Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:35:48.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Archaeology of Europe

Digital Innovations in European Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2020

Kevin Garstki
Kevin Garstki
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh

Summary

European archaeologists in the last two decades have worked to integrate a wide range of emerging digital tools to enhance the recording, analysis, and dissemination of archaeological data. These techniques have expanded and altered the data collected by archaeologists as well as their interpretations. At the same time archaeologists have expanded the capabilities of using these data on a large scale, across platforms, regions, and time periods, utilising new and existing digital research infrastructures to enhance the scale of data used for archaeological interpretations. This Element discusses some of the most recent, innovative uses of these techniques in European archaeology at different stages of archaeological work. In addition to providing an overview of some of these techniques, it critically assesses these approaches and outlines the recent challenges to the discipline posed by self-reflexive use of these tools and advocacy for their open use in cultural heritage preservation and public engagement.
Get access

Keywords

digital archaeologypublic archaeologyopen sciencedata archiving3D modelling
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Archaeology of Europe
Online ISBN: 9781108881425
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 10 December 2020

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.)

Bibliography

Alaguero, M., Bustillo, A., Guinea, B. & Iglesias, L. (2015). The virtual reconstruction of a small Medieval town: the case of Briviesca (Spain). In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P., & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archeopress, pp. 575–84.Google Scholar
Aloia, N., Binding, C., Cuy, S., Doerr, M., Fanini, B., Felicetti, A., Fihn, J., Gavrilis, D., Geser, G., Hollander, H., Meghini, C., Niccolucci, F., Nurra, F., Papatheodorou, C., Richards, J., Ronzino, P., Scopigno, R., Theodoridou, M., Tudhope, D., Vlachidis, A. & Wright, H. (2017). ARIADNE: a European research e-infrastructure for archaeology. Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage 10.3.Google Scholar
Amico, F. Ronzino, P., Vassallo, V., Miltiadous, N., Hermon, S. & Niccolucci, F. (2018). Theorizing authenticity – practising reality: the 3D replica of the Kazaphani boat. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo, , eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 111–22.Google Scholar
Anichini, F., Banterle, F., Garrigós, J. B. et al. (2020). Developing the ArchAIDE application: a digital workflow for identifying, organising and sharing archaeological pottery using automated image recognition. Internet Archaeology 52. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.52.7Google Scholar
Arbuckle, B. S., Kansa, S. W., Kansa, E. et al. (2014). Data sharing reveals complexity in the westward spread of domestica animals across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS ONE 9, e99845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. (2016). Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, G. & Beale, N. (2015). Community-driven approaches to open source archaeological imaging. In Wilson, A. T. & Edwards, B., eds. Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice. Berlin: De Gruyter Open, pp. 44–63.Google Scholar
Beard, M. (1994). Casts and cast-offs: the origins of the Museum of Classical Archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, A. & Neylon, C. (2012). A vision for open archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4), 479–97.Google Scholar
Benjamin, W. (1968) [1935]. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In Benjamin, W., ed. Illuminations. Essays and Reflections. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. (2014). Airborne laser scanning for archaeological prospection. In Remondion, F. & Campana, S., eds. 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and Best Practices. BAR International Series 2598. Archeopress: Oxford, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked data. www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bertoldi, P., Avgerinou, M. & Castellazzi, L. (2017). Trends in data centre energy consumption under the European Code of Conduct for Data Centre Energy Efficiency. JRC Technical Report, European Commission.Google Scholar
Bevan, A. (2015). The data deluge. Antiquity 89(348), 1473–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishara., H. (2019, November 26). Official 3D scans of Nefertiti bust are released after three-year battle. Hyperallergic. https://hyperallergic.com/530400/official-3d-scans-of-nefertiti-bust-are-released-after-three-year-battleGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A. H. & Blackwell, C. W. (2013). Hijacking shared heritage: cultural artifacts and intellectual property rights. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 13(1), 137–64.Google Scholar
Bland, R., Lewis, M., Pett, D., Richardson, I., Robbins, K. & Webley, R. (2017). The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. In Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press, pp. 107–21.Google Scholar
Bohrer, F. N. (2011). Photography and Archaeology. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Bollwerk, E. (2015). Co-creation’s role in digital public archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(3), 223–34.Google Scholar
Bonacchi, C. (2017). Digital media in public archaeology. In Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press, pp. 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonacchi, C., Bevan, A., Pett, D., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A., Sparks, R., Wexler, J. & Wilkin, N. (2014). Crowd-sourced archaeological research: the MicroPasts Project. Archaeology International 17, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonacchi, C., Pett, D., Bevan, A. & Keinan-Schoonbaert, A. (2015). Experiments in crowd-funding community archaeology. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 2(3), 184–98.Google Scholar
