Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“our understanding … is a delicate interplay of knowing and not knowing. However, because we are often aware of what we know, and rarely aware of what we do not, we tend to overemphasize the range and importance of our knowing. While the known and the knowable are minute portions of the unknown, it is the known we identify with ‘reality’”[6] (p. 173)
2. Current Practice
3. Introducing Ignorance
“In the process, they find not only that the empirical legacy of 150 years of archaeological work is rife with gaps and inconsistencies, a reflection of evolving retrieval and recording practices, but also that it has been badly compromised by poor storage conditions, sometimes lost altogether, or dispersed among institutions in ways that greatly complicate any systematic use of existing records or collections.”[42] (p. 195)
4. Characterizing Ignorance
- Things we know we do not know [6] (p. 179). These are the known unknowns representing a form of conscious ignorance [43] (p. 6) or specified ignorance [45] (p. 7). This may include nonknowledge (which may be taken into account in the future) and negative knowledge (where what is not known is considered unimportant) [46] (pp. 59-61).
- Things we do not know we know [6] (pp. 180–181). These are unknown knowns, things we do not realize we know, or which we operate through custom or instinct and are rarely articulated, otherwise known as tacit knowledge.
5. On Known Unknowns
6. On Unknown Knowns
6.1. Forgetting Disciplines
6.2. Forgetting through Effacement
6.3. Forgetting over Time
6.4. Forgetting by Command
7. The Tacit Problem
- Symbolic Experiential Knowledge is “gained from experience that the knowledge owner knows they possess. It is in the form of words or concepts; it can, therefore, be verbalized or recorded, but never has been” [81]. It primarily consists of heuristics, categorizations, and patterns which can be made explicit through words, diagrams, and models, for example.
- Non-symbolic Experiential Knowledge is “gained from experience that is not in the form of symbols but in some other form: numeric; geometric; perceptual; or physiological. The owner of this knowledge knows that they have it, but may find it very difficult to verbalise” [81]. If capable of being captured, such knowledge may be represented through the use of photographs, diagrams, videos, and so on.
- True Tacit Knowledge is knowledge that a person has but does not know it, which may make it difficult, if not impossible, to capture.
8. Tacit Articulation
9. From Ignorance into Knowledge
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kristiansen, K. Towards a New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Curr. Swed. Archaeol. 2014, 22, 11–34. [Google Scholar]
- Sørensen, T.F. The Two Cultures and a World Apart: Archaeology and Science at a New Crossroads. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2017, 50, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, J.J.; MacEachern, S. Ethnoarchaeology as slow science. World Archaeol. 2016, 48, 628–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huggett, J. Is Big Digital Data Different? Towards a New Archaeological Paradigm. J. Field Archaeol. 2020, 45, S8–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marila, M. Vagueness and Archaeological Interpretation: A Sensuous Approach to Archaeological Knowledge Formation through Finds Analysis. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2017, 50, 66–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerwin, A. None Too Solid: Medical Ignorance. Sci. Commun. 1993, 15, 166–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristiansen, K. The Nature of Archaeological Knowledge and Its Ontological Turns. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2017, 50, 120–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clough, P.T.; Gregory, K.; Haber, B.; Scannell, R.J. The datalogical turn. In Non-Representational Methodologies: Re-Envisioning Research; Vannini, P., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 518–523. [Google Scholar]
- Huvila, I. Management of archaeological information and knowledge in digital environment. In Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities; Handzic, M., Carlucci, D., Eds.; Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Rodilla, P. Digging into Software Knowledge Generation in Cultural Heritage; Modeling and Optimization in Science and Technologies; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wylie, A. How Archaeological Evidence Bites Back: Strategies for Putting Old Data to Work in New Ways. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2017, 42, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kansa, S.W.; Atici, L.; Kansa, E.C.; Meadow, R.H. Archaeological Analysis in the Information Age: Guidelines for Maximizing the Reach, Comprehensiveness, and Longevity of Data. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 2020, 8, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Atici, L.; Kansa, S.W.; Lev-Tov, J.; Kansa, E.C. Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2013, 20, 663–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faniel, I.; Kansa, E.; Whitcher Kansa, S.; Barrera-Gomez, J.; Yakel, E. The challenges of digging data: A study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 22–26 July 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2013; pp. 295–304. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, D. Defining paradata in heritage visualisation. In Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage; Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., Baker, D., Eds.; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2012; pp. 163–175. [Google Scholar]
