You are on page 1of 16

RMISCH-GERMANISCHE KOMMISSION, FRANKFURT A.M.

des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts

Integrating Archaeology
Science Wish Reality
International Conference on the Social Role, Possibilities and Perspectives of Classical Studies
Papers held in Frankfurt a. M. on 1214 June 2012

edited by Nina Schcker

Rmisch-Germanische Kommission Frankfurt a. M. 2012

XVI und 254 Seiten, 124 Abbildungen und 2 Tabellen

Funded by the Culture (20072013) Programme of the European Commission

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Dieses Projekt wurde mit Mitteln der Europischen Kommission finanziert. Die Verantwortung fr den Inhalt dieser Verffentlichung tragen allein die Verfasser; die Kommission haftet nicht fr die weitere Verwendung der darin enthaltenen Angaben.

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek http//dnb.ddb.de Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber <http//dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar

2012 by Rmisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts Frankfurt a. M. Redaktion: Nadine Baumann, Nina Schcker, Susanne Sievers, Laura Weszkalnys, Christina Kstner und Katrin Schreiner Grafik und Layout: Kirstine Ruppel und Anke Reuter Satz und Druck: druckhaus kthen GmbH, Kthen gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier

ISBN 9783-000396618

Content
Nina Schcker Integrating archaeology in contemporary Europe Preface XI

Integrating archaeology: community and public


Kostas Kasvikis, Eleftheria Theodoroudi and Kostas Kotsakis The past and the public History and monuments in the Aristotelous Axis, Thessaloniki (Greece) Micha Pawleta The past in the present The case of the ancient stone rings in Pomerania (Poland) Nicole Rodrigues Saint-Denis, archaeology, territory and citizenship (Archologie, territoire et citoyennet) Assessment and prospects Raimund Karl The public? Which public? Cath Neal Community archaeology in the UK Setting the agenda Gerhard Ermischer Digging up history A case study from the Spessart (Germany) Xurxo M. Ayn Vila Public archaeology, democracy and community Experiences from Iron Age hillforts at Galicia (Spain) Monique H. van den Dries and Sjoerd J. van der Linde Collecting oral histories for the purpose of stimulating community involvement at Tell Balata (Palestine) Karl-Friedrich Rittershofer Volunteering and fundraising Excavations in the Dnsberg oppidum in the vicinity of Gieen (Germany) Daniel Burger and Sabine Kuhlmann Opportunities and limitations Working within an association as a way to support post-graduates Sylvie Jrmie Indigenous people of the American French Territory (the case of French Guiana) Processes and dynamics of identity construction through archaeology 3

17 23

29

35

41

49

57

63

69

Integrating archaeology: different approaches


Stefanie Samida Reenacted prehistory today Preliminary remarks on a multidisciplinary research project Birgit Jaeckel Archaeological story-telling Facts in fiction 75

81

Maria and Jrg Courtial Making history emotionally tangible with the help of digital reconstruction Wolfgang Meier and Kurt Frank Temporary archaeologists Matthias Jung Case studies on the motivations of amateur archaeologists Christoph Scholz Virtual archaeology The concept and implementation of an extraordinary touring exhibition

87

91

95

103

Integrating archaeology: all ages


Peter Lautzas Archaeology in the German education system Issues and requests from a practical perspective Miriam Sncheau Digging in the books Finding interactions between archaeology, politics and education by textbook research Kostas Kasvikis Prehistory in Greek primary education 19752012 Representations of a mythic and Hellenised past Ulrike Radke Pick n mix! On the diversity of educational programmes in archaeological exhibitions Bernd Werner Schmitt Archaeology A meeting of generations Jenny Linke Experiencing our industrial heritage at every age Programmes for older citizens at the LWL-Industry Museum 111

