Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Digital Archaeological Ethics: Successes and Failures in Disciplinary Attention Cover

Digital Archaeological Ethics: Successes and Failures in Disciplinary Attention

Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology
Volume 3 (2020): Issue 1
By: L. Meghan Dennis  
Open Access
|Jul 2020

References

  1. 1Agbe-Davies, AS, Galle, JE, Hauser, MW and Neiman, FD. 2014. Teaching with digital archaeological data: A research archive in the university classroom. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21(4): 837–861. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-013-9178-3
    Back to article
  2. 2Alcock, SE, Dufton, JA and Durusu-Tanrıöver, M. 2016. Archaeology and the MOOC: Massive, open, online, and opportunistic. Journal of Social Archaeology, 16(1): 3–31. DOI: 10.1177/1469605315609017
    Back to article
  3. 3Alfonso-Durruty, M, Morello, F, Misarti, N, Vilar, MG and Headley, D. 2018. Protocol, Potentials, and Limitations of Ancient Teeth 3D Printing. Archaeologies, 14(2): 299–316. DOI: 10.1007/s11759-018-9345-y
    Back to article
  4. 4Bayliss, R. 2003. Archaeological survey and visualisation: the view from Byzantium. Late Antique Archaeology, 1(1): 26–313. DOI: 10.1163/22134522-90000012
    Back to article
  5. 5Brock, TP and Goldstein, L. 2015. Blogging the Field School: Teaching Digital Public Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 39. DOI: 10.11141/ia.39.8
    Back to article
  6. 6Buchanan, R, Scevak, J, Smith, SP and Southgate, E. 2016. What do students understand about digital footprint management? Examining social media education for career guidance. In: The Australian Association for Research in Education conference (AARE), November 27–Dec 1 2016, Melbourne. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314246323_What_do_students_understand_about_digital_footprint_management_Examining_social_media_education_for_career_guidance [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  7. 7Caraher, W. 2016. Slow archaeology: technology, efficiency, and archaeological work. In: Averett, EW, Gordon, JM and Counts, DB (eds.), Mobilizing the Past for a Digital Future: The Potential of Digital Archaeology. Grand Forks: The Digital Press @ The University of North Dakota, pp. 421–41. DOI: 10.17613/M6ZG8P
    Back to article
  8. 8Chenhall, R. 1967. The Description of Archaeological Data in Computer Language, American Antiquity, 32(2): 161–167. DOI: 10.2307/277901
    Back to article
  9. 9Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C and Ferguson, TJ. 2006. Trust and archaeological practice: towards a framework of virtue ethics. In: Scarre, C and Scarre, G (eds.), The ethics of archaeology: philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115–130. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511817656.007
    Back to article
  10. 10Computer Applications & Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). 2018. Ethics Policy. Available at: https://caa-international.org/about/ethics-policy/ [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  11. 11Cook, K. 2018. Hacking Classrooms for Communities: Augmenting Collaboration Through Digital Scholarship. In: Hageneuer, S (ed.), Communicating the Past in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Methods in Teaching and Learning in Archaeology. London: Ubiquity Press, pp. 115–126. DOI: 10.5334/bch
    Back to article
  12. 12Cooley, D and Parks-Yancy, R. 2016. Impact of traditional and internet/social media screening mechanisms on employers’ perceptions of job applicants. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 5(3): 151–186.
    Back to article
  13. 13Cowgill, GL. 1967. Computer applications in archaeology. Proceedings of the November 14–16, 1967, fall joint computer conference (AFIPS ’67), 331–337. DOI: 10.1145/1465611.1465654
    Back to article
  14. 14DeHass, MKC and Taitt, A. 2018. 3D Technology in Collaborative Heritage Preservation. Museum Anthropology Review, 12(2): 120–152. DOI: 10.14434/mar.v12i2.22428
    Back to article
  15. 15Dennis, LM. 2019. Archaeological Ethics, Video-Games, and Digital Archaeology: A Qualitative Study on Impacts and Intersections. Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of York.
    Back to article
  16. 16European Association of Archaeologists (EAA). 2009. EAA Codes and Principles. Available at: https://www.e-a-a.org/EAA/About/EAA_Codes/EAA/Navigation_About/EAA_Codes.aspx [Last accessed 29 April 29, 2020].
    Back to article
  17. 17Graham, S. 2016. Shawn Graham’s Open Digital Humanities Notebook 2016–17. Available at: https://ir.library.carleton.ca/pub/14187 [Last accessed 29 April 29, 2020].
    Back to article
  18. 18Groarke, L and Warrick, G. 2006. Stewardship gone astray? Ethics and the SAA. In: Scarre, C and Scarre, G (eds.), The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–180. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511817656.010
    Back to article
  19. 19Hassett, BR, Rando, C, Bocaege, E, Durruty, MA, Hirst, C, Smith, S, Ulguim, PF, White, S and Wilson, A. 2018. Transcript of WAC 8 Digital Bioarchaeological Ethics Panel Discussion, 29 August 2016 and Resolution on Ethical Use of Digital Bioarchaeological Data. Archaeologies, 14(2): 1–21. DOI: 10.1007/s11759-018-9343-0
