Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This contribution to the forum on the relationship of “media archaeology” to the practice of “archaeology” reiterates the idea that an uncritical acceptance by “media archaeologists” of what archaeologists actually do has led to unnecessary limitations on the potential value of ‘media archaeology’. The authors suggest that the concept of use lives and life histories of people, places and things that has been a recognized part of archaeological practice for almost 40 years would make an important contribution to understanding the variability in life expectancy of media objects (especially those of a digital nature) and the process by which their use-lives may be prolonged (even for many centuries) or ended intentionally or unintentionally.
Tringham et al. (Wed,) studied this question.