Archaeological data often come in the form of counts. Understanding why counts of artifacts, subsistence remains, or features vary across time and space is central to archaeological inquiry. A central statistical method to model such variation is through regression, yet despite sophisticated advances in computational approaches to archaeology, practitioners do not have a standard approach for building, validating, or interpreting the results of count regression. Drawing on advances in ecology, we outline a framework for evaluating regressions with archaeological count data that includes suggestions for model fitting, diagnostics, and interpreting results. We hope these suggestions provide a foundation for advancing regression with archaeological count data to further our understanding of the past.
{"title":"Regression with Archaeological Count Data","authors":"Brian F. Codding, Simon C. Brewer","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.7","url":null,"abstract":"Archaeological data often come in the form of counts. Understanding why counts of artifacts, subsistence remains, or features vary across time and space is central to archaeological inquiry. A central statistical method to model such variation is through regression, yet despite sophisticated advances in computational approaches to archaeology, practitioners do not have a standard approach for building, validating, or interpreting the results of count regression. Drawing on advances in ecology, we outline a framework for evaluating regressions with archaeological count data that includes suggestions for model fitting, diagnostics, and interpreting results. We hope these suggestions provide a foundation for advancing regression with archaeological count data to further our understanding of the past.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142260981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For thousands of years, humans have been entertained by board games. The earliest documented game boards date to at least 6000 BC in the Near East (Sebbane 2001), and we know the name, Senet, and rules of a board game from Egypt dating to 3500–3100 BC. Aspects of inequality are omnipresent in the dynamics of the competition and cooperation inherent in games. In this review, I assess the digital version of the board game Catan, which is also called Catan Universe, discussing how anthropological theories such as human behavioral ecology are recognizable in the digital game. Playing this game provides a unique way to test models of inequality.
{"title":"Settlement Selection and Inequality in Video Games through an Anthropological Lens","authors":"Amy E. Thompson","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.8","url":null,"abstract":"For thousands of years, humans have been entertained by board games. The earliest documented game boards date to at least 6000 BC in the Near East (Sebbane 2001), and we know the name, <jats:italic>Senet</jats:italic>, and rules of a board game from Egypt dating to 3500–3100 BC. Aspects of inequality are omnipresent in the dynamics of the competition and cooperation inherent in games. In this review, I assess the digital version of the board game <jats:italic>Catan</jats:italic>, which is also called <jats:italic>Catan Universe</jats:italic>, discussing how anthropological theories such as human behavioral ecology are recognizable in the digital game. Playing this game provides a unique way to test models of inequality.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142260978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alex Elvis Badillo, Matthew R. Brennan, Aaron M. Estes, Stephen P. Aldrich, Allison L. C. Emmerson
In the summer of 2022, Tulane University, in collaboration with archaeologists from other institutions, began excavations at the site of Pompeii. The archaeological work was focused on Insula 14 of Region 1, located in the southeastern sector of the site. To overcome the challenges of recording a complex urban excavation, and of working with a collaborative team, we designed and implemented a unique workflow that combines paperless and 3D data-capture methods through the use of GIS technologies. The final product of our documentation workflow was a robust and easy-to-use online geodatabase where archaeologists can revisit, explore, visualize, and analyze each excavated context using virtual tools. We present our workflow for digitally documenting observational and spatial data in the field, and how we made these data available to project archaeologists during and after the field season. First, we describe the development of digital forms in ESRI's Survey123. Then, we explain our procedures for 3D documentation through SfM photogrammetric methods and discuss how we integrated the data and transformed it into an accessible format by using interactive dashboards and online 3D web scenes. Finally, we discuss the components of our workflow that are broadly applicable and that can easily be adapted to other projects.
