Academia.eduAcademia.edu
CAA2014 21st century Archeaology concepts, methods and tools Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Edited by F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati and S. Robert Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78491 100 3 ISBN 978 1 78491 101 0 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2015 Cover photograph © Emilie Lesvignes All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents Foreword................................................................................................................................................................... v Computers and mathematics in Archaeology, anatomy of an ineluctable success! .................................................... 1 François DJINDJIAN Chapter 1 Historiography Towards a History of Archaeological Computing: An Introduction .............................................................................. 9 Paola MOSCATI A retrospective on GIS and AIS platforms for Public Archaeology in Italy. Searching backward for roots and looking onwards for new methodological road-maps ........................................................................................................... 17 Mirella SERLORENZI, Ilaria JOVINE, Giorgia LEONI, Andrea DE TOMMASI, Andrea VARAVALLO Art History of the Ancient Near East and Mathematical Models. An Overview ......................................................... 29 Alessandro DI LUDOVICO and Sergio CAMIZ Archaeology and Computer Applications: the automatic cataloging of Italian archaeological heritage ..................... 35 Alessandra CARAVALE Chapter 2 Field and laboratory data recording Practical Assessment of a Multi-Frequency Slingram EMI for Archaeological Prospection ........................................ 43 François-Xavier SIMON, Alain TABBAGH, Apostolos SARRIS Utilizing Magnetic Prospection and GIS to Examine Settlement Organization in Neolithic Southeastern Europe ...... 53 Alexis NIEKAMP, Apostolos SARRIS Historic Forest Change: New approaches to Land Use Land Cover ............................................................................ 65 Charlotte E. STANCIOFF, Robert G. PONTIUS Jr, Scott MADRY, Elizabeth JONES Challenges and Perspectives of Woodland Archaeology Across Europe .................................................................... 73 Hauke KENZLER, Karsten LAMBERS Archaeological Mapping of Large Forested Areas, Using Semi-Automatic Detection and Visual Interpretation of HighResolution Lidar Data .............................................................................................................................................. 81 Øivind Due TRIER, Lars HOLGER PILØ Laser scanning and Automated Photogrammetry for Knowledge and Representation of the Rupestrian Architecture in Cappadocia: Sahinefendi and the Open Air Museum of Goreme .......................................................................... 87 Marco CARPICECI, Carlo INGLESE Advantages and Disadvantages of Digital Approach in Archaeological Fieldwork ..................................................... 95 Carlo BIANCHINI, Francesco BORGOGNI, Alfonso IPPOLITO From Survey to Representation of the Model. A Documentation of Typological and Chronological Sequences of Archaeological Artefacts: Traditional and Innovative Approach ............................................................................. 107 Alfonso IPPOLITO, Luca J. SENATORE, Barbara BELELLI MARCHESINI, Gabriella CEROLI Archaeology in the Third and Fourth Dimensions: A Case Study of 3D Data Collection and Analysis From Prince Rupert, BC, Canada ................................................................................................................................................ 115 Alyssa PARKER, Morley ELDRIDGE Integrated RTI Approaches for the Study of Painted Surfaces ................................................................................. 123 Eleni KOTOULA, Graeme EARL Survey, Documentation and Analysis of the Archeological Architecture: the House of the Knights of Rhodes in the Forum of Augustus ................................................................................................................................................ 135 Carlo BIANCHINI, Gaia Lisa TACCHI Digital Research Strategies for Ancient Papyri: A Case Study on Mounted Fragments of The Derveni Papyrus ........ 145 Eleni Kotoula, Graeme Earl i Chapter 3. Ontologies and Standards Towards Linked-Data in Numismatics: How the DIANA Approach can Improve the Diachrony Integrating Heterogeneous Pieces of Data ............................................................................................................................... 157 Maria CALTABIANO, Mariangela PUGLISI, Antonio CELESTI, Grazia SALAMONE Celtic Coins in context, a new database ................................................................................................................. 165 Katherine GRUEL, Agnes TRICOCHE, Philippe CHARNOTET Uncertainty handling for ancient coinage .............................................................................................................. 171 Karsten TOLLE, David WIGG-WOLF Interoperability of the ArSol (Archives du Sol) database based on the CIDOC-CRM ontology.................................. 179 Emeline LE GOFF, Olivier MARLET, Xavier RODIER, Stéphane CURET, Philippe HUSI Find the balance - Modelling aspects in Archaeological Information Systems......................................................... 