Submit your paper to CAA, deadline Monday

The CAA is my favourite conference 🙂 And it will be hosted online from Cyprus this year. The deadline to submit your papers is Monday the 1st of March. So go ahead and submit those excellent papers on computational archaeology. You can find the full list of 35 sessions here, covering all possible topics. And I want to point out the following two sessions in particular:

S28. Computational modelling in archaeology: methods, challenges and applications (Standard)

S18. Urban Complexity in Settlements and Settlement Systems of the Mediterranean (Standard)

S28. Computational modelling in archaeology: methods, challenges and applications (Standard)

Convenor(s):
Iza Romanowska, Aarhus University
Colin D. Wren, University of Colorado
Stefani A. Crabtree, Utah State University 

The steady stream of publications involving archaeological computational models is a clear sign of the discipline’s dedication to the epistemological turn towards formal theory building and testing. Where hypotheses used to be generated verbally in natural language as possible explanations, they are now increasingly often expressed as GIS, agent-based modelling (ABM) or statistical models and meticulously tested against data. The session will showcase the breadth of applications, the ingenuity of researchers deploying new or adapted methods and the depth of insight gained thanks to computational modelling.

With increasing numbers of archaeologists becoming proficient in computer programming it seems that some of the technical and training-related hurdles are being overcome. In general, while some methods in archaeological computational modelling are well established and widely deployed, others (e.g., ABM) are still an emerging subfield with many exciting and fresh applications. 

 We will structure the session upon the three major questions: :

  • The current landscape of computational modelling: what are the strong versus the weak areas? Are certain topics, time periods, types of questions more often modelled than others? If so, why is that?
  • Potential areas for growth: what are the obvious methodological and archaeological directions for computational modelling? Are technical skills still an impediment for a wider adoption?
  • Disciplinary best practice: the need for open science is well recognised among computational archaeologists, but are there other ways in which we can make it easier for members of other branches of archaeology to engage with the computational modelling?

We invite archaeological modellers to present their current case studies, discuss new methods and issues they have encountered as well as their thoughts on the role of computational modelling in general archaeological practice. Computational modelling is meant broadly here as any digital technologies that enable the researcher to represent a real-world system to test hypotheses regarding past human behaviour. 

S18. Urban Complexity in Settlements and Settlement Systems of the Mediterranean (Standard)

Convenor(s):
Katherine A. Crawford, Arizona State University
Georgios Artopoulos, The Cyprus Institute 
Eleftheria Paliou, University of Cologne 
Iza Romanowska, Aarhus University

The application of quantitative methods to the study of ancient cities and settlement networks has seen increased interest in recent years. Advances in data collection, the use of and integration of diverse big datasets, data analytics including network analysis, computation and the application of digital and quantitative methods have resulted in an increasingly diverse number of studies looking at past cities from new perspectives (e.g. Palmisano et al. 2017; Kaya and BĂślen 2017; Fulminante 2019-21). This barrage of new methods, many grounded in population-level systemic thinking, but also some coming from the individual, agent-based perspective enabled researchers to investigate the structural properties and mechanisms driving complex socio-natural systems, such as past cities and towns (e.g. MISMAS; The CRANE Project; Carrignon et al. 2020). These advances have recently opened new possibilities for the study of cities and settlement systems of the Mediterranean, an area with some of the longest known records of urban occupation that could be key for studying a wide range of urban complexity topics (e.g. Lawrence et al. 2020) .

This session invites papers that deal with the applications of computational and digital methodologies, including agent-based modelling, network analysis, urban scaling, gravity and spatial interaction models, space syntax, GIS, and data mining. We look for a diverse range of studies on the interactions between cities, complex meshworks of information flow, simulations of social and socio-natural activities, as well as analyses of groups of cities and their environment (the ecosystem of resources) in the Mediterranean basin. We are especially interested in papers that use agent-based modelling to adopt a comparative and diachronic perspective to studying transformations and transitions of urban and settlement systems and works that focus on the area of Eastern Mediterranean, in particular. Potential topics of consideration include but are not limited to:

  • Settlement persistence,
  • Multi-scale spatial patterns within urban complexes and across settlements,
  • Inter and/or intra urban settlement dynamics & interactions,
  • Transitions and diachronic transformations of urban/settlement patterns,
  • Urban network interactions and modelling,
  • Urban-environmental processes; the impact of climate disturbances on cities and their resources,
  • Formal analysis of cities development of time,
  • Processes involved in urban centres formation and abandonment.

