archaeoinformatics


(Cross posted on Heritage Bytes)

We’re delighted to announce that Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration is now available via the University of California’s eScholarship repository, at the following link:http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb 

This book explores the social use and context of the World Wide Web within the discipline of archaeology.  While the Web has radically altered journalism, commerce, media and social relationships, its sees very uneven adoption in professional scholarly contexts. Case studies discussed in this book help illuminate patterns of adoption and resistance to new forms of scholarly communication and data sharing. These case studies explore social media, digital preservation, and cultural representation concerns, as well as technical and semantic challenges and approaches toward data interoperability. Contributors to this volume debate the merits and sustainability of open access publishing and how the Web mediates interactions between professional and nonprofessional communities engaged in archaeology.

 

Archaeology 2.0 is the first book in the Cotsen Institute’s new Digital Archaeology Series (http://escholarship.org/uc/search?entity=cioa_cda). The editors want to thank all of the book’s contributors, and also the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, especially Julie Nemer, Carol Leyba, and Willeke Wendrich. The printed version will be available for purchase shortly.

DDIG member Ethan Watrall (Asst. Professor of Anthropology @ MSU) sends us the following information about his upcoming Cultural Heritage Informatics (CHI) field school, which is part of the CHI Initiative at Michigan State University.

Excerpts quoted. For full details, please see this PDF LINK.

Site Link:<http://chi.matrix.msu.edu/fieldschool> Email:watrall@msu.edu

We are extremely happy to officially announce the Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool (ANP491: Methods in Cultural Heritage Informatics). Taking place from May 31st to July 1st (2011) on the campus of Michigan State University, the Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool will introduce students to the tools and techniques required to creatively apply information and computing technologies to cultural heritage materials and questions.

The Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool is a unique experience that uses the model of an archaeological fieldschool (in which students come together for a period of 5 or 6 weeks to work on an archaeological site in order to learn how to do archaeology). Instead of working on an archaeological site, however, students in the Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool will come together to collaboratively work on several cultural heritage informatics projects. In the process they will learn a great deal about what it takes to build applications and digital user experiences that serve the domain of cultural heritage – skills such as programming, user experience design, media design, project management, user centered design, digital storytelling, etc. …

The Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool is open to both graduate students and undergraduates. There are no prerequisites (beyond an interest in the topic). Students from a wide variety of departments, programs, and disciplines are welcome. students are required to enroll for both sections 301 (3 credits) and 631 (3 credits) of ANP 491 (Methods in Cultural Heritage Informatics).

Admission to the Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool is by application only.

To apply, please fill out the Cultural Heritage Informatics Fieldschool Application Form <http://chi.matrix.msu.edu/fieldschool/chi-fieldschool-application>. Applications are due no later than 5pm on March 14th. Students will be notified as to whether they have been accepted by March 25th.

There are many items of interest to DDIG members at the upcoming meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. The following is a list of sessions from the preliminary program, and is not meant to be comprehensive. If you would like me to add another item to the list, please comment on the blog so everybody may see it immediately.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON:
[45] FORUM – MULTIPLE DATA AND ACCESS: EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INTEGRATING ARCHAEOBOTANICAL DATA IN BROADER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROJECTS
[64] POSTER SESSION – ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF GIS, GPR, AND REMOTE SENSING

THURSDAY EVENING:
!!! 5-6PM, DIGITAL DATA INTEREST GROUP MEETING !!!

FRIDAY MORNING:
[115] GENERAL SESSION – ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF GIS, GPR, AND REMOTE SENSING
[118] FORUM – USING THE DIGITAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD (TDAR) FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH

FRIDAY AFTERNOON:
[143] SYMPOSIUM – MORTUARY PRACTICES IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST: META-DATA ISSUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL DATABASE
[144] FORUM – PLANNING FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGITAL DATA MANAGEMENT
[145] SYMPOSIUM – RESEARCH UTILIZING THE MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC DATABASE
[146] SYMPOSIUM – THREE-DIMENSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODELING: THEORY, METHOD, PRACTICE