- Mudge, M. Transparency for empirical data. In Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage; Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H., Baker, D., Eds.; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2012; pp. 177–188. [Google Scholar]
- Huggett, J. Promise and paradox: Accessing open data in archaeology. In Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress, Sheffield, UK, 6–8 September 2012; Mills, C., Pidd, M., Ward, E., Eds.; The Digital Humanities Institute: Sheffield, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bendicho, V.M.L.-M. International guidelines for virtual archaeology: The Seville principles. In Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics; Corsi, C., Slapšak, B., Vermeulen, F., Eds.; Natural Science in Archaeology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 269–283. ISBN 978-3-319-01783-9. [Google Scholar]
- Pasquetto, I.V.; Borgman, C.L.; Wofford, M.F. Uses and Reuses of Scientific Data: The Data Creators’ Advantage. Harv. Data Sci. Rev. 2019, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards-Rissetto, H.; Landau, K. Digitally-Mediated Practices of Geospatial Archaeological Data: Transformation, Integration, & Interpretation. J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol. 2019, 2, 120–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gant, S.; Reilly, P. Different expressions of the same mode: A recent dialogue between archaeological and contemporary drawing practices. J. Vis. Art Pract. 2018, 17, 100–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Rodilla, P.; Gonzalez-Perez, C. Metainformation scenarios in Digital Humanities: Characterization and conceptual modelling strategies. Inf. Syst. 2019, 84, 29–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Perez, C. Information Modelling for Archaeology and Anthropology: Software Engineering Principles for Cultural Heritage; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, Y.; Miles, S. (Eds.) PROV Model. Primer (W3C Working Group Note 30). 2013. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-primer/ (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Doerr, M.; Theodoridou, M. CRMdig: A generic digital provenance model for scientific observation. In Proceedings of the TaPP’11, 3rd USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Practice of Provenance, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 20–21 June 2011; Available online: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/tapp11/tech/final_files/Doerr.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Doerr, M.; Chrysakis, l.; Axaridou, A.; Theodoridou, M.; Georgis, C.; Maravelakis, E. A Framework for Maintaining Provenance Information of Cultural Heritage 3D-models. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, London, UK, 8–10 July 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marwick, B. Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2017, 24, 424–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hand, D.J. Dark Data: Why What You Don’t Know Matters; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, M.L. Toward a Theory of Knowledge Reuse: Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 18, 57–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peels, R. We Need to Know More About Ignorance. Philos. Mag. 2018, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firestein, S. Ignorance: How It Drives Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- DeNicola, D. Understanding Ignorance: The Surprising Impact of What We Don’t Know; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Frickel, S. Not Here and Everywhere: The non-production of scientific knowledge. In The Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society; Kleinman, D.L., Moore, K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 263–276. [Google Scholar]
- Sørensen, T.F. In Praise of Vagueness: Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Archaeological Methodology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2016, 23, 741–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greyson, D. The Social Informatics of Ignorance. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 70, 412–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Neil, C. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy; Allen Lane: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Svensson, P. The Humanistiscope: Exploring the situatedness of humanities infrastructure. In Between Humanities and the Digital; Svensson, P., Goldberg, D., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 337–353. [Google Scholar]
- Huggett, J. The Apparatus of Digital Archaeology. Internet Archaeol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazier, T.Z. Agnotology and information. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Proctor, R. Agnotology: A missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study). In Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance; Proctor, R., Schiebinger, L., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
- Lucas, G. Writing the Past: Knowledge and Literary Production in Archaeology; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Wylie, A. Mapping ignorance in archaeology: The advantages of historical hindsight. In Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance; Proctor, R., Schiebinger, L., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 183–205. [Google Scholar]
