Digital Bridge-Building

Co-Creation’s Role in Digital Public Archaeology

“…ArchNet (Simon and Crider 2002) and the Society for American Archaeology's Archaeology for the Public webpages (Jeppson et al 2003) were some of the first websites to focus on engaging non-specialist audiences through digital platforms. In recent years, the Open Access, Open Data, and Open Software movements have created more momentum for archaeologists to share data and content online and provided additional venues for archaeologists to reach a broader set of audiences.…”

“…These projects include efforts to create new methods for archaeologists to interact and collaborate professionally, such as the construction of new platforms that provide open access to data, publications, and collaborative tools for researchers, like the Chaco Research Archive (CRA 2014), the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS 2014), the Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA 2014), Open Context , the Archaeology Data Service (Richards et al 2011), and the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) (McManamon and Kintigh 2010). Efforts also consist of various applications that engage non-specialists, including indigenous communities (Boast and Biehl 2011;Rowley et al 2010), descendant and local communities (McDavid 2002(McDavid , 2003(McDavid , 2004a(McDavid , 2004bRemixing Catalhöyük 2014), and the general public (Beale 2012;Goskar 2012;Harris 2012;Lake 2012;Mazel et al 2012;Pett and Bonacchi 2012;Richardson 2013Richardson , 2014Smith 2014;Watrall 2002Watrall , 2014. Public engagement platforms include social media (Birch 2013; Kansa and Deblauwe 2011; Richardson 2012; Walker 2014), blogging (Richardson 2014;Rocks-Macqueen and Webster 2013;Thornton 2012), creating websites and mobile experiences to serve as portals for information and interpretation of archaeological sites (Birch 2013;Goskar 2012;Jeppson et al 2003;Mazel et al 2012;Portable Antiquities Co-Creation's Role in Digital Public Archaeology (cont.…”

“…Efforts also consist of various applications that engage non-specialists, including indigenous communities (Boast and Biehl 2011;Rowley et al 2010), descendant and local communities (McDavid 2002(McDavid , 2003(McDavid , 2004a(McDavid , 2004bRemixing Catalhöyük 2014), and the general public (Beale 2012;Goskar 2012;Harris 2012;Lake 2012;Mazel et al 2012;Pett and Bonacchi 2012;Richardson 2013Richardson , 2014Smith 2014;Watrall 2002Watrall , 2014. Public engagement platforms include social media (Birch 2013; Kansa and Deblauwe 2011; Richardson 2012; Walker 2014), blogging (Richardson 2014;Rocks-Macqueen and Webster 2013;Thornton 2012), creating websites and mobile experiences to serve as portals for information and interpretation of archaeological sites (Birch 2013;Goskar 2012;Jeppson et al 2003;Mazel et al 2012;Portable Antiquities Co-Creation's Role in Digital Public Archaeology (cont. ) Scheme 2014; Remixing Catalhöyük 2014; Richardson 2014), and community-based programs that have explored the creation of content management systems (Boast and Biehl 2011;Christen 2008Christen , 2011Christen , 2012aChristen , 2012bRowley et al 2010) to help preserve and protect communities' cultural property.…”

“…One noteworthy result of this feedback is that the interpretative content was presented in a conversational tone and drew from multiple perspectives, rather than relying on a single authoritative explanation (Mazel et al 2012). The Jordan Levi Plantation website, where archaeological interpretation was presented as one voice alongside many others, including descendant communities' oral traditions (McDavid 2002(McDavid , 2003(McDavid , 2004b, is another example. Finally, the previously noted Micro-Pasts project (Bonacchi et al 2014:7) is aiming to eventually create new archaeological research projects jointly developed by academics and community partners who are users of their online application.…”

“…Although digital engagement with non-specialist audiences has been a growing area of research and discussion in the discipline (Beale 2012;Boast and Biehl 2011;Bonacchi 2012;Lake 2012;McDavid 2002McDavid , 2003McDavid , 2004aMcDavid , 2004b; Richardson 2013Richardson , 2014Watrall 2002Watrall , 2014 an overarching model of digital engagement has yet to be introduced. The lack of a comparative framework makes it difficult to determine whether or not a project is co-creative, which can limit the ability of archaeologists to implement co-creative methodologies in digital spaces.…”