References:

S. Carrignon, T. Brughmans, I. Romanowska, (2020). Tableware trade in the Roman East: Exploring cultural and economic transmission with agent-based modelling and approximate Bayesian computation. PLoS ONE, 15, (11), e0240414. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240414

F. Fulminante (ed), (2019-21). Research Topic: Where Do Cities Come From and Where Are They Going To? Modelling Past and Present Agglomerations to Understand Urban Ways of Life. Frontiers in Digital Humanities https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/7460/where-do-cities-come-from-and-where-are-they-going-to-modelling-past-and-present-agglomerations-to-u#overview

H. Serdar Kaya and Fulin BĂślen, (2017). ‘Urban DNA: Morphogenetic Analysis of Urban Pattern’, International Journal of Architecture & Planning, (5), 1, 10-41. DOI: 10.15320/ICONARP.2017.15

D. Lawrence, M. Altaweel, and G. Philip, (2020). New Agendas in Remote Sensing and Landscape Archaeology in the Near East: Studies in Honour of Tony J. Wilkinson. Oxford: Archaeopress.

A Palmisano, A. Bevan, and S. Shennan, (2017). Comparing archaeological proxies for long-term population patterns: An example from central Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science, (87), 59-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2017.10.001

Saad Twaissi, (2017). ‘The Source Of Inspiration Of The Plan Of The Nabataean Mansion At Az-Zantur Iv In Petra: A Space Syntax Approach’, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, (17), 3, 97-119. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1005494

MISAMS (Modelling Inhabited Spaces of the Ancient Mediterranean Sea), https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/108224/en

The CRANE Project (Computational Research on the Ancient Near East) https://www.crane.utoronto.ca/

Two networks sessions at CAA2020 in Oxford: submit your abstracts!

Can’t wait for CAA 2020 in Oxford! It will be a great event in a great place of course, but also because we will host two network sessions. So if you work on anything even remotely related to archaeology and networks, you will find a good place to present it at one of our sessions. Submit your abstracts!

S32. Archaeological network research 1: spatial and temporal networks

S33. Archaeological network research 2: missing data, cross-disciplinary collaboration and teaching networks

Submit abstracts here

Deadline: 31 October 2019

When? 14–17 April 2020

Where? Oxford

Session abstracts:

S32.  Archaeological network research 1: spatial and temporal networks (Standard)

Convenors:

Philip Verhagen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Humanities
Tom Brughmans, University of Barcelona
Aline Deicke, Digital Academy, Academy of Sciences and Literature | Mainz
Natasa Djurdjevac Conrad, Zuse Institute Berlin
GrĂŠgoire van Havre, Universidade Federal do PiauĂ­
Philip Riris, University College London

Explicitly including spatial or temporal information in network research is something that has come naturally to archaeologists. Our discipline has a long tradition of spatial analysis and of exploring long-term change in datasets and past phenomena. These are two areas where archaeologists did not look towards mathematicians, physicists and sociologists for inspiration, but rather developed original network methods based on a purely archaeological tradition. As such, they are some of the most promising research topics through which archaeologists can make unique contributions to network science.

But recognition of these contributions has still to materialise due to a number of challenges. How can we ensure these archaeology-inspired approaches become known, explored and applied in other disciplines? How precisely do these spatial and temporal archaeological approaches differ from existing network methods? What existing spatial and temporal approaches in archaeology show equal potential for inspiring new network research?

The spatial phenomena archaeologists address in their network research are rather narrow and can be grouped into three broad categories: movement-, visibility-, and interaction-related phenomena. The aim of network techniques in space syntax focus on exploring movement through urban space, whereas least-cost path networks tend to be used on landscape scales. Neither of these approaches have equivalents in network science (Verhagen et al. 2019). Archaeology has a strong tradition in visibility studies and is also pioneering its more diverse use in network research (Brughmans and Brandes 2017). Most visibility network analyses tend to explore theorised visual signalling networks or visual control over cultural and natural features. Most network methods used for exploring interaction potential between past communities or other cultural features belong to either absolute or relative distance approaches: such as maximum distance network, K-nearest neighbours (sometimes referred to as proximal point analysis (PPA)), beta-skeletons, relative neighbourhood network or Gabriel graph. These, however, are derived from computational geometry and have a long tradition in network research and computer science. Moreover, this is a not a field in which archaeologists seem to push the boundaries of network science (with perhaps a few exceptions; Knappett et al. 2008).

