S1461957119000238jra 398..414
EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer,
Feminist and Inclusive Digital
Archaeologies
KATHERINE COOK
Department of Anthropology, University of Montreal, Canada
Inclusive approaches to archaeology (including queer, feminist, black, indigenous, etc. perspectives) have
increasingly intersected with coding, maker, and hacker cultures to develop a uniquely ‘Do-It-Yourself’
style of disruption and activism. Digital technology provides opportunities to challenge conventional
representations of people past and present in creative ways, but at what cost? As a critical appraisal of
transhumanism and the era of digital scholarship, this article outlines compelling applications in inclu-
sive digital practice but also the pervasive structures of privilege, inequity, inaccessibility, and abuse
that are facilitated by open, web-based heritage projects. In particular, it evaluates possible means of
creating a balance between individual-focused translational storytelling and public profiles, and the
personal and professional risks that accompany these approaches, with efforts to foster, support, and
protect traditionally marginalized archaeologists and communities.
Keywords: digital archaeology, queer, feminist, inclusive scholarship, public archaeology, diversity
Digital technologies (especially the Web)
were sold to us as democratizing tools that
would transform the inequities inherent in
communications, research, and institu-
tional structures. When the shortcomings
started to become visible, risk and danger
were marketed to us as part of what every-
one goes through to create good research
and art, to innovate, to be successful. But
that was not true either: some people are
forced to take on more risk than others.
The lines of privilege and power are far
more insidious in our technology-
drenched worlds than those who benefit
from it care to recognize, let alone
address, and there is a very troubling
pattern intensifying before our eyes.
Risk-taking has long been a central part
of both art and the sciences. Its role in
archaeological research is perhaps less
clear, particularly when we focus on risk to
archaeologists (as opposed to the physical
risks of damaging or destroying archaeo-
logical sites and materials, or abstract risks
of knowledge loss). While early antiquar-
ians chose (from a secure place of privil-
ege) to face dangers of colonial (aka
conquest) approaches, more and more
archaeologists are forced to put their own
well-being, their careers, and their work
on the line to push forward a more inclu-
sive past and present. What emerged out
of post-processual, feminist, queer, indi-
genous, black, and post-colonial discourses
was the centrality of who does archaeology
and whom that archaeology affects.
Unfortunately, we still seem to be coming
to terms with the impact of this shift;
the push to make room for alternative
ways of knowing and inclusive or equitable
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019, 398–414
© European Association of Archaeologists 2019 doi:10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Manuscript received 5 December 2018,
accepted 15 April 2019, revised 12 March 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-751X
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
participation necessitates individuals to be
‘the first’, and in turn to face all the blow-
back and take on the long process of
re-education when it comes to the recog-
nition of pervasive sexual harassment,
abuse, and discrimination in the discipline
and beyond. At the same time, public,
translational, and engaged scholarship de-
mands researchers, volunteers, and com-
munities to be in the spotlight in a way
that we have not seen in the past. Digital
technology is playing a significant role in
this transformation, providing the oppor-
tunities to disrupt conventional archae-
ology in creative ways, but also creating
intensively individualized and public pro-
files embedded in new channels for abuse,
particularly in the age of Internet trolls
and cyberbullies.
The history of digital disruptions of
archaeology, history, and heritage is critical
to understanding the relationship between
intersectional identities (gender, sexuality,
race, ethnicity, health, etc.) and risk-
taking, particularly motivated by social
change mediated or facilitated by techno-
logical innovation. This includes the
increasingly common practice of leveraging
scholars’ own identities, experiences, and
perspectives to make and take up space
for multivocality, fluid positionality, and
counter structures of privilege. This paper
will trace the ways in which queer,
feminist1, and more broadly inclusive dis-
ruptions of traditional forms of communi-
cation, values of objectivity, and gate-
keeping of knowledge increasingly draw
on creative uses of digital and hybrid
platforms, taking on many of the goals of
transhumanism and posthumanism to
unlearn, unmake, unbecome traditional
social structures and restrictive identities.
However, in so doing, the individuals and
communities behind this work risk far
more than ‘normal’ levels of failure encom-
passed by experimentation, research, and
innovation (loss of time, resources, materi-
als, etc.); in activating our own identities
and past traumas, we risk2 ourselves more
than anything. With growing documenta-
tion of harassment and threats, impact on
mental health, and the high rate of
burnout, are humans part of the collateral
damage of this transhumanism? And if so,
are the potential outcomes of Do-It-
Yourself digital disruptions truly worth the
risk?
CULTURES OF INCLUSIVITY
It is no coincidence that researchers com-
mitted to inclusivity and equity increas-
ingly connect with the ethos of a creative
and open digital scholarship that breaks
and confronts academic norms. This
translates into a tradition of risk-taking in
several ways, including challenging con-
ventional research and dissemination prac-
tices, transforming representation of
people in the past, and supporting margin-
alized scholars in the face of the exclusion-
ary structures, abuse, and trauma of
research spheres.
Queer scholars, for instance, who by
nature do not easily move through the
biased structures of these research spheres,
1 This article comes from a queer, feminist, cis-
female, white, settler perspective, a position that holds a
great deal of privilege. While I highlight and honour
Indigenous, black, trans, and other diverse voices, I
neither wish to speak over nor appropriate their words
or experiences. At times, this discussion is, therefore,
weighted more heavily towards queer, feminist theory,
but I emphasize the importance of the cited literature to
truly explore and support diverse perspectives in
(digital) archaeology.
2 Risk includes, but is not limited to, interconnected
professional risks (in education and training, employ-
ment and career progression, with economic, personal
and social implications) and personal risks (mental/
physical health, well-being, safety), through exclusion,
discrimination, harassment, abuse, assault, hate crimes,
etc. This article uses ‘risk’ to encapsulate all these facets,
as they often come as a package, but, where relevant,
will specify which facet of risk in particular is at work.
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 399
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
being more likely to be excluded from
conventional funding opportunities, publi-
cation structures, and even career models,
are often correlated with innovation and
breaking convention (Dowson, 2000;
Halberstam, 2011). In the frank words of
Halberstam (2011: 3): ‘Failing is some-
thing queers do and have always done
exceptionally well.’ The sheer impossibility
of ‘succeeding’ through normative models
can push these ‘unconventional’ scholars to
take greater risks because they already
occupy uncharted territory and, therefore,
by default take unconventional ‘Do-It-
Yourself’ approaches, which in turn blaze a
trail for more conventional scholarship to
follow (Halberstam, 2011: 6). These
‘rogue intellectuals’ are also more likely to
recognize and react to heteronormative
representations of the past and fight for
inclusive interpretative paradigms.
Early texts in queer archaeology high-
lighted the ways in which homosexual
men and women negotiated academic, dis-
ciplinary, and structural homophobia
(obvious or subtle) by choosing when and
how to deny, downplay, or share their
sexuality in relation to maintaining author-
ity and place within the discipline (cf.
