Vlog to Death: Project Eliseg's Video-Blogging

Tong, Joseph; Evans, Suzanne; Williams, Howard; Edwards, Nancy; Robinson, Gary S.

doi:10.11141/ia.39.3

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was not clear whether audiences would have overlooked visual and audio shortcomings to have brief videos. Elsewhere, archaeological projects have integrated on-site vlogs into excavation coverage (DigVentures 2018;Tong et al 2015) but work is needed to understand user expectations and reception of this content.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Public Archaeology at Must Farm: A Critical Assessment of Social Media Use for Archaeological Engagement

Wakefield

2020

Internet Archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital public archaeology is increasingly exploring social networks as platforms for online outreach initiatives. Despite a growing body of literature concerning archaeological engagement on social media there are few examinations of such applications in practice. This research critically assesses the current discussions surrounding archaeological social media use before exploring commercial digital outreach at Must Farm, Cambridgeshire. Quantitative examinations of the project's Facebook metrics and qualitative comment analyses are employed to assess whether audiences were meaningfully engaged by these online strategies. The research concludes there is substantial value in using social networks to communicate archaeology and provides recommendations for future applications.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Public Archaeology at Must Farm: A Critical Assessment of Social Media Use for Archaeological Engagement

Wakefield

2020

Internet Archaeol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…'No yet' to video blogs Despite aspirations to the contrary, 35 I have yet to extend my Archaeodeath blog into video-blogging (vlogging) (see Tong et al� 2015). This remains a key gap for future development, although it requires technical expertise and further time to invest in this format that I do not currently possess (Meyers Emery and Killgrove 2015).…”

Section: Curtailed Critique Of Just-published Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeodeath as Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology

Williams¹

2019

Public Archaeology: Arts of Engagement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2013, I have been writing an academic WordPress weblog (blog) -Archaeodeath: The Archaeology and Heritage of Death & Memory. In earlier publications, I have published preliminary reflections on the benefits of Archaeodeath as 'digital public mortuary archaeology' (DPMA), considering how it affords a mode of open-access public dissemination of mortuary archaeology, and a venue for debating and critiquing the archaeology and heritage of death and memory (Meyers and Williams 2014;Williams and Atkin 2015). Building on these discussions, this chapter reviews five-and-a-half years of the Archaeodeath blogging to the end of 2018, presenting the character of the blog's content and its reception, identifying challenges and limitations of the medium, and (equally significantly in understanding its utility) considering key decisions regarding how I choose not to deploy this blog� I identify Archaeodeath as more than outreach or engagement, but as a digital platform increasingly both integral to, and transforming, my academic teaching and research practice�

show abstract

“…This research has, in turn, suggested new ways in which we might engage with death and the dead through archaeology beyond the tendency to focus on whole and wellpreserved, unburned and individuated bodies: namely mummies and articulated skeletons. Most recently, my fieldwork and research with Project Eliseg has investigated how fragments and partial traces of both cremated human bodies and textual memorials associated with a multi-period composite monument, afford particular challenges for public participation and engagement with the dead and their landscape contexts (Tong et al 2015;Williams forthcoming). Simultaneously, I have explored dimensions of the contemporary archaeology of death in the 20 th and early 21 st centuries: attempting to pursue archaeological perspectives on today's deathways (e.g.…”

Section: My Public Mortuary Archaeology Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Public Archaeologies of Death and Memory

Williams

2018

AP Journal

Self Cite

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

Vlog to Death: Project Eliseg's Video-Blogging

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Digital Public Archaeology at Must Farm: A Critical Assessment of Social Media Use for Archaeological Engagement

Digital Public Archaeology at Must Farm: A Critical Assessment of Social Media Use for Archaeological Engagement

Archaeodeath as Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology

Introduction: Public Archaeologies of Death and Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About