Bond, S. (2017, June 7). Why we need to start seeing the classical world in color. Hyperallergic. https://hyperallergic.com/383776/why-we-need-to-start-seeing-the-classical-world-in-colorGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1996). Photography: A Middle-brow Art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brophy, K. (2018). The Brexit hypothesis and prehistory. Antiquity 92(366), 1650–58.Google Scholar
Brown, B. J., Toler-Franklin, C., Nehab, D. et al. (2008). A system for high-volume acquisition and matching of fresco fragments: reassembling Theran wall paintings. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2008) 27(3): article no. 84.Google Scholar
Caraher, W. (2013). Slow archaeology. North Dakota Quarterly 80(2), 43–52.Google Scholar
Caraher, W. (2016). Slow archaeology: technology, efficiency, and archaeology work. In Averett, E. W., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 421–41.Google Scholar
Caraher, W. & Reinhard, A. (2015). From blogs to books: blogging as community, practice and platform. Internet Archaeology 39. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.7Google Scholar
Champion, E. & Rahaman, H. (2020). Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms. Virtual Archaeology Review 11(23), 1–15.Google Scholar
Chenhall, R. G. (1967). The description of archaeological data in computer language. American Antiquity 32(2), 161–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenhall, R. G. (1968). The impact of computers on archaeological theory: an appraisal and projection. Computers and the Humanities 3(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
Chenhall, R. G. (1971). The archaeological data bank: a progress report. Computers and the Humanities 5(3), 159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J. et al. (2011). Meta-analysis of zooarchaeological data from SW Asia and SE Europe provides insight into the origins and spread of animal husbandry. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 538–45.Google Scholar
Cook, K. (2019). EmboDIYing disruption: queer, feminist and inclusive digital archaeologies. European Journal of Archaeology 22(3), 398–414.Google Scholar
Cook, K. & Compton, M. E. (2018). Canadian digital archaeology: on boundaries and futures. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 42, 38–45.Google Scholar
Cooney, G. (2006). Newgrange – a view from the platform. Antiquity 80(309), 697–708.Google Scholar
Cooper, A. & Green, C. (2016). Embracing the complexities of ‘big data’ in archaeology: the case of the English Landscape and Identities Project. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 271–304.Google Scholar
Corns, A. & Shaw, R. (2013). Lidar and world heritage sites in Ireland: why was such a rich data sources gathered, how is it being utilised, and what lessons have been learned? In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 146–60.Google Scholar
Costopoulos, A. (2016). Digital Archeology Is Here (and Has Been for a While). Frontiers in Digital Humanities. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2016.00004Google Scholar
Counts, D. B., Averett, E. W. & Garstki, K. (2016). A fragmented past: (re)constructing antiquity through 3D artefact modelling and customised structured light scanning at Athienou-Malloura, Cyprus. Antiquity 90(349), 206–18.Google Scholar
Counts, D. B., Averett, E. W., Garstki, K. & Toumazou, M. K. (2020). Visualizing Votive Practice: Exploring Limestone and Terracotta Sculpture from Athienou-Malloura through 3D Models. Grand Forks: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. (1967). Computer applications in archaeology. Computers and the Humanities 2(1), 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, C. (2016). Jean-Claude Gardin on archaeological data, representation and knowledge: implications for digital archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 305–30.Google Scholar
D’Andrea, A. & Fernie, K. (2013). CARARE 2.0: a metadata schema for 3D cultural objects. In 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (Digital Heritage) vol. 2, pp. 137–43. IEEE, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. (2019). Object-based image analysis: a review of developments and future directions of automated feature detection in landscape archaeology. Archaeological Prospection 26, 155–63Google Scholar
Davis, S., Brady, C., Megarry, W. & Barton, K. (2013). Lidar survey in the Brú na Bóinne world heritage site. In Opitz, R. S. and Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 223–37.Google Scholar
Davis, S., Rassmann, K. & Bánffy, E. (2019). Filling in the gaps in Brú na Bóinne. Archaeology Ireland 33(3), 22–24.Google Scholar
Dell’Unto, N. (2014). The use of 3D models for intra-site investigation in archaeology. In Remondion, F. & Campana, S., eds. 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and best practices. BAR International Series 2598. Archeopress: Oxford, pp. 151–58.Google Scholar
Dell’Unto, N. (2018). 3D models and knowledge production. In Huvila, I., ed. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. London: Routledge, pp. 54–69.Google Scholar
Demesticha, S., Skarlatos, D. & Neophytou, A. (2014). The 4th-century B.C. shipwreck at Mazotos, Cyprus: new techniques and methodologies in the 3D mapping of shipwreck excavations. Journal of Field Archaeology 39, 134–50.Google Scholar
De Reu, J., De Smedt, P., Herremans, D., Van Meirvenne, M., Laloo, P. & De Clercq, W. (2014). On introducing an image-based 3D reconstruction method in archaeological excavation practice. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 251–262.Google Scholar
De Reu, J., Plets, G., Verhoeven, G., De Smedt, P., Bats, M., Cherretté, B., De Maeyer, W., Deconynck, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Van Meirvenne, M. & De Clercq, D. (2013). Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1108–21.Google Scholar
