数字时代的文化遗产保护:发出求救信号

IF 0.9 1区 历史学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
Damian Koropeckyj
{"title":"数字时代的文化遗产保护:发出求救信号","authors":"Damian Koropeckyj","doi":"10.1086/724680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewPreserving Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age: Sending Out an S.O.S. Edited by Nicola Lercari, Willeke Wendrich, Benjamin W. Porter, Margie M. Burton, and Thomas E. Levy. Sheffield: Equinox 2022. Pp. 250. ISBN 9781800501263 (paperback) $115.Damian KoropeckyjDamian KoropeckyjIndependent scholar Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreThis book presents a collection of case studies and lessons learned mainly from the University of California’s (UC) At-Risk Cultural Heritage and the Digital Humanities project, combining contributions from professors and staff at partner UC institutions plus a member of an additional international institution: the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The introduction describes violence on cultural heritage workers and the destruction of cultural heritage in conflict and then pivots attention to the “more insidious loss of knowledge” attributable to improper recording, retention, and publication of data by archaeologists as they conduct research, along with the loss of sites accompanying global development (3). Despite the comparison, it is difficult to accept executions of cultural heritage practitioners and a lack of archaeological publications as equivalent. The aim of the book is to provide theories and methodologies for the use of digital tools in practicing digital preservation and “cyber-archaeology,” defined as a “digital process in which a virtual world is generated through interactions and interconnections” (4), with the intention of not only implementing proper technique but also maximizing the ability of these tools to engage with local communities (10). The 11 chapters are arranged in three sections ordered to provide a workflow akin to the practice expected: “Data Collection,” “Data Analysis and Presentation,” and “Data Curation and Dissemination.” It is worth considering how the organization of the book’s three sections aligns with the stated objectives of the book and the workflows described in the provided case studies.Opening the “Data Collection” section is a chapter by Wendrich seeking to contextualize the destruction of heritage occurring in evolving landscapes and the increased ease of public engagement with affected communities made possible through digital practices (ch. 1). Guillem and Lercari follow with an effort to set the theoretical framework for the cases and methodologies presented (ch. 2). Notably, Guillem and Lercari use the second chapter to confront the attitudes treating these new approaches as “digital solutionism” (26), and they further attempt to fit answers to several other important questions that deserve more space in a larger forum. The chapter draws parallels with other preservation workflows in practice today, while putting the onus on archaeologists to begin implementing the new standards in collection and curation outlined below.Moving past the theoretical introduction, Lucet (ch. 3) discusses new digital recording efforts at Cempoala in Mexico that consisted of applying digital photogrammetry and survey techniques to produce more accurate and objective measurements, with the intention of producing scientific data that is reliable and repeatable. Compared with the original documentation from the mid 20th-century survey of the site, the digitally recorded and processed models were deemed more precise, though carrying limitations inherent in these new methods such as gaps in photogrammetry products due to vegetation (53). Lucet acknowledges that this comparison would not be possible without the retention and digitization of the original survey records but leaves to the authors of the later chapters the discussion of how the new digital products should be curated (54).Lucet’s conclusion provides an opportunity for chapter 4 (Levy, Liss, Yoo, Liritzis, and Burton), the closing chapter of the “Data Analysis” section, to describe a more thorough treatment of digital data collected in the field. The authors describe a holistic approach to recording an archaeological excavation, which required the creation and hosting of proprietary software by UC entities that stored not only 3D models and imagery associated with evolving digital archaeological techniques, but also entirely digital contextual data recorded during excavation, plus associated artifact