WORK IN PROGRESS
Digital Archaeology Futurity: a
scenario approach
Moderator: Paul Reilly
p.reilly@soton.ac.uk
Emerging digital practices in archaeological research, Athens,
2nd July 2015
WORK IN PROGRESS ADD Archaeo-scopic
your own topics if this helps set the scene
Culture
History
Processual
Post
Processual
Cognitive
Interpretive
Post-interpretive
Digital
Archaeology
Archaeological
Computing
Computer
Archaeology
Multisensory
Archaeology
Virtual
Archaeology
Quantitative
Archaeology
Visualisation
Graphics
Graphs
& Plots
CAA
Digital Immigrants
1950s
Mainframes
Graphs
1960s
minis
Graphs
Plotting
1970s
Digital Natives
1980s
PCs
Image processing
Graphics
1990s
Millennium Generation
2000s
2010s
2020s
Workstations
Internet Open* Cloud I-o-things
Pattern Recognition
Rendering Engines
CAD/CAM
Virtual reality
Computational
Additive
photography
Manufacturing
Augmented/Mixe
d Reality
Trends, Drivers of Change and Hotspots impacting the Digital
Future of Archaeological Practice
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic drivers e.g., Austerity, under investment, restricted funding, more bureaucracy
Expanded cross-regional competition and internationalisation
Virtualisation of organisations and processes (v-museums, v-universities, v-archives)
*** New disruptors in transcultural (ethnographic) archaeologies? Multivocality
*** Pervasive, easy to obtain, use and adapt, low cost technology
***Citizen scientists, social media, unheralded diggers/volunteers transformed from informed
spectator to engaged commentators; everyone’s field recording and narrating archaeology (Key Q:
what is it about this ‘force’ that makes it uncertain?)
Weaponification of Cultural Heritage and artefacts
*** Anxiety discourses and the emergence of “Grand Challenges” to ignite new Research initiatives
Increasing Professional codification of standards, methods and ethics; (drivers or perhaps interia?)
Institutional drivers such as government policy and political environment (eg Nationalist
governments opposition to unofficial, non-traditional archaeologists and their narratives
Archaeology is increasing becoming digital.
Digital Archaeology is an established self-contained sub-discipline
Multisensorial archaeology moving away from scopic biases
*** New unmanned drones, robots (swarms), vehicles and tools
•
PLEASE ADD YOUR OWN
•
•
•
•
Some Preliminary Focal Issues, or critical uncertainties, facing
archaeology in the 2020+ timeframe
•
How is the [digital]archaeology eco system changing?
–
–
–
–
Universities, Museums, Archives, Units, Publishers, Media, Government (National, Regional, Transnational)
As virtual and physical boundaries blur, “contact zones” are shifting
Balance between professionals, amateur, ethnic and other alternative vested interests is also shifting
Whose authority will count? Trusted advisors, trusted sources... trust!!
•
Who decides what directions to pursue in order to be effective?
•
How do we monitor developments in (disruptive) technology?
•
Is conflict changing the perceived value of heritage (curation, preservation, conservation)?
•
Is technology changing perceived value of heritage (VR, AR, MR, robots, drones and probes)?
•
How is funding changing? Mix/size: Polluters, Governments, Crowds, sponsorships, charities?
•
What strategies will we need to pursue in order to prepare and adapt for the future?
•
How will archaeologists introduce/adopt and adapt to new technologies?
•
How do we avoid exclusions (i.e. New or wider digital divides)?
Critical Uncertainties Template
Critical
Uncertainty
Define End Point
Focus Issue
What is the root question?
How is the uncertainty
derived from this axis
Critical
Uncertainty
Define End Point
Scenario Template for Workshop Activity. For each quadrant,
answer the question: “What does this world look like”?
Focus Issue Axis Label
Critical uncertainty
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Critical
uncertainty
Critical
uncertainty
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Critical uncertainty
Focus Issue Axis Label
My WorkShop
“For archaeologists, who spend their lives understanding
the increasing rate of innovation in the past, it is a
daunting notion to seriously prognosticate the next
century. Although trends may be foretold, the careful
scholar knows there is a long distance between
extrapolation and reality”
- Ezra Zubrow 2006, p.16
‘Digital Archaeology: A historical context’ In:
pp 8-26
“In order to anticipate one cannot become
bogged down in worrying which outcome is best
– an intellectual revolving door”
- Christopher Witmore, 2009.
