Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 238–270 | Cite as

The Camera “at the Trowel’s Edge”: Personal Video Recording in Archaeological Research

  • Angeliki Chrysanthi
  • Åsa Berggren
  • Rosamund Davies
  • Graeme P. Earl
  • Jarrod Knibbe
Article

Abstract

Video recording is increasingly becoming a favourable medium in archaeological research, particularly as an unconventional documentation tool that captures the elusive processes of ongoing interpretation in an audiovisual format. Our research forms part of the Personal Architectonics Through INteraction with Artefacts (PATINA) project, a project focused on the design of technologies for supporting research. Archaeological fieldwork is one of the research environments being studied by the project, and one of our primary concerns was to observe and record current research practices in the wild and to examine the influence of new technologies on those practices. This research brings together well-established and advanced observation techniques used in social sciences and computing fields such as human–computer interaction with archaeological research and presents the deployment of an off-the-shelf wearable camcorder as a recording interface in archaeological fieldwork. The article discusses the user evaluation methodology and the results, while addressing long-standing and timely theoretical discussions on the role of video recording in archaeological research.

Keywords

Personal video recording (PVR) User evaluation Fieldwork documentation Reflexive archaeology Archaeological method 

References

  1. Ariel, B., & Farrar, T. (2013). Self-awareness to being watched and socially-desirable behavior: a field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras on police use-of-force. Police Foundation http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force. Accessed 23 February 2014.
  2. Beale, T. W., & Healy, P. F. (1975). Archaeological films: the past as present. American Anthropologist, 77(4), 889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berggren, A. (2009). Evaluation of a reflexive attempt: the citytunnel project in retrospect. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 24(1), 23–37.Google Scholar
  4. Berggren, Å., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social practice, method and some problems of field archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berggren, A., & Nilsson, B. (2015). Going back, looking forward. Reflexive archaeology or reflexive method? In I. Hodder (Ed.), Integrating Catalhöyuk. Themes from the 2000–2008 seasons (Vol. 10). Çatalhöyük Research Project.Google Scholar
  6. Brill, D. (2000). Video-recording as part of the critical archaeological process. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 235–238). Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  7. Bush, V. (2003). As we may think. The new media reader, 35–28.Google Scholar
  8. Cadoz, C. (1994). Les réalités virtuelles. Paris: Dominos-Flammarion.Google Scholar
  9. Calbris, G. (2011). Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camurri, A., & Volpe, G. (2004). Gesture-based communication in human-computer interaction. LNAI 2915. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Caridakis, G., Karpouzis, K., Drosopoulos, A., & Kollias, S. (2009). SOMM: self organizing Markov map for gesture recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31(1), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chadha, A. (2002). Visions of discipline: Sir Mortimer Wheeler and the archaeological method in India (1944–48). Journal of Social Archaeology, 2(3), 378–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chadwick, A. (2003). Post-processualism, professionalization and archaeological methodologies: towards reflective and radical practice. Archaeological Dialogues, 10(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chrysanthi, A., Murrieta Flores, P., & Papadopoulos, P. (2012). Archaeological computing: towards prosthesis or amputation? In A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta Flores, & C. Papadopoulos (Eds.), Thinking beyond the tool. Archaeological computing and the interpretative process (pp. 7–13). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  15. Clack, T., & Brittain, M. (2007). Archaeology and the media. Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  16. Conolly, J. W. (2000). Çatalhöyük and the archaeological ‘object’. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 51–57). Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  17. Crema, E. R. (2012). Modelling temporal uncertainty in archaeological analysis. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 19, 440–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crema, E. R., Bevan, A., & Lake, M. (2010). A probabilistic framework for assessing spatio-temporal point patterns in the archaeological record. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 1118–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Runz, D., Desjardin, E., Piantoni, F., & Herbin, M. (2007). Using fuzzy logic to manage uncertain multi-modal data in an archaeological GIS. In Proceedings of international symposium on spatial data quality. Resource document. http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/2-C43/Postersession/runz_et_al.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2014.
  20. Edgeworth, M. (2006). Ethnographies of archaeological practice. Cultural encounters, material transformations. Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  21. Francisco, V., & Gervás, P. (2008). Ontology-supported automated mark up of affective information in texts. Special Issue of Language Forum on Computational Treatment of Language, 34(1), 23–36.Google Scholar
  22. Francisco, V., Hervás, R. & Gervás, P. (2006). Two different approaches to automated mark up of emotions in text. In Proceedings of AI 2006 (pp. 101–114). Cambridge: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Gaver, W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions-Funology, 11(5), 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gero, J. (2007). Honoring ambiguity/problematizing certitude. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(3), 11–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–242). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Goodwin, C. (2006). A linguistic anthropologist’s interest in archaeological practice. In M. Edgeworth (Ed.), Ethnographies of archaeological practice. Cultural encounters, material transformations (pp. 45–56). Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hanson, W. S., & Rahtz, P. A. (1988). Video recording on excavations. Antiquity, 62, 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heath, C., Hindmars, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Hermon, S., & Nicolucci, F. (2002). Estimating subjectivity of typologists and typological classification with fuzzy logic. Archeologia e Calcolatori, 12, 217–232.Google Scholar
