You are on page 1of 21

Public
Archaeology
2.

0:
Facilitating
Engagement
with
Twitter















Nicolas
R.
Laracuente























DO
NOT
CITE
IN
ANY
CONTEXT
WITHOUT
PERMISSION
OF
THE
AUTHOR




Nicolas
R.
Laracuente

nicolas.laracuente@gmail.com

Abstract


One
goal
of
public
archaeology
is
to
increase
public
awareness
of
archaeological

issues
and
their
practical
applications
to
modern
social
issues.
Public
archaeology

facilitates
the
understanding
of
archaeological,
historical,
and
social
issues
through
a

variety
of
methods.
Classroom
visits,
hands‐on
activities,
site
tours,
and
other
events

give
archaeologists
the
opportunity
to
engage
public
audiences
and
transfer

knowledge
through
face‐to‐face
interaction.
A
problem
with
this
approach
is
that

the
engagement
ends
at
the
conclusion
of
the
event.
The
use
of
Internet
applications,

including
Twitter,
can
solve
this
problem
by
offering
a
chance
to
continue

interaction
past
the
boundaries
of
the
event.


Twitter
is
a
micro‐blogging
application
that
allows
one
to
send
140
character

“tweets”
to
their
“followers”.
Tweets
can
be
received
via
the
Twitter
website,
third

party
applications,
feeds
embedded
in
websites,
or
text
messages.
Followers
can

respond
to
the
original
user
or
“retweet”
the
message
to
their
followers.
This

application
transcends
the
spatial
and
temporal
boundaries
of
the
event
by
allowing

sustained
multi‐directional
communication
between
archaeologists,
their
audience,

and
others
who
never
attended
the
original
event.
This
form
of
engagement

facilitates
learning
and
can
be
applied
across
disciplines.



 2

Introduction



 Archaeology
is
the
study
of
human
societies
through
their
material
remains.



Public
archaeology
facilitates
understanding
of
archaeological
techniques
and
the


results
of
our
excavations
through
a
variety
of
methods.

Classroom
visits,
hands‐on


activities,
site
tours,
and
lectures
provide
opportunities
for
public
engagement
and


education.

Audiences
range
from
children
to
adults
with
varying
skill
levels
and


varying
interests
in
archaeology.

These
events
are
also
time‐limited.

They
last


anywhere
from
a
few
minutes
to
a
few
hours
and
conclude
with
a
few
interested


parties
who
linger
to
ask
a
few
follow‐up
questions.

A
complete
understanding
of


the
activity’s
message
depends
on
the
notes
taken
by
the
audience,
handouts


included
in
the
event,
or
their
memory.



 This
paper
argues
that
the
Internet,
specifically
social
media
websites,
can


facilitate
archaeological
engagement
by
providing
opportunities
for
interaction
past


the
time
limits
of
the
original
event.

Employing
social
media
effectively
requires
a


critical
understanding
of
the
technology
being
discussed
in
addition
to
an
expert


understanding
of
material
that
is
relayed
through
that
medium.

Twitter,
a
social


media
micro‐blogging
application,
was
the
focus
of
this
research.

Examining


Twitter’s
utility
as
an
information
communication
technology
(ICT)
device
within


the
context
of
archaeological
engagement
requires
shifting
focus
from
the


technology
itself
to
the
behavior
of
the
people
that
use
it.




As
a
result
this
paper
begins
with
a
hypothetical
public
archaeology
event
to


illustrate
different
types
of
learning
behavior.

In
the
second
section
of
this
paper,


Twitter
is
described
and
its
intended
uses
are
contrasted
with
its
actual
uses.

The



 3

paper
concludes
with
suggestions
of
how
to
integrate
Twitter
into
public


archaeological
projects
in
a
way
that
effectively
supplements
the
project
goals.



Public
Archaeology
and
Learning
Types



 Public
archaeology
events
that
are
created
with
a
focus
on
educational
goals


are
conscious
of
the
big
ideas
they
are
made
to
communicate.

Enduring


understandings
are
the
big
ideas
that
should
stick
in
an
audience’s
head
even
if


nothing
else
remains
after
the
event’s
conclusion
(Wiggins
and
McTighe
1998:10‐

11).

Public
archaeology
events
that
occur
at
live
excavation
sites
have
several


enduring
understandings
in
common.



 Archaeology
is
destructive.

Excavations
essentially
destroy
the


archaeological
record.

Archaeological
techniques
are
purposefully
designed
to


record
the
maximum
amount
of
data
from
an
excavation.

They
are
often
employed


with
a
specific
research
question
and
excavation
plan
in
mind.

An
excavation
that


lacks
proper
documentation
or
excavation
technique
destroys
archaeological
data.



