What Is Digital Archaeology?

I’m glad you asked that. I’m not altogether sure.

You’re going to need to get comfortable with seeking out good questions rather than finding the right answer.

Archaeologists have been using computers to help ask and answer archaeological questions for almost as long as computers have been around. In fact, I can identify what might be called a computational-frame-of-mind in archaeological writing that predates the emergence of the digital computer. I like to make a distinction though between ‘computational’ and ‘digital’ archaeology. In the former, the computer is a mere tool that permits us to do our archaeological work faster, and more efficient (where efficiency = more: more data, more sites, faster results, etc). In the latter, we also consider what the fact of computation (processing) or digitization (rendering something analog into digital format) does to us ourselves. A digital archaeology is a reflexive archaeological practice that also has something to say to the world beyond the discipline.

Note carefully the title of this course, eh? How might this all play out? The first thing you should do is set yourself a reminder:

When I read something in this class, determine: is this ‘computational’ archaeology or is this ‘digital’?

…and then reflect on the consequences.

Consequences of That Distinction

If our use of digital tools is merely computational, then there is going to be most often just one ‘right’ answer. But if our use of digital tools is reflexive, then there are going to be many answers. Either way, documenting your process is a major part of the intellectual work of this class. Thus, the way this class operates, my philosophy of teaching, and the nature of the assessment exercises all flow from that distinction. Ask yourself: am I ok with being ‘wrong’? Am I ok with talking about my process, and what I’m trying to accomplish?

There are other consequences too. You’ll see it in the names of journals. You’ll see it in the nature of conferences, and where scholars publish their work. You’ll see it in the nature of who gets to publish, who gets cited, and the kinds of work being done. You’ll see it in the politics of technology. I want you to be alive to these issues.

My Goal

My goal here is to teach you to use certain digital techs; to unpack and interrogate those techs you learn to use; and to equip you to use these things in a reflective manner. It’s about archaeology using computation; but also, looking at computation from an archaeological perspective. It’s going to be uncomfortable. There will be things we try here that will not work. The way things break is as important as the way things work. Through broken things, and through breaking things, we learn how the world can be imagined.

Archaeology is World Building

Set some time aside and listen to Dr. Colleen Morgan:

Is this computational archaeology? Or is this digital archaeology? And how does this intersect with your training in history/classics/digital humanities to date? These are things I want to talk about.

Teaching for Uncoverage

As a general philosophy of learning, I do not aim for ‘coverage’. What good would it do you for me to ‘cover’ all of the possible things that digital archaeology might entail? It would always be dishonest: no one can ‘cover’ everything. ‘Coverage’ implies concealing, too, now that I think of it…

Rather, I am trying to help you learn the skills that you will need to uncover whatever aspect of method and thought that will help you with your research goals. A big part of that is trying to teach how to deal with what might feel like ‘failure’, on first blush. I want you to swing for the bleachers, and not to be afraid of whiffing on the ball. After all, to mix sporting metaphors, you’re here for ice-time, not the Stanley Cup.

On another note, this course originally was intended to be a kind of hybrid course, blending face to face work in the classroom with resources and digital tools. Then it moved online, asyncronously for a number of years. The last time I did that (Fall 2025), I was disappointed with how many people were unwilling to try to learn and who submitted AI-sloppified ‘personal’ reflections. WTF. It was deeply disappointing.

If you go to the gymn, and a machine lifts the weights for you, you look a bit of a dork if you then turn around and say, ‘I sure worked out hard!’

If you want your mind to develop, you have to do the hard exercises.

Which Brings Us to ‘AI’

There will be points in this course where it is appropriate to use ‘ai’ as a word calculator or pattern-surfacer. There are ways of using machine learning and other related technologies in archaeology that are relatively without controversy; these are not ‘ai’ as currently marketed/hyped. AI, as you’ve encountered it in copilot, chatgpt, claude, or wherever else, promises the ease of thoughts without thinkers, writing without writers. Who does that ultimately benefit, hmm?

If you are ever in doubt about all things AI, just check with me first, ok? If - and only if - you clear it with me first, we can put together some guardrails and guidance. There are places where the technology of the LLM can be useful for archaeological research; I wrote an entire book about it, free for you to download. Again, talk to me first, ok? You might be surprised at what we could do.

I really would enjoy talking about this with you! But it really sucks that I have to say the following:

It is never appropriate to use such things (ChatGPT, Claude, etc) to ‘speak’ for you. Writing is thinking. Writing is hard precisely because we don’t know what we’re thinking until we write it down. The difficulty is the point.

If you sloppify your thinking, you’re just wasting your time and ruining your mind making yourself less capable. There are political reasons why ai-in-lieu of thinking for ourselves is being so heavily pushed in the world.

You may not use AI tools to ‘write’ any text submitted to me, without prior documented clearance and planning. I reserve the right to ask you to reproduce or deepen the line of thought in any piece of submitted work in person (via oral interview or hand-written document), whereupon grades will be adjusted accordingly.

For clarity, here ‘AI’ = any large language model-powered software stack.

As Lady Gaga Never Sang:

I want your shitty prose, your broken thoughts. That’s the whole reason I am a professor: to help you exercise and develop your mind. It’s not about getting something ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It’s about helping you understand the processes involved and what they do to our ability to see the past and reason in the present. If you go look at the assessment section now, you’ll see how this plays out in practice: what, exactly, will you be expected to do in this course? (Now: if you’ve read this far, send me an email with ‘why? why yes!’ as the subject line, stating that you have in fact read and thought about this page, that you’re ready to start the course, and tell me which week you’re most looking forward to and why. They say that people do not read very much any more; you’re going to read a lot in this class if you’re doing it right.)

(…the thing with the pointing hand? That’s called a ‘manicule’. I just like them.)