Academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience.
By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies.
To learn more, view our
Privacy Policy.
About
Press
Papers
We're Hiring!
Outline
Title
Abstract
Introduction 1
Theorising Digital Archaeology and Data Biases
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Archaeology
(2024) Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
Marta Diaz-Guardamino
2024, In: Matić, U, Gaydarska, B., Coltofean-Arizancu, L. & Díaz-Guardamino, M., eds. Current Archaeological Debates from the Perspective of Gender Archaeology. New York: Springer
visibility
description
15 pages
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
check
Get notified about relevant papers
check
Save papers to use in your research
check
Join the discussion with peers
check
Track your impact
Abstract
This chapter assesses gender in digital archaeology theory and practice in Europe and North America. This is achieved by, firstly, presenting a discussion about who makes digital archaeology based on quantitative studies of journal authorship. The state of theorisation in digital archaeology and the challenge of androcentric biases are then discussed. This is followed by a survey of recent publications exposing the low level of engagement of digital archaeologists with the notion of ‘gender’ in the past and the present. The chapter then discusses the feminist critique of digital archaeology and highlights current areas of concern and areas of potential.
Related papers
Discourse Through the Looking Glass: Gender in the Language of Archaeological Journals
Cherrie De Leiuen
2015
This article addresses the extent to which the florescence of gender research in archaeology that arose during the 1980 and 1990s has changed archaeology. Is ‘gender’ everywhere or nowhere? The research presented in this paper assesses the extent to which concepts related to gender have become embedded within the research methods, themes and discussions of archaeological writing. This quantitative and qualitative study analysed 4487 articles within six key archaeology journals for gender-related words and their contexts. By closely examining the numbers, and patterns of usage of words, it was possible to quantify and assess the content of writing on gender as part of a large corpus of writing. The results show that while the notion of gender has permeated much of the archaeological literature, gender concepts have been adopted inconsistently and that gender is still a marginal concept in parts of the discipline. Consequently, the problems raised by gender archaeology during the 1980 and 1990s have not yet been resolved. There is more work to be done.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) - a working community of the EAA: The first ten years (2008-2018)
Nona Palincas
D. Gutsmiedl-Schümann, M. Helmbrecht, J. Kranzbühler (eds), Feministische Perspektiven auf Gender und Archäologie. Beiträge der Tagung zum 25-jährigen Bestehen von FemArc-Netzwerk archäologisch arbeitender Frauen e.V., p. 91-122. Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2021
The paper presents the first ten years of activity (2008–2018) of the working community titled Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE), focused on gender archaeology and organized within the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA). The first part presents the organization (board and membership structure), goals and actions (annual and other meetings, sessions within the EAA, workshops outside the EAA, publications) of AGE. Te presentation is detailed in order to compensate for the lack of a thoroughly organized archive. The role of AGE in its members’ careers is also addressed. The second part deals with AGE’s contribution to the research on gender and shows that its themes and theoretical approach do not differ from those of other gender archaeologists in the West and are not the product of AGE projects proper, but rather of individual preoccupations of the members. The paper concludes that the existence of AGE is important for its members, who, as gender archaeologists, would otherwise feel isolated in their academic milieu as well as at a broader scale as it ‘makes gender stay on the agenda’ and thus prevents younger generations from believing that the study of gender in archaeology was only ‘a fashion of the past and not a very academic concern’.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Gender and Archaeology
Karen Dempsey
Oxford Online Bibliographies in Anthropology, 2022
Detailed annotated anglophone bibliography on gender and archaeology including historiography, heritage activities, theories, approaches and scales of analysis
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF RECENT GENDERED PUBLISHING TRENDS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY
Dana Bardolph
American Antiquity, 2014
This paper explores the relationship between gender identity and patterns of authorship in peer-reviewed journals as a lens for examining gendered knowledge production and the current status and visibility of men and women in American archaeology. Drawing on feminist theory and the feminist critique of science, I examine how gender imbalance and a lack of diversity continue to affect the work that archaeologists produce. The evaluation of publishing trends serves as a means to investigate knowledge valuation/validation in archaeology and lends insight into the control over archaeological narratives. Analysis of publication rates from 1990–2013 in a number of prestigious archaeology research journals (including American Antiquity) as well as smaller-scale regional journals reveals that strong gender differences persist in one of the major ways that data are disseminated to the American archaeological community. I suggest that these patterns are likely a result of authorial behavior, rather than editorial or reviewer bias, and conclude with a discussion of future directions for practitioners to pursue research on gender equity in the discipline.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Who's come a long way, baby? Masculinist approaches to a gendered archaeology.
A. Bernard Knapp
Archaeological Dialogues 5 (1998) 91-125., 1998
How 'progressive' have archaeologists been in the progress made on gender studies during the 1990s? All archaeologists, male and female, must accept the need to theorize gender, and to rethink accordingly their traditional research priorities. Feminist theory is essential for the study of gender in archaeology because it has paid closer attention to gender as an analytical category than any other body of theory, and at the same time made important links within and between disciplines. Most male archaeologists have been recalcitrant if not loathe to focus on gender as a key concept in archaeological theory, even though writers treating 'masculinity' in the social sciences and literary theory have been active in this field for over a decade. This study discusses masculinist reactions to feminism and suggests that 'masculinist' approaches are derivative of feminist scholarship. Perhaps the most important contribution of masculinist scholarship has been to insist upon the existence of divergent, multiple masculinities, and by extension femininities, as opposed to binary oppositions or ideal types. The study of men and masculinities, of women and femininities, involves consideration of social and gender issues that should not become the exclusive domain of either women or men -the goal is an archaeology informed by feminism, one that looks critically at theories of human action and allows archaeological data to challenge existing social theory. Keywords masculinist; feminist; gender; archaeological theory; postmodernist ...many men feel that they are not in a position to engage in these issues and that only other women can do so. This exclusivity is not conducive to scholarly development; neither is failing to counter claims of a gendered superiority supported by 'scientific' archaeology that ultimately has filtered into mainstream society. An engendered rebalancing of the scales is long overdue and critically important to the trajectory of the 91 discipline. (Meskell 1995, 84) Downloaded: 16 May 2010 IP address: 130.209.6.42
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Introduction: Doing Archaeology as a Feminist
Alison Wylie
2007
Gender research archaeology has made significant contributions, but its dissociation from the resources of feminist scholarship and feminist activism is a significantly limiting factor in its development. The essays that make up this special issue illustrate what is to be gained by making systematic use of these resources. Their distinctively feminist contributions are characterized in terms of the guidelines for "doing science as a feminist" that have taken shape in the context of the long running "feminist method debate" in the social sciences. There is now a rich and expansive body of archaeological research on women and gender, a dramatic development in less than two decades. But despite taking shape at a point when vigorous traditions of feminist research were already well established in socio-cultural anthropology, history, and geography, among other closely aligned fields, the feminist affiliations of "gender archaeology" have always been vexed. Hanen and Kelley (1992) noted, with some surprise, a dearth of feminist content in the abstracts submitted for the first public North American conference on "The Archaeology of Gender," the 1989 Chacmool Conference (Walde and Willows 1991). They found that 80% of contributors avoided the use of terms such as feminist or feminism, and few made any reference to feminist literature, authors, influences, or ideas (1992: 198). When I undertook a survey of Chacmool contributors in 1990-1991, I learned that this accurately reflected the self-reported familiarity of most participants with feminist research in other fields and with feminist activism; although a majority said they had a pre-existing interest in research on gender, barely half identified as feminists and many registered strong reservations about the label (Wylie 1992,1997: 94-95). Conkey and Gero (1997) have since argued that this dissociation from feminist scholarship and politics continues to characterize archaeological research in the "gender genre."
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Theorising the Digital: A Call to Action for the Archaeological Community
Sara Perry
Oceans of Data: Proceedings of the 44th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Mieko Matsumoto & Espen Uleberg, eds. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 11-22., 2018
Although archaeologists are increasingly critically engaged in their deployment of computational approaches, those who label themselves as ‘digital archaeologists’ are typically not recognised for their philosophical contributions to the discipline and are rarely positioned at the forefront of general disciplinary theorising. Indeed, where digital archaeology does feature in volumes on archaeological theory, it often amounts to little more than a footnote. This is in spite of the fact that digital archaeologists have been driving change in archaeology for more than a half-century now. Notwithstanding the support of major international organisations and widespread commitment to key social projects (e.g. open access, ‘slowness’, neoliberal critique, emancipation), digital archaeologists still do not seem to have the rubrics in place to force larger theoretical shifts in the discipline. We aim here, then, to begin identifying the gaps and tensions which hamper our capacities to write contemporary and future archaeological theory.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Mapping a Future: Archaeology, Feminism & Scientific Practice (2007)
Silvia Tomášková
The potential of feminist theories of science in archaeology
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Feminist Archaeology by Jana Esther Fries, Bisserka Gaydarska, Paz Ramirez Valiente, and Katharina Rebay-Salisbury
Paz Ramirez-Valiente
Encyclopedia of Archaeology - 2nd Edition - Elsevier, 2023
Feminist archaeology sees itself as part of the struggle for gender equality. • It has diverse, sometimes even contradictory theoretical foundations and distinctly different emphases and approaches in different countries. • In addition to the past, it makes the institutions of archaeology the object of research. • It aims not only to work within academia, but also to change the general public’s conceptions of the distant past as they are part of today’s gender discourse. This paper presents both the theoretical approaches to archaeology that focus on the past and the more practical approaches that focus on archaeology’s own institutions and its external impact. It makes clear that feminist archaeology is diverse and disparate and goes far beyond women’s concerns. Instead, it challenges the theoretical foundations and unconscious presuppositions of archaeology and claims to change the discipline as a whole as well as popular assumptions about the past.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
FEMINIST ARCHAEOLOGY – A NECESSARY ARCHAEOLOGY
Alma Lerma
This paper is a summary analysis of the current situation in archaeology at the level of gender from its theoretical bases. It deals with the media and personal scope of patriarchy and male chauvinism in archaeology, within the academic field, both within institutions and in field work, as well as the public sample of archaeological studies. It exposes the hair-splitting differences between gender archaeology and feminist archaeology. And it shows some combative cases of feminist archaeology, from the visibility of women in the past and in archaeology, acting in the space of public and social archaeology.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Themes in Contemporary Archaeology
Uroš Matić
Bisserka Gaydarska
Laura Coltofean
Marta Díaz-Guardamino Editors
Gender Trouble
and Current
Archaeological
Debates
Gender in Digital Archaeology
in Europe and North America
Marta Díaz-Guardamino
Abstract
This chapter assesses gender in digital archaeology theory
and practice in Europe and North America. This is
achieved by, firstly, presenting a discussion about who
makes digital archaeology based on quantitative studies
of journal authorship. The state of theorisation in digital
archaeology and the challenge of androcentric biases are
then discussed. This is followed by a survey of recent
publications exposing the low level of engagement of
digital archaeologists with the notion of “gender” in the
past and the present. The chapter then discusses the feminist critique of digital archaeology and highlights current
areas of concern and areas of potential.
Keywords
Digital archaeology · Gender · Feminism · Inclusivity ·
Diversity · Multivocality · Heritage · Europe · North America
4.1
Introduction1
Digital technologies and methods have significantly influenced archaeological data and practice since their emergence
several decades ago. The capacity to handle vast amounts of
This paper discusses activities and scholarship carried out by digital
archaeologists mostly based in institutions in Europe and North America.
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology
(CAA) is a global organisation but most of its members are based
in Western countries (e.g. the membership varies from year to year
depending on where the CAA annual meeting is held but normally
the top represented are countries from Europe and North America).
M. Díaz-Guardamino (*)
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, Durham, UK
Archaeology and Gender in Europe (AGE) Community of the
European Association of Archaeologists, Prague, Czech Republic
e-mail:
[email protected]
data and the speed of computational data work have increased
exponentially (Llobera 2010; Grosman 2016; Huvila 2018).
However, our methods of acquiring knowledge remain
essentially unchanged from analogic times (Beale and Reilly
2017). The development of theoretical frameworks in digital
archaeology has varied across different areas, such as critical
GIS and visualisation (Jeffrey 2015; Perry and Taylor 2018).
On the other hand, feminist critique and research on gendermediated digital archaeology have gained prominence only
in the past decade, particularly in recent years (Morgan 2019;
Draycott 2022a; Draycott and Cook 2022).
Theorising and critically evaluating digital archaeology is
crucial for several reasons, one of which is to ensure the ethical utilisation and advancement of digital technologies
(Perry et al. 2015; Richardson 2018). This includes the identification and remediation of biases—sometimes inherited
from the broader digital realm (Huggett 2004)—rooted in
factors such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or race.
Moreover, engaging in critical scrutiny facilitates the cultivation of creativity and the exploration of innovative applications of digital techniques. Lastly, theorisation and critique
are essential for promoting the adoption and utilisation of
these digital tools to embrace multivocality, diversity, and
inclusivity (Morgan 2022; Bonacchi 2022), which align
closely with the core objectives of feminism and gender
archaeology.
