Digital Techniques

“Four main levels of participation can be identified, spanning a spectrum from contributory, to collaborative, co-creative and hosted”(Bonnachi, 2017). Contributory is when individuals from the community aid archeologists  in there research .This can be furthered by getting the public for involved in the project and with them creating 3D models of different point of the site to create resources for both the archeologists and the public. Co-Creative is a more  challenging type of participation it requires that the activities to be undertaken are planned and developed jointly by all those involved, This can be implement by getting together with the community to connect our project to the both need of the public and their history. hosted participation is the rarest and most difficult of all of them it requires a institution such as a university to provide everything from funds to a infrastructure  in which the project can be conducted by members of the public. I am not sure on how we can increase this type of participation besides by just keeping the project going for as long as possible.
In recent year technology has changed the way archeology is conducted in numerous ways.” we must engage with how these tools fit our epistemologies”(Garstki,2017) . 3D imagining is one of these new pieces of technology that have become a important tool for all anthropologists . In this day and age many of our worlds most precious pieces of history are in danger from either man or nature. Acid rain corrodes many monuments while war destroys the others. 3D technologies is one way that we at the very least can save a image of many of these pieces of history before they are gone. And through 3D imaging we can share them across the world , can you imagine a exact replica of the elgin marbles or of the lion of Babylon , or any of the other monuments in the world in your local museum. Many museums today have implemented this technique to further their own archives and allow the pubic access to create their own models”… allow access to a selection of their own scans of their collections, making it possible for individuals to download and 3D Print digital models ” (Garstki,2017) .That is the power of 3D technology it enables anyone in the world to experience what only a few decades ago required a costly flight . But despite all the advantages of 3D technology there are also many difficulties that involve the technology . One is that it is very time consuming ,it takes quite a bit of time to take all of the required photos in order to create a 3D image, and the correct pictures are not taken it could leave you with a incomplete rendering . The scanner can be just as bad the same problems occur if the person scanning goes to fast    I do think that this technology could be incorporated into our own project despite the difficulties , we already learned the basics during class so it is not too hard for students too do. with enough practice it should get much easier. This technology an be used to record data , and create a archive of what a individuals grave looks like instead of just describing them to the best of our abilities.

Bonacchi, Chiara (2017) Digital Media in Public Archaeology. In Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by Gabriel Moshenska. UCL Press, London.

 

Garstki, Kevin (2017). Virtual Representation: the Production of 3D Digital Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24(3):726-750

 

As probably the only student in this class that has adult memory before the digital age, I am typically slow to comprehend and apply new technology as it presents itself in various formats. When I got my first retail/office job in the 1980s, I became familiar with telex machines used for long distance communication. Prior to that, I had experience using electric typewriters and calculators. Then the fax machine came along. Desktop computers followed and eventually, digital cameras. With the rapid evolution of technological innovations, researchers are capable of recording their findings and presenting them through sophisticated and modern methods where not much is left to interpretation. Kevin Garstki compares the practice of creating digital 3D representations of archaeological artifacts and how it should be compared to a time when the advent of digital photography took over the field. Imagine this time-saving technology that archaeologists could use in the field with introduction of the digital camera! The ability to take a seemingly endless stream of photos of all findings from every possible angle must have been very exciting! As with all new technology, digital cameras and their memory cards were quite an investment. Garstki’s argues that 3D “digital artifact modeling will become as indispensable to archaeology as traditional photography.” (728) I agree with his comments with regard to the fact that a “reproduction cannot stand in for the original.” (729) He is also concerned with authenticity of a replica and one’s ability to interact with an object recreated by 3D imaging/printing. Although the items replicated can be very close (size, form, function), it is impossible to create the same object density, surface finish and perhaps exact color. It does, however, give the observer who is not present on site of the artifact’s discovery the capability of experiencing an object or collection of objects so that further research and discussion can be had. I imagine that the more accurate the technology is with regard to reproduction authenticity, the more expensive the machinery (and software) is and at this time, a pitfall to its use in our project could be the cost (prohibitive) and lack of trained personnel.

With regard to our project, we have been introduced to 3D scanning but have not had the opportunity to use it in the field. As we gather our data throughout this potter’s field, we notice that there is no consistency with the headstones with regard to type, size, shape, etc. There are several headstones that are broken or missing pieces. Alternately, there are gravesites that are not representative of a headstone whatsoever. We recorded one last week that was in the shape of a baby’s crib. Many markers are handmade and others are traditional carved headstones. It is possible that with 3D scanning, we can recreate a broken headstone by filling in the missing pieces. At this stage, we should continue our focus on digital media in order to gain attention and attract potential project participants.

Chiara Bonacchi discusses multiple avenues of digital media in her article such as the use of social media (facebook), audio or video podcasts, smartphone apps, blogs, vlogs, etc. She also talks about crowd sourcing (citizens asked to help with the recording and digitization), where those citizens who chose to participate could assist with the analysis and interpretation of data. Our efforts to be transparent to the community began with our presentation to the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court and the launch of the Hidalgo County Paupers’ Cemetery Project website. During the days when the class is out collecting data at the cemetery, we welcome the opportunities for ‘crowd sourcing’ as we interact with family members who are visiting gravesites of their loved one(s). This collaboration will get us closer to understanding just who is buried in the cemetery and why are they in a paupers’ field instead of a conventional cemetery. At some level, we are looking for contributory participation as well on behalf of all funeral homes in the area. We have taken note on some of the gravesites markers that reflect the burial was taken care of by funeral homes such as Skinner-Silva (Edinburg), Kreidler (McAllen) and Guerra (Weslaco/EdCouch). Perhaps we can find more info and fill in the blanks (missing dates of birth/death, etc.) with visits to these businesses?

Bonacchi (2007) identifies four degrees of participation. A more common degree of participation to incorporate is contributory participation, through this HCPCP allows the public to make contribution to our research. Collaborative, co-creative and hosted participation, from my understanding, are roughly the same in the sense where there is incorporation of individuals from similar fields while simultaneously being open to different technology techniques. To continue with collaborative participation it may require more professional individuals in addition to maintain a decent amount of student involvement. Co-creative participation appears to be a technique in which a group of individuals create an ideal approach of research. This participation would potentially be utilized in the idea that a group of students currently working on this project decide to move an aspect of this project for further research. Hosted participation is described to be more difficult due to funding though I feel the many scholarships provided to independent and group research will benefit this research thus working in collaboration with co-creative participation.

Benefits of 3D technology are numerous. As the article mentioned, through 3D artifacts researchers and the public are granted the opportunity to view what an artifact generally looks like. Photography has been an uprising technique that is now transiting into 3D techniques, though without photography there would be no way of alternating an image into an item. However, pitfalls with 3D techniques are the possibility of much data holes that the individual fills under the assumption the artifact is completed a certain way potentially not perfectly displaying what an artifact was. I do feel as though our project could integrate 3D techniques due to my recollection at the beginning of the semester where the class learned about one tool that will create a 3D image of what was scanned through essentially a burst of many photos in seconds. This tool could further create an image in the public’s minds of the general layout of the cemetery as well as providing imaging of what the deceased individuals grave appears as for lost family members, etc.