187 Franz SCHWARZBACH, Felix F. SCHÄFER, Alexander SCHULZE Integration of Archaeological Datasets through the Gradual Refinement of Models............................................... 193 Cesar GONZALEZ-PEREZ, Patricia MARTÍN-RODILLA Linked Open Greek Pottery .................................................................................................................................... 205 Ethan GRUBER, T.J. SMITH The Digital Archaeological Workflow: A Case Study from Sweden .......................................................................... 215 Marcus J. SMITH Exploring time and space in the annotation of museum catalogues: The Sloane virtual exhibition experience ....... 221 Stephen STEAD, Dominic OLDMAN, Jonathan Whitson CLOUD Building comprehensive management systems for cultural – historical information............................................... 227 Chryssoula BEKIARI, Martin DOERR, Dimitris ANGELAKIS, Flora KARAGIANNI Managing Time Dimension in the Archaeological Urban Information System of the Historical Heritage of Rome and Verona .................................................................................................................................................................. 235 Alberto BELUSSI, Sara MIGLIORINI, Piergiovanna GROSSI Towards an Archaeological Information System: Improving the Core Data Model .................................................. 245 Muriel van RUYMBEKE, Cyril CARRÉ, Vincent DELFOSSE, Pierre HALLOT, Michelle PFEIFFER, Roland BILLEN Chapter 4. Internet and Archaeology Archaeological open access journals: the case of ‘Archeologia e Calcolatori’ .......................................................... 257 Alessandra CARAVALE, Alessandra PIERGROSSI Massive Open Online Opportunity: MOOCs and Internet–Based Communities of Archaeological Practice ............. 265 Jeffrey P. EMANUEL Moving Instruction Beyond the Museum’s Walls: Priorities in Online Public Education at the Oriental Institute .... 271 Kathryn GROSSMAN, Catherine Kenyon, Megaera LORENZ, Brittany HAYDEN Crowd- and Community-Fuelled Archaeology. Early Results from the MicroPasts Project ...................................... 279 Chiara BONACCHI, Andrew BEVAN, Daniel PETT, Adi KEINAN-SCHOONBAERT The ACCORD project: Archaeological Community Co-Production of Research Resources ........................................ 289 Stuart JEFFREY, Alex HALE, Cara JONES, Sian JONES, Mhairi MAXWELL Chapter 5. Archaeological Information Systems 12000 years of human occupation, 3 meters deep stratigraphy, 12 hectares… A geographical information system (GIS) for the preventive archaeology operation at Alizay (Normandie, France) ....................................................... 299 S. MAZET, C. MARCIGN, B. AUBRY, I. COMTE, P. BOULINGUIEZ Records and spatial representations in the context of a rescue excavation: the case of Quincieux (Rhône-Alpes, France) .................................................................................................................................................................. 305 Ellebore SEGAIN, Veronique VACHON, Bernard MOULIN, Cécile RAMPONI, Wojciech WIDLAK ii Cartography and heritage: past practice and future potential for mapping Scotland’s cultural heritage.................. 315 Peter MCKEAGUE Visualization based on the Norwegian University Museum Database .................................................................... 323 Espen ULEBERG, Mieko MATSUMOTO An Inventory of Lucanian Heritage ......................................................................................................................... 333 Alain DUPLOUY, Vincenzo CAPOZZOLI, Alessia ZAMBON Integrating complex archaeological datasets from the Neolithic in a web-based GIS .............................................. 341 Kai-Christian BRUHN, Thomas ENGEL, Tobias KOHR, Detlef GRONENBORN Enhanced 3D-GIS: Documenting Insula V 1 in Pompeii ........................................................................................... 349 Giacomo LANDESCHI, Nicolò DELL’UNTO, Daniele FERDANI, Stefan LINDGREN, Anne-Marie LEANDER TOUATI MAPPA Open Data Metadata. The importance of archaeological background. ....................................................... 361 Francesca ANICHINI, Gabriele GATTIGLIA A simple way to formalize the dating of stratigraphic units .................................................................................... 365 Bruno DESACHY Recognizing temporalities in urban units from a functional approach: three case studies ...................................... 371 Julie GRAVIER OH_FET: A Computer Application for Analysing Urban Dynamics Over Long Time Spans ...................................... 381 Laure SALIGNY, Ludovic GRANJON, Thomas HUET, Gaël SIMON, Xavier RODIER, Bastien LEFEBVRE An ‘alphabet’ to describe the spatio-temporal dynamics of settlement systems: a relevant representation of time? .. 393 Marie-Jeanne OURIACHI, Frédérique BERTONCELLO, with the collaboration of Pierre NOUVEL, Laure NUNINGER, Elise FOVET, Stephane ALIX Chapter 6. GIS and spatial analysis ArkeoGIS, Merging Geographical and Archaeological Datas Online Loup BERNARD, Damien ERTLEN, Dominique SCHWARTZ Counting Sheep Without Falling Asleep: Using Gis to Calculate the Minimum Number of Skeletal Elements (Mne) And Other Archaeozoological Measures At Schöningen 13Ii-4 ‘Spear Horizon’ ....................................................... 407 Alejandro GARCÍA-MORENO, Jarod M. HUTSON, Aritza VILLALUENGA, Elaine TURNER, Sabine GAUDZINSKI-WINDHEUSER Looking for the best. A comparison between GIS and PageRank based algorithms for preventive archaeology in urban areas ........................................................................................................................................................... 