115

121

127

131

135

Integrating archaeology: working world and economic issues


Franz Schafranski and Katrin Wunderlich EU demonstration project LIMES Promotion of cultural tourism in rural areas by means of mobile services Michaela Reinfeld and Gzden Varinliog lu Maritime archaeology versus diving tourism Cultural heritage management in Kas (Turkey) Sandra Hatz and Wolfgang Dietz The primeval entrepreneurs In the Bavarian Forest, the bfz runs the Celtic village of Gabreta Maria Theresia Starzmann The political economy of archaeology Fieldwork, labor politics and neocolonial practices Barbara Wewerka and Alexandra Krenn-Leeb ASINOE Over 20 years of experience in a socially integrative employment project 143

147

155

159

163

VI

Alexandra Krenn-Leeb and Barbara Wewerka BALANCE Promoting health and occupational safety as integrative parameters in archaeology Christian Kaster Archaeology at a rural municipal level

167 175

Integrating archaeology: excluded groups


Christian Soldner and Stefanie Schween Curiosity, challenge and the wish to leave traces Why do young men help to build a Celtic house Rachael Kiddey Id never thought about me being part of the history. The value of heritage work with socially excluded people 181

185

Integrating archaeology: ethnic groups


Achim Mller Bridging the gap Understanding and evaluating the role of Value in Audience Development Christine Gerbich and Susan Kamel Welcome on the Diwan! Experiences with the visitor panel of the Museum fr Islamische Kunst at the Pergamonmuseum in Berlin (Germany) Maria Pia Guermandi Museums as Places for Intercultural Dialogue Experiences, reflections and practices from Europe and Emilia Romagna Silvia Rckert Evet ja, ich will! Wedding traditions and fashion from 1800 to the present: AGerman-Turkish encounter An exhibition on cultural history as a contribution to intercultural exchange Eva Rusch Second Home Cologne (Zweite Heimat Kln) How to engage new population groups with their Municipal Museum 193

199

205

213

221

Integrating archaeology: new media


Patrick Hadley Web 2.0 as a communication tool between archaeologists and beyond Diane Scherzler On humility, power shift and cultural change Archaeology on Web 2.0 sites Tinne Jacobs De Kogge (Antwerp, Belgium), testimony of a medieval shipwreck Never too old for social media Marcus Cyron Wikipedian in Residence at the German Archaeological Institute 231

237

241 249

VII

Inhalt
Nina Schcker Integrating archaeology in contemporary Europe Vorwort XI

Integrating archaeology: Gesellschaft und ffentlichkeit


Kostas Kasvikis, Eleftheria Theodoroudi und Kostas Kotsakis Die Vergangenheit und die ffentlichkeit Geschichte und Denkmler entlang der Aristoteles-Achse in Thessaloniki (Griechenland) Micha Pawleta Die Vergangenheit als Teil der Gegenwart berlegungen am Beispiel der Steinkreise in Pommern (Polen) Nicole Rodrigues Saint-Denis, Archologie, Stadt und Einwohner (archologie, territoire et citoyennet) Bilanz und Perspektiven Raimund Karl Die ffentlichkeit? Welche ffentlichkeit? 3

17 23

Cath Neal Community archaeology im Vereinigten Knigreich Agendasetzung 29 Gerhard Ermischer Geschichte ausgraben Eine Fallstudie im Spessart (Deutschland) Xurxo M. Ayn Vila Public archaeology, Demokratie und Gesellschaft Projekte zu eisenzeitlichen Hhensiedlungen in Galicien (Spanien) Monique H. van den Dries und Sjoerd J. van der Linde Erinnerungen sammeln, um Verbundenheit zu strken Oral History am Tell Balata (Palstina) Karl-Friedrich Rittershofer Ehrenamt und Fundraising Ausgrabungen im keltischen Oppidum auf dem Dnsberg bei Gieen (Deutschland) Daniel Burger und Sabine Kuhlmann Mglichkeiten und Grenzen Vereinsarbeit als Chance zur Frderung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses Sylvie Jrmie Indigene Vlker in den amerikanischen bersee gebieten Frankreichs (am Beispiel von Franzsisch-Guayana) Zu Prozessen und Dynamiken der Identittsbildung durch Archologie