catalogues. The chapter provides a start-to-finish vision of digital collection and storage of archaeological data can be implemented (though only after many years of technical contributions and considerable funding). Much of the explanation of this implementation concerns the actual storage and dissemination of the data, which points to the final and strongest section of the book.In the “Data Curation and Dissemination” section, McManamon and Ellison (ch. 10) describe the concepts and ideal models of digital data curation, and they provide case studies of these activities and the use of the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR). The chapter provides detailed lists of practices expected in the digital curation process and how these practices were applied in rescuing a digital collection that was in danger of total loss if not for digital curatorial intervention and transition to tDAR. An example is given of a project that embraced digital curation best practices from the start and engaged with tDAR systematically through the research process.In the final chapter of the book, Hoffman, Porter, and Black provide a very honest account of successfully implementing a collections management system (CMS) at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the UC Berkeley campus (ch. 11). Acknowledging that “only the wealthiest museums” can afford expensive CMS software (213), the authors discuss the evolution of information management at the Hearst Museum and the repeated experiments, and financial investments, required to build a successful, sustainable, and publicly accessible CMS.Few of the chapters are limited to their respective overarching themes of collection, analysis, and curation, in that order of work as prescribed by the book. Other chapters would be better placed in a different order. In the curation section, chapters 9 and 10 both imply that digital curation tasks should actually be considered far earlier than the final stage of research. Brin highlights a fundamental lack of data standards in the archaeological research phase, pointing out that curatorial intervention often occurs “quite late in the research cycle” (163). Similarly, McManamon and Ellison also point out the need for curatorial planning before undertaking research and collection of digital data (196).Readers would benefit from reading the chapters of the curation section first, since it provides an important set of considerations, with which readers can then approach the other chapters, concerning both collection and analysis, including Anderson’s contribution to the analysis section of the book titled “The Digital Context of At-Risk Textual Archives” (ch. 7). The analysis of Old Assyrian cuneiform tablets first depends on the proper digital curation of the tablets and the dissemination of their digital records. Anderson describes building upon the digitized records of the texts with social network analysis to reconstruct archival connections for these documents, which are missing their context. For many of the tablets, this lack of context is due to looting. The proposed method provides not only a solution for recontextualizing artifacts without provenance but also an approach to comparing different archival data sets.Reordering the book chapters would act as a more effective bridge from the countless historic archaeological records yet to be digitized to new archaeological investigations that embrace digital methods from the start. These important solutions to curating the physical records and objects that can still be digitized can then be carried forward as methods that are applicable to all the new digital data being produced. Ultimately, placing discussion of data curation first would build a stronger foundation for methods and techniques that must grow to be more than the aforementioned “digital solutionism.”This book provokes needed discussion about how to approach the increasing embrace of digital archaeology. A notable driver of that discussion is a quest for data that are reliable, reusable, and replicable (chs. 2, 3, 7, 9). The book also holds overviews of practices in digital archaeology that would prove useful in courses on archaeological methods and techniques, cultural heritage management, and curation. It is important to note, however, that many of these projects were well funded and were provided with technical support by numerous partners at the various branches of “perhaps the world’s largest and finest” university system (xv). It is difficult to imagine how some of these methods can be implemented in sustainable ways by researchers and the communities who deserve access to but do not have similar resources available.