A Digital Archaeology of Digital Archaeology: work in progress

Ethan Watrall and I have been playing around with data mining as a way of writing a historiography of digital & computational archaeology. We’d like to invite you to play along.

We’ll probably have something to say on this at the SAA in April. Anyway, we’ve just been chugging along slowly, sharing the odd email, google doc, and so on – and a monstrous huge topic model browser I set up. Yesterday, an exchange on twitter took place that prompted us to share those materials.

This prompted a lot of chatter, including:

and this:

So let’s get this party started, shall we?

~o0o~

While there’s a lot of movement towards sharing data, and open access publications, there’s also this other space of materials that we don’t talk about too much – the things we build from the data that we (sometimes) share that enable us to write those publications we (sometimes) make open access. This intermediate stage never gets shared. Probably with good reason, but I thought given the nature of digital work, perhaps there’s an opportunity here to open not just our research outputs & inputs, but also our process to wider participation.

Hence this post, and all that follows.

~o0o~

Here’s what I did. I scoured JSTOR’s DFR for anglophone journals, from 1935 onwards (full bibliography right here: http://graeworks.net/digitalarchae/20000/#/bib. Then I fitted various topic models to them, using Andrew Goldstone’s dfr-topics which is an R package using MALLET on the bag-of-words that DFR gives you, running the result through Andrew’s dfr-browser (tag line: “Take a MALLET to disciplinary history!”).

The results can be viewed here. Like I said, this is the middle part of an analysis that we’re sharing here. Want to do some historiography with a distant reading approach? We’d love to see what you spot/think/observe in these models (maybe your students would like a go?) In which case, here’s an open pad for folks to share & comment.

Why would you bother? Well, it occurred to me that I’ve never seen anyone try to crowdsource this step of the process. Maybe it’s a foolish idea. But if folks did, and there was merit to this process, maybe some kind of digital publication could result where all contributors would be authors? Maybe a series of essays, all growing from this same body of analysis? Lots of opportunities.

Stranger things have happened, right?

~o0o~

Just to get you going, here are some of the things I’ve noticed, and some of my still-churning thoughts on what all this might mean (I’ve pasted this from another document; remember, work in progress!):

remembering that in topic modeling, a word can be used in different senses in different topics/discourses (thus something of the semantic sense of a word is preserved)

tools used:

-stanford tmt for detailed view on CAA (computer applications in archaeology)

-mimno’s browser based jslda for detailed view of correlations between topics (using CAA & IA) (internet archaeology, only the open access materials before it went fully OA in October 2014)

-Goldstone’s dftropics for R and dfrbrowser to visulaize 21 000 articles as entire topic model

-same again for individual journals: AJA, JFA, AmA, CA, JAMT, WA

——-

stanford tmt of caa 1974 – 2011

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 3.43.49 PM

-no stoplist used; discards most prominent and least likely words from the analysis

-its output is formatted in such a way that it becomes easy to visualize the patterns of discourse over time (MALLET, the other major tool for doing topic modeling, requires much more massaging to get the output in such a form. The right tool for the right job).

-30 topics gives good breakdown; topic 26 contains garbage (‘caa proceedings’ etc as topic words)

In 1974, the most prominent topics were:

topic 1 – computer, program, may, storage, then, excavation, recording, all, into, form, using, retrieval, any, user, output, records, package, entry, one, unit

topic 6: but, they, one, time, their, all, some, only, will, there, would, what, very, our, other, any, most, them, even

topic 20: some, will, many, there, field, problems, may, but, archaeologists, excavation, their, they, recording, however, record, new, systems, most, should, need

The beginnings of the CAA are marked by hesitation and prognostication: what *are* computers for, in archaeology? There is a sense that for archaeologists, computation is something that will be useful insofar as it can be helpful for recording information in the field. With time, topic 1 diminishes. By 2000 it is nearly non-existent.  The hesitation expressed by topics 6 and 20 continues though. Archaeologists do not seem comfortable with the future.

Other early topics that thread their way throughout the entire period are topics 5, 2, 27 and 28:

Topic 5: matrix, units, stratigraphie, relationships, harris, unit, between, method, each, attributes, may two diagram, point, other, seriation, one, all, stratigraphy, sequence

Topic 2: area, survey, aerial, north, features, sites, region, located, excavation, river, areas, during, field, its, large, project, south, water, over, fig

Topic 27: sites, monuments, heritage, national, record, management, cultural, records, development, systems, england, database, english, its, survey, new, will, also, planning, protection.

Topic 28: museum, museums, collections, project, national, documentation, all, database, archives, about, archive, objects, sources, documents, university, text, our, also, collection, reports.

These topics suggest the ‘what’ of topic 1: how do we deal with contexts and units? Large surveys? Sites and monuments records and museum collections? Interestingly, topics 27 and 28 can be taken as representing something of the professional archaeological world (as opposed to ‘academic’ archaeology).

Mark Lake, in a recent review of simulation and modeling in archaeology (JAMT 2014) describes various trends in modeling [discuss]. Only topic 9 seems to capture this aspect of computational/digital archaeology:

model, models, social, modeling, simulation, human, their, between, network, approach, movement, networks, past, different, theory, how, one, population, approaches, through

Interestingly, for this topic, there is a thin thread from the earliest years of the CAA to the present (2011), with brief spurst in the late 70s, and late 80s, then a consistent presence throughout the 90s, with a larger burst from 2005-2008. Lake characterizes thus…. [lake]. Of course, Lake also cites various books and monographs which this analysis does not take into account.