Diaz-Guardamino, M., Sanjuán, L. G., Wheatly, D. & Zamora, V. R. (2015). RTI and the study of engraved rock art: a re-examination of the Iberian south-western stelae of Setefilla and Almadén de la Plata 2 (Seville, Spain). Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 2, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Guiseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi, F. & Camporesi, C. (2012). 3D Virtual Dig: a 3D Application for Teaching Fieldwork in Archaeology. Internet Archaeology 32. DOI: 10.11141/ia.32.4Google Scholar
Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P. , Galeazzi, F. & Vassalo, V., eds. (2018a). Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P., Galeazzi, F. & Vassalo, V. (2018b). Introduction: why authenticity still matters today. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, & Vassallo, V., eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco, P. , Matthews, J. L. & Matlock, T. (2016). Framing the past: how virtual experience affects bodily description of artefacts. Journal of Cultural Heritage 17, 179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djindjian, F. (2009). The golden years for mathematics and computers in archaeology (1965–1985). Archeologia e Calcolatori 20, 61–73.Google Scholar
Djindjian, F. (2019). Archaeology and computers: a long story in the making of modern archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 30, 13–20.Google Scholar
Doneus, M. & Kühteiber, T. (2013). Airborne laser scanning and archaeological interpretation – bringing back the people. In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 32–50.Google Scholar
Doran, J. E. & Hodson, F. R. (1975). Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ducke, B. (2012). Natives of a connected world: free and open source software in archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4), 571–79.Google Scholar
Ducke., B. (2015). Free and open source software in commercial and academic archaeology: sustainable investments and reproducible research. In Wilson, A. T. & Edwards, B., eds. Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice Berlin: De Gruyter Open, pp. 92–110.Google Scholar
Dufton, J. A. (2016). CSS for success? Some thoughts on adapting the browser-based archaeological recording kit (ARK) for mobile recording. In Averett, E. W., Gordon, J., & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 373–98.Google Scholar
Đuričić, S. (2017). Physical vs. virtual reconstruction. In Tasić, N., Novaković, P., & Horňák, M., eds. Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological practice, CONPRA Series, Vol. IV. University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar
Earl, G., Martinez, K. & Malzbender, T. (2010). Archaeological applications of polynomial texture mapping: analysis, conservations and representation. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2040–50.Google Scholar
Economou, M. (2008). A world of interactive exhibits. In Marty, P. F. & Jones, K. B., eds. Museum Informatics. People, Information, and Technology in Museums. New York: Routledge, pp. 242–60.Google Scholar
Edwards, B. & Wilson, A. T. (2015). Open archaeology: definitions, challenges and context. In Wilson, A. T. & Edwards, B., eds. Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice Berlin: De Gruyter Open, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Ellenberger, K. (2017). Virtual and augmented reality in public archaeology teaching. Advances in Archaeological Practices 5(3), 305-9.Google Scholar
Elliot, T., Heath, S. & Muccigrosso, J. (2014). Prologue and Introduction. ISAW Papers 7.1. http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/7/elliott-heath-muccigrossoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, S. (2016). Are we ready for new (digital) ways to record archaeological fieldwork? A case study from Pompeii. In Averett, E. W., Gordon, J., & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar
Emery, K. M. & Killgrove, K. (2015). Bones, bodies, and blogs: outreach and engagement in bioarchaeology. Internet Archaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.5Google Scholar
Eriksen, P. (2004). Newgrange og den hvide mur. Kuml, 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, P. (2006). The rolling stones from Newgrange. Antiquity 80(309), 709–10.Google Scholar
Eve, S. (2018). The embodied GIS. Using mixed reality to explore multi-sensory archaeological landscapes. Internet Archaeology 44. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.3Google Scholar
Eve, S. (2018). Losing our senses, an exploration of 3D object scanning. Open Archaeology 4. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0007Google Scholar
Ezzeldin, A. (2019). Archaeogaming as public archaeology. In Williams, H., Pudney, C. & Ezzeldin, A., eds. Public Archaeology: Arts of Engagement. Oxford: Archaeopress, Access Archaeology, pp. 200–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faniel, I. M., Austin, A., Kansa, E., Kansa, S. W., France, P., Jacobs, J., Boytner, R. & Yakel, W. (2018). Beyond the archive: Bridging data creation and reuse in archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 6(2), 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fee, S. (2013). Reflections on custom mobile app developments for archaeological data collection. In Averett, E. W., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 221–36.Google Scholar
Fleury, P., Madeleine, S. & Lefèvre, N. (2015). Forum Romanum: a 3D model for self-service educational purposes. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 569–74.Google Scholar
Forte, M. (2014). 3D archaeology: new perspectives and challenges – the example of Çatalhöyük. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Forte, M. & Siliotti, A., eds. (1997). Virtual Archaeology. Great Discoveries Brought to Life Through Virtual Reality. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Fredheim, L. H. (2020). Decoupling ‘open’ and ‘ethical’ archaeologies: rethinking deficits and expertise for ethical public participation in archaeology and heritage. Norwegian Archaeological Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2020.1738540Google Scholar