This
data
is
gone
forever
and
cannot
be
retrieved
by
conducting
the
excavation


again.



 Archaeological
materials
are
limited.

If
an
archaeological
site
is
destroyed


there
are
no
second
chances.

This
is
one
reason
why
archaeologists
test
portions
of


sites
rather
than
excavation
a
site
in
its
entirety.

If
we
leave
a
portion
of
the
site


undisturbed,
future
archaeologists
can
return
to
the
site
with
new
questions
and


different
methods.



 People
bestow
meanings
on
material
things.

This
idea
can
be
communicated


with
nearly
every
artifact
that
comes
out
of
the
ground.

Ceramic
sherds
are
often



 4

correlated
with
specific
cultures.

Designs
that
decorate
pottery
can
reflect
the


identity
of
the
potter
or
relay
a
story
that
is
part
of
that
society.

This
enduring


understanding
is
more
complicated
than
the
first
two,
but
is
accessible
from
a


variety
of
angles.



 Communicating
these
enduring
understandings
is
feasible
in
a
controlled


setting
like
a
classroom.

However,
when
these
issues
are
addressed
during
a
live


excavation,
problems
are
encountered.

A
public
archaeologist
can
encounter


unexpected
questions
in
the
course
of
an
event.

Questions
such
as
“How
much
is


that
bottle
worth?
“
or
“How
do
you
make
the
holes
so
straight?”
can
be
distracting


from
the
main
purpose
of
an
educational
event.





 While
these
are
all
good
questions
and
great
teachable
moments,
they
do
not


contribute
to
a
complete
understanding
of
the
event’s
enduring
understanding.

This


scenario
demonstrates
a
flaw
in
the
design
of
the
event.

In
a
standard
classroom,
a


lesson
plan
has
learning
goals
and
a
predetermined
route
for
getting
there.

An


excavation
site
is
essentially
an
outdoor
classroom.

Unlike
its
indoor
counterpart,


educators
lack
control
of
the
learning
environment
and
have
to
plan
for
a
variety
of


learning
situations
and
potential
distractions.

This
preparation
includes
a
critical


analysis
of
the
event’s
audience.



 People
learn
in
a
variety
ways
(see
Bransford
et
al.
2000:
Chapter
2
and
3).



Two
types
of
learning
models
are
affected
by
the
shift
from
an
indoor
to
an
outdoor


classroom:
directed
and
free‐choice
learning.

Directed
learning
works
best
when


the
educator
has
control
over
the
situation
in
terms
of
content
and
audience


participation
(Power
and
Robinson
2005:19,
23).

An
example
of
this
approach
is
a



 5

school
field
trip
where
students
have
worksheets
with
questions
they
have
to


answer
for
class.

Students
may
ask
questions
that
are
prompted
by
their


worksheets.

Together,
the
worksheet
and
questions
can
guide
audiences
to
the


predetermined
learning
goals.



 Individual
interests
guide
free
choice
learning.

The
audience’s
attention
will


wander
to
things
that
interest
them
(Chung
et
al.
2009:43).

Free‐choice
learning


audiences
ask
questions
that
are
prompted
by
their
interests.

A
good
example
of


this
type
of
situation
is
a
museum.

Usually,
an
audience
has
a
choice
of
which


exhibits
are
visited
and
how
they
are
experienced.

A
visitor
can
read
all
of
the
labels


or
randomly
browse.

The
entire
exhibit
can
be
experience
at
once
or
over
multiple


trips.

Learning
activities
designed
for
free‐choice
learning
needs
multiple
entry


points
or
hooks
to
grab
someone’s
attention
and
hold
it
long
enough
to
transfer
the


lesson’s
content
(Pearce
1990:162‐163).



 There
are
multiple
ways
to
engage
free‐choice
learners.

Twitter
can
be
a
tool


to
engage
this
type
of
audience.

This
engagement
must
begin
with
a
shift
away
from


thinking
of
free‐choice
learning
questions
as
distractions.

If
these
questions
are


realized
for
what
they
are,
interest
in
the
process
of
archaeology,
then
the
barriers


to
learning
shifts
from
the
audience
to
the
limited
amount
of
interaction
between


audience
and
educator.

The
need
shifts
from
a
way
to
keep
the
audiences
attention


to
a
way
to
extend
and
sustain
our
engagement
with
the
audience.

This
is
where


Twitter
can
become
a
part
of
the
learning
process.



 6

Twitter
in
the
News


The
public
opinion
of
Twitter
has
been
formed
through
highly
publicized


events
relayed
through
the
news
media.

These
events
resonated
through
the
media


and
resulted
in
the
implementation
of
Twitter
into
business
models
in
a
variety
of


ways.

To
begin
an
objective
analysis
of
Twitter
as
an
ICT
these
stories
are


summarized
in
the
next
few
paragraphs.


