Chancellor's Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Heritage at the University of Edinburgh; Former Senior Lecturer at the University of Stirling, and Research co-Investigator at the UCL Institute of Archaeology | Digital Heritage, Museums, Medieval Archaeology
How was the Roman Empire invoked in Brexit Britain and in Donald Trump’s United States of America... more How was the Roman Empire invoked in Brexit Britain and in Donald Trump’s United States of America, and to what purpose? And why is it critical to answer these kinds of questions? Heritage and Nationalism explores how people’s perceptions and experiences of the ancient past shape political identities in the digital age. It particularly examines the multiple ways in which politicians, parties and private citizens mobilise aspects of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval past of Britain and Europe to include or exclude ‘others’ based on culture, religion, class, race, ethnicity, etc.
Chiara Bonacchi draws on the results of an extensive programme of research involving both data-intensive and qualitative methods to investigate how pre-modern periods are leveraged to support or oppose populist nationalist arguments as part of social media discussions concerning Brexit, the Italian Election of 2018 and the US-Mexican border debate in the US. Analysing millions of tweets and Facebook posts, comments and replies, this book is the first to use big data to answer questions about public engagement with the past and identity politics. The findings and conclusions revise and reframe the meaning of populist nationalism today and help to build a shared basis for the democratic engagement of citizens in public life in the future. The book offers a fascinating and unmissable read for anyone interested in how the past and its contemporary legacy, or ‘heritage’, influence our ‘political’ thinking and feeling in a time of hyper-interconnectivity.
This Special Theme examines the dynamic relationships between
production, availability and usage ... more This Special Theme examines the dynamic relationships between production, availability and usage of Big Data, laying out a research agenda for digital heritage at the time of the ‘data turn’. Over the past fifteen years, a proliferation of heritage data has been generated by ‘ecosystems of distributed practices’ enacted by the co-working of bodies, cultural identities, organisational workflows, software, application programming interfaces, etc. (Ruppert 2018, 19–20). The authors of research articles and commentaries in this collection explore the three macro-dimensions along which we can map transformations of and by heritage in Big Data ecologies: 1) ontologies, or heritage as datified resources; 2) interactions; and 3) methodologies and epistemologies.
European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 2021
This article illustrates an approach that draws on topo-stratigraphic building archaeology, archi... more This article illustrates an approach that draws on topo-stratigraphic building archaeology, architectural anthropology and heritage studies to assess transforming social values of urban built heritage in the longue durée. These three research traditions are closely related, but often pursued for the study of urban environments at the exclusion of each other. Here we discuss the value of their joint implementation through the analysis of a specific case study, a neighbourhood in the city of Florence (11 th-21 st centuries). We argue that the proposed approach enables a more in-depth understanding of and negotiation between the variable meanings emerging from the relationships between people, architecture and urban space. In this way, it aids the contemporary critical curation of 'deep cities'.
This article presents a conceptual and methodological framework to study heritage-based tribalism... more This article presents a conceptual and methodological framework to study heritage-based tribalism in Big Data ecologies by combining approaches from the humanities, social and computing sciences. We use such a framework to examine how ideas of human origin and ancestry are deployed on Twitter for purposes of antagonistic ‘othering’. Our goal is to equip researchers with theory and analytical tools for investigating divisive online uses of the past in today’s networked societies. In particular, we apply notions of heritage, othering and neo-tribalism, and both data-intensive and qualitative methods to the case of people’s engagements with the news of Cheddar Man’s DNA on Twitter. We show that heritage-based tribalism in Big Data ecologies is uniquely shaped as an assemblage by the coalescing of different forms of antagonistic othering. Those that co-occur most frequently are the ones that draw on ‘Views on Race’, ‘Trust in Experts’ and ‘Political Leaning’. The framings of the news that were most influential in triggering heritage-based tribalism were introduced by both right- and left-leaning newspaper outlets and by activist websites. We conclude that heritage-themed communications that rely on provocative narratives on social media tend to be labelled as political and not to be conducive to positive change in people’s attitudes towards issues such as racism.
This article provides the first theoretical treatment of the ontologies and epistemologies of dig... more This article provides the first theoretical treatment of the ontologies and epistemologies of digital heritage research at the time of the interconnected and social web, based on extensive empirical and analytical investigation. We draw on observations and concepts developed while conducting the first study of public experiences of the past that utilised big data – over 1.4 million Facebook posts, comments and replies – to revisit or generate new theory from the ground up. We expect that this will help scholars from a range of fields in the humanities, social and computing sciences who are interested in undertaking digital heritage research to understand the deeper implications of their work, the complexities and limitations of the knowledge they create, and its value in exposing the processes via which heritage is made and assessed.
This paper draws upon the experience of several years of running a multi-application crowdsourcin... more This paper draws upon the experience of several years of running a multi-application crowdsourcing platform, as well as a longitudinal evaluation of participant profiles, motivations and behaviour, to argue that heritage crowdsourcing cannot straightforwardly be considered a democratising form of cultural participation. While we agree that crowdsourcing helps expand public engagement with state-funded activities such as Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums, we also note that both in our own experience and in other projects, the involved public cohort is not radically different in socio-demographic make-up to the one that physically visits such institutions, being for example financially better-off with high levels of formal education. In shedding light on issues of participation and cultural citizenship, through a both theoretically and empirically rich discussion, this paper light casts on the current impact of heritage crowdsourcing, in terms of both its strengths and weaknesses. The study will also be useful for cultural heritage policy and practice, museum management and curatorship, to potentially guide the choices and strategies of funders and organisations alike
In his debate piece, 'The Brexit Hypothesis and prehistory', Kenneth Brophy foregrounds some of t... more In his debate piece, 'The Brexit Hypothesis and prehistory', Kenneth Brophy foregrounds some of the possible consequences of archaeology's media and public exposure. While recognising that (mis)appropriations of research for political purposes are nothing new, he stresses that these instrumental uses might have been amplified by a more interconnected Web. Brophy emphasises that people are frequently presented with and consume archaeological findings in ways that often inappropriately relate the latter to contemporary social issues, such as Brexit. His proposed solution to the problem is twofold. On the one hand, he recommends that archaeologists should 'push back' against erroneous and hyperbolic accounts of their work featuring in the media and in public online discussions. On the other hand, he encourages archaeologists to 'pre-empt' such interpretations, drawing on insights derived from social research aimed at understanding how modern individuals and groups interact with the past. While I fully agree with the author that these measures are welcome and valuable, I believe that they cannot provide, on their own, a 'solution'. They are laudable from a deontological point of view – in principle they can be viewed as responsible and ethical practice-but do not consider the full reality of the world of media and communications, nor the ways in which people actually leverage the past when making sense of situations that concern them. Here, I briefly expand on both of these points and argue that the dynamics of generating impact are complex and lengthy. Influencing public opinion requires more substantial and profound public engagement on the part of 'public intellectuals', as Brophy calls them, than is suggested in his paper.
