1932

Abstract

Digital archaeology is both a pervasive practice and a unique subdiscipline within archaeology. The diverse digital methods and tools employed by archaeologists have led to a proliferation of innovative practice that has fundamentally reconfigured the discipline. Rather than reviewing specific technologies, this review situates digital archaeology within broader theoretical debates regarding craft and embodiment; materiality; the uncanny; and ethics, politics, and accessibility. A future digital archaeology must move beyond skeuomorphic submission and replication of previous structural inequalities to foment new archaeological imaginaries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101
2022-10-24
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/51/1/annurev-anthro-041320-114101.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anichini F, Banterle F, Buxeda i Garrigós J, Callieri M, Dershowitz N et al. 2020. Developing the ArchAIDE application: a digital workflow for identifying, organising and sharing archaeological pottery using automated image recognition. Internet Archaeol 52: https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.52.7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arvanitis K, Zuanni C. 2021. Digital (and) materiality in museums. Mus. Soc. 19:2143
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Averett EW, Gordon JM, Counts DB, eds. 2016. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology Grand Forks: Digit. Press, Univ. N. D.
  4. Aycock J. 2021. The coming tsunami of digital artefacts. Antiquity 95:3841584–89
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barad K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28:3801–31
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Basel Action Netw., Silicon Valley Toxics Coalit 2002. Exporting harm: the high-tech trashing of Asia Rep., Basel Action Netw. Seattle, WA: https://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/technotrash.pdf
  7. Beacham R, Denard H, Niccolucci 2006. An introduction to the London Charter. London Charter https://www.londoncharter.org/fileadmin/templates/main/docs/beacham-denard-niccolucci_intro.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beale G, Reilly P. 2017. Digital practice as meaning making in archaeology. Internet Archaeol 44:62
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beale G, Schofield J, Austin J 2019. The archaeology of the digital periphery: computer mice and the archaeology of the early digital era. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 5:2154–73
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergman C, Montgomery N. 2017. Joyful Militancy: Building Thriving Resistance in Toxic Times Chico, CA: AK Press
  11. Bonacchi C, Altaweel M, Krzyzanska M. 2018. The heritage of Brexit: roles of the past in the construction of political identities through social media. J. Soc. Archaeol. 18:2174–92
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Borck L. 2019. Constructing the future history: prefiguration as historical epistemology and the chronopolitics of archaeology. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 5:2229–38
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Boutin A, Morgan C. 2013 (2009). The Dilmun bioarchaeology ethics statement (reposted). Colleen Morgan Blog Oct. 24. https://colleen-morgan.com/2013/10/24/the-dilmun-bioarchaeology-ethics-statement/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Braidotti R. 1997. Mothers, monsters, and machines. Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory KCN Medina 59–79 New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Braidotti R. 2013. The Posthuman Cambridge, UK: Polity
  16. Brazelton B. 2020. On the 10-year anniversary of Minecraft: two interventions in extractive colonialism. Cult. Geogr. 27:3491–97
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brughmans T. 2013. Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 20:4623–62
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brughmans T, Collar A, Coward F. 2016. The Connected Past: Challenges to Network Studies in Archaeology and History Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  19. Brughmans T, Corley H, Dennis LM, Ellenberger K, Foreman P et al. 2018. Ethics policy 1.1. Computer Applications & Quantitative Methods in Archaeology https://caa-international.org/about/ethics-policy
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Buchli V, Lucas G 2001. The archaeology of alienation: a late twentieth-century British council house. Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past V Buchli, G Lucas 158–67 London: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Burridge JM, Collins BM, Galton BN, Halbert AR, Heywood TR et al. 1989. The WINSOM solid modeller and its application to data visualization. IBM Syst. J. 28:4548–68
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Candy L, Edmonds E, Vear C 2021. Introduction to the handbook. The Routledge International Handbook of Practice-Based Research C Vear, L Candy, E Edmonds 1–24 New York: Routledge. , 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Caraher W. 2019. Slow archaeology, punk archaeology, and the “archaeology of care. .” Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3372–85
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Casana J. 2021. Rethinking the landscape: emerging approaches to archaeological remote sensing. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 50:167–86
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Christen K. 2011. Opening archives: respectful repatriation. Am. Arch. 74:1185–210
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chrysanthi A, Murrieta Flores P, Papadopoulos C 2012. Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretive Process BAR Int. Ser. 2344 Oxford, UK: Archaeopress