If we regard ‘digital archaeology’ as something akin to ‘digital humanities’ (and so distinct from ‘archaeological computation’) how does it, or does it even, appear in this tangled skein? A rough distinction between the two perspectives can be framed using Trevor Owens meditation on what computation is for. Per Owens, we can think of a humanistic use of computing as one that helps us deform our materials, to give us a different perspective on it. Alternatively, one can think of computing as something that helps us justify a conclusion. That is, the results of the computation are used to argue that such-a-thing is most likely in the past, given this model/map/cluster/statistic. In which case, there are certain topics that seem to imply a deformation of perspective (and thus, a ‘digital archaeology’ rather than an archaeological computation):

topic 03: cultural, heritage, semantic, model, knowledge, systems, web, standards, ontology, work, domain, conceptual, different, crm, between, project, based, approach

topic 04: knowledge, expert, process, its, artefacts, set, problem, different, concepts, human, systems, but, they, what, our, scientific, about, how, all, will

topic 07: project, web, digital, university, internet, access, online, service, through, electronic, http, european, technologies, available, public, heritage, will, services, network, other

topic 14: virtual, reality, museum, public, visualization, models, reconstruction, interactive, museums, multimedia, heritage, envrionment, scientific, reconstructions, will, computer, technologies, environments, communication

topic 29: gis, spatial, time, within, space, temporal, landscape, study, into, social, approaches, geographic, applications, approach, features, environmental, based, between, their, past

Topic 3 begins to emerge in 1996 (although its general discourse is present as early as 1988).  Topic 4 emerges with strength in the mid 1980s, though its general thrust (skepticism about how knowledge is created?) runs throughout the period. Topic 7 emerges in 1994 (naturally enough, when the internet/web first hit widespread public consciousness). Should topic 7 be included in this ‘digital archaeology’ group? Perhaps, inasmuch as it also seems to wrestle with public access to information, which would seem not to be about justifying some conclusion about the past but rather opening perspectives upon it. Topic 14 emerges in the early 1990s.

Topic 29, on first blush, would seem to be very quantitative. But the concern with time and temporality suggests that this is a topic that is trying to get to grips with the experience of space. Again, like the others, it emerges in the late 1980s and early 1990s. [perhaps some function of the personal computer revolution..? instead of being something rare and precious -thus rationed and only for ‘serious’ problems requiring distinct answers – computing power can now be played with and used to address less ‘obvious’ questions?]

What of justification? These are the topics that grapple with statistics and quantification:

Topic 10: age, sites, iron, settlement, early, bronze, area, burial, century, one, period, their, prehistoric, settlements, grave, within, first, neolithic, two, different

Topic 11: pottery, shape, fragments, classification, profile, ceramics, vessels, shapes, vessel, sherds, method, two, ceramic, object, work, finds, computer, fragment, matching, one

Topic 13: dating, radiocarbon, sampling, london, dates, some, but, betwen, than, e.g. , statistical, chronological, date, there, different, only, sample, results, one, errors

Topic 15: landscape, project, study, landscapes, studies, cultural, area, gis, human, through, their, its, rock, history, historical, prehistoric, environment, our, different, approach

Topic 17: sutdy, methods, quantitative, technqiues, approach, statistical, using, method, studies, number, artifacts, results, variables, two, most, bones, based, various, analyses, applied

Topic 19: statistical, methods, techniques, variables, tiie, statistics, density, using, cluster, technique, multivariate, method, two, nottingham, example, principal, some, university

Topic 21: model, predicitve, modelling, models, cost, elevation, viewshed, surface, sites, gis, visibility, van, location, landscape, areas, one, terrain, dem, digital

topic 23: image, digital, documentation, images, techniques, laser, scanning, models, using, objects, high, photogrammetry, methods, model, recording, object, surveying, drawings, accuracy, resolution

topic 24: surface, artefact, distribtuion, artefacts, palaeolithic, materials, sites, deposits, within, middle, area, activity, during, phase, soil, processes, lithic, survey, remains, france

Macroscopic patterns

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 3.45.25 PMThis detail of the overall flow of topics in the CAA proceedings points to the period 1978 – 1983 as a punctuation point, an inflection point, of new topics within the computers-and-archaeology crowd. The period 1990-2011 contains minor inflections around 1997 and 2008.

1997-1998

1990-2011

In terms of broad trends, pivot points seem to be the late 70s, 1997, 2008. Given that our ‘digital archaeology’ themes emerge in the late 90s, let’s add Internet Archaeology to the mix [why this journal, why this time: because of the 90s inflection point? quicker publication schedule? ability to incorporate novel outputs that could never be replicated in print?]. This time, instead of searching for topics, let’s see what correlates with our digital archaeology topics. For this, David Mimno’s browser based LDA topic model is most useful. We run it for 1000 iterations, and find the following correlation matrix.

[insert discussion here]

http://www.graeworks.net/digitalarchae/mimno/jslda.html?docs=caa_and_intarch.txt&stoplist=en.txt&topics=30

-1000 iterations. Your 1000 iterations will be slightly different than mine, because this is a probablistic approach

- the browser produces csv files for download, as well as a csv formatted for visualizing patterns of correlation as a network in Gephi or other network visualization software.

-stop list is en, fr, de from MALLET + archaeology, sites, data, research

-running this in a browser is not the most efficient way of doing this kind of analysis, but the advantage is that it allows the reader to explore how topics sort themselves out, and its visualization of correlated topics is very effective and useful.

-note word usage. Mimno’s browser calculates the ‘specificity’ of a word to a topic. The closer to 1.0, the closer the word is distributed only within a single topic. Thus, we can take such words as being true ‘keywords’ for particular kinds of discourses. [which will be useful in exploring the 20000 model]. “Computer” has a specificity of 0.61, while “virtual” has a specificity of 0.87, meaning that ‘computer’ is used in a number of topics, while ‘virtual’ is almost exclusively used in a single discourse. Predicitve has a specificty of 1, and statistical of 0.9.

In the jsLDA model, there are three topics that deal with GIS.

topic 19, gis landscape spatial social approach space study human studies approaches

topic 18, database management systems databases gis web software user model tool

topic 16, sites gis landscape model predictive area settlement modelling region land

The first, topic 19, seems to correspond well with our earlier topic that we argued was about using GIS to offer a new perspective on human use/conception of space (ie, a ‘digital’ approach, in our formulation). Topics 18 and 16 are clearly about GIS as a computational tool. In the correlation matrix below, blue equals topics that occur together greater than expected, while red equals less than expected; the size of the dot gives an indication of how much. Thus, if we look for the topics that go hand in hand with topic 19, the strongest are topic 16 (the predictive power of GIS), and topic 10 (social, spain, simulation, networks, models).