Galeazzi, F., Caillieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Charno, M., Richards, J. & Scopigno, R. (2016). Web-based visualization of 3D data in archaeology: The ADS 3D viewer. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9, 1–11.Google Scholar
Gardin, J.-C. (1971). Archaeology and computers: new perspectives. International Social Science Journal 23(2), 189–203.Google Scholar
Gardin, J.-C. (1980). Archaeological Constructs: An Aspect of Theoretical Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garstki, K. (2017). Virtual representation: the production of 3D digital artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24, 726–50.Google Scholar
Garstki, K. (2018). Virtual authority and the expanding role of 3D digital artifacts. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, & Vassallo, V., eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
Garstki, K., Larkee, C. & LaDisa, J. (2019). A role for immersive visualization experiences in teaching archaeology. Studies in Digital Heritage 3(1), 46–59.Google Scholar
Garstki, K., Schulenburg, M. & Cook, R. A. (2018). Practical application of digital photogrammetry for fieldwork in the American Midwest: an example from the Middle Ohio Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 43 (2), 133–50.Google Scholar
Gattiglia, G. (2015). Think big about data: archaeology and the big data challenge. Archäologische Informationen, 38, 113–24.Google Scholar
Geser, G. (2016). WP15 study: towards a web of archaeological linked open data. ARIADNE Report, European Commission.Google Scholar
Gordon, J. M., Averett, E. W. & Counts, D. B. (2016). Mobile computing in archaeology: exploring and interpreting current practices. In Averett, E., Gordon, J., & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota. pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Gupta, N., Smith, J. et al. (2019). The Open Digital Archaeology Textbook. https://o-date.github.io/draft/book/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Green, S. Bevan, A. & Shapland, M. (2014). A comparative assessment of structure from motion methods for archaeological research. Journal of Archaeological Science 46, 173–81.Google Scholar
Gupta, N., Blair, S. & Nicholas, R. (2020). What we see, what we don’t see: data governance, archaeological spatial databases and the rights of indigenous peoples in an age of big data. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Sup 1), S39–S50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, T. M. (2012). Interfacing archaeology and the world of citizen sensors: exploring the impact of neogeography and volunteered geographic information on an authenticated archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4), 580–91.Google Scholar
Hermon, S. & Niccolucci, F. (2018). Digital authenticity and the London Charter. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, & Vassallo, V., eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar
Hill, A. C., Rowan, Y. & Kersel, M. (2014). Mapping with aerial photographs: recording the past, the present, and the invisible at Marj Rabba, Israel. Near Eastern Archaeology 77, 182–86.Google Scholar
Hopkinson, G. & Winters, J. (2003). Problems with permatrace: a note on digital image publication. Internet Archaeology 14. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.14.5Google Scholar
Horňák, M. (2017). Examples of good practice in 3D visualization in preventive archaeology. In Tasić, N., Novaković, P., & Horňák, M., eds. Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological Practice, CONPRA Series, Vol. IV. University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Howland, M. D., Kuester, F. & Levy, T. E. (2014). Structure from motion: twenty-first century field recording with 3D technology. Near Eastern Archaeology 77(3), 187–91.Google Scholar
Huggett, J. (2012). Lost in information? Ways of knowing and modes of representation in e-archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4), 538–52.Google Scholar
Huggett, J. (2016, April 8). A digital detox for digital archaeology [Blog post]. http://introspectivedigitalarchaeology.com/2016/04/08/a-digital-detox-for-digital-archaeology/#more-317Google Scholar
Huggett, J. (2020). Is big digital data different? Towards a new archaeological paradigm. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Sup 1), S8–S17.Google Scholar
Huvila, I. (2018). Introduction. In Huvila, I., eds. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. London, Routledge. pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Jaklič, A., Erič, M., Mihajlović, I., Stopinšek, Ž. & Solina, F. (2015). Volumetric models from 3D point clouds: the case study of Sarcophagi Cargo from a 2nd/3rd century AD Roman shipwreck near Sutivan on island Brač, Croatia. Journal of Archaeological Science 62, 143–52.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S. (2012). A new Digital Dark Age? Collaborative web tools, social media and long-term preservation. World Archaeology 44(4), 553–70.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S. (2015). Challenging heritage visualisation: beauty, aura and democratisation. Open Archaeology 1, 144–52.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S. (2018). Digital heritage objects, authorship, ownership and engagement. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo, , eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, S., Hale, A., Jones, C., Jones, S., & Maxwell, M. (2015). The ACCORD Project : archaeological community co-production of research resources. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archeopress, pp. 289–95.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. (2018a). Semantically enhanced 3D: a web-based platform for spatial integration of excavation documentation at Alken Enge, Denmark. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(sup1), S31–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. (2018b). Evaluating authenticity: the authenticity of 3D models in archaeological field documentation. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi, V. Vassallo, , eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 59–74.Google Scholar