{"title":"A Paperless and 3D Workflow for Documenting Excavations at Insula I.14, Pompeii, Italy","authors":"Alex Elvis Badillo, Matthew R. Brennan, Aaron M. Estes, Stephen P. Aldrich, Allison L. C. Emmerson","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.1","url":null,"abstract":"In the summer of 2022, Tulane University, in collaboration with archaeologists from other institutions, began excavations at the site of Pompeii. The archaeological work was focused on Insula 14 of Region 1, located in the southeastern sector of the site. To overcome the challenges of recording a complex urban excavation, and of working with a collaborative team, we designed and implemented a unique workflow that combines paperless and 3D data-capture methods through the use of GIS technologies. The final product of our documentation workflow was a robust and easy-to-use online geodatabase where archaeologists can revisit, explore, visualize, and analyze each excavated context using virtual tools. We present our workflow for digitally documenting observational and spatial data in the field, and how we made these data available to project archaeologists during and after the field season. First, we describe the development of digital forms in ESRI's Survey123. Then, we explain our procedures for 3D documentation through SfM photogrammetric methods and discuss how we integrated the data and transformed it into an accessible format by using interactive dashboards and online 3D web scenes. Finally, we discuss the components of our workflow that are broadly applicable and that can easily be adapted to other projects.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140836994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Web scraping, the practice of automating the collection of data from websites, is a key part of how the internet functions, and it is an increasingly important part of the research tool kit for scientists, cultural resources professionals, and journalists. There are few resources intended to train archaeologists in how to develop web scrapers. Perhaps more importantly, there are also few resources that outline the normative, ethical, and legal frameworks within which scraping of archaeological data is situated. This article is intended to introduce archaeologists to web scraping as a research method, as well as to outline the norms concerning scraping that have evolved since the 1990s, and the current state of US legal frameworks that touch on the practice. These norms and legal frameworks continue to evolve, representing an opportunity for archaeologists to become more involved in how scraping is practiced and how it should be regulated in the future.
{"title":"The Legality and Ethics of Web Scraping in Archaeology","authors":"Jonathan Paige","doi":"10.1017/aap.2023.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2023.42","url":null,"abstract":"Web scraping, the practice of automating the collection of data from websites, is a key part of how the internet functions, and it is an increasingly important part of the research tool kit for scientists, cultural resources professionals, and journalists. There are few resources intended to train archaeologists in how to develop web scrapers. Perhaps more importantly, there are also few resources that outline the normative, ethical, and legal frameworks within which scraping of archaeological data is situated. This article is intended to introduce archaeologists to web scraping as a research method, as well as to outline the norms concerning scraping that have evolved since the 1990s, and the current state of US legal frameworks that touch on the practice. These norms and legal frameworks continue to evolve, representing an opportunity for archaeologists to become more involved in how scraping is practiced and how it should be regulated in the future.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140627012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kimberly Johnson, Colin P. Quinn, Nathan Goodale, Richard Conrey
With its promise of nondestructive processing, rapid low-cost sampling, and portability to any field site or museum in the world, portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometry is rapidly becoming a standard piece of equipment for archaeologists. Even though the use of pXRF is becoming standard, the publication of pXRF analytical methods and the resulting data remains widely variable. Despite validation studies that demonstrate the importance of sample preparation, data collection settings, and data processing, there remains no standard for how to report pXRF results. In this article, we address the need for best practices in publishing pXRF analyses. We outline information that should be published alongside interpretive results in any archaeological application of pXRF. By publishing this basic information, archaeologists will increase the transparency and replicability of their analyses on an inter-analyst/inter-analyzer basis and provide clarity for journal editors and peer reviewers on publications and grant proposals for studies that use pXRF. The use of these best practices will result in better science in the burgeoning use of pXRF in archaeology.