On
January
15,
2009,
US
Airways
Flight
1549
landed
in
the
Hudson
River.



News
media
rushed
to
cover
the
story,
but
the
first
picture
uploaded
to
the
Internet


was
not
from
a
traditional
news
source;
it
was
from
Twitter.

A
twitter
user,


@JKrums,
wrote,

“http://twitpic.com/135xa
There’s
a
plane
on
the
Hudson.

I’m


going
on
the
ferry
to
pick
up
the
people.
Crazy.”
(Israel
2009:200).


This
action
was


possible
because
of
three
technologies:
an
iPhone,
the
mobile
web,
and
Twitter.

The


event
was
only
one
in
a
line
of
examples
of
how
Twitter
could
be
used
in
emergency


situations.



 The
terrorist
attack
in
Mumbai,
India
during
November
2008
prompted


messages
that
were
dispersed
globally
through
Twitter
(Comm
et
al.
2009:xiii).

Like


the
Hudson
River
event,
Twitter
was
used
to
broadcast
information.

It
followed
a


pattern
that
cause
the
business
writer,
Joel
Comm,
to
state
that,
“We
now
live
in
a


time
where
ordinary
citizens
are
empowered
to
be
conduits
of
information
to
the


masses
like
never
before”
(Comm
et
al.
2009:xiv).

However,
these
conduits
are
not


unidirectional.




 On
April
10,
2008,
James
Buck,
a
student
journalist,
was
unjustly
arrested
in


Egypt.

He
tweeted
one
word,
“arrested”,
when
the
authorities
were
transporting



 7

him
to
the
police
station
(Israel
2009:1‐3).

News
of
his
plight
traveled
through
a


network
of
people
connected
to
him
via
Twitter
ultimately
leading
to
his
release
a


few
days
later
and
a
free
plane
ride
back
to
the
United
States
(Simon
2008).



 In
April
2009,
celebrity
Demi
Moore
was
contacted
through
Twitter
by
one
of


her
followers
intent
on
suicide
(News
Wire
Service
2009).

Since
Twitter
allows


communication
in
real‐time,
Moore
contacted
authorities
in
time
to
intervene
and


stop
the
attempt.

Incidents
like
these
demonstrate
that
communication
through


Twitter
can
result
in
real
world
consequences.

In
addition
to
the
ability
to


broadcast
information
to
the
masses,
Twitter
users
are
able
to
converse
with


anyone
using
this
technology
in
the
world.

This
realization
prompts
business
writer


Shel
Israel
to
mark
the
death
of
the
“Broadcast
Era”
and
the
birth
of
the


“Conversational
Era”
in
broad
generalizations
of
communication
(Israel
2009:8).



 In
order
to
fully
grasp
the
ramification
of
Twitter,
this
technology
needs
to
be


examined
through
a
critical
lens.

This
next
section
of
this
paper
examines
what


Twitter
claims
to
be
and
how
it
is
actually
used.

It
traces
the
rise
of
Twitter
and


contextualizes
it
within
the
history
of
communication
to
determine
if
this
is
a
new


type
of
communication
or
if
it
is
an
extension
of
what
we
have
been
doing
before.



To
begin
this
discussion
this
paper
will
now
turn
to
an
examination
of
the


mechanics
of
Twitter.



Development
of
Twitter



 In
her
book
All
a
Twitter,
Tee
Morris
traces
the
development
of
elements
of


the
Internet
that
enabled
the
rise
of
Twitter.

In
the
early
1990’s
the
Internet
was


one
sided.

Content
was
limited
in
format
and
visitors
were
limited
to
moving
from



 8

page
to
page.

It
was
not
until
the
development
of
new
programming
languages
(ASP


and
PHP)
that
Internet
users
were
able
to
communicate
between
members
(Morris


2010:9).

However
this
interaction
was
limited
to
communication
in
forums
and


webpages
controlled
by
a
single
person.





 In
2000,
Real
Simple
Syndication
(RSS)
facilitated
the
development
of
blogs


by
enabling
Internet
users
to
subscribe
to
a
blogger’s
content.

Media
available


through
RSS
was
limited
to
text
until
the
development
of
the
<enclosure>
tag
in


2004
(Morris
2010:10‐11).

This
enabled
the
distribution
of
audio
and
video
files


through
RSS.



 RSS
resulted
in
the
rise
of
content
on
the
Internet.

This
coincided
with
the


development
of
social
networking
that
enabled
users
to
choose
how
and
when
they


interacted.
Three
websites
that
were
created
during
the
rise
of
social
media
and
RSS


involved
the
people
who
would
create
Twitter.



 Ev
Williams,
creator
of
Blogger.com,
and
Biz
Stone,
founder
of
Xandga.com,


worked
together
at
Google.

