Archaeology and the Information Age

Sebastian Rahtz, Paul Reilly

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN:
  9780415078580
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134898343
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

Traditional methods of making archaeological data available are becoming increasingly inadequate. Thanks to improved techniques for examining data from multiple viewpoints, archaeologists are now in a position to record different kinds of data, and to explore that data more fully than ever before. The growing availablility of computer networks and other technologies means that communication should become increasingly available to international archaeologists. Will this result in the democratisation of archaeological knowledge on a global basis? Contributors from Western and Eastern Europe, the Far East, Africa and the Americas seek to answer this and other questions about the way in which modern technology is revolutionising archaeological knowledge.

1
Introduction: archaeology and the information age

PAUL REILLY & SEBASTIAN RAHTZ

Computers are a crucial element of modern information technology (IT). They have been with us for most of the latter half of the twentieth century and are proving as influential to modern archaeology as the printing press was to scholarship and science in the fifteenth century. Archaeologists have been lured to them from their inception, mesmerized by their seemingly unlimited potential.

Historically, archaeological computing evolved, mainly in western Europe and north America, from statistical approaches in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and this form of enquiry still commands much attention (eg. Koetje Ch. 13, this volume; Sinclair & Troy Ch. 14, this volume). Perhaps indicative of the established worth and utility of quantitative methods are the number of texts detailing both the basic procedures and the subtle nuances of the quantitative tests and techniques engendered by computers (eg. Doran & Hodson 1975; Orton 1980; Aldenderfer 1987; Shennan 1988; Voorrips & Ottaway 1990).

Unlike many other facets of archaeology which involve specialist procedures, such as those relating to pathology and archaeometry for instance, quantitative methods are rarely consigned to internal exile in the appendices of a report. Nowadays, quantitative methods are so much a part of the archaeological method that they no longer appear in the literature as distinct research papers (eg. Djindjian 1990, p. 63), simply because more material of this kind is being published as integral elements of general archaeological studies.

But where does IT fit into archaeology? Does its importance lie in the fact that it can make it easier and cheaper to promulgate traditional archaeological information, or is the computerization of archaeological knowledge a discipline or sub-discipline in its own right? Does IT in archaeology have its own recognizable goals and achievements, or is it only an ancillary tool which is equally relevant to all branches of archaeology?

In fact, all these positions are to a greater or lesser extent true, depending on what archaeological tradition an individual archaeologist derives from. Examination of computer applications in archaeology in the UK, for example, reveals evidence of support for each of these positions.

Specialists and enthusiasts in computerized archaeological methods began holding regular meetings in Britain in the early 1970s. The annual Computer Applications in Archaeology conference—now renamed Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, but still known, anachronistically, as ‘CAA’—has grown from a small club of British scholars and a handful of colleagues from Europe to a unique major international meeting attracting archaeologists from around the world. How deeply the discussions raised at these meetings have penetrated the collective consciousness of archaeologists in the UK, and further afield, however, is debatable. Certainly, several UK field units regularly send representatives to the meetings of the above conference, but in other cases participants are made to take leave to attend— perhaps indicative of the attitude of some individuals in charge of field units and other archaeological organizations. The UK status quo is perhaps reflected by its Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) which:

considers it to be important that archaeologists are properly trained in the use of computers and is encouraging the provision of appropriate courses, and the development of computing resources. (Cooper & Richards 1985, p. 10)

Expertise in ‘archaeological’ applications of computers is now recognized as accreditable experience towards fulfilling the IFA’s registered areas of competence requirements for membership of this group. In fact the IFA, working with the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments of England (RCHME), set up a working party which has carried out two surveys looking at what, how and where computerized systems are used in Britain (Richards 1986; Booth, Grant & Richards 1989). The surveys were thought to be necessary in a climate of growing concern about the uncoordinated proliferation of computer-based systems across archaeology in the UK. The working party made recommendations on software, hardware, archiving and data transfer, training, and the future (Grant 1986, pp. 21–31). This approach, of carrying out national surveys and making recommendations, has been followed elsewhere, for example in Spain (cf. Martinez & Lopez 1989).

Unlike the USA, where archaeologists properly trained in quantitative methods are seemingly legion, the use of statistical and simulation approaches (Hodder 1978; Sabloff 1981), with some exceptions, is largely confined to the academic wing in the UK. The exceptions generally stem from central bodies who have influence over other groups in the regions. For instance the Ancient Monuments Laboratory (AML) produced a package for researchers specializing in faunal remains to record and process ecofacts (Jones, Locker, Coy & Maltby 1981) and the Central Excavation Unit (CEU) supplied several sites and monuments recording packages (eg. Booth 1988) which, previously, other units had to adopt in order to receive funding from London. Of course, individual groups have bought various other computer packages on an ad hoc basis, rather than as part of the rationale of some long term plan. It must be said, however, that the whole situation is changing rapidly because of the greater professionalism adopted in the deployment of computer-based applications.

