Re-constructing Archaeology

Shanks, Michael; Tilley, Christopher

doi:10.4324/9780203973462

Cited by 66 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Se ha dicho que la práctica arqueológica está dada en contextos políticos, sociales y culturales específicos que influyen en la manera en que el pasado es investigado e interpretado (Shanks y Tilley, 1992;Gnecco, 1999Gnecco, , 2003Piazzini, 2003;Gosden, 2004;Thomas, 2004;Haber, 2012). A su vez, la práctica arqueológica se lleva a cabo sobre un trasfondo -igualmente político, social y cultural-que, si bien no ha sido producido por la misma arqueología, sí le posibilita el despliegue de su discurso como el único legítimo sobre la materialidad del pasado.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Contexto y pre-texto de la arqueología en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia

Franco¹

2017

Bol. Antropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionunclassified

Contexto y pre-texto de la arqueología en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia

Franco¹

2017

Bol. Antropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The differences between our ancestors and ourselves are in many ways so profound that even some magical form of direct contact would likely only move us a small step closer to truly understanding them. The past should, and does, appear to us as a very weird place, a place where what we assume to be certainties are constantly challenged, although it is also 'domesticated' and reproduced in the image of the present [3,4]. The challenge offered by the past is of course a large part of the pleasure in studying it.…”

Section: Weirder Than the Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concepts fundamental to a modern western way of being; politics, family, gender, personhood, divinity, to name but a few, were all demonstrably fluid historically and are assumed to have been equally fluid in prehistory (e.g. see [3]). The differences between our ancestors and ourselves are in many ways so profound that even some magical form of direct contact would likely only move us a small step closer to truly understanding them.…”

Section: Weirder Than the Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation

Jeffrey

2015

Open Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper I will pose a challenge to digital heritage visualisation that takes as its starting point the weirdness of the digital world in comparison to everyday experience. Related to this is the apparent inability for digital objects to benefit from or acquire aura from their originals. I contend that, unless mitigated, these properties will cause a continuing lack of engagement with digital heritage visualisation beyond the professional and academic circles in which they are created. Contrary to expectations, I will argue digital objects can indeed manifest an auratic quality and that this is in fact fundamental to how they are received by various audiences. I contend that both aura and the intimate relationship between digital representation, aesthetics and the creative imagination need to be understood and embraced in practice. Finally, I will suggest some ways of addressing the challenge by looking at modes of co-production, physical replication and aesthetic quality. The ChallengeOver the last two decades, digital visualisation methodologies have become firmly embedded in the canon of archaeological practice. Archaeologists and heritage managers have drawn on a range of recording technologies to generate highly accurate datasets of historic objects, monuments and landscapes. They have also increasingly drawn on the rich functionality of 3D modelling packages to create visualisations and reconstructions of the past. 3D datasets, and the visualisations generated from them, are used in site recording, site management, structural analysis, archaeological interpretation and hypothesis testing, and increasingly, as a dissemination mode for broader audiences. In this paper I will focus on the challenge we face in using heritage visualisation to help us think anew about the past itself, rather than strictly in relation to their function as digital documents of real world heritage objects, structures and landscapes.In the digital domain long-standing issues of data integration, discovery and long-term preservation have now begun to be tackled in a meaningful way. Engagement with multiple audiences through digital visualisation is possible and, if good practice is followed, the visualisations are discoverable, referenceable (e.g. via DOI), contextualised and permanently available. This should herald a Golden Age in heritage visualisations. However, there is a danger that the quest for new technological approaches, precision, accuracy and apparent realism becomes an end in itself, following a path that Huggett has referred to as technological fetishism [1]. In this paper, I will argue that there remain significant challenges that need to be addressed if we are to capitalise on this potential Golden Age.

show abstract

“…While archaeologists have traditionally considered themselves as "both stewards of, and advocates for, the archaeological record" [72] -as trusted third parties, bestowed the authority to act on behalf of society for the benefit of archaeological heritage -in late twentieth century archaeology's undisputed authority has been challenged, on one hand by the epistemological shift connected with the rise of constructivist, interpretive, and pluralizing approaches to archaeological knowledge [75][76][77], and, on the other, by postcolonial changes in legal and societal attitudes towards ownership of archaeological heritage. This has led to a rapprochement between professional and indigenous archaeologies in Canada, Australia and the United States [78][79][80].…”

Section: Archaeological Fieldwork As Pervasive Curation: a Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure

Dallas

2015

Open Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a "grand challenge" for digital archaeology, I propose the adoption of programmatic research to meet the challenges of archaeological curation in the digital continuum, contingent on curation-enabled global digital infrastructures, and on contested regimes of archaeological knowledge production and meaning making. My motivation stems from an interest in the sociotechnical practices of archaeology, viewed as purposeful activities centred on material traces of past human presence. This is exemplified in contemporary practices of interpretation "at the trowel's edge", in epistemological reflexivity and in pluralization of archaeological knowledge. Adopting a practice-centred approach, I examine how the archaeological record is constructed and curated through archaeological activity "from the field to the screen" in a variety of archaeological situations. I call attention to Çatalhöyük as a salient case study illustrating the ubiquity of digital curation practices in experimental, well-resourced and purposefully theorized archaeological fieldwork, and I propose a conceptualization of digital curation as a pervasive, epistemic-pragmatic activity extending across the lifecycle of archaeological work. To address these challenges, I introduce a medium-term research agenda that speaks both to epistemic questions of theory in archaeology and information science, and to pragmatic concerns of digital curation, its methods, and application in archaeology. The agenda I propose calls for multidisciplinary, multi-team, multiyear research of a programmatic nature, aiming to re-examine archaeological ontology, to conduct focused research on pervasive archaeological research practices and methods, and to design and develop curation functionalities coupled with existing pervasive digital infrastructures used by archaeologists. It has a potential value in helping to establish an epistemologically coherent framework for the interdisciplinary field of archaeological curation, in aligning archaeological ontologies work with practice-based, agencyoriented and participatory theorizations of material culture, and in matching the specification and design of archaeological digital infrastructures with the increasingly globalized, ubiquitous and pervasive digital information environment and the multiple contexts of contemporary meaning-making in archaeology.

show abstract

Re-constructing Archaeology

Cited by 66 publications

References 0 publications

Contexto y pre-texto de la arqueología en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia

Contexto y pre-texto de la arqueología en los Llanos Orientales de Colombia

Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation

Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About