- Smithson, M. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, E. The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld (Part 1). New York Times Opinionator, 25 March 2014. Available online: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/the-certainty-of-donald-rumsfeld-part-1/ (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Merton, R.K. Three Fragments From a Sociologist’s Notebooks: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1987, 13, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, M. Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological Design; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ravetz, J.R. The Sin of Science: Ignorance of Ignorance. Sci. Commun. 1993, 15, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradbury, J.; Davies, D.; Jay, M.; Philip, G.; Roberts, C.; Scarre, C. Making the Dead Visible: Problems and Solutions for “Big” Picture Approaches to the Past, and Dealing with Large “Mortuary” Datasets. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2016, 23, 561–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huggett, J. Social Analysis of Early Anglo-Saxon Inhumation Burials: Archaeological Methodologies. J. Eur. Archaeol. 1996, 4, 337–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stemberger, K. Full Archives, Meaningless Data? What Artefacts Can Tell about Age and Gender at Large-Scale Cemeteries (Case Study Colonia Iulia Emona). Theor. Roman Archaeol. J. 2019, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Conolly, J.; Colledge, S.; Dobney, K.; Vigne, J.-D.; Peters, J.; Stopp, B.; Manning, K.; Shennan, S. Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38, 538–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, C. Archaeozoology in Mainland Southeast Asia: Changing Methodology and Pleistocene to Holocene Forager Subsistence Patterns in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia. Open Quat. 2015, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jones, E.L.; Gabe, C. The Promise and Peril of Older Collections: Meta-Analyses and the Zooarchaeology of Late Prehistoric/Early Historic New Mexico. Open Quat. 2015, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orton, D.; Gaastra, J.; Linden, M.V. Between the Danube and the Deep Blue Sea: Zooarchaeological Meta-Analysis Reveals Variability in the Spread and Development of Neolithic Farming across the Western Balkans. Open Quat. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arbuckle, B.S.; Kansa, S.W.; Kansa, E.; Orton, D.; Çakırlar, C.; Gourichon, L.; Atici, L.; Galik, A.; Marciniak, A.; Mulville, J.; et al. Data Sharing Reveals Complexity in the Westward Spread of Domestic Animals across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Müller, H.; Freytag, J.-C. Problems, Methods and Challenges in Comprehensive Data Cleansing; Technical Report HUB-IB-164; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Informatik: Berlin, Germany, 2003; Available online: http://www.dbis.informatik.hu-berlin.de/fileadmin/research/papers/techreports/2003-hub_ib_164-mueller.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Kandel, S.; Heer, J.; Plaisant, C.; Kennedy, J.; van Ham, F.; Riche, N.H.; Weaver, C.; Lee, B.; Brodbeck, D.; Buono, P. Research directions in data wrangling: Visualizations and transformations for usable and credible data. Inf. Vis. 2011, 10, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mayernik, M.S. Metadata accounts: Achieving data and evidence in scientific research. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2019, 49, 732–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Richards, J.D. Twenty Years Preserving Data: A View from the United Kingdom. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 2017, 5, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borgman, C.L. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Huggett, J. Digital haystacks: Open data and the transformation of archaeological knowledge. In Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice; Wilson, A.T., Edwards, B., Eds.; De Gruyter Open: Warsaw, Poland, 2015; pp. 6–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leighton, M. Excavation methodologies and labour as epistemic concerns in the practice of archaeology. Comparing examples from British and Andean archaeology. Archaeol. Dialogues 2015, 22, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, K. Occulting the past. Conceptualizing forgetting in the history and archaeology of Sylvester Manor. Archaeol. Dialogues 2011, 18, 197–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Connerton, P. Seven types of forgetting. Mem. Stud. 2008, 1, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazraee, E. Assembling narratives: Tensions in collaborative construction of knowledge. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 70, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, P.; Aldeias, V. Why does (archaeological) micromorphology have such little traction in (geo)archaeology? Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2018, 10, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shillito, L.-M. Multivocality and multiproxy approaches to the use of space: Lessons from 25 years of research at Çatalhöyük. World Archaeol. 2017, 49, 237–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson Stutz, L. A Future for Archaeology: In Defense of an Intellectually Engaged, Collaborative and Confident Archaeology. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2018, 51, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ion, A. How Interdisciplinary is Interdisciplinarity? Revisiting the Impact of aDNA Research for the Archaeology of Human Remains. Curr. Swed. Archaeol. 2017, 25, 177–198. [Google Scholar]