413 Dubbini NEVIO, Gabriele GATTIGLIA, Augusto PALOMBINI Analyses of bone modifications on human remains: a GIS approach ...................................................................... 423 Elsa CIESIELSKI, Hervé BOHBOT Territorial organisation of the Terramare culture (Bronze Age, Italy): use of GIS methodology to tackle societal issues ....431 Julie BOUDRY From the excavation to the territory: contributions of GIS tools to the study of the spatial organization of the archaeological site of Argentomagus (France, Indre, Saint-Marcel/Argenton-sur-Creuse) ....................................... 443 Emeline LE GOFF, Laure LAÜT, Yoann RABASTÉ, Françoise DUMASY The integration of landscape processes in archaeological site prediction in the Mugello basin (Tuscany/Italy) ...... 451 Elmar SCHMALTZ, Michael MÄRKER, Hans-Joachim ROSNER, Adrew-Williams KANDEL The use of Burgundy stone from ancient times to the present day ......................................................................... 459 Stéphane BÜTTNER, Delphine MONTANGE, Laure SALIGNY, Marion FOUCHER with the collaboration of Eric LECLERCQ, Marinette SAVONNET Exploring Intervisibility Networks: A Case Study From Bronze and Iron Age Istria (Croatia and Slovenia) ............... 469 Zoran ČUČKOVIĆ iii Chapter 7. Mathematics and statistics in archaeology Intentional Process Modeling of Statistical Analysis Methods ................................................................................ 481 Charlotte HUG, Rebecca DENECKÈRE, Ammar AYMEN Ancient Mesopotamian Glyptic Products, Statistics and Data Mining: A Research Proposal ................................... 489 Alessandro DI LUDOVICO, Sergio CAMIZ Intrasite spatial analysis applied to the Neolithic sites of the Paris Basin: from the archaeological feature to global analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 497 François GILIGNY Statistical and mathematical models for archaeological data mining: a comparison............................................... 509 Nevio DUBBINI, Adam LODOEN Chapter 8. 3D Archaeology and virtual Archaeology Measuring and describing 3D texture .................................................................................................................... 519 Vera MOITINHO DE ALMEIDA, Juan Antonio BARCELÓ Old versus new – introducing image-based 3D modeling into the general documentation workflow of archaeological rescue excavations. Case studies: the Čachtice and Bratislava castles, Slovakia ...................................................... 529 Jan ZACHAR, Seta ŠTUHEC Beyond spreadsheets: digitising the archaeological artefact inventory process ..................................................... 541 Arianna TRAVIGLIA, Stephen WHITE, Andrew WILSON Potentialities of 3D Reconstruction in Maritime Archaeology ................................................................................ 549 Elisa COSTA, Carlo BELTRAME, Francesco GUERRA Cultural Heritage Documentation in Cave Environnement Using Low-Cost Means for Archaeologists. Case Study of the Larchant Caves in the Fontainebleau Forest in France ...................................................................................... 557 Aurelia LUREAU, Mehdi BELARBI, Pascal RAYMOND, Régis TOUQUET Forum Romanum: A 3D Model For Self-Service Educational Purposes.................................................................... 569 Philippe FLEURY, Sophie MADELEINE, Nicolas LEFÈVRE The Virtual Reconstruction of a Small Medieval Town: The Case of Briviesca (Spain) ............................................. 575 Mario ALAGUERO, Andres BUSTILLO, Blanca GUINEA, Lena IGLESIAS 25 Years of Experience in Virtual Reconstructions - Research Projects, Status Quo of Current Research and Visions for the Future ............................................................................................................................................................. 585 Mieke PFARR-HARFST Chapter 9. Multi-agent systems and complex system modelling A Density-Based Simulation Approach for Evaluating Prehistoric Population Fluctuations in Finland ..................... 595 Tarja SUNDELL, Juhana KAMMONEN Multi-Agent Modelling of the Neolithic LBK ........................................................................................................... 595 Jean-Pierre BOCQUET-APPEL, Richard MOUSSA, Jérôme DUBOULOZ Explaining the Adoption of ‘Innovations’ in Western Europe during Bronze Age: Towards an Agent-Based Simulation ....613 Juan A. BARCELÓ, Florencia DEL CASTILLO BERNAL, Giacomo CAPUZZO, Berta MORELL, Joan NEGRE Spatial Interaction Simulation Methods for Ancient Settlement Distributions in Central Italy ................................ 621 Taylor OSHAN, Carson FARMER, Eoin O’DONOGHUE Interactions and network analysis of a rock art site in Morro do Chapéu, Bahia, Brazil .......................................... 