Foundations Series / Vol 01 Est. 2025

Chapter 6: Discipline Formation and Boundaries — Why Archaeobytology Needs to Exist

Opening: The Question No One Asks

At academic conferences, when you introduce yourself as an Archaeobytologist, the response is always the same:

"That's interesting! So... what is that, exactly?"

You explain: "I study murdered digital platforms, preserve their artifacts, and build alternatives that resist future murders."

They nod politely. Then: "Oh, so you're a digital historian?" Or: "Like a computer scientist?" Or: "Is that part of library science?"

And you have to say: "Sort of, but not really. It's... something else."

This is the problem. Archaeobytology doesn't fit neatly into existing academic boxes. It's not quite history, not quite computer science, not quite library science, not quite media studies. It draws from all of them but belongs to none.

This ambiguity has consequences:

This chapter argues: Archaeobytology deserves to exist as its own discipline, not as a subfield of something else. We need our own departments, journals, conferences, and professional pathways.

But first, we must understand: How do disciplines form? What makes a field distinct? And what must Archaeobytology do to achieve legitimacy?

Part I: How Disciplines Are Born

The Social Construction of Knowledge

Disciplines aren't natural categories—they're socially constructed. There's no inherent reason why "sociology" and "anthropology" are separate fields, or why "computer science" split from "electrical engineering."

Disciplines form through:

1. Intellectual Coherence

2. Institutional Infrastructure

3. Professional Pathways

4. Boundary Work

5. Canonical Texts and Founders

6. External Recognition

Case Study 1: How Digital Humanities Became a Discipline

Origins (1960s-1980s): "Humanities Computing"

Critical Mass (1990s-2000s)

Institutionalization (2010s)

Legitimacy Achieved (2020s)

Timeline: ~50 years from scattered practice to institutional recognition

Lessons for Archaeobytology:

Case Study 2: How Data Science Exploded

Origins (2000s): Industry Demand

Rapid Formalization (2010s)

Ubiquity (2020s)

Timeline: ~10 years from buzzword to ubiquitous discipline

Key Difference from DH:

Lessons for Archaeobytology:

Case Study 3: Science and Technology Studies (STS)

Origins (1970s): Coalition of Disciplines

Boundary Struggles (1980s-1990s)

Stabilization (2000s-present)

Timeline: ~40 years to stable institutional form

Lessons for Archaeobytology:

Part II: What Makes Archaeobytology Distinct?

The Archipelago Problem

Archaeobytology currently exists as scattered islands of practice:

These practitioners rarely talk to each other. They publish in different venues, attend different conferences, use different vocabularies. They're doing related work but don't see themselves as part of a unified field.

Archaeobytology proposes: These scattered practices belong together. They share:

  1. Core Problem: Platform death and digital dispossession

  2. Dual Method: Preservation (Archive) + Creation (Anvil)

  3. Normative Commitment: Digital sovereignty (Three Pillars)

  4. Ethical Framework: Triage and the Custodial Filter

Boundary Work: What Archaeobytology Is NOT

To define a discipline, you must say what it excludes. Here's what Archaeobytology is NOT:

Digital History:

Archaeobytology:

Relationship: Digital historians are Archaeobytology's users. We preserve the artifacts they study. But we're not doing history—we're doing applied preservation and system design.

NOT Computer Science (Though Technical)

Computer Science:

Archaeobytology:

Relationship: We need CS skills, but our questions are humanistic and political, not purely technical.

NOT Library Science (Though Archival)

Library Science:

Archaeobytology:

Relationship: Librarians are allies. We respect their expertise. But we operate in spaces they can't (scraping copyrighted content, rescuing platforms without permission).

NOT Media Archaeology (Though Theoretical)

Media Archaeology:

Archaeobytology:

Relationship: Media archaeology gives us theory. We give them preserved artifacts to theorize about. But our work is grounded in doing, not just thinking.

NOT Activism (Though Political)

Activism:

Archaeobytology:

Relationship: Many Archaeobytologists are activists (fighting for right to archive, platform accountability). But activism alone isn't Archaeobytology—we also do scholarship.

What Archaeobytology IS: A Synthetic Definition

Archaeobytology is the study and practice of:

  1. Excavating digital artifacts endangered by platform death, obsolescence, or corporate murder

  2. Preserving those artifacts with technical fidelity and cultural context

  3. Curating collections that make sense of vast data, applying ethical triage

  4. Interpreting artifacts so future generations understand their significance

  5. Building tools, protocols, and institutions that embody digital sovereignty

  6. Advocating for laws and norms that protect digital culture from erasure

  7. Teaching others to do all of the above

Unique Combination:

No other field does all of this.

Part III: The Legitimacy Gap

Why Archaeobytology Currently Lacks Legitimacy

1. No Departments

2. No Dedicated Funding

3. No Professional Society

4. No Canon

5. No Clear Career Path

6. Disciplinary Prejudice

We're stuck in no-man's-land between disciplines.

