Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:58:23.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2019

Katherine Cook Open the ORCID record for Katherine Cook [Opens in a new window]
Katherine Cook*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inclusive approaches to archaeology (including queer, feminist, black, indigenous, etc. perspectives) have increasingly intersected with coding, maker, and hacker cultures to develop a uniquely ‘Do-It-Yourself’ style of disruption and activism. Digital technology provides opportunities to challenge conventional representations of people past and present in creative ways, but at what cost? As a critical appraisal of transhumanism and the era of digital scholarship, this article outlines compelling applications in inclusive digital practice but also the pervasive structures of privilege, inequity, inaccessibility, and abuse that are facilitated by open, web-based heritage projects. In particular, it evaluates possible means of creating a balance between individual-focused translational storytelling and public profiles, and the personal and professional risks that accompany these approaches, with efforts to foster, support, and protect traditionally marginalized archaeologists and communities.

Les démarches qui cherchent à promouvoir l'intégration en archéologie (y compris les perspectives allosexuelles, féministes, black ou indigènes) se recoupent de plus en plus avec celles des communautés associées au codage, à la réalisation et au piratage numérique dans le but de créer un style ‘bricolé’ de contestation et d'activisme. Les technologies numériques offrent des possibilités de remettre en question les représentations traditionnelles de personnes du passé et de nos jours de façon créative, mais à quel prix ? Dans cet article, une évaluation critique du transhumanisme et de l’ère numérique sert de point de départ à une présentation d'exemples numériques convaincants de pratique d'intégration mais aussi de l'omniprésence du privilège, de l'inégalité, du manque d'accès et des abus facilités par des projets d'accès libre sur internet concernant le patrimoine. On cherchera surtout à évaluer les moyens d’établir un équilibre entre la transposition de récits centrés sur des individus et un profil public et de prendre en compte les risques personnels et professionnels associés à ces approches dans le but de promouvoir, soutenir et protéger les communautés et archéologues marginalisés. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Integrative Ansätze in der Archäologie (einschließlich der queeren, schwarzen, feministischen oder einheimischen Anschauungsweisen) haben sich zunehmend mit der Kultur der Programmierer, Macher und Hacker überschnitten um einen einzigartigen „gebastelten” Stil von Zerrüttung und Aktivismus zu entwickeln. Die digitale Technologie bietet die Möglichkeit, konventionelle Darstellung von Personen in der Vergangenheit und in der Gegenwart kreativ infrage zu stellen, aber zu welchem Preis? Als kritische Betrachtung von Transhumanismus und des Zeitalters der digitalen Wissenschaft verfasst, beschreibt dieser Artikel überzeugende Anwendungen der digitalen Praxis aber auch die durchdringenden Strukturen des Privilegs, der Ungerechtigkeit, der Unzugänglichkeit und des Missbrauchs, die in zugänglichen, webbasierten Projekten im Bereich des Kulturerbes entstanden sind. Insbesondere bewertet die Studie mögliche Mittel eines ausgewogenen Verhältnisses zwischen auf Einzelpersonen ausgerichteten Erzählungen und öffentlichen Profilen zu finden; sie bewertet auch die die persönlichen und beruflichen Risiken, die mit diesen Ansätzen verbunden sind und die sich bemühen, traditionell marginalisierte Archäologen und Gemeinschaften zu fördern, unterstützen und schützen. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

digital archaeologyqueerfeministinclusive scholarshippublic archaeologydiversityarchéologie numériqueallosexualitéféminisme et inclusivitérecherche inclusivearchéologie publiquediversitéDigitalarchäologiequeerFeminismusintegrative Wissenschaftöffentliche ArchäologieVielfalt
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 22 , Special Issue 3: Digital Archaeologies , August 2019 , pp. 398 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agbe-Davies, A.S. 2002. Black Scholars, Black Pasts. SAA Archaeological Record, 2: 24–28.Google Scholar
Battle-Baptiste, W. 2011. Black Feminist Archaeology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beard, M. 2017. Roman Britain in Black and White. The Times Literary Supplement [online] [accessed 10, April 2019]. Available at: <https://www.the-tls.co.uk/roman-britain-black-white/>..>Google Scholar
Brock, T.P. 2018. All of Us Would Walk Together [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <http://hsmcwalktogether.org>..>Google Scholar
Brown, D. & Nicholas, G. 2012. Protecting Indigenous Cultural Property in the Age of Digital Democracy: Institutional and Communal Responses to Canadian First Nations and Māori Heritage Concerns. Journal of Material Culture, 17: 307–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512454065Google Scholar
Claassen, C. 2000. Homophobia and Women Archaeologists. World Archaeology, 32: 173–79.Google Scholar
Clancy, K.B.H., Nelson, R., Rutherford, J.N. & Hinde, K. 2014. Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault. PLOS ONE 9(7): e102172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172Google Scholar
