Current Digital Archaeology

Morgan, Colleen

doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No obstante, se argumenta aquí que son las prácticas concretas, aquellas que toman la atención de los investigadores, lo que efectivamente hace que existan dos comunidades de práctica (wenGeR, 1999). Se trata de una separación a menudo ignorada cuando se consideran otras dimensiones de separación, como por ejemplo entre corrientes teóricas y temáticas (moRGan, 2022;watRall, 2016).…”

Section: ¿Digital O Computacional?unclassified

El lugar de la simulación social en arqueología

Angourakis

2023

VEG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Se presenta una revisión epistemológica de la simulación social en arqueología, delimitándola como práctica, método y como rama de la arqueología. Como práctica, se posiciona la simulación social entre otros tipos de aplicaciones intensivas de tecnologías digitales en humanidades y ciencias sociales. Como método, la definimos como una forma de modelización matemática que contiene mecanismos, sobre todo sociales, y pide soluciones numéricas. Presentamos brevemente las características de la simulación social, incluyendo el papel central de la modelización basada en agentes. Finalmente, contextualizamos el lugar de la simulación social en arqueología, ofreciendo una breve revisión de ejemplos de aplicación. This article presents an epistemological review of social simulation in archaeology, delimiting it as a practice, method and branch thereof. As a practice, social simulation is positioned amongst other intensive applications of digital technologies to the humanities and social sciences. As a method, we define it as a form of mathematical modelling that contains mechanisms, especially social ones, and which thus demands numerical solutions. We briefly present the characteristics of social simulation, including the central role of agent-based modelling. Finally, we contextualize the place of social simulation within archaeology, offering a brief review of applied examples.

show abstract

Section: ¿Digital O Computacional?unclassified

El lugar de la simulación social en arqueología

Angourakis

2023

VEG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nothing that exists from the human past came about as a result of isolated individual genius or initiative but rather emerged from constellations of flexible, creative, and collaborating people (e.g., Holland‐Lulewicz, 2021). If there is any unifying feature of humanity (or indeed of hominins more broadly), it is our creativity (Frieman, 2021, 166–83; Morgan, 2022). Further, both animal and human communities, often entanglements of both, are built on relationships of cooperation, care, and mutual aid, something the philosopher Peter Kropotkin (1902) articulated quite elegantly but that has only recently been picked up on explicitly in “evolutionary” archaeology.…”

Section: Counter‐myth 2: Human Beings (And Their Nonhuman Companions)...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeology in 2022: Counter‐myths for hopeful futures

Berihuete‐Azorín,

Blackmore,

Borck

et al. 2023

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeology in 2022 features more calls than ever for a socially and politically engaged, progressive discipline. Archaeologists increasingly respect and integrate decolonizing and Indigenous knowledge in theory and practice. They acknowledge and embrace the fluidity and diversity of sexes and genders, past and present. They document patterns of migration, ancient as well as contemporary, to combat retrograde and racist narratives that remain pervasive in the public sphere. At the same time, the field has a deep‐seated conservative bastion toward which many scholars retreat, arguing for an “objective” past that is free of political implications or interpretive ambiguity. As anarchist archaeologists, we see the myth of the objective past as one of many interconnected myths that have provided the basis for an archaeology that reifies and proliferates the current social order. We deconstruct myths relating to capitalist and colonialist ideologies of “human nature,” the assumed inevitability of the current order, and fatalistic commitment to dystopian or utopian futures. As alternatives, we present counter‐myths that emphasize the contingent and political nature of archaeological praxis, the creative and collaborative foundation of communities, the alternative orders that archaeology uncovers, and the role of a hopeful past for constructing the possibilities of different futures.

show abstract

“…Huggett et al ( 2018 , pp. 43–44) remark that the “subdiscipline” of digital archaeology suffers from “anxiety” and uncertainty about its place, significance and linkages with “external disciplines” and intellectual interests in the broader field of archaeology, anthropology and digital humanities (Morgan, 2022 , p. 214). The making and use of digital data, technologies and tools are inextricably linked with power in local and global contexts (Rabinowitz, 2016 ) and reflect the interests, bias and motivations of dominant groups.…”

Section: What Is Archaeology and Digital Heritage?mentioning

confidence: 99%