Round Table: Target Groups, Users, Followers, Fans – The Nature and Potential of Social Data in Archaeology

Main Article Content

Carmen Loew
Elisabeth Monamy
Fiona Poppenwimmer
Helena Seidl da Fonseca


 At the 21st  Cultural Heritage and New Technologies conference (CHNT), which took place from Novembe 16th to 18th 2016 in Vienna, Austria, Carmen Löw organized a round table to discuss first experiences with social data from the use of social media in archaeology. The participants presented two Facebook accounts and one weblog owned by a UNESCO World Heritage, a research project and a private company. So far, social data has received too little attention in archaeology. Regardless of the limitations encountered with a user group with special age, sex and other regulations, social data helps us to understand at least a part of our stakeholders better and to adjust the information we offer in social media to their interests. To communicate in a professional manner, it is mandatory to understand who is on the receiving end of the information transportation process. Tools, all well-known and widely used in the world of economics, are often not affordable for scientific research in humanities and so we could mostly only guess who might be listening to us. Since archaeology is widely present in the internet, and since there are Facebook-accounts, websites and weblogs, it is now possible for us to get some reliable information about our followers and supporters. In this article, we provide basic information on communication, with a special focus on communication in the archaeological field, as well as figures on the current use of the Internet. We present data, possibilities for their interpretations and general observations on users, followers and fans in selected tools from the three examples mentioned above.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Loew, C., Monamy, E., Poppenwimmer, F., & Seidl da Fonseca, H. (2017). Round Table: Target Groups, Users, Followers, Fans – The Nature and Potential of Social Data in Archaeology. Studies in Digital Heritage, 1(2), 627–641.
Special Issue "Cultural Heritage and New Technologies 2016"


Bianca Bocatius. 2016. Museale Vermittlung mit Social Media. Theorie - Praxis - Perspektiven. Düsseldorf (2016) 1-483. DOI:

Raimund Karl et al. 2016. Archäologie ist wichtig: Archäologische Interessen der österreichischen Bevölkerung. In Fundberichte aus Österreich 53, Vienna: 2014 (2016), 41-153.Carmen Loew et al. 2016. Der Stiegenblog. Ein Weblog der Hallstatt-Forschung. Archäologie Österreichs 27, 1 (2016) Vienna, 36-43.

Carmen Loew. 2016. Example for Stakeholder Values in Hallstatt Research – Archaeology from the Perspective of Public, Economics and Politics. CHNT 20, Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies (2016). Vienna.

Kristin Oswald. 2016. Hand in Hand. Forschung und Vermittlung in der digitalen Archäologie. In: Archäologische Informationen 39 (2016), 77-85.

Hans Reschreiter et al. 2015. Hallstatt goes online – Die Website der Hallstatt Forschung. In Archäologie Österreichs 26,1 (2015), 22-24.

Claude E. Shannon. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, 379–423, 623–656.

Claude E. Shannon, C.E. and Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Diane Scherzler. 2007. Sein Publikum ernst nehmen – Der Blick einer Journalistin auf den Umgang mit der breiten Öffentlichkeit. In Archäologische Informationen 30, 1 (2007), 111-120.

Marie-Christine Schindler and Tapio Liller. 2012. PR im Social Web. Das Handbuch für Kommunikationsprofis. 2. Aufl., Köln.

Paul Watzlawick et al. 2011. Menschliche Kommunikation: Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. 12. unveränderte Auflage. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 1-317.