Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:42:47.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pushing the Paperless Envelope

Digital Recording and Innovative Ways of Seeing at a Classic Maya Site

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Sarah E. Jackson ,
Christopher F. Motz  and
Linda A. Brown
Sarah E. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210380 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380 ([email protected])
Christopher F. Motz
Affiliation:
Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210226, Cincinnati, OH 45221- 0226 ([email protected])
Linda A. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, 2110 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052 ([email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Archaeological documentation is in the midst of a technological shift as recording systems transition from paper-based forms to digital formats. Digital systems effectively replicate the information recorded on paper forms, while also offering recording advantages for archaeologists in the field. In addition to such logistical contributions to archaeological workflows, digital technology also has tremendous potential to transform the ways that archaeology is done by shifting how we see our sites, and how we document them through diverse data types. With the goal of exploring this potential, we developed a tablet-based relational database, using FileMaker, which provides the ability to simultaneously record specific characteristics of artifacts and features according to two cultural perspectives—modern archaeological understandings and also those of the Classic Maya. In this article, we describe the database and discuss the results of a pilot field season using the database to record excavations at the site of Say Kah, Belize. Our experiences yield several broader reflections on the impact of using digital recording systems both for practical advantage and for productive shifts in perception.

La documentación arqueológica se encuentra en medio de un cambio tecnológico mediante el cual los sistemas de registro cambian del papel a formatos digitales. Los sistemas digitales replican de manera efectiva la información registrada en formularios de papel, y también ofrecen ventajas para los arqueólogos trabajando en el campo. Además de las contribuciones logísticas al trabajo arqueológico, la tecnología digital también puede transformar las formas de realizar la arqueología al cambiar la manera en que miramos los sitios, y cómo los documentamos a través de diversos tipos de datos. Con el objetivo de explorar este potencial, desarrollamos una base de datos relacional utilizando las computadoras tabletas, y el programa FileMaker, el cual ofrece la posibilidad de documentar simultáneamente características específicas de los artefactos y rasgos según dos perspectivas culturales, los entendimientos modernos de los arqueólogos y también los de los mayas clásicos. En este artículo se describe la base de datos y se discuten los resultados de la primera temporada de campo en que se utiliza la base de datos para registrar excavaciones en el sitio de Say Kah, Belice. Nuestras experiencias generan reflexiones sobre el impacto del uso de sistemas de registro digital tanto como ventajas prácticas y también para los cambios productivos en la percepción.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 176 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2015