    Back to article
  20. 20Hawkins, K and Rees, C. 2018. RESPECT: Acting Against Harassment in Archaeology, BAJR Guide 44. Available at: http://www.bajr.org/BAJRGuides/44.%20Harrasment/Sexual-Harassment-in-Archaeology.pdf [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  21. 21Hirst, CS, White, S and Smith, SE. 2018. Standardisation in 3D Geometric Morphometrics: Ethics, Ownership, and Methods. Archaeologies, 14(2): 272–298. DOI: 10.1007/s11759-018-9349-7
    Back to article
  22. 22Hollowell, J and Nicholas, G. 2007. Ethical challenges to a postcolonial archaeology: The legacy of scientific colonialism. In: Hamilakis, Y and Duke, P (eds.), Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 59–82.
    Back to article
  23. 23Hollowell, J and Nicholas, G. 2008. A critical assessment of ethnography in archaeology. In: Castañeda, QE and Matthews, CN (eds.), Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices. Lanham MD: Altamira Press, pp. 63–94.
    Back to article
  24. 24Huggett, J. 2017. The Apparatus of Digital Archaeology, Internet Archaeology, 44. DOI: 10.11141/ia.44.7
    Back to article
  25. 25Hynes, M. 2018. Shining a brighter light into the digital ‘black box’: A call for stronger sociological (re)engagement with digital technology design, development and adoption debates. Irish Journal of Sociology, 26(1): 94–126. DOI: 10.1177/0791603517741605
    Back to article
  26. 26Kvamme, K. 2018. Getting Around the Black Box: Teaching (Geophysical) Data Processing through GIS. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1): 74–87. DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.14
    Back to article
  27. 27Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Back to article
  28. 28Michigan State University Institute on Digital Archaeology Method & Practice (MSUDAI). 2015. The Institute on Digital Archaeology Method & Practice. Available at: http://digitalarchaeology.msu.edu/ [Last accessed 29 April 29, 2020].
    Back to article
  29. 29Perry, S. 2015. Changing the Way Archaeologists Work: blogging and the development of expertise. Internet Archaeology, 39. DOI: 10.11141/ia.39.9
    Back to article
  30. 30Perry, S. 2018. Why are Heritage Interpreters Voiceless at the Trowel’s Edge? A Plea for Rewriting the Archaeological Workflow. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(3): 212–227 DOI: 10.1017/aap.2018.21
    Back to article
  31. 31Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA). 2018. Code of Conduct and Standards of Research Performance. Available at: https://rpanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Register-Code.pdf [Last accessed 29 April 29, 2020].
    Back to article
  32. 32Register of Professional Archaeologists and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (RPA/CIfA). 2018. Archaeological Ethics Database. Available at: http://archaeologicalethics.org/ [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  33. 33Richardson, LJ. 2018. Ethical challenges in digital public archaeology. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 1(1): 64–73. DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.13
    Back to article
  34. 34Society for American Archaeology (SAA). 1996. Principles of Archaeological Ethics. Available at: https://www.saa.org/career-practice/ethics-in-professional-archaeology [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  35. 35Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA). 2015. SHA Ethics Principles. Available at: https://sha.org/about-us/ethics-statement/ [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  36. 36Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA). 2018. SHA Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Policy. Available at: https://sha.org/about-us/sha-sexual-harassment-discrimination-policy/ [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  37. 37Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference (TRAC). 2018. TRAC Conduct Policy. Available at: http://trac.org.uk/about/trac-conduct-policy/ [Last accessed 29 April 2020].
    Back to article
  38. 38Ulguim, P. 2018. Models and Metadata: The Ethics of Sharing Bioarchaeological 3D Models Online. Archaeologies, 14(2): 189–228. DOI: 10.1007/s11759-018-9346-x
    Back to article
  39. 39Watkins, J. 2015. An Indigenous Anthropologist’s Perspective on Archaeological Ethics. In: Gnecco, C and Lippert, D (eds.), Ethics and Archaeological Praxis. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 21–26. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1646-7_2
    Back to article
  40. 40White, S, Hirst, C and Smith, SE. 2018. The Suitability of 3D Data: 3D Digitisation of Human Remains. Archaeologies, 14(2): 250–271. DOI: 10.1007/s11759-018-9347-9
    Back to article
  41. 41Williams, H and Atkin, A. 2015 Virtually Dead: Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 40. DOI: 10.11141/ia.40.7.4
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jcaa.24 | Journal eISSN: 2514-8362
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Dec 10, 2018
Accepted on: Apr 28, 2020
Published on: Jul 6, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
digital archaeology,
ethics,
scholarship,
best-practice

© 2020 L. Meghan Dennis, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 3 (2020): Issue 1Next article