{"title":"Best Practices for Publishing pXRF Analyses","authors":"Kimberly Johnson, Colin P. Quinn, Nathan Goodale, Richard Conrey","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.6","url":null,"abstract":"With its promise of nondestructive processing, rapid low-cost sampling, and portability to any field site or museum in the world, portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometry is rapidly becoming a standard piece of equipment for archaeologists. Even though the use of pXRF is becoming standard, the publication of pXRF analytical methods and the resulting data remains widely variable. Despite validation studies that demonstrate the importance of sample preparation, data collection settings, and data processing, there remains no standard for how to report pXRF results. In this article, we address the need for best practices in publishing pXRF analyses. We outline information that should be published alongside interpretive results in any archaeological application of pXRF. By publishing this basic information, archaeologists will increase the transparency and replicability of their analyses on an inter-analyst/inter-analyzer basis and provide clarity for journal editors and peer reviewers on publications and grant proposals for studies that use pXRF. The use of these best practices will result in better science in the burgeoning use of pXRF in archaeology.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140630699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Archaeogaming is an area of increasing interest within archaeology. As archaeogaming's theory and practice are being fleshed out, it is worth considering if there are parallels to traditional archaeological methods within the study of video games. Here, we examine one such possibility: is there an archaeogaming equivalent to experimental archaeology? As a case study, we explore the system used for the mid-1980s development of an unreleased video game prototype for the game company Activision. Through examining this development system, whose use would be otherwise invisible in the finished software artifact, we demonstrate how we have both reconstructed a seemingly lost piece of the system virtually and used this reconstruction for experiments. The methodology we describe can be applied to digital artifacts within contemporary archaeology beyond the scope of video games, and it illustrates some key differences between studying physical and digital artifacts.
{"title":"Experimental Archaeogaming","authors":"John Aycock, Katie Biittner","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.5","url":null,"abstract":"Archaeogaming is an area of increasing interest within archaeology. As archaeogaming's theory and practice are being fleshed out, it is worth considering if there are parallels to traditional archaeological methods within the study of video games. Here, we examine one such possibility: is there an archaeogaming equivalent to experimental archaeology? As a case study, we explore the system used for the mid-1980s development of an unreleased video game prototype for the game company Activision. Through examining this development system, whose use would be otherwise invisible in the finished software artifact, we demonstrate how we have both reconstructed a seemingly lost piece of the system virtually and used this reconstruction for experiments. The methodology we describe can be applied to digital artifacts within contemporary archaeology beyond the scope of video games, and it illustrates some key differences between studying physical and digital artifacts.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140630306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kayla Golay Lausanne, David Chicoine, Jeisen Navarro Vega, George F. Lau
This article describes a series of steps to integrate multiple modes of archaeological mapping in arid and agricultural settings. We use the coastal region of Peru as a case study and share our recent field experience at Cerro San Isidro, a multicomponent hill site located in the agriculture-intensive and mid-elevation (about 500 m asl) Moro region of the Nepeña Valley. In June and July 2022, we spent eight weeks deploying a combination of drone aerial imagery, pedestrian GPS reconnaissance, and GPR survey to map the surface and subsurface features at the site and in the adjacent agricultural fields. Our efforts suggest that the ancient settlement extended over an area of at least 50 ha, well beyond the visible surface architecture. Using a multimodal approach to confirming the partial destruction of archaeological vestiges by modern agricultural encroachment is both time-effective and noninvasive. The article offers insights from our experience, including the sequence of field operations, technical troubleshooting, and the collection and integration of datasets. We discuss the methodological potential and implications of this combination of multimodal mapping and its deployment in coastal Peru, a region that, like many others in the world, is increasingly subject to rapid agricultural expansion and other anthropogenic developments.