631 Carlos ETCHEVARNE, Grégoire VAN HAVRE iv Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology CAA 2014 - 21st Century Archaeology/F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S. Robert (eds.) Massive Open Online Opportunity: MOOCs and Internet–Based Communities of Archaeological Practice Jeffrey P. EMANUEL Harvard University, USA jemanuel@fas.harvard.edu Abstract While the World Wide Web has provided the public with heretofore-unimagined access to information, the democratization of online content creation has also provided an unprecedented opportunity for the spread of misinformation and misinterpretation. Archaeology is no exception, as developments like the exposing of museum collections, the ability to conduct armchair ‘surveys,’ and unfettered access to uncontextualized images via simple Web search have combined to confront a new generation of avocational and aspiring archaeologists with myriad explanations and interpretations of artifacts, archaeological data, and history writ large. The rise of MOOCs (both as ‘massive open online courses’ and as repositories for massively-accessible online content) may help combat this by providing a structured mechanism for practitioners to reach, interact with, educate, and learn from an ever-growing online audience. This is of particular importance for archaeology, a field in which standards of conduct and interpretation are keys to sound and ethical practice. Keywords: Massive, MOOC, Online Applications, Pedagogy, Communities of Practice the World Wide Web is an unparalleled tool of information dissemination, though, perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the explosion of Internet access and web–based technologies that has taken place in the 21st century is the near–eradication of the one–to–many model that once monopolized Internet design and usage, particularly in the overlapping academic, research, and education spheres. Instead, people both shape the information available on the Internet, making its contents a conversation rather than a tool for broadcast, and engage in direct communication with their fellow users via various tools available to them (inter alia Matzat, 2004; Burgess and Green, 2009; Bohn et al.,, 2014). 1. Information Flow in the Social Age In 2013, 2.77 billion people worldwide were classified as ‘Internet Users,’ as defined by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU 2010; 2013; Figure 1). The rise of the Internet age has provided an ever–increasing worldwide population with heretofore–unimagined access to information, putting the combined knowledge of the world literally at the fingertips of over one third of the planet’s population. This, in turn, has allowed for questions to be answered, knowledge to be transmitted, and social endeavors to be engaged in at lightning speeds in some of the most remote corners of the globe. While Figure 1: Density map of Internet users worldwide, based on data from the International Telecommunications Union. 265 J.P.Emanuel / Massive Open Online Opportunity: MOOCs and Internet–Based Communities of Archaeological Practice Along with the spread of internet–based information has come the opportunity for internet–based content creation, both via well–known collaborative enterprises like Wikipedia, and via lesser–known, but also potentially influential, platforms like social media accounts and personal blogs – all of which are available for free to anybody with an Internet connection and a compatible device (Daugherty, Easton and Bright, 2008; Correa, 2010; Blank, 2013). Unfortunately, the egalitarian – and frequently anonymous – nature of online content creation can lend itself to the spread of misinformation and misinterpretation as much as it can to the creation of reliable content and commentary (e.g. Huffington Post, 2013). 2. Embracing the Open Internet Many One partial solution to this conundrum may be found in a location that might seem, at first blush, to be an unlikely place to look for a savior. I speak here of the MOOC, or the ‘Massive Open Online Course’ – an acronym and term which is increasingly disinclined toward that which it purports to describe. As an offering to the public in the free and open space, the MOOC can serve as a structured mechanism for professionals across the academy to reach, interact with, educate, and learn from an ever–growing online audience (cf. Ho et al., 2014; for an advocacy perspective, see Zapatero and Morales 2014). This is of particular importance for archaeology, a field in which standards of conduct and interpretation are keys to sound and ethical practice. Archaeology is far from immune to this side effect of the 21st century web. So–called ‘Adventures in Bad Archaeology’ abound on the Internet and beyond (see badarchaeology.com, specialtyinterests.net, biblebabel. net, or watch a few episodes of the History Channel’s ‘Ancient Aliens’ series for just a few of many examples!). In light of this, any sound–minded practitioner could be forgiven for reacting to such a twisting of our profession with a combination of horror and a renewed commitment to preventing archaeological information from reaching the general public prior to being surrounded by comprehensive, carefully–researched and –crafted contextualization and explanation. However, like any other subject or pursuit, archaeology in the 21st century cannot exist in isolation, remaining a tightly guarded secret until each new data point has been mummified inside an impenetrable wrap of contextualization and explanation that would provide non– specialists with one part raw data and ninety–nine parts direction on how to view, think about, and use those data. Fortunately, as this session’s very existence demonstrates, many within our field have no intention of holding up archaeology, and the data points archaeologists recover, as the property of specialists alone. This is fortuitous for many reasons, not least of which is the simple fact that the nature of modern communication and the platforms available for content creation combine to make such a move all but impossible. Though no single MOOC will likely ever compete with the overall traffic of a site like Wikipedia, the presence of these learning experiences in the free and