‘Prolegomena to Open Pasts: On Archaeological Memory Practices’, Journal of World Archaeological
Congress, 2009, p.535
Overview of the process!
•
Introduction to Scenario Planning
– What are scenarios?
– How can we use scenarios?
•
Defining the Focal Concern (Brain Storming)
– What is the key question to focus upon?
•
Identifying and Analysing Driving Forces (Brain storming)
– Identify driving forces
– Distinguish critical uncertainties from predetermined elements?
– Prioritise driving forces?
•
Constructing Scenario Frameworks
– Select combinations of critical uncertainties to develop scenarios using a 2 x 2 matrix
– Develop scenarios by storyboarding (in workshop)
•
Post workshop - Articulating and Communicating Scenarios
– Develop the scenario narrative
•
From Scenarios to Strategies
– Use scenarios to develop strategies
– Publish strategy and point of view papers developed from scenarios
Unlike the traditional linear cause-and-effect flow of time Scenario
Planning allows the future to shape our view of the past, and the
present and the near future
Traditional linear cause-and-effect time
flow
SP time flows can be multidirectional
and iterative
Past
Past
Present
Future
Future
Present
Scenario planning is an approach which seeks to achieve better
future-mindedness or, put another way, action with the future in
mind
Scenario Planning
•
Does not attempt to forecast the impact
of introducing any particularly technology
•
Aims to direct our attention to plausible
future contexts in which technology could
be introduced.
•
Is not predictive
•
Unlike forecasting, in which the flow of
time progresses linearly from the past
through the present to predict a future,
scenario planning time flows can be
multidirectional and iterative and can
reflect plausible, possible, and, but
necessarily, anticipated and probable
futures
The Key Question to ask is “what do we
need to do now to be ready for all
scenarios?”
•
(Wilkinson, A, 2009. Scenarios Practices: In Search of Theory, Journal of Futures
Studies, 13(3): 107-114)
Past
Future
Present
WORK IN PROGRESS – the evolution of digital archaeology
1990s 2000s 2010s
1950s
1960s 1970s 1980s
2020s
Post-interpretive
Interpretive
Cognitive
Digital
Archaeology
Post-Processual
Archaeological
Computing
Processual
Computer
Archaeology
Culture History
Quantitative
Archaeology
Digital Immigrants
Community: x-discipline
Symbiotic
archaeological
computing officer
Digital Natives
Millennium Generation
Specialist Archaeological
Computing Researcher
Makers
H/W:
Mainframes
minis
PCs
Workstations Internet Open* Cloud I-o-things
O/S:
VM/MVS
minis
DOS
UNIX ... windowsX … android
Language: FORTRAN/Cobol Pascal, C; Algol, BASIC; C+. Prolog, APL; visual*; ruby on rails ….
Apps
Statistics
Databanks
Statistics
Databanks
Seriation
Plotting
Multivariate
Databases
Stratigraphy
Image processing
Graphics
GIS
• GIS
Expert Systems
• AI
GIS
AI
GIS
AI
GIS
AI
CAD/CAM
CAD/CAM
Computational
photography
AR/MR
3D Printing
AR/MR
Robots and
drones
Visualisation
VR/VA
• Vision
The pace of change is unprecedented (2014)
Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2014. Source: Gartner
Trends, Drivers of Change and Hotspots impacting the Digital
Future of Archaeological Practice
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic drivers e.g., Austerity, under investment, restricted funding, more bureaucracy
Expanded cross-regional competition and internationalisation
Virtualisation of organisations and processes (v-museums, v-universities, v-archives)
*** New disruptors in transcultural (ethnographic) archaeologies? Multivocality
*** Pervasive, easy to obtain, use and adapt, low cost technology
***Citizen scientists, social media, unheralded diggers/volunteers transformed from informed
spectator to engaged commentators; everyone’s field recording and narrating archaeology (Key Q:
what is it about this ‘force’ that makes it uncertain?)
Weaponification of Cultural Heritage and artefacts
*** Anxiety discourses and the emergence of “Grand Challenges” to ignite new Research initiatives
Increasing Professional codification of standards, methods and ethics; (drivers or perhaps interia?)