Connected Communities Review series on Co-production methods, commissioned by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2018
Knowledge production, today, relies increasingly on exchanges between groups of people who connec... more Knowledge production, today, relies increasingly on exchanges between groups of people who connect through the Internet. This can happen in many forms that include, for example, consulting and amending Wikipedia entries, engaging in Twitter conversations about a certain topic, or developing research software by building on existing code released under a license that allows free sharing, modification and reuse. Other kinds of collaborative research are enabled by more bespoke websites built for specific institutions or groups, such as the Smithsonian Transcription Centre, which was created to involve interested volunpeers (volunteers who are viewed as peers) in the digitisation of collections that support multiple research agendas. The British Library has also recently embraced a similar goal, setting up the LibCrowds platform, while adventure seekers can connect to GlobalXplorer and inspect satellite images to identify signs of looting and assist with understanding the current state of preservation of archaeology-rich landscapes worldwide. For nature lovers, Snapshot Serengeti offers the possibility to 'observe animals in the wild' and help to answer questions about the ways in which competing species coexist. All of these processes have become possible thanks to the wide diffusion of the Internet, and the emergence of online public spaces from an interactive and 2 interconnected World Wide Web. This kind of web has enabled new practices of data and information generation, sharing and aggregation, but, arguably, the collaborative production (and consumption) of knowledge is sometimes so deeply embedded in our personal and professional lives that we do not always pause to reflect on its nature and deeper implications. 2 The aim of this review is to bring attention to these issues by addressing a number of questions relating to online research collaborations established between stakeholders within and beyond the academy. How can collaborative research be strategically and effectively designed online? What are its roots and traditions? What values can it generate for participants? What effects does it have on those excluded? And what are its consequences in epistemological and ethical terms?
This article assesses the role of the pre-modern past in the construction of political identities... more This article assesses the role of the pre-modern past in the construction of political identities relating to the UK’s membership in the European Union, by examining how materials and ideas from Iron Age to Early Medieval Britain and Europe were leveraged by those who discussed the topic of Brexit in over 1.4 million messages published in dedicated Facebook pages. Through a combination of data-intensive and qualitative investigations of textual data, we identify the ‘heritages’ invoked in support of pro- or anti-Brexit sentiments. We show how these heritages are centred around myths of origins, resistance and collapse that incorporate tensions and binary divisions. We highlight the strong influence of past expert practices in shaping such deeply entrenched dualistic thinking and reflect over the longue durée agency of heritage expertise. This is the first systematic study of public perceptions and experience of the past in contemporary society undertaken through digital heritage research fuelled by big data. The article is thus foundational, contributing significantly to theory in cultural heritage studies. It is also the first published work to analyse the role of heritage in the construction of political identities in relation to Brexit, via extensive social research.
The Iron Age and Roman periods are often defined against each other through the establishment of ... more The Iron Age and Roman periods are often defined against each other through the establishment of dualities, such as barbarity–civilisation, or spiritual–rational. Despite criticisms, dualities remain prevalent in the National Curriculum for schools, television, museum displays and in academic research. Recent scientific studies on human origins, for example, have communicated the idea of an 'indigenous' Iron Age, setting this against a mobile and diverse Roman-period population. There is also evidence for citizens leveraging dualities to uphold different positions on contemporary issues of mobility, in the UK and internationally. This paper discusses values and limitations of such binary thinking, and considers how ideas of ambiguity and temporal distancing can serve to challenge attempts to use such dualities to map the past too directly onto the present, reflecting on recent social media debates about Britain the European Union.
Abigail Gilmore offer a well-coordinated collection of theoretically-rich, methodologically solid... more Abigail Gilmore offer a well-coordinated collection of theoretically-rich, methodologically solid, and data-driven essays that address the patchy and under-investigated ground of collaborations and partnerships between Higher Education institutions (HEIs) and the creative economy, mainly but not exclusively in the UK. In the last few years, an increasing number of scholars, as well as consultants and agencies, have examined the relationships between HEIs, on the one hand, and the arts and culture sector or the commercial creative industries, on the other. This has come as a result of recent and substantial reshaping in higher education and cultural policy. Although a 'drive to partner' has been emerging progressively over the course of the last 70 years (Doeser 2015: 33), the 1990s have been a turning point for partnerships between universities and parts of the creative economy. Universities have boomed since 1992 and have been evidenced more prominently as knowledge sharing hubs with the power to inform and spark the activity of businesses, museums and arts and cultural institutions (Oakley and Selwood 2010). Since the period of the Coalition government (2010-2015), the university sector has continued to experience a massive restructuring (Speight et al. 2013), and pressure to demonstrate the social and economic impact of university spending has grown even higher (Dawson and Gilmore 2009: 11). On the whole, as effectively summarised by the editors in their introduction, the HE policy and funding framework has become more informed by the move towards a more neoliberal HE system. In this context, it is thus not surprising that greater attention has been dedicated to understanding the dynamics of collaborations and partnerships between HEIs and the creative economy. However, the state of the art on this topic remains full of lacunae, and not devoid of literature driven by advocacy purposes, which, in certain cases, have also led to misleading portrayals of the 'art' of partnering as intrinsically beneficial. This edited volume should be praised for its successful attempt to enrich existing knowledge about the manifold links that tie Higher Education and the Creative Economy with proposed definitions, critical perspectives, and analyses applied to a range of countries. The book is structured in four sections preceded by an introduction, which usefully frames the scope of the discussion and the main concepts at the core of it: 'universities', particularly publicly-funded institutions; and the creative economy, understood as an " umbrella term that aims to capture a set of interrelated activities based around the production, distribution and consumption of creative and cultural goods (and ideas) which generate cultural, social and economic impact " (Comunian and Gilmore 2016: 6). The first section focuses on partnerships, examining the construction of industry identities in creative places, the process of exchanging knowledge between higher education and the creative sector, and issues of sustainability in relation to university-creative industries collaboration. The second section concentrates instead on the generation of " creative human capital " in and by higher education institutions. The third section of the book deals with the dynamics between arts school and local art scenes, also with a view to assess where and when these compete more (or rather) than supporting each other. The fourth and final section contains essays on aspects of higher education policy, and how these impact universities' interactions with the creative economy as well as the effects of such interactions on communities. The volume well conveys the breadth of a field 'in-the-making' and its highly interdisciplinary nature. The latter is reflected by the range of theories that are used to understand the relationships between HEIs and the creative economy and the value they generate. These include, for example, the convincing unpacking of the notion of 'creative human capital' by the essays in section two, or
How was the Roman Empire invoked in Brexit Britain and in Donald Trump’s United States of America... more How was the Roman Empire invoked in Brexit Britain and in Donald Trump’s United States of America, and to what purpose? And why is it critical to answer these kinds of questions? Heritage and Nationalism explores how people’s perceptions and experiences of the ancient past shape political identities in the digital age. It particularly examines the multiple ways in which politicians, parties and private citizens mobilise aspects of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval past of Britain and Europe to include or exclude ‘others’ based on culture, religion, class, race, ethnicity, etc.
Chiara Bonacchi draws on the results of an extensive programme of research involving both data-intensive and qualitative methods to investigate how pre-modern periods are leveraged to support or oppose populist nationalist arguments as part of social media discussions concerning Brexit, the Italian Election of 2018 and the US-Mexican border debate in the US. Analysing millions of tweets and Facebook posts, comments and replies, this book is the first to use big data to answer questions about public engagement with the past and identity politics. The findings and conclusions revise and reframe the meaning of populist nationalism today and help to build a shared basis for the democratic engagement of citizens in public life in the future. The book offers a fascinating and unmissable read for anyone interested in how the past and its contemporary legacy, or ‘heritage’, influence our ‘political’ thinking and feeling in a time of hyper-interconnectivity.
This Special Theme examines the dynamic relationships between
production, availability and usage ... more This Special Theme examines the dynamic relationships between production, availability and usage of Big Data, laying out a research agenda for digital heritage at the time of the ‘data turn’. Over the past fifteen years, a proliferation of heritage data has been generated by ‘ecosystems of distributed practices’ enacted by the co-working of bodies, cultural identities, organisational workflows, software, application programming interfaces, etc. (Ruppert 2018, 19–20). The authors of research articles and commentaries in this collection explore the three macro-dimensions along which we can map transformations of and by heritage in Big Data ecologies: 1) ontologies, or heritage as datified resources; 2) interactions; and 3) methodologies and epistemologies.
European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies, 2021
This article illustrates an approach that draws on topo-stratigraphic building archaeology, archi... more This article illustrates an approach that draws on topo-stratigraphic building archaeology, architectural anthropology and heritage studies to assess transforming social values of urban built heritage in the longue durée. These three research traditions are closely related, but often pursued for the study of urban environments at the exclusion of each other. Here we discuss the value of their joint implementation through the analysis of a specific case study, a neighbourhood in the city of Florence (11 th-21 st centuries). We argue that the proposed approach enables a more in-depth understanding of and negotiation between the variable meanings emerging from the relationships between people, architecture and urban space. In this way, it aids the contemporary critical curation of 'deep cities'.
This article presents a conceptual and methodological framework to study heritage-based tribalism... more This article presents a conceptual and methodological framework to study heritage-based tribalism in Big Data ecologies by combining approaches from the humanities, social and computing sciences. We use such a framework to examine how ideas of human origin and ancestry are deployed on Twitter for purposes of antagonistic ‘othering’. Our goal is to equip researchers with theory and analytical tools for investigating divisive online uses of the past in today’s networked societies. In particular, we apply notions of heritage, othering and neo-tribalism, and both data-intensive and qualitative methods to the case of people’s engagements with the news of Cheddar Man’s DNA on Twitter. We show that heritage-based tribalism in Big Data ecologies is uniquely shaped as an assemblage by the coalescing of different forms of antagonistic othering. Those that co-occur most frequently are the ones that draw on ‘Views on Race’, ‘Trust in Experts’ and ‘Political Leaning’. The framings of the news that were most influential in triggering heritage-based tribalism were introduced by both right- and left-leaning newspaper outlets and by activist websites. We conclude that heritage-themed communications that rely on provocative narratives on social media tend to be labelled as political and not to be conducive to positive change in people’s attitudes towards issues such as racism.
This article provides the first theoretical treatment of the ontologies and epistemologies of dig... more This article provides the first theoretical treatment of the ontologies and epistemologies of digital heritage research at the time of the interconnected and social web, based on extensive empirical and analytical investigation. We draw on observations and concepts developed while conducting the first study of public experiences of the past that utilised big data – over 1.4 million Facebook posts, comments and replies – to revisit or generate new theory from the ground up. We expect that this will help scholars from a range of fields in the humanities, social and computing sciences who are interested in undertaking digital heritage research to understand the deeper implications of their work, the complexities and limitations of the knowledge they create, and its value in exposing the processes via which heritage is made and assessed.
