The ancestors of Alaska’s native people began using local copper resources to craft complex tools about 1,000 years ago. More than a third of all copper objects found by archaeologists in this region were excavated from a single site, called the Gulkana site.
This is the site I have been studying for the past four years as a Ph.D. student at Purdue University. Despite its importance, the Gulkana site is not well known.
To my knowledge it is not mentioned in any museum. Locals, including Alaska’s indigenous Ahtna people, who are descended from the site’s original inhabitants, may recognize the name, but they don’t know much about what happened there. Even among archaeologists, there is little information available about it – only a few reports and passing mentions in 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 this is not unique to the Gulkana site. U.S. federal regulations and disciplinary standards require archaeologists to preserve data from their excavations, but much of this data has never been analyzed. Archaeologists call this problem the ‘legacy data backlog’.
As an example of this lag, the Gulkana site tells a story not only about Ahtna’s history and innovation in copper working, but also about the continued value of archaeological data to both researchers and the public.
What happens after an excavation?
In the United States, most excavations, including those that have taken place at the Gulkana site, are done through a process called 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 has created millions of records in the existing data backlog. Archaeological data are complex and these documents contain many file formats, ranging from handwritten maps to images and spatial data.
The problem is worst for data sets created before computers came into widespread use. Research shows that archaeologists prefer digital datasets, which are easier to access and use with modern methods. Ignoring non-digital data sets not only means abandoning the product of decades of archaeological work, it also silences the human experiences that these data sets are intended to preserve. Once a site is excavated, these records are the only way the people who lived there can tell their stories.
Archaeologists aren’t sure how to solve this problem. Many solutions have been proposed, including creating new data repositories, making new uses of existing datasets where possible, and increasing collaboration with other disciplines and with public stakeholders. One of the more creative solutions, the Vesuvius Challenge, recently made headlines for awarding the $700,000 grand prize to a team that successfully used artificial intelligence to read ancient texts.
Digital archeology digs up ancient data
Of course, there is no one silver bullet for such a complex problem. In my work with the Gulkana site, I use many of these suggestions through a newer form of archeology that some researchers call digital public archaeology. It combines digital archaeology, which uses computers in archaeological research, with public archaeology, which respects the public’s interest in the past.
To me, archeology looks different than people would expect. Instead of spending my days excavating in a fantastic location, my job means I’m parked in front of a computer for hours on end. I dig through old information instead of unearthing new information.
As a digital archaeologist, I apply modern methods such as AI to revive 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 less glamorous, this work is arguably more important than excavations. Excavation is just a data collection technique; on its own it can’t reveal much about a site. Therefore, there is still a lot to learn about the Gulkana site, even though it was excavated decades ago.
Analysis is how archaeologists learn about the past, and computers give us more methods than ever before. In my work I use computer mapping techniques to study the copper artefacts recovered from the Gulkana site. By studying where these objects were found, we can understand whether they were used by all people at the Gulkana site or reserved for a select few.
Connecting archeology with contemporary communities
I am also a public archaeologist; I believe that the past gains meaning through the people connected to it. This means that my study of the Gulkana site would be insufficient if it were conducted solely by me, alone at my computer 3,000 miles away from Alaska. Instead, I designed my research in collaboration with descendants of the people who lived at the Gulkana site to ensure that my research has value to them, and not just to archaeologists.
In my research, this means embedding youth engagement opportunities throughout my project. Every year I travel to Alaska to teach a course on archaeology, Ahtna history, and technology, in collaboration with Ahtna leadership and the local school district.
During the course we make excursions to archaeological sites and the Ahtna Cultural Center. Children learn about the artifacts 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, students integrate what they have learned into a video game about the Gulkana site.
The goal of my research is to revitalize the Gulkana site through digital methods and outreach. My experiences show that even a site excavated fifty years ago can reveal more and help us better understand the past. Perhaps more importantly, it can also help the next generation gain experience with technology skills and connect with their heritage. Ancient archaeological data is still meaningful in the digital age – we just have to pay attention to it.
This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit organization providing facts and analysis to help you understand our complex world.
It was written by: Emily Fletcher, Purdue University.
Read more:
The research described in this article is funded by the National Science Foundation (Award #2311356)