Institutional drivers such as government policy and political environment (eg Nationalist
governments opposition to unofficial, non-traditional archaeologists and their narratives
Archaeology is increasing becoming digital.
Digital Archaeology is an established self-contained sub-discipline
Multisensorial archaeology moving away from scopic biases
*** New unmanned drones, robots (swarms), vehicles and tools
•
PLEASE ADD YOUR OWN
•
•
•
•
Some Preliminary Focal Issues, or critical uncertainties, facing
archaeology in the 2020+ timeframe
•
How is the [digital]archaeology eco system changing?
–
–
–
–
Universities, Museums, Archives, Units, Publishers, Media, Government (National, Regional, Transnational)
As virtual and physical boundaries blur, “contact zones” are shifting
Balance between professionals, amateur, ethnic and other alternative vested interests is also shifting
Whose authority will count? Trusted advisors, trusted sources... trust!!
•
Who decides what directions to pursue in order to be effective?
•
How do we monitor developments in (disruptive) technology?
•
Is conflict changing the perceived value of heritage (curation, preservation, conservation)?
•
Is technology changing perceived value of heritage (VR, AR, MR, robots, drones and probes)?
•
How is funding changing? Mix/size: Polluters, Governments, Crowds, sponsorships, charities?
•
What strategies will we need to pursue in order to prepare and adapt for the future?
•
How will archaeologists introduce/adopt and adapt to new technologies?
•
How do we avoid exclusions (i.e. New or wider digital divides)?
Critical Uncertainties arising around issue of controls pertaining
to the introduction of new tools and technologies
Traditional
&
Prescribed
Tools & Technologies
Novel
&
Prolific
Define End Point
What is the root question?
Define End Point
On the other hand some of the old
guard prize their rare
and expensive instruments (aka
black boxes) that require the
involvement of properly trained and
certified specialists to operate
equipment and process data;
restricted specialism controlled by
profession, hierarchy, pay packet or
other barriers to entry such as
capital and operational costs.
Who determines what and how
tools and technologies are
deployed? Who determines what is
important to record and how it is
documented and ‘published’
On the other hand falling costs have
been instrumental in creating a
proliferation of digital devices, and
accelerated development of
software fostering creative
adaptations and applications in nontraditional settings; Unfettered, (unmoderated?, unlogged? un/underrecognised?) innovation
A key dilemma is the tension
between tried and tested stable,
standardised procedures and
unfettered, unmonitored,
uncensored, innovation.
Critical Uncertainties arising around the prevailing attitudes to
Field Practice (who is allowed to record what, where and how)
Professional
&
Legislated
Field Practice
Social
&
Open
Define End Point
What is the root question?
Define End Point
On the one hand there are many
forces of inertia resolved to create
and maintain standardised archives,
and tooling (one size fits all),
enforced by conservative
professional institutions protecting
and protected by their membership
and their sponsors (National and
local governments)
How, who decides what are the
important questions, how they are
answered and how they are
disseminated?
A key dilemma is the inherent
tensions between established
recording archiving standards and
conventions and personalised,
alternative, recording.
On the other hand it is possible we
already see evidence of multi-vocal,
multivalent reflexive archaeology is
already starting to disrupt both
transcultural and disciplinary
discourses and narratives as direct
access to cultural entities by almost
anyone, almost anywhere, and the
capability to rematerialise them in
any transcultural space, effectively
disintermediate the opinions,
interpretations and ‘authority’ of
archaeologists and cultural resource
managers.
Critical Uncertainties arising around the ontological and
epistemological chasms
Fragmented
&
Local
Delivery of Fieldwork
Connected
&
International
Define End Point
What is the root question?
Define End Point
On the one hand, today we see
some countries where archaeology
is regarded as a national asset,
cultural patrimony, whose status is
protected and enshrined in law,
administered and curated by a
system of national and local
government archaeology units,
complemented by a series of
specialised departments of
archaeology in local universities,
and museums. And underpinned by
local or national predetermined
criteria for recording and archiving
see also IFA
The importance attached to
archaeology varies considerably
from Nationalist Ideologies to
commercial pragmatism. Polysemy
and ethnographic narratives view
same things very differently.