They
founded
a
software
company
called
Odeo
in
2004.



They
hired
a
software
engineer
named
Jack
Dorsey
shortly
after
their
company


began
(Israel
2009:16‐20).

Williams
and
Stone
challenged
Dorsey
with
solving
a


communication
problem.

Odeo’s
employees
were
scattered
across
Silicon
Valley


and
all
worked
on
their
own
time
schedules.

It
was
difficult
to
find
times
that


everyone
could
meet
in
person
and
nearly
impossible
to
assess
productivity.





 Dorsey
was
inspired
by
the
emergency
vehicles
to
communicate
their
routes


in
real‐time.

A
form
of
real‐time
communication
that
people
carry
around
on
their


person
everyday
is
SMS
text
messaging
(Israel
2009:16).

Text
messages
are
capped



 9

at
160
characters,
which
meant
that
a
user
name
and
message
had
to
fit
in
a
160


character
limit.

Dorsey
rationed
20
characters
for
the
user
name
leaving
140


characters
for
the
message
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:33).

Dorsey
called
his


service
TWTTR.

It
was
open‐source
software,
meaning
that
Odeo
employees
were


allowed
to
distribute
TWTTR
to
people
outside
of
their
company
(Israel
2009:22‐

25).



 TWTTR
was
a
communication
tool
with
viral
elements.

The
more
people
that


were
on
TWTTR
the
more
useful
it
became.

As
a
result
TWTTR
spread
organically,


one
person
uses
it
and
tells
another
resulting
in
a
constantly
growing
pool
of
users


(Israel
2009:133).

Eventually
Odeo’s
founders
realized
that
their
communication


tool
had
more
potential
than
their
original
company.

They
returned
their
startup


money
to
Odeo’s
investors,
added
some
vowels
to
their
product’s
name,
and
began


Twitter
Inc.
in
October
2006
(Israel
2009:26).



 Williams,
Stone,
and
Dorsey
took
Twitter
to
the
SXSW
conference
in
2007.



They
put
a
live
twitter
stream
up
on
the
monitors
in
central
conference
gathering


places
and
let
information
of
their
product
spread
by
word
of
mouth.

Twitter
was


named
the
best
product
of
SXSW
2007
with
a
user
base
that
had
increased
to
60


thousand
users
(Israel
2009:32,
39).

Spreading
Twitter
was
now
in
the
hands
of
the


people
who
used
the
service.



 Twitter
spread
quickly.

In
February
2009,
the
service
had
32
million
users


(Israel
2009:23).

By
the
end
of
the
year
there
were
50
million
users
(Israel


2009:29).

Part
of
this
rapid
growth
was
a
‘snowball
effect’
that
started
at
the
SXSW


conference.

The
explosion
of
Twitter
can
also
be
attributed
to
the
technology
being



 10

featured
on
Oprah,
followed
shortly
by
a
well‐publicized
race
between
celebrity


Ashton
Kutcher
and
CNN
to
be
the
first
to
acquire
1
million
followers.

Twitter
had


reached
critical
mass,
a
point
where
it
is
firmly
entrenched
in
society
(Comm


2009:21).

This
rapid
growth
hit
a
snag
in
2008.



 Every
time
a
tweet
is
sent
it
goes
out
to
hundreds
of
other
people


simultaneously.

At
the
same
time
each
of
those
people
are
sending
tweets.

Each


new
user
increased
the
amount
of
data
being
handled
by
Twitter’s
servers.

These


scalability
issues
resulted
in
a
massive
amount
of
downtime
in
2008.

Most
of
this


downtime
(84%)
was
in
the
first
half
of
2008
(Peneberg
2009:152‐153).

Despite


these
problems,
Twitter
maintained
a
loyal
user
base.



 A
2008
survey
determined
that
63%
of
Twitter’s
users
were
male.

A
little


more
than
half
(57%)
of
the
users
were
from
California.

The
average
age
of
Twitter


users
were
35‐44.

The
realization
that
Twitter’s
user
base
was
older
people
caused


businesses
to
join
the
service
because
of
the
potential
to
reach
potential
customers


in
a
different
way
(Comm
2009:6).

An
example
of
this
movement
is
the
computer


company
Dell.



 Dell’s
chief
blogger,
Lionel
Menchaca,
began
to
use
a
Twitter
feed
to


broadcast
links
to
his
blog.

Menchaca
found
customers
responded
directly
to
him


on
Twitter.


Communication
with
customers
became
centralized
on
Twitter.
He


became
the
face
of
Dell
on
Twitter
providing
a
more
personal
service
directly
to


customers
(Israel
2009:47‐48).


However,
Twitter
can
backfire
if
companies
take
an


unfocused
stab
at
participation.

