Social Media and Public Archaeology​

     In recent years, those in the field of archaeology have become more involved in making their work accessible to the public. With many venues to do so, internet based projects have become one of the more popular trends, as it makes research and material culture viewable across the world. While internet will continue to grow as one of the easiest and most commonly used bases for sharing research, a more controversial note is struck when this information is posted on social media. Social media is defined as websites and applications which enable users to create and share content in order to participate in social networking, including websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. While these social media platforms are used by major corporations to reach their audiences, is it the right method for archaeology to take when trying to become more public? This article will examine the ways in which social media influences public archaeology, and the advantages and disadvantages that may come with its use.

     Making research more public has been one of the most recent goals of archaeology. Public archaeology is archaeological work which “engages with the public in order to share archaeological finds, and promote the conservation of cultural resources, or to otherwise make archaeology relevant to society by providing means to construct their own past” (McDavid 2002). Public archaeology attempts to correct many of the criticisms that archaeology has received towards its exclusive nature, and traditional methods of research. The need for a more public practice came to light as the goals and values of the discipline changed. While more inclusion into physical research and field work were the first steps to opening archaeology to the public, social media sharing soon followed as a means to reach out to more people who archaeology may interest.

    Currently, archaeology has been successful immersing itself in the realm of social media. From a simple search term search on Facebook, the word “Archaeology,’ will display hundreds of people, articles, and pages already dedicated to sharing information which Walker (2014) describes as both internally or externally focused. Internal focus describes the communication between those within the archaeological discipline, whether practicing, studying, or collaborating between archaeological projects, whereas external refers to engaging more public audiences with the research undertaken in the discipline (Walker 2014). Archaeological magazines, museums, schools, faculties, researchers, and students all seem to be sharing the work they complete online. With Facebook alone, engaged audiences (Passively or actively) are reaching well into the millions of subscribed viewers, a considerably large number comparative to other methods of resource sharing practiced within archaeology (Facebook 2016).

     With a viewer base so large, it is no surprise that archaeologists see the potential benefits this holds for the discipline. The Canadian Archaeological Association (2016) even makes a point to encourage the spread of information through social media, recognizing those who do so with the “Public Communications Awards”. The push for archaeologists to use social media to share their research makes it clear that this type of publicity holds many advantages. One of said advantages of creating public archaeology through social media is the engagement and social empowerment of the public audience.

     Social media connects archaeology with a wider audience, and can gain international outreach from a single online post. Walker (2014) explains that this makes social media a tool which allows for democratic engagement of its audiences, which becomes beneficial when gathering input on analysis, and explaining the importance of conservation of heritage. Inviting people not necessarily involved in the archaeology community opens the discussion to new opinions and values. As Meyers and Williams (2014) explain, it is important to share archaeological resources and information with lay audiences to be able to continue creating interest in the discipline, and spread awareness about the history and cultures they recover.

     Another benefit to social media sharing is the ability for scholars to engage in collaborative research. For those within the archaeology community, social media makes it possible to connect an individual’s research with many others around the world (Emery 2014). This collaborative effort proves to be beneficial when examining sites or artifacts that may be less common. Archaeologists are often willing to give a differential opinion on site artifacts or features that may be causing difficulties in your research in order to help out a fellow colleague. Inviting this type of teamwork establishes better communication within the archaeological community, ultimately connecting researchers through common interests.

     The last benefit archaeology can reap from social media usage is the creation and maintenance of a digital archive or record base. The University of Michigan State mentions that by keeping digital records of the work completed, it prevents lost interpretation or work from previous years (Emery 2014). Digitizing records is a current undertaking at many different schools and sites, as it avoids destruction, and maintains accessibility or field notes and reports. The user profiles and stylistic characteristics of many social media platforms allow for these records to be clear, and represented by date in which they have been shared. This makes the process of re-evaluation seamless, regardless of geographic location or funds.

     Each benefit listed builds a solid foundation towards the goal of making the discipline more public. Public archaeology is meant to encourage the public to take care and consideration toward archaeological work through the preservation sites and funding towards conservation projects (Hirst 2016). By opening the accessibility of research to a larger audience, archaeologists are able to empower the voices of those around them, and challenge societal power structures between the discipline and cultures they study (Walker 2016). Although social media sharing brings archaeology closer to its goal to be more open, there are some potential drawbacks that cannot be overlooked.

     One of Walker’s (2014) main concerns involves the loss of archaeological authority through social media sharing. Who should be able to produce knowledge on archaeology, and how can credibility be established within social media sites? On platforms which allow anyone to comment and share research, it is hard to specify who holds credible knowledge on the site, and what aspects of the article are true. This lack of regulation or hierarchy in the creation, distribution, and analysis on archaeological material within social media sites may impact the knowledge created in archaeology (Walker 2014).

     Related to loss of credibility is the spread of false knowledge. Just as we have learnt from childhood games of ‘broken telephone,’ the information spread can be altered or changed due to the vast amount of interpretations and values held throughout the world. Social media sites allow anyone to post about any topic they would like, and comment onto any post that they would like, and ultimately this can lead to false perceptions of a site, or the people the culture represents. This opens up the possibility for many ethnocentric views, and the potential ‘othering’ of groups.