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 5.28.47 PMThe ‘statistical, methods, techniques, artefact, quantitative, statistics, artefacts’ topic is positively correlated with ‘human, material, palaeolithic’, ‘time, matrix, relationship’, and ‘methods, points, point’ topics. This constellation of topics is clearly a use of computation to answer or address very specific questions.

-in jslda there’s a topic ‘database project digital databases web management systems access model semantic’ – positively correlated with ‘publication project electoric’, ‘text database maps map section user images museum’, ‘excavation recording’, ‘vr model’,  ‘cultural heritage museum’, ‘italy gis’, ‘sites monuments record’ [see keys.csv for exact label]. These seem to be topics that deal with deforming our perspectives while at the same time intersecting with extremely quantitative goals.

So far, we have been reading distantly some 40 years of archaeological work that is explicitly concerned with the kind of archaeology that uses computational and digital approaches. There are punctuation points, ‘virages’, and complicated patterns – there is no easy-to-see disjuncture between what the digital humanists imagine is the object of using computers, and their critics who see computation as positivism by the back door. It does show that archaeology should be regarded as an early mover in what has come to be known as ‘the digital humanities’, with quite early sophisticated and nuanced uses of computing. But how early? And how much has archaeological computing/digital archaeology permeated the discipline? To answer these questions, we turn to a much larger topic model

Zoom Out Some More

Let’s put this into a broader context. 24 journals from JSTOR were selected for both general coverage of archaeology and for regional/topical specialities. The resulting dataset contains 21000 [get exact number] articles, mostly from the past 75 years (a target start date of 1940 was selected for journals whose print run predates the creation of the electronic computer, thus computer = machine and not = woman who computes). 100 topics seemed to capture the range of thematic discourses well. We looked first for topics that seem analogous to the CAA & IA topics (CAA and IA were not included in this analysis because they are not within the JSTOR DFR database; Goldstone’s DFR Browser was used for the visualization of the topics). [better explanation, rationale, to be written, along with implications]. We also observe ‘punctuation points’ in this broader global (anglosphere) representation of archaeology that correspond with the inflection points in the small model, many trends that fit but also other trends that do not fit with standard historigoraphy of archaeology. We then dive into certain journals (AJA, JFA, AmA, JAMT) to tease these trends apart. Just what has been the impact of computational and digital archaeology in the broader field?

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 5.29.24 PMThe sillouhette in the second column gives a glimpse into the topic’s prevalence over the ca 75 years of the corpus. The largest topic, topic 10, with its focus on ‘time, made, work, years, great, place, make’ suggests a kind of special pleading, that in the rhetoric of archaeological argument, one always has to explain just why this particular site/problem/context is important. A similar topic was observed in the model fitted to the CAA & IAA [-in 20000 model, there’s the ‘time’ topic time made work years great place make long case fact point important good people times; it’s the largest topic, and accounts for 5.5%. here, there is one called ‘paper time work archaeologists introduction present important problems field approach’. it’s slightly correlated with every other topic. Seems very similar. ]

More interesting are the topics a bit further down the list. Topic 45 (data, analysis, number, table, size, sample) is clearly quantitative in nature, and its sillhouette matches our existing stories about the rise of the New Archaeology in the late 60s and early 70s. Topics 38 and 1 seem to be topics related to describing finds – ‘found, site, stone, small, area’; ‘found, century, area, early, excavations’. Topic 84 suggests the emergence of social theories and power – perhaps an indication of the rise of Marxist archaeologies? Further down the list we see ‘professional’ archaeology and cutlrual resource management, with peaks in the 1960s and early 1980s.

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 5.29.56 PM

Topic 27 might indicate perspectives connected with gender archaeology – “social, women, material, gender, men, objects, female, meaning, press, symbolic” – and it accounts for 0.8% of the corpus: about 160 articles.  ‘Female’ appears in four topics, topic 27, topic 65 (‘head, figure, left, figures, back, side, hand, part’ – art history? 1.4% of the corpus) topic 58 (“skeletal, human, remains, age, bone”- osteoarchaeology, 1.1% of the corpus), and topic 82 (“age, population, human, children, fertility” – demographics? 0.8% of the corpus).

[other words that would perhaps key into major trends in archaeological thought? looking at these topics, things seem pretty conservative, whatever the theorists may think, which is surely important to draw out and discuss]

Concerned as we are to unpick the role of computers in archaeology more generally, if we look at the word ‘data’ in the coprus, we find it contributes to 9 different topics (http://graeworks.net/digitalarchae/20000/#/word/data ). It is the most important word in topic 45 (data, analysis, number, table, size, sample, study) and in topic 55 (data, systems, types, information, type, method, units, technique, design). The word ‘computer’ is also part of topic 55. Topic 45 looks like a topic connected with statistical analysis (indeed, ‘statistical’ is a minor word in that topic), while topic 55 seems to be more ‘digital’ in the sense we’ve been discussing here. Topic 45 is present in 3.2% of the corpus, growing in prominence from the early 1950s, falling in the 60s, and resurging in the 70s, and then decreasing to a more or less steady state in the 00s.

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 5.30.34 PM

Topic 55 holds some surprises:

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 5.31.17 PM

The papers in 1938 come from American Antiquity volume 4 and show an early awareness of not just quantitative methods, but also the reflective way those methods affect what we see [need to read all these to be certain of this]

next steps

- punctuation points – see http://graeworks.net/digitalarchae/20000/#/model/yearly

major – 1940 (but perhaps an artefact of the boundaries of the study)

minor- early 1950s

minor- mid 1960s

major- 1976 (american antiquity does something odd in this year)

major- 1997-8

 

Breakage

I was at #seeingthepast these last two days (website). During one of the discussions, the idea of glitchiness of augmented reality was raised, and ways that this might intersect with materiality were explored. At one point, the idea of an app that let people break museum objects (the better to know them and how they were created) was mooted. (nb, I didn’t come up with the idea; it might have been Keri or Caitlin).