A key dilemma here is due to the
apparent epistemological chasm
separating archaeologies
appropriated in different practices.
Can different local and national
archaeological practices be unified
under a globally agreed set of
approaches and definitions,
including future evolutions of
methodology and interpretation.
On the other hand since the 1980s
onwards we have seen an increasing
commercialisation of field
archaeology units, unencumbered
by ties to specific locales or periods.
The system of International Schools
of archaeology anticipated the rise
of true international, perhaps even
global, archaeology organisations
(eg Association of European
Archaeologist, requiring the
deployment of internationally
accepted standards of practice and
procedure.
Critical Uncertainties arising differential access to archaeology
(quantity and ease of access)
Ubiquitous
&
Straightforward
Delivery of Fieldwork
Scarce
&
Complex
Define End Point
What is the root question?
Define End Point
On the one hand archaeological
remains from particular periods and
regions might be reasonably
plentiful, in places which are easy to
reach, and conditions which dont
require extraordinary equipment
and budgets for archaeologists to
conduct fieldwork.
Do you need human archaeologists
to conduct fieldwork? Can we
design and build UAVs (unmanned
archaeology vehicles)
On the other hand, there are some
unique remains, perhaps
threatened by destruction or severe
damage, situated in extreme or
hostile environments, which are
difficult to reach, requiring specialist
technologies, in order for the
archaeologist to explore them (e.g.
deeply submerged, extra-terrestrial)
A key dilemma is how far can
remote-sensing and drone and
robot technologies and automated
tools replace living thinking
archaeology fieldworkers.
Scenario Planning Workshop Exercise: Introducing new tools
and techniques into potential future archaeological practices
Archaeological Practice
Social & Open
Inspectorate
of Geekology
Academy of
Virtual
Archaeology
Novel
&
Prolific
Traditional
&
Prescribed
Ministry of
the Erudite
Theodolites
School of
Trowel
Blazing
Professional & Legislated
Tools & Technologies
Potential alternative: Access to archaeology through tools and
techniques
Access to Archaeology
Scarce & Complex
International
Rescue
Swarm
Archaeology
Novel
&
Prolific
Traditional
&
Prescribed
Citizen
BAU
Digital
Archaeology
Ubiquitous & Straightforward
Access to Tools & Technologies
Potential alternative: Access to archaeology through tools and
techniques
Delivery of Fieldwork
Connected & International
Benign Citizen Science
Virtual museums
Reflexive
National Geographic
Economies of scale
Traditional
&
Prescribed
(Status Quo)
Chartered specialists
Proforma portfolios
Pragmatic Rescue
Many archaeology units
of ONE
Multinational
competitive units too
Unguided Transcultural
threads
Global sponsorships
Heritage Diasporas
Self-organising internet
of things
Robot archaeologists
Web 2.0 units
Academic
Research-led
Virtual excavation
cadaver - holodeck
meets med school with a
nano trowel not scapel
Isolated and Fragmented
Access to Tools & Technologies
Novel
&
Prolific
Supporting
Slides
Archaeology Value Chain
Prospect
Gather
Organise
Archaeological Processes (after Djindjian 1993)
•
Desk Research
•
Field Prospecting
•
Excavation
•
Laboratory Studies
•
Conservation & Restoration (CRM)
•
Museology & Display
•
Analysis & Synthesis
•
Publication (Communication & Dissemination)
Select
Synthesise
Publish
Traditional Archaeology versus Digital Archaeology: parallel,
diverging converging, or annexing universes?
Traditional
Archaeology
Digital
Archaeology
Traditional
Archaeology
Digital
Archaeology
Traditional
Archaeology
Digital
Archaeology
Digital
Archaeology
Traditional
Archaeology
Many emerging technologies have potential applications in
archaeological practice. Additive Manufacturing is a prime
candidate to re-engage the spirit of virtual archaeology (2013)
Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies 2013. Source: Gartner
3D Printing is still in its infancy.
Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, 2014. Source: Gartner
Processes – after Djindjian
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Desk Research
Field Prospecting
Excavation
Laboratory Studies
Conservation & Restoration (CRM)
Museology & Display
Analysis & Synthesis
Publication (Communication & Dissemination)