Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:42:53.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Avatars, Monsters, and Machines: A Cyborg Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2019

Colleen Morgan Open the ORCID record for Colleen Morgan [Opens in a new window]
Colleen Morgan*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As digital practice in archaeology becomes pervasive and increasingly invisible, I argue that there is a deep creative potential in practising a cyborg archaeology. A cyborg archaeology draws from feminist posthumanism to transgress bounded constructions of past people as well as our current selves. By using embodied technologies to disturb archaeological interpretations, we can push the use of digital media in archaeology beyond traditional, skeuomorphic reproductions of previous methods to highlight ruptures in thought and practice. I develop this argument through investigating the avatars, machines, and monsters in current digital archaeological research. These concepts are productively liminal: avatars, machines, and monsters blur boundaries between humans and non-humans, the past and the present, and suggest productive approaches to future research.

Avec la généralisation des pratiques numériques en archéologie, qui deviennent cependant de plus en plus imperceptibles, l'auteur soutient qu'il existe un vaste potentiel de créativité dans la pratique de l'archéologie cybernétique. Cette discipline s'inspire du posthumanisme féministe pour briser les limitations de nos préconceptions sur les gens du passé mais aussi sur nous-mêmes. L'emploi de technologies incorporées et de médias numériques en archéologie nous permet de dépasser les limites des reconstitutions traditionnelles et skeuomorphiques produites par des méthodes plus anciennes, de bouleverser nos interprétations et de mettre l'accent sur certains points de rupture dans la pensée et en pratique. L'auteur traite ce sujet à travers l'examen d'avatars, de machines et de monstres tels qu'on les représente de nos jours en archéologie numérique. Ces concepts, liminaires mais productifs car les avatars, les montres et les machines brouillent les frontières entre ce qui est humain et non-humain et entre le passé et le présent, nous permettent d'entrevoir des approches fructueuses en recherche. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Als sich die Digitalisierung in der archäologischen Praxis durchsetzt und zunehmend unsichtbar wird, wird hier der Standpunkt vertreten, dass die Ausübung der Cyborg-Archäologie potenziell sehr kreativ sein könnte. Die Cyborg-Archäologie ist vom feministischen Posthumanismus beeinflusst und bietet die Möglichkeit, unsere beschränkten Vorstellungen der Menschen in der Vergangenheit aber auch von uns selbst zu überwinden. Mithilfe der verkörperten Technologien und Digitalmedien in der Archäologie können wir die Grenzen der traditionellen, skeuomorphischen Rekonstruktionen der älteren Methoden überschreiten, archäologische Deutungen stören und gewisse intellektuelle und praktische Bruchstellen aufzeigen. Dies wird hier anhand von Untersuchungen von Avataren, Maschinen und Monstern in der gegenwärtigen digital-archäologischen Forschung herausgearbeitet. Solche liminale aber produktive Auffassungen, weil die Avatare, Maschinen und Monster die Grenzen zwischen dem Menschlichen und Nicht-Menschlichen und zwischen der Gegenwart und der Vergangenheit verwischen, stellen vielversprechende Ansätze für weitere Forschungen dar. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Keywords

digital archaeologyposthumanismdigital mediapracticecyborg archaeologyarchéologie numériqueposthumanismemédias numériquespratiquearchéologie cybernétiquedigitale ArchäologiePosthumanismusDigitalmedienPraxisCyborg-Archäologie
Type
Article
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 22 , Special Issue 3: Digital Archaeologies , August 2019 , pp. 324 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © European Association of Archaeologists 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barceló, J.A. 2007. Automatic Archaeology. In: Cameron, S. & Kenderdine, F., eds. Theorizing Digital Cultural Heritage. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, pp. 437–56.Google Scholar
Beale, G. & Reilly, P. 2017. Digital Practice as Meaning Making in Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 44: 62.Google Scholar
Bender, B. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Bevan, A. 2015. The Data Deluge. Antiquity, 89: 1473–84.Google Scholar
Borges, J.L. 1998. Collected Fictions (trans. by Hurley, A.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 1997. Mothers, Monsters, and Machines. In: Medina, K.C.N., Medina, N. & Stanbury, S., eds. Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 59–79.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 2016. Posthuman Critical Theory. In: Banerji, D. & Paranjape, M.R., eds. Critical Posthumanism and Planetary Futures. New Delhi: Springer India, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Champion, E.M. 2008. Explorative Shadow Realms of Uncertain Histories. In: Kalay, Y., Kvan, T. & Afflect, J., eds. New Heritage: New Media AND Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
Chrysanthi, A., Berggren, Å., Davies, R., Earl, G.P. & Knibbe, J. 2016. The Camera ‘at the Trowel's Edge’: Personal Video Recording in Archaeological Research. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23: 238–70.Google Scholar
Crema, E.R., Bevan, A. & Shennan, S. 2017. Spatio-temporal Approaches to Archaeological Radiocarbon Dates. Journal of Archaeological Science, 87: 1–9.Google Scholar