35

41

49

57

63

69

Integrating archaeology: unterschiedliche Herangehensweisen


Stefanie Samida Vergangenheit erleben Vorberlegungen zu einem multidisziplinren Forschungsprojekt Birgit Jaeckel Archologisches Erzhlen Fakten in der Fiktion 75

VIII

81

Maria und Jrg Courtial Geschichte emotional erfahrbar machen Die digitale Rekonstruktion Wolfgang Meier und Kurt Frank Archologen auf Zeit Matthias Jung Fallstudien zu den Motivlagen von Hobbyarchologen Christoph Scholz Virtuelle Archologie Konzept und Durchfhrung einer auergewhnlichen Tourneeausstellung

87 91 95

103

Integrating archaeology: alle Altersstufen


Peter Lautzas Die Archologie im deutschen Bildungswesen Fragen und Wnsche an die Archologie aus der Praxis Miriam Sncheau Archologie im Dienste von Politik und Bildungsauftrag? Was Archologen finden, wenn sie Schulbuchforschung betreiben Kostas Kasvikis Die Vorgeschichte im Unterricht an griechischen Grundschulen 19752012 Darstellungen einer mythischen, hellenisierten Vergangenheit Ulrike Radke Bitte recht bunt! Von der Vielfalt der Vermittlungsangebote in archologischen Ausstellungen Bernd Werner Schmitt Archologie Ein Treffen der Generationen Jenny Linke Industriekultur erleben in jedem Alter Angebote fr Senioren am LWL-Industriemuseum 111

115

121

127

131

135

Integrating archaeology: Arbeitswelt und wirtschaftliche Aspekte


Franz Schafranski und Katrin Wunderlich EU-Demonstrationsprojekt LIMES Frderung des Kulturtourismus in lndlichen Regionen durch mobile Dienstleistungen Michaela Reinfeld und Gzden Varinliog lu Unterwasserarchologie versus Tauchtourismus Denkmalpflege in Kas (Trkei) Sandra Hatz und Wolfgang Dietz Die Ur-Unternehmer Das bfz betreibt im Bayerischen Wald das Keltendorf Gabreta Maria Theresia Starzmann Die politische konomie der Archologie Feldarbeit, Arbeitspolitik und neokoloniale Praktiken Barbara Wewerka und Alexandra Krenn-Leeb ASINOE ber 20 Jahre Erfahrung in einem sozialintegrativen Beschftigungsprojekt 143

147

155

159

163

IX

Alexandra Krenn-Leeb und Barbara Wewerka BALANCE Gesundheitsfrderung und Arbeitssicherheit als integrative Parameter in der Archologie Christian Kaster Archologie auf kommunaler Ebene

167 175

Integrating archaeology: ausgeschlossene Gruppen


Christian Soldner und Stefanie Schween Neugier, Herausforderung und der Wunsch, Spuren zu hinterlassen Warum junge Mnner helfen, ein Keltenhaus zu bauen Rachael Kiddey Ich hab nie darber nachgedacht, Teil der Geschichte zu sein. Die Bedeutung von Kulturerbe-Arbeit mit Menschen, die von sozialer Ausgrenzung betroffen sind 181

185

Integrating archaeology: ethnische Gruppen


Achim Mller Gegenstze berwinden Wie man einem erlebnisorientiertem Publikum Identifikation und Verbundenheit anbietet Christine Gerbich und Susan Kamel Willkommen auf dem Diwan! Erfahrungen mit dem Besucherpanel des Museums fr Islamische Kunst im Pergamonmuseum, Berlin (Deutschland) Maria Pia Guermandi Museen als Pltze interkulturellen Dialogs Beispiele aus Europa und der Emilia Romagna Silvia Rckert Evet Ja, ich will! Hochzeitskultur und Mode von 1800 bis heute: Eine deutsch-trkische Begegnung Eine kulturgeschichtliche Ausstellung als Beitrag zum interkulturellen Austausch Eva Rusch Zweite Heimat Kln Wie man neue Bevlkerungsgruppen fr ihr Stadtmuseum begeistert 193