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 2April 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 161Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/724680 Views: 161Total views on this site HistoryPublished online March 07, 2023 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.","PeriodicalId":7745,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Archaeology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\":<i>Preserving Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age: Sending Out an S.O.S.</i>\",\"authors\":\"Damian Koropeckyj\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/724680\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewPreserving Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age: Sending Out an S.O.S. Edited by Nicola Lercari, Willeke Wendrich, Benjamin W. Porter, Margie M. Burton, and Thomas E. Levy. Sheffield: Equinox 2022. Pp. 250. ISBN 9781800501263 (paperback) $115.Damian KoropeckyjDamian KoropeckyjIndependent scholar Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreThis book presents a collection of case studies and lessons learned mainly from the University of California’s (UC) At-Risk Cultural Heritage and the Digital Humanities project, combining contributions from professors and staff at partner UC institutions plus a member of an additional international institution: the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The introduction describes violence on cultural heritage workers and the destruction of cultural heritage in conflict and then pivots attention to the “more insidious loss of knowledge” attributable to improper recording, retention, and publication of data by archaeologists as they conduct research, along with the loss of sites accompanying global development (3). Despite the comparison, it is difficult to accept executions of cultural heritage practitioners and a lack of archaeological publications as equivalent. The aim of the book is to provide theories and methodologies for the use of digital tools in practicing digital preservation and “cyber-archaeology,” defined as a “digital process in which a virtual world is generated through interactions and interconnections” (4), with the intention of not only implementing proper technique but also maximizing the ability of these tools to engage with local communities (10). The 11 chapters are arranged in three sections ordered to provide a workflow akin to the practice expected: “Data Collection,” “Data Analysis and Presentation,” and “Data Curation and Dissemination.” It is worth considering how the organization of the book’s three sections aligns with the stated objectives of the book and the workflows described in the provided case studies.Opening the “Data Collection” section is a chapter by Wendrich seeking to contextualize the destruction of heritage occurring in evolving landscapes and the increased ease of public engagement with affected communities made possible through digital practices (ch. 1). Guillem and Lercari follow with an effort to set the theoretical framework for the cases and methodologies presented (ch. 2). Notably, Guillem and Lercari use the second chapter to confront the attitudes treating these new approaches as “digital solutionism” (26), and they further attempt to fit answers to several other important questions that deserve more space in a larger forum. The chapter draws parallels with other preservation workflows in practice today, while putting the onus on archaeologists to begin implementing the new standards in collection and curation outlined below.Moving past the theoretical introduction, Lucet (ch. 3) discusses new digital recording efforts at Cempoala in Mexico that consisted of applying digital photogrammetry and survey techniques to produce more accurate and objective measurements, with the intention of producing scientific data that is reliable and repeatable. Compared with the original documentation from the mid 20th-century survey of the site, the digitally recorded and processed models were deemed more precise, though carrying limitations inherent in these new methods such as gaps in photogrammetry products due to vegetation (53). Lucet acknowledges that this comparison would not be possible without the retention and digitization of the original survey records but leaves to the authors of the later chapters the discussion of how the new digital products should be curated (54).Lucet’s conclusion