Archaeologists Anonymous

Isto discusses in a recently published article the role of naming and anonymity in archaeological knowledge production in the article Archaeology of no names? The social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process published in the journal ephemera. The full text of the article is openly available at the journal website att http://www.ephemerajournal.org.

Full citation: Huvila, I. Archaeology of no names? The social productivity of anonymity in the archaeological information process. ephemera, 2017, 17(2), 351-376.

and abstract of the article:

The portrait gallery of archaeology presents a conspicuous mix of discoveries of the great characters of the past and an everyday labour of faceless individuals of the past and present in the service of archaeology and archaeological knowledge. The aim of this text is to discuss the premises and conditions of why and how the anonymisation happens in the archaeological information process and the forms of social productivity (or consequences) of the anonymous moves. Anonymity becomes a boundary object that is authored in the course of the switchings from netdom to another to emerge as a particular type of social relation and a constituent of a social imaginary of being archaeological.

Why archaeologists are so keen on reports and not on research data?

Isto discusses in a newly published article what hinders the archiving and use of archaeological primary data, and why reports, which according to many contain insufficient information, are popular among archaeologists.

Huvila, I. (2016). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280-297.

Abstract: Information about an archaeological investigation is documented in an archaeological report, which makes it the boundary object par excellence for archaeological information work across stakeholder communities such as field archaeologists, heritage managers, and land developers. The quality of reports has been a subject of debate, and recently it has been argued that more emphasis should be placed on making primary research data at least similarly available. This study explores the changing materialities and reciprocal formation of documents and their users with the advent of digitization, and how documents form and lose their status as boundary objects in these processes. The study posits that in order to be functional, a boundary object needs to provide a disclosure that makes it accessible to cognate communities. Further, it shows how assumptions about the functioning of the human and nonhuman (material artifacts) influence the ways in which archaeologists conceptualize the preservation and archiving of archaeological information and the role and potential of different types of digital and paper-based documents. This article is based on an interview study of Swedish archaeology professionals (N D 16) with theoretical underpinnings in the notions of boundary objects, mangle of practice, and disclosure.

The full text of the article is available at dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1177763 and a post-print at http://www.istohuvila.se/node/484

How archiving of archaeology works in Sweden?

Isto discusses the information process of archiving and managing archaeological information in Sweden in a new article.

Huvila, I. (2016). 'If we just knew who should do it', or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden. Information Research, 21(2).

Abstract: Introduction. This paper analyses the work practices and perspectives of professionals working with archaeological archives and the social organization of archaeological archiving and information management in Sweden. Method. The paper is based on an interview study of Swedish actors in the field of archaeological archiving (N=16). Analysis. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using close reading. Results. We identified eight major work roles of archiving and managing archaeological information. Analysis of the recorded interviews show that there are multiple technical, legislative, conceptual and structural factors that influence and complicate the building, management and use of archaeological archives. Conclusions. Results show that the central challenge of archiving archaeology is the lack of efforts to influence and control the process by the involved actors. A mutual effort to be more explicit about concerns, needs and wishes of all participating organizations would help them to prioritise their work, take other actors concerns into account and develop their work practices to support more effectively the preservation of archaeological information.

The article is available open access at http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/paper713.html

ARKDIS in the Netherlands

Visiting the Keys to Rome exhibition
at the Allard Pearson Museum.

For about a month ago, ARKDIS project was visiting colleagues in the Netherlands during a five day study trip to Amsterdam, Leiden and the Hague. The trip gave us a good idea of some of the current state-of-the-art in Dutch archaeology, archaeological presentation and information management.

At Allard Pearson Museum of the University of Amsterdam we were hosted by Dr. Wim Hupperetz who took us around at the museum and introduced us to their work on ArchaeoHotspots, a room where archaeologists and volunteers actually do archaeological research and work with finds in the museum, and where the public can come, watch and discuss.