  30. Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and practice in archeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Hodder, I. (1995). Video documentation. In Catal news 2: newsletter of the Çatalhöyük Research Trust. http://www.catalhoyuk.com/newsletters/02/video.html. Accessed 25 March 2013.
  32. Hodder, I. (1997). Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation methodology. Antiquity, 71, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodder, I. (Ed.). (2000). Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  34. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kendon, A. (1988). How gestures can become like words. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Crosscultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (pp. 131–141). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Kendon, A. (1994). Do gestures communicate? A review. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(3), 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knibbe, J., O’Hara, P.K., Chrysanthi, A., Marshall, M.T., Bennett, P.D., Earl, G., Izadi, S. & Fraser, M. (2014). Quick and dirty: streamlined 3D scanning in archaeology. In Proceedings of CSCW’14 (pp. 1366–1376). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Kraemer, C. J. J. R. (1958). The archaeological film. Archaeology, 11, 262–266.Google Scholar
  40. Lahlou, S. (2009). Experimental reality: principles for the design of augmented environments. In S. Lahlou (Ed.), Designing user friendly augmented work environments: from meeting rooms to digital collaborative spaces (pp. 113–158). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lahlou, S. (2011). How we can capture the subject’s perspective? An evidence-based approach for the social scientist. Social Science Information, 50(3–4), 607–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laude, J. (1970). Cinéma et Archéologie. In Catalogue de Films d’Intérêt Archéologique, Ethnographique ou Historique (pp.11–53). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  43. Malafouris, L. (2012). Prosthetic gestures: how the tool shapes the mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(4), 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mann, S. (1998). Humanistic intelligence: WEARCOMP as a new framework for intelligent signal processing. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11), 2123–2151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mann, S., Fung, J., Aimone, C., Sehgal, A. & Chen, D. (2005). Designing EyeTap digital eyeglasses for continuous lifelong capture and sharing of personal experiences. In Adjunct Proceedings ALT.CHI 2005. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  46. McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: the extensions of man (first edition 1964). USA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. McNeil, D. (1992). Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. McNeil, D. (2005). Gesture & thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgan, C. (2012). Emancipatory digital archaeology. Doctoral thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
  50. Morris, S & Norton-Taylor, R. (2013). Marine faces life term after being found guilty of ‘executing’ Afghan insurgent. In The Guardian, 8 November.Google Scholar
  51. Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2009). Psychological methods for the study of augmented environments. In S. Lahlou (Ed.), Designing user friendly augmented work environments: from meeting rooms to digital collaborative space (pp. 213–236). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T., & Witmore, C. (2012). Archaeology: the discipline of things. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Potter, P. (1991). Self-reflection in archaeology. In R. Preucel (Ed.), Processual and postprocessual archaeologies: multiple ways of knowing the past (Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 10) (pp. 225–234). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  54. Rakić, T., & Chambers, D. (2009). Researcher with a movie camera: visual ethnography in the field. Current Issues in Tourism, 13(3), 255–270.Google Scholar
  55. Shanks, M., & Webmoor, T. (2012). A political economy of visual media in archaeology. In S. Bonde & S. Houston (Eds.), Representing the past: archaeology through image and text (pp. 87–110). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  56. Sifniotis, M. (2012). Representing archaeological uncertainty in cultural informatics. Doctoral thesis, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  57. Stevanović, M. (2000). Visualizing and vocalizing the archaeological archival record: narrative vs image. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük (pp. 235–238). Cambridge: McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  58. Streeck, J. (2009). Forward gesturing. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tringham, R., Ashley, M., & Quinlan, J. (2012). Creating and archiving the media database and documentation of the excavation. In R. Tringham & M. Stevanović (Eds.), House lives: building, inhabiting, excavating a house at Çatalhöyük, Turkey: reports from the BACH Area, Çatalhöyük, 1997–2003 (pp. 31–48). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
  61. Wang, S., & Wang, X. (2011). Emotional semantic detection from multimedia: a brief overview. In Y. Dai, B. Chakraborty, & M. Shi (Eds.), Kansei engineering and soft computing: theory and practice (pp. 126–146). Hershey, PA: Engineering Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Witmore, C. (2004). Four archaeological engagements with place: mediating bodily experience through peripatetic video. Visual Anthropology Review, 20(2), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angeliki Chrysanthi
    • 1
  • Åsa Berggren
    • 2
  • Rosamund Davies
    • 3
  • Graeme P. Earl
    • 1
  • Jarrod Knibbe
    • 4
  1. 1.Archaeological Computing Research Group, Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Sydsvensk ArkeologiKristianstadSweden
  3. 3.Department of Communications and Creative Arts, Old Royal Naval CollegeUniversity of GreenwichLondonUK
  4. 4.Interaction and Graphics Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations