Joseph Reeves (Oxford Archaeology)

In opposition to the original assertion of this session, this paper argues that computing methods have failed to reach a level of widespread use and acceptance within archaeological practice. Digital Archaeology is the title of an article written by Michael Gruber and published in Wired magazine 1.05, November 1993 [1]. At the time Gruber was described as “a freelance writer who also authors thrillers”. In the same issue, Wired published an article that aimed to prove that computers could be used to create music.

15 years later and the use of computers within music production is ubiquitous, but computer applications within archaeology are used much less effectively and remain within the fringe of the discipline. Gruber wrote that:
“Digital archaeology is a discipline that doesn't quite exist yet, but may develop to deal with this problem [the archival of digital records], which is pervasive in the world of data.”

It seems that digital archaeology still doesn't quite exist yet; Thomas Goskar has recently written [2] about the impetus behind the Making People Believe article published in the 100th issue of British Archaeology:

“I came up with the idea of writing the article after a discussion about the dwindling numbers of people studying archaeological computing at universities.“

This paper outlines why an outsider to archaeology could have earlier foreseen the use of tools that are only now beginning to gain mainstream acceptance in our own discipline. Many practitioners, organisations and institutions are failing to make the most of available digital tools and aren't producing records that would survive to be useful to future “digital archaeologists”. This session asserts that computing has reached a level of ubiquity within archaeological practice and deserves to be theorised in ways distinct from the classical empiricist applications. Certainly computers are everywhere in archaeology, but many serve as little more than digital typewriters; this paper argues that in order to achieve a truly widespread level of acceptance, we need to remove the distinction between computers and our practice. The fact that computer applications in archaeological practice are routinely dealt with at dedicated conferences (the CAA, for example) or in segregated sessions (such as this one), demonstrates the lack of integration between digital tools and current research. This is a divide that archaeological theory can help us bridge; until it does, computers and archaeology will remain as two separate entities.

[1] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.05/1.5_archaeology.html?pg=1&topic= [2] http://www.pastthinking.com/blog/2008/04/14/making-people-believe-articl... archaeology-magazine/