open space is a resounding positive for open access to information, and sends a strong signal that specialists are not prepared to withdraw from the discussions surrounding their areas of expertise and cede the arena of ideas, once again, to everybody else. The open, inclusive nature of MOOC–based learning experiences can allow them to coexist and compete with similarly free and open sources of information about archaeological topics that are broadly accessible on the public Internet. Further, in the MOOC environment, experts leading open online learning experiences can draw in new participants, while simultaneously ensuring that the facts, techniques, and practices conveyed in their particular learning experience represent accurate scholarly interpretation and understanding, as well as the most up– to–date professional standards and methods. The multidirectional communication that is characteristic of today’s Internet is also a critical role–player in the success of MOOCs as developers and perpetuators of communities of practice. Successful participants, for example, may go on to serve as international and intercultural hubs from which accurate, professionally–conveyed information can flow outward to various peripheries. In addition, the multicultural nature of MOOC audiences may also serve as a mechanism for improving the professional practice of archaeology, in part by creating a feedback loop via which practitioners can be exposed to viewpoints and cultural interpretations that might not be commonly considered. The nature of the 21st century Web, and of human communication in the Internet age, is one of openness and personal contributions to the discussion surrounding whatever subject an individual may be interested in. This, combined with the opening of museum collections, the ability to conduct armchair ‘surveys’ via tools like Google Earth, unfettered access to uncontextualized images via simple Web search, and similar developments, has ensured that the web will continue to abound in perpetuity with myriad explanations and interpretations of artifacts, archaeological data, and history writ large. Given this, the last thing we should do is pull back from the public arena of ideas and discourse, as any attempt by specialists in archaeology or any other field to withhold information – even if it is done with the purest of intentions – will in effect cede the battlefield of information and ideas to everybody else. Internet and Archaeology Now, of course, we come to the most often voiced criticism of MOOCs: the abysmal ‘retention’ and ‘completion’ rates they boast, and the correspondingly low percentage of total registrants which goes on to earn a certificate at the end of each learning experience (Parr, 2013; Perna et al.,, 2013; Ho et al.,, 2014; Hollands and Tirthali, 2014; Lauerman, 2014; Levy, 2014). The outsized attention paid to these data points, though, only reinforces how inapplicable they are to the present space (Ho and Reich, 2014). 266 CAA 2014 Paris F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S. Robert (eds.) / Proceedings of CAA 2014 Paris business: Wikipedia. Using September 2013 as sample,1 we see that a little over 116 million people visited the site during this period (Wikipedia, 2014). Of those, the number of ‘active participants’ – people who made five or more edits to Wikipedia’s vast array of articles – was 7,789, or a little under seven thousandths of one percent. The number of active contributors – people who made 100 or more edits – was 778, or six ten–thousandths of one percent (ibid). This leaves 99.993% of visitors to be classified as non–participatory and non–contributory (Figure 3) – a statistic which starts to make participation in ‘MOOCs’ sounds a little better! In many ways, higher education has remained static for centuries. Our understanding of it is fueled by a shared vocabulary, and by a common understanding of expectations. College courses are formal engagements, which are quarters, semesters, or years in length. They are offered synchronously, with a beginning date, an end date, and a cutoff for registration and honorable withdrawal. They are undertaken by students who have completed an official registration (and payment) process – a process that includes contractually agreeing to participate that course from start to finish, and that lays out the rewards for success and the consequences of failure. In the case of the former, a good grade, college credit, and eventually a certificate or diploma awaits, while the latter offers a negative mark which will remain on the student’s transcripts for the rest of his or her life, affecting every other academic undertaking he or she pursues (cf. Ho and Reich, 2014; Emanuel, forthcoming). Viewed through this lens, a combined withdrawal and failure rate of twenty percent would be highly suspect to say the least, while a rate of nine in ten meeting this description would rightly be viewed as an unmitigated disaster – a breach of contract by both the professor and the institution offering this course. However, in the open online world, where the only barrier to entry is access to an Internet connection and the willingness to provide an email address, this same rule simply does not – and cannot – apply. Terms and concepts like ‘registration,’ ‘retention,’ ‘completion,’ and even ‘course’ lose their traditional meaning, and their application here makes little more sense than using maritime terminology to describe modern interstate travel. Figure 2: Certificate earners, active participants, and non-participatory and non-contributory enrollees as percentages of overall CB22x enrollment (illustration by the author, based on data from Reich et al., 2014). A more relevant comparison would be other open online resources that offer engagement, track participation and contribution, and pose similarly low barriers to entry and contractual obligations for the user. For a frame of reference, we may consider some basic metrics from the Massive Open Online Course ‘The Ancient Greek Hero’ (CB 22x), a learning experience produced by Harvard University (HarvardX) that focuses on the close reading of ancient Greek texts and vase paintings. 