199

205

213

221

Integrating archaeology: Neue Medien


Patrick Hadley Web 2.0 als Kommunikationsmittel zwischen Archologen und der ffentlichkeit Diane Scherzler Von Demut, Machtverschiebungen und einem Kulturwandel Archologie in Web-2.0-Umgebungen Tinne Jacobs De Kogge (Antwerpen, Belgien), Aussage eines mittelalterlichen Wracks Niemals zu alt fr Soziale Medien Marcus Cyron Der Wikipedian in Residence am Deutschen Archologischen Institut 231

237

241 249

Integrating archaeology:
new media

Archaeology Data Service hardware museum, ADS, University of York, UK.


Buch edition.

Web2.0 as a communication tool between


archaeologists and beyond
Patrick Hadley Department of Archaeology at the University of York

Computers and the internet are now as embedded in the professional lives of European archaeologists as they are in the daily lives of most Europeans. However, much of the use of this new technology unreflexively mimics usagepatterns from previous technologies and fails to make the most of the tools now available. This is particularly true of the group of tools known as web2.0. These tools present the opportunity to break down traditional structures of communication within research process and research output. This can have profound effects both within expert communities and when archaeologists are communicating with broader audiences. Using case studies from mywork focused on Mesolithic archaeology Ihope to illustrate how intelligent use can help archaeologists overcome certain obstacles and maximise the benefits available from web2.0 tools. Web2.0 is a term for a collection of technologies that integrate multi-vocal, many-to-many communication facilities within websites, transforming the internet from an interconnected collection of digital documents into a vast and complex communication ecosystem in which anyone can contribute almost as easily as they can consume. Typical web2.0 services include social networks (such asFacebook and Twitter), blogging, wiki services (such as Wikipedia) and tools that make non-text data (e.g.maps) interactive (such as Google Maps). The term does not refer to stan dardised technology but to tools built to enable interactivity, openness and collaboration through using the web itself as a platform. Before understanding the potential of web2.0 for archaeologists use it is useful to understand some aspects of current media use and communication patterns in academic archaeology

(developer-led archaeology is similar but slightly more complex). One can perceive a division in academic work into two parts: research process and research output. Research process is everything from experiments, data collection and analysis to networking, discussion and informal communication. Research output includes journal articles, conference papers, books, press releases and television/ radio, such materials are clearly not all intended for all audiences. In the late 20thcentury this division became fairly rigid and remains so: research process is typically fluid, ephemeral, fairly private, loose with referencing and informal and is produced within expert communities (universities andsoon). Research output is the opposite, static, permanent and public: its various forms are consumed by both expert and nonexpert communities but generally designed for one or the other. Many 20thcentury media forms have been utterly transformed by the growth of the internet. Journalism, music, advertising, radio and film have each gone through significant changes with many major institutions having to transform themselves or lose their prominence or even existence. Inacademia (particularly archaeology) this is not generally the case: research process remains the preserve of expert communities and much research output is channelled through major institutions such as scholarly publishers (Elsevier, WileyBlackwell, etc.) or press agencies (e.g.ThompsonReuters). However, the ability to communicate more rapidly, cost-effectively and openly through web2.0 platforms is beginning to have an influence and actually reflects needs of archaeologists that have existed for several decades.

231

1 This data shows survey respondents attitudes to various web-based tools for MM. The circle size represents the number of respondents in each category (max124).