Dowson, 2000: 161–62). These asymmet-
rical relationship between homosexuality
and heterosexuality only really represent
the most visible tip of a much wider set of
entangled identities and related issues,
including bisexuality’s problems of bi-
erasure, biphobia, and lack of representa-
tion, asexuality’s lack of recognition, or
trans identities and the challenges
of gender-sex-sexuality conflation and
very particular modes of transphobia
(Weismantel, 2013). Queer archaeology
also includes challenging the pervasiveness
of heteronormativity in archaeological
interpretations, with a substantial role to
play in transforming assumptions, expecta-
tions, and normative structures for people
past and present. Nevertheless, recent
political, legal, and social threats to these
identities have shown the ongoing dangers
of being (or being perceived to be) queer
or ally archaeologists.
Naturally, queer archaeology cannot be
wholly and completely separated from
feminist archaeology. The complexity of
internalized/auto homophobia, ongoing
conflation of gender and sexuality in con-
temporary society, and the complex inter-
sections with race, ethnicity, class, and
religion (Claassen, 2000: 173, 177) blur
the lines between homophobia and mis-
ogyny and, therefore, queer and feminist
reactions or disruptions. Influenced by the
layering of discrimination, fear, and hate
levelled at scholars along the lines of
gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, and indi-
geneity, it is no stretch to say that femin-
ism in archaeology is multi-dimensional,
multi-scalar, and multi-directional. It
includes, but is not limited to, making
women visible in the past, exploring
gender and sexuality, making the discip-
line more equitable and less exploitative
(Wylie, 2001; Conkey, 2003: 867–68;
Battle-Baptiste, 2011) as well as using
archaeology as broader political action
(Wylie, 1997: 84–85). Constantly evolv-
ing, ebbing, flowing, and re-evaluating
theory and practice, the position of femin-
ism in archaeology is also ever in flux, as is
its potential to influence broader discourse,
methodologies, and theory.
The feminist discourse of the visual lan-
guage and representation of archaeological
knowledge (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993;
Conkey, 1997; Moser, 1998) heavily influ-
enced early applications of digital media in
archaeology. If imagery in print or visual
media was not neutral, we certainly cannot
expect that digital media will naturally
address issues of representation, essential-
ism, and patriarchal values. The values of
colouring outside the lines have given rise
to a particular brand of inclusive archae-
ology, defined by innovative digital
400 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
visualization and communication practices
that challenge our assumptions about what
people looked like, what roles they played,
and how they moved through and experi-
enced the landscape throughout history
(Morgan, 2017). These projects actively
employ non-traditional means of storytell-
ing (beyond articles or monographs), often
through compelling translational narra-
tives, to further challenge research norms
through disruption and activism (cf.
Ulysse, 2018).
Digital communities and inclusivity
Maker and hacker cultures have also con-
nected technological innovation with
social disruption, challenging not only
dominant tech culture but also broader
social structures of inequity and exclusivity
(Richterich, 2016; Smith, 2017: 1–2). The
maker movement in particular was
‘founded on a philosophy that values the
sharing of diverse knowledges. It is an
extension of the “do it yourself” (or DIY)
movement and … the democratisation of
knowledge and technology, and experi-
mentation and innovation through the use
of shared resources’ (Compton et al.,
2017: 49). These hives of engagement and
learning serve as hubs for shared technol-
ogy, tools, and materials (Richterich,
2016). Framed by the values of low-barrier
entry (economics, education, skill level),
flexible and experimental processes, and an
ethos of collaboration, makerspaces are
becoming social statements. Critical
making is being used for activism (or mak-
tivism, Morgan, 2015: 136–37) through
shared resources, experiences, memory,
heritage, and trauma, with a nod to a
longer history of marginalized communi-
ties using crafting circles as nodes for
activism (Rogers, 2015, 2017; Crooks
et al., 2015; Riley et al., 2017: 1–2).
Despite these grassroots beginnings,
makerspaces are becoming heavily institu-
tionalized, finding their place on university
campuses and in museums, galleries, and
libraries. Although this shift has made
makerspaces more easily accessible to
archaeologists, it has split up communities,
setting up new barriers of access and
approaches. These spaces also struggle
with equity and a tendency to become
dominated by heterosexual, white, cis-
male individuals (Taylor et al., 2016), and
there is a documented history of discrim-
ination and harassment targeting indivi-
duals who do not fit the normative tech
moulds (Martin, 2017). Today, the maker
movement embodies a number of ‘digital
divides’, at once creating and challenging
inequities and human limitations, but also
as a mainstream/technoscientific move-
ment while its style is deeply grassroots
and even ‘guerrilla’ (Wajcman, 2004: 2–4).
The contributions and value of diverse
scholarship in all these settings are clear,
but there is much more ground to cover in
making truly inclusive communities of
practice. Queer, feminist, and maker com-
munities, for instance, have been critiqued
for not doing enough to recognize or
stand in solidarity with their trans, indi-
genous, and/or black members in pre- and
post-digital eras. This has perhaps most
clearly been articulated by Ann DuCille
(1994: 150) who, more than two decades
ago, drew attention to the crisis of scholar-
ship resulting from ‘the hyper-visibility,
super-isolation, emotional quarantine and
psychic violence of … precarious positions
in academia’ for black female intellectuals.
Considering recent political developments
and the ways in which discrimination is
enacted and weaponized in online and
digital worlds, this situation has only been
exacerbated since this seminal work.
Inclusive intellectual communities-cum-
paradigms, such as feminist, queer, black,
indigenous scholarship, embody at once
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 401
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
their own but also more collective history
of exclusion, resistance, and proliferation.
The resulting complexity of targeted
exclusion and discrimination, and their
connection to digital scholarship, is critical
when examining contemporary interplays
between disrupting normativity and cre-
ativity (as epistemological and pedagogical
tools) that are transforming traditional
archaeology.
DISRUPTIVE DIGITAL ARCHAEOLOGIES
Born out of inclusive archaeologies, digital
innovations have been increasingly har-
nessed as part of an empowered sense of
DIY and the ability to creatively amplify
unconventional voices. Strategic applica-
tions of technologies and media to defy, to
confront, to derail, to remix, to subvert
can be characterized as digital archaeolo-
gies that:
i. confront the archaeological past we
have created
ii. confront the present (particularly of
the discipline)
iii. confront authorship and authority
iv. act as platforms to support the above.
While these waves of initiatives and
projects may work independently or be
interwoven, it is the collective impact of
these digital archaeologies and the reac-
tions they stimulate that join them
together in a wave of disruption.
Confronting the past
Today, many digital projects seek to chal-
lenge the narratives traditionally presented
in archaeology, breaking norms, con-
fronting assumptions, and demonstrating
diversity and fluidity of identities in the
past. Early applications, particularly
within the realms of visualization and
communications, intended to shift per-
spectives and the positioning of people in
the past, have a distinctively feminist
flavour. What has been described as ‘add
women and stir’ has transformed into the
progressive upending of normative
assumptions and recognition of greater
diversity. Importantly here, and perhaps
defining what separates these projects
from more traditional archaeologies chal-
lenging identity in the past, digital media
transform our methods of ‘writing’,
editing, presenting, and collaborating in
archaeological narratives (see also
Tringham, 2015: 27–29 and Lopiparo and
Joyce, 2003). In reconfiguring structures of
engagement, intimacy, immersiveness,
layering, and temporality, digital archae-
ology has embraced the creativity of early
feminist and queer narratives and run with
it. From early works, such as Joyce et al.’s
(2000) Sister Stories and Tringham’s
(2015: 30) Chimera Web using hypertext
(see also Joyce & Tringham, 2007), via
more contemporary uses of social media
and websites (Morgan & Pallascio, 2015)
to virtual and augmented realities and
gaming (Morgan, 2009; Perry et al.,
2017), the flexibility and ‘democratizing’
ideals of digital formats and open access
are often noted as points of attraction for
archaeologists seeking to construct more
diverse narratives of the past. These pro-
jects are also part of a much wider, inter-
disciplinary push to use public digital
resources to challenge normative, main-
stream, and exclusionary views of the past
(see for instance the Tumblr resource
People of Color in European Art History,
2018).