43,563 people registered for this learning experience (which was referred to internally as a ‘Project’ rather than as a ‘Course’). Registration, which was possible up to three months prior to the Project’s official start date, consisted of to a user providing edX with their email address, viewing the CB 22x information page, and clicking ‘register for this course.’ Of the 43,563 registrants, 25,686 (59 percent) were active participants, meaning that they actually logged in to the Courseware and accessed the available materials once the Project was live (Reich et al., 2014). 3.2 percent of total registrants (and 5.5 percent of active participants) completed the necessary requirements to earn certificates of completion (ibid; Figure 2). Figure 3: Active participants and contributors versus non-participatory and non-contributory web traffic to Wikipedia.org, 1-30 Sept. 2013 (illustration by the author, based on data from Wikipedia 2014). Now let us compare these numbers to an open online community that has certainly affected the way that we as scholars and researchers, and the way our students, do Internet and Archaeology 1 At the time of this writing, September 2013 is the most recent month broken down in detail on Wikipedia’s statistics page. 267 CAA 2014 Paris J.P.Emanuel / Massive Open Online Opportunity: MOOCs and Internet–Based Communities of Archaeological Practice This is also consistent with the move among some to change C in the acronym ‘MOOC’ from ‘Course’ to ‘Content,’ and to consider these objects for what they might be more accurately described as: massive open multimedia textbooks, with – in many cases – a significant social component to them, which can be leveraged to create both feedback loops within, and hubs for accurate information transmission beyond, these learning experiences (cf. Fowler et al., 2014; Emanuel, forthcoming). As several studies and visualizations have shown, the seven–thousandths of a percent which actively participates – and especially that seven–ten–thousandths of a percent which actively contributes – can be very active in engaging the content and in engaging each other, bringing a remarkable level of interactivity that active contributors bring to a subject matter about which they are passionate (Forte and Bruckman, 2006; Viégas et al., 2007; Viégas and Wattenberg, 2014; Wagner and Prasarnphanich, 2007; Yang and Lai, 2010). Finally, the rise of the MOOC is helping to provoke serious thought about just how our field and many others can be properly communicated to a broad, international, and truly diverse population of learners, enthusiasts, and future professionals (cf. Dufton, Durusu–Tanrıöver and Alcock, 2014). This will hopefully grow into acceptance and consideration of the multiple modalities of participation that consumers of MOOC content desire, but it has already served as an opportunity to invest in better ways for we as archaeologists to communicate our story. In other words, it has spurred investment in better tools and approaches for the conveyance of archaeological understanding and practice, and has provided a means for interested persons to congregate around the topics that make our field so fascinating, while also allowing them to disseminate that information themselves, within their own circles both online and off. This is by and large the nature of social interactions and interest–based groupings in the online world, and we can see it borne out in MOOCs, as well. The graph below shows the level of successful engagement with assessment exercises charted against the number of chapters of content viewed within CB22x (Reich et al., 2014: fig. 5). As you can see, user types – and, we can infer, user intent – covers the entirety of the spectrum, from non–participatory, non–contributing registrant through the learner who viewed every chapter of content provided and aced every assessment. An excellent case in point on the different modalities of engagement available to participants is what we call ‘the listener,’ an identification which at its extreme refers to a participant who engaged with every chapter of content but none of the assessments – in other words, a person who truly came to learn and to interact, but without the desire to ‘earn a certificate’ (compare to readers vs. active participants in Wikipedia; Antin and Cheshire, 2010). These tools include, for example, media–rich annotation of all modes of content presentation, including text, image, and video (Desenne, 2014; Desenne and Reis–Dennis, 2014; Mondenero Moya et al., 2014), as well as expanded 3D imaging of objects (e.g., inter alia, Zhou et al., 2012: 13–140; Sanders, 2013; Emanuel, 2014; Manuelian, 2014) and vastly improved interactive viewers that can be used to engage with objects of all types within our museum and library collections and beyond (Harward et al., 2014) – along with robust analytics that enable and perpetuate the feedback loops that make MOOCs special, by allowing for measurement of participant engagement, and thus providing an opportunity