provides an opportunity for chapter 4 (Levy, Liss, Yoo, Liritzis, and Burton), the closing chapter of the “Data Analysis” section, to describe a more thorough treatment of digital data collected in the field. The authors describe a holistic approach to recording an archaeological excavation, which required the creation and hosting of proprietary software by UC entities that stored not only 3D models and imagery associated with evolving digital archaeological techniques, but also entirely digital contextual data recorded during excavation, plus associated artifact catalogues. The chapter provides a start-to-finish vision of digital collection and storage of archaeological data can be implemented (though only after many years of technical contributions and considerable funding). Much of the explanation of this implementation concerns the actual storage and dissemination of the data, which points to the final and strongest section of the book.In the “Data Curation and Dissemination” section, McManamon and Ellison (ch. 10) describe the concepts and ideal models of digital data curation, and they provide case studies of these activities and the use of the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR). The chapter provides detailed lists of practices expected in the digital curation process and how these practices were applied in rescuing a digital collection that was in danger of total loss if not for digital curatorial intervention and transition to tDAR. An example is given of a project that embraced digital curation best practices from the start and engaged with tDAR systematically through the research process.In the final chapter of the book, Hoffman, Porter, and Black provide a very honest account of successfully implementing a collections management system (CMS) at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the UC Berkeley campus (ch. 11). Acknowledging that “only the wealthiest museums” can afford expensive CMS software (213), the authors discuss the evolution of information management at the Hearst Museum and the repeated experiments, and financial investments, required to build a successful, sustainable, and publicly accessible CMS.Few of the chapters are limited to their respective overarching themes of collection, analysis, and curation, in that order of work as prescribed by the book. Other chapters would be better placed in a different order. In the curation section, chapters 9 and 10 both imply that digital curation tasks should actually be considered far earlier than the final stage of research. Brin highlights a fundamental lack of data standards in the archaeological research phase, pointing out that curatorial intervention often occurs “quite late in the research cycle” (163). Similarly, McManamon and Ellison also point out the need for curatorial planning before undertaking research and collection of digital data (196).Readers would benefit from reading the chapters of the curation section first, since it provides an important set of considerations, with which readers can then approach the other chapters, concerning both collection and analysis, including Anderson’s contribution to the analysis section of the book titled “The Digital Context of At-Risk Textual Archives” (ch. 7). The analysis of Old Assyrian cuneiform tablets first depends on the proper digital curation of the tablets and the dissemination of their digital records. Anderson describes building upon the digitized records of the texts with social network analysis to reconstruct archival connections for these documents, which are missing their context. For many of the tablets, this lack of context is due to looting. The proposed method provides not only a solution for recontextualizing artifacts without provenance but also an approach to comparing different archival data sets.Reordering the book chapters would act as a more effective bridge from the countless historic archaeological records yet to be digitized to new archaeological investigations that embrace digital methods from the start. These important solutions to curating the physical records and objects that can still be digitized can then be carried forward as methods that are applicable to all the new digital data being produced. Ultimately, placing discussion of data curation first would build a stronger foundation for methods and techniques that must grow to be more than the aforementioned “digital solutionism.”This book provokes needed discussion about how to approach the increasing embrace of digital archaeology. A notable driver of that discussion is