References

References Cited

Apple Inc. 2010. Discovering Ancient Pompeii with iPad. Blog. Apple. Electronic document, http://www.apple.com/ipad/pompeii, accessed October 12, 2010.Google Scholar
Astor-Aguilera, Miguel Angel 2010. The Maya World of Communicating Objects: Quadripartite Crosses, Trees, and Stones. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Atalay, Sonya 2006. Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. The American Indian Quarterly 30(3): 280–310.Google Scholar
Austin, Anne 2014. Mobilizing Archaeologists: Increasing the Quantity and Quality of Data Collected in the Field with Mobile Technology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2(1): 13-23.Google Scholar
Averett, Erin W., Gordon, Jody M., and Counts, Derek B. (editors) 2016. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: the Potential of Digital Archaeology. University of North Dakota Digital Press, Fargo, North Dakota.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berggren, Åsa, Dell’Unto, Nicolo, Forte, Maurizio, Haddow, Scott, Hodder, Ian, Issavi, Justine, Lercari, Nicola, Mazzucato, Camilla, Mickel, Allison, and Taylor, James S. 2015. Revisiting Reflexive Archaeology at Çatalhöyük: Integrating Digital and 3D Technologies at the Trowel’s Edge. Antiquity 89: 433–448.Google Scholar
Berggren, Åsa, and Hodder, Ian 2003. Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(3): 421–434.Google Scholar
Betts, Matthew 2012. Going Paperless. Blog. E’se’get Archaeology Project. Electronic document, https://coastalarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/going-paperless/, accessed July 26, 2015.Google Scholar
Bobowski, Bogdan 2012. Easy Recording System: Solutions Based on Web Free Apps Databases. In Revive the Past: Proceeding of the 39th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Beijing, 12–16 April 2011, edited by Zhou, Mingquan, Romanowska, Iza, Wu, Zhongke, Xu, Pengfei, and Verhagen, Philip, pp. 170–176. Pallas Publications, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Brown, Linda A. 2000. From Discard to Divination: Demarcating the Sacred through the Collection and Curation of Discarded Objects. Latin American Antiquity 11(4): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Linda A. 2005. Planting the Bones: Hunting Ceremonialism at Contemporary and Nineteenth-Century Shrines in the Guatemalan Highlands. Latin American Antiquity 16(2):131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Linda A. 2015. When Pre-Sunrise Beings Inhabit a Post-Sunrise World: Time, Animate Objects, and Contemporary Tz’utujil Maya Ritual Practitioners. In The Measure and Meaning of Time in the Americas, edited by Aveni, Anthony F., pp. 53–77. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Butina, Eva 2014. The Use of iPad as a Documenting Tool on an Archaeological Excavation on Govče 2011 Project in North - Eastern Slovenia. In Archaeology in the Digital Era, Volume II: E-Papers from the 40th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Southampton, 26-29 March 2012, edited by Earl, Graeme, Sly, Tim, Chrysanthi, Angeliki, Murrieta-Flores, Patricia, Papadopoulos, Constantinos, Romanowska, Iza, and Wheatley, David, pp. 48–56. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Caraher, William 2013. [2015] Slow Archaeology. North Dakota Quarterly 80(2):43–52.Google Scholar
Cobb, Hannah, Harris, Oliver JT, Jones, Cara, and Richardson, Philip 2012. Reconsidering Archaeological Fieldwork: Exploring On-Site Relationships Between Theory and Practice. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Deal, Michael, and Hagstrum, Melissa B. 1995. Ceramic Reuse Behavior among the Maya and Wanka: Implications for Archaeology. In Expanding Archaeology, edited by Skibo, James M., Walker, William H., Nielsen, Axel E., pp. 111–125. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Ellis, Steven, and Wallrodt, John 2011. iPads at Pompeii. Electronic document, http://classics.uc.edu/pompeii/index.php/news/1-latest/142-ipads2010.html, accessed October 14, 2015.Google Scholar
Fee, Samuel B., Pettegrew, David K., and Caraher, William R. 2013. Taking Mobile Computing to the Field. Near Eastern Archaeology (NEA) 76(1): 50–55.Google Scholar
Ford, James A., and Steward, Julian H. 1954. On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologist 56(1):42–57.Google Scholar
Goodale, Nathan, Bailey, David G., Fondak, Theodore, and Nauman, Alissa 2013. iTrowel: Mobile Devices as Transformative Technology in Archaeological Field Research. The SAA Archaeological Record 13(3):18–22.Google Scholar
Gossen, Gary H. 1994. From Olmecs to Zapatistas: A Once and Future History of Souls. American Anthropologist 96(3):553–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendon, Julia A. 2012. Objects as Persons: Integrating Maya Beliefs and Anthropological Theory. In Power and Identity in Archaeological Theory and Practice: Case Studies from Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Harrison-Buck, Eleanor, pp. 82–89. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Houk, Brett 2012. The Chan Chich Archaeological Project’s Digital Data Collection System. In The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, Papers of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project, pp. 73–82. Lubbock, Texas.Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen 2014. The Life Within: Classic Maya and the Matter of Permanence. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen, Brittenham, Claudia, Mesick, Cassandra, Tokovinine, Alexandre, and Warinner, Tina 2009. Veiled Brightness: A History of Ancient Maya Color. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen, and Stuart, David 1998. The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portraiture in the Classic Period. Res 33: 73–101.Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen D., Stuart, David, and Taube, Karl A. 2006. The Memory of Bones: Body, Being, and Experience among the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Huggett, Jeremy 2015a. A Manifesto for an Introspective Digital Archaeology. Open Archaeology 1(1):86–95.Google Scholar