Lack
of
research
can
backfire
and
be
detrimental
to


a
company’s
image
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:189).



 11


 Zoological
parks
have
embraced
the
effort
it
takes
to
engage
customers


through
Twitter.

An
article
in
the
Association
of
Zoos
and
Aquariums
notes
that


social
media
is,
“Not
always
free,
not
always
easy,
and
not
everyone
who
is
doing
it


is
doing
it
well”
(Whitman
2010:8).

Ciri
Haugh
with
the
Houston
Zoo
remarked
that


it
takes
constant
research
to
stay
ahead
of
the
curve.

To
develop
and
hold
a


subscriber
base
information
and
enthusiasm
needs
to
be
communicated
predictably


and
often
(Haugh
2010:12‐13).

Policies
need
to
be
developed
that
determine
what


is
placed
on
social
media
(Haugh
2010:12).

Their
research
determined
that
trivia,


photos,
and
animal
facts
garnered
the
most
attention
(Haugh
2010:13).

Research


also
determined
that
48%
of
African
Americans
and
47%
of
Hispanics
accessed
the


Internet
via
mobile
devices.

This
makes
Twitter
especially
effective
in
contacting


those
groups
(Haugh
2010:13).






What
is
Twitter?
A
Critical
Analysis


Twitter
is
a
micro‐blogging
application
that
allows
one
to
send
140
character


“tweets”
to
their
“followers”.
Tweets
can
be
received
via
the
Twitter
website,
third


party
applications,
feeds
embedded
in
websites,
or
text
messages.
Followers
can


respond
to
the
original
user
or
“retweet”
the
message
to
their
followers.




It
is
important
to
realize
that
Twitter
does
not
stand‐alone.

It
is
a
tool
in
the
social


media
toolkit
(Israel
2009:8).





 As
part
of
a
technological
tool
kit
Twitter
has
to
be
used
in
conjunction
with


other
technologies.

With
the
rapid
growth
of
technologies
in
the
Web
2.0


environment
it
may
not
be
possible
to
understand
each
element
of
social
media.




 12

Some
writers
argue
that
Twitter
should
be
used
as
a
facilitator
that
directs
attention


between
different
social
media
elements
(Morris
2000:15).

Others
view
Twitter
as


a
chance
to
distribute
ideas
and
comments
about
individual
interest
and
expertise


(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:11).

Several
entrepreneurs
approach
Twitter
as
a


chance
to
check
public
opinion
of
their
products
and
ideas
(Israel
2009:50).

To


grasp
Twitter’s
place
in
the
social
media
ecosystem
it
may
be
useful
to
contrast
it


with
other
technologies.



 Twitter
is
described
as
a
telephone
that
is
used
without
any
aspect
of
privacy


(Israel
2009:4‐5).

An
even
more
accurate
analogy
is
Twitter
as
a
telegraph.



Telegraph
lines
were
piggybacked
on
the
existing
infrastructure
of
the
railroad


(Carey
1989:203).

After
its
implementation
the
telegraph
improved
on
the


railroad’s
operation
through
prevention
of
train
collisions.

Twitter
was


operationalized
using
the
existing
cellular
phone
and
Internet
infrastructure.

It
has


improved
communication
by
removing
barriers
by
allowing
people
to
bypass


secondary
sources
with
a
direct
link
to
primary
sources
(Israel
2009:66‐68).

It
also


provides
new
opportunities
in
networking
by
breaking
down
other
social
barriers.



 At
the
2010
Modern
Language
Association
Convention
in
Philadelphia,
the


organizations
executive
director,
Rosemary
Feal,
invited
her
twitter
followers
to
an


exclusive
event.

Her
followers,
mostly
graduate
students
or
recently
minted
PhDs,


would
have
never
heard
of
this
normally
private
meeting
with
elite
social
leaders,


supporters,
and
financial
donors
to
the
institution
(Golden
2010).

While
this


provides
an
example
of
Twitter
breaking
down
social
hierarchies
and
providing
real


life
access
to
the
people
at
the
top
of
the
‘social
ladder’,
Feal’s
use
of
Twitter



 13

prompted
criticisms
of
the
technologies
‘trivialization’
of
the
English
language


(Golden
2010).



 Ironically,
the
same
issue
confronted
the
telegraph.

The
translation
of


written
language
into
dots
and
dashes
was
initially
used
to
play
long‐distance
chess


(Carey
1989:202).

Thoreau
criticized
this
technology
as
‘trivialization’
of
the


English
language,
but
his
criticisms
were
drowned
out
by
those
who
embraced
its


potential
(Carey
1989:202‐203).

Hemingway
cited
the
telegraph
as
a
major


influence
on
his
attempts
to
“pare
his
prose
to
the
bone”
(Carey
1989:211).