I tweeted:

and archaeologists on the twitterverse responded. (I then would periodically inform the symposium of the twitter discussion, which would then spark ruminations on the virtuality of conferences, but I digress):

On the way home, I had time to think about how this might work. If you’ve got the chops to make it happen, this is how I think ‘Breakage’ could go, so I’d love to see something like:

- photos uploaded from museum online catalogues, exhibitions, or databases (ones without good provenances)

- user can pan through these. When one catches the user’s fancy, the user selects it: and it shatters into pieces.

- each piece can then be examined; pieces highlights some aspect of the object inherent to the object (makers’ marks, artistic effects, clay fabric, whatever).

- touch again, and the pieces are put into a *possible* context. touch again, a different *possible* context. Show how different meanings could be understood if this was the actual context, and how it…. but damn. We don’t actually know what the piece’s real context was, so we don’t know anything.

- and then the image would be deleted from the user’s version of the app, never to be seen again, as if it has been looted anew.

SAA 2015: Macroscopic approaches to archaeological histories: Insights into archaeological practice from digital methods

Ben Marwick and I are organizing a session for the SAA2015 (the 80th edition, this year in San Francisco) on “Macroscopic approaches to archaeological histories: Insights into archaeological practice from digital methods”. It’s a pretty big tent. Below is the session ID and the abstract. If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, why don’t you get in touch?

Session ID 743.

The history of archaeology, like most disciplines, is often presented as a sequence of influential individuals and a discussion of their greatest hits in the literature.  Two problems with this traditional approach are that it sidelines the majority of participants in the archaeological literature who are excluded from these discussions, and it does not capture the conversations outside of the canonical literature.  Recently developed computationally intensive methods as well as creative uses of existing digital tools can address these problems by efficiently enabling quantitative analyses of large volumes of text and other digital objects, and enabling large scale analysis of non-traditional research products such as blogs, images and other media. This session explores these methods, their potentials, and their perils, as we employ so-called ‘big data’ approaches to our own discipline.

—-

Like I said, if that sounds like something you’d be curious to know more about, ping me.

Assessing my upcoming seminar on the Illicit Antiquities trade, HIST4805b

So I’m putting together the syllabus for my illicit antiquities seminar. This is where I think I’m going with the course, which starts in less than a month (eep!). The first part is an attempt to revitalize my classroom blogging, and to formally tie it into the discussion within the classroom – that is, something done in advance of class in order to make the classroom discussion richer. In the second term, I want to make as much time as possible for students to pursue their own independent research, which I’m framing as an ‘unessay’ following the O’Donnell model.

~oOo~

Daylight: The Journal of #HIST4805b Studying Looted Heritage

Rationale: What we are studying is important, and what we are learning needs to be disseminated as widely as possible. In a world where ‘American Diggers‘ can be a tv show, where National Geographic (for heaven’s sake!) seriously can contemplate putting on a show that desecrates war dead for entertainment there is a need to shed daylight. The fall term major assessment piece does this. You will be writing and curating a Flipboard magazine that ties our readings and discussions into the current news regarding heritage crime.

There are a number of steps to this.

  1. Each week, everyone  logs into heritage.crowdmap.com and puts three new reports on the map.
  2. Each week, a different subset of the class will be the lead editors for our journal.
    1. lead editors each write an editorial that explores the issues raised in the readings, with specific reference to new reports on our crowdmap. Editorials should be 750- 1000 words long.
    2. lead editors curate the Flipboard magazine so that it contains:
      1. the editorials
      2. the crowdmap reports
      3. the readings
  3. This should be completed before Monday’s class where we will discuss those readings. The lead editors will begin the class by discussing their edition of Daylight.*
  4. Each student will be a lead editor three times.

*if you can think of a better name, we’ll use that.

At the end of term you will nominate your two best pieces for grading. I will grade these for how you’ve framed your argument, for your use of evidence, and for your understanding of the issues. I will also take into account your in-class discussion of your edition of Daylight.

At the end of term you will also nominate two of your peers’ best pieces for consideration for bonus, with a single line explaining why.

This is worth 40% of your final grade.

—–

The Unessay Research Project

Unessay‘ noun - as described by Daniel Paul O’Donnell,

“[…] the unessay is an assignment that attempts to undo the damage done by [traditional essay writing at the university level]. It works by throwing out all the rules you have learned about essay writing in the course of your primary, secondary, and post secondary education and asks you to focus instead solely on your intellectual interests and passions. In an unessay you choose your own topicpresent it any way you please, and are evaluated on how compelling and effective you are.”

Which means for us:

The second term is an opportunity for exploration, and for you to use the time that you would normally spend in a classroom listening as time for active planning, researching, and learning the necessary skills, to effectively craft an ‘unessay’ of original research on a topic connected with the illicit antiquities trade. I will put together a schedule for weekly one on one or small group meetings where I can help you develop your project.

For this to work, you will have to come prepared to these meetings. This means keeping a research journal to which I will have access. You may choose to make this publicly accessible as well (and we’ll talk about why and how you might want to do that).  Periodically, we will meet as an entire class to discuss the issues we are having in our research. You will present your research formally to the class and invited visitors at the end of term – your project might not be finished at that point, but your presentation can take this into account. The project is due on the final day of term.

Grading:

Pass/Fail: Research Journal (ie, no complete research journal, no assessment for this project). We will discuss what is involved in a research journal. A Zotero library with notes would also be acceptable.

5% Presentation in class

45% Project

O’Donnel writes,

“If unessays can be about anything and there are no restrictions on format and presentation, how are they graded?

The main criteria is how well it all fits together. That is to say, how compelling and effective your work is.

An unessay is compelling when it shows some combination of the following:

  • it is as interesting as its topic and approach allows
  • it is as complete as its topic and approach allows (it doesn’t leave the audience thinking that important points are being skipped over or ignored)
  • it is truthful (any questions, evidence, conclusions, or arguments you raise are honestly and accurately presented)

In terms of presentation, an unessay is effective when it shows some combination of these attributes:

  • it is readable/watchable/listenable (i.e. the production values are appropriately high and the audience is not distracted by avoidable lapses in presentation)
  • it is appropriate (i.e. it uses a format and medium that suits its topic and approach)
  • it is attractive (i.e. it is presented in a way that leads the audience to trust the author and his or her arguments, examples, and conclusions).”

