In a recent conversation with biologist Richard Dawkins, right-wing pundit and former psychology professor Jordan Peterson says:

So I I spent a fair bit of time studying the psychophysiology of the hypothalamus, okay, so the hypothalamus is set up it's…it's got two halves, basically one half deals with fundamental motivated states [like] hunger, thirst, defensive aggression, sexuality and so forth, and when those areas are dominated the biologically relevant goal is activated and perceptions are oriented towards that goal. Okay, so now…you might ask yourself well what happens if all those biologically motivated states are satiated and the answer seems to be is that the other half of the hypothalamus kicks in and it mediates exploratory behavior and so the default structure of the mammalian nervous system is if satiated or in doubt explore and gather new information.

There's no difference between that and hero mythology. They are the same thing. They're the same thing! The dragon fight for example, which is the oldest story we have, it’s coded in the Mesopotamian mythology, the dragon fight story is explore the dangerous unknown, discover the treasure that revitalizes the community.

There's no difference between that and the science that you practice. They're the same thing.

The moderator, Alex O’Conner, sks Dawkins if he agreed that these are “the same thing.” Dawkins answers slowly, saying he “doesn’t know what to make of” what he just heard. Peterson interjects, “Well, how many dragons have you overcome in your life?”

Share

Dawkins, famously a bit impatient with literary metaphors, answers, “I’m not interested in dragons. I’m interested in reality.”

Peterson responds that he “read a book a while back” that describes “the biological reality of the dragon.”

Okay so I read a book a while back that describes…the…uh…the biological reality of the dragon. Say, well there's no such thing as a dragon. It's like, okay, is there such a thing as a predator? [Dawkins: “Of course.”] Well, that's that's a meta-category! What's the category of predator? Bear. Eagle if you're a primate. Fire? Is fire a predator? [Dawkins: “No.”] Well, it's complicated because a fire kills you! Okay so is there a worse predator than serpentine flying fire breathing-reptile? Is that not the imagistic equivalent of Predator’? So, in what way, if Predator is real, in what way isn't Dragon real? Doesn't take that much imagination to to see the identity…

Peterson posted this clip to his Logos University channel with the title, “Imagine Convincing A Biologist That Dragons Exist.” I have to say that at the end of the clip, Dawkins doesn’t seem particularly convinced.

If we can understand how Eastern Europe can exist with Doctor Doom’s homeland of Latveria existing, we should be able to understand how the general category of predators can exist without this particular imaginary predator existing. Or so I would think!

Peterson’s many admirers did what they could to present the pronouncements quoted above as expressions of deep wisdom.

For example:

It’s a “form of truth,” you see. Just a form other than “objective truth.”

All clear?

If not, try this on for size:

Since “ontology” is the branch of metaphysics that examines the question of which kinds of objects exist, I have no idea what an “ontological object” (as opposed to any other sort of object) might be. But it did occur to me, reading these defenses, that Peterson and his fans (and for that matter Richard Dawkins, who seemed unsure what to say about all this) could benefit from reading Quine.

Willard Van Orman (usually just “W.V.O.”) Quine is probably the most important philosopher in the subcategory “twentieth-century philosophers that very few non-philosophers know about.” How accessible he is heavily depends on what you’re reading. Sometimes, as in his book Word and Object, his prose can get a bit obscure. When he’s writing in a different mode, though, he can be a pleasure to read.

Take his 1948 paper on ontology, “On What There Is.” The first paragraphs let us know that, while he’s going to be delving into abstract questions, he’s going to do so in a fairly light-hearted way:

A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: ‘What is there?’ It can be answered, moreover, in a word— ‘Everything’—and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. There remains room for disagreement over cases; and so the issue has stayed alive down the centuries.