{"title":"Aerial, Surface, and Subsurface Multimodal Mapping in Coastal Peru: Insights from Cerro San Isidro, Moro Region, Nepeña Valley","authors":"Kayla Golay Lausanne, David Chicoine, Jeisen Navarro Vega, George F. Lau","doi":"10.1017/aap.2024.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.2","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article describes a series of steps to integrate multiple modes of archaeological mapping in arid and agricultural settings. We use the coastal region of Peru as a case study and share our recent field experience at Cerro San Isidro, a multicomponent hill site located in the agriculture-intensive and mid-elevation (about 500 m asl) Moro region of the Nepeña Valley. In June and July 2022, we spent eight weeks deploying a combination of drone aerial imagery, pedestrian GPS reconnaissance, and GPR survey to map the surface and subsurface features at the site and in the adjacent agricultural fields. Our efforts suggest that the ancient settlement extended over an area of at least 50 ha, well beyond the visible surface architecture. Using a multimodal approach to confirming the partial destruction of archaeological vestiges by modern agricultural encroachment is both time-effective and noninvasive. The article offers insights from our experience, including the sequence of field operations, technical troubleshooting, and the collection and integration of datasets. We discuss the methodological potential and implications of this combination of multimodal mapping and its deployment in coastal Peru, a region that, like many others in the world, is increasingly subject to rapid agricultural expansion and other anthropogenic developments.</p>","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140570549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
OverviewArchaeology in the United States is caught in a “curation crisis” (Childs 1995; Childs and Warner 2019; Marquardt et al. 1982; SAA Advisory Committee on Curation 2003; Trimble and Marino 2003) and a “digital data crisis” (or “deluge”) more specifically (Bevan 2015; Clarke 2015; Kansa and Kansa 2021; Katsianis et al. 2022; Kersel 2015; McManamon et al. 2017:239–240; Rivers Cofield et al. 2024). Recent estimates suggest that, collectively, over 1.4 billion dollars are spent annually to support archaeological work that is mandated by federal law (SRI Foundation 2020). Although substantial efforts are underway to generate and provide mechanisms for managing, curating, and sharing the resultant digital data, we suggest that a critical step that has yet to be taken is to describe and visualize the components, connections, and causal dynamics of the US digital data system as it currently functions. Here, we specifically apply a “systems thinking” approach to produce such a high-level model of this system. We argue that understanding and visualizing this system will help us all “think bigger” (Heilen and Manney 2023); identify sources of knowledge, opportunities for critical analysis, collaboration, and capacity building; and increase much-needed archaeological digital literacy (Kansa and Kansa 2022). We conceptualize this as bringing “equilibrium” to the system, and in this article, we make several suggestions on how to bring this about. These insights can enable practitioners to better understand their roles in and contributions to the overall system and to evaluate efforts to improve data sharing, management, and curation practices not only within their organizations and departments but beyond.
{"title":"A Systems-Thinking Model of Data Management and Use in US Archaeology","authors":"Elizabeth Bollwerk, Neha Gupta, Jolene Smith","doi":"10.1017/aap.2023.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2023.41","url":null,"abstract":"OverviewArchaeology in the United States is caught in a “curation crisis” (Childs 1995; Childs and Warner 2019; Marquardt et al. 1982; SAA Advisory Committee on Curation 2003; Trimble and Marino 2003) and a “digital data crisis” (or “deluge”) more specifically (Bevan 2015; Clarke 2015; Kansa and Kansa 2021; Katsianis et al. 2022; Kersel 2015; McManamon et al. 2017:239–240; Rivers Cofield et al. 2024). Recent estimates suggest that, collectively, over 1.4 billion dollars are spent annually to support archaeological work that is mandated by federal law (SRI Foundation 2020). Although substantial efforts are underway to generate and provide mechanisms for managing, curating, and sharing the resultant digital data, we suggest that a critical step that has yet to be taken is to describe and visualize the components, connections, and causal dynamics of the US digital data system as it currently functions. Here, we specifically apply a “systems thinking” approach to produce such a high-level model of this system. We argue that understanding and visualizing this system will help us all “think bigger” (Heilen and Manney 2023); identify sources of knowledge, opportunities for critical analysis, collaboration, and capacity building; and increase much-needed archaeological digital literacy (Kansa and Kansa 2022). We conceptualize this as bringing “equilibrium” to the system, and in this article, we make several suggestions on how to bring this about. These insights can enable practitioners to better understand their roles in and contributions to the overall system and to evaluate efforts to improve data sharing, management, and curation practices not only within their organizations and departments but beyond.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139928229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Eric Anderson, Sierra W. Malis, Anna J. Osterholtz, Molly K. Zuckerman
Metric analysis of skeletal material is integral to the analysis and identification of human remains, though one commonly used measuring device, the osteometric board, has lagged in recent advancement. Traditional boards are bulky and require manual measurement recording, potentially generating intra- and interobserver error. To address these limitations, we tested the reliability, validity, and error rates of a novel device, the Portable Osteometric Device Version 1 (PODv1), which measures distance using laser sensors with time-of-flight technology. Forty-five volunteers measured four skeletal elements with the PODv1 and a PaleoTech osteometric board in three rounds. Comparison of tibia, humerus, and femur measurements with both devices showed no significant differences, although the maximum length of the ulna did differ, potentially because of observer confusion regarding the PODv1's user instructions for this element. Our results suggest that the PODv1 is a reliable, valid measurement device compared to traditional osteometric boards. Although both device types can produce calibration, transcription, and observer errors, the time-of-flight technology and the absence of manual recording built into the PODv1 may limit those errors. These advancements and their potential positive impacts on the accuracy of osteometric data collection may have far-reaching benefits for osteological, bioarchaeological, paleopathological, and forensic anthropological data collection.