~oOo~

So that’s what I’m going with. I’m not giving points out for participation, as that never has really worked for me. There will of course be much more going on in the classroom that just what is described here, including technical tutorials on various digital tools that I think are useful, beta-testing some other things, but my thinking is that these will see their expression in the quality of the independent research that takes place in the Winter term.

So Fall term: much reading, much discussion. Winter term: self-direction along trajectories established in the Fall. We shall see.

Desert Island Archaeologies

You’ve been castaway on an uncharted desert isle… but friendly dolphins deposit a steamer trunk full of books on the shore to keep you occupied, the exact ten you’d pick. Thus the premise of Lorna Richardson’s new public archaeology project: Desert Island Archaeologies. Turns out, I was the first castaway. You can read my ten picks alongside those of other castaways, or just keep reading here.

[… the sun beats down…]

Damn steamer trunks. Can’t lift it. All these archaeology books! What those dolphins must be eating, I ask you!

Let’s see. Ah. Here we go. Goodness: the exact ten books I would want to be reading. First up: Ray Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, 1994. This was the book that convinced me to go to grad school – we had a whole seminar built on it in my final year, back in ’96. It was unlike anything else I was reading as an undergraduate, and showed me that there were ways of looking at something as well-trod as Pompeii that were completely askew of what I’d come to expect. The geek in me loved the space-syntax, the way of reading street life. Hell, it was fun!

Next,Stephen Shennan, Genes, Memes and Human History – Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution (2002). By the time I came across this, I was getting very much into complex systems and simulation, and this was something that helped me make sense of what I was doing. And it’s a fun read. Oh look, here’s Amanda Claridge’s Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide‘ (1998). I hear Amanda’s dry wit every time I open this thing. This was my constant companion on my first trip to Rome. I can’t imagine going there without it.

If I ever get off this island.

What else, what else… It’s interesting how nostalgic I am about these items. Each one seems tied to a particular chapter of my life. Matthew Johnson’s ‘Archaeological Theory‘ (1999) still makes me laugh and provides guidance through the thorny thickets of theory. Sybille Haynes’ ‘Etruscan Civilization‘ is a treat for sore eyes, filled with the beauty and magic of that people. I expect it can also be used for self-defence, in case of wild animal attack on this island. I used it for the first class I ever taught, at the school of continuing education at Reading.

Harry Evans, ‘Water Distribution in Ancient Rome‘ (1997) reminds me of adventures through the Roman countryside on a dangerously lunatic vespa, trying to identify the standing ruins, with A. Trevor Hodge’s ‘Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply (1992) in the other hand. Hodge’s book was as a bible for me writing my MA; I had the opportunity to meet Hodge at Carleton University shortly after I started working there. Sadly, a trivial over-long meeting prevented that from happening. Hodge died later that week. I will regret that always.

Back to Ray Laurence. The man has had a profound impact on me as a scholar. His ‘Roads of Roman Italy: Mobility and Cultural Change‘ (1999) and all that space-economy stuff: fantastic! Totally connected with the ORBIS simulation of the Roman world by Meeks and Scheidel, by the way, in terms of how it changes our perspective on the Roman world (ORBIS isn’t a book, but maybe there’s a tablet in this steamer trunk somewhere?) In the intro to Roads of Roman Italy, Laurence mentions my name, which was the first time I’d seen my name in print, in an academic context. A real thrill! No less of a thrill than how I came to be mentioned in the first place: driving the British School at Rome’s death-trap ducato for Ray as we explored the remains of the Roman roads in the outskirts of town. If there is no tablet in this steamer trunk (with wifi provided by an unseen Google blimp, obviously), I think the ‘Baths of Caracalla‘ by Janet DeLaine (1997) might be buried down here somewhere… ah, here it is. When I first pitched my MA idea to Janet, she kept finishing my sentences. I wanted to do a quanity survey of the Roman aqueducts. Turned out, she was waaaaay ahead of me. She let me use the manuscript to this as I puttered away on the Aqua Claudia and the Anio Novus. It’s actually quite a fun read, especially when you start thinking about nuts-and-bolts type questions like, how the hell did they build this damned thing anyway?

Final book? It’s not archaeological, but it’s a good read. Complexity: A Guided Tour‘ by Melanie Mitchell, 2011. I’m quite into simulation and games, and the emergent behaviours of both ai and humans when they conspire together to create (ancient) history (as distinct from the past). That’s a whole lot of interdisciplinariness, so this volume by Mitchell always provides clarity and illumination.

So… that’s what I’ve found in this steamer trunk. The bibliographic biography of a digital archaeologist. Neat!

 

The Web of Authors for Wikipedia’s Archaeology Page

I’m playing with a new toy, WikiImporter, which allows me to download the network of authorship on media-wiki powered sites. I fired it up, set it to grab the user-article network and “The Hyperlink Coauthorship network will analyze all the links found in the seed article and create an edge between each user that edited the article found in that link and the article”.

Naturally, I pointed it at ‘archaeology’ on Wikipedia.  I’ve posted the resulting two mode network on figshare for all and sundry to analyze.

I also asked it to download the article to article links (which is slightly different than my spidering results, as my spiders also included the wiki pages themselves, like the ‘this page is a stub’ or ‘this page needs citations’, which gives me an interesting perspective on the quality of the articles. More on that another day). This file is also on figshare here.

Just remember to cite the files. Enjoy!

 

Interview by Ben Meredith, for his article on procedurally generated archaeology sims

I was interviewed by Ben Meredith on procedurally generated game worlds and their affinities with archaeology, for Kill Screen Magazine. The piece was published this morning. It’s a good read, and an interesting take on one of the more interesting recent developments in gaming. I asked Ben if I could post the unedited communication we had, from which he drew on for his article. He said ‘yes!’, so here it is.

Hi Ben,

It seems to me that archaeology and video games share a number of affinities, not least of which because they are both procedurally generated. There is a method for field archaeology; follow the method, and you will have correctly excavated the site/surveyed the landscape/recorded the standing remains/etc. These procedures contain within them various ways of looking at the world, and emphasize certain kinds of values over others, which is why it is possible to have a marxist archaeology, or a gendered archaeology, or so on. Thus, it also seems obvious to me that you can have an archaeology within video games (not to be confused with media archaeology, or an archaeology of video games). A great example of this kind of work is Andrew Rheinhart’s exploration of the beta of Elder Scrolls Online – you should touch base with him, too.http://archaeogaming.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/beta-testing-archaeology-in-elder-scrolls-online-taken-down/

On to your questions!