Denard, H. 2012. A New Introduction to the London Charter. In: Bentkowska-Kafel, A., Denard, H. & Baker, D., eds. Paradata and Transparency in Virtual Heritage. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 57–71.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M. 2014. From Spade-work to Screen-work: New Forms of Archaeological Discovery in Digital Space. In: Carusi, A., Sissel Hoel, A., Webmoor, T. & Woolgar, S., eds. Visualization in the Age of Computerization. London: Routledge, pp. 40–58.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M. 2018. More Than Just a Record: Active Ecological Effects of Archaeological Strata. In: Torres de Souza, M.A. & Menezes Costa, D., eds. Historical Archaeology and Environment. Cham: Springer, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
Eve, S. 2014. Dead Men's Eyes: Embodied GIS, Mixed Reality and Landscape Archaeology (BAR British Series 600). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Eve, S. 2018. Losing our Senses, an Exploration of 3D Object Scanning. Open Archaeology, 4: 114–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0007Google Scholar
Finn, C. 2002. Artifacts: An Archaeologist's Year in Silicon Valley. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finn, C. 2003. Bits and Pieces: A Mini Survey of Computer Collecting. Industrial Archaeology Review, 25: 119–28.Google Scholar
Frankland, T. 2012. A CG Artist's Impression: Depicting Virtual Reconstructions Using Non-photorealistic Rendering Techniques. In: Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta Flores, P. & Papadopoulos, C., eds. Thinking Beyond the Tool: Archaeological Computing and the Interpretive Process (BAR International Series 2344). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 24–39.Google Scholar
Fredengren, C. 2013. Posthumanism, the Transcorporeal and Biomolecular Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology, 21: 53–71.Google Scholar
Fredengren, C. 2015. Nature–Cultures: Heritage, Sustainability and Feminist Posthumanism. Current Swedish Archaeology, 23: 109–30.Google Scholar
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1993. You Can Hide, But You Can't Run: Representations of Women's Work in Illustrations of Palaeolithic Life. Visual Anthropology Review: Journal of the Society for Visual Anthropology, 9: 22–41.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Eve, S., Morgan, C. & Pantos, A. 2019a. Hearing the Past. In: Kee, K. & Compeau, T.J., eds. Seeing the Past with Computers: Experiments with Augmented Reality and Computer Vision for History. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press, pp. 224–36.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Gupta, N., Smith, J., Angourakis, A., Reinhard, A., Ellenberger, K., et al. 2019b. The Open Digital Archaeology Textbook [online] [accessed 7 March 2019]. Available at: <https://o-date.github.io/draft/book/index.html>>Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1985. A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80: 65–108.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1992. The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others. In: Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. & Treichler, P.A., eds. Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 295–336.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1995. Cyborgs and Symbionts: Living Together in the New World Order. In: Hables-Gray, C., ed. The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge, pp. xi-xx.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hasler, B.S., Spanlang, B. & Slater, M. 2017. Virtual Race Transformation Reverses Racial In-group Bias. PloS One, 12: e0174965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174965Google Scholar
Hayles, N.K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayles, N.K. 2003. Afterword: The Human in the Posthuman. Cultural Critique, 53: 134–37.Google Scholar
Hayward, E. 2010. Fingeryeyes: Impressions of Cup Corals. Cultural Anthropology: Journal of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, 25: 577–99.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. 2010. Being and Time (ed. by Schmidt, D.J., trans. by Stambaugh, J.). Albany (NY): State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Howes, D. 2005. Introduction. In: Howes, D., ed. Empire of the Senses: The Sensual Culture Reader. London: Berg, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Huggett, J. 2017. The Apparatus of Digital Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.7Google Scholar
Huvila, I., ed. 2018. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S. 2015. Challenging Heritage Visualisation: Beauty, Aura and Democratisation. Open Archaeology, 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0008Google Scholar
Jones, A.M. & Diaz-Guardamino, M. 2019. Digital Collaborations. In: Jones, A.M. & Diaz-Guardamino, M.. Making a Mark: Image and Process in Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 211–15.Google Scholar
Jones, S.H. & Harris, A. 2016. Monsters, Desire and the Creative Queer Body. Continuum, 30(5): 518–30.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A. & Tringham, R.E. 2007. Feminist Adventures in Hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 328–58.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K.W., Altschul, J.H., Beaudry, M.C., Drennan, R.D., Kinzig, A.P., Kohler, T.A., et al. 2014. Grand Challenges for Archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111: 879–80.Google Scholar