to recognize where we need to recalibrate our message. This should provide the impetus for our looking at MOOCs in a different light. Rather than ‘courses’ whose ‘retention’ and ‘completion’ rates we count like beans, the significant differences in user intent and modality of participation should be taken into account when creating, running, and evaluating MOOCs. Further development is underway to shrink not participation in these experiences, but the experiences themselves, so as to create overlap between the multiple modalities of participation that learners wish to engage in. An example of this is Humanities (HUM) 1x ‘The Book: Histories Across Time and Space,’ a hyper–modular learning experience currently under development at HarvardX, which combines archaeology, history, art history, law, music, and several other schools and specialties into a user–directed, interdisciplinary learning experience made up not of a lengthy, ‘in–or–out’ type ‘course,’ but of numerous discrete learning experiences focused loosely on one overall topic – in this case, the History of The Book – which can be arranged into learning paths or engaged with on their own. Each of these discrete learning experiences can, in turn, be engaged with via user–directed paths, in terms of both order and depth. Figure 4: Scatter plot showing the level of successful engagement with assessment exercises charted against the number of chapters of content viewed by enrollees in CB22x (after Reich et al., 2014: fig. 5). Internet and Archaeology 268 CAA 2014 Paris F. Giligny, F. Djindjian, L. Costa, P. Moscati, S. Robert (eds.) / Proceedings of CAA 2014 Paris DESENNE, P. and REIS–DENNIS, L. (2014) Open edX Annotation Tools: Breaking the Unidirectionality of Online Course Content. Paper presented at the conference Learning With MOOCs: A Practitioner’s Workshop, Cambridge, MA, 12–13 Aug. 3. Conclusion The fact that we are willingly entering the open online world is both encouraging and worthwhile, and it is made vastly moreso by a willingness to engage in multidirectional dialogue, and to welcome multiple modalities of participation, trusting that those who participate in even a small portion of our learning experiences may take a portion of the knowledge they gained from us and use it positively, both to educate their peers and to combat the false information that abounds on the 21st century web. Further, though no single MOOC will suddenly challenge Wikipedia or any other multi–million–user resource on the web for Internet supremacy, the simple fact is that only by refusing to cede the field and leave the arena will we be able to truly educate individuals – and, through them, the world – about our profession, and about the critical knowledge, context, and information that is necessary to truly understand the past. DUFTON, J. A., DURUSU–TANRIÖVER, M. and ALCOCK, S. E. (2014). Archaeology at Large: Embracing Massive Audiences for Online Applications. Paper presented at the conference Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2014, Paris, France, 22–25 April. EMANUEL, J. P. (2014). Prospectus Omni ab Angulo: 3D Imaging in Archaeological Reconstruction and Analysis. Paper presented at the Symposium Thinking With Your Eyes: Visualizing the Arts, Humanities, and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 27–28 Feb. EMANUEL, J. P. (forthcoming). MOOC as Multimedia Textbook: Rethinking the Open Online ‘Course’ in Light of Learner Intent. In J. P. Emanuel and C. Filos (eds.), Digital Humanities in the Age of the MOOC. Classics@ 12. Washington, DC. Acknowledgements I would like to extend special thanks to the organizers of the session ‘Archaeology at Large: Embracing Massive Audiences for Online Applications,’ J. Andrew Dufton, Müge Durusu–Tanrıöver, and Susan E. Alcock (Brown University), as well as HarvardX, whose funding made attendance at CAA2014 possible. FORTE, A. and BRUCKMAN, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the Classroom: Exploring Online Publication and Learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN, 27 June–1 July 2006. Available at: http://www.cc.gatech. edu/~asb/papers/conference/forte–bruckman–icls06. pdf. References ANTIN, J. and CHESHIRE, C. (2010). Readers Are Not Free–Riders: Reading as a Form of Participation on Wikipedia. Paper presented at the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Savannah, GA, 6–10 Feb. Available at: http:// dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1718918.1718942. FOWLER, R., MEINKING, K. A., MORRELL, K., et al., (2014). Adapting Content from a Massive Open Online Course to a Liberal Arts Setting. Transformations: National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education. http://www.academiccommons.org/collaborationand-blended-learning/case-studies-on-digitalcollaboration-and-blendedhybrid-learning/ BLANK, G. (2013). Who Creates Content? Information, Communication & Society 16(4), pp. 590–612. HARWARD, J., HAMBURGER, J., STERN, R., SINGHAL, R. and EMANUEL, J. P. (2014). Oculus: Using Open APIs to Share Harvard’s Digitized Books and Manuscripts. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Harvard University Information Technology Summit, Cambridge, MA, 5 June. Available at http:// www.academia.edu/7266427/Oculus_Using_Open_ APIs_to_Share_Harvards_Digitized_Books_and_ Manuscripts. BOHN, A., BAUCHTA, C., HORNIK, K. and MAIR, P. (2014). Making Friends and Communicating on Facebook: Implications for the Access to Social Capital. Social Networks 37, pp. 29–41. BURGESS, J. and GREEN, J. (2009). YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge, MA. CORREA, T. (2010). The Participation Divide Among ‘Online Experts’: Experience, Skills and Psychological Factors as Predictors of College Students’ Web Content Creation. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication 16(1), pp. 71–92. HO, A. D. and REICH, B. J. F. (2014). The Tricky Task of Figuring Out What Makes a MOOC Successful. The Atlantic, 23 Jan. Available at http://www. theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/the– tricky–task–of–figuring–out–what–makes–a–mooc– successful/283274/. DAUGHERTY, T., EASTIN, M. S. and BRIGHT, L. (2008). Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User–Generated Content. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8(2), pp. 16–25. HO, A. D., REICH, B. J. F., NESTERKO, S. et al., (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses. HarvardX Working Papers 1, Cambridge. DESENNE, P. (2014). Annotations in the edX MOOC Platform. Paper presented at the New Media Consortium 2014 Summer Conference, Portland, OR, 17–19 June. Internet and Archaeology HOLLANDS, F. M. and TIRTHALI, D. (2014) MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Center for Benefit–Cost 269 CAA 2014 Paris J.P.Emanuel / Massive Open Online Opportunity: MOOCs and Internet–Based Communities of Archaeological Practice Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Available at: http://cbcse.org/wordpress/ wp–content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_ and_Reality.pdf. 2013 Course Report. HarvardX Working Papers 3, Cambridge. Available at: http://www.academia. edu/5788891/CB22x_The_Ancient_Greek_Hero_ Spring_2013_Course_Report Huffington Post (2013) Celebrity Death Hoaxes Through the Years. Huffington Post, 14 Nov. Available at http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/celebrity– death–hoaxes_n_4268875.html. SANDERS, D. (2013). The Gurob Ship–Cart Model in Virtual Reality. In S. Wachsmann, The Gurob Ship– Cart Model and Its Mediterranean Context, College Station, pp. 209–218. International Telecommunications Union. (2010). Definitions of World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators. Available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU–D/ ict/material/TelecomICT_Indicators_Definition_ March2010_for_web.pdf. VIÉGAS, F. B., WATTENBERG M., KRISS, J. and VAN HAM, F. (2007). Talk Before You Type: Coordination in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, New York. Available at: http://hint.fm/papers/wikipedia_ coordination_final.pdf International Telecommunications Union. (2013). Percentage of Individuals Using the Internet. Available at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU–D/Statistics/Documents/ statistics/2013/Individuals_Internet_2000–2012.xls. VIÉGAS, F. B. and WATTENBERG, M. (2014). Keynote Address. Presented at the Symposium Thinking With Your Eyes: Visualizing the Arts, Humanities, and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 27–28 Feb. LAUERMAN, J. (2014). Harvard, MIT Online Courses Dropped by 95% of Registrants. Bloomberg, 21 Jan. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014– 01–21/harvard–online–courses–dropped–by–95–of– registered–study–says.html. WAGNER, C. and PRASARNPHANICH, P. (2007) .Innovating Collaborative Content Creation: The Role of Altruism and Wiki Technology. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, New York. Available at: http://ieeexplore. ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4076406 LEVY, A. (2014). Massive Online Education Gets Less Massive. Bloomberg, 14 Jan. Available at: http://www. bloomberg.com/news/2014–01–14/massive–online– education–gets–less–massive.html. Wikipedia. (2014). Wikipedia: Statistics. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics. MANUELIAN, P. D. (2013). Giza 3D: Digital Archaeology and Scholarly Access to the Giza Pyramids. Paper presented at the conference Digital Heritage 2013, Marseilles, France, 28 Oct–1 Nov 2013. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/7572994/_Giza_3D_ Digital_Archaeology_and_Scholarly_Access_to_ the_Giza_Pyramids._The_Giza_Project_at_Harvard_ University_. YANG, H–L. and LAI, C–Y. (2010). Motivations of Wikipedia Content Contributors. Computers in Human Behavior 26(6), pp. 1377–1383. ZAPATERO, L. A. and MORALES, M. M. de (2014). MOOCs as a Way to Disseminate Scientific Knowledge and Expertise Against the Death Penalty. Paper presented at the 8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 10–12 March. Abstract available at: http://library. iated.org/view/ARROYOZAPATERO2014MOO. MATAZAT, U. (2004). Academic Communication and Internet Discussion Groups: Transfer of Information or Creation of Social Contacts? Social Networks 26(3), 221–255. ZHOU, M., ROMANOWSKA, I., WU, Z., XU, P. and VERHAGEN, P., eds. (2012). Revive the Past: Proceedings of the 39th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Amsterdam. MONDENERO MOYA, J. J., CEBRIÁN ROBLES, D. and DESENNE, P. (2014). Usabilidad y Satisfacción en Herramientas de Anotaciones Multimedia Para MOOC. Comunicar 44. PARR, C. (2013). Not Staying the Course. Times Higher Education, 10 May. Available at: http://www. insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/10/new–study– low–mooc–completion–rates. PERNA, L., RUBY, A., BORUCH, R. et al., (2013) The Lifecycle of a Million MOOC Users. Paper presented at the MOOC Research Initiative Conference, Austin, TX, 5 Dec 2013. Available at: http://www.gse.upenn. edu/pdf/ahead/perna_ruby_boruch_moocs_dec2013. pdf. REICH, B. J. F., EMANUEL, J. P., NESTERKO, S. et al., (2014). HeroesX: The Ancient Greek Hero: Spring Internet and Archaeology 270 CAA 2014 Paris