In 1978 Potsdam, Germany hosted the 2nd International Mesolithic Studies Conference and was attended by around 70archaeologists keen to strengthen and accelerate the flow of communications across borders. In 1980 one of these archaeologists, T.DouglasPrice founded Mesolithic Miscellany (MM), an informal journalcum-newsletter as a means of maintaining the speedy communication of research reports, book reviews, national synopses of recent excavations and research, statements for debate, conference summaries, important radiocarbon dates, announcements and summaries or abstracts of recent publications to inform readers of current developments in the field (Price1990,16). MMclearly encompasses information that could be considered elements of research process as well as more traditional research output. It was typed, glued together, photocopied and mailed by hand by the editor and its informality was reinforced by the occasional humorous article or editorial. Over the years MMgrew with the Mesolithic studies community but this eventually led to the over-stretching the informal mode of production and it ceased for ten years in1996. In2006, after another international conference (this time in Belfast, UK and with more than 200attendees) MMwas restarted byNickyMilner as an electronic publication with avery similar purpose

(onlinesource1). Now, the internet effectively removed the barriers cost and time that had made MMuntenable in print. However, the form was virtually identical to the original: bi-annual publications as asingle document containing articles, news and all other content. Web2.0 tools were not explored as possibilities for supplementing the community-hub role ofMM though a discussion board was suggested by reviewers (Warren2007). The reasons for this lack of uptake are excellent illustrations of the typical barriers to changes in the use of communication technologies: skill, resources and social willing. In order to learn about archaeologists attitudes to these issues asurvey of the MMuser-community was conducted and 124responses were analysed (Hadley2011, chapter5). The responses illustrated a number of interesting trends in users attitudes but the text in hand focuses on their views on the potential of certain web2.0 tools (Fig.1). The tools can be divided into four categories: Research resources a bibliography of Mesolithic literature; a shared databank of primary site data; a wiki of Mesolithic sites, information and data. Social and discussion services a social networking feature; a discussion board, chat or videochat facility.

232

Multimedia services a collaborative map of European Mesolithic sites; a photo/image bank (for use in lectures and so on). Improving the journal an index of the MMarchive; searchable versions of the MMarchive; a wiki function through which to produce forthcoming issuesofMM; translations of the MMarchive. Figure1 shows a summary representation of the users attitudes to these tools (for full details see Hadley2011,7476). Though survey attitudes and actual behaviour are likely to be different, the differences between the Iwould contribute to this and the Imight find this useful responses help identify the tools most likely to generate active engagement. For example, the bibliography and collaborative map get the highest scores for Imight contribute to this and Imight find this useful whilst the scores for the index or searchable versions of the archive indicate that users would like to see the end results but have little enthusiasm for doing the necessary work. One aspect of some of the most popular proposed tools (the map, image bank and wiki) is that they are very flexible tools for use and consumption by non-expert audiences. This seemed more relevant to the current MMcommunity as unlike the1980scommunity it now appears to contain around 20%non-archaeologists (26of the124surveyed). For these enthusiastic nonexperts, accessible, free-to-use tools are very beneficial for their understanding of the discipline as awhole. Such people are also a key target for the announcement of the latest findings from the period, and unlike more popular areas of archaeology (such as classical civilisations) the mainstream press are less likely to give much attention to the Mesolithic making web2.0tools crucial for archaeologists to disseminate their findings. One such story is an excellent example of the mechanisms that affect the spread of such stories through the web. In September2011 underwater archaeologists from Aarhus University, Moesgrd Museum and Horsens Museum recovered a lateMesolithic paddle from the sea-floor in Horsens Fjord, Denmark. They first reported the find on the Moesgrd Museums Maritime Archaeology blog (online source2) on23.9.2011. This triggered a complex pattern of dissemination through formal hubs and informal sharing over the following few months. Though only one example, this illustrates some of the issues of trust, reputation, audience and serendipity that affect the spread of such stories through web2.0 services.