SATURDAY AFTERNOON:
[213] ELECTRONIC SYMPOSIUM – CONSTRUCTING A DATABASE OF LATE PLEISTOCENE/EARLY HOLOCENE ARCHAEOLOGICAL C14 DATES FOR SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA
[214] SYMPOSIUM – BLOGGING ARCHAEOLOGY
[216] ELECTRONIC SYMPOSIUM – FROM THE GROUND UP: BEST PRACTICES FOR BALANCING USABILITY WITH THEORETICAL UTILITY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASES

SUNDAY MORNING:
[250] FORUM – GIS MODELING AT THE SITE OF JOYA DE CERÉN

The following is the final draft of the DDIG report to the SAA as seen in the preliminary draft dated Jan. 28 (link).

Annual Report of the SAA Digital Data Interest Group, 2010

The Digital Data Interest Group (DDIG) had a productive year in 2010. The expansion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) creating digital data from archaeological practices appears to continue at a rate relatively equivalent or higher than that generally found within the social sciences. This year saw the publication of a number of items pertaining to digital data use in archaeology in SAA periodicals. The annual SAA meeting in Saint Louis contained a variety of symposia and general contributions specifically pertaining to the implications of ICTs and digital data in archaeological practice, including a DDIG-sponsored digital symposium. This report will address SAA activities related to DDIG, and then provide a general assessment of digital data developments in general with the potential to affect American archaeology as construed in the SAA mission statement.

SAA periodicals published several items this year directly addressing digital data practices. Three items were in the SAA Archaeological Record, “Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge” (McManamon and Kintigh 2010), “Fieldwork in the Age of Digital Reproduction: A Review of the Potentials and Limitations of Google Earth for Archaeologists” (Meyers 2010), and “Open Context in Context: Cyberinfrastructure and Distributed Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological Data” (Kansa 2010). One article was published in American Antiquity, “Computational Modeling and Neolithic Socioecological Dynamics: A Case Study from Southwest Asia,” (Barton et al. 2010). A number of articles in both publications also indirectly included ICTs and digital data as part of their subject matter. Outside the SAA, two articles were published in the journal Heritage Management by DDIG members (Kintigh and Altschul 2010; Richards et al. 2010) in a special issue devoted to “The Dollars and Sense of Managing Archaeological Collections,” edited by DDIG member Terry Childs.

The 2010 SAA meeting in Saint Louis contained a large amount of activity related to ICT and digital data use. This included sessions on the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), digital curation, and digital publishing. The DDIG-sponsored digital symposium at the SAA, “Practical Methods of Data Production, Dissemination, and Preservation,” contained 13 individual presentations created by 27 contributors; the symposium highlighted results-driven applications of digital data management undertaken by DDIG members which could serve as examples of best practices in the field. Outside of specific symposia, at least 13 other presentations and posters appeared at the meeting with direct focus on ICT and digital data practices in their titles and abstracts.

This past year saw the emergence of two important developments on the subject of digital data, with the potential for profound influence on archaeological practice: (1) The National Science Foundation (NSF) implemented a requirement for a data management plan to be included with all proposals beginning January 18, 2011; and (2) the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) called for commentary concerning how a new policy similar to that of the National Institute of Health (NIH) might be generally constructed for other agencies, creating a requirement for public access to data resultant from publicly-funded research.

The NSF requirement, now active, will have an immediate effect on archaeological practice in that all proposal writers now must make their data management plans explicit in less than two pages. This is a generally positive development. In order to help mitigate the most onerous step for proposal writers, the NSF has proactively suggested (but not required) that proposal writers avail themselves of the expertise of two non-profit, research organizations run by DDIG members, the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), and Open Context. However, in order to realize the best benefits of this new requirement and subsequently derived practices in other funding and regulatory agencies, the American archaeological community will need to engage in a substantive dialogue about data management standards, ethics of data sharing, and citation practices. This is not a call for prescribed, one-size-fits-all requirements, but for recognition of the fact that the ongoing development of open community standards takes explicit work, both behavioral and technological, so that researchers will produce data management plans with high levels of interoperability.