Tringham’s ‘Dead Women Do Tell
Tales’ (2014) highlights a further emer-
ging trend: the integration of digital data-
bases, visualization, and narration to weave
together more complex histories without
losing the appeal for broad audiences to
engage not only with the past but the
402 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
ways in which we construct it (Tringham,
2015: 29, see also Tringham, 2014).
Building on Tringham’s earlier work on
life histories and narratives of people in
the past, using creative expression and
embracing ambiguity (Tringham, 1991,
1994), the project spotlights the all too
often opaque process of archaeological
interpretation by employing imagined nar-
ratives of the life histories of women at
Çatalhöyük to demonstrate their connec-
tion with primary data. It is not merely
adding women to the past but reconfigur-
ing the construction of identity in archae-
ology to make space for alternative
narratives and critical evaluation of trad-
itional interpretations. Following the
public debates over the BBC’s portrayal of
Life in Roman Britain in 2017 and other
recent exclamations over political correct-
ness, the need to present alternatives with
evidence and critical discussions should
not be underrated. However, it is not
without risk, as we have seen with the
overwhelming levels of abuse and threats
that many women, queer, indigenous, and
black scholars have received over defend-
ing alternative narratives (cf. Beard, 2017).
Creating narratives that challenge contem-
porary normative values and systems of
oppression, or defending them, is a mix of
Russian roulette and poking a hornet’s
nest; while some projects seem to go
unnoticed, catching the attention of even
one Internet troll sets a whole system of
hate in motion.
It should also be recognized that the
risk is not entirely limited to the research-
ers creating or defending inclusive narra-
tives. Increasing engagement with
marginalized archaeologies necessitates
participation in difficult heritage and
intensely political positions (for instance
the projects Mapping the Du Bois
Philadelphia Negro project (http://www.
efishdesign.com/sites/DuBois/overview.php),
Digital Harlem (http://digitalharlem.org/),
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database
(https://www.slavevoyages.org/?xid = PS_
smithsonian); see also Morgan &
Pallascio, 2015: 260–61, Kamash, 2017).
Given the deep history of discrimination
and inequity, this model of digital archae-
ology comes with potential to harm des-
cendant communities, the public, and
archaeologists due to the emotional
trauma often connected and resuscitated
through these practices. These tensions
and traumas, however, can be mobilized to
address legacies of discrimination, injust-
ice, and their connections to contemporary
inequities, particularly through technolo-
gies that layer the past on the present to
connect the familiarities of everyday life
with their dark heritage (Figure 1). The
careful use of discomfort and connection
to emotion through narratives, disruptive
imagery, and media, and the juxtaposition
of the familiar present with unexpected or
unknown histories can be a very powerful
use of digital technology. But it takes a
great deal of skill and collaboration to
mediate potential risk for contemporary
communities, who are already dealing with
extreme levels of systemic discrimination
and trauma.
Confronting the present
Although archaeologists have, in the past,
played almost invisible or at the very least
non-personal roles in public dissemin-
ation, there is greater emphasis on archae-
ologists’ identities, and particularly the
diversity of who can be an archaeologist,
to create a more inclusive field. This work
can also be branded as activist archaeology
and translational storytelling, but also as
aligning with work to address discrimin-
atory and unequal structures and norms. It
often emerges most strongly in the face of
work action and concerns over equity,
inclusivity, and security in the workplace.
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 403
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
http://www.efishdesign.com/sites/DuBois/overview.php)
http://www.efishdesign.com/sites/DuBois/overview.php)
http://www.efishdesign.com/sites/DuBois/overview.php)
http://digitalharlem.org/
http://digitalharlem.org/
https://www.slavevoyages.org/?xid = PS_smithsonian
https://www.slavevoyages.org/?xid = PS_smithsonian
https://www.slavevoyages.org/?xid = PS_smithsonian
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
However, it also looks to attract more
diverse people to the field of archaeology
to challenge the persistent underrepresen-
tation in this discipline (cf. Agbe-Davies,
2002).
A number of projects under the banner
of archaeogaming playfully fit this descrip-
tion. For example, the C-14 Dating Game
(https://www.winterwolves.com/c14dating.
htm) is a simulation game where players
take the role of an undergraduate intern.
Importantly, the game-play includes
finding friends and romance without any
gender expectations or structures in place.
Seemingly a very simple element, it is rela-
tively revolutionary when representation of
queer archaeologists remains ambiguous at
best in most narratives; the opportunity to
choose begins to challenge those expecta-
tions and make space for diverse indivi-
duals. The frameworks that we create for
participation in archaeology, whether
through games or other media, and the
identities we craft in archaeological ‘char-
acters’ that populate these media, shape
user experiences but they also frame public
and disciplinary expectations and imagina-
tions (see also Dennis, 2016).
The Trowelblazers project (https://tro-
welblazers.com) also challenges representa-
tions of archaeologists. Triggered by a
conversation on Twitter, leading to a
network of digital and analogue resources
on women in archaeology, geology, and
palaeontology, this project has stitched
together the full range of digital technolo-
gies (Hassett et al., 2017). Their recent
‘Raising Horizons’ initiative was a collage
including crowdfunding, the contribution
of artists working in a range of mediums,
social media, digital and print resources,
and physical exhibits or events to showcase
contemporary and historical women in
these disciplines, creatively drawing con-
nections between their experiences and
points of view. One part social media, one
Figure 1. Conceptual art for ‘Built on Bones’, an augmented reality app to draw attention to the dark
legacies of colonialism by augmenting contemporary cities with the bones of the past (Cook, 2017).
404 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.winterwolves.com/c14dating.htm
https://www.winterwolves.com/c14dating.htm
https://www.winterwolves.com/c14dating.htm
https://trowelblazers.com
https://trowelblazers.com
https://trowelblazers.com
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
part crowdsourcing, and one part creative
media creation, feminist voices and activ-
ism have been mobilized through largely
web-based communications. Nevertheless,
the emphasis on real-life archaeologists
requires real people to take the risk of
sharing themselves as part of their work.
While the ideals of reflexivity and self-
awareness would beg the question ‘why
not?’ (after all, we are part of our interpre-
tations), in the age of the Internet, this
level of openness and individuality of the
strategy takes on a more sinister risk (see
below).
Confronting authorship/authority
Digital technologies can also confront the
exclusionary view of archaeologists as the
only experts in reconstructing the past.