Jones, S. (2010). Negotiating authentic objects and authentic selves: beyond the deconstruction of authenticity. Journal of Material Culture 15, 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S. Maxwell, S. & Hale, M. (2018). 3D heritage visualization and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 1–21.Google Scholar
Jones, S. & Yarrow, T. (2013). Crafting authenticity: an ethnography of conservation practice. Journal of Material Culture 18(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
Joy, J. & Elliot, M. (2018). Cast aside or case in a new light? The Maudslay replica Maya cast at the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge. In Di Giuseppantonio, P. Di Franco, F. Galeazzi & Vassallo, V., eds. Authenticity and Cultural Heritage in the Age of 3D Digital Reproductions. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar
Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology 44(4), 498–520.Google Scholar
Kansa, E. (2014). Open context and linked data. ISAW Papers 7.10. http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/7/kansaGoogle Scholar
Kersel, M. (2016). Response: living a semi-digital kinda life. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota. pp.475–92.Google Scholar
Kersten, T. P. & Lindstaedt, M. (2012). Image-based low-cost systems for automatic 3D recording and modelling of archaeological finds and objects. In Loannides, M., Fritsch, D., Leissner, J., Davies, R., Remondino, F. & Caffo, R., eds. Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation: 4th International Conference, EuroMed 2012, Lemessos, Cyprus, October 29–November 3, 2012, Proceedings. Vol. 7616. Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Khunti, R. (2018). The problem with printing Palmyra: exploring the ethics of using 3D printing technology to reconstruct heritage. Studies in Digital Heritage 2(1).Google Scholar
Koller, D. (2008). Virtual archaeology and computer-aided reconstruction of the Severan Marble Plan. In Frischer, B. & Dakour-Hild, A., eds. Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3D Digital Technologies as Tools for Discovery in Archaeology. Archaeopress, pp. 125–33.Google Scholar
Kotoula, E. (2016). Reflectance Transformation Imaging beyond the visible: ultraviolet reflected and ultraviolet induced visible. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 909–18.Google Scholar
Kotoula, E. & Earl, G. (2015). Integrated RTI approaches for the study of painted surfaces. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 123–34.Google Scholar
Laharnar, B., Lozić, E. & Štular, B. (2019). A structured Iron Age landscape in the hinterland of Knežak, Slovenia. In Cowley, D. C., Fernández-Götz, M., Romankiewicz, T. & Wendling, H., eds. Rural Settlement. Relating Buildings, Landscape, and People in the European Iron Age. Leiden, Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Lake, M. (2012). Open archaeology. World Archaeology 44(4), 471–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lami, M. R., Opgenhaffen, L. & Kisjes, I. (2016). Pottery goes digital. 3D laser scanning technology and the study of archaeological ceramics. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 909–18.Google Scholar
Landeschi, G., Dell’Unto, N., Ferdani, D., Lindgren, S., & Leander Touati, A.-M. (2015). Enhanced 3D-GIS: documenting insula V 1 in Pompeii. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 349–60.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. (2015). Excavation methodologies and labour as epistemic concerns in the practices of archaeology. Comparing examples from British and Andean archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 22(1), 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lercari, N. (2016). Terrestrial laser scanning in the age of sensing. In Forte, M. & Campana, S., eds. Digital Methods and Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Springer, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
Lock, G. (2003). Using Computers in Archaeology: Towards Virtual Pasts. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
López, M., de Haro, F. A., Lara, L. S. et al. (2016). Cástulo in the 21st century: a test site for a new digital information system. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 319–36.Google Scholar
Löwenborg, D. (2018). Knowledge production with data from archaeological excavations. In Huvila, I., ed. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. London, Routledge, pp. 37–53.Google Scholar
Lycett, S. J. & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2013). A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: patterns of stability and variability across regions and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 40(3), 1508–17.Google Scholar
Malzbender, T., Gelb, D. & Wolters, H. (2001). Polynomial Texture Maps. In SIGGRAPH ’01: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, New York: ACM, pp. 519–52.Google Scholar
Mara, H. & Bogacz, B. (2016). A bridge to digital humanities: geometric methods and machine learning for analysing ancient script in 3D. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 889–98.Google Scholar
McCoy, M. (2017). Geospatial big data and archaeology: prospects and problems too great to ignore. Journal of Archaeological Science 84, 74–94.Google Scholar
Merchán, P., Salamanca, S. &Adán, A. (2011). Restitution of sculptural groups using 3D scanners. Sensors 11, 8497–518.Google Scholar
Mickel, A. (2020). The proximity of communities to the expanse of big data. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Sup 1), S51–S60.Google Scholar
Mlekuž, D. (2013). Messy landscapes: lidar and the practices of landscaping. In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 88–99.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Eve, S. (2012). DIY and digital archaeology: what are you doing to participate? World Archaeology 44(4), 521–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. & Winter, J (2015). Introduction: critical blogging in archaeology. Internet Archaeology 39. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.11Google Scholar
Morgan, C. & Wright, H. (2018). Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(2), 136–51.Google Scholar