Fortunately, it is good to see multiple initiatives attempt to tackle the complex issues surrounding data sharing. For instance, Open Context’s model differs significantly from tDAR. Open Context positions itself as a publication venue and less a repository like tDAR. It emphasizes Web oriented “data sharing as publication”, and relies upon digital preservation services offered by the University of California’s digital library system. A recent electronic document which provides a good example of general-use instructions for interoperable digital data, Guidelines for Web-Based Data Publication in Archaeology (Kansa and Kansa 2010), was produced for Open Context training at the 2010 meeting American Schools of Oriental Research. Furthermore, a Canadian initiative, “Sustainable Archaeology” (a joint program of the University of Western Ontario and McMaster University), is being developed with similarities to both tDAR and the United Kingdom’s Archaeology Data Service; this project will include digital curation facilities and best practices guidelines which will be used to, among other priorities, formulate an organizational solution to a glut of cultural resource management data.

The OSTP call for comments closed on January 21, 2010. The last update on the subject was March 8, 2010, which indicated that input was still being reviewed. Five PDF files are available on the OSTP website, with the contents of emails and other materials sent in response to their call. Comments from the archaeological community included a generally supportive letter co-authored by DDIG member Francis P. McManamon, executive director of tDAR, which also recognized the need for some measure of disciplinary cohesion around to derive benefits from such openness. Similar statements were made by many commenters representing a wide swath of the sciences and humanities. This OSTP initiative also will raise significant questions about what constitutes proper citation, and other recognition of contributions made by previous researchers, in professional reports of new findings involving curated public data.

The expansion of professional outreach and communication on digital data issues remains a top priority in DDIG. Such expansion is devoted to development of greater awareness within the SAA community of the ways in which ICT use and resultant digital data both structure work while simultaneously creating new affordances. The ability to capitalize on these new affordances is increasingly dependent upon the development of recognized data standards and (note: not necessarily mandated) collaborative networks of users (researchers, managers, educators, etc.). The position of tDAR and Open Context as institutional points of reference will be exceedingly valuable in the near- and medium-term. However, without the appearance of a more engaged community of archaeological data practitioners in the medium- to long-term, the expansion of broad efforts like those at the NSF and OSTP may not be highly beneficial. Similarly, in order to ensure that the population of archaeological practitioners remains prepared to create and maintain interoperable data sets and standards it is time for disciplinary conversation and concerted action on what constitutes appropriate technical training at various levels of educational and professional development.

Sincerely,

Joshua J. Wells, Ph.D., R.P.A.
Convener, Digital Data Interest Group of the Society for American Archaeology
Assistant Professor of Social Informatics
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
& Department of Informatics
Indiana University South Bend

References Cited

Barton, C. Michael, Isaac Ullah, and Helena Mitasova
2010 Computational Modeling and Neolithic Socioecological Dynamics: A Case Study from Southwest Asia. American Antiquity 75(2):364-386

Kansa, Eric C.
2010 Open Context in Context: Cyberinfrastructure and Distributed Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological Data. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(5):12–16.

Kansa, Eric C., and Sara Whitcher Kansa
2010 Guidelines for Web-Based Data Publication in Archaeology. Electronic document, .

Kintigh, Keith W. and Jeffrey H. Altschul
2010 Sustaining the Digital Archaeological Record. Heritage Management 3(2):264-274.

McManamon, Francis P., and Keith W. Kintigh
2010 Digital Antiquity: Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37–40.

Meyers, Adrian
2010 Fieldwork in the Age of Digital Reproduction: A Review of the Potentials and Limitations of Google Earth for Archaeologists. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(4):7–11.

Richards, Julian, Tony Austin, and Catherine Hardman
2010 Covering the Costs of Digital Curation. Heritage Management 3(2):255-63.

The annual report of DDIG is due to the SAA on Friday, February 4th. They ask for a “report on interest group/representative activities” and “action items” to be included. The text below is merely a report, I am not presently planning to submit any action items. I’m glad to take comments on the DRAFT text below, and proposals for action items.