This chapter provides an overview of the current state of
gender within the realm of digital archaeology theory and
practice in Europe and North America. Firstly, I begin by
clarifying the definition of “Digital Archaeology” and proceed to delve into the recent examination of gendered patterns found in digital archaeology publications, situating
these findings within the broader discipline. In the subsequent section, I evaluate the extent of theoretical development in the field. Additionally, I explore some of the primary
issues impacting digital archaeology concerning equality,
gender balance, and data biases. Following that, I present a
comprehensive survey of scholarly work in digital archaeol-
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
U. Matić et al. (eds.), Gender Trouble and Current Archaeological Debates, Themes in Contemporary Archaeology,
47
48
M. Díaz-Guardamino
ogy and examine the level of engagement with the concept of
gender (and/or feminism) within the field. It is concerning to
observe that the attention to and analysis of “gender” in digital archaeology have been disappointingly low. However,
there are signs of change within this underdeveloped landscape, primarily driven by feminist critique and feministmediated research conducted by select scholars who aim to
foster the utilisation and expansion of digital tools in order to
promote multivocality, diversity, and inclusivity.
4.2
What Is Digital Archaeology?
Among the many turns experienced by the social sciences
and the humanities, the “digital turn” has been one of the
more pervasive and impactful in epistemic and social terms,
giving rise to new disciplines and areas of activity such as
those known as the “digital humanities” and “digital archaeology”. As it happens with the digital humanities, despite
decades of digital practice in archaeology, there is still no
clear consensus on what “digital archaeology” is (Huggett
2016, 2018b, 2021). Is digital archaeology any practice of
archaeology mediated by digital technologies? Can we all
become “digital archaeologists” by doing archaeology digitally, as argued by Colleen Morgan and Stuart Eve (2012)
and Costas Costopoulos (2016) (e.g. by creating multimedia
experiences to explore past lifeways; Morgan and Eve 2012)?
As Jeremy Huggett (2021) recently proposed, digital
archaeology can be best understood as a “spectrum in which
archaeologists not only do research digitally, but also do
digital research” (Huggett 2021: 1597). Those who conduct
digital research (labelled Digital with a capital D; archaeologists in Huggett 2018b) are those conducting archaeology of
digital things (e.g. software, hardware, digital environments)
(Aycock 2021), the “makers” (e.g. coders), those creating
archaeologies of digital environments, or the ones critically
assessing digital archaeology practice (e.g. are involved in
theorisation, define the intellectual challenges, etc.).
Those acquainted with the literature related to digital
methods in archaeology will know that, despite these debates
and reaching some consensus around the use of “Digital
Archaeology”, nowadays the terminology may vary when an
author wants to refer to specific areas of activity or practice.
Terms such as “Computational Archaeology”, “Information
Science” or “Virtual Archaeology” can still be used. Phyllis
Johnson (2022), for example, uses “Computational
Archaeology” to refer to archaeological analyses that involve
“actual computation” (e.g. data analysis, pattern recognition,
predictive modelling, simulation), while “Digital
Archaeology” would refer to data visualisation and manipulation only (see also Ullah 2018). This distinction is, in my
view, not straightforward, as data manipulation and visualisation are inextricably linked to the results that may be
achieved through data analysis and pattern recognition, for
example (see Sect. 4.3).
Another term is “Archaeological Information Sciences”
(AISc), proposed by Marcos Llobera (2010), which is concerned with the capture, representation, visualisation, and
manipulation, as well as analysis and modelling of archaeological information within the context of information systems
(Llobera 2010). Indeed, Llobera underlines the importance of
connecting data collection, selection, and generation to data
representation, visualisation, data analysis and modelling, as
he believes (as I do) that all these steps are involved in knowledge production, and are integral to AISc (see also Huvila
2018; Dallas 2015 for data curation). This is why Llobera
considers that archaeologists need to be familiarised with and
be more proactive in AISc, a potentially “fertile ground for
connecting archaeological theory and practice”.
4.3
Who Makes Digital Archaeology?
Biases are a major concern in computation and data visualisation. Androcentric biases in knowledge production (incl.
our understandings of the past) are linked to lack of diversity
in science (Conkey and Spector 1984), and digital archaeology is no exception (Johnson 2022). It is key to detect and
address existing gender imbalances. In a recent paper, Phyllis
Johnson (2022) examines gender disparities in two of the
most important publications in digital archaeology, that is,
the Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology
(JCAA), which started in 2018, and the last 5 years
(2013–2018) of the Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology Conference Proceedings, both published by the CAA (Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology international association). An
important and worrying discrepancy is revealed, as women2
represent only 25% of first authors for the JCAA and 40% of
first authors for the CAA proceedings.
As Johnson notes, this discrepancy is a sign of a lack of
diversity in digital archaeology, which also reflects the
broader field of archaeology. Comparable discrepancies are
documented in a selected pool of archaeology journals
between 2007–2016 (Heath-Stout 2020), including the
global archaeology journal Antiquity between 1990–2020
(Hanscam and Witcher 2023). In Antiquity, 23.2% and 38.8%
of first authors were female in 2010 and 2020 respectively
(Hanscam and Witcher 2023: 88). Here the trend is clearly
one of improvement in terms of gender balance. The percentThe studies discussed in this section tried to overcome the limitations
of assigning binary gender identifications based on first names by
adopting various strategies, including checking the online profiles of
researchers and the pronouns that they use (Johnson 2022), but this was
not always possible. Therefore, the discussion revolves around female/
male publishing trends.
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
age of female first authors in JCAA is a bit low when compared to Antiquity in 2020 but it is comparable to the
percentage documented for other journals, for example,
Advances in Archaeological Practice (Heath-Stout 2020:
Table 3).
Various structural factors lie behind these imbalances,
including that there are many more males that secure permanent positions in academia (although this has changed in
some universities over the last 10 years), ensuring continuous
engagement with research. Back to JCAA, Johnson (2022:
Fig. 5) also documents many more papers single-authored by
males, and this perhaps reflects that computation in general
(incl. coding) is a field dominated by males, as there is more
disparity in this particular than in other journals like Antiquity
(Hanscam and Witcher 2023: Fig. 4). This is why it would be
interesting to contrast the results of this study by Johnson
with a similar study taking into account what Johnson
includes within the denomination Digital Archaeology, that
is, those activities related to data collection, database management, digitization of archaeological records, 3D modelling/photogrammetry, and pedagogical methods. Johnson’s
analysis constitutes one of the few works analysing gender in
the realm of digital archaeological practice, and her focus on
“Computational Archaeology” probably influenced the result
of her survey.
It would also be interesting to scrutinise the development
of CAA proceedings since 1973 and until 2013. The closeto-balanced gender distribution of this publication between
2013–2018 is commendable.
Overall, Johnson’s conclusion is that there is a significant
deficiency in gender diversity within computational archaeology publications, and that this difference has increased
over time in the case of the Journal of Computer Applications
in Archaeology.
Even if the rejection rate between females and males is
similar, there is a striking correspondence between the gender distribution of first authors and that of editorial boards of
Fig. 4.1 Comparison of
female representation within
editorial boards and first
authors in the CAA
proceedings and the JCAA
(Johnson 2022: Fig. 3)
49
both publications (Fig. 4.1). This correspondence may
respond to a variety of factors, including the fact that female
researchers may feel more inclined to submit to journals
whose editorial boards are more diverse. Thus, Johnson wonders if an increased diversity in editorial teams would also
lead to an increase in gender equity of authors. Editorial
diversity can have a profound positive impact on the peer
review process by reducing biases in the reviewer selection
process and by increasing the diversity of the pool of reviewers, which can also affect diversity in their author base in a
positive way (see, for example, Goyanes and Demeter 2020
in relation to geographic diversity).
A quick survey of a selection of some of the most popular
digital archaeology journals (see Table 4.1) reveals differing
patterns in gender distribution in their editorial boards.
Surprisingly, The Journal of Computer Applications in
Archaeology and Digital Applications in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage have the most unbalanced distribution in
their editorial boards, with 4/11 and 3/13 F/M respectively.
In Archeologia e Calcolatori the unbalance is due to a higher
number of female scholars composing the board (5/1 F/M).
The most equitable gender distribution is found in Internet
Archaeology (5/8 F/M), while Virtual Archaeology Review
has 9/21 F/M. Clearly, it is key to ensure that editorial boards
are diverse in terms of gender, and this is applicable to all
archaeology journals, where there is a lot of space for
improvement. As a comparison, I have included the data
from the advisory editorial board of Antiquity journal, where
currently there is a 10/15 F/M distribution. Interestingly, for
Antiquity we have 40% female members on the editorial
board while there is 38.8% first female authorship, reproducing the pattern detected by Johnson for JCAA and CAA. It
would be interesting to review whether this correspondence
is found in other journals, because, if this is the case, diversifying editorial boards would be a great strategy to contribute
to improving the diversification and inclusivity of the subject
at different levels.
50
M. Díaz-Guardamino
Table 4.1 Female and male representation within editorial boards of
key journals in digital archaeology and in Antiquity
Journal title
Journal of Computer
Applications in
Archaeology (2021–23)
Archeologia e Calcolatori
Internet Archaeology
Digital Applications in
Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage
Virtual Archaeology
Review
Frontiers in Digital
Humanities/Digital
Archaeology
Antiquity
4.4
Editor-in-chief
2 male
Editorial
board
Female Male
11
1 female
1 female
1 female (2 male
associate editors)
13
1 male
21
10
15
Guest associate editors,
1 female, 3 male, 1
female review editor
1 male (1 male deputy
editor)
Theorising Digital Archaeology
and Data Biases
The calls for theorising in digital archaeology have been
multiple. Chrysanthi et al. (2012) used the idea of prosthesis
to argue that computational approaches are not mere tools
but integral to knowledge production processes and that, as
such, their theorisation is key. As Sara Perry and James
Stuart Taylor note (2018), critical-theoretical reflections on
digital applications have been around for some time. Some
key works and edited volumes were published in the 1990s
and early 2000s (e.g. Barceló and Pallarés 1996; Llobera
1996; Lock and Brown 2000). Regarding gender, very little
was published during those decades, but the work by Thomas
Evans (2006) is an exception that sought to develop critical
(and reflexive) quantitative approaches to the study of gender
identity in past communities, in this case Iron Age France.
It was especially from the mid-2010s when the corpus of
digital theoretical papers grew significantly. Among them,
some critically addressed the ethical, sensorial, even ontological, political and structural dimensions of doing digital
archaeology, including by fostering creative disruption of the
processes of knowledge creation through digital tools (e.g.
Eve 2012; Hacιgüzeller 2012; Morgan 2012; Tringham and
Stevanović 2012; Jeffrey 2015; Watterson 2015; Opitz and
Johnson 2016; Dennis 2016, 2020; González-Tennant 2016;
González-Tennant and González-Tennant 2016). Particularly
important for this paper is the work by Edward GonzálezTennant (2016) and Diana González-Tennant (2016) on the
role of cyberfeminism to correct structural inequalities that
digital archaeology, among other fields, is reproducing. Their
research also explores the investigation and interpretation of
African diaspora sites and the intersectional identities associated with them. Oddly enough, despite being pioneering
works setting the basis for more recent groundbreaking
work, they are not as visible as they should be in scholarly
work. Perry and Taylor note (2018) that there is an important
gender dimension to this, as most of these politically engaged
authors are women.
One of the surprising issues about digital archaeology is
not only the lack of visibility and late impact of theoretical
work, but also the scarcity of scholarship critically addressing gender-relevant questions in the theory and practice of
digital archaeology. Among the theoretical scholarship
mentioned above there is no work focused on questions
related to gender identity, gender diversity or gender biases
in research, including the exploration of ways in which
digital archaeology can contribute to correct imbalances or
craft more inclusive and ontologically diverse knowledge
about the past. As we will see in Sect. 4.6, fortunately this
is changing, and digital archaeology is turning into a fertile
ground for inclusive and gender-diverse knowledge
production.
A big concern of many digital archaeologists is the tenuous critical scrutiny of digital tools and related processes of
knowledge production. Marcos Llobera (2010) notes that the
impact of digital tools in archaeology had been (until his
paper was published) mainly restricted to quantitative
changes rather than qualitative, such as enabling faster data
collection. Gareth Beale and Paul Reilly (2017) also highlight that despite the generalised adoption of digital techniques in archaeology and that the archaeological record is
now primarily digital, the application of digital tools is still
largely mediated by analogue conventions, while their potential for more complex engagement with the material world
(and disrupting Western worlds and ways of knowing)
remains unexplored.
Finally, particularly worrying from a gender point of view
are (white/Western) androcentric biases in knowledge creation (Conkey and Spector 1984), especially if we consider
that even data capture is part of knowledge production (as
noted above) and is subject to clear biases. Science is social
praxis and, as Huggett recently underlined (Huggett 2018a;
see also Wylie 2017: 204), “data are a consequence of cultural processes, and hence are theory-laden, process-laden,
and purpose-laden”. Importantly for digital archaeology,
coding is an activity that has been demonstrated to be particularly affected by gender biases that reproduce gender
imbalances (Jackson et al. 2008). This may be the case of
archaeology too, where the use of computers in archaeology
is influenced by a male bias associated with broader technological fetishism (Huggett 2004).
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
4.5
Locating Gender in Digital
Archaeology
As advanced previously, scholarship dealing with gender
within the theorisation of digital archaeology is minimal, if
almost non-existent. Furthermore, gender3 is very rarely
dealt with explicitly in other areas of enquiry within the field.
A survey of recent publications (i.e. key journals in the field,
special issues and edited volumes focused on digital
archaeology) reveals that the study of gender in the past and
the present using digital approaches, as well as the study of
gender in digital archaeology is surprisingly rare. This is particularly evident in some of the key journals in the field.