Moscati, P. (2019). Informatica archeologica e archeologia digitale le risposte dalla rete. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 30, 21–38.Google Scholar
Moshenska, G. (2017). Introduction: public archaeology as practice and scholarship where archaeology meets the world. In Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press. pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Motz, C. (2016). Sangro Valley and the five (paperless) seasons: lessons on building effective digital recording workflows for archaeological fieldwork. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota. pp. 77–110.Google Scholar
Motz, C. F & Carrier, S. (2013). Paperless recording at the Sangro Valley Project. In Earl, G., Sly, T., Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta-Flores, P., Papadopoulos, C., Romanowska, I. & Wheatley, D., eds., 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. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 25–30.Google Scholar
Oikarinen, T. (2016). Utilisation of a game engine for archaeological visualization. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
Olson, B. R. & Caraher, W. R., eds. (2015). 3D Imaging in Mediterranean Archaeology. Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press.Google Scholar
Olson, B. R., Placchetti, R. A., Quartermaine, J. & Killebrew, A. E. (2013). The Tel Akko Total Archaeology Project (Akko, Israel): assessing the suitability of multi-scale 3D field recording in archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 38, 244–62.Google Scholar
Opitz, R. (2013). An overview of airborne and terrestrial laser scanning in archaeology. In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Opitz, R. (2015). Three dimensional field recording in archaeology: an example from Gabii. In Olson, B. & Caraher, W., eds. Visions of Substance: 3D Imaging in Mediterranean Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Opitz, R. (2018). Publishing archaeological excavation at the digital turn. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(Sup 1), S68–S82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. (2013a) Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C. (2013b). Interpreting archaeological topography: lasers, 3D data, observation, visualization and application. In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Opitz, R., Mogetta, M. & Terrenato, N. (2016). A Mid-Republican House from Gabii. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Orton, D., Gaastra, J. & Linden, M. V. (2016). 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 Quaternary 2, Art. 6.Google Scholar
Palma, G., Siotto, E., Proesmans, M., Baldassari, M., Batino, , S. & Scopigno, R. (2013). Telling the story of ancient coins by means of interactive RTI images visualization. In Earl, G., Sly, T., Chrysanti, A., Murrieta-Flores, P., Papadopoulos, C., Romanowska, I. & Wheatley, D., eds. Archaeology in the Digital Era. Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Southampton. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 177–85Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, C., Hamilakis, Y., Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. & Díaz-Guardamino, M. (2019). Digital sensoriality: the neolithic figurines from Koutroulou Magoula, Greece. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 29(4), 625–52.Google Scholar
Perry, S. (2019). The enchantment of the archaeological record. European Journal of Archaeology 22(3), 354–71.Google Scholar
Perry, S. & Beale, N. (2015). The social web and archaeology’s restructuring: impact, exploitation, disciplinary change. Open Archaeology 1, 153–65.Google Scholar
Perry, S., Shipley, L. & Osborne, J. (2015). Digital media, power and (in)equality in archaeology and heritage. Internet Archaeology 38. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.38.4Google Scholar
Petersson, B. & Larsson, C. (2018). From storing to storytelling – archaeological museums and digitization. Huvila, I., ed. Archaeology and Archaeological Information in the Digital Society. London, Routledge, pp. 70–105.Google Scholar
Petri, G. (2014). The public domain vs. the museum: the limits of copyright and reporductions of two-dimensional works of art. Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 12(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Pfarr-Harfst, M. (2015). 25 years of experience in virtual reconstructions – research projects, status quo of current research and visions for the future. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 585–92.Google Scholar
Piccoli, C. (2016). Enhancing GIS urban data with the 3rd Dimension: a procedural modelling approach. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 815–24.Google Scholar
Pietroni, E. (2016). From remote to embodied sensing: new perspectives for virtual museums and archaeological landscape communication. In Forte, M. & Campana, S., eds. Digital Methods and Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Springer, pp. 437–74.Google Scholar
Pires, H., Ortiz, P., Marques, P. & Sanchez, H. (2006). Close-range Laser Scanning Applied to Archaeological Artifacts Documentation. Virtual Reconstruction of an XVIth Century Ceramic Pot. In M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci & K. Mania, eds. The 7th International Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage VAST.Google Scholar
Potenziani, M., Callieri, M., Dellepiane, M., Corsini, M., Ponchio, F. & Scopigno, R. (2015). 3DHOP: 3D heritage online presenter. Computers & Graphics (52), 129–41.Google Scholar