  27. Clark A, Chalmers D. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58:17–19
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cobb PJ, Sigmier JH, Creamer PM, French ER. 2019. Collaborative approaches to archaeology programming and the increase of digital literacy among archaeology students. Open Archaeol. 5:1137–54
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Colley S. 2015. Ethics and digital heritage. The Ethics of Cultural Heritage T Ireland, J Schofield 13–32 New York: Springer N. Y.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Collins SG, Durington M, Gill H. 2017. Multimodality: an invitation. Am. Anthropol. 119:1142–46
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cook K. 2019. EmboDIYing disruption: queer, feminist and inclusive digital archaeologies. Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3398–414
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cooper C. 2019. The sound of debate in Georgian England: auralising the House of Commons. Parliam. Hist. 38:160–73
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Costopoulos A. 2016. Digital archeology is here (and has been for a while). Front. Digit. Humanit. 3:4
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Danis A. 2019. Augmented, hyper-mediated, IRL. Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3386–97
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Davis DS, Caspari G, Lipo CP, Sanger MC. 2021. Deep learning reveals extent of Archaic Native American shell-ring building practices. J. Archaeol. Sci. 132:105433
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
  37. Delgado Anés L, Romero Pellitero P, Richardson L-J 2017. Virtual archaeology through social networks. The case of the I Public Archaeology Twitter Conference. III Congreso de La Sociedad Internacional Humanidades Digitales Hispánicas: Sociedades, Políticas, Saberes (Libro de Resúmenes) N Rodríguez Ortega 293–98 Madrid: Soc. Int. Humanid. Digit. Hisp.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Dennis LM. 2016. Archaeogaming, ethics, and participatory standards. SAA Archaeol. Record 16:529–33
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Dennis LM. 2020. Digital archaeological ethics: successes and failures in disciplinary attention. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 3:1210–18
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco P, Galeazzi F, Vassallo V. 2018. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
  41. Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco P, Winterbottom M, Galeazzi F, Gogan M. 2019. Ksar Said: building Tunisian young people's critical engagement with their heritage. Sustainability 11:51373
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Earley-Spadoni T. 2017. Spatial history, deep mapping and digital storytelling: archaeology's future imagined through an engagement with the digital humanities. J. Archaeol. Sci. 84:Suppl. C95–102
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ellis SJR. 2016. Are we ready for new (digital) ways to record archaeological fieldwork? A case study from Pompeii. See Averett et al. 2016 51–75
  44. Evans TL, Daly P. 2004. Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory New York: Routledge
  45. Eve S 2014. Dead Men's Eyes: Embodied GIS, Mixed Reality and Landscape Archaeology BAR Br. Ser. 600 Oxford: UK: Archaeopress
  46. Eve S 2017. A dead man's nose: using smell to explore the battlefield of Waterloo. Designing with Smell V Henshaw, K McLean, D Medway, C Perkins, G Warnaby 211–18 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Eve S 2018. Losing our senses, an exploration of 3D object scanning. Open Archaeol 4:1114–22
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Ferraby R. 2017. Geophysics: creativity and the archaeological imagination. Internet Archaeol44571
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Finn C. 2002. Artifacts: An Archaeologist's Year in Silicon Valley Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  50. Finn C. 2003. Bits and pieces: a mini survey of computer collecting. Ind. Archaeol. Rev. 25:2119–28
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Flexner J. 2009. Where is reflexive map-making in archaeological research? Towards a place-based approach. Archaeol. Rev. Camb. 24:17–21
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Flexner JL. 2020. Degrowth and a sustainable future for archaeology. Archaeol. Dialogues 27:2159–71
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Forte M. 2011. Cyber-archaeology: notes on the simulation of the past. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2:47–18
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fredheim LH. 2020. Decoupling “open” and “ethical” archaeologies: rethinking deficits and expertise for ethical public participation in archaeology and heritage. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 53:15–22
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Freud S. 1957. The “uncanny. .” In The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 17 J Strachey 218–53 London: Hogarth Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Frieman C, Gillings M. 2007. Seeing is perceiving?. World Archaeol 39:14–16
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Galeazzi F. 2018. 3-D virtual replicas and simulations of the past “real” or “fake” representations?. Curr. Anthropol. 59:3268–86
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gardner A, Fernández-Götz M, Díaz de Liaño G, Harris OJT, eds. 2021. Debating posthumanism in archaeology. Camb. Archaeol. J. 31:3)
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Geismar H. 2018. Museum Object Lessons in the Digital Age London: UCL Press
  60. Gillings M, Hacıgüzeller P, Lock G. 2020. Archaeological Spatial Analysis: A Methodological Guide New York: Routledge
