The Insta-Dead: The rhetoric of the human remains trade on Instagram

Huffer, Damien; Graham, Shawn

doi:10.11141/ia.45.5

Cited by 32 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This aims to enhance the recent empirical work of archaeological scholars (e.g. Bonacchi, Altaweel & Krzyzanska 2018;Bonacchi & Krzyzanska 2019;Huffer & Graham 2017; which have not included explicit discussions of the methodological challenges of this type of research. This position paper should, I hope, encourage further robust, critical discussion amongst heritage and archaeological researchers working with contemporary digital data.…”

Section: Towards Methodological Pragmatismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although similar methods are attracting interest in the wider field of the digital humanities, of which archaeology is undoubtedly a part, only a 'select few researchers are in a position to truly reap the benefits of big social data analysis' (Zelenkauskaite & Bucy 2016). A handful of scholars working in the field of heritage and archaeology have made forays into the use of these computational techniques, and a number of empirical papers have been published (for example: Altaweel 2019; Bonacchi, Altaweel & Krzyzanska 2018;Cunliffe & Curini 2018;Ginzarly, Roders & Teller 2019;Greenland et al 2019;Huffer & Graham 2017;Huffer & Graham 2018;Oteros-Rozas et al 2018;Zuanni 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Richardson¹

2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital social science research has had an important impact on the types of methodological approaches to the internet and digital social phenomena, practices and communities. Whilst this paper does not seek to include empirical data, it aims to elaborate further on these debates in digital social research, that is, research on 'life in digital society' (Lindgren 2017: 230), using insights from my own research methods. This paper will firstly consider some methodological pitfalls that could sabotage our digital social archaeology research. It will then discuss the importance of understanding the framework and sources of our data. It will outline the two main methodological approaches I have used in my own empirical research to date -'thick' social media data collection and analysis, and digital ethnography. It will discuss some of the many ethical considerations that must be assessed and implemented when undertaking this type of work. I will argue for a methodological pragmatism when undertaking social research in the fields of archaeology and heritage, although this pragmatism can be applied to any field of social study in the digital world.

show abstract

Section: Towards Methodological Pragmatismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Richardson¹

2019

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firsching, 2017; Moon et al, 2016;Sheldon, Bryant, 2016). Controversially, however, this SNS is even used for e-commerce and trafficking of cultural heritage, including human remains (Huffer, Graham, 2017). Apart from this, Instagram is not perfectly suitable for archaeological research data dissemination.…”

Section: Research Data Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Hagmann¹

2018

IANSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study concerning the use of the social networking sites (SNS) Twitter, Sketchfab, and ResearchGate as an integrated tool for digital science communication in archaeology. Although this combination seems to be characterised by means of a distinct heterogeneity among the different SNS, the interlocking of the various sites will be highlighted and its importance outlined. Therefore, the basic workflow for combining a microblogging service with a 3D content sharing site and a scientific social network shall be delineated within the framework of science communication. Disseminating data digitally can be handled in different ways, both actively and passively. An active manner can be the triggering of a social media war: in general, war might be seen here as permanent adversity between at least two parties. This adversity can arise for various reasons and take different courses on different intensity levels (Kekes 2010). Expanding the meaning of war to include digital conflicts within the realm of information and computer science, this permanent adversity can be easily combined with social media, specifically the social web, as an integral part of Web 2.0 (e.g.

show abstract

“…Further dimensions of public mortuary archaeology include the investigation of the metal-detecting and the illicit trade in human remains and objects derived from mortuary contexts (Daubney 2017;Huffer and Graham 2017), as well as suspected ethical abuses of mortuary archaeological research itself (e.g. Halcrow et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, there have been some notable case studies investigating the digital applications to the public archaeology of death, burial and commemoration (e.g. Delaney et al 2015;Huffer 2018;Huffer and Graham 2017;Sayer and Walter 2016). For instance, in the digital age, displaying the dead in public environments extends far beyond museums and heritage sites (Williams and Atkin 2015): the archaeological dead (and mortuary archaeologists themselves) are far more readily encountered on Instagram or Twitter than in display cases or academic publications (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Public Archaeologies of Death and Memory

Williams

2018

AP Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Introduction to AP’s third special issue seeks to provide context and rationale to the study of ‘public mortuary archaeology’ before reviewing the development of the volume. Building on the presentations of the first Public Archaeology Twitter Conference of April 2017, these articles comprise a wide range of original analyses reflecting on the public archaeology of death, including evaluations of fieldwork contexts, churches and museums. These articles are joined by discussions of the digital dimensions to public mortuary archaeology, an appraisal of ancient and modern DNA research as public mortuary archaeology, and the relationship between mortuary archaeology and palliative care. Together, the articles constitute the state of current thinking on the public archaeology of death, burial and commemoration.

show abstract

The Insta-Dead: The rhetoric of the human remains trade on Instagram

Cited by 32 publications

References 18 publications

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Using Social Media as a Source for Understanding Public Perceptions of Archaeology: Research Challenges and Methodological Pitfalls

Reflections on the Use of Social Networking Sites as an Interactive Tool for Data Dissemination in Digital Archaeology

Introduction: Public Archaeologies of Death and Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About