Sunday, 26 November 2017

Intellectual Property

Note: For clarity, I am just going to discuss the two readings from the last post for next week. I'm sorry if I made things confusing by posting again. This is just for sharing. :)

Apologies for multiple posts, but I also wanted to bring up intellectual property issues in archaeology as we come up on next week's discussion. It was a bit difficult to narrow down articles I wanted the class to read, as issues surrounding intellectual property are certainly relevant. My solution: Another post! With completely optional readings and discussion. (For full disclosure: I've already read and shared these readings in another course, which is another reason why I made it a separate, non-assignment related post. Intellectual honesty is part of ethics, after all! I am only sharing because I do believe that issues surrounding copyright, trademark, and ownership are important to consider.)

Hollowell, Julie, and George Nicholas. 2008. "Intellectual Property Issues in Archaeological Publication: Some Questions to Consider". Archaeologies. 4 (2): 208-217.

I also present to you a case study of the ongoing legal debates surrounding intellectual property and cultural heritage in the United States: Building off the previous article, Sari Sharoni of Stanford Law School wrote on the potential and limitations of using trademark to deter cultural appropriation, which was later published as part of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal in the United States. She discusses the lawsuit against Urban Outfitters by the Navajo. Her point of view is that trademarking would ultimately be ineffective, which seems to have since been contradicted by recent legal victories.

Ethics, ethics, ethics: Going beyond the digital



It’s our last discussion day next week! How sad. It’s sure to be a good one, though, as we wrap up with thinking about the larger context of all this work and issues to think about.

I admit that I asked for this week. Not because it’s the last one, I swear! But because of the presence of the bone trade online. This article, though 10 years old, is a pretty good piece of journalism on the topic that covers a bit of the historical background and the trade’s colonial roots.

A quick online search can lead you to websites where you can purchase human remains online. Obviously, this becomes an issue in bioarchaeology when anthropologists are thinking about course materials, how this market might influence their fieldwork, or when law enforcement asks an anthropologist to identify a skull found in a garage. It's an old problem that has transformed into a niche market of collecting taboo curios that are increasing in value.

Before class, think about your own work and/or interests in archaeology. How has the internet or digital technologies influenced how you might have to handle excavation, artifacts, curation, or the dissemination of knowledge? What ethical dilemmas do/will you have to consider?

I have two main articles for next week:

The first is by Layla Renshaw writing on her experiences working on mass graves from the Spanish Civil War, available through the Western Libraries.

Renshaw addresses difficult metaphysical, ethical, and political questions about the role of archaeologists in the context of working with the recent dead and living descendants. I am using this article as part of the discussion of ethics. She draws on ANT and the sociology of technology to discuss the idea that “archaeology sparks a public into being.” Her point of view is that archaeologists, even when working in the most politically and emotionally difficult of contexts, can advance public deliberation of issues by becoming active "public intellectuals". (Note: The article starts on page 35)

Secondly, this is an article that I hope will help us wrap up the course with some good discussion and debate:

That links to the whole issue that is publicly available online, which has the theme of “Are We All Archaeologists Now?” The article in question starts on page 255.

You might ask why I am choosing an article written by a musician, but it touches on a lot of issues that we’ve been pondering over the entire course. With digital technologies, information is more accessible and many of us are using these technologies as part of “knowledge mobilization” and engaging different publics. In this digital era, what makes an archaeologist? At what point does someone become an archaeologist? How is the discipline evolving? Who owns knowledge? Should we be gatekeepers, or are we “all archaeologists now”?

Wednesday, 22 November 2017


Hi Everyone,

This article came across Jeremy Huggett's blog this week and I thought it would be timely to cross share with our blog.   (My apologies to those of us who may be tracking both of these sources)

Over the course of the term, we have discussed various ways that "digital" is impacting archaeology.   We've talked about ways that technology is changing how we "do" archaeology from a methodological perspective.   We've also talked about how technology impacts what we communicate and how our key messages might be perceived by the public and other interested stakeholders.      Huggett's article invites us to think about this from a slightly different perspective.   How is technology (more specifically mobile technologies such as phones & tablets) potentially changing or impacting "us" as practicing archaeologists in terms of our basic cognitive capacity to focus (avoid distractions) and to remember/recall key information pieces?  

There is quite a bit of literature available on the subject of cell phone distraction and the downside of technology overuse.   I came across this wide-ranging article here which outlines a number of "hidden" social affects of technology use in section 2 and concludes with a specific call to Anthropologists for additional interdisciplinary research in this area. 

As the person who recently pitched the idea of a "digital mobile (pocket) assistant" application to our group, I am clearly on the "pro-technology" side of this discussion, but are there other consequences that we need to take into consideration!    Do you think that the "profits" from our mobile devices outweigh the "deficits" they impose on us ?  

Jeff

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

Public engagement and social media!



Hi everyone,

Building from Hillary’s post, here is an article that I briefly shared during discussion, which I found to be provocative about Twitter altmetrics:

I stumbled across it when I was looking into the efficacy of Twitter in public engagement, since we were discussing it in the context of archaeology. There are some limitations to the study (which they acknowledge). For example, their conclusions about Twitter engagement doesn’t necessarily apply across all fields since they only focus on one discipline (dentistry). Also, this study is focused specifically on the use of Twitter in altmetrics with journal articles, not general public engagement (however you define that). [Sidenote: There are many enthusiastic proponents of altmetrics out there, and active discussion surrounding their use.]