The


broad
reach
of
the
telegraph
also
resulted
in
the
objectification
of
the
news
(Carey


1989:210).

This
was
a
result
of
the
need
to
make
news
stories
palatable
to
people
of


every
political
type.

Unlike
the
telegraph,
Twitter’s
structure
does
not
result
in


objectification
of
information.

Indeed,
it
results
in
the
exact
opposite.



 The
140
characters
limit
of
tweets
forces
an
author
to
strip
a
message
to
its


bare
essentials.

The
size
of
this
chunk
of
information
moves
quickly
and
is


distributed
through
a
variety
of
channels
(Levinson
2009:134).

As
the
number
of


accounts
a
user
follows
increases
the
amount
of
tweets
the
author
sees
increases


exponentially.

When
“people
treat
[Twitter]
as
a
river
of
messages,
dipping
in
when


they
happen
to
be
next
to
the
stream”
information
contained
in
a
tweet
may
lose
its


context
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:155,
165).

If
people
do
not
read
the
tweet


within
5
minutes
of
posting
they
may
not
see
it
at
all
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein


2009:155).

This
amount
of
information
results
in
a
change
in
the
user’s


expectations
from
social
interaction
in
this
environment.





 14


 Unlike
Facebook,
and
other
social
media
sites,
Twitter
users
do
not
have
to


follow
each
other
to
see
the
information
(Buckley
2006:7).

This
publically


accessible,
asymmetrical
model
has
two
implications:
1.
Twitter
users
are
more


likely
to
find
information
by
strangers
2.
People
will
unfollow
you
if
you
are
not


interesting
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein
2009:7,
25).

The
realization
that
users
can


selectively
follow
who
they
are
interest
in
results
in
the
creation
social
‘islands’


where
everyone
is
of
the
same
mindset.

The
opt‐in
nature
of
Twitter
is
a
vivid


contrast
from
the
required
participation
of
the
telegraph.

Instead
of
a
movement


toward
objectivity,
it
is
increasingly
easy
to
find
subjective
information
portrayed
as


fact.



 The
problems
related
to
an
Internet
user’s
behavior
are
succinctly
written


about
by
Peneberg:



“…skimming
blogs
and
news
sites,
downloading
music
and
videos,
cruising

MySpace,
creating
and
maintaining
blogs…
take
time.

All
the
time
we
make

choices.

We
sift,
filter,
ignore.

Even
turning
it
all
off
is
an
option.
(Peneberg

2009:76)”


The
choices
described
by
Peneberg
describe
habits
that
are
diverse
and


instantaneous.

The
fragmentary
nature
of
our
consumption
of
information
results


in
"nicheification"
or
our
lives.

Interaction
is
no
longer
confined
to
person
to


person,
but
social
cluster
to
social
cluster
(Peneberg
2009:76).

However,
these


clusters
are
still
composed
of
people.

According
to
Whitman
these
social
media
user


behaviors
can
be
classified
in
six
types
(Whitman
2010:9):




 1.
Creator:
submits
photos
and
other
content


 
 2.
Critic:
leaves
comments


 
 3.
Collector:
Retweets,
Social
Bookmarks,
RSS
Feeds



 15


 
 4.
Joiner:
becomes
a
fan
on
Facebook,
follower
on
Twitter


 
 5.
Spectator:
reads
blogs,
watched
YouTube
videos


 
 6.
Inactive:
No
social
media
use.


To
critically
participate
in
social
media
it
is
important
to
realize
that
audiences
are


made
up
of
people
that
identify
with
one
or
more
of
these
behavior
types.

Whitman


and
others
encourage
an
approach
to
Twitter
where
the
user
consciously
chooses


their
approach
and
adapts
it
based
on
feedback
from
measurement
of
web
traffic


(Whitman
2010:9).

If
this
approach
is
used
in
conjunction
with
a
critical
approach


to
public
archaeology,
the
audience
and
quality
of
engagement
can
be
increased.



Conclusion:
A
Movement
Toward
Public
Archaeology
2.0



 A
handful
of
archaeologists
and
archaeological
organizations
are


experimenting
with
Twitter.

The
Florida
Public
Archaeology
Network
(FPAN)


provides
live
coverage
of
their
digs.

Links
tweeted
from
a
dig
in
Jupiter,
Florida
took


FPAN’s
followers
to
pictures
taken
in
the
field.

This
provided
local
and
global


communities
the
opportunity
to
ask
questions
about
the
excavation,
what
they
were


finding,
and
why
they
were
working
there.

Tweets
about
other
projects
or
public


archaeology
events
are
common
from
this
twitter
stream.