  61. Gokee C, Stewart H, De León J. 2020. Scales of suffering in the US-Mexico borderlands. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 24:4823–51
    [Google Scholar]
  62. González-Ruibal A. 2018. Ethics of archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 47:345–60
    [Google Scholar]
  63. González-Tennant E. 2013. New heritage and dark tourism: a mixed methods approach to social justice in Rosewood, Florida. Herit. Soc. 6:162–88
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Graham S 2020a. An approach to the ethics of archaeogaming. Internet Archaeol. 55: https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Graham S 2020b. An Enchantment of Digital Archaeology: Raising the Dead with Agent-Based Models, Archaeogaming and Artificial Intelligence New York: Berghahn Books
  66. Graham S, Gupta N, Smith J, Angourakis A, Carter M, Compton B. 2019. The Open Digital Archaeology Textbook https://o-date.github.io/draft/book
  67. Graves-Brown P. 2011. Touching from a distance: alienation, abjection, estrangement and archaeology. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 44:2131–44
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Grosman L. 2016. Reaching the point of no return: the computational revolution in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 45:129–45
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Gupta N, Devillers R. 2017. Geographic visualization in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 24:3852–85
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hacıgüzeller P. 2017. Archaeological (digital) maps as performances: towards alternative mappings. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 50:2149–71
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Haraway D. 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Soc. Rev. 80:65–108
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Haraway DJ. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  73. Hassett BR. 2018. The ethical challenge of digital bioarchaeological data. Archaeologies 14:2185–88
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Hayles NK. 1993. The materiality of informatics. Configurations 1:1147–70
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hertz G, Parikka J. 2012. Zombie media: circuit bending media archaeology into an art method. Leonardo 45:5424–30
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hollinger RE, Edwell J Jr., Jacobs H, Moran-Collins L, Thome C et al. 2013. Tlingit-Smithsonian collaborations with 3D digitization of cultural objects. Mus. Anthropol. Rev. 7:1–2201–53
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Huffer D, Wood C, Graham S 2019. What the Machine Saw: some questions on the ethics of computer vision and machine learning to investigate human remains trafficking. Internet Archaeol. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.52.5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Huggett J. 2015. A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology. Open Archaeol. 1:86–95
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Huggett J. 2017. The apparatus of digital archaeology. Internet Archaeol 44: https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Huggett J, Reilly P, Lock G. 2018. Whither digital archaeological knowledge? The challenge of unstable futures. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 1:142–54
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Huvila I. 2018. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society New York: Routledge
  82. Huvila I, Huggett J. 2018. Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 1:188–100
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ingold T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeol. Dialogues 14:11–16
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Ireland T, Bell T. 2021. Chasing future feelings: a practice-led experiment with emergent digital materialities of heritage. Mus. Soc. 19:2149–65
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Isaac G. 2015. Perclusive alliances. Curr. Anthropol. 56:S12S286–96
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Isaac G 2021. Digital/object/beings and 3D replication in the intercultural museum context: Have you socialized your clones?. Museums, Societies and the Creation of Value H Morphy, R McKenzie New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Jeffrey S. 2015. Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty, aura and democratisation. Open Archaeol 1:1144–52
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Jeffrey S, Love S, Poyade M. 2021. The digital Laocoön: replication, narrative and authenticity. Mus. Soc. 19:2166–83
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Kamash Z. 2017.. “ Postcard to Palmyra”: bringing the public into debates over post-conflict reconstruction in the Middle East. World Archaeol 49:608–22
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Khunti R. 2018. The problem with printing Palmyra: exploring the ethics of using 3D printing technology to reconstruct heritage. Stud. Digit. Herit. 2:11–12
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Lock GR. 2003. Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards Virtual Pasts New York: Routledge
  92. Lowenthal D. 1985. The Past Is a Foreign Country Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  93. Marwick B, d'Alpoim Guedes J, Barton CM, Bates LA, Baxter M et al. 2017. Open science in archaeology. SAA Archaeol. Record 17:48–14
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Maxwell R, Miller T. 2013. The material cellphone. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World P Graves-Brown, R Harrison, A Piccini 699–712 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. McCoy MD. 2020. The site problem: a critical review of the site concept in archaeology in the digital age. J. Field Archaeol. 45:Suppl. 1S18–26