This paper draws upon the experience of several years of running a multi-application crowdsourcin... more This paper draws upon the experience of several years of running a multi-application crowdsourcing platform, as well as a longitudinal evaluation of participant profiles, motivations and behaviour, to argue that heritage crowdsourcing cannot straightforwardly be considered a democratising form of cultural participation. While we agree that crowdsourcing helps expand public engagement with state-funded activities such as Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums, we also note that both in our own experience and in other projects, the involved public cohort is not radically different in socio-demographic make-up to the one that physically visits such institutions, being for example financially better-off with high levels of formal education. In shedding light on issues of participation and cultural citizenship, through a both theoretically and empirically rich discussion, this paper light casts on the current impact of heritage crowdsourcing, in terms of both its strengths and weaknesses. The study will also be useful for cultural heritage policy and practice, museum management and curatorship, to potentially guide the choices and strategies of funders and organisations alike
In his debate piece, 'The Brexit Hypothesis and prehistory', Kenneth Brophy foregrounds some of t... more In his debate piece, 'The Brexit Hypothesis and prehistory', Kenneth Brophy foregrounds some of the possible consequences of archaeology's media and public exposure. While recognising that (mis)appropriations of research for political purposes are nothing new, he stresses that these instrumental uses might have been amplified by a more interconnected Web. Brophy emphasises that people are frequently presented with and consume archaeological findings in ways that often inappropriately relate the latter to contemporary social issues, such as Brexit. His proposed solution to the problem is twofold. On the one hand, he recommends that archaeologists should 'push back' against erroneous and hyperbolic accounts of their work featuring in the media and in public online discussions. On the other hand, he encourages archaeologists to 'pre-empt' such interpretations, drawing on insights derived from social research aimed at understanding how modern individuals and groups interact with the past. While I fully agree with the author that these measures are welcome and valuable, I believe that they cannot provide, on their own, a 'solution'. They are laudable from a deontological point of view – in principle they can be viewed as responsible and ethical practice-but do not consider the full reality of the world of media and communications, nor the ways in which people actually leverage the past when making sense of situations that concern them. Here, I briefly expand on both of these points and argue that the dynamics of generating impact are complex and lengthy. Influencing public opinion requires more substantial and profound public engagement on the part of 'public intellectuals', as Brophy calls them, than is suggested in his paper.
Connected Communities Review series on Co-production methods, commissioned by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2018
Knowledge production, today, relies increasingly on exchanges between groups of people who connec... more Knowledge production, today, relies increasingly on exchanges between groups of people who connect through the Internet. This can happen in many forms that include, for example, consulting and amending Wikipedia entries, engaging in Twitter conversations about a certain topic, or developing research software by building on existing code released under a license that allows free sharing, modification and reuse. Other kinds of collaborative research are enabled by more bespoke websites built for specific institutions or groups, such as the Smithsonian Transcription Centre, which was created to involve interested volunpeers (volunteers who are viewed as peers) in the digitisation of collections that support multiple research agendas. The British Library has also recently embraced a similar goal, setting up the LibCrowds platform, while adventure seekers can connect to GlobalXplorer and inspect satellite images to identify signs of looting and assist with understanding the current state of preservation of archaeology-rich landscapes worldwide. For nature lovers, Snapshot Serengeti offers the possibility to 'observe animals in the wild' and help to answer questions about the ways in which competing species coexist. All of these processes have become possible thanks to the wide diffusion of the Internet, and the emergence of online public spaces from an interactive and 2 interconnected World Wide Web. This kind of web has enabled new practices of data and information generation, sharing and aggregation, but, arguably, the collaborative production (and consumption) of knowledge is sometimes so deeply embedded in our personal and professional lives that we do not always pause to reflect on its nature and deeper implications. 2 The aim of this review is to bring attention to these issues by addressing a number of questions relating to online research collaborations established between stakeholders within and beyond the academy. How can collaborative research be strategically and effectively designed online? What are its roots and traditions? What values can it generate for participants? What effects does it have on those excluded? And what are its consequences in epistemological and ethical terms?
This article assesses the role of the pre-modern past in the construction of political identities... more This article assesses the role of the pre-modern past in the construction of political identities relating to the UK’s membership in the European Union, by examining how materials and ideas from Iron Age to Early Medieval Britain and Europe were leveraged by those who discussed the topic of Brexit in over 1.4 million messages published in dedicated Facebook pages. Through a combination of data-intensive and qualitative investigations of textual data, we identify the ‘heritages’ invoked in support of pro- or anti-Brexit sentiments. We show how these heritages are centred around myths of origins, resistance and collapse that incorporate tensions and binary divisions. We highlight the strong influence of past expert practices in shaping such deeply entrenched dualistic thinking and reflect over the longue durée agency of heritage expertise. This is the first systematic study of public perceptions and experience of the past in contemporary society undertaken through digital heritage research fuelled by big data. The article is thus foundational, contributing significantly to theory in cultural heritage studies. It is also the first published work to analyse the role of heritage in the construction of political identities in relation to Brexit, via extensive social research.
The Iron Age and Roman periods are often defined against each other through the establishment of ... more The Iron Age and Roman periods are often defined against each other through the establishment of dualities, such as barbarity–civilisation, or spiritual–rational. Despite criticisms, dualities remain prevalent in the National Curriculum for schools, television, museum displays and in academic research. Recent scientific studies on human origins, for example, have communicated the idea of an 'indigenous' Iron Age, setting this against a mobile and diverse Roman-period population. There is also evidence for citizens leveraging dualities to uphold different positions on contemporary issues of mobility, in the UK and internationally. This paper discusses values and limitations of such binary thinking, and considers how ideas of ambiguity and temporal distancing can serve to challenge attempts to use such dualities to map the past too directly onto the present, reflecting on recent social media debates about Britain the European Union.