What motivated you to become an archaeologist?

Romance, mystery, allure, the ‘other’, the desire to travel… my initial impetus for getting into archaeology comes from the fact that I’m ‘from the bush’ in rural Canada and as a teenager I wanted so much more from the world. I now recognize that there’s some amazing archaeology in my own backyard (as it were) but I was too young and immature to recognize it then. The Greek Bronze Age, the Mycenaean heroes, the Minoans, Thera… all these captured my imagination. And there was no snow!

Personally, what single facet of archaeology captures the spirit of the field most effectively?

Check out the work of Colleen Morgan http://middlesavagery.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/stop-saying-archaeology-is-actually-boring/ and Sophie Hay http://pompei79.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/scratching-the-surface/ and Lorna Richardson http://digipubarch.org/2014/03/14/all-the-swears-for-this/ If there is a ‘spirit of the field’, I think these three scholars capture it admirably. They are curious, reflective, aware of the impact that the doing of archaeology has in the wider world. Archaeology produces powerful narratives, powerful ways of framing our current situation regarding the past and the present. I aspire to be more like these three remarkable women.

Which game do you think, so far, best achieves this?

A hard question to answer. But I think I’d go with Minecraft, for its community and especially its ability to be adopted in educational circles, for the way it requires the player to build and engage with the environments created. The world is what you make it, in Minecraft. So too in archaeology.
If a game attempted to procedurally generate ancient civilizations, what do you think would be the three most important elements that had to be generated?
I’ve done a lot of agent-based simulation. http://www.graeworks.net/category/simulations/ . Such a game would have to be built on an agent-based framework, for the NPCs. Each NPC would have to be unique. Those rules of behaviours that describe how the NPCs interact with each other, the environment, and the player would have to accurately capture the target ancient civilization. You can’t just have an ‘ancient civilization'; you’ll have to consider one very particular culture in one very particular time and place. That’s what a procedural rhetoric is all about: an argument in code about how this aspect of the world worked/is/existed.
Would investigation play an integral part in a video game interpretation?
I’m not sure I follow. Procedural generation on its own still is meaningless; it would have to be interpreted. The act of playing the game (and see the work of Roger Travis on http://playthepast.org on practicomimetics) sings it into existence.
Conversely, for you would stumbling blindly upon a ruin diminish the effect?
If the world is procedurally generated, then there would be clues in the landscape that would attune the attentive player to the presence of the past in that location. If there is no rhyme or reason – we stumble blindly – then the procedures do not describe an ancient (or any) civilization.

Do you think an archaeology simulator would be best implemented in first person (e.g. Minecraft) or third person (e.g. Terraria)? Would it be more important to convey an intimate atmosphere or impressive scale?
I like first person, but on a screen, first person can just induce nausea in the player. Maybe with an Oculus Rift that’s not a concern, in which case I’d say go first person! On a screen, I think third is better. Why not go AR and put your procedurally generated civilization into the local landscape?

Archeology versus Archaeology versus #Blogarch

I’m working on a paper that maps the archaeological blogosphere. I thought this morning it might be good to take a quick detour into the Twitterverse.

Behold!

'archaeology' on twitter, april 7 2014

‘archaeology’ on twitter, april 7 2014

‘archaeology’ on twitter

Here we have every twitter username, connected by referring to each other in a tweet. There’s a seriously strong spine of tweeting, but it doesn’t make for a unified graph. The folks keeping this clump all together, measured by betweeness centrality:

pompeiiapp
arqueologiabcn
herculaneumapp
romanheritage
openaccessarch
cmount1
groovyhistorian
lornarichardson

top replied-to
hotrodngold
raymondsnoddy
colesprouse
1014retold
janell_elise
yorksarch
holleyalex
bonesbehaviours
uclu
illustreets

Top URLS:

http://bit.ly/1husSFB

http://phy.so/316076983

http://bit.ly/1sqHFu0

http://beasiswaindo.com/1796

https://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology/conferences/current/babao2014/

http://wanderinggypsyvoyager.blogspot.com/2014/04/archaeology-two-day-search.html?spref=tw

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/04/aerial-archaeology/

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/04/did-europeans-get-fat-neandertals

http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/HadriansWall

http://ift.tt/PWRYrf

Top hashtags:
archaeology 325
Pompeii 90
fresco 90
Archaeology 77
Herculaneum 40
Israel 24
nowplaying 20
roman 18
newslocker 16
Roman 14

Archeology

Let’s look at american archeology – as signified by the dropped ‘e’.

'archeology' on twitter, april 7

‘archeology’ on twitter, april 7

An awful lot more fragmented – less popular consciousness of archaeology-as-a-community?
Top by betweeness centrality – the ones who hold this together:
illumynous
archeologynow
youtube
heritagedaily
algenpfleger
riosallier
david328124
ogurek3
gold248131
leafenthusiast

Top urls:

http://ift.tt/1hN75Lp

http://wp.me/p4jAM9-1cZ

http://fav.me/d7d95kp

http://bit.ly/1qdaHLD

http://newszap.com

http://www.valencia953fm.com.ve

http://bit.ly/PS6hg4

http://goo.gl/fb/MfmNZ

http://goo.gl/fb/IfRnh

Top hashtags:
archeology
history
rome
ancient
easterisland
mystery
easter
slave
esoteric
egypt

Top replied-to
atheistlauren
nofaith313
faraishah
sebpatrick
swbts
thebiblestrue
animal
christofpierson
simba_83
andystacey

#Blogarch on twitter

twitter search '#blogarch' april 7 2014

twitter search ‘#blogarch’ april 7 2014

And now, the archaeologists themselves, as indicated by #blogarch

We talk to ourselves – but with the nature of the hashtag, I suppose that’s to be expected?

