Digital Media, Creativity, Narrative Structure and Heritage

Copplestone, Tara; Dunne, Daniel

doi:10.11141/ia.44.2

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A good example of this can be found in the games and writings of Tara Copplestone. She highlights how archaeological thinking is shaped by the linearity and materiality of its main form of producing narratives (books and papers), and explores how interactivity, for instance using the hypertext game platform Twine, can advance the development of multivocal and non-linear archaeology (Copplestone 2017;Copplestone & Dunne 2017). Similar boundary work is done by Florence Smith Nicholls, whose blogs and papers deal with subaltern and alternate archaeologies.…”

Section: The Archaeological Scholarship Of Digital Playmentioning

confidence: 96%

Romans and Rollercoasters: Scholarship in the Digital Playground

Politopoulos

Ariese

Boom

et al. 2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Archaeological Scholarship Of Digital Playmentioning

confidence: 96%

Romans and Rollercoasters: Scholarship in the Digital Playground

Politopoulos

Ariese

Boom

et al. 2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While scholars representing the first two fields (Mol et al., 2017; Morgan, 2012; Reinhart, 2018) demonstrate a clear theoretical sensibility, thus proving that digital archaeology can be successfully (re)connected to new theoretical perspectives (cf. Morgan, 2019), researchers studying museums have drawn rather alarming conclusions about digital archaeology on display (Copplestone and Dunne, 2017; Geismar, 2018; Kidd, 2014; Stobiecka, 2018). Copplestone and Dunne have shown that archaeological museums, even after embracing digital ecosystems, are strongly attached to traditional analog structures and do not generate new, alternative models of display.…”

Section: Technologies and Meaning In Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Prosthetic Archaeology

Stobiecka

2020

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosthetic archaeology is a theoretical proposal for a materially oriented digital practice. It is based on a critical approach to implementing the latest technologies in archaeology. Drawing from the philosophy of technology and prosthetic studies, this project offers a more critical and meaningful understanding of digital methods in archaeology. The main interpretative figure is the verb “to prostheticize.” Thus, prosthetic archaeology is not solely about prostheses — technological improvements understood as supplements. Rather, it is about the processes of “prostheticizing” archaeology, brought on by the digital turn in “the discipline of things.” A verbal understanding of this main category and its processual potential allows for a technological prosthesis to function as an active addition that does, makes, transforms, refers, evokes, (re)constructs, and generates meanings. The concept of prosthetic archaeology is illustrated with a discussion of the “Body Can’t Wait” advertising campaign organized in Paris, March 2018, where ancient and neoclassical sculptures were equipped with 3D-printed artificial limbs. Inspired by an advertising campaign that uses technology to raise social awareness and engage in current global problems, prosthetic archaeology may offer a prefigurative blueprint for a future, radical archaeology.

show abstract

“…The irony here is that archaeologists regularly experiment with creative interpretation, productively collaborate with creative practitioners, and laud the intellectual and other benefits of such creative work. In 2017 alone, we saw such discussion in relation to geophysics and imaging (Ferraby 2017), heritage and gaming (Copplestone and Dunne 2017), heritage and auralization (Murphy et al 2017), excavation and drawing (Gant and Reilly 2017), diverse practices of archaeology connected to art (Bailey 2017), and mapping and various forms of painting, installation, and performance (Pálsson and Aldred 2017). Several such pieces are published in a full issue of the journal Internet Archaeology on the topic “Digital Creativity in Archaeology,” wherein the editors plainly aim to spotlight “the creative impulses that permeate, underpin and drive the continued development of even the most empirical digital archaeologies” (Beale and Reilly 2017).…”

Section: Interpretative Creativity As Crucial To Understanding the Armentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow

Perry

2018

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT“Heritage interpretation” is generally conceived as the development and presentation of knowledge about the past for public audiences. Most obviously evidenced in descriptive signs, guides, and related media installed on archaeological and cultural sites, heritage interpretation has more than a half century of theory and applied practice behind it, yet it continues to sit uncomfortably within the typical archaeological workflow. While the concept can be criticized on many fronts, of concern is the lack of recognition that it is of equal relevance to both nonexpert and expert audiences (as opposed to nonexpert audiences alone). Our profession appears to rest on an assumption that archaeologists do their own kind of interpretation—and, separately, nonexperts require a special approach that heritage interpreters must facilitate but that field specialists have no need for—or from which little obvious expert benefit can be derived. For this reason, it is rare to find heritage interpreters embedded in primary fieldwork teams. Here I call for a rethinking of the traditional workflow, with a view to integrating the heritage interpretation tool kit and heritage interpreters themselves into our basic field methodologies. Their direct involvement in disciplinary process from the outset has the potential to transform archaeological interpretation overall.

show abstract

Digital Media, Creativity, Narrative Structure and Heritage

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Romans and Rollercoasters: Scholarship in the Digital Playground

Romans and Rollercoasters: Scholarship in the Digital Playground

Towards a Prosthetic Archaeology

Why Are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel's Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About