Powlesland, D. (2016). 3Di – Enhancing the record, extending the returns, 3D imaging from free range photography and its application during excavation. In Kamermans, H., de Neef, W., Piccoli, C., Poluschny, A. G. & Scopigno., R., eds. The Three Dimensions of Archaeology (Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress (1–7 September 2014, Burgos, Spain). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Quartermaine, J., Olson, B. R. & Killebrew, A. E. (2014), Image-based modeling approaches to 2D and 3D digital drafting in archaeology at Tel Akko and Qasrin: two case studies. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 2, 110–27.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, A. (2015). The work of archaeology in the age of digital surrogacy. In Olson, B. & Caraher, W., eds. Visions of Substance: 3D Imaging in Mediterranean Archaeology. Grand Forks, ND: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota. pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Reilly, P. (1991). Towards a Virtual Archaeology. In Rahtz, S. & Lockyear, K., eds. CAA90. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1990 (BAR International Series 565). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, pp. 132–39.Google Scholar
Reinhard, A. (2016). Archaeogaming: An Introduction to Archaeology in and of Video Games. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Remondino, F. (2014). Photogrammetry – Basic Theory. In Remondion, F. & Campana, S., eds. 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and Best Practices. BAR International Series 2598. Oxford: Archeopress, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
Remondino, F. & El-Hakim, S. (2006). Image-based 3D modelling: a review. The Photogrammetric Record 21(115), 269–91.Google Scholar
Richards, J. D. & Niccolucci, F., eds. (2019). The ARIADNE Impact. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Richards, J. D. & Ryan, N. S. (1985). Data Processing in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, E., Grosman, L., Smilansky, U. & Werman, M. (2012). Extracting scar and ridge features from 3D-scanned lithic artifacts. In Earl, G., Sly, T., Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta-Flores, P., Papadopoulos, C., Romanowska, I. & Wheatley, D., eds., 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. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J. (2013). A digital public archaeology? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 32(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J. (2015). Micro-blogging and online community. Internet Archaeology 39. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.2Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J. (2018). Ethical challenges in digital public archaeology. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 1(1), 64–73.Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J. (2019). Using social media as a source for understanding public perceptions of archaeology: research challenges and methodological pitfalls. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 2(1), 151–62.Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J. & Booth, T. (2017). Response to ‘Brexit, Archaeology and Heritage: Reflections and Agendas.’ Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 27(1): 1–5.Google Scholar
Risbøl, O. (2013). Cultivating the ‘wilderness’ – how lidar can improve archaeological landscape understanding. In Opitz, R. S. & Cowley, D. C., eds. Interpreting Archaeological Topography: 3D Data, Visualisation and Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 51–62.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, C. H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B. R. & Ünlüsoy, S. (2015). Excavation is digitization: advances in archaeological practice. Journal of Field Archaeology 40, 325–46.Google Scholar
Sammons, J. F. D. (2018). Application of Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) to the study of ancient graffiti from Herculaneum, Italy. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17, 184–94.Google Scholar
Sapirstein, P. (2016). Accurate measurement with photogrammetry at large sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 66, 137–45.Google Scholar
Sapirstein, P. (2018). A high-precision photogrammetric recording system for small artifacts. Journal of Cultural Heritage 31, 33–45.Google Scholar
Sapirstein, P. & Murray, S. (2017). Establishing best practices for photogrammetric recording during archaeological fieldwork. Journal of Field Archaeology 42, 337–50.Google Scholar
Sayer, F. (2014). Politics and the development of community archaeology in the UK. The Historic Environment 5(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Scholtz, S. & Chenhall, R. G. (1976). Archaeological data banks in theory and practice. American Antiquity 41(1), 89–96.Google Scholar
Seitsonen, O. (2017). Crowdsourcing cultural heritage: public participation and conflict legacy in Finland. Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage 4(2), 115–30.Google Scholar
Shaw, R., Rabinowitz, A. & Golden, P. (2018). A deep gazetter of time periods. DH 2018. https://dh2018.adho.org/en/a-deep-gazetteer-of-time-periodsGoogle Scholar
Sikora, J. & Kittel, P. (2018). Closing a gap with a simple toy: how the use of the tablet affected the documentation workflow during the excavations of the Rozprza Ring-Fort (Central Poland). In Matsumoto, M. & Uleberg, E., eds. CAA2016: Oceans of Data. Proceedings of the 44th Conference on the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Smith, N. G., Beale, G., Richards, J. & Scholma-Mason, N. (2018). Maeshowe: the application of RTI to Norse Runes. Internet Archaeology 47. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.47.8Google Scholar
Smith, N. G. & Levy, T. E. (2012). Real-Time 3D archaeological field recording: ArchField, an open-source GIS system pioneered in Southern Jordan. Antiquity 85:331.Google Scholar
Smith, N. G., Passone, L., Al-Said, S., Al-Farhan, M. & Levy, T. E. (2014). Drones in archaeology: integrated data capture, processing, and dissemination in the al-Ula Valley, Saudi Arabia. Near Eastern Archaeology 77:176–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobotkova, A., Ross, S. A., Ballsun-Stanton, B. et al. (2016). Measure twice, cut once: cooperative deployment of a generalized, archaeology-specific field data collection system. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 337–72.Google Scholar