The next development in the paddles story was a post about the paddles cleaning and conservation that was posted on14.11.2011 with a picture of the decorated blade and ashort description of the discovery context (online source3). This post had one comment from a user asking for more photographs of the ornamentation, demonstrating that the blogs audience, though likely to be small, is enthusiastic and curious about the archaeological work. Next, the Moesgrd Museum team post a video on YouTube (online source4) this was embedded on their own site and that of Horsens Museum, this short simple video showed conservators cleaning the paddle in the lab. Initially these posts gained very little attention views of the YouTube video remained below100. Museum sites are not typically regarded as news hubs and one would expect the majority of visitors to be planning a trip to the museum rather than following the research of its conservators. However, there may be a core community of interested people who greatly appreciate the opportunity to keep up-to-date with such work. Posting a YouTube video and a short blog post is certainly more cost-effective than inviting such people in for a public lecture and one might argue that web2.0 tools have already succeeded at community engagement at this stage. This story did not stop at this point, next it was picked up by the Danish heritage agency (Kulturarvsstyrelsens) and recognised as one of Denmarks top ten archaeological sites of2011 (online source5). However, the story is difficult to access and it is unlikely that this generated attention beyond the professional heritage community that is the websites target audience. The story breaks out into the mainstream with apost onVidenskab.dk, aDanish magazine-style science website that covers a diverse range of material and is aimed at a general audience. On12.2.2012 Videnskab.dk published an article on Horsens Fjord paddle by general science writer SybilleHildebrandt(2012). Between its publication and23.4.2012 the article received 6,708views (S.Hildebrandt, pers.comm.) This immediately led to a massive growth in the YouTube view number (at the time of writing this was 1,535views: the largest source by a factor of roughly three). Further, we can see that the article has been liked77times on Facebook and shared seven times on Twitter. This means that 77readers chose to share the article with their friends on Facebook and seven with their Twitter followers, thereby multiplying the potential audience of the article with a single click. There are also four comments on the article, all posted within 24hours of publication. These are generally basic observations about the shape of the paddle or how our idea of aStone Age is biased by the fact that we rarely recover such items.

233

The Videnskab.dk article was syndicated into two other similar science websites: Forskning.no (inNorwegian) on21.2.2012 (online source6) and ScienceNordic (in English) on14.2.2012 (online source7). The Forskning.no article led to 183views of the YouTube video but the site does not provide data on sharing via social media. The ScienceNordic translation was viewed by1,559people (up to23.4.2012, S.Hildebrant, pers.comm.) and contributed 222views to the YouTube video. The article page showed 141Facebook likes and ten direct shares on Twitter. The story was shared on ScienceNordics own Facebook page (to 607fans) and was liked once and shared once. In terms of audience numbers, the story is clearly much more successful on these general sites than it had been on the museums own websites. This is a clear demonstration that although archaeological organisations can benefit from creating their own platforms on web2.0services (blogs, YouTube channels, Facebook pages and so on) it is also crucial to exploit existing, trusted services with larger audiences if one wants to generate more attention. Agood understanding of the relevant services science sites, cultural sites, news sites is important, but one cannot assume that a journalist will be available to write an accessible story without misunderstandings. In the pre-web world an academic archaeologist might get help summarising major findings from apress officer but with the pace of work and the diversity of interests it is often best to find the skills needed to write for a general audience within the project. One crucial aspect of the ScienceNordic story is that it is the first publication of the story in English and acts as a seed for a much wider spread of sharing through less formal web2.0 services. Past Horizons is an archaeology news site that mostly publishes UK-focused stories. However, it has an agreement with ScienceNordic that enables it to syndicate the sites content (D.Connolly, pers.comm.). This generally takes the form of a brief summary on Past Horizons with some pictures and alink through to the original piece. This has been a very effective agreement and led to several exceptionally popular posts for Past Horizons. Most articles on Past Horizons attract 3,0005,000viewers but several from ScienceNordic have approached or exceeded10,000 (D.Connolly, pers.comm.). The Horsens Fjord article (online source8) has not currently (20.4.2012) exceeded 5,000views but has a higher than average number of people clicking through to the ScienceNordic article than normal (592,noaverage provided: D.Connolly, pers.comm.). The Past Horizons posts accounts for 469views of the YouTube video. Past Horizons maximises its use of social