Top by betweeness centrality
openaccessarch
drspacejunk
bonesdonotlie
archeowebby
drkillgrove
fieldofwork
archaeo_girl
brennawalks
ejarchaeology
yagumboya

top urls

http://zoharesque.blogspot.com/2014/03/space-age-archaeology-and-future-do-i.html?spref=tw

http://bit.ly/1gBkNin

http://campusarch.msu.edu/?p=2782

http://wp.me/p36umf-cW

http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2014/03/blogging-bioarchaeology-where-do-we-go.html#.Uzm7zM8kJUw.twitter

http://ow.ly/3iVK4f

http://wp.me/p3Kfwu-cb

http://bit.ly/PCdEIE

http://wp.me/p1rKjz-V2

http://diggin-it-archaeology.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-future-in-blogging-archaeology.html

Top hashtags
blogarch
BlogArch
archaeology
saa2014
SAA2014
blogging
CRMArch
newslocker
crmarch

Top replied to
electricarchaeo (yay me!)

Top mentioned:
drspacejunk
bonesdonotlie
fieldofwork
openaccessarch
archeowebby
jsatgra
cmount1
archaeo_girl
capmsu
drkillgrove

Put them altogether now…

And now, we put them altogether to get ‘archaeology’ on the twitterverse today:

'archaeology, archeology, and #blogarch' on twitter, april 7

‘archaeology, archeology, and #blogarch’ on twitter, april 7

Visually, it’s apparent that the #blogarch crew are the ones tying together the wider twitter worlds of archaeology & archeology, thought it’s still pretty fragmented. There’re 460 folks in this graph.

Top by betweeness centrality:

openaccessarch
drspacejunk
bonesdonotlie
archeowebby
drkillgrove
fieldofwork
jamvallmitjana
archaeo_girl
brennawalks
ejarchaeology

Top urls

http://zoharesque.blogspot.com/2014/03/space-age-archaeology-and-future-do-i.html?spref=tw
http://bit.ly/1gBkNin
http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2014/03/blogging-bioarchaeology-where-do-we-go.html#.Uzm7zM8kJUw.twitter
http://campusarch.msu.edu/?p=2782
http://wp.me/p4jAM9-1cZ
http://fav.me/d7d95kp
http://wp.me/p1rKjz-V2
http://diggin-it-archaeology.blogspot.com/2014/04/my-future-in-blogging-archaeology.html
http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/the-future-of-blogging-for-bones-dont-lie/
http://soundcloud.com/vrecordings/l-side-andrezz-archeology-v

top hashtags (not useful, given the nature of the search, right? But anyway)

blogarch
archeology
archaeology
BlogArch
history
ancient
easterisland
mystery
easter
slave

Top word pairs in those largest groups:

archeology,professor 30
started,yesterday 21
yesterday,battle 21
battle,towton 21
towton,weapon 21
weapon,tests 21
tests,forensic 21
forensic,archeology 21
museum,archeology 19
blogging,archaeology 17

second group:
blogging,archaeology 13
future,blogging 12
archaeology,go 7
archaeology,future 7
archaeology,final 6
final,review 6
review,blogarch 6
hopes,dreams 6
dreams,fears 6
fears,blogging 6

third group:
space,age 6
age,archaeology 6
archaeology,future 6
future,know 6
know,going 6
saa2014,blogarch 6
going,blogarch 5
blogarch,post 3
post,future 3
future,blogging 3

fourth group:
easterisland,ancient 10
ancient,mystery 10
mystery,easter 10
easter,slave 10
slave,history 10
history,esoteric 10
esoteric,archeology 10
archeology,egypt 10
rt,illumynous 9
illumynous,easterisland 9

fifth group:
costa,rica 8
rt,archeologynow 7
archeologynow,modern 4
modern,archeology 4
archeology,researching 4
researching,dive 4
dive,bars 4
bars,costa 4
rica,costa 4
rica,star 4

(once I saw ‘bars’, I stopped. Archaeological stereotypes, maybe).

Top mentioned in the entire graph

illumynous 9 bonesdonotlie 8
drspacejunk 8 drkillgrove 4
bonesdonotlie 8 capmsu 4
archeologynow 7 yagumboya 3
openaccessarch 7 drspacejunk 3
macbrunson 6 archeowebby 3
swbts 6 allarchaeology 3
archeowebby 6 openaccessarch 3
algenpfleger 5 cmount1 3
youtube 5 brennawalks 2

So what does this all mean? Answers on a postcard, please…

(My network files will be on figshare.com eventually).

HIST4805b Looted Heritage: The Illicit Antiquities Trade

I’m teaching a fourth year seminar next year dealing with issues surrounding the illicit antiquities trade. This seminar will be in conjunction with a larger project spearheaded by the investigative reporter and author Jason Felch, of Chasing Aphrodite. I’m quite excited about this; as an undergraduate, I once had the opportunity to work on a term project that looked at the antiquities market. That was twenty years ago; I’ve never really had the opportunity to scratch that itch since. So, when I was asked to suggest a seminar topic, I jumped at the chance to plumb the depths of my own ignorance together with my students. What better way to teach than to be learning right along with your students?

As ever, I turned to twitter, to see what folks there had to say.

Many folks chimed in with suggestions, including:

I’m keeping all of these in a zotero library for eventual sharing with my students (wider world too), but for now, this is the kind of stuff that’s come in:

Legal & Academic Frameworks

Renfrew, Colin. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. Duckworth, 2000.

Lazrus, Paula K. And A. Barker (eds). All the King’s Horses: Essays on the Impact of Looting and the Illicit Antiquities Trade on Our Knowledge of the Past. SAA 2012.

Marlowe, Elizabeth. Shaky Ground: Context, Connoisseurship and the History of Roman Art. Debates in Archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca/record=b3486847~S9

Hoffman, Barbara T., ed. Art and Cultural Heritage: Law, Policy, and Practice. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca:80/record=b2293643~S9

Green, Penny, and S. R. M. Mackenzie, eds. Criminology and Archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities. Oñati International Series in Law and Society. Oxford ; Portland, Or: Hart Publishing, 2009. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca:80/record=b2609135~S9

RealTime Delphi Study on the Future of Cultural Heritage Research http://www.jpi-culturalheritage.eu/wp-content/uploads/JPI-Cultural-Heritage-RealTime-Delphi-Report-final-version-to-be-published.pdf

Campbell, Peter B. ‘The Illicit Antiquities Trade as a Transnational Criminal Network: Characterizing and Anticipating Trafficking of Cultural Heritage’. International Journal of Cultural Property 20, no. 02 (2013): 113–153. doi:10.1017/S0940739113000015.