 The
Campus
Archaeology
Program
at
Michigan
State
University
posts
links
to


photos
as
well
as
links
to
Facebook
pages
with
schedules
of
research
presentations.



They
conduct
assessment
of
their
work
through
websites
that
analyze
how
many


times
their
tweets
are
retweeted
or
their
links
are
clicked
on
(Brock
2010).

This


allows
them
to
gauge
how
well
they
are
engaging
their
audience.



 Twitter
may
serve
as
a
foundation
for
beginning
public
archaeology
through


social
media.

It
serves
as
a
relatively
easy
entry
point
for
archaeological
experts



 16

that
may
not
be
accustomed
to
social
media.

Facebook,
MySpace
and
similar
sites


can
be
time
intensive.

There
are
many
options
for
ways
to
interact
with
your


friends
and
the
accounts
can
be
high
maintenance.

Twitter
has
three
fundamental


options:
follow,
not
follow,
and
block
(Morris
2010:22‐23).

Twitter
allows
one
to


address
broad
subjects
without
alienating
their
audience.

However,
information
can


be
lost
in
the
rapid
Twitter
stream
(Morris
2010:20‐21).

The
asymmetrical
nature


of
Twitter
gives
a
user
the
option
to
reply.

Applications
such
as
chat
clients
require


a
reply
to
most
messages
(Morris
2010:19).

One
who
does
not
reply
to
all
instant


messages
can
be
considered
rude.





 Public
archaeologists
that
decide
to
implement
Twitter
into
their
projects


need
to
realize
that
one‐way
communication
will
not
result
in
success:


“Twitter
isn’t
so
much
a
broadcast
medium
as
it
is
a
discussion
channel…the

secret
of
social
media
is
that
it’s
not
about
you…
It’s
about
how
you
can
add

value
to
the
communities
that
happen
to
include
you”
(O’Reilly
and
Milstein

2009:101).


Just
like
the
end
user
who
identifies
with
several
social
media
behaviors,
public


archaeologist
need
to
move
between
the
six
social
media
behaviors
in
order
to


maintain
the
interest
of
a
diverse
audience.

To
combat
the
information
overflow


present
in
a
Twitter
stream,
they
may
want
to
repeat
their
own
messages


throughout
the
day.

This
will
also
engage
their
global
audience
who
may
be


sleeping
during
the
times
public
archaeologists
typically
use
Twitter.

Public


archaeologists
on
Twitter
will
also
have
to
be
increasingly
self‐critical.



 A
user’s
Twitter
handle
can
influence
the
audience’s
perception
of
a
Twitter


user.

Accounts
such
as
@brockter
or
@vcwestmont
are
essentially
modifications
of


a
user’s
name.

Followers
of
these
accounts
would
expect
to
see
tweets
about
that



 17

individual’s
life
and
interests.

Accounts
such
as
@archaeologyDN
and


@archaeology101
are
institutional
accounts.

These
accounts
are
usually
associated


with
organizations
or
publications.

As
a
result,
the
topics
they
cover
may
be
more


limited
to
certain
themes.

A
pitfall
that
lurks
in
this
approach
is
when
the
official


message
and
individual
interest
overlap.

For
example,
@archaeology101
regularly


tweets
about
dinosaurs.

As
an
account
that
portrays
itself
as
an
archaeological


official
(incidentally
this
account
is
affiliated
with
the
Archaeology
Institute
of


America),
they
are
actively
spreading
the
misconception
that
archaeologists


research
dinosaurs.

Official
and
individual
interests
need
to
be
separated
in
the


contextless
world
of
Twitter.



 Approaching
archaeology
with
social
media
in
mind
may
be
a
daunting
task.



Contrary
to
public
opinion
it
is
often
not
easy
and
the
ramifications
of
something


that
occurs
in
social
media
can
be
unpredictable.

Public
archaeology
without


Twitter
results
in
limited
engagement.

In
a
standard
archaeological
project,


archaeologists
interact
with
a
public
audience
during
an
excavation,
while
artifacts


are
being
processed,
or
when
the
results
of
archaeological
work
are
published.

The


audiences
are
usually
limited
to
those
who
are
local
to
the
excavations.



 By
including
Twitter
as
a
part
of
the
project,
barriers
of
time
and
location
are


overcome.

Engagement
can
take
place
at
anytime
between
people
in
any
location.



Publicizing
Twitter
accounts
in
a
variety
of
ways
can
result
in
a
diverse
audience


that
remain
engaged
long
after
a
traditional
event
would
have
ended.

Perhaps
the


biggest
hurdle
to
overcome
is
the
idea
of
creating
a
single
program
that
requires


little
maintenance.

Communication
through
Twitter
flows
both
ways,
which
means



 18

that
both
the
educator
and
the
audience
are
engaged
in
learning.

