Verso una comunicazione sistemica nei musei archeologici: Il ruolo degli strumenti digitali: caratteristiche e modelli.
Campetella, P.
Ph.D. Thesis, [Université d'Avignon], 2016.
link
bibtex
@phdthesis{campetella_verso_2016,
address = {[Université d'Avignon]},
title = {Verso una comunicazione sistemica nei musei archeologici: {Il} ruolo degli strumenti digitali: caratteristiche e modelli},
shorttitle = {Verso una comunicazione sistemica nei musei archeologici},
author = {Campetella, Paolo},
year = {2016},
}
Archaeology, the Digital Humanities, and the “Big Tent”.
Watrall, E.
In Gold, M. K.; and Klein, L. F., editor(s),
Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016, pages 345–358. University of Minnesota Press, 2016.
![Archaeology, the Digital Humanities, and the “Big Tent” [link]](//bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "Paper")
Paper
doi
link
bibtex
abstract
@incollection{watrall_archaeology_2016,
title = {Archaeology, the {Digital} {Humanities}, and the “{Big} {Tent}”},
isbn = {978-0-8166-9954-4},
url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1cn6thb.31},
abstract = {There has been much discussion about “the big tent” as the metaphor that defines and delineates the boundaries of the digital humanities. In some cases, such as at the University College London Centre for Digital Humanities (Warwick et al.), the “big tent” is framed quite broadly, defined not by traditional disciplinary boundaries but by practice. Kathleen Fitzpatrick,¹ on the other hand, defines the “big tent” as “a nexus of fields within which scholars use computing technologies to investigate the kinds of questions that are traditional to the humanities, or, as is more true of [her] own work, who ask traditional},
language = {en},
urldate = {2021-03-07},
booktitle = {Debates in the {Digital} {Humanities} 2016},
publisher = {University of Minnesota Press},
author = {Watrall, Ethan},
editor = {Gold, Matthew K. and Klein, Lauren F.},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.5749/j.ctt1cn6thb.31},
pages = {345--358},
}
There has been much discussion about “the big tent” as the metaphor that defines and delineates the boundaries of the digital humanities. In some cases, such as at the University College London Centre for Digital Humanities (Warwick et al.), the “big tent” is framed quite broadly, defined not by traditional disciplinary boundaries but by practice. Kathleen Fitzpatrick,¹ on the other hand, defines the “big tent” as “a nexus of fields within which scholars use computing technologies to investigate the kinds of questions that are traditional to the humanities, or, as is more true of [her] own work, who ask traditional
Jean-Claude Gardin on Archaeological Data, Representation and Knowledge: Implications for Digital Archaeology.
Dallas, C.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 23(1): 305–330. March 2016.
Paper
doi
link
bibtex
abstract
@article{dallas_jean-claude_2016,
title = {Jean-{Claude} {Gardin} on {Archaeological} {Data}, {Representation} and {Knowledge}: {Implications} for {Digital} {Archaeology}},
volume = {23},
issn = {1573-7764},
shorttitle = {Jean-{Claude} {Gardin} on {Archaeological} {Data}, {Representation} and {Knowledge}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3},
doi = {10.1007/s10816-015-9241-3},
abstract = {This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin’s distinctive approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural semantics and his grounding in fields as diverse as documentation, classification theory, material culture studies, argumentation theory and the philosophy of the human sciences. Pointing at Gardin’s ambivalence vis-à-vis the promises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology, it shows that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist conception of archaeological research, recognizing the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices and the complementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist programme as a relevant contribution to the development of an archaeological “theory of practice”, grounded on reflexivity and modesty vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism, and highlights aspects of Gardin’s work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2020-06-12},
journal = {Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory},
author = {Dallas, Costis},
month = mar,
year = {2016},
pages = {305--330},
}
This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin’s distinctive approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural semantics and his grounding in fields as diverse as documentation, classification theory, material culture studies, argumentation theory and the philosophy of the human sciences. Pointing at Gardin’s ambivalence vis-à-vis the promises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology, it shows that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist conception of archaeological research, recognizing the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices and the complementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist programme as a relevant contribution to the development of an archaeological “theory of practice”, grounded on reflexivity and modesty vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism, and highlights aspects of Gardin’s work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.
![Digital Cultural Heritage [link]](http://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "Paper")