Academics have seemed more prepared than other archaeological groups in the UK to regard computer-based research as a sub-discipline to be taken seriously, and even to be fostered through the holding of special meetings (eg. CAA), the establishment of newsletters (eg. Archaeological Computing Newsletter), electronic conferencing (eg. Archaeological Information Exchange), and special awards and grants, through bodies such as the British Academy and the Science and Engineering Research Council’s (SERC) Science-Based Archaeology Committee (SBAC) (Smith & Harris 1990). Certainly, there are a growing number of departments where individuals can learn or develop computer-based archaeological skills. Besides the Research Centre for Computer Archaeology in Staffordshire Polytechnic, which has been in existence for many years, there are now a number of universities, such as those of Southampton and Leicester, which offer postgraduate diplomas and Masters degrees in computer-science, or IT, and archaeology.

Nevertheless, there remains a time-lag between the inception and presentation of new computerized methods, and their permeation into daily practice, this time lag being in fact quite variable. In recent years, database structures, seriation and stratigraphic sorting algorithms have been advocated and adopted in British field units at an impressive rate: CAD/CADD (eg. Huggett 1990) and GIS (see Lock & Harris Ch. 9, this volume) applications are currently in vogue. Here too, the situation is changing rapidly and many more people working in British archaeology will, in the future, receive significant education in the use and abuse of IT. Today, great emphasis is also laid on training in the use of computers at secondary and higher education level (eg. Bennet 1986; Martlew 1987; Greene 1988; Richards 1988; Dobson 1990), as well as on training for professionals. However, we must wait one or two student generations for these people to rise through the ranks before we will be able to measure any real impact on the approaches adopted in Britain’s various archaeological organizations.

The British situation is just a subset of the global picture, and has its own peculiarities. A more panoramic view of the subject reveals many interesting facets.

How is information technology used in archaeology?

Over the decades archaeologists have become increasingly sophisticated users of IT. Gaines (1987) characterized the 1960s as the age of ‘exploration’ of computing archaeology, the 1970s as the age of ‘implementation’, and the 1980s as the age of ‘exploitation’. The 1990s are destined to be characterized as the age of ‘information’, as the majority of research has now moved largely to the newer enabling technologies of databases, graphics and artificial intelligence, and away from analysis to field recording and publication.

Even a classification scheme as general as this is procrustean, since, even within the most industrialized and economically powerful nations of the world, there are teams, or subject areas, within which IT is still ignored, or is only just beginning to be explored, implemented or exploited. However, although IT is not an integral part of archaeology around the globe, it is nevertheless all-pervasive to the extent that it is now possible to document digital skeuomorphs of virtually every major archaeological procedure.

IT should be attractive to archaeology because it mediates between a multitude of activities associated with archaeology and archaeologists. Hence, we can speak of electronic field recording (eg. Korsmo, Plog, Upham & Cordell 1985; Alvey 1990; Fletcher & Spicer Ch. 10, this volume; Oikawa Ch. 6, this volume), electronic laboratories, electronic offices, electronic archives (eg. Martlew Ch. 21, this volume), electronic mail (Anon. 1991), electronic conferencing (eg. Rahtz 1986; Rahtz 1989), electronic networks (eg. Jakobs & Kleefeld 1991), electronic books (eg. Makkuni Ch. 20, this volume; Rahtz, Hall & Allen Ch. 22, this volume), electronic class rooms (eg. Richards 1988), electronic or, to use the current terminology, ‘smart’ museums (eg. Roberts 1990; Makkuni Ch. 20, this volume), and even electronic sites (eg. Ruggio 1991; Molyneaux Ch. 19, this volume; Reilly Ch. 12, this volume). The technology used here is not necessarily passive. Computers will trap errors during data entry, they will enhance poorly defined aerial photographs and other remotely-sensed ‘images’ (eg. Haigh 1989; Scollar, Tabbagh, Hesse & Herzog 1990), they will even argue with users’ reasoning—admittedly within tightly defined domains of discourse (see Stutt & Shennan Ch. 18, this volume). Moreover, the technology is becoming both more portable and robust; notebook-and palm-sized computers now possess enormous processing power. They are even cryogenically tested. Modern hardware has been shown to withstand the environmental and climatic extremes of deserts (eg. Knapp 1986), tropical rain-forests (eg. Roosevelt 1987), and arctic wastes, and thus can be safely carried to the most inhospitable and inaccessible parts of the planet. Alternatively, it may be more effective in some instances to study certain archaeological formations remotely. For instance, digital satellite images enable the tracing of lost sections of the Great Wall of China (Guo forthcoming), while advanced graphic systems have facilitated the visualization of underwater assemblages in the Great Lakes of Canada (Stewart 1991).