Influenced by indigenous, black, and post-
colonial archaeologies in particular, the
social networking, communication oppor-
tunities and interactivity of web-based
platforms lend themselves well to the
equalizing ideals of collaborative archae-
ology today. One of the earliest websites
mobilizing the Internet to promote com-
munity collaboration is Carol McDavid’s
(1998) Levi Jordan Plantation website
(http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/
Default.htm), part of a project examining
slavery and African-American culture on a
plantation in Texas (see also McDavid,
1997). Using what now seems like very
simple web-based feedback forms, along-
side non-web-based interviews and partici-
pation, the project invited dialogue,
participation, and contributions from des-
cendant communities, local communities,
adults and children alike, anyone with an
interest. McDavid (1998) noted: ‘We
wanted to learn if computers can be used
to create “conversations” about archaeology
and history among lots of different
people.’ This project’s legacy is echoed in
many community archaeology projects
today, such as Terry Brock’s (2018) All of
Us Would Walk Together website, which
provided opportunities for descendant
communities and the general public to
participate, share stories, and build family
trees (see also McDavid & Brock, 2015).
Social media have also significantly con-
tributed to combating the privileging of
(Eurocentric) archaeological discourse,
research, and interpretations. Archaeologist
Joanne Hammond (@KamloopsArchaeo)
has infamously used Twitter with edited
images contrasting the problematic com-
memorative signage in Canada, typically
erasing indigenous heritage to celebrate
European colonization, with newly written
narratives that decolonize our perspectives
on the past (see for instance https://twitter.
com/i/moments/858336736392261637).
Kisha Supernant (@ArchaeoMapper), a
Métis archaeologist, has also used Twitter
to challenge ways of knowing the past and
highlight the discriminatory structures,
attitudes, and treatment of indigenous
scholars through courageously frank and
honest posts about her own experiences.
Although framed once again by personal
and professional risk, these voices blur the
lines of authority, participation, and ways
of knowing which are critical to repairing
and reshaping relationships between
archaeologists and descendant communi-
ties, as well as challenging us to review our
approaches to (public) archaeology.
Recognizing the problems of authority,
authorship, and control of the past also
includes acknowledging that not all appli-
cations of digital technology are necessarily
appropriate, even when motivated by a
goal of ‘representing’ or ‘including’ that
heritage in wider discourses and adopting
increasingly mainstream approaches. The
work of Beth Compton (2017), which
examines complexity of authenticity,
ontology, and materiality when it comes to
3D models and 3D prints, is particularly
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 405
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
https://twitter.com/kamloopsarchaeo
https://twitter.com/i/moments/858336736392261637
https://twitter.com/i/moments/858336736392261637
https://twitter.com/i/moments/858336736392261637
https://twitter.com/archaeomapper
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
powerful in this context and challenges
perceptions of objects (with which we
think we are deeply familiar) and technol-
ogy (with which we often overestimate our
familiarity) (see also Brown & Nicholas,
2012; Cook & Compton, 2018; Jones
et al., 2017). Challenging authority in
contemporary archaeology necessitates a
much more critical application of ethics
and commitment to collaborative research,
recognizing both the lack of understanding
of data access and preservation but also
the tech-influenced emphasis that is
placed on doing what is innovative over
what is right or responsible.
Platforms for support
Space-making initiatives, that is, the
design of platforms, publication venues,
and support for more diversity in the dis-
cipline and narratives of the past, have
played a critical role in encouraging the
types of inclusive and equitable digital
archaeologies described above. The goal
here is to showcase the voices of diverse
scholars and creators to increase their
impact and support their progression.
When approached as more than tokeniza-
tion or shallow PR stunts, transformative
diversity and inclusion work can create the
conditions for social change in the struc-
ture of archaeology and beyond, amplify-
ing marginalized voices, challenging our
perspectives on the past, and in turn dem-
onstrating the relevance of the discipline
in contemporary society.
The Heritage Jam, the brainchild of
Sara Perry and Anthony Masinton, has
been a pioneering platform for innovative
digital archaeology and heritage practice
since 2014. With their open call to
‘anyone interested in the way heritage is
visualised’, free entry, and flexible formats,
timelines and engagement, the Heritage
Jam has been successful in bringing
together a range of individuals interested
in heritage (both within and beyond pro-
fessionals and students of archaeology),
showcasing diverse histories and perspec-
tives on the past (Heritage Jam, 2017).
The Inclusiveness Policy and Code of
Conduct are two cornerstones of the jam;
their aim is to ‘provide a safe, inclusive
and welcoming environment … where
everyone is free to express themselves
regardless of gender, sexual orientation,
ability, appearance, ethnicity, citizenship,
socioeconomic status, religious beliefs or
age’ (Heritage Jam, 2017). It also asks par-
ticipants and audiences to celebrate indivi-
duals making an extra effort to be
inclusive and welcoming, while prohibiting
harassment, abuse, discrimination, deroga-
tory or demeaning speech, etc. Finally, the
website serves as an archive for jam
entrants; with a huge audience and reach,
this has been particularly successful in pro-
moting the work of diverse people, provid-
ing international reach and networking
opportunities. It is perhaps no surprise
that many of the entrants and the projects
created and submitted to the Heritage Jam
over the years have exemplified inclusive
approaches to the past and the present
(including Cook, 2017 and Tringham,
2014 cited above).
More recently, Epoiesen, an online pub-
lication initiative based at Carleton
University in Canada and established by
editor-in-chief Shawn Graham, has taken
up the challenges of making space for
diverse and alternative media formats and
knowledge in archaeology and history (cf.
Pálsson and Aldred 2017; Heckadon et
al., 2018). Characterized as ‘a journal for
exploring creative engagement with the
past, especially through digital means …
[primarily through] “paradata” or artist’s
statements that accompany playful or
unfamiliar forms of singing the past into
existence’ (Epoiesen, 2018), the journal
provides an opportunity to publish on
406 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
open access without any fees (lowering the
cost of entry) and showcases alternative
ways of engaging with the past. It regularly
publishes the work of students, profes-
sionals, and individuals ‘outside’ traditional
careers in archaeology or history, in add-
ition to allowing annotations and further
engagement between authors/creators and
readers. With a diverse editorial board,
authorship, and audience, the journal has
also been at the forefront of important
conversations about inclusive publishing
policies.
Other relevant endeavours include
building digital communities for collabor-
ation and support, such as the Women’s
Digital Archaeology Network (https://caa-
international.org/2016/09/09/womens-digital-
archaeology-network/) and the Reciprocal
Research Network (https://www.rrncommu-
nity.org/), or initiatives providing inclusive
community building and training opportun-
ities, such as Michigan State University’s
Institute on Digital Archaeology’s (Lynne
Goldstein and Ethan Watrall) inclusion of
participants at no cost (for students through
to established researchers) and effort to
build inclusive and equitable environ-
ments. The value of creating more plat-
forms like these, and the explicit outlining
of inclusive policies, should not be under-
estimated, making space for more diverse
scholars, encouraging equity and allyship
among all participants, and putting pres-
sure on more traditional publication
venues and institutions to transform their
own practices. At the same time, these
initiatives take time, effort, and funding.
Often working above and beyond their
typical duties, the individuals creating
these support platforms also take on
incredible weight, stress, and risk. Those
responsibilities and the service provided by
these pioneering communities and their
value to building inclusivity should not go
unrecognized, but rather must be acknowl-
edged and protected in their own right.