a quest for data that are reliable, reusable, and replicable (chs. 2, 3, 7, 9). The book also holds overviews of practices in digital archaeology that would prove useful in courses on archaeological methods and techniques, cultural heritage management, and curation. It is important to note, however, that many of these projects were well funded and were provided with technical support by numerous partners at the various branches of “perhaps the world’s largest and finest” university system (xv). It is difficult to imagine how some of these methods can be implemented in sustainable ways by researchers and the communities who deserve access to but do not have similar resources available.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 2April 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 161Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/724680 Views: 161Total views on this site HistoryPublished online March 07, 2023 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Archaeology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/724680\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724680","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《数字时代的文化遗产保护:发出求救信号》编辑:尼古拉·勒卡里、威勒克·温德里奇、本杰明·w·波特、玛吉·m·伯顿、托马斯·e·利维谢菲尔德:2022年春分。250页。ISBN 9781800501263(平装本)$115。Damian KoropeckyjDamian koropeckyj独立学者搜索本文作者更多文章PDFPDF +全文添加到收藏列表下载引文跟踪引文missions转载分享在facebook twitter linkedin redditemailprint sectionsmore这本书主要介绍了从加州大学(UC)濒危文化遗产和数字人文项目中获得的案例研究和经验教训的收集。结合加州大学合作机构的教授和工作人员以及另一所国际机构:墨西哥国立自治大学(UNAM)的成员的贡献。引言描述了对文化遗产工作者的暴力行为和冲突中对文化遗产的破坏,然后将注意力转向考古学家在进行研究时不恰当地记录、保留和发布数据所导致的“更阴险的知识损失”,以及伴随全球发展而来的遗址损失(3)。很难将文化遗产从业者的处决和考古出版物的缺乏等同起来。这本书的目的是为在实践数字保存和“网络考古”中使用数字工具提供理论和方法,“网络考古”被定义为“通过互动和相互联系产生虚拟世界的数字过程”(4),其目的不仅是实施适当的技术,而且是最大化这些工具与当地社区接触的能力(10)。11个章节被分成三个部分,以提供类似于预期的工作流程:“数据收集”,“数据分析和呈现”和“数据管理和传播”。值得考虑的是,本书的三个部分的组织如何与本书所述的目标和所提供的案例研究中描述的工作流程保持一致。“数据收集”部分的开头是wenddrich的一章,旨在将不断变化的景观中发生的遗产破坏以及通过数字实践使公众与受影响社区的接触变得更加容易(第1章)置于背景下。Guillem和Lercari随后努力为所提出的案例和方法设定理论框架(第2章)。值得注意的是,Guillem和Lercari在第二章中面对了将这些新方法视为“数字解决方案主义”的态度(26),他们进一步试图为其他几个重要问题提供答案,这些问题应该在更大的论坛中有更多的空间。这一章与当今实践中的其他保存工作流程相似,同时把责任放在考古学家身上,开始实施以下概述的收集和管理的新标准。通过理论介绍,Lucet(第3章)讨论了在墨西哥Cempoala的新的数字记录工作,包括应用数字摄影测量和测量技术来产生更准确和客观的测量,目的是产生可靠和可重复的科学数据。与20世纪中期对该遗址进行调查的原始文献相比,数字记录和处理的模型被认为更精确,尽管这些新方法存在固有的局限性,例如由于植被的影响,摄影测量产品存在差距(53)。Lucet承认,如果没有原始调查记录的保留和数字化,这种比较是不可能的,但将如何管理新的数字产品的讨论留给了后面章节的作者(54)。Lucet的结论为第四章(Levy, Liss, Yoo, Liritzis, and Burton)提供了一个机会,这是“数据分析”部分的最后一章,描述了对该领域收集的数字数据的更彻底的处理。作者描述了一种记录考古挖掘的整体方法,这需要UC实体创建和托管专有软件,该软件不仅存储与不断发展的数字考古技术相关的3D模型和图像,还存储挖掘过程中记录的完全数字化的上下文数据,以及相关的人工制品目录。本章提供了考古数据的数字化收集和存储可以实现的从头到尾的愿景(尽管只有在多年的技术贡献和可观的资金之后)。这种实现的大部分解释都涉及数据的实际存储和传播,这是本书最后也是最有力的部分。在“数据管理和传播”部分,麦克马纳蒙和埃里森(ch。 10)描述了数字数据管理的概念和理想模型,并提供了这些活动和数字考古记录(tDAR)使用的案例研究。本章提供了数字策展过程中预期的实践的详细清单,以及如何将这些实践应用于拯救数字收藏,如果没有数字策展干预和向tDAR过渡,这些数字收藏将面临完全损失的危险。本文给出了一个项目的例子,该项目从一开始就采用了数字策展最佳实践,并在整个研究过程中系统地与tDAR合作。在书的最后一章,Hoffman、Porter和Black非常诚实地描述了在加州大学伯克利分校的Phoebe a . Hearst人类学博物馆成功实施藏品管理系统(CMS)的情况(第11章)。承认“只有最富有的博物馆”才能负担得起昂贵的CMS软件(213),作者讨论了赫斯特博物馆信息管理的演变,以及建立一个成功的、可持续的、可公开访问的CMS所需的反复实验和财务投资。很少的章节被限制在他们各自的总体主题的收集,分析和策展,在工作的顺序,如书中规定的。其他章节最好按不同的顺序排列。在策展部分,第9章和第10章都暗示数字策展任务实际上应该比研究的最后阶段更早地被考虑。布林强调了考古研究阶段数据标准的根本缺乏,指出策展人的干预往往发生在“研究周期的相当后期”(163)。同样,麦克马纳蒙和埃里森也指出,在进行数字数据的研究和收集之前,需要进行策展规划(196)。读者可以先阅读策展部分的章节,因为它提供了一套重要的考虑,读者可以通过这些考虑来阅读其他章节,包括收集和分析。包括安德森对题为“风险文本档案的数字背景”(第7章)的书的分析部分的贡献。对古亚述楔形文字碑的分析首先取决于对碑的适当数字管理和其数字记录的传播。安德森描述了建立在社会网络分析的文本数字化记录的基础上,重建这些文件的档案联系,这些文件失去了它们的背景。对于许多石碑来说,缺乏背景是由于掠夺。所提出的方法不仅提供了一种对没有来源的工件进行重新上下文化的解决方案,而且还提供了一种比较不同档案数据集的方法。重新编排书中的章节将成为一座更有效的桥梁,从无数尚未数字化的历史考古记录到从一开始就采用数字化方法的新考古调查。这些重要的解决方案可以用于管理仍然可以数字化的物理记录和对象,然后可以作为适用于所有正在产生的新数字数据的方法进行推广。最终,将数据管理的讨论放在首位,将为方法和技术建立一个更强大的基础,而这些方法和技术必须发展得比前面提到的“数字解决方案主义”更重要。这本书引发了关于如何处理日益增长的数字考古学的讨论。这种讨论的一个显著驱动因素是对可靠、可重用和可复制(chs)数据的追求。该书还概述了数字考古的实践,这将证明对考古方法和技术、文化遗产管理和策展等课程很有用。然而,值得注意的是,许多这些项目都得到了充足的资金支持,并得到了“也许是世界上最大和最好的”大学系统(xv)各个分支机构的众多合作伙伴的技术支持。很难想象,这些方法中的一些如何能够被研究人员和社区以可持续的方式实施,他们应该获得这些方法,但没有类似的可用资源。注[email protected]上一篇文章下一篇文章详细数据参考文献引用美国考古杂志第127卷第2期2023年4月美国考古研究所杂志访问量:161本网站总访问量文章DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/724680访问量:161本网站总访问量历史在线发布2023年3月7日版权所有©2023由美国考古研究所apdf下载Crossref报告没有引用本文的文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
:Preserving Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age: Sending Out an S.O.S.
Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewPreserving Cultural Heritage in the Digital Age: Sending Out an S.O.S. Edited by Nicola Lercari, Willeke Wendrich, Benjamin W. Porter, Margie M. Burton, and Thomas E. Levy. Sheffield: Equinox 2022. Pp. 250. ISBN 9781800501263 (paperback) $115.Damian KoropeckyjDamian KoropeckyjIndependent scholar Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmailPrint SectionsMoreThis book presents a collection of case studies and lessons learned mainly from the University of California’s (UC) At-Risk Cultural Heritage and the Digital Humanities project, combining contributions from professors and staff at partner UC institutions plus a member of an additional international institution: the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The introduction describes violence on cultural heritage workers and the destruction of cultural heritage in conflict and then pivots attention to the “more insidious loss of knowledge” attributable to improper recording, retention, and publication of data by archaeologists as they conduct research, along with the loss of sites accompanying global development (3). Despite the comparison, it is difficult to accept executions of cultural heritage practitioners and a lack of archaeological publications as equivalent. The aim of the book is to provide theories and methodologies for the use of digital tools in practicing digital preservation and “cyber-archaeology,” defined as a “digital process in which a virtual world is generated through interactions and interconnections” (4), with the intention of not only implementing proper technique but also maximizing the ability of these tools to engage with local communities (10). The 11 chapters are arranged in three sections ordered to provide a workflow akin to the practice expected: “Data Collection,” “Data Analysis and Presentation,” and “Data Curation and Dissemination.” It is worth considering how the organization of the book’s three sections aligns with the stated objectives of the book and the workflows described in the provided case studies.Opening the “Data Collection” section is a chapter by Wendrich seeking to contextualize the destruction of heritage occurring in evolving landscapes and the increased ease of public engagement with affected communities made possible through digital practices (ch. 1). Guillem and Lercari follow with an effort to set the theoretical framework for the cases and methodologies presented (ch. 2). Notably, Guillem and Lercari use the second chapter to confront the attitudes treating these new approaches as “digital solutionism” (26), and they further attempt to fit answers to several other important questions that deserve more space in a larger forum. The chapter draws parallels with other preservation workflows in practice today, while putting the onus on archaeologists to begin implementing the new standards in collection and curation outlined below.Moving past the theoretical introduction, Lucet (ch. 3) discusses new digital recording efforts at Cempoala in Mexico that consisted of applying digital photogrammetry and survey techniques to produce more accurate and objective measurements, with the intention of producing scientific data that is reliable and repeatable. Compared with the original documentation from the mid 20th-century survey of the site, the digitally recorded and processed models were deemed more precise, though carrying limitations inherent in these new methods such as gaps in photogrammetry products due to vegetation (53). Lucet acknowledges that this comparison would not be possible without the retention and digitization of the original survey records but leaves to the authors of the later chapters the discussion of how the new digital products should be curated (54).Lucet’s conclusion provides an opportunity for chapter 4 (Levy, Liss, Yoo, Liritzis, and Burton), the closing chapter of the “Data Analysis” section, to describe a more thorough treatment of digital data collected in the field. The authors describe a holistic approach to recording an archaeological excavation, which required the creation and hosting of proprietary software by UC entities that stored not only 3D models and imagery associated with evolving digital archaeological techniques, but also entirely digital contextual data recorded during excavation, plus associated artifact catalogues. The chapter provides a start-to-finish vision of digital collection and storage of archaeological data can be implemented (though only after many years of technical contributions and considerable funding). Much of the explanation of this implementation concerns the actual storage and dissemination of the data, which points to the final and strongest section of the book.In the “Data Curation and Dissemination” section, McManamon and Ellison (ch. 10) describe the concepts