An important channel by which IT has been introduced into archaeology has been via field-data collection. The development of microchip technology precipitated the use of lap-top computers and data-loggers in archaeology, although caution against their uncritical acceptance into the professional’s tool-kit has been expressed (cf. O’Brien & Redman 1985; Reilly 1985; Stephen 1987). Huggett’s (1990, p. 3) description of the IT base of the Deansway Project, a recent excavation in the city of Worcester, UK, typifies the situation in many modern excavation projects:

Computers have had an impact on almost every area within the Project —illustration, display work, finds processing, site planning, training, and public relations. In each case, the aim is to enhance the work being done in terms of speed and quality. The computers are not used by computer experts as replacements for specialists, but the specialists themselves are training in the use of the equipment.

Many of the traditional tools of the field archaeologist now have a digital counterpart. The humble pencil-and-pad combination is increasingly being supplanted by the hand-held machine containing pre-programmed pro-forma systems, often supplemented by an array of error-trapping procedures. In the near future, we can expect even greater latitude in our input methods, including reverting back to cursive handwriting using the latest generation of user interfaces currently on the market (cf. Carr 1991). Advances in speech recognition make it likely that voice-entry and -output will be a generally available option in the foreseeable future. The shift away from the keyboard to other forms of human-computer interfaces is a step towards the greater democratization of knowledge, since people with non-existent or poor keyboard skills will not be disadvantaged. Those who wish to transfer knowledge by speech, rather than writing, are an obvious group who will benefit from these developments. For many groups—both individuals with no formal education as well as non-literate societies—communication is advantaged by not being formalized in writing (cf. Layton 1989) and, for them, real benefits are to be gained.

Progressing hand-in-hand with input methods are output methods. The development of the ingenious output devices which currently astound or amuse, but which undoubtedly will be regarded as unremarkable by the year 2000, already enable such powerful human-computer interfaces that a human can be fooled into believing it is entering into the electronic world of a so-called ‘Virtual reality’. Dynamic audio and visual feedback are already available for some applications and tactile feedback is possible. Undoubtedly, the computer simulation of an excavation in which the archaeological trainee is clad in data-gloves and data-helmets is on the horizon.

The most obvious advantage that computer technology has over human skills is in the context of mechanical, repetitive, but crucial, tasks such as seriating finds and unravelling the complexities of large stratigraphic sequences, operations which can be carried out faster and sustained over far longer periods by computers. The literature abounds with seriation techniques. The Bonn Seriation Package includes an extensive collection of relevant citations (Scollar 1989). The basic components of a Harris Matrix are habitually ordered by a large variety of stratigraphy processing programmes (eg. Ryan 1988; Rains 1989; Alvey 1990; Boast & Chapman 1991; Desachy & Djindjian 1991). This considerably enhanced facility for data verification sometimes has unexpected side-effects. An interesting discussion of the impact of computerization on site archives is provided by Mc Vicar & Stoddart (1986), who encountered worker hostility to over-efficient feedback.

Field drawings, such as the plan and section, are already in various stages of automation. Computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided drafting and design (CADD) packages are not only used for good quality ‘reconstructions’ (eg. Eiteljorg 1988; Durliat, Saint-Jean, Kuentz & Lorimy 1990; Huggett 1990; Templeton 1990). Schematic drawings, such as single context plans, may be digitized, using a digitizing tablet, and manipulated using these systems. Such plans can be electronically linked to other field data held in databases (Alvey 1989; Alvey 1990). Photographic records can also be digitized with digital...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• One world archaeology
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• List of colour plates (between pp. 104 and 105)
• Preface
• 1: Introduction: archaeology and the information age
• 2: The impact of information technology on the archaeology of southern and eastern Africa— the first decades
• 3: Dissemination of archaeological information: the east African experience
• 4: Polish archaeology and computers: an overview
• 5: Computer archaeology in Hungary
• 6: Japanese archaeological site databases and data visualization
• 7: Archaeological data in the USSR —collection, storage and exploitation: has IT a role?
• 8: On the importance of high-level communication formats in world archaeology
• Visualization
• Analysis
• Communication