Abigail Gilmore offer a well-coordinated collection of theoretically-rich, methodologically solid... more Abigail Gilmore offer a well-coordinated collection of theoretically-rich, methodologically solid, and data-driven essays that address the patchy and under-investigated ground of collaborations and partnerships between Higher Education institutions (HEIs) and the creative economy, mainly but not exclusively in the UK. In the last few years, an increasing number of scholars, as well as consultants and agencies, have examined the relationships between HEIs, on the one hand, and the arts and culture sector or the commercial creative industries, on the other. This has come as a result of recent and substantial reshaping in higher education and cultural policy. Although a 'drive to partner' has been emerging progressively over the course of the last 70 years (Doeser 2015: 33), the 1990s have been a turning point for partnerships between universities and parts of the creative economy. Universities have boomed since 1992 and have been evidenced more prominently as knowledge sharing hubs with the power to inform and spark the activity of businesses, museums and arts and cultural institutions (Oakley and Selwood 2010). Since the period of the Coalition government (2010-2015), the university sector has continued to experience a massive restructuring (Speight et al. 2013), and pressure to demonstrate the social and economic impact of university spending has grown even higher (Dawson and Gilmore 2009: 11). On the whole, as effectively summarised by the editors in their introduction, the HE policy and funding framework has become more informed by the move towards a more neoliberal HE system. In this context, it is thus not surprising that greater attention has been dedicated to understanding the dynamics of collaborations and partnerships between HEIs and the creative economy. However, the state of the art on this topic remains full of lacunae, and not devoid of literature driven by advocacy purposes, which, in certain cases, have also led to misleading portrayals of the 'art' of partnering as intrinsically beneficial. This edited volume should be praised for its successful attempt to enrich existing knowledge about the manifold links that tie Higher Education and the Creative Economy with proposed definitions, critical perspectives, and analyses applied to a range of countries. The book is structured in four sections preceded by an introduction, which usefully frames the scope of the discussion and the main concepts at the core of it: 'universities', particularly publicly-funded institutions; and the creative economy, understood as an " umbrella term that aims to capture a set of interrelated activities based around the production, distribution and consumption of creative and cultural goods (and ideas) which generate cultural, social and economic impact " (Comunian and Gilmore 2016: 6). The first section focuses on partnerships, examining the construction of industry identities in creative places, the process of exchanging knowledge between higher education and the creative sector, and issues of sustainability in relation to university-creative industries collaboration. The second section concentrates instead on the generation of " creative human capital " in and by higher education institutions. The third section of the book deals with the dynamics between arts school and local art scenes, also with a view to assess where and when these compete more (or rather) than supporting each other. The fourth and final section contains essays on aspects of higher education policy, and how these impact universities' interactions with the creative economy as well as the effects of such interactions on communities. The volume well conveys the breadth of a field 'in-the-making' and its highly interdisciplinary nature. The latter is reflected by the range of theories that are used to understand the relationships between HEIs and the creative economy and the value they generate. These include, for example, the convincing unpacking of the notion of 'creative human capital' by the essays in section two, or
This brief update introduces the framework of a newly funded research project enti- tled ‘Iron Ag... more This brief update introduces the framework of a newly funded research project enti- tled ‘Iron Age and Roman Heritages: Exploring ancient identities in modern Britain’ to be undertaken collaboratively by Durham University and the UCL Institute of Archaeology, and supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (2016– 2019).
The ideas of 'risk', 'chance' and 'challenge' all imply a series of value judgements around what ... more The ideas of 'risk', 'chance' and 'challenge' all imply a series of value judgements around what we perceive as worth interpreting, preserving, managing and keeping accessible, in the present and for the future. These value judgments can be implicit or markedly explicit, but they lie at the core of the trajectories we co-design and implement for heritage objects, places and practices. Although there is substantial literature on the topic of social, cultural and economic value in archaeology (e.g. Bonacchi 2013; Burtenshaw, 2017; Jones 2017), and arts and culture more generally, a fundamental rift still remains between economic approaches to value and social ones; and between policy-makers' preferences for econometrics and quantitative measurements, and academic critique of these methodologies and the objectifications and reductionism they can entail (O’Brien 2014; Belfiore & Upchurch 2013). In this session, we invite speakers to embrace the challenge of re-thinking ideas of public value in archaeology and heritage, and of reflecting on the ways in which different value theories and methodologies can be drawn upon to practically identify goals and priorities for heritage practice. We welcome papers that address definitions of public value/s in archaeology and heritage, from a social and/or economic point of view, describe how such concepts can be assessed, and how they contribute to a certain vision of future societies. Papers can be either entirely theoretical or draw on case studies from Europe or further afield. One of our aims is, indeed, to bring different visions and value notions into dialogue in order to think of heritage futures in more collaborative and creative ways.
This session focuses on the topical theme of frontiers, exploring the ways that ancient and recen... more This session focuses on the topical theme of frontiers, exploring the ways that ancient and recent borderworks are brought to life, including through re-constructions, living history, festivals and through digital applications online and onsite. We are interested in examining how this heritage forms and is expressed throughout Europe, the Mediterranean and neighbouring territories such as the Near East, and via a wide range of case studies and interdisciplinary methodologies. By doing so, we hope to build more in depth understanding of the ways in which 'the frontier', as a historical structure, has been experienced in the past and is experienced today. Furthermore, we aim at discussing the meanings that different communities assign to it by means of interacting with the material evidence that such structure preserves in the present. We welcome papers that address one or more of the following questions, drawing on archaeological, historical and anthropological approaches: how are frontiers and borders from different times and places perceived and lived now? How do borderworks shape ancient and modern identities? What are the multiple ways that frontiers through time are brought together through performance and separated through analytical reasoning? What does this tell us about contemporary people's relationship with frontiers, the risks and hopes they see in them? The session aims to build on three projects: the debates about the heritage of the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Mills 2013), the ongoing work of the Ancient Identities in Modern Britain project (see http://ancientidentities.org), and the Ancient Near Eastern Empires programme (www.helsinki.fi/ancient-near-eastern-empires). N. Mills (ed. 2013). Presenting the Romans: Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site. Mills, N. Boydell & Brewer
Session abstract: This session aims to bring together researchers involved in interdisciplinary s... more Session abstract: This session aims to bring together researchers involved in interdisciplinary studies examining the contemporary heritages of Iron Age, Roman and Early Medieval pasts in Europe. It will present and discuss the regional variability of the methodological approaches that have been adopted and the results achieved so far. In inviting contributions, we embrace a broad understanding of heritage as the 'uses, values and associations' carried by the historic environment for different stakeholders (Smith and Waterton, 2012:1). This is a meaning of heritage that transcends 'authorised heritage discourses' and acknowledges the stakes of a wide range of individuals and groups (Smith and Waterton, 2012:2). Questions that we would like to ask are: how are different materials and ideas relating to Iron Age, Roman and Early Medieval pasts lived, enacted, and interpreted across European territories? What regional commonalities or specificities can be identified in the ways in which heritage values are shaped, and emerge from different contexts of production and consumption? What is the contemporary legacy of historical structures which cut across the roughly 1,000 years between 700BC and AD800? How have these contributed to place-making and identity trans(formation)s that are visible today? What has been the impact of formal archaeological practices and the role of archaeologists in these processes?