World War II

Nicholas, Lynn H. The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1994. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca/record=b1456118~S9

Edsel, Robert M, and Bret Witter. The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. New York: Center Street / Hachette Book Group, 2010.

Edsel, Robert M. Saving Italy: The Race to Rescue a Nation’s Treasures from the Nazis. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca/record=b3445170~S9

Current State

Felch, Jason, and Ralph Frammolino. Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World’s Richest Museum. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.

Watson, Peter, and Cecilia Todeschini. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy’s Tomb Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums. PublicAffairs, 2007.

Waxman, Sharon. Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. Macmillan, 2010. http://catalogue.library.carleton.ca/record=b2928026~S9

‘Trafficking Culture’. Accessed 12 March 2014. http://traffickingculture.org/.

and an entire special issue of Internet Archaeology: Issue 33 – Portable Antiquities: archaeology, collecting, metal detecting, Edited by Stuart Campbell and Suzie Thomas http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue33/index.html

And from Donna Yates, the exciting news that she and her collaborators at Trafficking Culture are going to write a textbook on the subject:

Assessment

In terms of assessment, I want to avoid long research essays based on secondary sources. Instead, I’d rather have the students build something, analyze something, visualize something… so this will be a heavily digital humanities inflected course. I want my students at the coalface. My little looted heritage social media observatory, https://heritage.crowdmap.com/ will be pulled out of the mothballs and will become an active part of the course. We’ll be mining eBay, looking at the auction sites, exploring museum archives… probably. Stay tuned!

If you have suggestions for things the students should be reading/looking at/exploring, please do drop me a line or leave a comment.

Shared Authority & the Return of the Human Curated Web

A few years ago, I wrote a piece on Why Academic Blogging Matters: A structural argument. This was the text for a presentation as part of the SAA in Sacremento that year. In the years since, the web has changed (again). It is no longer enough for us to create strong signals in the noise, trusting in the algorithmns to connect us with our desired publics. (That’s the short version. The long version is rather more nuanced and sophisticated, trust me).

The war between the botnets and the SEO specialists has outstripped us.

In recent months, I have noticed an upsurge of new ‘followers’ on this blog with emails and handles that really do not seem to be those of actual humans. Similarly, on Twitter, I find odd tweets directed at me filled with gibberish web addresses (which I dare not touch). Digital Humanities Now highlighted an interesting post in recent days that explains what’s going on, discusses this ‘war’, and in how this post came to my attention, points the way forward for the humanistic use of the web.

In ‘Crowd-Frauding: Why the Internet is Fake‘, Eric Hellman discusses a new avenue for power (assuming that power ‘derives from the ability to get people to act together’. In this case, ‘cooperative traffic generation’, or software-organized crime. Hellman was finding a surge of fake users on his site, and he began to investigate why this was. Turns out, if you want to promote your website and jack up its traffic, you can install a program that manufacturers fake visitors to your sites, who click around, click on adverts, register… and in turn does this for other users of the software. Money is involved.

“In short, your computer has become part of a botnet. You get paid for your participation with web traffic. What you thought was something innocuous to increase your Alexa- ranking has turned you into a foot-soldier in a software-organized crime syndicate. If you forgot to run it in a sandbox, you might be running other programs as well. And who knows what else.

The thing that makes cooperative traffic generation so difficult to detect is that the advertising is really being advertised. The only problem for advertisers is that they’re paying to be advertised to robots, and robots do everything except buy stuff. The internet ad networks work hard to battle this sort of click fraud, but they have incentives to do a middling job of it. Ad networks get a cut of those ad dollars, after all.

The crowd wants to make money and organizes via the internet to shake down the merchants who think they’re sponsoring content. Turns out, content isn’t king, content is cattle.”

Hellman goes on to describe how the arms race, the red queen effect, between these botnets and advertising models that depend on clickrates etc will push those of us without the computing resources to fight in these battles into the arms of the Googles, the Amazons, the Facebooks: and their power will increase correspondingly.

“So with the crowd-frauders attacking advertising, the small advertiser will shy away from most publishers except for the least evil ones- Google or maybe Facebook. Ad networks will become less and less efficient because of the expense of dealing with click-fraud. The rest of the the internet will become fake as collateral damage. Do you think you know how many users you have? Think again, because half of them are already robots, soon it will be 90%. Do you think you know how much visitors you have? Sorry, 60% of it is already robots.”

I sometimes try explaining around the department here that when we use the internet, we’re not using a tool, we’re sharing authority with countless engineers, companies, criminals, folks-in-their-parents-basement, ordinary folks, students, algorithms whose interactions with other algorithms can lead to rather unintended outcomes. We can’t naively rely on the goodwill of the search engine to help us get our stuff out there. This I think is an opportunity for a return of the human curated web. No, I don’t mean building directories and indices. I mean, a kind of supervised learning algorithm (as it were).

Digital Humanities Now provides one such model (and there are of course others, such as Reddit, etc). A combination of algorithm and human editorial oversite, DHNow is a cybernetic attempt to bring to the surface the best in the week’s digital humanities work, wherever on the net it may reside. We should have the same in archaeology. An Archaeology Now!  The infrastructure is already there. Pressforward, the outfit from the RRCHNM has developed a workflow for folding volunteer editors into the weekly task of separating the wheat from the chaff, using a custom built plugin for WordPress. Ages ago we talked about a quarterly journal where people would nominate their own posts and we would spider the web looking for these nominations, but the technology wasn’t really there at that time (and perhaps the idea was too soon). With the example of DHNow, and the emergence of this new front in botnets/SEO/clickfraud and the dangers that that poses, perhaps it’s time to revisit the idea of the human-computer curated archaeoweb?