Use the comments field for this blog entry to communicate about this …

Cheers,
Josh

DRAFT REPORT OF THE DIGITAL DATA INTEREST GROUP TO THE SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY

The Digital Data Interest Group (DDIG) had a productive year in 2010. The expansion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) creating digital data from archaeological practices appears to continue at a rate relatively equivalent or higher than that generally found within the social sciences. This year saw the publication of a number of items pertaining to digital data use in archaeology in SAA periodicals. The annual SAA meeting in Saint Louis contained a variety of symposia and general contributions specifically pertaining to the implications of ICTs and digital data in archaeological practice, including a DDIG-sponsored digital symposium. This report will address SAA activities related to DDIG, and then provide a general assessment of digital data developments in general with the potential to affect American archaeology as construed in the SAA mission statement.

SAA periodicals published several items this year directly addressing digital data practices. Three items were in the SAA Archaeological Record, “Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge” (McManamon and Kintigh 2010), “Fieldwork in the Age of Digital Reproduction: A Review of the Potentials and Limitations of Google Earth for Archaeologists” (Meyers 2010), and “Open Context in Context: Cyberinfrastructure and Distributed Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological Data” (Kansa 2010). One article was published in American Antiquity, “Computational Modeling and Neolithic Socioecological Dynamics: A Case Study from Southwest Asia,” (Barton et al. 2010). A number of articles in both publications also indirectly included ICTs and digital data as part of their subject matter.

The 2010 SAA meeting in Saint Louis contained a large amount of activity related to ICT and digital data use. This included sessions on the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), digital curation, and digital publishing. The DDIG-sponsored digital symposium at the SAA, “Practical Methods of Data Production, Dissemination, and Preservation,” contained 13 individual presentations created by 27 contributors; the symposium highlighted results-driven applications of digital data management undertaken by DDIG members which could serve as examples of best practices in the field. Outside of specific symposia, at least 13 other presentations and posters appeared at the meeting with direct focus on ICT and digital data practices in their titles and abstracts. Although not part of the SAA, the

This past year saw the emergence of two important developments on the subject of digital data, with the potential for profound influence on archaeological practice: (1) The National Science Foundation (NSF) implemented a requirement for a data management plan to be included with all proposals beginning January 18, 2011; and (2) the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) called for commentary concerning how a new policy similar to that of the National Institute of Health (NIH) might be generally constructed for other agencies, creating a requirement for public access to data resultant from publicly-funded research.

The NSF requirement, now active, will have an immediate effect on archaeological practice in that all proposal writers now must make their data management plans explicit in less than two pages. This is a generally positive development. In order to help mitigate the most onerous step for proposal writers, the NSF has proactively suggested (but not required) that proposal writers avail themselves of the expertise of two non-profit, research organizations run by DDIG members, the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), and Open Context. However, in order to realize the best benefits of this new requirement and subsequently derived practices in other funding and regulatory agencies, the American archaeological community will need to engage in a substantive dialogue about data management standards, ethics of data sharing, and citation practices. This is not a call for prescribed, one-size-fits-all requirements, but for recognition of the fact that the ongoing development of open community standards takes explicit work in order to keep researchers from producing data management plans with low levels of interoperability.

The OSTP call for comments closed on January 21, 2010. The last update on the subject was March 8, 2010, which indicated that input was still being reviewed. Five PDF files are available on the OSTP website , with the contents of emails and other materials sent in response to their call. Comments from the archaeological community included a generally supportive letter co-authored by DDIG member Francis P. McManamon, executive director of tDAR, which also recognized the need for some measure of disciplinary cohesion around to derive benefits from such openness. Similar statements were made by many commenters representing a wide swath of the sciences and humanities. This OSTP initiative also will raise significant questions about what constitutes proper citation, and other recognition of contributions made by previous researchers, in professional reports of new findings involving curated public data.

The expansion of professional outreach and communication on digital data issues remains a top priority in DDIG. Such expansion is devoted to development of greater awareness within the SAA community of the ways in which ICT use and resultant digital data both structure work while simultaneously creating new affordances. The ability to capitalize on these new affordances is increasingly dependent upon the development of recognized data standards and (note: not necessarily mandated) collaborative networks of users (researchers, managers, educators, etc.). The position of tDAR and Open Context as institutional points of reference will be exceedingly valuable in the near- and medium-term. However, without the appearance of a more engaged community of archaeological data practitioners in the medium- to long-term, the expansion of broad efforts like those at the NSF and OSTP may not be highly beneficial. Similarly, in order to ensure that the population of archaeological practitioners remains prepared to create and maintain interoperable data sets and standards it is time for disciplinary conversation and concerted action on what constitutes appropriate technical training at various levels of educational development.