Suppose now that two philosophers, McX and I, differ over ontology. Suppose McX maintains there is something which I maintain there is not. McX can, quite consistently with his own point of view, describe our difference of opinion by saying that I refuse to recognize certain entities. I should protest, of course, that he is wrong in his formulation of our disagreement, for I maintain that there are no entities, of the kind which he alleges, for me to recognize…

McX, as the essay develops, is presented as a playful and probably somewhat caricatured stand-in for Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher best remembered for an odd view of ontology according to which in some sense “there are” objects that have all sorts of other properties but lack the property of existence. Much of Quine’s own perspective in “On What There Is” is taken from Bertrand Russell, who firmly rejected the notion of a “non-existent object.”

This disagreement becomes easier to understand if you channel the metaphysics through the philosophy of language. Meinong, as I understand him, thought that a sentence like “dragons don’t exist” refers to a class of non-existent entities, dragons. Russell (and Quine, following his lead) thought it referred to everything that exists, that the logical structure of the sentence, once we drill beneath the surface syntax, is something like:

Of all the things that exist, none of them match the description ‘serpentine flying fire breathing-reptile.’

Whoever was right about the philosophy of language half of the dispute, what interests me here is a move Quine imagines McX making to defend the “being” of various imaginary objects (despite such objects lacking the special property of existence) which sounds to me an awful lot like what Peterson and his fans are coming up with on the Dragon Question.1

This is the old Platonic riddle of nonbeing. Nonbeing must in some sense be, otherwise what is it that there is not?

…It is some such line of thought that leads philosophers like McX to impute being where they might otherwise be quite content to recognize that there is nothing. Thus, take Pegasus. If Pegasus were not, McX argues, we should not be talking about anything when we use the word; therefore it would be nonsense to say even that Pegasus is not. Thinking to show thus that the denial of Pegasus cannot be coherently maintained, he concludes that Pegasus is.

McX cannot, indeed, quite persuade himself that any region of space-time, near or remote, contains a flying horse of flesh and blood. Pressed for further details on Pegasus, then, he says that Pegasus is an idea in men’s minds. Here, however, a confusion begins to be apparent. We may for the sake of argument concede that there is an entity…which is the mental Pegasus-idea; but this mental entity is not what people are talking about when they deny Pegasus.

And this is really the nub of the issue. When Richard Dawkins, or any random person on the street, says “I don’t think dragons are real,” he’s obviously not conveying “I don’t think thoughts about dragons in human minds are real” or “I don’t think stories about dragons are real” or “I don’t think the psychological needs filled by such stories are interesting to think about.” They’re denying that dragons exist.

Subscribe now

In fact, if Peterson had said “of course, dragons aren’t real, but I have many fascinating thoughts about where the idea of dragons comes from,” I expect Dawkins might have said, “Fair enough.” I certainly would. But that’s not exciting. “I think evolutionary psychology sheds light on the origin of stories about dragons” is perhaps mildly interesting. “I believe in ‘the biological reality of dragons’” turns heads.

But in order to bring us along for that ride, Peterson has to pass off “the concept of ‘dragon’ comes from our fear of things that really do exist” as “dragons exist,” which just adds an ultimately evolutionary/psychological flourish to the more basic confusion of “the concept of a dragon exists” (true!) with “dragons themselves exist” (false!). And his fans are left to stumble around talking about “ontological objects” and forms of truth which differ from objective truth.

Quine:

McX never confuses the Parthenon with the Parthenon-idea. The Parthenon is physical; the Parthenon-idea is mental… The Parthenon is visible; the Parthenon-idea is invisible. We cannot easily imagine two things more unlike, and less liable to confusion, than the Parthenon and the Parthenon-idea. But when we shift from the Parthenon to Pegasus, the confusion sets in—for no other reason than that McX would sooner be deceived by the crudest and most flagrant counterfeit than grant the nonbeing of Pegasus.

Honestly, now that Peterson has left academia and found employment at the Daily Wire, an outfit that entirely exists to wage culture war and advocate for cruel and reactionary political positions, what I’ve been harping on here is probably the least objectionable aspect of his entire schtick. Hell, it’s fun. Perhaps we should just let the man have his dragons.