There are a few commonalities between the archaeological applications of these movement, visibility and interaction networks. They tend to be network data representations of traditional archaeological research approaches (e.g. viewsheds, least-cost paths, urban settlement structure, community interaction), and they tend to be applied on spatially large scales with the exception of space syntax (inter-island connectivity, landscape archaeology, regional visual signalling systems). How can we diversify spatial archaeological network research? How can we go beyond making network copies of what archaeologists have done before and rather draw on the unique feature of network data (the ability to formally represent dependencies) to develop even more original spatial network techniques? This seems to us like an eminently possible task for archaeologists.

Despite being at the core of archaeological research, the use of temporal (or longitudinal) network data is common but incredibly narrow in archaeological network research. By far the most common application is to consider dating evidence for nodes or edges and to chop up the resulting networks into predefined categories that could have a typological, culture historical or chronological logic (e.g. artefact type A; Roman Republican; 400-300 BC). This process results in subnetworks sometimes referred to as snapshots, the structure of which are explored in chronological order like a filmstrip. A significantly less common approach is to represent processes of network structural change as dynamic network models (e.g. Bentley et al. 2005), or to represent dynamic processes taking place on top of network structures (e.g. Graham 2006).

This research focus of temporal archaeological network research is not at all representative of the diverse and critical ways archaeologists study temporal change. How can the archaeological research tradition inspire new temporal network approaches? How can the use of dynamic network models become more commonly applied? What temporal approaches from network science have archaeologists neglected to adopt? How can, for example, studies modelling the evolution of networks suggest explanations for the levels of complexity observed in past networks?

This session welcomes papers on archaeological network research including but not exclusive to these challenges. We also invite you to present your work on the topics of missing data, cross-disciplinary collaboration and teaching networks in the linked session ‘Archaeological network research 2’.

References

Bentley, R., Lake, M., & Shennan, S. (2005). Specialisation and wealth inequality in a model of a clustered economic network. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(9), 1346–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.008

Brughmans, T., & Brandes, U. (2017). Visibility network patterns and methods for studying visual relational phenomena in archaeology. Frontiers in Digital Humanities: Digital Archaeology, 4(17). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00017

Graham, S. (2006). Networks, Agent-Based Models and the Antonine Itineraries: Implications for Roman Archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 19(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmea.2006.19.1.45

Knappett, C., Evans, T., & Rivers, R. (2008). Modelling maritime interaction in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity, 82(318), 1009–1024. Retrieved from http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/082/1009/ant0821009.pdf

Verhagen, P., Nuninger, L. & Groenhuijzen, M. R. (2019). Modelling of pathways and movement networks in archaeology: an overview of current approaches. In: Verhagen, P., J. Joyce & M.R. Groenhuijzen (eds.) Finding the Limits of the Limes: Modelling Demography, Economy and Transport on the Edge of the Roman Empire. Cham: Springer, p. 217-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04576-0_11

S33.  Archaeological network research 2: missing data, cross-disciplinary collaboration and teaching networks (Standard)

Convenors:

Grégoire van Havre, Universidade Federal do Piauí – Department of Archaeology
Tom Brughmans, University of Barcelona
Aline Deicke, Digital Academy, Academy of Sciences and Literature | Mainz
Natasa Djurdjevac Conrad, Zuse Institute Berlin
GrĂŠgoire van Havre, Universidade Federal do PiauĂ­
Philip Riris, University College London
Philip Verhagen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Humanities

New challenges emerge as network research becomes ever more common in archaeology: can we develop new network methods for dealing with missing archaeological data, how can cross-disciplinary collaborations be leveraged to make original contributions to both archaeology and network science, and how do we teach archaeological network research in the classroom?

Although a range of techniques exist in both archaeology and network science for dealing with missing data and data uncertainty, the fragmentation of the material record presents a challenge – made more explicit through the use of formal methods – that is hard to tackle. Much of the task of identifying network science equivalents of archaeological missing data techniques remains to be done, and there is a real need for identifying how archaeological approaches could lead to the development of new network mathematical and statistical techniques. But by far most pressing is the need to formally express data uncertainty and absence in our archaeological network research.