Compton, B. 2017. Negotiating Authenticity: Engaging with 3D Models and 3D Prints of Archaeological Things. Museum of Ontario Archaeology Notes [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Blog available at: <http://archaeologymuseum.ca/negotiating-authenticity-engaging-3d-models-3d-prints-archaeological-things/>>Google Scholar
Compton, M.E., Martin, K. & Hunt, R. 2017. Where Do We Go from Here? Innovative Technologies and Heritage Engagement with the MakerBus. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 6: 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002Google Scholar
Conkey, M. 1997. Mobilizing Ideologies: Paleolithic ‘Art’, Gender Trouble, and Thinking about Alternatives. In: Hager, L., ed. Women in Human Evolution. London: Routledge, pp. 172–207.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. 2003. Has Feminism Changed Archaeology? Signs, 28: 867–80.Google Scholar
Cook, K. 2017. Built on Bones [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: The Heritage Jam University of York: <http://www.heritagejam.org/new-blog/2017/10/27/built-on-bones-katherine-cook>..>Google Scholar
Cook, K. & Compton, B. 2018. Canadian Digital Archaeology: On Boundaries and Futures. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 42: 38–45.Google Scholar
Crooks, R., Contreras, I. & Besser, K. 2015. Herstory Belongs to Everybody or The Miracle: A Queer Mobile Memory Project. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 11(2). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4d67f235Google Scholar
Dennis, L.M. 2016. Archaeogaming, Ethics, and Participatory Standards. SAA Archaeological Record, 16. http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}Google Scholar
DeRuiter, G. 2018. What Happened When I Tried Talking to Twitter Abusers [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at The Everywhereist Blog: <http://www.everywhereist.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-talking-to-twitter-abusers/>..>Google Scholar
Dowson, T. 2000. Why Queer Archaeology? An Introduction. World Archaeology, 32: 161–65.Google Scholar
DuCille, A. 1994. Skin Trade. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrenreich, B. 2010. Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Epoiesen, 2018. About Epoiesen: A Journal for Creative Engagement in History and Archaeology [online journal] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/about/>. https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen.+https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen>Google Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1993. You Can Hide, But You Can't Run: Representations of Women's Work in Illustrations of Palaeolithic Life. Visual Anthropology Review, 9: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1525/var.1993.9.1.22Google Scholar
Halberstam, J. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hassett, B.R., Pilaar-Birch, S., Herridge, V. & Wragg-Sykes, B. 2017. TrowelBlazers: Accidentally Crowd-sourcing an Archive of Women in Archaeology. In: Apaydin, V., ed. Shared Knowledge, Shared Power. Cham: Springer, pp. 129–41.Google Scholar
Heckadon, A., Sparks, K., Hartemink, K., van Muijlwijk, Y., Chater, M. & Nicole, T. 2018. Interactive Mapping of Archaeological Sites in Victoria. Epoiesen. https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/2018/02/08/interactive-mapping-archae-victoria/Google Scholar
Heritage Jam, 2017. Policies and Rules [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at The Heritage Jam, University of York: <http://www.heritagejam.org/policies/>..>Google Scholar
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. & Jones, C. 2017. 3D Heritage Visualization and the Negotiation of Authenticity: The ACCORD Project. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24: 333–53.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A. & Tringham, R.E. 2007. Feminist Adventures in Hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 328–58.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A., Guyer, C. & Joyce, M. 2000. Sister Stories. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Kamash, Z. 2017. ‘Postcard to Palmyra’: Bringing the Public into Debates over Post-Conflict Reconstruction in the Middle East, World Archaeology, 49: 608–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1406399Google Scholar
Lopiparo, J. & Joyce, R. 2003. Crafting Cosmos, Telling Sister Stories, and Exploring Archaeological Kknowledge Graphically in Hypertext Environments. In: Jameson, J.H. Jr, Finn, C. & Ehrenhard, J.E., eds. Ancient Muses: Archaeology and the Arts. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. pp. 193–202.Google Scholar
Martin, K. 2017. Centering Gender: A Feminist Analysis of Makerspaces and Digital Humanities Centers. Paper presented at Institute for Digital Arts and Humanities Speaker Series [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/2022/21827>..>Google Scholar
McDavid, C. 1997. Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. Historical Archaeology, 31:114–31.Google Scholar
McDavid, C. 1998. Levi Jordan Plantation [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm>>Google Scholar