THE DARK SIDE OF DISRUPTION
While these projects serve as markers of
active disruption and points of inspiration,
it is the people behind them and their
experiences of moving through these
worlds of archaeology, technology, aca-
demia, and beyond that highlight how far
we still have to go. Notably, a growing
archive of documented harassment and
abuse (cf. Clancy, 2014; Nelson et al.,
2017) is only just beginning to hint at the
widespread challenges and emotional toll
that targeted members of the archaeo-
logical community continue to face. It is
true that structures of discrimination,
intimidation, and harassment have an
unconscionably long history in archae-
ology, including in the specialization of
digital archaeology. Ruth Tringham, for
instance, in her discussion of ‘Dead
Women Do Tell Tales’ and earlier web-
based work, notes that ‘without the
support of Meg Conkey, Janet Spector,
and Rosemary Joyce, I might have been
discouraged from this endeavour in the
resistant atmosphere of the early 1990s’
(Tringham, 2015: 29). Why is it different
now? Because technology, contrary to the
hopes that it would enhance and overcome
human limitations, has in fact opened the
door wider for abuse via the Web, particu-
larly for individuals and groups that were
already at risk. The publicness of archae-
ology on the Web has attracted a great deal
of attention and developed a global reach,
but this can be a double-edged sword. The
emphasis that is placed today on sharing
personal histories, developing an individual
profile, and being a ‘public face’, coupled
with the ease with which personal informa-
tion, including contact details, can be
acquired online is a dangerous combination.
It is particularly accentuated by the degree
to which we remain connected to the
Internet at all times through mobile devices,
applications and automated notifications.
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 407
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://caa-international.org/2016/09/09/womens-digital-archaeology-network/
https://caa-international.org/2016/09/09/womens-digital-archaeology-network/
https://caa-international.org/2016/09/09/womens-digital-archaeology-network/
https://caa-international.org/2016/09/09/womens-digital-archaeology-network/
https://www.rrncommunity.org/
https://www.rrncommunity.org/
https://www.rrncommunity.org/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
Abusers and harassers can reach individuals
at all times. Finally, the interplay of public
and private online communications (Perry,
2014: 81–82) lends itself to manipulation,
allowing individuals to remain publicly
friendly or polite and privately abusive, or
even to use public communications to incite
widespread harassment.
Martin (2017), considering the position
of women in makerspaces, outlines the
ways in which persistence in tech-domi-
nated fields brings out both subtle and
overt forms of discrimination and abuse,
ranging from ‘suspicion’ that women are
not actually the masterminds behind
innovative digital products, to more direct
forms of public harassment and defam-
ation via social media or blatant exclusion
from events. Similarly, Dennis (2016) has
drawn attention to the significant issue of
‘problematic participants’ in gaming
culture, which includes ‘elements of mis-
ogyny, white supremacy, and anti-intellec-
tualism’, and manifests itself in targeted
online abuse and even escalating to offline
harassment. Most recently, Geraldine
DeRuiter’s effort to study online abusers
through interviews demonstrated the com-
plexity of the psyche of online abusers and
the resulting volatility of hate, misogyny
and harassment online but also that:
‘while we regard online misogyny and
abuse of women as something wholly
separate and different from its so-called
“real-world” counterparts, these are all
components of the same system. We
dismiss sexual harassment that happens
on the internet in the exact same way
that we dismiss sexual harassment that
happens face-to-face, even though
these experiences are often just as bad
—if not worse—for the victim, often
due to the mechanics of the anonymity
of the internet.’ (DeRuiter, 2018)
Particularly concerning is the system of
teaching victims of online and offline
abuse to believe that they brought the
abuse upon themselves and, therefore, to
willingly put up with further damage to
themselves. After recording high levels of
inappropriate digital engagement, Perry
(2014: 82–84) draws attention to the lack
of recourse or means of protection, with
corresponding low rates of reporting and
rare institutional support, despite many
institutions now mandating public and
private digital engagement. This is critical
to any discussion promoting digital
archaeology for public engagement, net-
working, and dissemination. Whether it is
in official commissions of such work or
through more subtle promotion of the
ethos of community-engaged scholarship
(which also has its own problematic
history of inequity and responsibility
placed on women, indigenous scholars,
people of colour, etc.), if no form of
support or protection (despite well docu-
mented abuse and danger) is offered, then
it knowingly puts these individuals in
danger, expects self-sacrifice and risk on
their part only, and in turn profits from it.
This should never have been acceptable
and addressing these risks must be a prior-
ity in future for every single individual or
institution associated with archaeology and
heritage.
CONCLUSION: THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE
OF TRANSHUMANISM
‘We have the right to a safe, secure and
non-threatening working and living
environment. We do not tolerate any
form of discriminatory, abusive, aggres-
sive, harassing, threatening, sexually—or
physically-intimidating, or related prob-
lematic behaviours that compromise the
wellbeing, equality, security or dignity of
other human beings.’ (Perry, 2018)
Without risk, there is no reward. The
person who risks nothing does nothing.
408 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
When we risk going too far, we discover
how far we can go. In today’s era of
motivational speak, risk has been singu-
larly rebranded as a badge of honour. In
turn, risk is considered a cornerstone of
art, innovation, creativity, and ultimately,
change. Perhaps ironically, then, it is the
#MeToo, Idle No More, and Black Lives
Matter movements, among others, that
have shone a light on the dark underbelly
of taking chances: the demand for indivi-
duals to step forward and share their voice
paints targets on the already vulnerable
and marginalized for fear- and anger-filled
hate and aggression, repeatedly and relent-
lessly beating down the voices of change.
Often forced to choose between the long-
term, abstract risk of doing nothing (and,
therefore, nothing ever changing for the
better) and the immediate and often per-
sonal risk of trying to confront the system,
the individuals leading the charge of these
movements, in the name of equity, secur-
ity, and inclusivity, face harassment, abuse,
suspicion, imprisonment, and violence.
This has been part of the growing critique
of positive thinking, this ‘mass delusion’
(Ehrenreich, 2010: 13) centred on per-
sonal responsibility, where hard work leads
to success and poor choices lead to failure,
rather than recognizing the true force and
pervasiveness of underlying structural con-
ditions (Halberstam, 2011).
This is perhaps the greatest flaw in
transhuman and posthuman philosophies:
the unflinching commitment to technol-
ogy and science to evolve beyond human
conflicts and limitations fails to protect
humans now, risking the creation of
greater fissures rather than making pro-
gress. The digital has reformulated the
ways in which we engage with the past
and produce knowledge in the present, but
we have taken many steps backward much
faster than the individuals cited above
(and many others) have clawed their way
forward to envision the past in new ways
through creativity, making, and inclusivity.
