A Prehistory of Digital Archaeology

The EDSAC computer at the University of Cambridge
The EDSAC computer at the Mathematical Laboratory, University of Cambridge (1949-1958)

As a species, we are fascinated by origins – as Maya Angelou, the American poet and civil rights activist is attributed as saying, “You can’t really know where you are going until you know where you have been”. Of course, much of archaeology is concerned one way or another with narratives around origins, be they people or pots, but digital archaeology seems much less interested in its own origins. As part of a recent presentation on the digitalisation of archaeology to the Norwegian Institute at Athens, I took the opportunity to look back at what I loosely called the ‘prehistory’ of digital archaeology as the basis for looking forward. What was digital archaeology like at its beginnings, at least seventy years or more ago? It turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer: other than some important work by Paola Moscati and Francois Djindjian, for example, digital archaeologists are remarkably bad at thinking about our past.

The relative lack of attention to digital archaeology’s past could be seen to be a natural consequence of the ever faster developing digital environment, but it may also be a reflection of the significance that has been given to George Cowgill’s 1967(a,b) review of computer applications in archaeology. According to Cowgill, the earliest archaeological computer application he knew of was by Jean-Claude Gardin and Peter Ihm in France in 1958-1959 (1967a, 17). He also identified James Deetz as responsible for the earliest use in the USA in 1960. Cowgill’s statement has served as the basis for most subsequent reviews (e.g., Wilcock 1999, 35; Watrall 2016, 346; Huggett 2018) and has consequently become something of an origin myth. Not surprisingly, dig a little deeper, and it becomes clear that this is not the whole story.

Continue reading →

Languages of Representation

Adapted from original by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Shawn Graham recently pointed me (and a number of colleagues!) to a new paper entitled ‘Computer vision, human senses, and language of art’ by Lev Manovich (2020) in a tweet in which he asked what we made of it … so, challenge accepted!

Lev Manovich is, of course, a professor of computer science and a prolific author, focusing on cultural analytics, artificial intelligence, and media theory, amongst other things. In this particular paper, he proposes that numbers, and their associated analytical methods, offer a new language for describing cultural artefacts. The idea that this is novel may be news to those who have been engaged in quantitative analyses across the humanities since before the introduction of the computer, but aspects of his argument go further than this. The actual context of the paper is as yet unclear since it is online first and not yet assigned to a volume. That said, a number of other open access online first papers in AI & Society seem to address similar themes, so one might imagine it to be a contribution to a collection of digital humanities-related papers concerning images and computer vision.

It’s an interesting paper, not least since – as Manovich says himself (p2) – it presents the perspective of an outside observer writing about the application of technological methods within the humanities. Consequently it can be tempting to grump about how he “doesn’t understand” or “doesn’t appreciate” what is already done within the humanities, but it’s perhaps best to resist that temptation as far as possible.

Continue reading →

Is Digital Archaeology Busted?

And you thought you had computer problems
And you thought you had computer problems
(c) Amanda Lohr CC BY-ND 2.0 via Flickr

Timothy Brennan has just published an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education called ‘The Digital-Humanities Bust’ (behind a paywall but Google the article and on the first results page you’ll currently find a short domain link direct to the full piece). It’s a critical reflection on the state of Digital Humanities, in which he points to a decade’s worth of resources being invested in Digital Humanities, and asks what exactly they have accomplished: “To ask about the field is really to ask how or what DH knows, and what it allows us to know. The answer, it turns out, is not much.” Not surprisingly, the article has ruffled feathers amongst the Digital Humanities community, coming a year after an equally critical and hence controversial article by Allington, Brouilette and Golumbia (2016) in the LA Review of Books, ‘Neoliberal Tools (and Archives): A Political History of Digital Humanities’.

Digital Archaeology is rather different in terms of its situation (and levels of investment!). However, are there any lessons for Digital Archaeology here? If Digital Humanities are indeed a bust, is Digital Archaeology too? As an exercise, we might look at some aspects of Brennan’s diagnosis through a Digital Archaeology lens …

Continue reading →