{"title":"Investigating the Reliability and Validity of the Portable Osteometric Device","authors":"Eric Anderson, Sierra W. Malis, Anna J. Osterholtz, Molly K. Zuckerman","doi":"10.1017/aap.2023.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2023.33","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Metric analysis of skeletal material is integral to the analysis and identification of human remains, though one commonly used measuring device, the osteometric board, has lagged in recent advancement. Traditional boards are bulky and require manual measurement recording, potentially generating intra- and interobserver error. To address these limitations, we tested the reliability, validity, and error rates of a novel device, the Portable Osteometric Device Version 1 (PODv1), which measures distance using laser sensors with time-of-flight technology. Forty-five volunteers measured four skeletal elements with the PODv1 and a PaleoTech osteometric board in three rounds. Comparison of tibia, humerus, and femur measurements with both devices showed no significant differences, although the maximum length of the ulna did differ, potentially because of observer confusion regarding the PODv1's user instructions for this element. Our results suggest that the PODv1 is a reliable, valid measurement device compared to traditional osteometric boards. Although both device types can produce calibration, transcription, and observer errors, the time-of-flight technology and the absence of manual recording built into the PODv1 may limit those errors. These advancements and their potential positive impacts on the accuracy of osteometric data collection may have far-reaching benefits for osteological, bioarchaeological, paleopathological, and forensic anthropological data collection.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139803668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This theme issue has two primary goals: to illuminate the underdeveloped or faltering areas of the discipline as they relate to archaeological collections and to offer tangible paths forward to address the systemic problems identified as they impact the future of archaeology. Present-day archaeology is complicated due to its many sectors of practice: academia/faculty; cultural resource management; federal, state, and local government; tribal governments and communities; descendant communities; students; the general public; and different types of archaeological repositories. Given this complexity, it can be difficult to identify the expectations (and realities) of each sector, which, if better understood, would help illuminate the nuances of preservation, accountability, discoverability, and use of archaeological collections across the discipline. Without a solid understanding of these nuances, efforts to advance the discipline are undermined. This introduction provides an overview of the articles that address emerging and urgent issues and offer viable steps forward. These challenges include the interrelationships between ethics, collaboration, and training; the preservation and management of digital records and data; collections discovery and reuse; collections-based research; training in material culture; making collections knowable to constituencies outside archaeology; preparing for repatriation from a management perspective; and the intricacies of the archaeological digital data system.
{"title":"A Collections-Based View of the Future of Archaeology","authors":"Jenna Domeischel, S. T. Childs","doi":"10.1017/aap.2023.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2023.37","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This theme issue has two primary goals: to illuminate the underdeveloped or faltering areas of the discipline as they relate to archaeological collections and to offer tangible paths forward to address the systemic problems identified as they impact the future of archaeology. Present-day archaeology is complicated due to its many sectors of practice: academia/faculty; cultural resource management; federal, state, and local government; tribal governments and communities; descendant communities; students; the general public; and different types of archaeological repositories. Given this complexity, it can be difficult to identify the expectations (and realities) of each sector, which, if better understood, would help illuminate the nuances of preservation, accountability, discoverability, and use of archaeological collections across the discipline. Without a solid understanding of these nuances, efforts to advance the discipline are undermined. This introduction provides an overview of the articles that address emerging and urgent issues and offer viable steps forward. These challenges include the interrelationships between ethics, collaboration, and training; the preservation and management of digital records and data; collections discovery and reuse; collections-based research; training in material culture; making collections knowable to constituencies outside archaeology; preparing for repatriation from a management perspective; and the intricacies of the archaeological digital data system.","PeriodicalId":7231,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Archaeological Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139805914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：