- Piso, Z.; Sertler, E.; Malavisi, A.; Marable, K.; Jensen, E.; Gonnerman, C.; O’Rourke, M. The Production and Reinforcement of Ignorance in Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research. Soc. Epistemol. 2016, 30, 643–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edgeworth, M. Reply to Comments from Åsa Berggren, Alfredo González-Ruibal, Tim Ingold, Gavin Lucas, Robin Skeates and Christopher Witmore. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2012, 45, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chadwick, A. Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies. Towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeol. Dialogues 2003, 10, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, C.; Richardson, P. Stepping into comfortable old shoes: ‘The consequence of archaeological comfortability’. In Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork: Exploring On-Site Relationships Between Theory and Practice; Cobb, H., Harris, O.J.T., Jones, C., Richardson, P., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caraher, W. Slow archaeology: Technology, efficiency, and archaeological work. In Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology; Averett, E.W., Gordon, J.M., Counts, D.B., Eds.; The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota: Grand Forks, ND, USA, 2016; pp. 421–441. [Google Scholar]
- Roosevelt, C.H.; Cobb, P.; Moss, E.; Olson, B.R.; Ünlüsoy, S. Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice. J. Field Archaeol. 2015, 40, 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berggren, Å.; Dell’Unto, N.; Forte, M.; Haddow, S.; Hodder, I.; Issavi, J.; Lercari, N.; Mazzucato, C.; Mickel, A.; Taylor, J.S. Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: Integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge. Antiquity 2015, 89, 433–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellis, S.J.R. Are we ready for new (digital) ways to record archaeological fieldwork? A case study from Pompeii. In Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology; Averett, E.W., Gordon, J.M., Counts, D.B., Eds.; The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota: Grand Forks, ND, USA, 2016; pp. 51–75. [Google Scholar]
- Ballsun-Stanton, B.; Ross, S.A.; Sobotkova, A.; Crook, P. FAIMS Mobile: Flexible, open-source software for field research. SoftwareX 2018, 7, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukas, D.; Engel, C.; Mazzucato, C. Towards a Living Archive: Making Multi Layered Research Data and Knowledge Generation Transparent. J. Field Archaeol. 2018, 43, S19–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holste, J.S.; Fields, D. Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. J. Knowl. Manag. 2010, 14, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kingston, J.K.C. Tacit Knowledge: Capture, Sharing, and Unwritten Assumptions. J. Knowl. Manag. Pract. 2012, 13. [Google Scholar]
- Pozzali, A. Tacit knowledge, implicit learning and scientific reasoning. Mind Soc. 2008, 7, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsoukas, H. How should we understand Tacit knowledge? A phenomenological view. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management; Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 453–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkitachalam, K.; Busch, P. Tacit knowledge: Review and possible research directions. J. Knowl. Manag. 2012, 16, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kansa, E.C.; Kansa, S.W. Toward a do-it-yourself cyberinfrastructure: Open data, incentives, and Reducing costs and complexities of data sharing. In Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration; Kansa, E.C., Kansa, S.W., Watrall, E., Eds.; Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 57–91. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, H. Tacit & Explicit Knowledge; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Virtanen, I. Externalization of Tacit Knowledge Implies A Simplified Theory of Cognition. J. Knowl. Manag. Pract. 2011, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Crane, L.; Bontis, N. Trouble with tacit: Developing a new perspective and approach. J. Knowl. Manag. 2014, 18, 1127–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, W.S.; Rahtz, P.A. Video recording on excavations. Antiquity 1988, 62, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nixon, L. Seeing Voices and Changing Relationships: Film, Archaeological Reporting, and the Landscape of People in Sphakia. Am. J. Archaeol. 2001, 105, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrysanthi, A.; Berggren, Å.; Davies, R.; Earl, G.P.; Knibbe, J. The Camera “at the Trowel’s Edge”: Personal Video Recording in Archaeological Research. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2016, 23, 238–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hodder, I. ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity 1997, 71, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tringham, R.; Ashley, M.; Quinlan, J. Creating and archiving the media database and documentation of the excavation. In Last House on the Hill: BACH Area Reports from Catalhoyuk, Turkey; Tringham, R., Stevanović, M., Eds.; Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 31–48. [Google Scholar]
- Stevanovic, M. Visualizing and vocalizing the archaeological archival record: Narrative vs image. In Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük; Hodder, I., Ed.; British Institute at Ankara: Ankara, Turkey; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 235–238. [Google Scholar]