Like many other aspects of archaeological network research, this challenge should be faced through cross-disciplinary collaboration with mathematicians, statisticians and physicists. Archaeological network research has a great track record of such collaborations, but not all of them have been successful and not all archaeologists find it equally easy to identify collaborators in other disciplines. How can we facilitate the communication between scholars with different disciplinary backgrounds? How can we foster archaeological network research that holds potential contributions to archaeology as well as other disciplines? What events and resources should be developed to provide a platform for cross-disciplinary contact and collaboration?

Now that archaeological network research is slowly becoming recognised as an archaeological subdiscipline in its own right, the topic increasingly finds itself in the curriculum of postgraduate modules and summer schools. But this rapid growth is almost exclusively marked by research and has neglected the development of teaching resources and approaches. What resources are necessary? What lines of argumentation and case studies are particularly powerful for convincing students of the need to see network research as part of our discipline? Which foundations (e.g. data literacy, statistics, and more) have to be laid to facilitate the widespread adoption of formal methods in general into our research processes?

This session welcomes papers on archaeological network research including but not exclusive to these new challenges.  We also invite you to present your work on the topics of spatial and temporal networks in the linked session ‘Archaeological network research 1’.

 

CAA 2020 Oxford call for a networks session

Please see below the call for sessions for the CAA 2020 conference in Oxford. I will be attending and would love to co-chair a network research session. If anyone is interested in brainstorming with me about a possible network topic for the session and in co-chairing the session with me then please do get in touch in the coming days.
We are delighted to announce that the call for sessions for next year’s international Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference (CAA 2020) is now open.  The call for sessions and submission form can be found here:
Call for sessions – CAA 2020

The closing date for session submissions is 18th July 2019.  Full details regarding the call for sessions can be found at the link above.

The conference will take place from 14th to 17th April 2020 in Oxford, UK, hosted by the School of Archaeology at the University of Oxford.  More details can be found in the following locations:

CAA2020 website: https://2020.caaconference.org/

CAA2020 on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/CAA_2020

CAA2020 on Facebook: Security Check Required

Email the CAA2020 team at: caa2020@arch.ox.ac.uk

CAA networks session (S26) deadline 10 October

Submit your abstract before the 10 October deadline!
We invite abstracts for our session on archaeological network research (S26) at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conference, KrakĂłw 23-27 April 2019.
Deadline 10 October.
Archaeological network research: formal network representation of archaeological theories
Paula Gheorghiade (Department of Art, University of Toronto)
Tom Brughmans (School of Archaeology, University of Oxford)
In this session we aim to discuss and encourage the explicit representation of archaeological theories as network data, and the explicit theoretical motivation of network science method selection.
Formal network science methods are increasingly commonly applied in archaeological research to study diverse aspects of past human behaviour. The vast majority of these applications concern the use of exploratory network analysis techniques to study the structure of a network representation of an archaeological dataset, which often lead to a better insight into the structure of the dataset, help identify issues or missing data, and highlight interesting or surprising data patterning.
Less common is the explicitly formulated theoretical motivation of exploratory network analysis tool selection. What tools are appropriate representations of my theorized assumptions? What tools violate my theoretical framework? Equally uncommon is the formal representation of archaeological theories (rather than archaeological data) as network data. What network data pattern do I expect to see as the outcome of a theorized process? What does a theorized past relational phenomenon look like in network terms?
Taking explicitly formulated theories rather than datasets as the starting point of archaeological network research is useful for a number of reasons. It forces the researcher to specify the theory that will enable its formal representation, and possibly improve or modify it through this process. It allows for understanding the behaviour and data predictions of a theory: in exploring the structure of the theorized relationships, the implications for processes taking place on theorized networks, and the evolution of theorized network structure. It facilitates the selection of appropriate network analytical tools that best express the theory or that are appropriate in light of the assumptions inherent in the theory. Finally, it allows for comparisons of data patterns simulated as the outcome of a theorized network process with archaeological observations, to evaluate the plausibility of the theory.
This session welcomes presentations on the following topics:
• Archaeological network research: applications, methods or theories
• Network representation of archaeological theories
• Testing archaeological theories with network science
• Using network configurations, motifs and graphlets for representing theories
• Exponential random graph modelling
• Agent-based network modelling
• Spatial network modelling

CAA UK 2018 Edinburgh CFP

The UK chapter of CAA hosts a conference each year, a perfect opportunity for UK-based researchers to get in touch with their community of computational archaeology practitioners. It’s been a very good place to showcase archaeological network research in the past, so send in those abstracts.