Interestingly, the limited scholarship addressing gender is
primarily focused on studying gender in the present (including digital approaches) or analysing digital archaeology
from a gender perspective. Less frequently, it delves into the
study of gender in the past.
A review of papers published within the Journal of
Computer Applications in Archaeology showed only two
papers engaging meaningfully with gender. One paper tackled gendered participation in cyber-enabled crime, where
(while a minority) women may play significant organisational roles (Hardy 2021). Mikkel Nørtoft (2022) examines
gendered wealth and status through QuantWealth, a new
framework combining PCA and the Gini index dataset. His
case study is composed of 81 graves with preserved skeletal
remains from 46 sites from the Corded Ware Culture (CWC)
in Czechia.
The journal Digital Applications in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage, active since 2014, has published 18
papers that mention “gender”. The use of virtual environments for teaching, also considering gender, is examined by
Bustillo et al. (2015). A paper by Nicola Lercari (2017) uses
3D reconstruction to integrate reflexive and multivocal
archaeological discourse, in this case Çatalhöyük history
houses. More recently, Panayiotis Kyriakou and Sorin
Hermon (2019) considers gender as a key variable in their
examination of the interaction with 3D replicas of museum
objects in a virtual environment (for comparable studies considering gender see Quattrini et al. 2020; De Paolis et al.
2022; Anastasovitis and Roumeliotis 2023). Gender is also
considered in Gino Caspari’s study of Instagram as a tool for
science communication (Caspari 2022). Antunes and Correia
(2022) note “gender-specific social behavior” as a key element to be taken into account when developing educational
simulations of the past. The problem is that they do not discuss or theorise what “gender-specific social behaviors”
mean to them or how knowledge of them would be deter3
Most of the research discussed in this section relies on a binary concept of gender. Consequently, discussions about gender often revolve
around male/female.
51
mined. This exposes very clearly some of the threats of
reproducing and projecting ideas onto the past when they are
not scrutinised and discussed openly and explicitly.
Virtual Archaeology Review, active since 2010, a journal
by the Spanish Society of Virtual Archaeology, only has one
paper by Liz Falconer et al. (2020) describing experiences in
using VR for simulating the Avebury Stone Circle and Henge
complex which attend to age and gender as variables to consider. Finally, Frontiers in Digital Humanities/Digital
Archaeology, active since 2016, edited by Andre Costopoulos
(McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada), has published
23 papers so far but none mentions “gender” or “identity”.
First published in 1990, Archeologia e Calcolatori is one
of the longest standing journals in digital archaeology. It is
very much focused on technologies and their application,
although there are as well a good range of papers tackling key
theoretical questions. Using its search tool, which covers
titles and abstracts, using terms such as genero/gender/genere,
mujeres/women/donne, female/femenina/femmina for example, returned only one paper, which uses GIS to analyse the
presence of places of female spiritually in the Middle Ages in
the Western Mediterranean (Garí et al. 2018). Although this
type of search should identify most papers that address gender in a significant manner, it might overlook some that discuss the topic without explicitly including relevant keywords
in their titles or abstracts. This is the case of Huggett’s paper
on technological fetishism (2004), which is likely one of the
earliest works exploring the gender dimension of digital technologies in archaeology.
The scope of Internet Archaeology is broad and covers
much more than digital archaeology, but it has been an ideal
venue for publishing digital archaeology outputs as it is a
digital open access publication that allows the inclusion of a
variety of digital media, such as video, visualisations, animations, and interactive mapping. A search through Internet
Archaeology of papers dealing with digital archaeology and
gender gives a poor return, surprisingly, although the few
papers make significant contributions to the matter. Penelope
Allison (2008), for example, publishes an important paper on
the use of GIS tools to discern activities and status of women
and children within Roman military forts through the spatial
analysis of artefacts, which were classified according to gender and function (a more extensive critical assessment of this
would have been beneficial). The result is significant, as it
indicates that women played a more important role in military life in the early Roman Empire than previously thought.
In 2015, Sara Perry and colleagues (2015) published a critique crucial to the topic of this chapter, as they consider the
impact of online technologies on archaeologists and archaeological practices, revealing a concerning lack of adequate
safety mechanisms and the fuelling of structural inequalities.
Finally, another important study was published by Anthony
52
Sinclair (2022) demonstrating how science mapping can be
used to explore diversity and representation in archaeological research. One of the most shocking findings, in my view,
possibly linked to the citation biases mentioned above, is that
women are underrepresented within the pool of highly cited
researchers in comparison to the proportions of men and
women recorded as senior academic staff. Women are
19–22% of the top 10–20% most highly cited authors in
archaeological research between 2014–2021, while, for
example, in UK higher education institutions, female senior
academic staff (“professor” and “other senior academic”)
constituted 27–31% of the academic workforce in general
between 2016/17–2020/21 (HESA 2022). This paper clearly
demonstrates the contribution that digital tools can make to
expose structural inequalities within the discipline as a first
step to correct them.
This quick survey through some of the key journals publishing digital archaeology scholarship shows that the
engagement with “gender” has been limited. This situation
contrasts starkly with that of Digital Humanities, where
scholarship on gender is extensive. The journal DSH (Digital
Scholarship in the Humanities), created in 2015, one of the
longest-standing journals in digital humanities, with its previous version LLC (Literary and Linguistic Computing, created in 1986), serves as a good example to exemplify this
point. A search using the keyword “gender” returns many
more results (348,159 only from 2015) than any of the digital
archaeology discussed above. Titles range from “Citational
Politics: Quantifying the Influence of Gender on Citation in
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities” by Amy E. Earhart
et al. (2021) to “Computational Analysis of the Body in
European Fairy Tales” by Scott Weingart and Jeana Jorgensen
(2013). This evidence shows not only the possibilities that
digital tools afford to address gender in the past and the present, but also the little engagement that there has been with
the concept of gender in digital archaeology when compared
with other related disciplines.
In addition to journal papers, digital archaeology scholarship has been published through a series of special issues.
Special issues may contain more theoretical, critical pieces
of scholarship, but still, the engagement with “gender” as a
dimension of digital archaeology practice and theory, which
needs critical examination, exploration and purposeful
engagement, is quite limited. Additionally, it appears that the
number of papers exploring aspects of gender identity in
both the present and the past is balanced.
Open Archaeology (De Gruyter) has been one of the most
prolific journals featuring special issues dealing with a broad
range of topics within digital archaeology. The 2015 special
issue titled “Challenging Digital Archaeology”, edited by
Jeremy Huggett and Davide Tanasi (Huggett 2015), aimed to
address the potential of innovative digital tools and
approaches not just to transform archaeology but also other
M. Díaz-Guardamino
academic fields. Some papers dealt with key theoretical
questions mentioned earlier, especially relevant to visualisation (e.g. Jeffrey 2015; Watterson 2015; Dallas 2015) but
there is no mention of gender as a dimension of interest
among the ten papers composing the issue. In 2018, there
was a more technical Open Archaeology special issue,
“Exploring Advances in the Use of 3D Models of Objects in
Archaeological Research” edited by Barry Molloy, which
contained one paper (out of seven) considering gender.
Opgenhaffen et al. (2018) presented the project “Pottery
Goes Public”, which explored the potential of 3D tools to
investigate the technological dimension of ancient pottery
manufacturing, including the gender of potters.
In 2019, Open Archaeology published the special issue
“Unlocking Sacred Landscapes: Digital Humanities and
Ritual Space”, edited by Giorgos Papantoniou, Apostolos
Sarris, Christine E. Morris and Athanasios K. Vionis, a stunning 22 paper collection of fascinating case studies showcasing digital applications to the study of sacred landscapes.
Very much to my surprise, especially as many of the papers
explore issues of embodiment and sensorial experience, only
one paper mentions and deals with “gender” to some degree.
This is a contribution by Paola Budano (2019), focused on
Addaura Cave (Palermo, Sicily), where there is a series of
engravings dated to the end of the Epigravettian and the
Mesolithic periods. In 2021, two more special issues focused
on Digital Archaeology were published by Open Archaeology.
The first, “Archaeological Practice on Shifting Grounds”,
edited by Åsa Berggren and Antonia Davidovic-Walther, collected ten interesting papers discussing a variety of theoretical questions, but none of them mentioned or addressed
questions relevant to gender or feminist digital archaeology.
The second was a special issue on “Art, Creativity and
Automation. Sharing 3D Visualization Practices in
Archaeology”, edited by Loes Opgenhaffen, Martina Revello
Lami and Hayley Mickleburgh, which offered papers theorising 3D visualisation practices that resulted from a roundtable session organised by the editors for the Archon Winter
School in February 2020. Of the 14 papers, two mention or
consider “gender” within their papers. Thiago Cardozo and
Costas Papadopoulos (Cardozo and Papadopoulos 2021)
explored the aura and authenticity of 3D models of museum
artefacts and documented the experience of people through a
survey that also considers gender as a relevant variable. Kelly
Schoueri and Marcio Teixeira-Bastos (Schoueri and TeixeiraBastos 2021) also considered “gender” within their theoretical framework for the 3D rendering of a Roman villa.
The most recent Open Archaeology special issue, published in 2022, is titled “Digital Methods and Typology”,
edited by Gianpiero Di Maida, Christian Horn and Stefanie
Schaefer-Di Maida. The issue includes one study (out of
seven) mentioning gender. Yang Bai (2022) presents the
results of a multivariate statistical approach to the study of
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
the Neolithic Taosi cemetery in China through its grave
goods. While the study discusses gender as an important
dimension of social identity in Neolithic China, it does not
mention it again when discussing the results of their research
demonstrating a high degree of social stratification, which is
somewhat surprising.
Other journals have published special issues or debate
pieces seeking to set the agenda for digital archaeology. In
2019, the European Journal of Archaeology published a special issue titled “Human, Transhuman, Posthuman Digital
Archaeologies” (Díaz-Guardamino and Morgan 2019),
which addressed the current use and future role of digital
technologies in shaping archaeology from a range of
posthuman perspectives that intersect with feminist,
Indigenous, and queer archaeologies. The collection of
papers included a “manifesto” by Colleen Morgan (2019) for
a “cyborg archaeology”, which draws from feminist posthumanism (Haraway 1991; Braidotti 1997) to intervene in
archaeological interpretation and its modernist representational frameworks. Multisensorial emotive evocations were
presented by Ruth Tringham and Sara Perry. Ruth Tringham
(2019) explores the emotive power of storytelling and the
problem posed by putting words into the mouths of the longdead. Sara Perry (2019) discusses work focused on creating
a more affective archaeology, its potential for achieving a
beneficial professional practice, and the role of digital technologies in advancing these undertakings. Further critical
appraisal of digital scholarship is presented by Katherine
Cook (2019), who discusses powerful uses of digital technology to promote inclusivity via “Do-It-Yourself” style disruption and activism that creatively challenges normative
representations of people in the past and the present.
A debate article published in Antiquity by John Aycock
(2021) had a different focus. “The coming tsunami of digital
artefacts” focused on the archaeology of digital things.
Importantly, Colleen Morgan’s (Morgan 2021) response to
that piece advocated for a feminist post-human approach to
the archaeology of digital things (in this case exemplified by
Minecraft) to understand their political implications and
reconfigure them along alternative relations.
Different edited and authored books offering overviews
of the state of the art in the use of digital tools in archaeology
and cultural heritage have been published in the last few
years. Some offer insightful contributions to and reflections
on the theoretical dimensions of digital archaeology, but
gender or gender-related theoretical questions are almost
absent, which is again quite striking if not worrying. There
are, nonetheless, some exceptions which are more frequently
exploring the ways in which digital technologies and gender
mediate intersect in the present.
In the edited volume Heritage and Archaeology in the
Digital Age (Vincent et al. 2017), Zaslavsky et al. (2017)
present the collaborative survey data analysis tool called
53
Survey Analysis via Visual Exploration (SuAVE), which also
offers the opportunity to run questionnaire surveys. They
included the possibility of recording the gender of respondents, but these may only be reflected by male and female
silhouettes, reproducing a binary framework.
In the open access edited book The Interactive Past:
Archaeology, Heritage and Video Games (Mol et al. 2017),
there is a fascinating piece by B. Tyr Fothergill and Catherine
Flick (Fothergill and Flick 2017) examining relationships
between chickens and humans through the depictions of
chickens in video games. They reveal how these relationships are mediated by gender stereotypes. Furthermore,
chickens are portrayed as objects of abuse (as entertainment), often linked to behaviours perceived/depicted as
masculine. This critique is very important, as these portrayals in many video games can contribute to the normalisation
of violence against animals, toxic masculinity and macho
stereotypes. Unfortunately, many games embrace toxic
masculinities. Taking into account the increasing socio-cultural importance of video games, it would be critical that
video games disassociate violence from masculinity altogether. I missed this kind of in-depth critique in the otherwise insightful Archaeogaming (Reinhard 2018), an open
access book examining the intersection between archaeology and video games, including how archaeology and
archaeologists are featured within these virtual worlds.
Andrew Reinhard discusses numerous dimensions of video
games, including the gender of the archaeologists and
archaeology-related characters in video games, although
this is done in passing. It was great to learn about the video
game Buried, designed to be a proof-of-concept of ergodic
fiction in archaeology created by Tara Copplestone and
Luke Botham, where the player is a gender-neutral archaeologist. The video game won the “best remote team entry”
category in the Heritage Jam competition.