This conference is organised by the MicroPasts team, to present the results achieved so far by th... more This conference is organised by the MicroPasts team, to present the results achieved so far by the MicroPasts project (micropasts.org) and discuss them with other researchers and practitioners who have been involved in crowdsourcing and crowdfunding across different arts and humanities fields.
MicroPasts is a collaboration between the UCL Institute of Archaeology and the British Museum, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (2013-2015). The project has leveraged web-based technologies to foster collaborations between researchers based in higher education and heritage institutions and members of the public to study the human past. Together, we have been creating new open archaeological data via crowdsourcing (crowdsourced.micropasts.org), discussing their value and micro-financing community archaeology and community history projects (crowdfunded.micropasts.org).
Speakers will include the MicroPasts team*, Stuart Dunn (King's College London), Meghan Ferriter (Smithsonian Institution Transcription Centre), Daniel Lombraña González (Crowdcrafting and Pybossa), Helen Miles (Aberystwyth University), Andrew Wilson and Katharina Moeller (Bangor University). *Andrew Bevan, Chiara Bonacchi and Adi Keinan-Schoonbaert (UCL Institute of Archaeology); Daniel Pett, Jennifer Wexler and Neil Wilkin (British Museum); Hugh Fiske and Lisa Cardy (MicroPasts collaborators).
This session focuses on those communications of archaeology that take the form of a collaboration... more This session focuses on those communications of archaeology that take the form of a collaboration with members of the public, aided by digital and web technologies. In the last few years, digital innovations have blurred the previously sharper separation between producers of content and consumers. A digital “prosumption” (Toffler 1980) society is affirming where citizens are offered increasing opportunities to collaborate with archaeologists working in institutions such as museums, archives, commercial units, or academia, to collect, enhance, analyse and interpret a diverse array of archaeological data. To examine the topic of co-produced research as a specific form of communication, we invite papers that present case studies where digital communications about archaeology relied on crowd-sourcing, social media or other platforms and tools allowing the public to contribute information. Presentations will discuss the individuals and groups involved; the ways in which they interacted with each other and engaged with archaeology-themed content; and the cultural, social and economic benefits that these experiences generated for the people and institutions participating. Presenters are also encouraged to highlight whether and how this kind of communication was intertwined with other public engagement initiatives they had pursued.
Introduction
This major project, which will run from July 2016 to the end of September 2019. T... more Introduction
This major project, which will run from July 2016 to the end of September 2019. The funding is provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the project involves research teams in Durham University and University College London. We are proposing to conduct research and to exchange knowledge with stakeholders in order to understand how ideas and materials derived from the Iron Age and Roman past (c. 700 BC to AD 400) are drawn upon today in England, Scotland and Wales.
Powerful ideas about European cultural origin stemming from the writings of classical authors who drew a distinction between 'civilization' and 'barbarism' have been used to contrast native peoples with Roman invaders. In Britain concepts of civilization and barbarism have influenced how people understand the extent and character of the territories that make up the UK, the origins of their inhabitants and how they relate to people from overseas. The Iron Age and Roman periods are highly popular in present-day Britain as demonstrated, for example, by the frequency and interest with which important archaeological discoveries are communicated via newspapers, magazines, television, films (e.g. 'Centurion' and 'The Eagle') and novels. Community projects focusing on the Iron Age are addressing themes such as housing and sustainable ways of living, while the Roman past offers opportunities for considering military identity, concepts of civilisation and multicultural origins (see the visual evidence). Ancient monuments dating to these periods and the museums that display them are popular visitor attractions. Re-enacting, metal-detecting and taking part in archaeological projects are generating new and relevant forms of knowledge.
Academic research on the Iron Age and Roman past in the UK is widely recognised across Europe and America for its excellence, but, until now, the exploration of meaning in the past has often been distanced from the interests and concerns of the broader public (Hingley 2015). This project offers the new perspective of studying the living meaning of Iron Age and Roman materials and ideas by examining the creative and variable ways in which stakeholders incorporate the past into their researches, performances and actions. We will also unpick the values of heritage that are specific to the Iron Age and Roman pasts from those that are not. Our methodologies will allow access to significant new bodies of information both online and offline.
We will seek to communicate our findings in order to challenge the divisions that currently separate the interests of stakeholders, including (but not limited to) academic archaeologists, heritage managers, re-enactors, visitors to ancient monuments and teachers. We intend to promote our work by developing existing contacts with researchers and practitioners in archaeology, heritage and museums nationally and internationally. Drawing upon the project team's connections, we will exchange knowledge of our results through digital means, conferences, and publications.
2. Objectives
We aim to develop and communicate a coherent and transformative understanding of the complex and contrasting ways that the Iron Age and Roman pasts are drawn upon by stakeholders today across England, Wales and Scotland, and to set this in an international context. Much of the attention of archaeologists to date has focused on criticizing imperial and nationalistic uses of concepts of Romanization and Celtic identity (cf. Mattingly 2011; Morse 2005). This project will adopt a more open approach to address the wide variety of manifestations of Iron Age and Roman Heritage (IA&RH), documenting both how materials and ideas from the past are received, interpreted, performed and cited and also the role of 'expert practice' (Jones and Yarrow 2013, 7).