It would be easy to present this as a narra-
tive of ‘no risk, no reward’. However, the
number of individuals who contribute so
much in the name of diversity, and who
are now reaching their breaking points—
having battled misogyny, racism, trans-
phobia, homophobia, ableism, and every
other brand of hatred possible, for too
long and in too high a concentration
(thanks to the Internet)—must be taken as
a serious warning for the ways in which
we put people in the firing line to try to
repair what was already broken and what
the digital has, at the very least, augmen-
ted. The challenge for everyone, and it
will need everyone, including those who
have benefitted for so long from the privi-
leges afforded to them, will be how to
invest in better protections, buffers, and
reformulate our approach to digital schol-
arship. These efforts need to be bolstered
and amplified by more funding, more plat-
forms for dissemination, more institutional
support, more regulation, and perhaps
most importantly, more respect and
acknowledgement of the truth of abuse
when reported.
There is nothing new in this statement,
it is echoed across the Web, in tweets and
blogs, and increasingly in policy state-
ments and organizational missions. And
while all these elements are indeed
needed, are they radical enough to con-
front decades of technological evolution
that has opened the Pandora’s box of dis-
crimination, hate, and abuse? The greatest
progress appears to lie in the alternative
platforms that have emerged, as described
above, to make space and valorise disrup-
tions to mainstream and traditional
archaeologies. These do indeed require a
great deal of labour, but at least the labour
is not profiting commercial interests (i.e.
publishers and corporate presses). If we all
commit to reading and citing these plat-
forms first, in addition to participating,
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 409
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
offering our time, labour, and perspectives
as a priority over traditional and very
broken systems of dissemination, there is
hope for a transformation in the value,
security, reward, and allyship to confront
targeted oppression and systemic ‘other-
ing’. This should be coupled with means
to protect and shelter at-risk voices, such
as by mediating, blocking, or even not
permitting comments, but also by valuing
and recognizing that what is often
branded as ‘academic kindness’ is in fact
the threads that will weave empathy,
respect, collegiality, and indeed humanity
back into the trans- or posthuman future
of archaeology. The future will be digital,
but it will only be diverse and inclusive if,
together, we make it so. The stubbornly
DIY mentality that has come to character-
ize digital archaeology powered by and for
inclusion and diversity emerged out of
structures of inclusion and inequity but
addressing the true crisis of scholarship
endangering scholars today must be a Do-
It-Collectively priority.
REFERENCES
Agbe-Davies, A.S. 2002. Black Scholars,
Black Pasts. SAA Archaeological Record, 2:
24–28.
Battle-Baptiste, W. 2011. Black Feminist
Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Beard, M. 2017. Roman Britain in Black and
White. The Times Literary Supplement
[online] [accessed 10, April 2019].
Available at: .
Brock, T.P. 2018. All of Us Would Walk
Together [online] [accessed 14 March
2019]. Available at: .
Brown, D. & Nicholas, G. 2012. Protecting
Indigenous Cultural Property in the Age
of Digital Democracy: Institutional and
Communal Responses to Canadian First
Nations and Maōri Heritage Concerns.
Journal of Material Culture, 17: 307–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/
1359183512454065
Claassen, C. 2000. Homophobia and Women
Archaeologists. World Archaeology, 32:
173–79.
Clancy, K.B.H., Nelson, R., Rutherford, J.N.
& Hinde, K. 2014. Survey of Academic
Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees
Report Harassment and Assault. PLOS
ONE 9(7): e102172. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0102172
Compton, B. 2017. Negotiating Authenticity:
Engaging with 3D Models and 3D Prints
of Archaeological Things. Museum of
Ontario Archaeology Notes [online]
[accessed 14 March 2019]. Blog available
at:
Compton, M.E., Martin, K. & Hunt, R.
2017. Where Do We Go from Here?
Innovative Technologies and Heritage
Engagement with the MakerBus. Digital
Applications in Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage, 6: 49–53. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
Conkey, M. 1997. Mobilizing Ideologies:
Paleolithic ‘Art’, Gender Trouble, and
Thinking about Alternatives. In: L.
Hager, ed. Women in Human Evolution.
London: Routledge, pp. 172–207.
Conkey, M. 2003. Has Feminism Changed
Archaeology? Signs, 28: 867–80.
Cook, K. 2017. Built on Bones [online]
[accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at:
The Heritage Jam University of York:
.
Cook, K. & Compton, B. 2018. Canadian
Digital Archaeology: On Boundaries and
Futures. Canadian Journal of Archaeology,
42: 38–45.
Crooks, R., Contreras, I. & Besser, K. 2015.
Herstory Belongs to Everybody or The
Miracle: A Queer Mobile Memory
Project. InterActions: UCLA Journal of
Education and Information Studies, 11(2).
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4d67f235
Dennis, L.M. 2016. Archaeogaming, Ethics,
and Participatory Standards. SAA
Archaeological Record, 16. http://onlinedi-
geditions.com/publication/?i=356358&
article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&
ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22
410 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/roman-britain-black-white/
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/roman-britain-black-white/
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/roman-britain-black-white/
http://hsmcwalktogether.org
http://hsmcwalktogether.org
http://hsmcwalktogether.org
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512454065
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512454065
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512454065
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
http://archaeologymuseum.ca/negotiating-authenticity-engaging-3d-models-3d-prints-archaeological-things/
http://archaeologymuseum.ca/negotiating-authenticity-engaging-3d-models-3d-prints-archaeological-things/
http://archaeologymuseum.ca/negotiating-authenticity-engaging-3d-models-3d-prints-archaeological-things/
http://archaeologymuseum.ca/negotiating-authenticity-engaging-3d-models-3d-prints-archaeological-things/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002
http://www.heritagejam.org/new-blog/2017/10/27/built-on-bones-katherine-cook
http://www.heritagejam.org/new-blog/2017/10/27/built-on-bones-katherine-cook
http://www.heritagejam.org/new-blog/2017/10/27/built-on-bones-katherine-cook
http://www.heritagejam.org/new-blog/2017/10/27/built-on-bones-katherine-cook
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4d67f235
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4d67f235
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_
id%22:%222638934%22}
DeRuiter, G. 2018. What Happened When I
Tried Talking to Twitter Abusers [online]
[accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at
The Everywhereist Blog: .
Dowson, T. 2000. Why Queer Archaeology?
An Introduction. World Archaeology, 32:
161–65.
DuCille, A. 1994. Skin Trade. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press.
Ehrenreich, B. 2010. Bright-sided: How
Positive Thinking is Undermining America.
New York: Picador.
Epoiesen, 2018. About Epoiesen: A Journal for
Creative Engagement in History and
Archaeology [online journal] [accessed 14
March 2019]. Available at: . https://doi.
org/10.22215/epoiesen
Gifford-Gonzalez, D. 1993. You Can Hide,
But You Can’t Run: Representations of
Women’s Work in Illustrations of
Palaeolithic Life. Visual Anthropology
Review, 9: 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1525/
var.1993.9.1.22
Halberstam, J. 2011. The Queer Art of
Failure. Durham (NC): Duke University
Press.
Hassett, B.R., Pilaar-Birch, S., Herridge, V. &
Wragg-Sykes, B. 2017. TrowelBlazers:
Accidentally Crowd-sourcing an Archive
of Women in Archaeology. In: V.
Apaydin, ed. Shared Knowledge, Shared
Power. Cham: Springer, pp. 129–41.
Heckadon, A., Sparks, K., Hartemink, K., van
Muijlwijk, Y., Chater, M. & Nicole, T.
2018. Interactive Mapping of
Archaeological Sites in Victoria. Epoiesen.