At DANS, the Data archive and networking services, the Dutch data archive that preserves digital archaeological research data in the Hague, Hella Hollander and her colleagues presented their work and current state of the affairs in the archaeological information management in the Netherlands. In comparison to many other countries, including Sweden, the clear mandate of an organisation with a similarly clear focus on archaeological research for both preserving and making available digital archaeological data is an apparent advantage in the Netherlands.

At Europeana in the Hague, Joris Pekel hosted us and gave us a good overview of their work and highlighted the new strategy to focus on quality and partnership-based content production instead of attempting to incorporate as large quantities of content as possible.

We visited also the Faculty of Archaeology (yes, a faculty not a department) in Leiden and discussed with Dr. Hans Kamermans on education and research and the Vrije universiteit Amsterdam where Dr. Philip Verhagen and his colleagues presented their research and we had an opportunity to give a glimpse of the on-going work in ARKDIS. As a final stop, we visited the e-humanities unit of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences where Prof. Sally Wyatt hosted us and told about the e-humanities work in the country. We had also an opportunity to participate their weekly seminar, this time with a guest preseentation of Joseph Tennis from the University of Washington iSchool.

In addition to the common programme, all of us had an opportunity for additional visits to museums and

Talking about context-making

Isto is participating in the 2014 Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA. He gave a talk on context making in archaeological work as a part of the SIG-USE (for a special interest group for information seeking and use) research symposium on Saturday.

The talk was focussed on this years theme on studying contexts as a part of information research and explored the issue of how different actors essentially make the contexts of their work as a part of doing what they do. A researcher who makes observations on a subject of research frames what is the main thing and what is something that makes the context of that thing. For instance, when a field archaeologist focuses on a particular archaeological site, all other things including other sites, other findings and the documented features, finds and samples become contextual (sort of meta-information) for the site. In contrast, a finds specialist can have a tendency to focus on a find and see the site and everything else around the object as contextual. This context-making has an impact how things are documented, what kinds of techniques and technologies are chosen and used and in the end, what we know about the past. At the same time, the largely implicit work of context-making can become a hinder for reuse of data as the contextual ideas of the original documenters and secondary users differ from each other.

Abstract and slides for the presentation can be found at http://istohuvila.se/node/419

Research article seminar "Information Policy for Sustainable Digitization in Archaeology? – A Critical Analysis"

Wednesday November 26th, 14:15-16.00, room 3/0015, Department of ALM, Uppsala university.

The article is an ongoing collaboration between M.A. Lisa Börjesson (Uppsala University), associate professor Isto Huvila (Åbo akademi/Uppsala University) and associate professor Bodil Petersson (Linneaus University) within ARKDIS (Archaeological Information in the Digital Society).

Article abstract

The introduction of digital data capturing and management technologies have changed information practices in archaeology. Digital information is more integrated than ever in each archaeologists’ daily work. Initiatives and institutions on international, national and regional levels like Archaeology Data Service (ADS) in the UK, the Swedish National Data Service (SND) and the Swedish National Heritage Board’s Digital Archaeological Processes (DAP) project aim at assisting individual archaeologists’ and research institutions’ digital archiving and digital curation. But what is the state of information policy in archaeology today? Do Swedish archaeology has an up-to-date, consistent and anticipatory policy guiding decision-making concerning archaeological information? As knowledge production in archaeology heavily depends on documentation and information dissemination, and on retrieval of past documentation the question of an appropriate information policy is profoundly intertwined with the possibilities for archaeology knowledge production. Furthermore, as archaeology is either partly publicly funded (as is generally the case with academic research archaeology in Europe) or regulated by publicly funded bodies (as is the case with all surveys to some degree), the funding societies have a great economic interest in coordinated and efficient information practices in archaeology. In this article we analyse information policy and discuss how policy plays out in three different contexts in Swedish archaeology: the contract archaeology sector, the museum sector and the archive sector. Throughout the analysis we make international comparisons as we strive to highlight the international relevance of the discussion of information policy development for sustainable digitization in archaeology. The aim of this article is to raise the question of how information policy for archaeology can develop to support consistency and sustainability in the information practices currently developing.

If you wish to read the text prior to the seminar, please contact Lisa. See you there!