However, I believe it does bring up a few issues that we reflected upon in class. How do we measure online “engagement”? Is it 10 re-tweets? 500 Facebook followers that actively participate in conversation (what is considered active participation)? A million crowd-funding participants?

My personal feelings are that online numbers are not always an effective or comprehensive reflection upon engagement (or the importance of a project!), though the reality is that numbers are what most people want to see and find impressive. It has also occurred to me that I view this as a key difference between online measurements and measuring engagement through, say, ticket sales at a museum. In the offline world, it's unlikely that we would be concerned with 100 fake visitors to an exhibit. Thus, perhaps this is an area where applying offline methods don't translate well to a digital space. In designing how to generate interest in archaeology and communicate archaeological concepts, these are going to be the issues we’re going to have to confront. I am curious to know if anyone has found different ways of measuring engagement with more qualitative methods to add to the numbers.

Virtual Curation Lab and others...

Hi all,

Just thought I would put this together after our discussion on Monday about the Virtual Curation Lab and Bernard Means. when discussing this article it seemed to me that many, if not all of us, were a little uncomfortable with some of the methodology and practices outlined here. I have linked the VCLs Sketchfab page. This is where the 3D models that are being shared with the public are hosted. There are currently nearly 600 models hosted on this page, covering a wide variety of artifact types and material culture traditions.

While I certainly think there are research applications for this sort of work I think there are a lot of things that haven't been considered here such as long term storage of these models or some of the ethical considerations for the display of these models. Also in some cases I think there is something to be said for the "slow archaeology" approach in terms of the quality of the final product... but maybe that is just me. we have spent a lot of time talking about the "boys with toys" approach to digital archaeology which I think we can see elements of here.

Embedded here is the most popular of the models created by the lab. It is a peanut from 1890, some have referred to as the "first peanut". 

For those of you that were not in class on Monday, what did you think of this article? Were there things you would have liked to have seen Dr Means address or did you enjoy his approach? 

Sunday, 19 November 2017

Automatic Interpretation and Documentation of Ceramics

The ArchaAIDE Project is run by a consortium of institutions and professionals (Universities of Pisa, Barcelona, York and Cologne, Italian National Research Council, School of Computer Science at the University of Tel Aviv and IT and archaeology professionals) and it is funded by the European Union. 

The goal of ArchAIDE is to create "new system for the automatic recognition of archaeological pottery", which is usually the most common artifact found in archaeological sites. Pottery analysis yield a great amount of socio-economic information, but the interpretation of ceramics requires high skills, experience and time. 

In order to streamline the process and make knowledge accessible wherever, the ArchAIDE project will develop an app for smartphones and tablets. The app will allow archaeologists to take pictures of potsherds and, connceting to a database, it will recognize the sherd and retrieve information about the specific ceramic type. In addition, recognized sherds will be stored and shared. The app will also enable archaeologists to generate an electronic document about the artifact, reducing the amount of paperwork.

Such an app might revolutionize fieldwork, but is it possible to replace skilled scholars with an app? Does a streamlined interpretation and classification process have only advantages or do we still need to be reflexive when we are studying artifacts? Could this app reduce the interpretation of material culture to a mere "labelling" process?


http://www.archaide.eu/home



Sunday, 12 November 2017

Reading for November 20th

Hi Everyone,


Here is a link to a (short) supplemental article for next week's class.   As you work through the readings, please consider the following topics that I am hoping to explore with you in more detail:  

  • The composition and makeup of the "public" and other "local" communities
  • The dynamics of power relations that influence the archaeological discourse within these communities
  • What is meant by "engagement" and how that is impacted by the internet and digital communications

Thanks,  

Jeff  

Visser, Jasper. Perspectives on Digital Engagement with Culture and Heritage. Vol. 68 American Association for State And Local History, 2013.

Sunday, 5 November 2017

GlobalXplorer and "Space Archaeology"

When I was looking for sources for my final paper, I stumbled on the "GlobalXplorer" project (https://www.globalxplorer.org/). 
The project is funded by the 2016 TED prize, won by Sarah Parcak, Egyptologist and Faculty Member at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (U.S.).
The goals of GlobalXplorer are discover archaeological sites in Peru using high resolution satellite images, protect these sites from looting and then help communities who live near these archaeological sites (https://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_parcak_hunting_for_peru_s_lost_civilizations_with_satellites)

The most innovative aspect of GlobalXplorer is the public engagement: everyone can create an account and, after a short "training", analyze satellite images and contribute to discover archaeological sites.
The project is also sponsored by National Geographic and in an online article Parcak says "Archaeologists can’t do this on their own. If we don't go and find these sites, looters will.” GlobalXplorer is compared to a videogame that "... will appeal to people who want to be part of the work that goes into making actual discoveries and solving ancient riddles—and stopping the destruction of our human heritage.” (https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/archaeologists-parcak-globalxplorer-looting-ted-prize/)

Most articles about GlobalXplorer and "Space Archaeology" shows how every single person can become a modern Indiana Jones (and I personally hate the parallelism Indiana Jones-archaeology). In addition, there is a sort of sensationalization of archaeology (let's just think about the term "space archaeology or the description of Dr. Parcak as an "archaeological evangelist".)

What do you think about these kind of project or this specific project? Do you think that it is a good way to engage the public? And, is it good to to engage public in satellite imagery analysis for archaeological purpose? What do you think abou this sensationalization and "gamification" of the discipline?