On the other hand, the tenth rule in his mega-bestselling 12 Rules for Life is, “Be precise in your speech.” Given that he’s sold enough copies of that book to fill a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, it really doesn’t seem like too much to ask that he should make some kind of effort to follow those rules. Or at least more of an effort than this.

The NSW Education Standards Authority has announced that teaching of the Aboriginal past prior to European arrival will be excluded from the Year 7–10 syllabus as of 2027.

Since 2012, the topic “Ancient Australia” has been taught nationally in Year 7 as part of the Australian Curriculum. In 2022, a new topic called the “deep time history of Australia” was introduced to provide a more detailed study of 65,000 years of First Nations’ occupation of the continent.

However, New South Wales has surprisingly dropped this topic from its new syllabus, which will be rolled out in 2027. Instead, students will only learn First Nations’ history following European colonisation in 1788.

This directly undermines the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration of 2020. This is a national agreement, signed by education ministers from all jurisdictions, which states:

We recognise the more than 60,000 years [sic] of continual connection by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future.

If the planned change to the syllabus goes through, the only Aboriginal history taught to NSW students would be that which reflects the destruction of traditional Aboriginal society. It also means Aboriginal students in NSW will be denied a chance to learn about their deep ancestral past.

The significance of Australia’s deep time past

Bruce Pascoe’s groundbreaking 2014 book Dark Emu (which sold more than 500,000 copies), and the associated documentary, have highlighted an enormous appetite for learning about Australia’s deep time past.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians engaged with Dark Emu. As anthropologist Paul Memmott notes, the book prompted a debate that encouraged a better understanding of Aboriginal society and its complexity.

It also generated research that investigated whether terms such as “hunter-gatherers” are appropriate for defining past Aboriginal society and economic systems.

---

Read more: Farmers or foragers? Pre-colonial Aboriginal food production was hardly that simple

---

In schools, teachers have used Pascoe’s book Young Dark Emu to introduce students to sophisticated land and aquaculture systems used by First Peoples prior to colonisation.

The book raises an important question. If you lived in a country that invented bread and the edge-ground axe – a culture that independently developed early trade and social living – and did all of this without resorting to land war – wouldn’t you want your children to know about it?

For many students, the history they learn at school is knowledge they carry into their adult lives – and knowledge is the strongest antidote to ignorance. Rather than abandoning the Aboriginal deep time story, schools should be encouraging students to engage with it.

Learning on Country

One of the strengths of the current NSW history syllabus is the requirement for students to undertake a “site study” in Years 8 and 9. Currently, NSW is the only jurisdiction that has made this mandatory.

Site studies are an excellent opportunity for students to learn on Country. Many teachers organise excursions to Aboriginal cultural sites where students can directly engage with local Traditional Owners and Elders.

New South Wales is brimming with sites of cultural significance to Aboriginal people. The map below highlightssome of these, ranging from megafauna sites, to extensive fish traps, to the enigmatic rock art galleries and ceremonial engravings (petroglyphs).

---

---

How students will miss out

The Ngambaa people and archaeologists from the University of Queensland are currently investigating one of the largest midden complexes in Australia. This complex, located at Clybucca and Stuart’s Point on the north coast, spans some 14 kilometres and dates back to around 9,000 years ago.

Middens, or “living sites”, are accumulations of shell that were built over time through thousands of discarded seafood meals. Since the shells help reduce the acidic chemistry of the soil, animal bones and plant remains are more likely to be preserved in middens.

For instance, the Clybucca-Stuarts Point midden complex contains remains from seals and dugongs. Both of these animals were once part of the local ecosystem, but no longer are.

The middens also extend back to before the arrival of dingoes, so studying them could help us understand how biodiversity changed once dingoes replaced thylacines and Tasmanian devils on the mainland.