and ideal models of digital data curation, and they provide case studies of these activities and the use of the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR). The chapter provides detailed lists of practices expected in the digital curation process and how these practices were applied in rescuing a digital collection that was in danger of total loss if not for digital curatorial intervention and transition to tDAR. An example is given of a project that embraced digital curation best practices from the start and engaged with tDAR systematically through the research process.In the final chapter of the book, Hoffman, Porter, and Black provide a very honest account of successfully implementing a collections management system (CMS) at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the UC Berkeley campus (ch. 11). Acknowledging that “only the wealthiest museums” can afford expensive CMS software (213), the authors discuss the evolution of information management at the Hearst Museum and the repeated experiments, and financial investments, required to build a successful, sustainable, and publicly accessible CMS.Few of the chapters are limited to their respective overarching themes of collection, analysis, and curation, in that order of work as prescribed by the book. Other chapters would be better placed in a different order. In the curation section, chapters 9 and 10 both imply that digital curation tasks should actually be considered far earlier than the final stage of research. Brin highlights a fundamental lack of data standards in the archaeological research phase, pointing out that curatorial intervention often occurs “quite late in the research cycle” (163). Similarly, McManamon and Ellison also point out the need for curatorial planning before undertaking research and collection of digital data (196).Readers would benefit from reading the chapters of the curation section first, since it provides an important set of considerations, with which readers can then approach the other chapters, concerning both collection and analysis, including Anderson’s contribution to the analysis section of the book titled “The Digital Context of At-Risk Textual Archives” (ch. 7). The analysis of Old Assyrian cuneiform tablets first depends on the proper digital curation of the tablets and the dissemination of their digital records. Anderson describes building upon the digitized records of the texts with social network analysis to reconstruct archival connections for these documents, which are missing their context. For many of the tablets, this lack of context is due to looting. The proposed method provides not only a solution for recontextualizing artifacts without provenance but also an approach to comparing different archival data sets.Reordering the book chapters would act as a more effective bridge from the countless historic archaeological records yet to be digitized to new archaeological investigations that embrace digital methods from the start. These important solutions to curating the physical records and objects that can still be digitized can then be carried forward as methods that are applicable to all the new digital data being produced. Ultimately, placing discussion of data curation first would build a stronger foundation for methods and techniques that must grow to be more than the aforementioned “digital solutionism.”This book provokes needed discussion about how to approach the increasing embrace of digital archaeology. A notable driver of that discussion is a quest for data that are reliable, reusable, and replicable (chs. 2, 3, 7, 9). The book also holds overviews of practices in digital archaeology that would prove useful in courses on archaeological methods and techniques, cultural heritage management, and curation. It is important to note, however, that many of these projects were well funded and were provided with technical support by numerous partners at the various branches of “perhaps the world’s largest and finest” university system (xv). It is difficult to imagine how some of these methods can be implemented in sustainable ways by researchers and the communities who deserve access to but do not have similar resources available.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 2April 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 161Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/724680 Views: 161Total views on this site HistoryPublished online March 07, 2023 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
93
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信