    [Google Scholar]
  96. McCoy MD, Ladefoged TN. 2009. New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Res. 17:3263–95
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Melendreras Ruíz R, Marín Torres MT, Sánchez Allegue P, Martínez Reyes J 2022. The sculpture of the Christ of the blood: structural mechanical analysis based on 3D models and video techniques for the study of recurrent pathologies. J. Cult. Herit. 54:59–67
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Mol A. 2019. In gold: a materiality simulator. Shores of Time https://www.shoresoftime.com/in-gold/
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Mol E. 2020. Roman cyborgs! On significant otherness, material absence, and virtual presence in the archaeology of Roman religion. Eur. J. Archaeol. 23:164–81
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Morgan C. 2012. Emancipatory digital archaeology PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
  101. Morgan C. 2019. Avatars, monsters, and machines: a cyborg archaeology. Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3324–37
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Morgan C. 2021a. An archaeology of digital things: social, political, polemical. Antiquity 95:3841590–93
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Morgan C. 2021b. Save the date for future mourning: prefiguration and heritage. Forum Krit. Archäol. 10:1–5
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Morgan C, Eve S 2012. DIY and digital archaeology: What are you doing to participate?. World Archaeol 44:4521–37
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Morgan C, Petrie H, Wright H, Taylor JS. 2021. Drawing and knowledge construction in archaeology: the Aide Mémoire Project. J. Field Archaeol. 46:8614–28
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Morgan C, Wright H. 2018. Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. J. Field Archaeol. 43:2136–51
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Morgan CL. 2016. Analog to digital: transitions in theory and practice in archaeological photography at Çatalhöyük. Internet Archaeol. 2:4250
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19:298–100
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Moshenska G. 2006. The archaeological uncanny. Public Archaeol. 5:291–99
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Moshenska G. 2014. The archaeology of (flash) memory. Post-Medieval Archaeol 48:1255–59
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Newland C. 2004. A historical archaeology of mobile phones in the UK MA Thesis. Univ. Bristol Bristol, UK:
  112. Norton HK. 2020. Finding the spaces betwixt and between: GIS of the 1733 St. Jan Slave Rebellion. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 24:4803–22
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Opgenhaffen L. 2021a. Tradition in transition: technology and change in archaeological visualisation practice. Open Archaeol. 7:11685–708
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Opgenhaffen L. 2021b. Visualizing archaeologists: a reflexive history of visualization practice in archaeology. Open Archaeol. 7:1353–77
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Opitz R. 2017. An experiment in using visual attention metrics to think about experience and design choices in past places. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 24:1203–26
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Opitz R, Limp WF. 2015. Recent developments in high-density survey and measurement (HDSM) for archaeology: implications for practice and theory. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:347–64
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Parikka J. 2012. What Is Media Archaeology? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
  118. Parikka J. 2015. Sites of media archaeology: producing the contemporary as a shared topic. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 2:18–14
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Peeples MA. 2019. Finding a place for networks in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Res. 27:4451–99
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Perry S 2015. Crafting knowledge with (digital) visual media in archaeology. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice R Chapman, A Wylie 189–210 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Perry S. 2019. The enchantment of the archaeological record. Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3354–71
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Perry S, Morgan C. 2015. Materializing media archaeologies: the MAD-P hard drive excavation. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 2:194–104
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Perry S, Taylor J 2018. Theorising the digital: a call to action for the archaeological community. Oceans of Data: Proceedings of the 44th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology M Matsumoto, E Uleberg 11–22. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Piccini AA. 2015. Media-archaeologies: an invitation. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 2:11–8
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Pujol L, Champion E. 2012. Evaluating presence in cultural heritage projects. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 18:83–102
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Rabinowitz A. 2016. Response: Mobilizing (ourselves) for a critical digital archaeology. See Averett et al. 2016 493–520
