Angeles, 2011, 265-280, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb
• [57] Hill, L., From field to media fodder: A cautionary tale from the trenches, Cultural Geographies in Practice, 2012, 20 (2),249-255
• [58] Lake, M., Open archaeology, World Archaeology, 44 (4), 471-478
• [59] Law, J., Seeing Like a Survey, 2008, http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2008SeeingLikeASurvey.pdf
• [60] Morgan, C., (ed.) Special Issue: Blogging, Internet Archaeology, forthcoming
• [61] Colley, S., Ethics and digital heritage. In Ireland, T., Schofield, J. (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Heritage, Springer, NewYork, 2015, 13-32
• [62] Oomen, J., Aroyo, L., Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and challenges. In C&T ‘11Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, New York, ACM, 2011, 138-149,http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2103354.2103373/[Crossref]
• [63] Ridge, M., From tagging to theorizing: Deepening engagement with cultural heritage through crowdsourcing, Curator:The Museum Journal, 2013, 56 (4), 435-450
• [64] O’Neil, M., The sociology of critique in Wikipedia, Journal of Peer Production, 2011, 0, http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-0/
• [65] Moon, C., The Collective Power of Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage: Research on Wiki Inventory-MakingFocusing on South Korea’s ‘ICHPEDIA’ and Scotland’s ‘ICH Wiki List’, University of York, York, UK, 2014, Unpublished MScDissertation
• [66] Restivo, M., van de Rijt, A., No praise without effort: Experimental evidence on how rewards affect Wikipedia’scontributor community, Information, Communication & Society, 2014, 17 (4), 451-462
• [67] Flamenbaum, R., Buyandelger, M., Downey, G., Starn, O., Laserna, C., Kelkar, S., Rouse, C., Looser, T., Anthropology inand of MOOCs, American Anthropologist, 2014, 116 (4), 1-10
• [68] Meisenhelder, S., MOOC mania, Thought and Action, 2013, Fall, 7-26
• [69] Jones, J., Introduction: MOOCs as media world, American Anthropologist, 2014, 116 (4), 1-2
• [70] Smith, M., Citizen science in archaeology, American Antiquity, 2014, 79 (4), 749-762[Crossref]
• [71] Bonacchi, C., Bevan, A., Pett, D., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A., Sparks, R., Wexler, J., Crowd-sourced archaeological research:The MicroPasts project, Archaeology International, 2014, 17, 61-68
• [72] Chandler, D., Kapelner, A., Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets, Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 2013, 90, 123-133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.003/[Crossref]
• [73] Owens, T., Making crowdsourcing compatible with the missions and values of cultural heritage organisations. In Ridge M.(Ed.), Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage, Ashgate, Oxford, 2014, 269-280
• [74] Fuchs, C., Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time, Time and Society,2014, 23 (1), 97-123
• [75] Fuchs, C., Social Media: A Critical Introduction, 2014, Sage, London
• [76] Fuchs, C., Sevignani, S., What is digital labour? What is digital work? What’s their difference? And why do thesequestions matter for understanding social media? triple, 2013, 11 (2), 237-298
• [77] Taylor B., Amateurs, professionals and the knowledge of archaeology, British Journal of Sociology, 1995, 46 (3), 499-508
• [78] Faulkner, N., Archaeology from below, Public Archaeology, 2000, 1 (1), 21-33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/pua.2000.1.1.21/[Crossref]
• [79] Jones, S., Dialogues between past, present and future: Reflections on engaging the recent past. In Daglish, C. (Ed.)Archaeology, the Public and the Recent Past, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, 163-176
• [80] Sayre, M., Student-initiated projects, the flipped classroom, and crowdfunding, The SAA Archaeological Record, 2014, 14(1), 14-17
• [81] Holtorf, C., Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture, Archaeopress, Oxford,2007
• [82] Simpson, F., Williams, H., Evaluating community archaeology in the UK, Public Archaeology, 2008, 7 (2), 69-90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175355308X329955[Crossref]
• [83] Beale, N., Beale, G., Community-driven approaches to open source archaeological imaging. In Edwards, B., Wilson, A.(Eds.), Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice, in press, De Gruyter Open
• [84] Noordegraaf, J., Barholomew, A., Eveleigh, A., Modeling crowdsourcing for cultural heritage. In Proctor, N., Cherry, R.(Eds.), Museums and the Web 2014: Selected Papers from an International Conference, Silver Spring, Museums and theWeb, 2014, http://mw2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/modeling-crowdsourcing-for-cultural-heritage/
• [85] Holmes, K., Slater, A., Patterns of Voluntary Participation in Membership Associations: A Study of UK Heritage SupporterGroups, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2011, 41 (5), 850-869, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764011420881[Crossref]
• [86] Johnson, E., Why archaeologists must stop working for free: A response inspired by the #FreeArchaeology debate, Papersfrom the Institute of Archaeology, 2014, 24 (1), 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.473[Crossref]
• [87] Hamilton, S., Under-representation in contemporary archaeology, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2014, 24 (1),24, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.469[Crossref]
• [88] Hardy, S., Obstacles to career progression in archaeology: Precarious labour and unemployment, Papers from theInstitute of Archaeology, 2014, 24 (1), 21, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.474[Crossref]
• [89] Crary, J., 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep, Verso, London, 2013
• [90] Parikka, J., What is Media Archaeology? Polity Press, Cambridge, 2012
• [91] Ekbia H., Nardi, B., Inverse instrumentality: how technologies objectify patients and players. In Leonardi, P., Nardi, B.,Kallinikos, J. (Eds.), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 2012, 157-176
• [92] Owens, T., Digital heritage and the crowd, Curator: The Museum Journal, 2013, 56 (1), 121-130
• [93] Cefkin, M., Anya, O., Moore, R., A perfect storm? Reimagining work in the era of the end of the job, Ethnographic Praxis,2014, 1, 3–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1559-8918.01002[Crossref]
• [94] Standing, G., The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, Bloomsbury, London, 2011
• [95] Standing G., Why the precariat is not a “bogus concept”, Open Democracy, March 4, 2014, https://www.opendemocracy.net/guy-standing/why-precariat-is-not-“bogus-concept”
• [96] Moshenska, G., Reflections on the 1943 ‘Conference on the Future of Archaeology’, Archaeology International, PresentPasts, 2013, 16, 128-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1606[Crossref]
• [97] Piscitelli M., Using social networks to fundraise: Crowdfunding for the archaeologist, The SAA Archaeological Record,2013, 13 (4), 36-39, http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/Publications/thesaaarchrec/September2013.pdf
• [98] Knowles, K., Britain must dig deeper to save its archaeology, The Independent, November 15, 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/britain-must-dig-deeper-to-save-its-archaeology-9602435.html
• [99] Jackson, S., Lennox, R., Neal, C., Roskams, S., Hearle, J., Brown, S., Engaging Communities in the Big Society: WhatImpact is the Localism Agenda having on Community Archaeology, The Historic Environment, 2014, 5 (1)
• [100] Ekbia H., Nardi, B., Heteromation and its (dis)contents: The invisible division of labor between humans and machines,First Monday, 2014, 19 (6), http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/5331/4090
• [101] Haklay, M., Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation, Environment and Planning, 2013, 45, 55-69
• [102] Parikka, J., The Anthrobscene, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2014
• [103] Morgan, C., Eve, S., DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 2012, 44, 521-37[Crossref]
• [104] Insole, P., Piccini, A., Your place or mine? Crowdsourced planning, moving image archives and community archaeology,Archaologische Informationen, 2013, 36, 31-43

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/opar-2015-0009