Huggett, Jeremy 2015b. Challenging Digital Archaeology. Open Archaeology 1(1):79–85.Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott 2010. Dwelling, Identity, and the Maya: Relational Archaeology at Chunchucmil. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott, and Stanton, Travis 2007. Cultural Logic and Practical Reason: The Structure of Discard in Ancient Maya Houselots. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(2):123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Sarah E. 2014. Classic Maya Material Meanings (and Modern Archaeological Consequences). Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, Austin.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sarah E. 2015. Human-Object Relationships in Classic Maya Contexts: Object Technologies, Political Participants, and Cultural Infrastructures. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sarah E. 2016. Envisioning Artifacts: A Classic Maya View of the Archaeological Record. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI 10.1007/s10816-016-9278-y.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sarah E., and Brown, Linda A. 2016. Excavations at Say Kah, 2015. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
Jennings, Michael 2011. Guest Post-Michael Jennings at Jericho Mafjar Project. Paperless Archaeology. Electronic document, http://paperlessarchaeology.com/2011/02/10/guest-post-michael-jennings-at-jericho-mafjar-project/, accessed May 8, 2014.Google Scholar
Just, Bryan R. 2005. Modifications of Ancient Maya Sculpture. Res 48:69–82.Google Scholar
Lippert, Dorothy Thompson 2006. Building a Bridge to Cross a Thousand Years. The American Indian Quarterly 30(3):431–440.Google Scholar
Looper, Matthew G. 2003. Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
McAnany, Patricia A. 1998. Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Houston, Stephen D., pp. 271–298. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
McAnany, Patricia A., and Rowe, Sarah M. 2015. Re-Visiting the Field: Collaborative Archaeology as Paradigm Shift. Journal of Field Archaeology. Electronic document, http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000007, accessed September 16, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 1989. Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Meskell, Lynn, and Joyce, Rosemary A. 2003. Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Mock, Shirley B. (editor) 1998. The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeological and Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Monaghan, John 1998. The Person, Destiny, and the Construction of Difference in Mesoamerica. Res 33:137–146.Google Scholar
Motz, Christopher F., and Carrier, Samuel 2013. Paperless Recording at the Sangro Valley Project. In Archaeology in the Digital Era: Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26–29 March 2012, edited by Earl, Graeme, Sly, Tim, Chrysanthi, Angeliki, Murrieta-Flores, Patricia, Papadopoulos, Constantinos, Romanowska, Iza, and Wheatley, David, pp. 25–30. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Newman, Sarah E. 2015. Rethinking Refuse: A History of Maya Trash. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University.Google Scholar
Nicholas, George P. 2010. Seeking the End of Indigenous Archaeology. In Bridging the Divide: Indigenous Communities and Archaeology into the 21st Century, edited by Phillips, Caroline and Allen, Harry, pp. 233–52. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
O’Neil, Megan E. 2012. Engaging Ancient Maya Sculpture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth Lee 1954. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
Plank, Shannon E. 2003. Monumental Maya Dwellings in the Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Records: A Cognitive-Anthropological Approach to Classic Maya Architecture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston University.Google Scholar
Prins, Adam B., Adams, Matthew J., Homsher, Robert S., and Ashley, Michael 2014. Digital Archaeological Fieldwork and the Jezreel Valley Regional Project, Israel. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(3): 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosevelt, Christopher H., Cobb, Peter, Moss, Emanuel, Olson, Brandon R., and Ünlüsoy, Sinan 2015. Excavation Is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice. Journal of Field Archaeology 40(3): 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaulding, Albert C. 1953. Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18(4):305–313.Google Scholar
Stone, Andrea, and Zender, Marc 2011. Reading Maya Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Maya Painting and Sculpture. Thames & Hudson, London.Google Scholar
Stuart, David 1996. Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. Res 29–30:148–171.Google Scholar
Stuart, David 1997. The Hills Are Alive: Sacred Mountains in the Maya Cosmos. Symbols Spring: 13–17.Google Scholar
Toumazou, Michael K., Counts, Derek B., Averett, Erin Walcek, Gordon, Jody Michael, and Kardulias, P. Nick 2015. Mobile Computing in the Malloura Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 40(2): Online Supplement. doi:10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000112.Google Scholar
Vasilijevic, A., Buxton, B., Sharvit, J., Stilinovic, N., Nad, D., Miskovic, N., Planer, D., Hale, J., and Vukic, Z. 2015. An ASV for Coastal Underwater Archaeology: The Pladypos Survey of Caesarea Maritima, Israel. In OCEANS 2015 - Genova, pp. 1–7. IEEE.Google Scholar
Vincent, Matthew L., Falko, Kuester, and Levy, Thomas E. 2014. OpenDig: Digital Field Archeology, Curation, Publication, and Dissemination. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(3):204–208.Google Scholar
Wallrodt, John 2011a. Let’s Call This a Beta [updated]. Paperless Archaeology. Electronic document, http://paperlessarchaeology.com/2011/06/07/lets-call-this-a-beta/, accessed January 8, 2016.Google Scholar
Wallrodt, John 2011b. That’s Why It’s Called a Beta. Paperless Archaeology. Electronic document, http://paperlessarchaeology.com/2011/08/20/thats-why-its-called-a-beta/, accessed January 8, 2016.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe, and Nicholas, George 2014. Why Indigenous Archaeology Is Important as a Means of Changing Relationships between Archaeologists and Indigenous Communities. In Indigenous Heritage and Tourism: Theories and Practices on Utilizing the Ainu Heritage, edited by Okada, Mayumi and Kato, Hirofumi, pp. 141–151. Hokkaido University Center for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido, Japan.Google Scholar
Webmoor, Timothy, and Witmore, Christopher L. 2008. Things Are Us! A Commentary on Human/Things Relations under the Banner of a “Social” Archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 41(1): 53–70.Google Scholar
Yarrow, Thomas 2003. Artefactual Persons: The Relational Capacities of Persons and Things in the Practice of Excavation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(1): 65–73.Google Scholar