More recently, Kevin Garstki (2020) published Digital
Innovations in European Archaeology, which provides an
overview of the application of digital innovations in European
archaeology. Garstki reflects critically on the application of
these tools but does not explore how gender mediates their
use in archaeology. In 2020, another book was published, An
Enchantment of Digital Archaeology, by Shawn Graham
(2020), on this occasion proposing the use of digital computational approaches (agent-based modelling and archaeogaming) to explore sensorial and enchanted engagements with
the past. I enjoyed reading this book very much, but I missed
discussions of the significance of gender in mediating these
kinds of human-scale engagements and the tools and media
devised to foster them, such as agent-based modelling.
A recent open access collection of essays focused on virtual heritage was edited by Eric Champion (2021). The book
is focused on measurement-based visualisation, the role of
interaction in virtual heritage, and ethics, including data
54
M. Díaz-Guardamino
preservation and long-term access. While the volume also
discusses the spatial dimensions of ancient narratives (Foka
et al. 2021) or the emotional and embodied dimensions of
engagement, there is no discussion of the role of gender in
the mediation of such expressions or experiences.
The recently published Digital Heritage and Archaeology
in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism, edited by
Lynne Goldstein and Ethan Watrall (Goldstein and Watrall
2022), contains two papers discussing and engaging critically
with gender. Neha Gupta et al. (2022) demonstrate how digital technologies can create barriers and reproduce structural
inequalities and alienation of women, racialized groups, and
Indigenous peoples through a case study in Canada. They
show in a clear-cut manner how important it is to reflect on
these issues when we do research digitally to avoid reproducing this structural violence (Bernbeck 2008). Also, Carrie
Heitman (2022) discusses how open access archaeology data
requires scrutiny to reveal gender, racial, and ethnic inequities, to expose and critique inherited biases in the archive, so
an anthropology of the archive is proposed.
Finally, Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice
focused on Presentation, Teaching, and Engagement (Watrall
and Goldstein 2022), contains chapters discussing accessibility and inclusivity within the frameworks of public archaeology, teaching, and learning. However, gender is only
explicitly considered in one chapter (Minor et al. 2022) discussing digital engagement strategies for community-based
archaeology, and particularly crowdsourcing community
input and gamification for sharing research results within the
Wellesley College Hall Archaeology Project. Importantly,
community surveys revealed highest interest levels in exploring aspects of the historical experience of LGBTQ+ students
and gender identities, reflecting larger concerns about inclusivity among community members (which included current
students and alums).
The fact that this recent volume only includes one chapter
dealing explicitly with gender may reflect a broader reality
not necessarily covered by this survey: there are contributions that develop feminist approaches but do not focus on
the concept of “gender”. This is the case with Katherine
Cook’s chapter in the book edited by Watrall and Goldstein
(Cook 2022), where Cook explores the value of collaborative
practice in public digital archaeology to diversify ontologies,
epistemologies and pedagogies, and ultimately contribute to
foster reconciliation, respect and inclusivity.
4.6
The Feminist Critique: Engendering
Digital Archaeology
Digital archaeology remained relatively immune to feminist
critique and gender-informed research until the early 2010s.
This is particularly surprising for a social/humanities science
that is expected, by definition, to reflect critically on the
human condition and the social dimensions of knowledge
production within the discipline. This is a major concern too,
as the uncritical application of digital technologies contributes to reproduce stereotypes and structural inequalities,
undermining diversity in the field and in our scholarly work
(Morgan 2022), while missing countless opportunities to
correct these and foster multivocal, diverse, more equal
archaeologies.
One of the key questions for anyone wanting to make a
difference and change this bleak panorama is “what can we
do, and how?” Fortunately, there has been some important
pioneering work, mainly situated within fourth-wave feminism, paving the ground for this kind of work. Fourth-wave
feminism, which emerged around 2012, emphasizes empowering women, shows increased interest in social media, and
promotes intersectionality.
An important line of work focuses on exposing gender
biases and the reproduction of gender stereotypes in digital
archaeology knowledge production (from data capture to
coding), including calls on archaeologists to become more
skilful and have more pro-active roles in the use and design
of these systems (Llobera 2010; Morgan and Eve 2012).
Work deploying bibliometric data and science mapping has
been used to expose important gender imbalances in archaeology publishing practices which clearly reflect broader
structural issues (Fulkerson and Tushingham 2019; HeathStout 2020; Sinclair 2022; Johnson 2022; Hanscam and
Witcher 2023). Here the effort led by Lorna Richardson to
crowdsource citable work by women digital archaeologists
to amplify women’s scholarship is a good example of
an action that can be carried out to correct citation biases (Richardson et al. 2018). Digital tools can also
be used to interrogate and critique power dynamics and
structural inequalities in the past and the present (Perry
et al. 2015; Perry and Taylor 2018; Cook 2019; DíazGuardamino and Morgan 2019; Morgan 2022), as well as to
contribute to increase the visibility of women (MartínezSevilla et al. 2020) and other members of marginalised
groups in the past.
Depictions of the past can have wide-ranging impacts,
including in the political sphere, as Bonacchi et al. (2018)
revealed through their analysis of depictions of the past on
social media. Particularly important on this front is the recent
work developed on Classical reception in video games
(Draycott 2022a; Draycott and Cook 2022). Female characters in video games reflect broader issues of gender politics,
but women game developers are a minority (c. 28% in the
UK identifying as female, 24% worldwide in 2019) (Draycott
2022b; see also Hicks 2017). The study of the roles and representations of women in video games whose experience
takes place during antiquity, mainly in the Mediterranean
region, has been prolific and revealed interesting trends and
aspects (see studies e.g. in Draycott and Cook 2022; Draycott
2022a). This reception work questions the reproduction of
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
Fig. 4.2 Boudica from Ryse: Son of Rome. (Source: Ryse: Son of
Rome
Wiki:
(accessed 27 June 2023))
stereotypes about the role of women in the past in video
games. In their creation there are clear tensions between the
creative freedom of the designer, the restrictions of the game
format, subjective ideas of authenticity and the objective
search for historical accuracy (Fig. 4.2) (e.g. Jones et al.
2018; Meier 2022).
Jordy Orellana Figueroa (2022: 41), for example, shows
how the characterisation of females in video games reveals
more about modern ideas of an ancient patriarchal society
than about the true patriarchal norms of antiquity.
Furthermore, Marcie Persyn shows that these representations
tend to encourage more sexualization of the women modelled, further contributing to their objectification and
fetishization (Persyn 2022: 55). These critical perspectives
have clashed with certain ideas of historical authenticity that
promote reductionist representations (as they ignore the
complex and diverse conditions of gendered people in the
past) and facilitate the continued exclusion of women (among
others) in video games (Chidwick 2022: 157–58). Josh Webb
(2022) identifies some emerging themes that will need further attention: (1) the challenge of traditionally “gendered”
spaces; (2) the significant presence of women both in terms
of historical context and numerical representation; (3) the
wish to control and regulate the appearance of women within
the game.
55
All in all, what science mapping, the quantitative study of
bibliometric data and the work on classical reception reveal
is that there are important imbalances, biases, and assumptions that need to be addressed, and by exposing and questioning them, we can start outlining and developing strategies
to correct them. The problems exposed include the reproduction of unquestioned assumptions about gender-specific
behaviour, about gender itself (usually depicted or conceived
as binary and very much following Western stereotypes), and
lack of diversity and intersectional identities more generally
(Morgan 2022). Little has been discussed about intersectionality in Western digital archaeologies (e.g. González-Tennant
and González-Tennant 2016) but work by Kisha Supernant
(2017), for example, demonstrates how attention to
Indigenous knowledge systems (in this case major trails used
by the Métis people in Canada to model Métis mobility during the nineteenth century) in GIS landscape analysis can
contribute significantly to refine methodologies (in this case
Least Cost Paths) and foster multivocality in the study of
past landscapes (Fig. 4.3). Locally grounded experience is
necessary to craft inclusive and diverse knowledge of the
past and the present, as well as a diverse and inclusive community of digital archaeology practitioners (Danis 2019;
Robinson et al. 2021).
Work on the use of digital tools to promote multivocality
started some decades ago. It was only in 2007 when
Rosemary Joyce and Ruth Tringham published “Feminist
Adventures in Hypertext” (Joyce and Tringham 2001), which
reflected on hypermedia and hypertext (multilinear) narratives as technologies affording potential to foster feminist
practice in archaeology, including multivocal, multi-scalar
interpretation, as well as feminist pedagogy. One of the few
scholars developing sustained feminist critique is Colleen
Morgan, whose ground-breaking PhD “Emancipatory
Digital Archaeology” (Morgan 2012) explores the potential
of digital media to expose inequity and foster multivocal
interpretations, in this case through three object biographies
of digital artefacts. Her more recent work calling for a feminist post-human digital archaeology has been mentioned earlier (Morgan 2019, 2022). Her current AHRC-funded
research project Other Eyes focuses on the use of digital
embodiment and immersive technologies to better understand people in the past and elicit empathic responses from
people in the present (https://sites.google.com/york.ac.uk/
othereyes/home). Current digital archaeology would benefit
from the development of more feminist projects and methodologies that explore the situated realities of individuals as
members of multiple marginalised social groups (Morgan
2019, 2022; Cook 2019).
There are areas of enquiry and practice in digital archaeology with great potential for this, such as the exploration of
“lived experience” through virtual embodiment and (gendered) multisensorial approaches (in addition to Morgan’s
56
M. Díaz-Guardamino
Fig. 4.3 Métis family at their
camp with a Red River Cart in
Manitoba. (Rice Studio.
Library and Archives Canada,
C-001644. Métis used Red
River carts to move across the
plains, especially during the
summer months (Supernant
2017))
work, see also Mol 2020; papers in Landeschi & Betts
2023, particularly Richards-Rissetto et al. 2023 and Manzetti
2023), visualisation, representation and reception such as
research developed within the feminist critique framework
discussed for video games above (e.g. Draycott 2022a, b), as
well as the exploration of new ways of crafting knowledge
through digital tools (Brebenel 2022; Dawson et al. 2021).
Added to exposing and fighting imbalances and biases,
and developing more multivocal and inclusive digital archaeologies, there is the need for action on other fronts, including
the disruption of categorisations used in digital archaeology
(e.g. binary notions of gender) by actively “queering” digital
archaeology, that is, questioning and moving away from the
norms regulating archaeological discourse (Dowson 2000).
Also, we need to foster gender diversity in the community of
digital archaeology, including in journals and relevant bodies
such as CAA (it would be great if CAA could act on this), by
thinking of gender as a spectrum rather than a set of limited
and static categorisations.
An important area in need of substantial critique is generative AI. As noted by Bender et al. (2021), who are all
women and are among the most prominent critics of large
language models (LMs), systems like GPT-3 are limited by
the training data, are stochastically repeating contents of
datasets, and have no real understanding of the content they
generate. Research demonstrates that large LMs such as
GPT-2 or BERT, trained on unsupervised next-token prediction, have different kinds of biases that have great potential
for harm, such as stereotypical associations, negative sentiment towards specific groups or biases against marginalised
identities (Bender, McMillan-Major & Shmitchell, 2021:
614). ChatGPT is trained on selected data, a massive data set
(300 billion tokens!) but the key factor responsible for its
dramatic improvement in performance is the addition of
human feedback (Reinforcement Learning from Human
Feedback, RLHF) (Arkoudas 2023). This means that
ChatGPT’s knowledge base is a curated dataset that inserts
bias and misinformation into the system, and these training
data are still not accessible (i.e. it is a black box). As Equality
Now recently noted, ChatGPT-4 can be a great tool but also
poses risks in reinforcing discriminatory biases (https://
www.equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/chatgpt- 4reinforces-sexist-stereotypes/). In response to these and
other ethical concerns, UNESCO published their
Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,
adopted in November 2021 (UNESCO 2022). In regards to
gender, in the area of policy action, it states:
Member States should ensure that the potential for digital technologies and artificial intelligence to contribute to achieving
gender equality is fully maximized, and must ensure that the
human rights and fundamental freedoms of girls and women,
and their safety and integrity are not violated at any stage of the
AI system life cycle. Moreover, Ethical Impact Assessment
should include a transversal gender perspective. (UNESCO
2022: point 87).
AI provides significant opportunities for archaeological
knowledge production by enabling exploration of large datasets and pattern discovery. It has successfully been applied
for image recognition (Horn et al. 2022; Winterbottom et al.
2022), and its use for text analysis is gaining momentum
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
(Stötzner et al. 2023). There are other emerging applications
that are already revealing great potential, such as Topic
Modelling (TM) for finding trends in social media data
(Tenzer and Schofield 2023). Nonetheless, as recently discussed by Tenzer et al. (2024), there are important ethical
implications that need to be considered. Datasets used to
train models may be full of ambiguities, introduce or reinforce (gender) biases and societal inequalities, as well as
produce flawed interpretations of the past, if they are not
designed with ethical considerations in mind.
4.7
Conclusions
Feminism and gender archaeology are about inclusion,
diversity and multivocality, and the potential for digital technologies to foster and develop ethically-minded archaeologies is vast. From this statement, the combination of feminist
and gender archaeologies with digital technologies would be
something to be expected. However, as demonstrated in this
paper, feminist critique and gender-informed research in
digital archaeology have been scarce until recently.