Local school students, especially Aboriginal students, will be actively participating in this cutting-edge research alongside the Ngambaa people, archaeologists and teachers. Among other things, the students will learn how the Ngambaa people sustainably managed land and sea Country over thousand of years during periods of dramatic environmental change.

But innovative programs like this will no longer be as relevant if Australia’s deep time history is removed from the NSW syllabus.

An opportunity for leadership

The study of First Nations archaeological sites, history and cultures tells us a broader human story of continuity and adaptability over deep time. Indigenising the curriculum – wherein Aboriginal knowledge is braided with historical and archaeological inquiry – is a powerful way to reconcile different approaches to understanding the past.

The NSW Education Standards Authority’s proposed changes risk sending young people the message that Australia’s “history” before colonisation is not an important part of the country’s historic narrative.

But there is still time to show leadership – by reversing the decisions and by connecting teachers and students to powerful stories from Australia’s deep time past.

Michael Westaway receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Humanities and Social Science at the University of Queensland .

Bruce Pascoe is the author of the texts mentioned in this article, Dark Emu and Young Dark Emu: A Truer History. He also has positions on the boards of Black Duck Foods, the Twofold Aboriginal Corporation and First Languages Australia.

Louise Zarmati receives research funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence of Australian Biodiversity and Heritage.

With Google’s introduction of ‘AI Overviews’ beginning to replace its traditional search engine, Apple launching its ‘Apple Intelligence’ system embedded in its latest variants of iOS, Adobe incorporating an AI Photo Editor in Photoshop, and so on, it’s fair to say that artificial intelligence – in the form of generative AI, at least – is infiltrating many of the digital tools and resources we are accustomed to rely upon. While many uncritically embrace such developments, others are asking whether such developments are desirable or even useful. Indeed, John Naughton (2023) suggests that we are currently in the euphoric stage of AI development and adoption which he predicts will soon be followed by a period of profit-taking before the AI bubble bursts. In many ways, we’ve been here before. Haigh (2023, 35)... Read moreIs Now the Winter of AI Discontent?

When producers for a popular Netflix series sought a permit to film on public lands in the U.S. Southwest, many Native leaders objected. A Hopi tribal official, Stewart B. Koyiyumptewa, shares his views.

In early 2024, a controversy swirled around filming for the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse in the Grand Canyon and Chaco Canyon in the U.S. Southwest.

The Netflix show features British author Graham Hancock promulgating the fantastical theory that a lost advanced civilization flourished during the last ice age but was nearly wiped out by a comet strike around 12,000 years ago. The survivors, according to Hancock, went global and brought their knowledge to “simple” hunter-gatherers.

Many scholars have heavily criticized Hancock’s theory as pseudoscience that lacks any evidence. Like conspiracy theories about aliens building ancient monuments, Hancock’s views carry racist implications—explicitly championed by white supremacists—that Indigenous peoples were not the source of their own cultures, technologies, and monuments.

According to The Guardian, in January, for the second season of Ancient Apocalypse, producers filmed in Chaco Canyon, a cultural landscape in what is today New Mexico that includes expansive ancient pueblo communities that flourished about 800 years ago. The producers also reportedly sought permits to film further in Chaco Culture National Historic Park and Grand Canyon National Park. In a memo sent to tribes in the region in March, government administrators expressed concern but said they were unable to deny the permit request. Tribal officials objected. In July, without public comment, the show’s producers pulled the permits and indicated they would film outside the United States.

To unpack why tribes opposed Ancient Apocalypse’s filming on public lands in the Southwest, I reached out to long-time friend and colleague Stewart B. Koyiyumptewa, a Hopi tribal official.

This interview has been edited for brevity, length, and clarity.

 

CC

Can you introduce yourself?

SBK

My name is Stewart B. Koyiyumptewa. I am from the village community of Hotevilla and am a member of the Grey Badger Clan.

I have worked for the Hopi Tribe’s Cultural Preservation Office since 1999 in different capacities. Currently, I am the Hopi Tribe’s tribal historic preservation officer.