media. The site shows 148Facebook likes and 34tweets. Other services are shown: Google+ (eightshares: asocial network operated by Google that has similar functions to Facebook and tends to be most popular with technology enthusiasts), LinkedIn (one share: asocial network for professional contacts) and Reddit (35likes:a social link sharing service). The Past Horizons post also generates further blog posts covering the Horsens Fjord finds. Firstly on Tumblr (a blogging service that emphasises short posts that can be shared and passed on asteppingstone between Twitter and full blogging): The Archaeologist and Archaeological News2 each copy the Past Horizons text verbatim and then link to it. This facilitates reblogging (copying) by at least 10other Tumblr users and 16likes. The Past Horizons story is also posted (verbatim) on the news pages of GrahamHancocks website: anotorious hub for pseudo-archaeology. For what they were we are is an Englishlanguage, Spanish-run blog that generally covers ancient DNA, the blog posts its own version of the Horsens Fjord story. This post attracts four enthusiastic comments and the blog author takes the time to respond to two of them in detail. The final blog post is triggered by For what they were we are and appears on Spanishlanguage prehistory news site Palaeorama. This post contains two pictures, the YouTube video (it accounts for 17views) and a link to For what they were we are. Further there is a large amount of activity related to the Horsens Fjord paddle discovery on Twitter and Facebook that follow the Past Horizons article. The complexities of these processes are difficult to examine with only the context from a single news item but it is important to recognise that they lead to not only increased volume but increased diversity of audience. Past Horizons maximises the chances of the story being picked up on these services by enabling sharing facilities on their website and by posting about the story on their own Facebook and Twitter presences. In fact, it was through Twitter that Imyself came across the story and later shared it with the Mesolithic Miscellany usercommunity through the MMFacebook page (online source9). This was extremely well received but also demonstrates the irony that a specific piece of Mesolithic research process takes several months to reach an enthusiast community through public, de-centred web2.0services because the community has not sufficiently made use of these tools that sharing news through such services is an effective channel within the community. The Horsens Fjord example contains many of the elements typical to the sharing of information on web2.0 services in the wild and provides an interesting contrast to the difficulties encountered

234

in making these tools function for the MMcommunity. Social context is always crucial to understanding use of technology and media and most archaeologists engaged in computing have pragmatically focused on the potential of web2.0 for data processing and analysis (e.g.Kansa/ Kansa/ Watrall2011) rather than communication and dissemination. Web2.0 tools for communication and dissemination within, and beyond the discipline, are far less technologically challenging than 3Dscanning or advanced GIS, but have potential to subvert established correspondence and dissemination institutions making them more socially challenging to those entangled in traditional infrastructure. Web2.0 tools fast, informal, cheap and engineered for groups seem an ideal fit for researchers to connect more effectively with one another and with the wider world. To paraphrase MMsoriginal mission, web2.0 enables readers to become writers, helps others enjoy reading about your work, enables the sharing of all sorts of content and ultimately can help drive the discipline forward.

About the author


Patrick Hadley has a diploma in Professional Archaeological Studies and aBSc in Archaeology from Bradford University, as well as an MA in Mesolithic Studies from the University of York. He was co-awarded the J.J.RaperPrize for his undergraduate dissertation and also has vocational qualifications in graphic design and photography. He is interested in prehistory, multi-sensory dissemination, public engagement and digital media (not necessarily in that order). His core archaeological interest is in European prehistory, particularly the Mesolithic. This is reflected in his current PhD research, his undergraduate research and his participation in fieldwork at StarCarr. You can also find more of his musings at his research-related blog Think|Dig|Write|Share. He has a keen interest in archaeologists moving beyond text in all of their work: from data recording and analysis (e.g.3Dand spatial data) to academic dissemination and public engagement. Archaeology has a good track record for engaging with visual material but not always in the most sophisticated manner. The disciplines relationship with sound, haptics, kinaesthetics and so on, is generally in need of more attention. Archaeology has had a traditional remit as a discipline which conserves and records first and engages wider audiences second (ifatall). He thinks that this is counterproductive after all, who are we recording and preserving for? Adiscipline that does not engage in broader dialogues with diverse audiences will have little support in funding crises and has little social justification beyond its own enclave. He is keenly interested in how archaeologists use new media both as public engagement tools and within expert communities. He is a keen advocate of Open Access publishing in academia and recently signed the Open Access Pledge. He is aWikipedia evangelist and believes it is one of the most positive projects for knowledge organisation the internet has produced. His Wikipedia user page shows a little of his work. He can also (often) be found ranting on twitter: @PatHadley.