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/2018/
02/08/interactive-mapping-archae-victoria/
Heritage Jam, 2017. Policies and Rules
[online] [accessed 14 March 2019].
Available at The Heritage Jam, University
of York: .
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. &
Jones, C. 2017. 3D Heritage Visualization
and the Negotiation of Authenticity: The
ACCORD Project. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 24: 333–53.
Joyce, R.A. & Tringham, R.E. 2007. Feminist
Adventures in Hypertext. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory, 14:
328–58.
Joyce, R.A., Guyer, C. & Joyce, M. 2000.
Sister Stories. New York: New York
University Press.
Kamash, Z. 2017. ‘Postcard to Palmyra’:
Bringing the Public into Debates over
Post-Conflict Reconstruction in the
Middle East, World Archaeology, 49:
608–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.
2017.1406399
Lopiparo, J. & Joyce, R. 2003. Crafting
Cosmos, Telling Sister Stories, and
Exploring Archaeological Kknowledge
Graphically in Hypertext Environments.
In: J.H. Jameson, Jr, C. Finn & J.E.
Ehrenhard, eds. Ancient Muses: Archaeology
and the Arts. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press. pp. 193–202.
Martin, K. 2017. Centering Gender: A
Feminist Analysis of Makerspaces and
Digital Humanities Centers. Paper pre-
sented at Institute for Digital Arts and
Humanities Speaker Series [online]
[accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at:
.
McDavid, C. 1997. Descendants, Decisions, and
Power: The Public Interpretation of the
Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation.
Historical Archaeology, 31:114–31.
McDavid, C. 1998. Levi Jordan Plantation
[online] [accessed 14 March 2019].
Available at:
McDavid, C. & Brock, T.P. 2015. The
Differing Forms of Public Archaeology:
Where We Have Been, Where We Are
Now, and Thoughts for the Future. In: C.
Gnecco & D. Lippert, eds. Ethics and
Archaeological Praxis. New York: Springer,
pp 159–83.
Morgan, C. 2009. (Re)Building Çatalhöyük:
Changing Virtual Reality in Archaeology.
Archaeologies: Journal of the World
Archaeological Congress, 5: 468–87.
Morgan, C. 2015. Punk, DIY, and Anarchy in
Archaeological Thought and Practice.
Online Journal in Public Archaeology, 5:
123–46. https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v5i0.67
Morgan, C. 2017. The Queer and the Digital:
Critical Making, Praxis, and Play in
Digital Archaeology. Paper presented at
Theoretical Archaeology Group 2016,
Southampton. Available at: .
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 411
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=356358&article_id=2638934&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5%23{%22issue_id%22:356358,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%222638934%22}
http://www.everywhereist.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-talking-to-twitter-abusers/
http://www.everywhereist.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-talking-to-twitter-abusers/
http://www.everywhereist.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-talking-to-twitter-abusers/
http://www.everywhereist.com/what-happened-when-i-tried-talking-to-twitter-abusers/
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/about/
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/about/
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/about/
https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen
https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen
https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen
https://doi.org/10.1525/var.1993.9.1.22
https://doi.org/10.1525/var.1993.9.1.22
https://doi.org/10.1525/var.1993.9.1.22
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/2018/02/08/interactive-mapping-archae-victoria/
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/2018/02/08/interactive-mapping-archae-victoria/
https://epoiesen.library.carleton.ca/2018/02/08/interactive-mapping-archae-victoria/
http://www.heritagejam.org/policies/
http://www.heritagejam.org/policies/
http://www.heritagejam.org/policies/
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1406399
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1406399
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2017.1406399
http://hdl.handle.net/2022/21827
http://hdl.handle.net/2022/21827
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/Default.htm
https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v5i0.67
https://doi.org/10.23914/ap.v5i0.67
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
http:// =
http:// qw_J_Hy9WS0
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
Morgan, C. & Pallascio, P.M. 2015. Digital
Media, Participatory Culture, and
Difficult Heritage: Online Remediation
and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and
Heritage, 4: 260–78.
Moser, S. 1998. Ancestral Images: The
Iconography of Human Evolution. Ithaca
(NY): Cornell University Press.
Nelson, R.G., Rutherford, J.N., Hinde, K. &
Clancy, K.B.H. 2017. Signalling Safety:
Characterizing Fieldwork Experiences and
their Implications for Career Trajectories.
American Anthropologist, 119: 710–22.
Pálsson, G. & Aldred, O. 2017. En-counter
maps. Epoiesen. https://doi.org/10.22215/
epoiesen/2017.1
People of Color in European Art History,
2018. Mission Statement. Medieval POC
[online] [accessed 2 May 2019]. Available
at: .
Perry, S. 2014. Digital Media and Everyday
Abuse. Anthropology Now, 6: 81–85.
Perry, S. 2018. Six Fieldwork Expectations:
Code of Conduct for Teams on Field
Projects [online] [accessed 14 March
2019]. Available at The Archaeological
Eye Blog: .
Perry, S., Economou, M., Young, H.,
Roussou, M. & Pujol, L. 2017. Moving
Beyond the Virtual Museum: Engaging
Visitors Emotionally. In: L. Goodman &
A. Addison, eds. Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Virtual Systems
and Multimedia. Dublin: UCD &
University of Ulster, pp. 229–37.
Richterich, A. 2016. ‘Do Not Hack’: Rules,
Values, and Communal Practices in Hacker-
and Makerspaces. Paper Presented at AoIR
2016. Selected Papers of Internet Research
2016: The 17th Annual Conference of the
Association of Internet Researchers. Berlin,
Germany [online] [accessed 14 March
2019]. Available at: .
Riley, D.M., McNair, L.D. & Masters, S.
2017. An Ethnography of Maker and
Hacker Spaces Achieving Diverse
Participation. Poster presented at the 2017
Conference of the American Society for
Engineering Education [online] [accessed
14 March 2019]. Available at: .
Rogers, M. 2015. Making Queer Love: A Kit
of Odds and Ends. Hyperrhiz, 13 [online]
[accessed 14 March 2019]. Available at:
http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz13/missives-
of-love/queer-love-info.html
Rogers, M. 2017. Soft Circuitry: Methods for
Queer and Trans Feminist Maker Cultures
(unpublished PhD dissertation, Department
of Women’s Studies, University of
Maryland). Available at: .
Smith, A. 2017. Social Innovation, Democracy
and Makerspaces. SWPS, 2017-10. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2986245
Taylor, N., Hurley, U. & Connolly, P. 2016.
Making Community: The Wider Role of
Makerspaces in Public Life. Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems,
San Jose, CA, USA, May 7-12.
Tringham, R. 1991. Households with Faces:
The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric
Architectural Remains. In: J. Gero & M.
Conkey, eds. Engendering Archaeology:
Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, pp. 93–131.
Tringham, R. 1994. Engendered Places in
Prehistory. Gender, Place, and Culture, 1:
169–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09663699408721209
Tringham, R. 2014. Dead Women Do Tell
Tales: Ghosts [online] [accessed 14 March
2019]. Available at: Heritage Jam,
University f York: .
Tringham, R. 2015. Creating Narratives of
the Past as Recombinant Histories. In:
R.M. Van Dyke & R. Bernbeck, eds.
Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology.
Boulder (CO): University Press of
Colorado, pp. 27–54.
Ulysse, G.A. 2018. Reflecting on Boundaries,
Protection, and Inspiration. Anthrodendum
[online] [accessed 14 March 2019].
Available at: .
Wajcman, J. 2004. TechnoFeminism.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weismantel, M. 2013. Towards a Transgender
Archaeology: A Queer Rampage Through
Prehistory. In: S. Stryker & A.Z. Aizura,
eds. The Transgender Studies Reader 2.
New York: Routledge, pp. 319–34.
412 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.1
https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.1
https://doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.1
http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com
http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com
https://saraperry.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/fieldwork-code-of-conduct/
https://saraperry.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/fieldwork-code-of-conduct/
https://saraperry.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/fieldwork-code-of-conduct/
https://spir.aoir.org/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8384
https://spir.aoir.org/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8384
https://spir.aoir.org/ojs/index.php/spir/article/view/8384
http://hdl.handle.net/10919/82443
http://hdl.handle.net/10919/82443
http://hdl.handle.net/10919/82443
http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz13/missives-of-love/queer-love-info.html
http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz13/missives-of-love/queer-love-info.html
http://hyperrhiz.io/hyperrhiz13/missives-of-love/queer-love-info.html
http://hdl.handle.net/1903/20310
http://hdl.handle.net/1903/20310
http://hdl.handle.net/1903/20310
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2986245
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2986245
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2986245
https://doi.org/10.1080/09663699408721209
https://doi.org/10.1080/09663699408721209
https://doi.org/10.1080/09663699408721209
http://www.heritagejam.org/exhibition/2014/7/10/dead-women-do-tell-tales-ghosts-ruth-tringham
http://www.heritagejam.org/exhibition/2014/7/10/dead-women-do-tell-tales-ghosts-ruth-tringham
http://www.heritagejam.org/exhibition/2014/7/10/dead-women-do-tell-tales-ghosts-ruth-tringham
http://www.heritagejam.org/exhibition/2014/7/10/dead-women-do-tell-tales-ghosts-ruth-tringham
https://anthrodendum.org/2018/05/22/reflecting-on-boundaries-protection-and-inspiration/
https://anthrodendum.org/2018/05/22/reflecting-on-boundaries-protection-and-inspiration/
https://anthrodendum.org/2018/05/22/reflecting-on-boundaries-protection-and-inspiration/
https://anthrodendum.org/2018/05/22/reflecting-on-boundaries-protection-and-inspiration/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
Wylie, A. 1997. The Engendering of
Archaeology Refiguring Feminist Science
Studies. Osiris, 12: 80–99.
Wylie, A. 2001. Doing Social Science as a
Feminist: The Engendering of
Archaeology. In: A.N.H. Creager, E.
Lunbeck & L. Schiebinger, eds. Feminism
in Twentieth-Century Science, Technology,
and Medicine. Chicago (IL): University of
Chicago Press, pp. 2–-45.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Katherine Cook is assistant professor in
the Department of Anthropology at the
University of Montreal, specializing in
public archaeology and digital applications.
Her research examines memory, identity,
power, and politics in the early colonial
history of the Atlantic (Europe, North
America, Africa), while exploring the
applications of digital media, open data,
technology in increasing access, engage-
ment, and understandings of cultural
diversity past and present.
Address: Katherine Cook, Département
d’Anthropologie, Université de Montréal,
Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, CP 6128, succur-
sale Centre-ville, 3150 rue Jean-Brillant,
Montréal QC, H3T 1N8, Canada. [email:
katherine.cook@umontreal.ca].
Incarner et bricoler pour bouleverser la donne : allosexualité, féminisme et
inclusivité en archéologie numérique
Les démarches qui cherchent à promouvoir l’intégration en archéologie (y compris les perspectives allosex-
uelles, féministes, black ou indigènes) se recoupent de plus en plus avec celles des communautés associées
au codage, à la réalisation et au piratage numérique dans le but de créer un style ‘bricolé’ de contestation
et d’activisme. Les technologies numériques offrent des possibilités de remettre en question les
représentations traditionnelles de personnes du passé et de nos jours de façon créative, mais à quel prix ?
Dans cet article, une évaluation critique du transhumanisme et de l’ère numérique sert de point de
départ à une présentation d’exemples numériques convaincants de pratique d’intégration mais aussi de
l’omniprésence du privilège, de l’inégalité, du manque d’accès et des abus facilités par des projets d’accès
libre sur internet concernant le patrimoine. On cherchera surtout à évaluer les moyens d’établir un
équilibre entre la transposition de récits centrés sur des individus et un profil public et de prendre en
compte les risques personnels et professionnels associés à ces approches dans le but de promouvoir, soutenir
et protéger les communautés et archéologues marginalisés. Translation by Madeleine Hummler
Mots-clés: archéologie numérique, allosexualité, féminisme et inclusivité, recherche inclusive,
archéologie publique, diversité
Störende selbstgemachte Verkörperungen: queer, feministische und inklusive
Digitalarchäologie
Integrative Ansätze in der Archäologie (einschließlich der queeren, schwarzen, feministischen oder ein-
heimischen Anschauungsweisen) haben sich zunehmend mit der Kultur der Programmierer, Macher und
Hacker überschnitten um einen einzigartigen „gebastelten” Stil von Zerrüttung und Aktivismus zu
entwickeln. Die digitale Technologie bietet die Möglichkeit, konventionelle Darstellung von Personen in
der Vergangenheit und in der Gegenwart kreativ infrage zu stellen, aber zu welchem Preis? Als kri-
tische Betrachtung von Transhumanismus und des Zeitalters der digitalen Wissenschaft verfasst, bes-
chreibt dieser Artikel überzeugende Anwendungen der digitalen Praxis aber auch die durchdringenden
Strukturen des Privilegs, der Ungerechtigkeit, der Unzugänglichkeit und des Missbrauchs, die in
zugänglichen, webbasierten Projekten im Bereich des Kulturerbes entstanden sind. Insbesondere bewertet
Cook – Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies 413
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
mailto:katherine.cook@umontreal.ca
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
die Studie mögliche Mittel eines ausgewogenen Verhältnisses zwischen auf Einzelpersonen ausgerichteten
Erzählungen und öffentlichen Profilen zu finden; sie bewertet auch die die persönlichen und beruflichen
Risiken, die mit diesen Ansätzen verbunden sind und die sich bemühen, traditionell marginalisierte
Archäologen und Gemeinschaften zu fördern, unterstützen und schützen. Translation by Madeleine
Hummler
Stichworte: Digitalarchäologie, queer, Feminismus, integrative Wissenschaft, öffentliche
Archäologie, Vielfalt
414 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (3) 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Carnegie Mellon University, on 06 Apr 2021 at 00:40:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.23
https://www.cambridge.org/core
EmboDIYing Disruption: Queer, Feminist and Inclusive Digital Archaeologies
Cultures of Inclusivity
Digital communities and inclusivity
Disruptive Digital Archaeologies
Confronting the past
Confronting the present
Confronting authorship/authority
Platforms for support
The Dark Side of Disruption
Conclusion: The Collateral Damage of Transhumanism
References