CC

Why is the Grand Canyon important to the Hopi people?

SBK

Öngtupka (Grand Canyon), as it is known by the descendants of Orayvi village and Third Mesa people, is the emergence place for many living clans among the Hopi people. There are several vital shrines that Hopi men visit annually within the canyon. It is also the place affiliated clan members return to when they have concluded their lives here on earth.

CC

And Chaco Canyon?

SBK

Yupköyvi (Chaco Canyon) is a Hopi and Pueblo ancestral place. According to my knowledge of Yupköyvi, it was a place where the religious and ceremonial practices of migrating clans from the north and south converged. These practices, derived from the North American continent and Mesoamerica’s far reaches, were reintroduced and perfected at Yupköyvi.

CC

These ancient practices in Chaco Canyon are a bridge to Hopi culture today?

SBK

These reintroduced religious and ceremonial elements were incorporated to fit the landscape and ecosystems the Hopi people now call their permanent homelands. Yupköyvi was a place where goods, ideas, and songs were exchanged. It is also where Hopi ancestors were laid to rest, and they continue to provide spiritual sustenance to Hopi clans derived from Yupköyvi.

CC

Why was the Hopi Tribe concerned about Ancient Apocalypse being filmed in the Grand Canyon and Chaco Canyon?

SBK

Grand Canyon and Chaco Canyon are living ancestral places for the Hopi and Pueblo people. The Hopi people pay homage to these places because our cultural and religious beliefs, philosophy, and all the aspects of our current way of life are interwoven with these significant places.

CC

So, even though these are national parks today, Native people are still deeply connected to them?

SBK

We have never vacated our rights to these places. In fact, it is because of the ancestors of the Hopi and Zuni people, and the Pai Tribes, that archaeological sites exist in the Grand Canyon.

It is also because of the Hopi and Pueblo people that archaeological sites exist within Chaco Canyon. We don’t see these places as recreational areas to visit.

CC

You have been quoted as saying that the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) should have consulted with the Hopi Tribe and other Native nations before issuing a permit for filming. Why is that consultation important?

SBK

Consultation with the Hopi Tribe, Pueblo, and other tribal communities associated with Grand Canyon National Park, Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, and all national parks affiliated with the Hopi and Pueblo tribes is extremely important. These parks contain our ancestral sites, and the Hopi Tribe was not at the table when decisions were made to make our ancestral sites into national parks.

Since these parks are part of the Hopi Tribe’s ancestral footprint, it is only right to consult the Hopi Tribe to assess any potential impacts. The NPS should weigh the impacts to the Hopi Tribe and other tribal communities and the damage it will cause to a living group of people rather than being concerned about freedom of speech or being sued.

Federal agencies are supposed to work with Indigenous people to minimize impacts. Allowing a film company to spread unproven theories will cause major damage to the Hopi people because of the film company’s ability to reach millions of people through its platform.

CC

What is the traditional origin history of the Hopi people?

SBK

Some Hopi clans trace their origin and emergence to the Grand Canyon. They believe they emerged from a previous world, the Third World, into this present world, the Fourth World.

CC

And, research has shown that there is often a strong congruence between Hopi traditional histories and archaeological evidence.

SBK

Archaeological records within the Grand Canyon support our claims.

CC

The Grand Canyon also has profound spiritual significance for Hopis.

SBK

Not only is the Grand Canyon the emergence place for Hopi clans, but it is also the eternal resting place for Hopi people as they fulfill their lives here on earth.

CC

What do you think about Graham Hancock’s theory of a “lost” advanced ice age civilization?

SBK

The problem with Hancock’s theory is that he nitpicks existing archaeological research, or the lack thereof, to construct his theory for a lost ice age civilization.

The renowned Society for American Archaeology (SAA) issued a letter explaining the harmful effects of Hancock’s theory. There is no archaeological evidence within the Grand Canyon and Chaco Canyon to support his claims.

