by The ancestors of the Alaska Native people began using local sources of copper to make complex tools about 1,000 years ago. More than one-third of the copper objects found by archaeologists in this region were excavated at a single site, known as the Gulkana Site.
This is the site where I have studied for the past four years as a Ph.D. student at Purdue University. Despite its importance, the Gulkana Site is little known.
As far as I know, it is not mentioned in any museum. Locals, including the Ahtna Native Alaskans, who are descended from the site’s original inhabitants, might recognize the name, but they don’t know much about what happened there. Even among archaeologists, little information is available about it – only a few reports and references run through a handful of publications.
However, the Gulkana Site was first identified and excavated almost 50 years ago. What gives?
Archeology has a data management problem, and it is not unique to the Gulkana Site. US federal regulations and disciplinary standards require archaeologists to preserve records of their excavations, but many of these records have never been analyzed. Archaeologists refer to this problem as the “legacy data backlog”.
As an example of this backlog, the Gulkana Site tells a story not only of Ahtna’s history and copper worker innovation, but also of the continued value of archaeological data to both researchers and the public.
What happens after excavation?
In the United States, most excavations, including those at the Gulkana Site, occur through a process known as Cultural Resource Management. Since the 1960s, federal regulations in the US have required archaeological excavations prior to certain development projects. Regulations also require that records of any finds be preserved for future generations.
One estimate suggests that this process created millions of records in the legacy data backlog. Archaeological data is complex, and these records include many file formats, from handwritten maps to pictures and spatial data.
The problem is worst for datasets created before computers were in common use. Research suggests that archaeologists are biased towards digital datasets, which are easier to access and use with modern methods. Ignoring non-digital datasets not only leaves behind the fruit of decades of archaeological work, it also silences the human experiences these datasets are meant to preserve. When a site is excavated, these details are the only way the people who lived there can tell their story.
Archaeologists are not sure how to solve this problem. Many solutions have been proposed, including creating new data repositories, making new use of existing datasets where possible, and increasing collaboration with other disciplines and public stakeholders. One of the most creative solutions, the Vesuvius Challenge, recently made headlines for awarding the grand prize of US$700,000 to a team that successfully used artificial intelligence to read an ancient text.
Digital archeology digs up old data
Of course, there is no single miracle cure for such a complex problem. In my work with the Gulkana Site, I am using many of these suggestions through a newer form of archeology that some researchers are calling digital public archaeology. It combines digital archaeology, which uses computers in archaeological research, with public archaeology, which honors public interest in the past.
For me, archeology looks different than people might expect. Instead of spending my days digging in some great place, my work involves being parked at a computer for hours on end. I dig through old information instead of digging up new information.
As a digital archaeologist, I apply modern methods like AI to bring new life to decades-old data about the Gulkana Site. I write software that converts 50-year-old handwritten excavation notes into a digital map that I can analyze with a computer.
Although it is not as glamorous, it could be said that this work is more important than digging. Excavation is simply a data collection technique; alone, it cannot reveal much about a location. This is why there is still much to learn about the Gulkana Site, even though it was excavated decades ago.
Analysis is the way archaeologists learn about the past, and computers provide us with more methods than ever before. In my work, I use computational mapping techniques to study the copper artifacts recovered from the Gulkana Site. Studying where these objects were found will help us understand if they were used by everyone at the Gulkana Site or if they were reserved for a select few.
Connecting archeology with today’s communities
I am also a public archaeologist; I believe that the past is made meaningful by the people involved in it. This means that my study of the Gulkana Site would not be enough if it were done by myself, alone on my computer 3,000 miles from Alaska. Instead, I designed my research in collaboration with the descendants of the people who lived at the Gulkana Site to ensure that my research has value for them, not just archaeologists.
In my research, this means embedding opportunities for youth participation throughout my project. Every year, I travel to Alaska to host a course on Ahtna archaeology, history, and technology in collaboration with Ahtna leadership and the local school district.
In the course, we take field trips to archaeological sites and the Ahtna Cultural Center. The children learn about the artefacts found at the Gulkana Site and have the opportunity to make their own. Ahtna leaders share cultural knowledge with students. At the end of the course, the students integrate what they have learned into a video game about the Gulkana Site.
The goal of my research is to bring new life to the Gulkana Site through digital means and outreach. My experience shows that even a site excavated 50 years ago can reveal more to help us better understand the past. More importantly, perhaps it can help the next generation experience technological skills and connect with their heritage. Ancient archaeological data still has meaning in the digital age – we just have to pay attention to it.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.
It was written by Emily Fletcher Purdue University.
Read more:
The research described in this article has been funded by the National Science Foundation (Award #2311356)