Populist nationalism divides an inside 'us' from an outside 'them', both vertically, separating '... more Populist nationalism divides an inside 'us' from an outside 'them', both vertically, separating 'the people' from 'the elite', and horizontally, marking a dichotomy between a perceived ‘native’ in-group and ‘foreign’ others. People, ideas, objects, practices and places from prehistoric and historic times are mobilised as part of simple myths that are aimed at legitimising narratives of national ancestry, development, or destiny (Coakley 2004). Concurrently, archaeological knowledge can be – and has been – deployed to deconstruct projected otherness, sometimes utilising similar schemes of narrative construction.
This session invites papers that examine processes of appropriation of the past to generate, express or oppose populist nationalist ideologies. It will highlight the underlying dynamics through which archaeological knowledge enters political discourse, and will particularly reflect on the kinds of past that are drawn upon, and the myths they are moulded into. It is hoped that, by developing a better understanding of how the past, interpreted through archaeological approaches, is utilised politically, we can reflect on how archaeologists contribute or respond to situations where the past is weaponized. The session aims to encourage comparative and interdisciplinary discussion, drawing on case studies that focus on different periods and a range of geographical contexts. Papers concentrating on tangible and intangible heritage, and those addressing how representations of archaeology in pop-culture may contribute to the development of specific political discourses are particularly encouraged.
Coakley, J. (2004) Mobilizing the past: nationalist images of history. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10(4), 531-560.
For some time, archaeology and heritage have been experiencing a huge increase in the
amount of a... more For some time, archaeology and heritage have been experiencing a huge increase in the amount of available ‘’Open Science’’, in terms of digitized and born-digital data concerning human history and prehistory with all their contemporary legacies. This has been due to a combination of numerous research and cultural resource management initiatives, for example, fieldwork expeditions, grey literature, digitization of museum, archive, and library collections, co-production of data through crowdsourcing, and the creation of open repositories of remote sensed data. Archaeology and heritage are often at odds with wellestablished practices of data sharing in data-rich disciplines such as astronomy, physics, and medicine for the following reasons: 1) there is a variable level of consensus over use and curation of data and related analytical methods in both archaeology and heritage; 2) it is not clear what the norms and requirements of “ethical open science” are; 3) the communication among different interested parties regarding the requirements and expectations of open data is limited. To address these issues, our session brings together researchers interested in the practices of ethical open science and data sharing in both archaeology and heritage. The session will explore the different practices used in these fields so far, whilst comparing them to those used in other research areas and disciplines. We hope to foster practical cross-pollination and useful discussion between archaeology and heritage researchers. Our goal is to open a forum that will lead to implementation and standardization of the best open science ethical practices. We aim to bring tangible benefits for all stakeholders in open science data, citizens, communities, individual researchers, and researchers, with special attention paid to the requirements of indigenous stakeholder communities. We invite papers that present new open science research, and also how this research relates to the notion of ethical open science.
Uploads
Books by Chiara Bonacchi
Chiara Bonacchi draws on the results of an extensive programme of research involving both data-intensive and qualitative methods to investigate how pre-modern periods are leveraged to support or oppose populist nationalist arguments as part of social media discussions concerning Brexit, the Italian Election of 2018 and the US-Mexican border debate in the US. Analysing millions of tweets and Facebook posts, comments and replies, this book is the first to use big data to answer questions about public engagement with the past and identity politics. The findings and conclusions revise and reframe the meaning of populist nationalism today and help to build a shared basis for the democratic engagement of citizens in public life in the future. The book offers a fascinating and unmissable read for anyone interested in how the past and its contemporary legacy, or ‘heritage’, influence our ‘political’ thinking and feeling in a time of hyper-interconnectivity.
Papers by Chiara Bonacchi
production, availability and usage of Big Data, laying out a research
agenda for digital heritage at the time of the ‘data turn’. Over the past
fifteen years, a proliferation of heritage data has been generated by
‘ecosystems of distributed practices’ enacted by the co-working of
bodies, cultural identities, organisational workflows, software, application
programming interfaces, etc. (Ruppert 2018, 19–20). The authors of
research articles and commentaries in this collection explore the three
macro-dimensions along which we can map transformations of and by
heritage in Big Data ecologies: 1) ontologies, or heritage as datified
resources; 2) interactions; and 3) methodologies and epistemologies.
Chiara Bonacchi draws on the results of an extensive programme of research involving both data-intensive and qualitative methods to investigate how pre-modern periods are leveraged to support or oppose populist nationalist arguments as part of social media discussions concerning Brexit, the Italian Election of 2018 and the US-Mexican border debate in the US. Analysing millions of tweets and Facebook posts, comments and replies, this book is the first to use big data to answer questions about public engagement with the past and identity politics. The findings and conclusions revise and reframe the meaning of populist nationalism today and help to build a shared basis for the democratic engagement of citizens in public life in the future. The book offers a fascinating and unmissable read for anyone interested in how the past and its contemporary legacy, or ‘heritage’, influence our ‘political’ thinking and feeling in a time of hyper-interconnectivity.
production, availability and usage of Big Data, laying out a research
agenda for digital heritage at the time of the ‘data turn’. Over the past
fifteen years, a proliferation of heritage data has been generated by
‘ecosystems of distributed practices’ enacted by the co-working of
bodies, cultural identities, organisational workflows, software, application
programming interfaces, etc. (Ruppert 2018, 19–20). The authors of
research articles and commentaries in this collection explore the three
macro-dimensions along which we can map transformations of and by
heritage in Big Data ecologies: 1) ontologies, or heritage as datified
resources; 2) interactions; and 3) methodologies and epistemologies.
MicroPasts is a collaboration between the UCL Institute of Archaeology and the British Museum, funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (2013-2015). The project has leveraged web-based technologies to foster collaborations between researchers based in higher education and heritage institutions and members of the public to study the human past. Together, we have been creating new open archaeological data via crowdsourcing (crowdsourced.micropasts.org), discussing their value and micro-financing community archaeology and community history projects (crowdfunded.micropasts.org).