CC

What would you say to those who argue that filmmakers should have the freedom of speech to record whatever they want in national parks?

SBK

When does freedom of speech override the harms it causes? When freedom of speech contradicts the thousands of years of knowledge incorporated into the lifeways of the Hopi people, the filmmakers and the federal government issuing the filming permit are causing considerable harm to the Hopi Tribe and other Indigenous people.

CC

And consultation can stop or mitigate such harms?

SBK

What is the purpose of government-to-government consultation—that is, between the Hopi Nation and the U.S. government—when federal agencies undermine what tribes have to say on a particular matter?

Tribes have been consulting with the various sectors and departments of the federal government for over 100 years. Has the federal government not learned anything about the tribes to help protect their values and sovereignty, which includes their ancestral footprint?

By granting the filming permit, the federal government has shown a lack of respect for the Hopi Tribe in all phases of consultation.

CC

Is Hancock’s theory racist or anti–Native American in your view?

SBK

Hancock’s theory suggests that White survivors of an advanced civilization are responsible for the cultural heritage in the Americas—not Indigenous peoples.

The assertions that Hancock makes promote dangerous racist thinking that impacts the Hopi people and other Indigenous communities. His theory appropriates recognition of the Hopi people’s sustainability, migration footprint, and adaptive accomplishments to the Grand Canyon, Chaco Canyon, and overall landscapes and ecosystems of the U.S. Southwest.

Hancock’s narrative encourages dangerous voices that misrepresent established archaeological knowledge. These false historical narratives affect living cultures and their continued connections to their ancestral homelands.

The post Digging Into an <em>Ancient Apocalypse</em> Controversy From a Hopi Perspective appeared first on SAPIENS.

Recently, Paulina of the Data Literacy Program (DLP) brought our Digital Data Stories to the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) meetings in Santa Fe, New Mexico! The theme for the overall conference was PLACE. Paulina took this as a chance to highlight our work with The Road Most Traveled. In addition, Paulina introduced new audiences to our plans for the educational resource in the Archaeological Data Literacy Practicum.

Day One – Conferences as Land Acknowledgement?

The first day of TAG included an awesome plenary session opening the conference. This was because of the speakers in the plenary session and where the conference took place. Both aspects operationalized a tangible approach to Land Acknowledgement. TAG attendees heard from the Governor of Picuris Pueblo, Craig Quanchello, who introduced himself and explained how Hotel Santa Fe (where the conference was held) is owned 100% by Picuris Pueblo.

As Dr. Lindsay Montgomery said, by having the conference there, the TAG demonstrated how archaeologists can reinvest in Indigenous or Aboriginal communities. Beyond that we heard from Mishuana Goeman, Philip Deloria, and Sylvia Rodriguez who explored ideas around theoretical perspectives around mapping, diverging definitions on words like place, Indigenous, and Aboriginal; and placemaking through moving landscapes. 

They all reminded me how maps are one kind of structured data. In addition, the ways that we structure, share, and understand maps exist within contexts. Maps embody ideas of place created by their makers and exist in a place to reflect different powers, perspectives, and priorities. 

Day Two – Ain’t no boring sessions at TAG

Catcii, context, and the cyclical nature of site visits expanded the many discussions of TAG, Day Two. The papers reflected how archaeologists, relying on various lines of evidence and data, can take the time to play with methods, materials, and modalities. I appreciated Dr. Tsim D. Schneider of University of California, Santa Cruz’s talk “Beads Belong in the Future, but What About Archaeology? Considering Emergence Geographies in Coastal California”. While exploring a variety of narratives through discussing the intense effort, industry, and importance of shell beads, he highlighted an interesting aspect of archaeological data. Specifically, what we choose document, who should document something, and when it should be done.