Without critique, biases are reproduced. These biases are
multiple and can range from those generated through gender
imbalances in the field and power dynamics in research
agendas, to those introduced in data collection activities,
through coding or AI training data. Such biases can be highly
detrimental, reinforcing harmful gender or ethnic stereotypes and impeding progress towards equality, diversity, and
inclusion. Therefore, it is crucial to identify, expose, and rectify biases in the application of digital technologies. Notably,
digital tools can aid in uncovering and combating these
biases.
Digital archaeologists have had limited engagement with
gender and feminism, but there are noteworthy recent exceptions that not only bring attention to these harmful biases
(e.g. Johnson, Draycott) but also promote the ethical use of
digital tools to envision past worlds and contribute to fostering diversity, inclusion, empathy, and multivocality (work by
e.g. Chiara Bonacchi, Bill Caraher, Katherine Cook, Edward
and Diana Gonzalez-Tennant, Colleen Morgan, Sara Perry,
Lorna Richardson, or Ruth Tringham).
The future appears more promising in this regard, but it is
crucial to raise awareness among digital archaeologists about
the need for more gender-informed critique and the significant potential contribution that feminist-mediated digital
archaeologies can make in achieving positive outcomes.
Acknowledgements Credit is due to the feminist digital archaeologists
whose pioneering work is an inspiration for many and is positively
impacting the field of archaeology. I would like to thank my co-editors
for their patience, and encouragement, which certainly helped to bring
this chapter to completion. Heartfelt thanks to Colleen Morgan, Jeremy
Huggett, Ruth Whitehouse and an anonymous reviewer for their critical
57
and very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Thank
you also to my colleague Rui Gomes Coelho for his advice. Any omissions or errors are my responsibility.
References
Allison, P. 2008. Measuring Women’s Influence on Roman Military
Life: using GIS on published excavation reports from the German
frontier. Internet Archaeology, 24. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.24.5
Anastasovitis, E. & Roumeliotis, M. 2023. Transforming computed
tomography scans into a full-immersive virtual museum for the
Antikythera Mechanism. Digital Applications in Archaeology
and Cultural Heritage, 28: e00259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
daach.2023.e00259
Antunes, R.F. & Correia, L. 2022. Virtual simulations of ancient sites
inhabited by autonomous characters: Lessons from the development of Easy-population. Digital Applications in Archaeology
and Cultural Heritage, 26: e00237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
daach.2022.e00237
Arkoudas, K. 2023. ChatGPT is no Stochastic Parrot. But it also Claims
that 1 is Greater than 1. Philosophy & Technology, 36 (3): 54.
Aycock, J. 2021. The coming tsunami of digital artefacts. Antiquity, 95
(384): 1584–89. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.84
Bai, Y. 2022. Quantifying Patterns in Mortuary Practices: An
Application of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis to Data From
the Taosi Site, China, Open Archaeology, 8(1): 1231–48. https://doi.
org/10.1515/opar-2022-0268
Barceló, J.A. & Pallarés, M. 1996. A critique of G.I.S. in archaeology.
From visual seduction to spatial analysis. Archeologia e Calcolatori,
7: 313–26.
Beale, G. & Reilly, P. 2017. After Virtual Archaeology: Rethinking
Archaeological Approaches to the Adoption of Digital Technology,
Internet Archaeology, 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.1
Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S. 2021.
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models
Be Too Big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on
Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York, NY, USA:
Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 610–23. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bernbeck, R.A. 2008. Structural violence in archaeology. Archaeologies:
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(3): 390–413.
Bonacchi, C. 2022. Digital Public Archaeology. In: S. Noiret,
M. Tebeau & G. Zaagsma, eds. Handbook of Digital Public History.
Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 77–86. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9783110430295-006
Bonacchi, C., Altaweel, M. & Krzyzanska, M. 2018. The heritage
of Brexit: Roles of the past in the construction of political identities through social media. Journal of Social Archaeology, 18(2):
174–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605318759713
Braidotti, R. 1997. Mothers, Monsters, and Machines. In: K. C.
N. Medina, ed. Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and
Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 59–79.
Brebenel, M. 2022. Making the image a process – on commitment and
care in entangled worlds. In: I. Dawson, A. M. Jones, L. Minkin &
P. Reilly, eds. Diffracting Digital Images: Archaeology, Art Practice
and Cultural Heritage. Oxon & New York. Routledge, pp. 193–201.
Budano, P. 2019. The Addaura Cave: Dance and Rite in Mesolithic
Sicily. Open Archaeology, 5(1): 586–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/
opar-2019-0036
Bustillo, A., Alaguero, M., Miguel, I., Saiz, J.M. & Iglesias, L.S.
2015. A flexible platform for the creation of 3D semi-immersive
58
environments to teach Cultural Heritage. Digital Applications in
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2(4): 248–59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.daach.2015.11.002
Cardozo, T. & Papadopoulos, C. 2021. Heritage Artefacts in the
COVID-19 Era: The Aura and Authenticity of 3D Models. Open
Archaeology, 7(1): 519–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0147
Caspari, G. 2022. Instagram as a tool for archaeological science communication. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage, 24: e00219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022.e00219
Champion, E., ed. 2021. Virtual Heritage: A Guide. London: Ubiquity
Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bck
Chidwick, H.M. 2022. Women and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean
Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds. Women in Classical
Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 147–61.
Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta Flores, P. & Papadopoulos, C. 2012.
Introduction. Archaeological Computing: Towards Prosthesis
or Amputation? In: A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta Flores &
C. Papadopoulos, eds. Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological
Computing and the Interpretive Process. BAR Int. Ser. 2344.
Oxford, UK: Archaeopress, pp. 7–13.
Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J.D. 1984. Archaeology and the Study of
Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7: 1–38.
Cook, K. 2019. EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive
Digital Archaeologies. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3):
398–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Cook, K. 2022. Digital Public Archaeology as Craft: The Collaborative
Process of Making Heritage. In: E. Watrall & L. Goldstein, eds.
Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Presentation,
Teaching, and Engagement. Gainesville University Press of Florida,
pp. 143–64.
Costopoulos, A. 2016. Digital Archeology Is Here (and Has Been for a
While). Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fdigh.2016.00004
Dallas, C. 2015. Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital
Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure. Open Archaeology,
1(1): 176–207. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0011
De Paolis, L.T., Faggiano, F., Gatto, C., Barba, M.C. & De Luca, V.
2022. Immersive virtual reality for the fruition of ancient contexts: The case of the archaeological and Naturalistic Park of Santa
Maria d’Agnano in Ostuni Digital Applications in Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage, e00243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022.
e00243
Díaz-Guardamino, M. & Morgan, C. 2019. Human, transhuman, posthuman Digital Archaeologies: An Introduction. European Journal
of Archaeology, 22(3): 320–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.26
Danis, A. 2019. Augmented, Hyper-mediated, IRL. European Journal
of Archaeology, 22(3): 386–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.21
Dawson, I., Jones, A.M., Minkin, L. & Reilly, P. 2021. Diffracting
Digital Images. London and New York: Routledge.
Dennis, L.M. 2016. Archaeogaming, ethics, and participatory standards. SAA Archaeological Record, 16(5): 29–33.
Dennis, L.M. 2020. Digital archaeological ethics: successes and failures in disciplinary attention. Journal of Computer Applications in
Archaeology, 3(1): 210–18.
Dowson, T.A. 2000. Why Queer Archaeology? An introduction World
Archaeology, 32(2): 161–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/827861
Draycott, J., ed. 2022a. Women in Historical and Archaeological
Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9783110724257
Draycott, J. 2022b. A short introduction to women in historical
and archaeological video games. In: J. Draycott, ed. Women in
Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De
Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 1–23.
Draycott, J. & Cook, K., eds. 2022. Women in Classical Video Games.
IMAGINES – Classical Receptions in the Visual and Performing
Arts. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
M. Díaz-Guardamino
Earhart A.E., Risam, R. & Bruno, M. 2021. Citational politics:
Quantifying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship
in the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36 (3):
581–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa011
Evans, T.L. 2006. You, me and IT: the application of simple quantitative
techniques in the examination of gender, identity and social reproduction in the Early to Middle Iron Age of northeastern France. In:
P. Daly & T.L. Evans, eds. Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method
and Theory. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 51–81.
Eve, S. 2012. Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality
to Aid Archaeological Phenomenology in the Landscape. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19: 582–600. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10816-012-9142-7
Falconer, L., Burden, D., Cleal, R., Hoyte, R., Phelps, P., Slawson, N.,
Snashall, N. & Welham, K. 2020. Virtual avebury: exploring sense
of place in a virtual archaeology simulation. Virtual Archaeology
Review, 11 (23): 50–62. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2020.12924
Foka, A., McMeekin, D.A., Konstantinidou, K., Mostofian, N., Barker,
E., Demiroglu, O.C., Chiew, E., Kiesling, B. & Talatas, L. 2021.
Mapping Ancient Heritage Narratives with Digital Tools. In: E.M
Champion, ed. Virtual heritage: A guide. London: Ubiquity Press,
pp. 55–65. https://doi.org/10.5334/bck.f
Fothergill, B.T. & Flick, C. 2017. Chickens in Video Games:
Archaeology and ethics inform upon complex relationships. In:
A.A.A. Mol, C.E. Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke, K.H.J. Boom &
A. Politopoulos, eds. The Interactive Past: Archaeology, Heritage,
and Video Games. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 53–72.
Fulkerson, T.J. & Tushingham, S. 2019. Who Dominates the Discourses
of the Past? Gender, Occupational Affiliation, and multivocality in
North American Archaeology Publishing. American Antiquity, 84
(3): 379. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.35
Garí, B., Colesanti, G.T., Soler-Sala, M. & Repola, L. 2018. De
Claustra a Paisajes Espirituales: Proyectos de Digital Humanities
sobre el espacio monástico medieval (siglos XI–XV). Archeologia e
Calcolatori, Suplemento 10: 155–71.
Garstki, K. 2020. Digital Innovations in European Archaeology
(Elements in the Archaeology of Europe). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108881425
Goldstein, L. & Watrall, E. 2022. Digital Heritage and Archaeology
in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
González-Tennant, E. 2016. Cyberfeminism, virtual worlds, and resisting the feminization of digital archaeology. In: Abstracts of the 81st
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Society
for American Archaeology, p. 166.
González-Tennant, E. & González-Tennant, D. 2016. The practice
and theory of new heritage for historical archaeology. Historical
Archaeology, 50 (1): 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03377184
Goyanes, M. & Demeter, M. 2020. How the Geographic
Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in
JCR-Ranked Communication Journals. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 97 (4): 1123–48. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077699020904169
Graham, S. 2020. An Enchantment of Digital Archaeology: Raising
the Dead with Agent-Based Models, archaeogaming and Artificial
Intelligence. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. https://doi-org.
ezphost.dur.ac.uk/10.1515/9781789207873
Grosman, L. 2016. Reaching the Point of No Return: The Computational
Revolution in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45 (1):
129–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095946
Gupta, N., Nicholas, R. & Blair, S. 2022. Postcolonial and Indigenous
Perspectives in Digital Archaeology. In: L. Goldstein & E. Watrall,
eds. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics,
and Professionalism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida,
pp. 242–74.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. London: Routledge.
Gender in Digital Archaeology in Europe and North America
Hardy, S.A. 2021. It Is Not against the Law, if No-One Can See
You: Online Social Organisation of Artefact-Hunting in Former
Yugoslavia. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 4
(1): 169–87. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.76
Hacιgüzeller, P. 2012. GIS, critique, representation and beyond.
Journal of Social Archaeology, 12 (2): 245–63. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1469605312439139
Hanscam, E. & Witcher, R. 2023. Women in Antiquity: An Analysis of
Gender and Publishing in a Global Archaeology Journal. Journal of
Field Archaeology, 48 (2): 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/009346
90.2022.2143896
Heath-Stout, L.E. 2020. Who Writes About Archaeology? An
Intersectional Study of Authorship in Archaeological Journals.
American Antiquity, 85: 407–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.28
Heitman, C.C. 2022. Theorizing the Archive and Ethics of Open Access
Archaeology. In: L. Goldstein & E. Watrall, eds. Digital Heritage
and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 220–40.
HESA. (2022). Higher Education Staff Statistics UK, 2020/21.
Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/01-02-2022/sb261higher-education-staff-statistics
Hicks, M. 2017. Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded
Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Horn, C., Ivarsson, O., Lindhé, C. et al. 2022. Artificial Intelligence, 3D
Documentation, and Rock Art—Approaching and Reflecting on the
Automation of Identification and Classification of Rock Art Images.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 29: 188–213. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10816-021-09518-6
Huggett, J. 2004. Archaeology and the new technological fetishism.
Archeologia e Calcolatori, 15: 81–92. https://www.archcalc.cnr.it/
journal/id.php?id=373
Huggett, J. 2015. Challenging Digital Archaeology Open Archaeology,
1 (1): 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0003
Huggett, J. (2016, May 10). Let’s talk about digital archaeology.
Introspective Digital Archaeology. https://introspectivedigitalarchaeology.com/2016/05/10/lets-talk-about-digital-archaeology/
Huggett, J. 2018a. Reuse Remix Recycle. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 6 (2): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.1
Huggett, J. (2018b, March 26). Who watches the digital? Introspective Digital
Archaeology. https://introspectivedigitalarchaeology.com/2018/03/26/
who-watches-the-digital/
Huggett, J. 2021. Archaeologies of the digital. Antiquity, 95 (384):
1597–199. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.120
Huvila, I., ed. 2018. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in
the Digital Society. Oxford and New York: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315225272
Jackson, L.A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A., Fitzgerald, H.E., Harold, R. & Von
Eye, A. 2008. Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The
New Digital Divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (4): 437–42.
