Dead Man’s Eyes, a project by archaeologist Stuart Eve, provides anaugmented reality overlay that simulates past vision and viewsheds (Eve 2014, 2018). This work ac-companies auditory projects that reconstruct past soundscapes that are acoustically accurate (e.g.,Cooper 2019) as well as augmented olfaction (Eve 2017
that sounds really cool. AR seems like an amazing tool for the future of this field.
In particular, the public nature ofdigital archaeology and web-based intel-lectuals make them targets for onlineharassment, cyberstalking, and abuse, inaddition to all the “traditional” forms ofabuse, which intensifies the vulnerabilityof these voices (Perry 2016; Perry et al.2015).
This makes complete sense but is not something I would have thought of affecting this type of work
Likewise, thereare those who argue that digital archae-ology should be recognized as a distinctsubfield (Graham et al. 2017), whichstands in contrast with those who see itas permeable or universal to all archaeol-ogy (Evans et al. 2006:7).
Would be interesting to know the arguments on both sides and how they define both of them. with my lack of knowledge on either it makes sense to me for them to be the same field?
edit: my question is mostly answered in a few lines - looks to be because of extra training and more ethical guidelines so I can see why it should be distinguished from "general" archaeology