Using the example of the beached S.S. Point Reyes, within the Point Reyes National Seashore, he highlighted how legal requirements can hinder our abilities to document important material heritage. The S.S. Point Reyes beached in the 1990s, not fitting age minimums for certain documentation. But when recent storms and other events nearly destroyed the vessel causing its likely removal from the site, the need for documentation–and a wish to have had systematically documented it before those events–became apparent.  

It reminded me of how the idea of scope within archaeological data and documentation both helps and hinder us, particularly within regulatory contexts. Regulations and laws focus archaeological data creation but also mean we don’t always document important features or materials before they’re gone. While easy to control within an individual project, it’s important to consider this question within legal heritage management contexts as well. Some belongings, features, landscapes, the materials world should have data creation or documentation rules broken for them while we still have the time to collect and know the stories about them.

Day Three – High roads, low roads, and digital roads for archaeology

Day three was all about the DLP! I presented my paper alongside Dr. Chester Liwosz and Dr. Kelsey Reese. Besides sharing the cool work we’ll be doing with The Road Most Traveled, it was great to see how other scholars are critically engaging with the intersections of technology and pedagogy. I loved getting to think more about the many existing technological options that can help expand our archaeological data creation and documentation as well as the important theorizing that should happen as we integrate newer technologies.

While a small session, it got me thinking about potential future projects. I really liked Dr. Reese’s theorizing of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and her case study to illustrate the point. I appreciated the heavy technical work–available to read about here open access–relating back to different ways of seeing and using those data. For example, Reese explored the concept of a choreographic landscape as a contrast to the top down view created by geographic information systems. Such an embedded visualization of the landscape, made affordable by consumer drones, represents the landscape as more than data or a container for archaeological materials.

Her work was a great reminder for how our data tools can alter how we see the world and our research questions. We should always interrogate how data collection occurs and see if it begins with theoretical perspectives to ensure that we address assumptions generated by those data.  

Day Four – Opportunities to explore

The final day of the conference was set aside for various field trips with all the sessions concluded. Folks had the option to visit various local sites and I hope they had fun! Unfortunately, I still haven’t been able to make it to any field trips pre or post conference. I hoped this would be the one but the stars didn’t align. I’m grateful for all the hosts and Pueblos that made those field trips possible and am sad I missed out!

TAG-aways

While TAG was a smaller conference than many of the others that the DLP attended this last year, it was a great chance to share our work with new communities and make wonderful connections. I gave my card to many folks interested in the work of the DLP and the Alexandria Archive Institute.

Through those conversations, I learned about cool resources other folks have that support online access to archaeological materials. One of them was the Onöndowa’ga:’ (Seneca) Haudenosaunee Archaeological Materials, circa 1688-1754 project. I hope to follow up on those potential collaborations as we move forward with various approaches to archaeological data literacy here in the DLP. And maybe we’ll even see folks again at TAG next year, hosted by William & Mary.

Image credits: The main image “TAG_header_2024 copy” by Paulina F. Przystupa from the DLP, includes the “TAG Santa Fe Logo” by Severin Fowles from the TAG Santa Fe website used with permission. The SS Point Reyes image includes credits within the caption. The slide image included a cropped screen capture of Open Refine from “OpenRefine for Archaeology: Open source data cleaning” by Eric Kansa from the AAI licensed CC BY-SA. It also included a cropped screen capture of “https://www.qgis.org/en/site/about/index.html” by Paulina F. Przystupa Material on website CC BY-SA.

The post TAG, We’re It – A Recap of TAG Santa Fe appeared first on The Alexandria Archive Institute.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not a recent development. However, with increasing computational capabilities, AI has developed into Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning, technologies particularly good at detecting correlations and patterns, and categorising, predicting, or extracting information. Within archaeology, AI can process big data accumulated over decades of research and deposited in archives. By combining these capabilities, AI offers new insights and exciting opportunities to create knowledge from archaeological archives for contemporary and future research. However, the ethical implications and human costs are not yet fully understood. Therefore, we question whether AI in archaeology is a blessing or a curse.