  127. Reilly P 1990. Towards a virtual archaeology. Computer Applications in Archaeology S Rahtz, K Lockyear 132–39 Oxford, UK: Br. Archaeol. Rep.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Reilly P, Callery S, Dawson I, Gant S 2021. Provenance illusions and elusive paradata: when archaeology and art/archaeological practice meets the phygital. Open Archaeol. 7:1454–81
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Reilly P, Todd S, Walter A 2016. Rediscovering and modernising the digital Old Minster of Winchester. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Heritage 3:233–41
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Reinhard A 2018. Archaeogaming: An Introduction to Archaeology In and of Video Games New York: Berghahn Books
  131. Richardson L-J. 2018. Ethical challenges in digital public archaeology. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 1:164–73
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Rico T 2017. Technologies, technocracy, and the promise of “alternative” heritage values. Heritage in Action: Making the Past in the Present H Silverman, E Waterton, S Watson 217–30 Cham, Switz: Springer Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Rico T. 2020. The second coming of Palmyra. A technological prison. Archaeol. Dialogues 27:2125–26
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Robb J. 2021. The mobile phone in late medieval culture. Internet Archaeol 56: https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.56.7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Romanowska I, Wren CD, Crabtree SA. 2021. Agent-Based Modeling for Archaeology: Simulating the Complexity of Societies Santa Fe, NM: SFI Press
  136. Roosevelt CH, Cobb P, Moss E, Olson BR, Ünlüsoy S. 2015. Excavation is destruction digitization: advances in archaeological practice. J. Field Archaeol. 40:3325–46
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Roussou M, Perry S, Katifori A, Vassos S, Tzouganatou A, McKinney S. 2019. Transformation through provocation?. CHI ’19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems1–13 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Sapirstein P. 2020. Hand drawing versus computer vision in archaeological recording. Stud. Digit. Heritage 4:2134–59
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Shanks M, Svabo C. 2013. Archaeology and photography: a pragmatology. Reclaiming Archaeology: Beyond the Tropes of Modernity A González-Ruibal 105–18 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Stobiecka M. 2020a. Archaeological heritage in the age of digital colonialism. Archaeol. Dialogues 27:2113–25
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Stobiecka M. 2020b. Towards a prosthetic archaeology. J. Soc. Archaeol. 20:3335–52
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Taffel S. 2015. Archaeologies of electronic waste. J. Contemp. Archaeol. 2:178–85
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Tanasi D. 2020. The digital (within) archaeology. Analysis of a phenomenon. Historian 82:122–36
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Taylor J, Dell'Unto N 2021. Skeuomorphism in digital archaeological practice: a barrier to progress, or a vital cog in the wheels of change?. Open Archaeol 7:1482–98
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Taylor J, Issavi J, Berggren Å, Lukas D, Mazzucato C et al. 2018.. “ The rise of the machine”: the impact of digital tablet recording in the field at Çatalhöyük. Internet Archaeol 94:4757
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Townsend R, Sampeck K, Watrall E, Griffin JD. 2020. Digital archaeology and the living Cherokee landscape. Int. J. Hist. Archaeol. 24:4969–88
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Tringham R. 2015. Creating narratives of the past as recombinant histories. Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology RM Van Dyke, R Bernbeck 27–54 Boulder: Univ. Colo. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Tringham R. 2019. Giving voices (without words) to prehistoric people: glimpses into an archaeologist's imagination. Eur. J. Archaeol. 22:3338–53
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Tuno N, Mulahusić A, Topoljak J, Đidelija M. 2022. Evaluation of handheld scanner for digitization of cartographic heritage. J. Cult. Herit. 54:31–43
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Ulguim P. 2018. Models and metadata: the ethics of sharing bioarchaeological 3d models online. Archaeologies 14:2189–228
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Van Meter P, Firetto CM 2013. Cognitive model of drawing construction. Learning Through Visual Displays G Schraw, MT McCrudden, D Robinson 247–80 Charlotte, NC: IAP Inf. Age
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Yazdi LP, Massoudi A. 2017. The consumptive ruins archaeology of consuming past in the Middle East. Archaeologies 13:3435–59
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Watrall E 2016. Archaeology, the digital humanities, and the “big tent. .” In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016 MK Gold, LF Klein 345–58 Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Watterson A, Anderson J, Baxter K 2020. Designing digital engagements: approaches to creative practice and adaptable programming for archaeological visualisation. Proceedings of the EVA London 202066–72 Swindon, UK: BCS Learn. Dev.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Watterson A, Hillerdal C. 2020. Nunalleq, stories from the village of our ancestors: co-designing a multi-vocal educational resource based on an archaeological excavation. Archaeologies 16:2198–227
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Wheatley D, Gillings M. 2013. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
  157. Wickstead H. 2009. The Uber archaeologist: art, GIS and the male gaze revisited. J. Soc. Archaeol. 9:2249–71
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-114101
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error