Sincerely,

Joshua J. Wells, Ph.D, R.P.A.
Convener, Digital Data Interest Group of the Society for American Archaeology
Assistant Professor of Social Informatics
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
& Department of Informatics
Indiana University South Bend

References Cited

Barton, C. Michael, Isaac Ullah, and Helena Mitasova
2010 Computational Modeling and Neolithic Socioecological Dynamics: A Case Study from Southwest Asia. American Antiquity 75(2):364-386

Kansa, Eric C.
2010 Open Context in Context: Cyberinfrastructure and Distributed Approaches to Publish and Preserve Archaeological Data. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(5):12–16.

McManamon, Francis P., and Keith W. Kintigh
2010 Digital Antiquity: Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37–40.

Meyers, Adrian
2010 Fieldwork in the Age of Digital Reproduction: A Review of the Potentials and Limitations of Google Earth for Archaeologists. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(4):7–11.

Chuck Jones draws attention to a story on the Apple website that explains how iPads are used for research at Pompeii. “Dr. Steven Ellis … credits the introduction of six iPad devices at Pompeii with helping his team solve one of the most difficult problems of archaeological fieldwork: how to efficiently and accurately record the complex information they encounter in the trenches.” I looked up the Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia (PARP:PS) of the University of Cincinnati: “Through the full range of archaeological inquiry – archaeological excavations, structural and artefactual analyses, and geophysical surveys – we are revealing the dynamic structural and social history of an entire Pompeian neighborhood.” On the Apple site, points out that “[a]lthough portable computers offer a paperless solution, field archaeologists rarely use them in the trenches because their size, input limitations, battery life, and sensitivity to dirt and heat make them impractical in the harsh conditions of a dig.”

The idea of using iPad to collect the massive data the project would generate came from Ellis’s University of Cincinnati colleague John Wallrodt, an expert on digital databases for archaeological projects. Wallrodt had looked unsuccessfully into using various tablet devices for field research, but when iPad was introduced in January 2010, he knew at once that it was right for their project. Says Wallrodt, “Perfectly portable, with no moving parts, a Multi-Touch screen, and a battery that lasts the whole workday, iPad was practically custom built for our needs.” Adds Ellis: “It was the ability to enter so many disparate kinds of information, recording everything from architectural elements to fish scales and bones to the actual sequences of events. That my team could both type and draw on the screen, and also examine all previously entered data, made it an ideal single-device solution.”

Beyond the scope of his project, Ellis sees iPad as revolutionizing the 300-year-old discipline of archaeological fieldwork. “A generation ago computers made it possible for scholars to move away from just looking at pretty pictures on walls and work with massive amounts of information and data. It was a huge leap forward. Using iPad to conduct our excavations is the next one. And I’m really proud to be a part of it.”

I came across a post in the Through the Kaleidoscope blog that got me thinking. “Crowd science – where masses of people participate in data collection for science projects – is growing … Astronomy is the area in which crowd science has been most frequently used, which makes sense given the field’s massive scale and large datasets. One example is the ten-year old SETI@home project …” I must admit here that I’ve been participating in the latter project since May 1999—which puts me in the 89th percentile of all 1.1 million SETI enthusiasts  :-)  I run the project using UC Berkeley’s BOINC, a commonly-used, multiplatform open-source program for volunteer computing and grid computing. BOINC facilitates running several projects at the same time according to selected settings. For instance, I’m also active in other projects: Einstein@home, MilkyWay@home (astronomy), Climateprediction.net (climatology), Rosetta@home, Malariacontrol.net (medical research), SZTAKI Desktop Grid (math), Quake Catcher Network (seismology). At one time, I also participated in non-BOINC projects but that was too cumbersome. The BOINC projects have attracted a lot of creative programmers so that there are for example at least seven websites where you can easily access your statistics both by project as well as combined. Each project awards credits for work done, allowing cross-project comparison and combination of your “scores.” It all serves to involve the participants, make them feel invested. There is even a way to have important milestones in you efforts posted on your FaceBook account, e.g., on September 3, I passed the 6,000 credit milestone for Climateprediction.net.