CFP deadline 23 February 2018.

The organisers of CAA-UK 2018 would like to invite papers and posters for the 2018 meeting, to be held in Edinburgh, at Augustine, 41-43 George IV Bridge, EH1 1EL. On the 26th-27th October.

The use of quantitative methods and computer applications in heritage is an ever-changing discipline, with new software becoming available and new processes being created every day.

We would like to invite the submission of papers and posters related to the general topics of quantitative methods and computer applications in heritage. Topics that could be covered include:

  • Archaeogaming
  • Data management
  • Geophysics & Remote sensing
  • GIS & Geospatial Analysis
  • Integration of scientific and theoretical methods in computing
  • Photogrammetry & 3D Recording
  • Public Engagement
  • Semantic web
  • Social media
  • Simulations
  • Statistical methods
  • Visualisation & 3D modelling
  • Visualisation & Mixed Reality in Archaeology
  • Website development in the heritage sector

Please note that this list is not exhaustive and we will consider submissions on any relevant topics.

Speakers will be allocated a maximum of 20 minutes for presentations. Please send your
abstracts to the organisers at: caaukedinburgh@gmail.com

The deadline for abstract submission is Friday 23rd February 2018.

Agents, networks and models: CFP for our CAA2018 session

We welcome abstracts from those studying the human past using tools from network science, agent-based modelling and other complexity science approaches.
What? A session at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Techniques in Archaeology (CAA) conference
CFP deadline: 22 October
When? 19-23 March 2018

Agents, networks and models: formal approaches to systems, relationships and change in archaeology

Iza Romanowska
Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Spain

Tom Brughmans
University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Benjamin Davies
University of Auckland, New Zealand

Even if much ink has already been spilled on the need to use formal, computational methods to represent theories, compare alternative hypotheses and develop more complex narratives, the idea is still far from being firmly established in archaeology.

Complexity Science, the study of systems consisting of a collection of interconnected relationships and parts, provides a useful framework for formalising social and socio-natural models and it is often under this umbrella term that formal models are presented in archaeology. It has a particular appeal for researchers concerned with humans, as it stresses the importance of individual actions and interactions, as well as relations between individuals and wider system elements. Archaeology is a discipline that studies long-term, large-scale shifts in social change, human evolution, and relationships with the environment; how these phenomena emerge through the actions and interactions of individuals are questions that lie at the heart of our interests. Complexity Science offers an arsenal of methods that were developed specifically to tackle these kind of mulitscalar, multifaceted research questions.

This session will provide a forum for archaeological case studies developed using Complexity Science toolkits as well as for more methodological papers. We invite submissions of models at any stage of development from the first formalisation of the conceptual model to presenting final results.

Possible topics include but are not limited to applications or discussions of the following approaches:

  • Complexity science,
  • Network science,
  • Agent-based and equation-based modelling,
  • System dynamics,
  • Long-term change in social systems,
  • Social simulation in geographical space,
  • Complex urban systems, space syntax, gravity models.

Submit your work to the new CAA journal!

Finally those of us developing and applying computational techniques to the study of the human past have an appropriate place to publish our work. At last year’s CAA conference in Atlanta the new Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology was launched! A much needed journal on a topic that’s booming. It’s entirely open access and supports online data deposition. The journal has an open rolling call for papers: submit now!

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology (JCAA) publishes high quality, original papers that focuses on research on the interface between archaeology and informatics. This peer-reviewed journal provides immediate open access.

We now invite high quality papers on all the aspects of digital archaeology, including, – but not restricted to – databases and semantic web, statistics and data mining, 3D modelling, GIS, spatial analysis, remote sensing and geophysics, other field recording techniques, simulation modelling, network analysis and digital reconstructions of the past for consideration for publication in the Journal. Papers can be targeted towards scientific research, cultural heritage management and/or public archaeology.