Speakers will include the MicroPasts team*, Stuart Dunn (King's College London), Meghan Ferriter (Smithsonian Institution Transcription Centre), Daniel Lombraña González (Crowdcrafting and Pybossa), Helen Miles (Aberystwyth University), Andrew Wilson and Katharina Moeller (Bangor University).
*Andrew Bevan, Chiara Bonacchi and Adi Keinan-Schoonbaert (UCL Institute of Archaeology); Daniel Pett, Jennifer Wexler and Neil Wilkin (British Museum); Hugh Fiske and Lisa Cardy (MicroPasts collaborators).
Submissions here http://eaaglasgow2015.com/call-for-papers/
This major project, which will run from July 2016 to the end of September 2019. The funding is provided by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the project involves research teams in Durham University and University College London. We are proposing to conduct research and to exchange knowledge with stakeholders in order to understand how ideas and materials derived from the Iron Age and Roman past (c. 700 BC to AD 400) are drawn upon today in England, Scotland and Wales.
Powerful ideas about European cultural origin stemming from the writings of classical authors who drew a distinction between 'civilization' and 'barbarism' have been used to contrast native peoples with Roman invaders. In Britain concepts of civilization and barbarism have influenced how people understand the extent and character of the territories that make up the UK, the origins of their inhabitants and how they relate to people from overseas. The Iron Age and Roman periods are highly popular in present-day Britain as demonstrated, for example, by the frequency and interest with which important archaeological discoveries are communicated via newspapers, magazines, television, films (e.g. 'Centurion' and 'The Eagle') and novels. Community projects focusing on the Iron Age are addressing themes such as housing and sustainable ways of living, while the Roman past offers opportunities for considering military identity, concepts of civilisation and multicultural origins (see the visual evidence). Ancient monuments dating to these periods and the museums that display them are popular visitor attractions. Re-enacting, metal-detecting and taking part in archaeological projects are generating new and relevant forms of knowledge.
Academic research on the Iron Age and Roman past in the UK is widely recognised across Europe and America for its excellence, but, until now, the exploration of meaning in the past has often been distanced from the interests and concerns of the broader public (Hingley 2015). This project offers the new perspective of studying the living meaning of Iron Age and Roman materials and ideas by examining the creative and variable ways in which stakeholders incorporate the past into their researches, performances and actions. We will also unpick the values of heritage that are specific to the Iron Age and Roman pasts from those that are not. Our methodologies will allow access to significant new bodies of information both online and offline.
We will seek to communicate our findings in order to challenge the divisions that currently separate the interests of stakeholders, including (but not limited to) academic archaeologists, heritage managers, re-enactors, visitors to ancient monuments and teachers. We intend to promote our work by developing existing contacts with researchers and practitioners in archaeology, heritage and museums nationally and internationally. Drawing upon the project team's connections, we will exchange knowledge of our results through digital means, conferences, and publications.
2. Objectives
We aim to develop and communicate a coherent and transformative understanding of the complex and contrasting ways that the Iron Age and Roman pasts are drawn upon by stakeholders today across England, Wales and Scotland, and to set this in an international context. Much of the attention of archaeologists to date has focused on criticizing imperial and nationalistic uses of concepts of Romanization and Celtic identity (cf. Mattingly 2011; Morse 2005). This project will adopt a more open approach to address the wide variety of manifestations of Iron Age and Roman Heritage (IA&RH), documenting both how materials and ideas from the past are received, interpreted, performed and cited and also the role of 'expert practice' (Jones and Yarrow 2013, 7).
This session invites papers that examine processes of appropriation of the past to generate, express or oppose populist nationalist ideologies. It will highlight the underlying dynamics through which archaeological knowledge enters political discourse, and will particularly reflect on the kinds of past that are drawn upon, and the myths they are moulded into. It is hoped that, by developing a better understanding of how the past, interpreted through archaeological approaches, is utilised politically, we can reflect on how archaeologists contribute or respond to situations where the past is weaponized. The session aims to encourage comparative and interdisciplinary discussion, drawing on case studies that focus on different periods and a range of geographical contexts. Papers concentrating on tangible and intangible heritage, and those addressing how representations of archaeology in pop-culture may contribute to the development of specific political discourses are particularly encouraged.
Coakley, J. (2004) Mobilizing the past: nationalist images of history. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10(4), 531-560.
Please submit abstracts (250 words max) to Barbora Žiačková (barbora.ziackova@arch.ox.ac.uk), Chiara Bonacchi (chiara.bonacchi@stir.ac.uk), and Ole F. Nordland (ole.nordland.14@ucl.ac.uk) by 2 September 2019
amount of available ‘’Open Science’’, in terms of digitized and born-digital data concerning
human history and prehistory with all their contemporary legacies. This has been due to a
combination of numerous research and cultural resource management initiatives, for
example, fieldwork expeditions, grey literature, digitization of museum, archive, and library
collections, co-production of data through crowdsourcing, and the creation of open
repositories of remote sensed data. Archaeology and heritage are often at odds with wellestablished
practices of data sharing in data-rich disciplines such as astronomy, physics,
and medicine for the following reasons: 1) there is a variable level of consensus over use
and curation of data and related analytical methods in both archaeology and heritage; 2) it
is not clear what the norms and requirements of “ethical open science” are; 3) the
communication among different interested parties regarding the requirements and
expectations of open data is limited.
To address these issues, our session brings together researchers interested in the practices
of ethical open science and data sharing in both archaeology and heritage. The session will
explore the different practices used in these fields so far, whilst comparing them to those
used in other research areas and disciplines. We hope to foster practical cross-pollination
and useful discussion between archaeology and heritage researchers. Our goal is to open a
forum that will lead to implementation and standardization of the best open science ethical
practices. We aim to bring tangible benefits for all stakeholders in open science data,
citizens, communities, individual researchers, and researchers, with special attention paid
to the requirements of indigenous stakeholder communities.
We invite papers that present new open science research, and also how this research
relates to the notion of ethical open science.