So what could we do with this crowd-sourced/distributed-computing approach in archaeology? After all, just like astronomy and medical research, we too have a lot of goodwill from the general public directed at us. There has to be a way to channel some of this. Surely, we can find some huge data sets that need processing and whose results can be appealing to a general audience? In the above blog post, another angle is also discussed, e.g., Galaxy Zoo, a project in which people help classify galaxies from Hubble Telescope images, a task that is hard to computerize. Some museums are letting the public tag artifacts online, a way to enhance the often-brief information available in the database (see the Steve Project). This is still primarily for art though, not archaeological artifacts. We all know that our budgets won’t increase in the near future, on the contrary. Let’s get creative!

Jack Sasson draws my attention to the website of Factum Arte, an organization working with museums and other institutions on the production of 3D facsimiles of artifacts, structures, etc. that can be used for conservation and documentation purposes. They also prepare facsimiles for exhibitions. Especially interesting are their archaeological projects:

Wallada's box
SETI I Seti I Thutmose III
A facsimile of Princess Wallada’s Box
Madrid 2010

Commission by
The Conjunto Arqueológico
Madinat al-Zahra

Work in the tomb of Tutankhamun
Madrid 2009

Recorded in Luxor,
Valley of the Kings

pdf report available

Facsimile of a section of Burial chamber from
the tomb of Seti I

Madrid 2003

Recorded in Luxor,
Valley of the Kings

pdf report available

2nd pdf report available

Facsimile of
Thutmose III´s tomb

Madrid 2004

National Gallery of Art in Washington and other venues in USA & Europe

Asurnasirpal II
Dama de Elche
Facsimile of the Asurnasirpal II´s
Throne Room
.
Madrid 2006
The British Museum, Pergamon Museum, Princeton Art Museum, Harvard Scakler Art Museum and Dresden Museum
Facsimile of the
Dama de Elche

Madrid 2004

Commission by
Museo Arqueologico Nacional
and MARQ

pdf report available

One of the Neo-Assyrian winged lions from Nimrud at the British Museum assembled prior to moulding. The winged human headed lion is over 3 meters tall. It has been assembled with the carved carpet piece, also from the British museum.

Just a post to share a draft of a paper authored by myself, Tom Eliot, Sebastian Heath, and Sean Gillies (lots of thanks to them; they are dream co-authors!). I presented it at the CAA meeting in Granada.

The paper describes using Atom feeds for helping content escape scientific / archaeological collections. We looked at how Atom feeds can be used to help third-parties annotate resources obtained from other collections. These annotations (using some common vocabulary) can be useful for looking at a research question like trade and exchange.

Here’s the paper (pdf).

Here’s some great news (esp. considering current economic conditions!) for those of you interested in digital data and archaeology:

Digital Antiquity Seeks a Founding Executive Director

Digital Antiquity seeks an entrepreneurial and visionary Executive Director who can play a central role in transforming the discipline of archaeology by leading the establishment of an on-line repository of the digital data and documents produced by archaeological research in the Americas. Digital Antiquity is a national initiative that is generously funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

The Executive Director oversees all Digital Antiquity activities, including hiring and supervising staff, marketing repository services to the professional community, guiding software development, and managing acquisition of repository content.

During its startup phase, Digital Antiquity resides within Arizona State University and the Executive Director will hold the position of Research Professor at ASU with a 12 month, renewable appointment, excellent benefits, and a rank and attractive salary commensurate with experience. A fixed term secondment or IPA (paid transfer from another position) would also be considered.

A link to the full job announcement may be found at http://www.digitalantiquity.org/confluence/display/DIGITAQ/Executive+Director+Search. Interested individuals may also contact Keith Kintigh (kintigh@asu.edu) for more information. Consideration of applications will begin May 1, 2009 and will continue until the position is filled .

Next Page »