Through


assessment
and
modification,
public
archaeology
programs
should
become
dynamic


constructs
that
are
capable
of
engaging
a
variety
of
social
media
behaviors,
learning


types,
and
content
to
broaden
their
impact
past
traditional
techniques.




 



 19

References
Cited


Brock,
Terry
P.





no
date.
dirt
‐
a
blog
about
archaeology,
higher
education,
and
baseball.










http://terrypbrock.com/dirt/
(last
accessed
Feb.
17,
2010)

Calhoun,
C.

1992
The
Infrastructure
of
Modernity:
Indirect
Social
Relationships,
Information

Technology,
and
Social
Integration.

In
Social
Change
and
Modernity,
edited
by

Haferkamp
and
Smelser,
pp.
205‐236.

Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press.


Carey,
J.W.

1989
Technology
and
Ideology:
The
Case
of
the
Telegraph.
In
Communication
as

Culture:
Essays
on
Media
and
Society,
pp
201‐230.
Winchester,
MA:
Unwin
Hyman.


Chung,
James,
Susie
Wilkening
and
Sally
Johnstone


 2009
Coming
Soon:
The
Future,
The
Shape
of
Museums
to
Come.
Museum,
May‐June.

Comm,
Joel,
Anthony
Robbins
and
Ken
Burge





2009

Twitter
Power:
How
to
Dominate
Your
Market
One
Tweet
at
a
Time.
Wiley.

Douglas,
Nick





2009
Twitter
Wit:
Brilliance
in
140
Characters
or
Less.
It
Books.

Golden,
Serena





2010
Tweetup
at
the
MLA.
Inside
Higher
Ed,
January
4,
2010.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/04/tweeps
(last
accessed
Feb.

17
2010)

Haugh,
Ciri


 2010
Right
Back
at
You.
Connect
Feb
2010,
pp.
12‐13.

Israel,
Shel


 2009
Twitterville:
How
Business
Can
Thrive
in
the
New
Global
Neighborhoods.


 
 Penguin
Group,
NY

Johnson,
David
J.





2009
Managing
Knowledge
Networks.
Cambridge,
UK.


Levinson,
Paul





2009
New
New
Media.
Boston:
Allyn
&
Bacon.


Levstik,
Linda
S.


 2008a
Border
Crossings.
In
Researching
History
Education:
Theory,
Method,
and


 
 Context
by
Linda
S.
Levsitk
and
Keith
C.
Barton
pp
335‐365.

2008b
Crossing
the
empty
spaces:
Perspectives
taking
in
New
Zealand
adolescents'


understanding
of
national
history.
In
Researching
History
Education:
Theory,

Method,
and
Context
by
Linda
S.
Levsitk
and
Keith
C.
Barton
pp.
366‐392.

McDavid,
Carole

2004
From
"Traditional"
Archaeology
to
Public
Archaeology
to
Community
Action:
The

Levi
Jordan
Plantation
Project.
In
Places
in
Mind:
Archaeology
as
Applied

Anthropology,
edited
by
P.
Shackel
and
E.
Chamgers
pp.
35‐56.
Routledge,
New
York.


McFedries,
Paul





2009
Twitter
Tips,
Tricks
and
Tweets.
Wiley.

Morris,
Tee



 20

2009
All
a
Twitter:
A
Personal
and
Professional
Guide
to
Social
Networking
with

Twitter.
Que.

News
Wire
Service

2009
Demi
Moore
uses
her
Twitter
to
help
stop
a
woman's
suicide
attempt.
April
3rd,

2009.http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/04/04/20090404_demi_moore_use
s_her_twitter_to_help_stop.html

O'Reilly,
Tim
and
Sarah
Milstein





2009
The
Twitter
Book.
O'Reilly
Media.

Pearce,
Susan
M.


 1990
Archaeological
Curatorship.
Smithsonian
Institution
Press.

Power,
Leslie
and
Jennifer
Pace
Robinson


 2005
Exhibit
Development
with
School
in
Mind.
Journal
of
Museum
Education,

Spring/Fall.

Simon,
Mallory





2008
Student
'Twitters'
his
way
out
of
Egyptian
jail.
CNN
April
25,
2008.









http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/25/twitter.buck/
(last
accessed
Feb.
17
2010)

Whitlock,
Warren
and
Deborah
Micek

2008
Twitter
Revolution:
How
Social
Media
and
Mobile
Marketing
is
Changing
the

Way
We
Do
Business
Market
Online.
Xeno
Press.


Whitman,
Rebecca


 2010
Finding
Your
Place
in
Social
Media.
Connect
Feb
2010,
pp
8‐9.

Wiggins,
Grant
and
Jay
McTighe

1998
Understaning
by
Design.
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum

Development.



 21


You might also like