- Brill, D. Video-recording as part of the critical archaeological process. In Towards Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example at Çatalhöyük; Hodder, I., Ed.; British Institute at Ankara: Ankara, Turkey; McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 229–233. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, C. Archaeology and the Moving Image. Public Archaeol. 2014, 13, 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morgan, C.; Wright, H. Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording. J. Field Archaeol. 2018, 43, 136–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobb, H.; Harris, O.J.T.; Jones, C.; Richardson, P. Reconsidering fieldwork, an introduction: confronting tensions in fieldwork and theory. In Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork; Cobb, H., Harris, O.J.T., Jones, C., Richardson, P., Eds.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, S. The Enchantment of the Archaeological Record. Eur. J. Archaeol. 2019, 22, 354–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edgeworth, M. Follow the Cut, Follow the Rhythm, Follow the Material. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 2012, 45, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powlesland, D. Reflections Upon 30+ Years of Computing and FIeld Archaeology in the Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire UK. In Across Space and Time: Papers from the 41st Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Perth, Australia, 25–28 March 2013; Traviglia, A., Ed.; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 169–191. [Google Scholar]
- Brezina, P. Acoustics of historic spaces as a form of intangible cultural heritage. Antiquity 2013, 87, 574–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murphy, D.; Shelley, S.; Foteinou, A.; Brereton, J.; Daffern, H. Acoustic Heritage and Audio Creativity: The Creative Application of Sound in the Representation, Understanding and Experience of Past Environments. Internet Archaeol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eve, S. Dead Men’s Eyes: Embodied GIS, Mixed Reality and Landscape Archaeology; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Eve, S. Losing our Senses, an Exploration of 3D Object Scanning. Open Archaeol. 2018, 4, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gardin, J.-C. Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Dallas, C. Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2016, 23, 305–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stead, S.; Doerr, M. CRMinf: The Argumentation Model. An Extension of CIDOC-CRM to Support. Argumentation. 2015. Available online: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMinf/docs/CRMinf-0.7.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020).
- Doerr, M.; Kritsotaki, A.; Boutsika, K. Factual argumentation—A core model for assertions making. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2011, 3, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huggett, J.; Baker, K.G. The Computerised Archaeologist—The Development of Expert Systems. Sci. Archaeol. 1985, 27, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
- Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Deep Learning; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, K.; Shrimankar, D.D.; Singh, N. Eratosthenes sieve based key-frame extraction technique for event summarization in videos. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 7383–7404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dessì, D.; Fenu, G.; Marras, M.; Reforgiato Recupero, D. Bridging learning analytics and Cognitive Computing for Big Data classification in micro-learning video collections. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 92, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, B.R.; Placchetti, R.A.; Quartermaine, J.; Killebrew, A.E. The Tel Akko Total Archaeology Project (Akko, Israel): Assessing the suitability of multi-scale 3D field recording in archaeology. J. Field Archaeol. 2013, 38, 244–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powlesland, D. 3Di—Enhancing the record, extending the returns, 3D imaging from free range photography and its application during excavation. In The Three Dimensions of Archaeology, Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress, Burgos, Spain, 1–7 September 2014; Kamermans, H., de Neef, W., Piccoli, C., Poluschny, A.G., Scopigno, R., Eds.; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 13–32. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, K.H.; Sørensen, M.P. How to take non-knowledge seriously, or “the unexpected virtue of ignorance”. Public Underst. Sci. 2017, 26, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Aspects of Ignorance | (Un)known (Un)knowns | Other Terms | Potential Transformation |
---|---|---|---|
Things we know we do not know | Known unknowns | Conscious ignorance; specified ignorance; nonknowledge; negative knowledge | Research to become known knowns, in turn revealing further unknowns |
Things we do not know we do not know | Unknown unknowns | Unrecognized ignorance; ignorance-squared; nescience | Become aware of absence to convert to known unknowns |
Things we think we know but do not know | Mistaken knowns | Erroneous knowledge; uncertain knowledge; biased knowledge | Correct or clarify knowledge to become known unknowns |
Things we do not know we know | Unknown knowns | Tacit knowledge; customary knowledge | Need to be articulated to become known knowns |
Opacity | Kingston [81] | Collins [86] | Virtanen [87] |
---|---|---|---|
Symbolic Experiential Knowledge | Relational Tacit Knowledge (weak tacit knowledge) | Conscious linguistic representations | |
Nonsymbolic Experiential Knowledge | Somatic Tacit Knowledge (medium tacit knowledge) | Conscious representations that are difficult to articulate | |
True Tacit Knowledge | Collective Tacit Knowledge (strong tacit knowledge) | Unreachable content incapable of being consciously represented |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huggett, J. Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge. Information 2020, 11, 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050278
Huggett J. Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge. Information. 2020; 11(5):278. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050278
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuggett, Jeremy. 2020. "Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge" Information 11, no. 5: 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050278