We accept papers falling in one of the following four categories:

• Research articles, describing the outcomes and application of unpublished original research
• Case studies, expanding on the application of established technologies/methods to shed light on archaeological enquiries.
• Position papers, summarising and reflecting upon current trends in the application of established or new technologies, methods or theories.
• Reviews, covering topics such as current controversies or the historical development of studies as well as issues of regional or temporal focus.

Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Manuscript Preparation

Please refer to the Journal Information and submission instructions for Author about manuscript preparation: http://jcaa.ubiquitypress.com/about/submissions/
All manuscripts should be submitted online at:
http://jcaa.ubiquitypress.com/about/submissions/

Publication Frequency

The journal is published online as a continuous volume and issue throughout the year. Articles are made available as soon as they are ready to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in getting content publicly available.

Article Processing Charge

JCAA is a full Open Access journal. Accepted papers will be published upon payment of a ÂŁ300 Article Processing Charge. For APC waiver options, please contact the Editors.

For further information please refer to the JCAA website or contact the JCAA Editorial Team at journal@caa-international.org .

digiTAG2: Archaeological Storytelling and the ‘Digital Turn’

tag
Source:  Dr. Sara Perry’s blog. By Sara Perry and James Taylor.

 

There is a perception of a divide between archaeological communities dedicated to different topics, and there definitely is quite a bit of miscommunication of research between theoretical and digital archaeology communities. This often leads to archaeologists taking an extreme and unconstructive stance towards the work done in other communities. In my opinion this is a total waste of energy that should be spent on more in-depth critical engagement with digital and theoretical archaeology. But there are very few initiatives that provide a platform for members of different communities to discuss their work in a constructive and friendly way; there is a need for such platforms that help us achieve better, richer ways of doing archaeology.

 

This is exactly the kind of necessary opportunity provided by digiTAG! One of the most popular sessions at CAA last year was not about networks (surprise surprise) but ‘digiTAG’: a cool new initiative stimulating cross-feritilization between communities predominantly concerned with digital (CAA) and theoretical (TAG) topics. A second session is now announced, to be held at TAG in Southampton on 19-21 December 2016. I strongly recommend attending or presenting at this session.

The following post on Dr. Sara Perry’s blog provides more information about the event. The session focuses on storytelling and the digital turn, which I find great topics for building bridges! Although I think the digital has been turning for a very long time in archaeology and has been ubiquitous in archaeological research for about the last two decades in some form or other. That said, I think there is a massive need for more original creative uses of digital methods that don’t just allow us to do what we did before faster and applied to more data, but that allow us to do entirely new things that push our knowledge of the past further. There is a lack of this in digital archaeology, and I don’t mind turning more in that direction.

I’m so pleased to announce that Dr James Taylor and myself will be hosting a follow-up to our successful first digiTAG (digital Theoretical Archaeology Group) event held in Oslo in the springtime. Sponsored by both TAG and the CAA (Computing Applications in Archaeology), digiTAG II will feature at the TAG UK conference in Southampton, 19-21 December, 2016.

Our aim through the digiTAG series is to deepen our critical engagements w digital media and digital methods in archaeology and heritage. digiTAG II seeks to focus our thinking specifically on digital tools as they are enrolled in creating stories about the past. To this end, we are looking for contributors to talk about, experiment with, involve or otherwise immerse us in their archaeological/heritage storytelling work.

Such storytelling work may entail innovating with:

  • lab or excavation reports
  • recording sheets
  • maps, plans, section views, sketches, illustrations, and other forms of on-site visual recording
  • collections and databases
  • data stories or data ethnographies
  • digital data capture (survey, photogrammetry, laser scanning, remote sensing, etc.)
  • artefact or museums catalogues
  • digital media forms (VR, AR, videogames, webpages, apps, etc.)
  • books or manuscripts
  • articles, zines, comics, news reports, art pieces
  • audioguides, podcasts, music or sound installations
  • maps, trails, panels, labels, guidebooks, brochures, and other forms of interpretation & interpretative infrastructure
  • touch maps, handling materials/collections, tactile writing systems, 3d prints, models & more!

We welcome both traditional conference papers, as well as more experimental forms of (analogue or digital) argumentation, narrativising and delivery of your digiTAG II presentation. Please submit your abstracts (up to 250 words) tojames.s.taylor@york.ac.uk by 15 November.