Jeffrey, S. 2015. Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and
Democratisation, Open Archaeology, 1(1): 144–52. https://doi.
org/10.1515/opar-2015-0008
Johnson, P.S. 2022. Examining Gender Disparities in Computational
Archaeology Publications: A Case Study in the Journal of
Computational Applications in Archaeology and the Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference
Proceedings. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 5
(1): 140–51. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.84
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. & Jones, C. 2018. 3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD
project, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24 (4): 333–53.
59
Joyce, R.A. & Tringham, R.E. 2001. Feminist Adventures in Hypertext.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 328–58. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9036-2
Kyriakou, P. & Hermon, S. 2019. Can I touch this? Using Natural
Interaction in a Museum Augmented Reality System. Digital
Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 12: e00088.
Landeschi, G. & Betts, E. 2023. Capturing the Senses: Digital Methods
for Sensory Archaeologies. Springer: Cham.
Lercari, N. 2017. 3D visualization and reflexive archaeology: A virtual
reconstruction of Çatalhöyük history houses. Digital Applications
in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 6, 10–17. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.03.001
Llobera, M. 1996. Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social
space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70 (269): 612–22. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0003598X00083745
Llobera, M. 2010. Archaeological Visualization: Towards an
Archaeological Information Science (AISc). Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 18 (3): 193–223. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10816-010-9098-4
Lock, G. & Brown, K., eds. 2000. On the Theory and Practice in
Archaeological Computing. Oxford: Oxford University Committee
of Archaeology.
Manzetti, M.C. 2023. Combining 3D Visibility Analysis and Virtual
Acoustics Analysis for the Architectural Study of Ancient
Theatres. In: G. Landeschi & E. Betts (eds) Capturing the Senses.
Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Springer International Publishing: Cham, pp. 105–125.
Martínez-Sevilla, F., Arqués, M., Jordana, X., Malgosa, A., Lozano
Rodríguez, J., Romero, M., Rus, J. 2020. Who painted that? The
authorship of Schematic rock art at the Los Machos rockshelter in southern Iberia. Antiquity, 94 (377): 1133–51. https://doi.
org/10.15184/aqy.2020.140
Meier, M.L. 2022. “The hardest battles are fought in the mind”:
The role of women in Viking Age games. In: J. Draycott, ed.
Women in Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin,
Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 75–100. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9783110724257
Minor, E., Favela, P., Morris, M., Oliver, K., Oppenheim, G. &
Tao, R. (2022). Digital Engagement Strategies for CommunityBased Archaeology: Crowdsourcing Excavation Planning and
Gamification to Share Research Results for the Wellesley College
Hall Archaeology Project. In: E. Watrall & L. Goldstein, eds.
Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Presentation,
Teaching, and Engagement. Gainesville University Press of
Florida, pp. 87–124.
Mol, E. 2020. Roman Cyborgs! On Significant Otherness, Material
Absence, and Virtual Presence in the Archaeology of Roman
Religion. European Journal of Archaeology, 23(1): 64–81. https://
doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.42
Mol, A.A., Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke, C.E., Boom, K.H.J. &
Politopoulos, A. 2017. The interactive past: archaeology, heritage
& video games. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Morgan, C. (2012). Emancipatory digital archaeology. PhD Thesis.
University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/08s0v1fb#page-1
Morgan, C. 2019. Avatars, Monsters, and Machines: A Cyborg
Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 22 (3): 324–37.
Morgan, C. 2021. An archaeology of digital things: Social, political,
polemical. Antiquity, 95(384): 1590–93. https://doi.org/10.15184/
aqy.2021.125
Morgan, C. 2022. Current Digital Archaeology. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 51: 213. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-anthro-041320-114101
60
Morgan, C. & Eve, S. 2012. DIY and digital archaeology: what are you
doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44 (4): 521–37. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.741810
Nørtoft, M. 2022. A New Framework for Quantifying Prehistoric Grave
Wealth. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 5 (1):
123–39. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.86
Opgenhaffen, L., Lami, M. & Kisjes, I. 2018. Pottery Goes Public.
Performing Archaeological Research Amid the Audience Open
Archaeology, 4 (1): 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0004
Opitz, R. & Johnson, T. 2016. Interpretation at the controller’s Edge:
Designing Graphical User Interfaces for the Digital Publication of
the Excavations at Gabii (Italy). Open Archaeology, 2(1): 1–17.
Orellana Figueroa, J. 2022. A Historical Overview of Women in
Ancient-Period Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds.
Women in Classical Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Perry, S. 2019. The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record.
European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 354–71. https://doi.
org/10.1017/eaa.2019.24
Perry, S., Shipley, L. & Osbourne, J. 2015. Digital Media, Power and
(in)equality in Archaeology and Heritage. Internet Archaeology, 38.
Perry, S. & Taylor, J.S. 2018. Theorising the Digital: A Call to Action for
the Archaeological Community. In: M. Matsumoto & E. Uleberg,
eds. Oceans of Data: Proceedings of the 44th Conference on
Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.
Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 11–22.
Persyn, M. 2022. Dangerous Defaults: Demographics and Identities
Within and Without Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds.
Women in Classical Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Quattrini, R., Pierdicca, R., Paolanti, M., Clini, P., Nespeca, R. &
Frontoni, E. 2020. Digital interaction with 3D archaeological artefacts: evaluating user’s behaviours at different representation scales.
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 18:
e00148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00148
Reinhard, A. 2018. Archaeogaming: an introduction to archaeology in
and of video games. New York: Berghahn Books.
Richardson, L.-J. 2018. Ethical Challenges in Digital Public
Archaeology. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology,
1(1): 64–73. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.13
Richardson, L.-J. et al. 2018. Women’s Work in Digital Archaeology.
Richards-Rissetto, H., Primeau, K.E., Witt, D.E., & Goodwin, G. 2023.
Multisensory Experiences in Archaeological Landscapes—Sound,
Vision, and Movement in GIS and Virtual Reality. In: G. Landeschi
& E. Betts, eds. Capturing the Senses. Quantitative Methods in the
Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer International Publishing:
Cham, pp. 179–210.
Robinson, D., Rosemont, C., Gandy, D. & Cassidy, B. 2021. When the
virtual becomes actual: Indigenous ontologies within immersive
reality environments. In: O. Moro Abadía, M. Porr, eds. Ontologies
of Rock Art: Images, Relational Approaches, and Indigenous
Knowledges. Routledge, pp. 412–30.
Schoueri, K. & Teixeira-Bastos, M. 2021. A Theoretical Framework
for Informal 3D Rendered Analysis of the Roman Lararium from
Apollonia-Arsuf. Open Archaeology, 7 (1): 499–518. https://doi.
org/10.1515/opar-2020-0148
Sinclair, A. 2022. Archaeological Research 2014 to 2021: an examination of its intellectual base, collaborative networks and conceptual
language using science maps. Internet Archaeology, 59. https://doi.
org/10.11141/ia.59.10
M. Díaz-Guardamino
Stötzner E., Homburg T., Bullenkamp J.P. & Mara H. 2023. R-CNN
based Polygonal Wedge Detection Learned from Annotated 3D
Renderings and Mapped Photographs of Open Data Cuneiform
Tablets. GCH 2023 – Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and
Cultural Heritage. https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20231157
Supernant, K. 2017. Modelling Métis mobility? Evaluating least cost
paths and indigenous landscapes in the Canadian west. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 8: 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2017.05.006
Tenzer, M. & Schofield, J. 2023. Using Topic Modelling to reassess
heritage values from a people-centred perspective: Applications
from the north of England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 34
(1): 147–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774323000203
Tenzer, M., Pistilli, G., Brandsen, A. & Shenfield, A. 2024. Debating
AI in Archaeology: applications, implications, and ethical considerations. Internet Archaeology, 67. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.8
Tringham, R. 2019. Giving Voices (Without Words) to Prehistoric
People: Glimpses into an Archaeologist’s Imagination. European
Journal of Archaeology, 22 (3): 338–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/
eaa.2019.20
Tringham, R. & Stevanović, M., eds. 2012. Last House on the Hill:
BACH Area Reports from Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology Press at UCLA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdmwx1j
Ullah, I. I. (2018). What is ‘Computational Archaeology’? https://isaacullah.github.io/What-is-Computational-Archaeology/
UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000381137 (Accessed 29 June 2023).
Vincent, M.L., López-Menchero, M., Ioannides, M. & Levy, T.E. 2017.
Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age: Acquisition, Curation,
and Dissemination of Spatial Cultural Heritage Data. Springer
International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9
Watrall, E. & Goldstein, L., eds. 2022. Digital Heritage and Archaeology
in Practice: Presentation, Teaching, and Engagement (1st ed.).
University Press of Florida. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2pfq2jj
Watterson, A. 2015. Beyond Digital Dwelling: Re-thinking Interpretive
Visualisation in Archaeology. Open Archaeology, 1(1): 119–30.
Webb, J. 2022. Warriors and Waifus: Community responses to historical accuracy and the representation of women in Total War:
Three Kingdoms. In: J. Draycott, ed. Women in Historical
and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter
Oldenbourg. pp. 101–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110724257
Weingart, S. & Jorgensen, J. 2013. Computational analysis of the body
in European fairy tales. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28 (3):
404–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs015
Winterbottom, T., Leone, A. & Al Moubayed, N. 2022. A deep learning approach to fight illicit trafficking of antiquities using artefact
instance classification. Scientific Reports, 12: 13468. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-022-15965-2
Wylie, A. 2017. How Archaeological Evidence Bites Back. Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 42 (2): 203–25. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0162243916671200
Zaslavsky, I., Burton, M.M., & Levy, T.E. 2017. A New Approach to
Online Visual Analysis and Sharing of Archaeological Surveys
and Image Collections. In: M. Vincent, V. López-Menchero
Bendicho, M. Ioannides, T. Levy, eds. Heritage and Archaeology
in the Digital Age. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities
and Social Sciences. Springer: Cham, pp. 133–55. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_7
References (121)
Allison, P. 2008. Measuring Women's Influence on Roman Military Life: using GIS on published excavation reports from the German frontier. Internet Archaeology, 24. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.24.5
Anastasovitis, E. & Roumeliotis, M. 2023. Transforming computed tomography scans into a full-immersive virtual museum for the Antikythera Mechanism. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 28: e00259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. daach.2023.e00259
Antunes, R.F. & Correia, L. 2022. Virtual simulations of ancient sites inhabited by autonomous characters: Lessons from the develop- ment of Easy-population. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 26: e00237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. daach.2022.e00237
Arkoudas, K. 2023. ChatGPT is no Stochastic Parrot. But it also Claims that 1 is Greater than 1. Philosophy & Technology, 36 (3): 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00619-6
Aycock, J. 2021. The coming tsunami of digital artefacts. Antiquity, 95 (384): 1584-89. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.84
Bai, Y. 2022. Quantifying Patterns in Mortuary Practices: An Application of Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis to Data From the Taosi Site, China, Open Archaeology, 8(1): 1231-48. https://doi. org/10.1515/opar-2022-0268
Barceló, J.A. & Pallarés, M. 1996. A critique of G.I.S. in archaeology. From visual seduction to spatial analysis. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 7: 313-26.
Beale, G. & Reilly, P. 2017. After Virtual Archaeology: Rethinking Archaeological Approaches to the Adoption of Digital Technology, Internet Archaeology, 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.1
Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A. & Shmitchell, S. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 610-23. https://doi. org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Bernbeck, R.A. 2008. Structural violence in archaeology. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 4(3): 390-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-008-9076-6
Bonacchi, C. 2022. Digital Public Archaeology. In: S. Noiret, M. Tebeau & G. Zaagsma, eds. Handbook of Digital Public History. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 77-86. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110430295-006
Bonacchi, C., Altaweel, M. & Krzyzanska, M. 2018. The heritage of Brexit: Roles of the past in the construction of political iden- tities through social media. Journal of Social Archaeology, 18(2): 174-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605318759713
Braidotti, R. 1997. Mothers, Monsters, and Machines. In: K. C. N. Medina, ed. Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 59-79.
Brebenel, M. 2022. Making the image a process -on commitment and care in entangled worlds. In: I. Dawson, A. M. Jones, L. Minkin & P. Reilly, eds. Diffracting Digital Images: Archaeology, Art Practice and Cultural Heritage. Oxon & New York. Routledge, pp. 193-201.
Budano, P. 2019. The Addaura Cave: Dance and Rite in Mesolithic Sicily. Open Archaeology, 5(1): 586-97. https://doi.org/10.1515/ opar-2019-0036
Bustillo, A., Alaguero, M., Miguel, I., Saiz, J.M. & Iglesias, L.S. 2015. A flexible platform for the creation of 3D semi-immersive environments to teach Cultural Heritage. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2(4): 248-59. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.daach.2015.11.002
Cardozo, T. & Papadopoulos, C. 2021. Heritage Artefacts in the COVID-19 Era: The Aura and Authenticity of 3D Models. Open Archaeology, 7(1): 519-39. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2020-0147
Caspari, G. 2022. Instagram as a tool for archaeological science com- munication. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 24: e00219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022.e00219
Champion, E., ed. 2021. Virtual Heritage: A Guide. London: Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/bck
Chidwick, H.M. 2022. Women and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds. Women in Classical Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 147-61.
Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta Flores, P. & Papadopoulos, C. 2012. Introduction. Archaeological Computing: Towards Prosthesis or Amputation? In: A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta Flores & C. Papadopoulos, eds. Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretive Process. BAR Int. Ser. 2344. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress, pp. 7-13.
Conkey, M.W. & Spector, J.D. 1984. Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7: 1-38.
Cook, K. 2019. EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 398-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Cook, K. 2022. Digital Public Archaeology as Craft: The Collaborative Process of Making Heritage. In: E. Watrall & L. Goldstein, eds. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Presentation, Teaching, and Engagement. Gainesville University Press of Florida, pp. 143-64.
Costopoulos, A. 2016. Digital Archeology Is Here (and Has Been for a While). Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fdigh.2016.00004
Dallas, C. 2015. Curating Archaeological Knowledge in the Digital Continuum: from Practice to Infrastructure. Open Archaeology, 1(1): 176-207. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0011
De Paolis, L.T., Faggiano, F., Gatto, C., Barba, M.C. & De Luca, V. 2022. Immersive virtual reality for the fruition of ancient con- texts: The case of the archaeological and Naturalistic Park of Santa Maria d'Agnano in Ostuni Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, e00243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2022. e00243
Díaz-Guardamino, M. & Morgan, C. 2019. Human, transhuman, post- human Digital Archaeologies: An Introduction. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 320-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.26
Danis, A. 2019. Augmented, Hyper-mediated, IRL. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 386-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.21
Dawson, I., Jones, A.M., Minkin, L. & Reilly, P. 2021. Diffracting Digital Images. London and New York: Routledge.
Dennis, L.M. 2016. Archaeogaming, ethics, and participatory stan- dards. SAA Archaeological Record, 16(5): 29-33.
Dennis, L.M. 2020. Digital archaeological ethics: successes and fail- ures in disciplinary attention. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 3(1): 210-18.
Dowson, T.A. 2000. Why Queer Archaeology? An introduction World Archaeology, 32(2): 161-65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/827861
Draycott, J., ed. 2022a. Women in Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110724257
Draycott, J. 2022b. A short introduction to women in historical and archaeological video games. In: J. Draycott, ed. Women in Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 1-23.
Draycott, J. & Cook, K., eds. 2022. Women in Classical Video Games. IMAGINES -Classical Receptions in the Visual and Performing Arts. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Earhart A.E., Risam, R. & Bruno, M. 2021. Citational politics: Quantifying the influence of gender on citation in Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 36 (3): 581-94. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa011
Evans, T.L. 2006. You, me and IT: the application of simple quantitative techniques in the examination of gender, identity and social repro- duction in the Early to Middle Iron Age of northeastern France. In: P. Daly & T.L. Evans, eds. Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 51-81.
Eve, S. 2012. Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality to Aid Archaeological Phenomenology in the Landscape. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19: 582-600. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10816-012-9142-7
Falconer, L., Burden, D., Cleal, R., Hoyte, R., Phelps, P., Slawson, N., Snashall, N. & Welham, K. 2020. Virtual avebury: exploring sense of place in a virtual archaeology simulation. Virtual Archaeology Review, 11 (23): 50-62. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2020.12924
Foka, A., McMeekin, D.A., Konstantinidou, K., Mostofian, N., Barker, E., Demiroglu, O.C., Chiew, E., Kiesling, B. & Talatas, L. 2021. Mapping Ancient Heritage Narratives with Digital Tools. In: E.M Champion, ed. Virtual heritage: A guide. London: Ubiquity Press, pp. 55-65. https://doi.org/10.5334/bck.f
Fothergill, B.T. & Flick, C. 2017. Chickens in Video Games: Archaeology and ethics inform upon complex relationships. In: A.A.A. Mol, C.E. Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke, K.H.J. Boom & A. Politopoulos, eds. The Interactive Past: Archaeology, Heritage, and Video Games. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 53-72.
Fulkerson, T.J. & Tushingham, S. 2019. Who Dominates the Discourses of the Past? Gender, Occupational Affiliation, and multivocality in North American Archaeology Publishing. American Antiquity, 84 (3): 379. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.35
Garí, B., Colesanti, G.T., Soler-Sala, M. & Repola, L. 2018. De Claustra a Paisajes Espirituales: Proyectos de Digital Humanities sobre el espacio monástico medieval (siglos XI-XV). Archeologia e Calcolatori, Suplemento 10: 155-71.
Garstki, K. 2020. Digital Innovations in European Archaeology (Elements in the Archaeology of Europe). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108881425
Goldstein, L. & Watrall, E. 2022. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
González-Tennant, E. 2016. Cyberfeminism, virtual worlds, and resist- ing the feminization of digital archaeology. In: Abstracts of the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology, p. 166.
González-Tennant, E. & González-Tennant, D. 2016. The practice and theory of new heritage for historical archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 50 (1): 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03377184
Goyanes, M. & Demeter, M. 2020. How the Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards Affects What Is Published in JCR-Ranked Communication Journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97 (4): 1123-48. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077699020904169
Graham, S. 2020. An Enchantment of Digital Archaeology: Raising the Dead with Agent-Based Models, archaeogaming and Artificial Intelligence. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. https://doi-org. ezphost.dur.ac.uk/10.1515/9781789207873
Grosman, L. 2016. Reaching the Point of No Return: The Computational Revolution in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45 (1): 129-45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095946
Gupta, N., Nicholas, R. & Blair, S. 2022. Postcolonial and Indigenous Perspectives in Digital Archaeology. In: L. Goldstein & E. Watrall, eds. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 242-74.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. London: Routledge.
Hardy, S.A. 2021. It Is Not against the Law, if No-One Can See You: Online Social Organisation of Artefact-Hunting in Former Yugoslavia. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 4 (1): 169-87. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.76
Hacιgüzeller, P. 2012. GIS, critique, representation and beyond. Journal of Social Archaeology, 12 (2): 245-63. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469605312439139
Hanscam, E. & Witcher, R. 2023. Women in Antiquity: An Analysis of Gender and Publishing in a Global Archaeology Journal. Journal of Field Archaeology, 48 (2): 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/009346 90.2022.2143896
Heath-Stout, L.E. 2020. Who Writes About Archaeology? An Intersectional Study of Authorship in Archaeological Journals. American Antiquity, 85: 407-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.28
Heitman, C.C. 2022. Theorizing the Archive and Ethics of Open Access Archaeology. In: L. Goldstein & E. Watrall, eds. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 220-40.
HESA. (2022). Higher Education Staff Statistics UK, 2020/21. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/01-02-2022/sb261- higher-education-staff-statistics
Hicks, M. 2017. Programmed Inequality: How Britain Discarded Women Technologists and Lost Its Edge in Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Horn, C., Ivarsson, O., Lindhé, C. et al. 2022. Artificial Intelligence, 3D Documentation, and Rock Art-Approaching and Reflecting on the Automation of Identification and Classification of Rock Art Images. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 29: 188-213. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10816-021-09518-6
Huggett, J. 2004. Archaeology and the new technological fetishism. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 15: 81-92. https://www.archcalc.cnr.it/ journal/id.php?id=373
Huggett, J. 2015. Challenging Digital Archaeology Open Archaeology, 1 (1): 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0003
Huggett, J. (2016, May 10). Let's talk about digital archaeology. Introspective Digital Archaeology. https://introspectivedigitalar- chaeology.com/2016/05/10/lets-talk-about-digital-archaeology/
Huggett, J. 2018a. Reuse Remix Recycle. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6 (2): 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.1
Huggett, J. (2018b, March 26). Who watches the digital? Introspective Digital Archaeology. https://introspectivedigitalarchaeology.com/2018/03/26/ who-watches-the-digital/
Huggett, J. 2021. Archaeologies of the digital. Antiquity, 95 (384): 1597-199. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.120
Huvila, I., ed. 2018. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. Oxford and New York: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315225272
Jackson, L.A., Zhao, Y., Kolenic, A., Fitzgerald, H.E., Harold, R. & Von Eye, A. 2008. Race, Gender, and Information Technology Use: The New Digital Divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (4): 437-42. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0157
Jeffrey, S. 2015. Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation, Open Archaeology, 1(1): 144-52. https://doi. org/10.1515/opar-2015-0008
Johnson, P.S. 2022. Examining Gender Disparities in Computational Archaeology Publications: A Case Study in the Journal of Computational Applications in Archaeology and the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference Proceedings. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 5 (1): 140-51. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.84
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. & Jones, C. 2018. 3D heri- tage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 24 (4): 333-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1378905
Joyce, R.A. & Tringham, R.E. 2001. Feminist Adventures in Hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 328-58. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10816-007-9036-2
Kyriakou, P. & Hermon, S. 2019. Can I touch this? Using Natural Interaction in a Museum Augmented Reality System. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 12: e00088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2018.e00088
Landeschi, G. & Betts, E. 2023. Capturing the Senses: Digital Methods for Sensory Archaeologies. Springer: Cham.
Lercari, N. 2017. 3D visualization and reflexive archaeology: A virtual reconstruction of Çatalhöyük history houses. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 6, 10-17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.03.001
Llobera, M. 1996. Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity, 70 (269): 612-22. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0003598X00083745
Llobera, M. 2010. Archaeological Visualization: Towards an Archaeological Information Science (AISc). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18 (3): 193-223. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10816-010-9098-4
Lock, G. & Brown, K., eds. 2000. On the Theory and Practice in Archaeological Computing. Oxford: Oxford University Committee of Archaeology.
Manzetti, M.C. 2023. Combining 3D Visibility Analysis and Virtual Acoustics Analysis for the Architectural Study of Ancient Theatres. In: G. Landeschi & E. Betts (eds) Capturing the Senses. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer International Publishing: Cham, pp. 105-125.
Martínez-Sevilla, F., Arqués, M., Jordana, X., Malgosa, A., Lozano Rodríguez, J., Romero, M., Rus, J. 2020. Who painted that? The authorship of Schematic rock art at the Los Machos rockshel- ter in southern Iberia. Antiquity, 94 (377): 1133-51. https://doi. org/10.15184/aqy.2020.140
Meier, M.L. 2022. "The hardest battles are fought in the mind": The role of women in Viking Age games. In: J. Draycott, ed. Women in Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, pp. 75-100. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110724257
Minor, E., Favela, P., Morris, M., Oliver, K., Oppenheim, G. & Tao, R. (2022). Digital Engagement Strategies for Community- Based Archaeology: Crowdsourcing Excavation Planning and Gamification to Share Research Results for the Wellesley College Hall Archaeology Project. In: E. Watrall & L. Goldstein, eds. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Presentation, Teaching, and Engagement. Gainesville University Press of Florida, pp. 87-124.
Mol, E. 2020. Roman Cyborgs! On Significant Otherness, Material Absence, and Virtual Presence in the Archaeology of Roman Religion. European Journal of Archaeology, 23(1): 64-81. https:// doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.42
Mol, A.A., Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke, C.E., Boom, K.H.J. & Politopoulos, A. 2017. The interactive past: archaeology, heritage & video games. Leiden: Sidestone Press.
Morgan, C. (2012). Emancipatory digital archaeology. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. Available at: http://escholarship. org/uc/item/08s0v1fb#page-1
Morgan, C. 2019. Avatars, Monsters, and Machines: A Cyborg Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 22 (3): 324-37. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.22
Morgan, C. 2021. An archaeology of digital things: Social, political, polemical. Antiquity, 95(384): 1590-93. https://doi.org/10.15184/ aqy.2021.125
Morgan, C. 2022. Current Digital Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 51: 213. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-anthro-041320-114101
Morgan, C. & Eve, S. 2012. DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology, 44 (4): 521-37. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.741810
Nørtoft, M. 2022. A New Framework for Quantifying Prehistoric Grave Wealth. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 5 (1): 123-39. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.86
Opgenhaffen, L., Lami, M. & Kisjes, I. 2018. Pottery Goes Public. Performing Archaeological Research Amid the Audience Open Archaeology, 4 (1): 62-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0004
Opitz, R. & Johnson, T. 2016. Interpretation at the controller's Edge: Designing Graphical User Interfaces for the Digital Publication of the Excavations at Gabii (Italy). Open Archaeology, 2(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2016-0001
Orellana Figueroa, J. 2022. A Historical Overview of Women in Ancient-Period Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds. Women in Classical Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Perry, S. 2019. The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record. European Journal of Archaeology, 22(3): 354-71. https://doi. org/10.1017/eaa.2019.24
Perry, S., Shipley, L. & Osbourne, J. 2015. Digital Media, Power and (in)equality in Archaeology and Heritage. Internet Archaeology, 38. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.38.4
Perry, S. & Taylor, J.S. 2018. Theorising the Digital: A Call to Action for the Archaeological Community. In: M. Matsumoto & E. Uleberg, eds. Oceans of Proceedings of the 44th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 11-22.
Persyn, M. 2022. Dangerous Defaults: Demographics and Identities Within and Without Video Games. In: J. Draycott & K. Cook, eds. Women in Classical Video Games. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Quattrini, R., Pierdicca, R., Paolanti, M., Clini, P., Nespeca, R. & Frontoni, E. 2020. Digital interaction with 3D archaeological arte- facts: evaluating user's behaviours at different representation scales. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 18: e00148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2020.e00148
Reinhard, A. 2018. Archaeogaming: an introduction to archaeology in and of video games. New York: Berghahn Books.