Květina, P. & Končelová, M. 2013. From Punch Cards to Virtual Space: Changing the Concept of Archaeological Heritage Management in the Digital Age. In: Biehl, P.F. & Prescott, C., eds. Heritage in the Context of Globalization: Europe and the Americas. New York: Springer, pp. 95–101.Google Scholar
Law, M. & Morgan, C. 2014. The Archaeology of Digital Abandonment: Online Sustainability and Archaeological Sites. Present Pasts, 6: 1–9.Google Scholar
Lucas, G. 2012. Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 2009. (Re)Building Çatalhöyük: Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Archaeologies, 5: 468–87.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. 2015. Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in Archaeological Thought and Practice. AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology, 5: 123–46. https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v5i0.67Google Scholar
Morgan, C. forthcoming. The Queer and the Digital: The Politics of Archaeological Representation. In: Blackmore, C. & Springate, M., eds. Queering the Past. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Eve, S. 2012. DIY and Digital Archaeology: What Are You Doing to Participate? World Archaeology, 44: 521–37.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Wright, H. 2018. Pencils and Pixels: Drawing and Digital Media in Archaeological Field Recording. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43: 136–51.Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. 2014. The Archaeology of (Flash) Memory. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 48: 255–59.Google Scholar
Opitz, R. 2018. Publishing Archaeological Excavations at the Digital Turn. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43(supplement): S68–S82.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 2014. Crafting Knowledge with (Digital) Visual Media in Archaeology. In: Chapman, R. & Wylie, A., eds. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 189–210.Google Scholar
Perry, S. & Morgan, C. 2015. Materializing Media Archaeologies: The MAD-P Hard Drive Excavation. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2: 94–104.Google Scholar
Piccini, A. 2015. ‘To See What's Down There’: Embodiment, Gestural Archaeologies, and Materializing Futures. Paragraph, 38: 55–68.Google Scholar
Prasad, A. 2017. Introduction: Global Assemblages of Technoscience. Science, Technology and Society, 22: 1–5.Google Scholar
Prophet, J. 1996. Sublime Ecologies and Artistic Endeavors: Artificial Life and Interactivity in the Online Project ‘TechnoSphere’. Leonardo, 29: 339–44.Google Scholar
Prophet, J. 2001. TechnoSphere: ‘Real’ Time, ‘Artificial’ Life. Leonardo, 34: 309–12.Google Scholar
Pujol-Tost, L. 2017. ‘3D·CoD’: A New Methodology for the Design of Virtual Reality-mediated Experiences in Digital Archeology. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00016Google Scholar
Reinhard, A. 2017. Video Games as Archaeological Sites: Treating Digital Entertainment as Built Environments. In: Mol, A.A.A., Ariese-Vandemeulebroucke, C.E., Boom, K.H.J. & Politopoulos, A., eds. The Interactive Past: Archaeology, Heritage & Video Games. Leiden: Sidestone Press, pp. 99–106.Google Scholar
Reinhard, A. 2018. Archaeogaming: An Introduction to Archaeology in and of Video Games. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Rucker, R.v.B., Sirius, R.U. and Queen Mu, 1992. Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Sirius, R.U. & Cornell, J. 2015. Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity. San Francisco (CA): Red Wheel Weiser.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, T.L. 2002. Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In: Schroeder, R., ed. The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London: Springer, pp. 40–62.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1991a. Men and Women in Prehistoric Architecture. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 111: 9–27.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 1991b. Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In: Gero, J. & Conkey, M., eds. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 93–131.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2010. Forgetting and Remembering the Digital Experience and Digital Data. In: Boric, D., ed. Archaeology and Memory. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 68–105.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2012. The Public Face of Archaeology at Çatalhöyük. In: Tringham, R. & Stevanovic, M.. Last House on the Hill: BACH Area Reports from Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Los Angeles (CA): Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 503–35.Google Scholar
Tringham, R. 2013. A Sense of Touch: The Full-Body Experience in the Past and Present of Çatalhöyük, Turkey. In: Day, J., ed. Making Senses of the Past: Toward a Sensory Archaeology. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 177–95.Google Scholar
Turkle, S. 1997. Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67: 72–84.Google Scholar
Tzouganatou, A. 2018. Can Heritage Bots Thrive? Toward Future Engagement in Cultural Heritage. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6: 377–83.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L. 2004. Four Archaeological Engagements with Place Mediating Bodily Experience Through Peripatetic Video. Visual Anthropology Review: Journal of the Society for Visual Anthropology, 20: 57–72.Google Scholar
Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Waters, C.N., Barnosky, A.D., Palmesino, J., Rönnskog, A.S, et al. 2017. Scale and Diversity of the Physical Technosphere: A Geological Perspective. Anthropocene Review, 4: 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616677743Google Scholar