McDavid, C. & Brock, T.P. 2015. The Differing Forms of Public Archaeology: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now, and Thoughts for the Future. In: Gnecco, C. & Lippert, D., eds. Ethics and Archaeological Praxis. New York: Springer, pp 159–83.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 2009. (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 5: 468–87.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 2015. Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and Practice. Online Journal in Public Archaeology, 5: 123–46. https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v5i0.67Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 2017. The Queer and the Digital: Critical Making, Praxis, and Play in Digital Archaeology. Paper presented at Theoretical Archaeology Group 2016, Southampton. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_J_Hy9WS0>..>Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Pallascio, P.M. 2015. Digital Media, Participatory Culture, and Difficult Heritage: Online Remediation and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage, 4: 260–78.Google Scholar
Moser, S. 1998. Ancestral Images: The Iconography of Human Evolution. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., Hinde, K. & Clancy, K.B.H. 2017. Signalling Safety: Characterizing Fieldwork Experiences and their Implications for Career Trajectories. American Anthropologist, 119: 710–22.Google Scholar
Pálsson, G. & Aldred, O. 2017. En-counter maps. Epoiesen. https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.1Google Scholar
People of Color in European Art History, 2018. Mission Statement. Medieval POC [online] [accessed 2 May 2019]. Available at: <http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com>..>Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2014. Digital Media and Everyday Abuse. Anthropology Now, 6: 81–85.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2018. Six Fieldwork Expectations: Code of Conduct for Teams on Field Projects [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at The Archaeological Eye Blog: <https://saraperry.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/fieldwork-code-of-conduct/>..>Google Scholar
Perry, S., Economou, M., Young, H., Roussou, M. & Pujol, L. 2017. Moving Beyond the Virtual Museum: Engaging Visitors Emotionally. In: Goodman, L. & Addison, A., eds. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. Dublin: UCD & University of Ulster, pp. 229–37.Google Scholar
Richterich, A. 2016. ‘Do Not Hack’: Rules, Values, and Communal Practices in Hacker- and Makerspaces. Paper Presented at AoIR 2016. Selected Papers of Internet Research 2016: The 17th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Berlin, Germany [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <https://spir.aoir.org/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8384>..>Google Scholar
Riley, D.M., McNair, L.D. & Masters, S. 2017. An Ethnography of Maker and Hacker Spaces Achieving Diverse Participation. Poster presented at the 2017 Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/10919/82443>..>Google Scholar
Rogers, M. 2015. Making Queer Love: A Kit of Odds and Ends. Hyperrhiz, 13 [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz13/missives-of-love/queer-love-info.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rogers, M. 2017. Soft Circuitry: Methods for Queer and Trans Feminist Maker Cultures (unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Women's Studies, University of Maryland). Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/1903/20310>..>Google Scholar
Smith, A. 2017. Social Innovation, Democracy and Makerspaces. SWPS, 2017-10. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2986245Google Scholar
Taylor, N., Hurley, U. & Connolly, P. 2016. Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, May 7-12.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1991. Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In: Gero, J. & Conkey, M., eds. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 93–131.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1994. Engendered Places in Prehistory. Gender, Place, and Culture, 1: 169–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663699408721209Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2014. Dead Women Do Tell Tales: Ghosts [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: Heritage Jam, University f York: <http://www.heritagejam.org/exhibition/2014/7/10/dead-women-do-tell-tales-ghosts-ruth-tringham>..>Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2015. Creating Narratives of the Past as Recombinant Histories. In: Van Dyke, R.M. & Bernbeck, R., eds. Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology. Boulder (CO): University Press of Colorado, pp. 27–54.Google Scholar
Ulysse, G.A. 2018. Reflecting on Boundaries, Protection, and Inspiration. Anthrodendum [online] [accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at: <https://anthrodendum.org/2018/05/22/reflecting-on-boundaries-protection-and-inspiration/>..>Google Scholar
Wajcman, J. 2004. TechnoFeminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Weismantel, M. 2013. Towards a Transgender Archaeology: A Queer Rampage Through Prehistory. In: Stryker, S. & Aizura, A.Z., eds. The Transgender Studies Reader 2. New York: Routledge, pp. 319–34.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1997. The Engendering of Archaeology Refiguring Feminist Science Studies. Osiris, 12: 80–99.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2001. Doing Social Science as a Feminist: The Engendering of Archaeology. In: Creager, A.N.H., Lunbeck, E. & Schiebinger, L., eds. Feminism in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, pp. 2–-45.Google Scholar