We hope to hear from you & don’t hesitate to contact us with questions. The full CFP is copied below:

TAG and the CAA present…

digiTAG 2: Archaeological Storytelling and the ‘Digital Turn’

Session organisers:

Dr. James Taylor (University of York) – primary correspondant.

james.s.taylor@york.ac.uk

Dr. Sara Perry (University of York)

sara.perry@york.ac.uk

Abstract:

In April of 2016 the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) teamed up with the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) conference to run a successful Digital TAG (digiTAG) session in Oslo, Norway. This session sought to question, challenge, appraise and reconceive the epistemological and research-oriented implications of the digital turn in archaeology, including its larger social, political and economic consequences.

That event, building on a long history of engagement with digital processes and digital media at both the TAG and CAA conferences, brought together 15 practitioners from around the world working in all domains of archaeology–from the lab to the field, from the museum to the classroom. Here they situated their (and others’) use of digital technologies within wider theoretical contexts, and with critical self-awareness, thereby opening up a space for rigorous evaluations of impact and reflections on overall disciplinary change. digiTAG 2 now aims to build upon the success of the first digiTAG, extending critical conversation about the discipline’s digital engagements at a finer-grained level in concert with a diverse audience of theoretical archaeologists.

However, digiTAG 2 seeks to narrow our discussion, in specific, on the concept of digital storytelling and the ramifications of the digital turn on larger interpretations of the past. Given the frequency and intensity with which digital media are now enrolled to structure, articulate, visualise and circulate information for the production of archaeological narratives, we invite participants to present papers that critically consider the impact of the digital turn upon archaeological interpretation and archaeology’s many stories.

Whether you direct your digital engagements at professional, academic or non-specialist audiences – whether you deploy digital tools for data collection, data analysis, synthesis, and dissemination or beyond – we ask, how are your stories affected? Does the digital enable new and different narratives? Does it extend or narrow audience engagement? When does it harm or hinder, complicate or obfuscate? And when – and for whom – does it create richer, more meaningful storytelling about the past?

To explore these questions, we encourage both traditional conference papers, as well as more experimental forms of (analogue or digital) argumentation, narrativising and delivery of your talk. Ultimately, digiTAG 2 aims to delve into the critical implications of archaeologists’ use of digital technologies on processes of knowledge creation.

Submit titles & abstracts (up to 250 words) to james.s.taylor@york.ac.uk by 15 November 2016.

Love sampling, stats and networks? (really?) Present at our CAA 2017 session in Atlanta!

caaThe CAA call for papers and posters is now open until 28 October! The full list of sessions is published here. Among them you will notice a most awesomely appealing title: “Archaeological Networks: Uncertainty, Missing Data, and Statistical Inference”. Fancy nerding out on networks, stats and sampling? Then present a paper in the session Matt Peeples and myself will chair.

Archaeological Networks: Uncertainty, Missing Data, and Statistical Inference

Empirical studies of networks based on archaeological data are on a rapid rise. So far, the adoption of network methods from other fields has outpaced the development of new techniques and heuristics for dealing with the sometimes peculiar qualities of archaeological network data. Key among the issues faced by archaeologists interested in using networks are the impact of uncertainty and missing data on the properties of the networks we generate. We often must build networks based on an incomplete universe of nodes (because our units of analysis lack current archaeological information or have been destroyed) as well as incomplete information about the nodes we do have (due to sampling issues, different recording conventions, etc.). Further, we often have no consistent way to estimate how much information we are missing. The prevalence of such known unknowns and unknown unknowns suggest that we must carefully temper inferences drawn from networks defined using archaeological data. Importantly, all hope is not lost and these challenges are not unique to archaeology or network data alone. In this session, we ask contributors to explore the potential impact of missing data on empirical archaeological networks and/or test tools and approaches for identifying robust patterns in archaeological networks despite such challenges. Approaches may include, for example, the use of probabilistic estimates and sensitivity analysis already popular in many other areas of archaeological statistical analysis such as seriation or methods specific to network data drawing on the large body of research focused on estimating the shape and properties of so called “dark” networks (common in studies of covert organizations, epidemiology, and infectious disease). In addition, this session welcomes archaeological applications of network methods in general.
TomBrughmans
MattPeeples

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