Richardson, L.-J. 2018. Ethical Challenges in Digital Public Archaeology. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1): 64-73. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.13
Richardson, L.-J. et al. 2018. Women's Work in Digital Archaeology. https://t.co/1YgZeD7rEg
Richards-Rissetto, H., Primeau, K.E., Witt, D.E., & Goodwin, G. 2023. Multisensory Experiences in Archaeological Landscapes-Sound, Vision, and Movement in GIS and Virtual Reality. In: G. Landeschi & E. Betts, eds. Capturing the Senses. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer International Publishing: Cham, pp. 179-210.
Robinson, D., Rosemont, C., Gandy, D. & Cassidy, B. 2021. When the virtual becomes actual: Indigenous ontologies within immersive reality environments. In: O. Moro Abadía, M. Porr, eds. Ontologies of Rock Art: Images, Relational Approaches, and Indigenous Knowledges. Routledge, pp. 412-30.
Schoueri, K. & Teixeira-Bastos, M. 2021. A Theoretical Framework for Informal 3D Rendered Analysis of the Roman Lararium from Apollonia-Arsuf. Open Archaeology, 7 (1): 499-518. https://doi. org/10.1515/opar-2020-0148
Sinclair, A. 2022. Archaeological Research 2014 to 2021: an examina- tion of its intellectual base, collaborative networks and conceptual language using science maps. Internet Archaeology, 59. https://doi. org/10.11141/ia.59.10
Stötzner E., Homburg T., Bullenkamp J.P. & Mara H. 2023. R-CNN based Polygonal Wedge Detection Learned from Annotated 3D Renderings and Mapped Photographs of Open Data Cuneiform Tablets. GCH 2023 -Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage. https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20231157
Supernant, K. 2017. Modelling Métis mobility? Evaluating least cost paths and indigenous landscapes in the Canadian west. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8: 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jas.2017.05.006
Tenzer, M. & Schofield, J. 2023. Using Topic Modelling to reassess heritage values from a people-centred perspective: Applications from the north of England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 34 (1): 147-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774323000203
Tenzer, M., Pistilli, G., Brandsen, A. & Shenfield, A. 2024. Debating AI in Archaeology: applications, implications, and ethical consid- erations. Internet Archaeology, 67. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.8
Tringham, R. 2019. Giving Voices (Without Words) to Prehistoric People: Glimpses into an Archaeologist's Imagination. European Journal of Archaeology, 22 (3): 338-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/ eaa.2019.20
Tringham, R. & Stevanović, M., eds. 2012. Last House on the Hill: BACH Area Reports from Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press at UCLA. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdmwx1j
Ullah, I. I. (2018). What is 'Computational Archaeology'? https://isaa- cullah.github.io/What-is-Computational-Archaeology/ UNESCO. (2022). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intel- ligence. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000381137 (Accessed 29 June 2023).
Vincent, M.L., López-Menchero, M., Ioannides, M. & Levy, T.E. 2017. Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age: Acquisition, Curation, and Dissemination of Spatial Cultural Heritage Data. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9
Watrall, E. & Goldstein, L., eds. 2022. Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Presentation, Teaching, and Engagement (1st ed.). University Press of Florida. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2pfq2jj
Watterson, A. 2015. Beyond Digital Dwelling: Re-thinking Interpretive Visualisation in Archaeology. Open Archaeology, 1(1): 119-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0006
Webb, J. 2022. Warriors and Waifus: Community responses to his- torical accuracy and the representation of women in Total War: Three Kingdoms. In: J. Draycott, ed. Women in Historical and Archaeological Video Games. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. pp. 101-38. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110724257
Weingart, S. & Jorgensen, J. 2013. Computational analysis of the body in European fairy tales. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28 (3): 404-16. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs015
Winterbottom, T., Leone, A. & Al Moubayed, N. 2022. A deep learn- ing approach to fight illicit trafficking of antiquities using artefact instance classification. Scientific Reports, 12: 13468. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-022-15965-2
Wylie, A. 2017. How Archaeological Evidence Bites Back. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42 (2): 203-25. https://doi. org/10.1177/0162243916671200
Zaslavsky, I., Burton, M.M., & Levy, T.E. 2017. A New Approach to Online Visual Analysis and Sharing of Archaeological Surveys and Image Collections. In: M. Vincent, V. López-Menchero Bendicho, M. Ioannides, T. Levy, eds. Heritage and Archaeology in the Digital Age. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Springer: Cham, pp. 133-55. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-65370-9_7
Marta Diaz-Guardamino
Durham University, Faculty Member
I am Associate Professor in Archaeology and the Digital Visualization Lab Manager. Before joining Durham in 2018, I was Lecturer in Archaeology at Cardiff University, where I convened and taught modules on the European and British Neolithic, archaeological theory and Geographical Information Systems. Here at Durham, I teach mainly on British, Iberian, European and World prehistory (Neolithic to Bronze Age), and digital visualization techniques.
My research specialism focuses on late prehistoric connectivity, social relations, monuments and art in Atlantic Europe (5th-1st millennia BC). I am interested in the application of new (and not so new) theoretical approaches, digital visualization techniques and spatial methods to the study of these themes. Field archaeology is one of my passions, and I have experience in leading international multidisciplinary research teams.
Some of my current research is centred on long distance interactions between Iberia and the Atlantic North during the Late Bronze Age, with a focus on the circulation of metals and the mining communities involved in that exchange (Maritime Encounters Project). Related to this is the new comparative analysis and interpretation of Bronze Age rock art traditions from Scandinavia and Iberia, which we are conducting through new high-resolution 3D and 2.5D digital and analogue documentation (RAW Project). Added to exploring the connections of Iberian communities with the Atlantic North through the flows of metals, people and ideas, we are conducting fieldwork at a major Bronze Age funerary complex situated in an important mining area in southern Spain, to get a better understanding of the people and the communities involved in those long-distance interactions (fieldwork at Cañaveral de León, Huelva). A constant theme in my research are standing stones and sculptures, which were used to commemorate the ancestors in prehistoric societies. I have conducted fieldwork at several findspots where we could shed new light on the complex lives of these monuments and the communities attached to them (in Cañaveral de León, Huelva, Mirasiviene in Seville or Almargen in Malaga province).
I completed my PhD on Iberian prehistoric sculpture and its European context at the University Complutense of Madrid in 2010, and received the Extraordinary Doctoral Award 2009/2010 of the Faculty of Humanities of that university. During my PhD I spent a year at the Anthropology Department of the University of California, Berkeley (USA) with an Education Abroad Program (EAP) scholarship. I also secured a DAAD scholarship to conduct research for some months at the Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University and the Roman-Germanic Commission (RGK) in Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany). In 2011 I joined the Archaeological Computing Research Group at the University of Southampton as a postdoctoral researcher funded by the Spanish Government to conduct a two-year individual research project. After a year teaching as a lecturer in that department, I joined as a Research Associate the ‘Making a Mark: Imagery and process in the British and Irish Neolithic’ project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust (2014-16).
Papers
116
Followers
13,161
View all papers from
Marta Diaz-Guardamino
arrow_forward
Related papers
Much Ado about Nothing?: Gender Research in Journals during the last 30 Years within Archaeology
Ing-Marie Back Danielsson
2012
This paper accounts for the extent to which gender research is represented in leading archaeological journals throughout the 1980s to the present through the database Arts & Humanities Citation Index (ISI). The paper regards gender research as including gender, feminisms, masculinities, queer, intersectionality and embodiment. It is concluded that gender research, despite its alleged significance and progress in later years, is substantially marginalized within mainstream archaeology. Comparisons are also made between gender archaeology and mainstream archaeology and differences between the two are discussed. The paper further addresses current research trends within the humanities placing an increased emphasis on publications in leading peer-reviewed journals. Since the paper shows that gender research is poorly represented in such periodicals the author urges archaeologists interested in gender to publish in these journals.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
’Fieldwork is not the proper preserve of a lady’: Gendered images of archaeologists from textbooks to social media
Jana Esther Fries
Gender Transformations in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies. Scales Transformation Preh. Archaic Societies 6 , 93-108., 2019
Among the general public and in the popular media, archaeology has a quite positive image, but one that is far from the realities of the everyday work of professional archaeologists. In this paper, I explore how that biased image was established and what role media professionals and archaeologists play in maintaining it. I further discuss what effect the image of excavation as the central, if not the unique, aspect of archaeology has and has had on the careers of female archaeologists. Finally, I argue for self-reflection about our professional identities and the way we present our work.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
The Archaeologist of the Future is Likely to be a Woman: Age and Gender Patterns in European Archaeology
Tine Schenck
Tina Kompare
Heleen van Londen
Irena Lazar
A recent study into the archaeological profession in 21 European countries resulted in recognising gender equality as a major topic that needs attention. The overall trend is that women will form the future majority of workers in archaeology. However, the conditions under which women work differ by country, and in several countries, women are paid less and are not well represented in leadership positions. Gender equality needs to be put on the agenda and each country should take measurements to close the gap.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Díaz-Andreu, M. 2012. REVIEW Liv H. Dommasnes, T. Hjørungdal, S. Montón Subías, M. Sánchez Romero and N. Wicker, eds. Situating Gender in European Archaeology (Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2010, 309 pp., with illustrations, pbk, ISBN 978-963-9911-15-4). European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2): 324-327.
Margarita Díaz-Andreu
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Gender-based archaeology
cecilia cardenas
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Critical Archaeology in the Digital Age
Kevin Garstki
2022
Every part of archaeological practice is intimately tied to digital technologies, but how deeply do we really understand the ways these technologies impact the theoretical trends in archaeology, how these trends affect the adoption of these technologies, or how the use of technology alters our interactions with the human past? This volume suggests a critical approach to archaeology in a digital world, a purposeful and systematic application of digital tools in archaeology. This is a call to pay attention to your digital tools, to be explicit about how you are using them, and to understand how they work and impact your own practice. The chapters in this volume demonstrate how this critical, reflexive approach to archaeology in the digital age can be accomplished, touching on topics that include 3D data, predictive and procedural modelling, digital publishing, digital archiving, public and community engagement, ethics, and global sustainability. The scale and scope of this research demonstrates how necessary it is for all archaeological practitioners to approach this digital age with a critical perspective and to be purposeful in our use of digital technologies.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Díaz-Andreu, M. and Sørensen, M.L.S. 1998. Excavating women. Towards an engendered history of archaeology.
Margarita Díaz-Andreu
The histories of archaeology have broadly accepted and spread a perception of archaeology as being male-centred, both intellectually and in practice. These accounts, written by male archaeologists such as Glyn Daniel (1975), Alain Schnapp (1993) and Bruce Trigger (1989), are inevitably androcentric in their conceptualisation and reconstruction of the disciplinary past. Their versions have, however, recently begun to be contested, as concern with critical historiography has grown, and a few explicit historiographical accounts of women archaeologist have appeared. So far, as regards the role of women, the most extensive contributions are the edited volumes by Claassen (1994) and du Cros and Smith (1993). While providing an important beginning, these publications show that there is still a long way to go. In particular they demonstrate a gap in research coverage, as no investigation of the contribution of women outside the USA and Australia exists. This means that, in such a diverse continent as Europe, where, moreover, archaeology has from its beginning had an important social and political role, we know little about the women who participated in the initial stages and subsequent developments of archaeology. Indeed, the various histories of European archaeology practically ignore women, as if they had contributed not at all, and as if their presence had not played a role in the social context and the institutional milieu in which archaeology was practised. But, is this true? What about the seven pictures of women hanging on the wall of the Department of Prehistory in Tübingen, Germany? and the excavations conducted by women such as Kathleen Kenyon? or the women working in the Archaeological Services, such as Semni Karouzou in the 1920s, or the various generations of women who have worked in museums throughout Europe? The responses to such obvious questions direct us towards the parameters used in the writing of history, suggesting that they are the central problem – that they have made it possible exclude women from the narrative.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction
Alison Wylie
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2007
Gender research archaeology has made significant contributions, but its dissociation from the resources of feminist scholarship and feminist activism is a significantly limiting factor in its development. The essays that make up this special issue illustrate what is to be gained by making systematic use of these resources. Their distinctively feminist contributions are characterized in terms of the guidelines for “doing science as a feminist” that have taken shape in the context of the long running “feminist method debate” in the social sciences.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Review Article: Contributions to Feminism in Archaeology
Tracey Cullen
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
PROGRAMME TO PRACTICE: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology (with Margaret Conkey)
Joan Gero
Annual Review of Anthropology, 1997
In the past decade, archaeologists have given considerable attention to research on gender in the human past. In this review, we attempt to acknowledge much of this diverse and abundant work from an explicitly feminist perspective. We focus on reviewing a selection of approaches to gender that are anchored to specific theoretical standpoints. In addition, we highlight several approaches that challenge an archaeology ofgender that does not explicitly engage with the implications of this topic fbr research, practice, and interpretation. From our perspective, we suggest the value of situating gender research within an explicitly feminist framework. and we draw attention to some of the impofiant insights for archaeology from the wider field of feminist critiques of science. Last, we draw attention to the crucial implications for the practice of archaeolosv.
Download free PDF
View PDF
chevron_right
Related topics
Archaeology
Digital Archaeology
Archaeological Theory
Gender Archaeology
Feminist Archaeology
Explore
Papers
Topics
Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts
Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials
Company
About
Careers
Press
Content Policy
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104