Web 2.0 als Kommunikations mittel zwischen Archologen und der ffentlichkeit
Nicht nur hinsichtlich der Kosten, sondern auch, was die dafr notwendigen Fhigkeiten und den Arbeitsaufwand betrifft, wird es immer einfacher, Inhalte im Internet bereitzustellen, zu betreuen und miteinander zu verbinden. In vielen Teilen Europas haben bereits ber 70%der Bevlkerung Zugang zum Internet, und der virtuelle Raum entwickelt sich zur wichtigsten Plattform fr Medien- und Informationsdienstleistungen. Dies hat die Medienindustrie stark verndert, z.B. die Musikbranche und den Journalismus. Im Vergleich dazu blieb die Archologie eine Insel, wo nur geringe Auswirkungen sprbar sind und nur wenige die Mglichkeiten dieser Technologie bedenken. Der Beitrag untersucht, ob das Web2.0 Wege bietet, die Kommunikation innerhalb der professionellen Altertumsforschung mit der Information von Nicht-Wissenschaftlern zu verbinden. Anhand von Beispielen werden praktische Fragen angesprochen (z.B. ob Twitter, Facebook, Flickr undCo. in diesem Zusammenhang geeignet sind) und theoretische Elemente diskutiert (soziale Integration, Zustndigkeiten, Fachwissen, um einige Stichworte zu nennen). Die Technologie des Internets macht das Verstndnis von Gemeinschaft und Publikum nicht einfacher, aber es bietet zahlreiche neue Mglichkeiten, verschiedene Gruppen in unterschiedlicher Weise an Archologie zu beteiligen.

Bibliography
Hadley 2011 P. Hadley, Mesolithic Europe a Historiographic Basis: The impact of media, research cultures and international collaboration on Mesolithic studies: past, present and future. Masters Dissertation, University of York 2011. Hildebrandt 2012 S. Hildebrandt, Paddelrer og bue fundet p undersisk stenalderboplads. videnskab.dk, 12.2.2012. Online: http://videnskab.dk/node 14694 (viewed 19.4.2012).

235

Kansa/Kansa/Watrall 2011 E.C.Kansa/ S.W.Kansa/ E.Watrall, Archaeology2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration. Cotsen Digital Archaeology Series (Los Angeles 2011). Online: http://www.escholarship.org/ uc/item/1r6137tb (viewed 14.8.2012). Price 1990 T.D.Price, From the Editor [submissions]. Mesolithic Miscellany11.2,1990,16. Warren 2007 G. Warren, The 80s revival continues: Review of Mesolithic Miscellany website. Internet Archaeology22,2007. Online: http://intarch. ac.uk/journal/issue22/reviews/warren.html (viewed25.11.2010).

4 http://youtu.be/l2IoaxSNL1s 5 http://www.kulturarv.dk/fortidsminder/oplev-ilandskabet/top-10-aarets-fund-2011/ 6 http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2012/ februar/313372 7 http://sciencenordic.com/organic-toolsfound-stone-age-camp 8 http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/ archives/04/2012/a-mesolithic-villagebeneath-the-waves 9 https://www.facebook.com/Mesolithic. Miscellany (all viewed 14.8.2012). Patrick Hadley Department of Archaeology University of York Kings Manor York, YO1 7EP United Kingdom ph618@york.ac.uk

Online sources
1 https://sites.google.com/site/mesolithicmis cellany/ 2 http://marinmoesmus.wordpress.com/2011/ 09/23/horsens-fjord-2011 3 http://marinmoesmus.wordpress.com/2011/ 11/14/efterbearbejdning/ Illustration credit 1 P. Hadley.

236