Štuhec, S. &. Zachar, J. (2017). Digital photogrammetry. In Zachar, J., Horňák, M. & Novaković, P., eds. 3D Digital Recording of Archaeological, Architectural and Artistic Heritage. CONPRA Series, Vol. 1. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts. pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Stúlar, B. (forthcoming). Scientific dissemination of archaeological interpretation of airborne LiDAR-derived data: a manifesto. In Garstki, K., ed. Critical Archaeology in the Digital Age. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
Štular, B. & Štuhec, S. (2015). 3D Archaeology: Early Medieval Earrings from Kranj. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, Institute of Archaeology and ZRC Publishing.Google Scholar
Tasić, N. (2017a) About digital field documentation. In Tasić, N., Novaković, P., Horňák, M., eds. Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological Practice, CONPRA Series, Vol. IV. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts, pp. 23-25.Google Scholar
Tasić, N. (2017b). Augmented reality as an output. In Tasić, N., Novaković, P., Horňák, M., eds. Virtual Reconstructions and Computer Visualisations in Archaeological Practice, CONPRA Series, Vol. IV. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts, pp. 79–86.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. S., Issavi, J., Berggren, Å. , Lukas, D., Mazzucato, C., Tung, B. & Dell’Unto, N. (2018). ‘The rise of the machine’: the impact of digital tablet recording in the field at Çatalhöyük. Internet Archaeology, 47. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.47.1Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. (1978). The awful truth about statistics in archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2), 231–44.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. (2017). Community archaeology. In Moshenska, G., ed. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press, pp. 14–30.Google Scholar
Trier, Ø. D., Cowley, D. C. & Waldeland, A. U. (2019). Using deep neural networks on airborne laser scanning data: results from a case study of semi-automatic mapping of archaeological topography on Arran, Scotland. Archaeological Prospection 26, 165–75.Google Scholar
Tronchère, H., Bouvard, E., Mor, S., Fernagu, A. & Ramona, J. (2016). From the excavation to the scale model: a digital approach. In Campana, S., Scopigno, R., Carpentiero, G. & Cirillio, M., eds. CAA2015 Keep the Revolution Going. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Oxford: Archeopress. pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
Unger, J., Hemker, C., Lobinger, C. & Jan, M. (2020). VirtualArch: making archaeological heritage visible. Internet Archaeology 54. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.54.2Google Scholar
Verschoof-van der Vaart, W. B. & Lambers, K. (2019). Learning to look at LiDAR: the use of R-CNN in the automated detection archaeological objects in LiDAR data from the Netherlands. Journal of Computer Application in Archaeology 2(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
VanValkenburgh, P. & Dufton, J. A. (2020). Big archaeology: horizons and blindspots. Journal of Field Archaeology 45(Sup 1), S1–S7.Google Scholar
Vince, A. (1996). Editorial. Internet Archaeology 1. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.1.7Google Scholar
Walker, D. (2014). Antisocial media in archaeology? Archaeological Dialogues 21(2), 217–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000221Google Scholar
Walldrodt, J. (2016). Why paperless: technology and changes in archaeological practice, 1996–2016. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Watrall, E. (2016). Archaeology, the digital humanities, and the ‘Big Tent’. In Gold, M. K & Klein, L. F, eds. Debate in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wernke, S. A., Hernández, C., Marcone, G., Oré, G., Rodriquez, A. & Traslaviña, A. (2016). Beyond the basemap: multiscalar survey through aerial photogrammetry in the Andes. In Averett, E., Gordon, J. & Counts, D., eds. Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: Digital Press, University of North Dakota, pp. 251–78.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. (1954). Archaeology from the Earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wihelmson, H. & Dell’Unto, N. (2015). Virtual taphonomy: a new method integrating excavation and postprocessing in an archaeological context. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 157, 305–21.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J. W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P.E. & Bouwman, J. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18Google Scholar
Witmore, C. L. (2009). Prolegomena to open pasts: on archaeological memory practices. Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 5(3), 511–45.Google Scholar
Yates, D. (2018). Crowdsourcing antiquities crime fighting: a review of GlobalXplorer. Advances in Archaeological Practice 6(2), 173–78.Google Scholar
Zachar, J. & Horňák, M. (2017). 3D recording in archaeological practice. In Zachar, J., Horňák, M. & Novaković, P., eds. 3D Digital Recording of Archaeological, Architectural and Artistic Heritage. CONPRA Series, Vol. 1. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana Press, Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar
Zachar, J. & Štuhec, S. (2015). Old versus new – introducing image-based 3D modeling into the general documentation workflow of archaeological rescue excavations. Case studies: the Čachtice and Bratislava castles, Slovakia. In Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P. & Robert, S., eds. CAA2014 21st Century Archaeology: Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Archeopress, pp. 529-530.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Digital Innovations in European Archaeology
  • Kevin Garstki, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
  • Online ISBN: 9781108881425
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Digital Innovations in European Archaeology
  • Kevin Garstki, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
  • Online ISBN: 9781108881425
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Digital Innovations in European Archaeology
  • Kevin Garstki, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
  • Online ISBN: 9781108881425
Available formats
×