The Consequences of Illegitimacy

For Students:

For Practitioners:

For the Field:

For Society:

Part IV: Building Archaeobytology as a Discipline

The Infrastructure We Need

If Archaeobytology is to become legitimate, we need:

1. Knowledge Infrastructure

Journals:

Conferences:

Textbooks and Handbooks:

Online Platforms:

Archives and Datasets:

2. Institutional Anchors

University Programs:

Centers and Institutes:

Labs:

Model: How Digital Humanities Did This

3. Professional Pathways

Academic Track:

Practitioner Track:

Industry Track:

Non-Profit Track:

Consulting:

Certification:

4. External Recognition

Funding Programs:

Government Acknowledgment:

Public Visibility:

Part V: The 10-20 Year Roadmap

Phase 1: Emergence (Years 1-5) — We Are Here

Current State (2025):

Goals for Phase 1:

Metrics of Success:

Phase 2: Coalition Building (Years 6-10)

Goals for Phase 2:

Metrics of Success:

Phase 3: Institutionalization (Years 11-15)

Goals for Phase 3:

Metrics of Success:

Phase 4: Maturity (Years 16-20)

Goals for Phase 4:

Metrics of Success:

Timeline Reality Check:

Realistic Expectation: 20-30 years to full legitimacy. But meaningful impact possible much sooner (5-10 years).

Part VI: Threats to Discipline Formation

Threat 1: Disciplinary Capture

Risk: Established fields absorb Archaeobytology as a subfield, preventing independence.

Scenarios:

Consequence: Archaeobytology's unique synthesis (Archive + Anvil, technical + humanistic, scholarly + activist) gets fragmented. Each discipline takes the parts they understand and discards the rest.

Defense:

Threat 2: Industry Co-optation

Risk: Tech companies see value in Archaeobytology, hire practitioners, dilute mission.

Scenarios:

Consequence: Field becomes associated with corporate interests, loses critical edge, alienates activist practitioners.

Defense:

Threat 3: Internal Fragmentation

Risk: Practitioners can't agree on boundaries, methods, or values. Field splinters.

Scenarios:

Consequence: No unified identity, infrastructure fails, discipline never gels.

Defense:

Threat 4: Funding Droughts

Risk: Foundations and agencies don't fund Archaeobytology; infrastructure collapses.

Scenarios:

Consequence: Can't pay for journals, conferences, centers. Practitioners leave for funded fields.

Defense:

Threat 5: Irrelevance

Risk: Platforms stop dying (monopolies stabilize), or new preservation technologies make Archaeobytology obsolete.

Scenarios:

Consequence: Field loses urgency, students don't enroll, discipline fades.

Reality Check: This threat is unlikely. Platform death will continue. New technologies create new preservation challenges. Human curation will always be needed.

Defense:

Part VII: Adjacent Disciplines as Allies

Archaeobytology doesn't need to fight existing fields—it can collaborate:

Digital Humanities

Computer Science

Library and Information Science

Science and Technology Studies

Media Studies

Law and Policy

Strategy: Be a boundary organization—work across disciplines while maintaining distinct identity.

Part VIII: What You Can Do Right Now

Whether you're a student, practitioner, or professor, you can help build Archaeobytology:

If You're a Student

1. Call Yourself an Archaeobytologist

2. Propose Courses

3. Write Your Thesis on It

4. Join the Community

If You're a Practitioner

1. Publish Your Work

2. Attend/Organize Conferences

3. Seek Funding

4. Mentor Students

If You're a Professor

1. Teach Archaeobytology Courses

2. Hire Archaeobytologists

3. Start a Center

4. Publish Research

If You're an Administrator

1. Create Programs

2. Support Infrastructure

3. Hire Faculty

Conclusion: The Discipline That Must Exist

Archaeobytology exists because it must. The forces that murder digital culture—platform capitalism, surveillance economics, planned obsolescence—are accelerating. We need a discipline dedicated to:

No existing field does this comprehensively. Each adjacent discipline handles part of the problem, but no one takes responsibility for the whole.

Archaeobytology fills this gap.

We're not trying to replace History, Computer Science, or Library Science. We're trying to create a home for work that falls between them—work that's too technical for humanists, too humanistic for engineers, too radical for institutions, and too scholarly for activists.

This textbook is a founding document. By reading it, teaching from it, citing it, and building on it, you're helping create the discipline.

In 20 years, there might be Archaeobytology departments at major universities. Students might major in it. There might be thousands of practitioners. Laws might protect digital culture because Archaeobytologists advocated for them.

Or this might remain a marginal practice, known only to specialists.

That depends on us. Disciplines don't form spontaneously—they're built through collective effort. By calling ourselves Archaeobytologists, teaching Archaeobytology, funding Archaeobytology, and practicing Archaeobytology, we make the discipline real.

In the next chapter, we begin Part II: Excavation and Forensics. Now that we understand what Archaeobytology is and why it needs to exist, we'll learn how to do it—starting with the methods for excavating digital artifacts before they vanish.

The theory is complete. Now the practice begins.

Discussion Questions

  1. Disciplinary Identity: Do you consider yourself an Archaeobytologist? If not, what field do you identify with? If yes, when did you adopt that identity?

  2. Boundary Work: Should Archaeobytology be a discipline, or a subfield of something else? What would we gain/lose by remaining interdisciplinary?

  3. Legitimacy Politics: What would it take for universities to recognize Archaeobytology as legitimate? Is academic legitimacy even desirable (or does it risk co-optation)?

  4. Career Pathways: If you wanted a career in Archaeobytology, what would your path look like? What obstacles would you face?

  5. Threat Assessment: Which threat to discipline formation (capture, co-optation, fragmentation, funding drought, irrelevance) seems most serious? How would you defend against it?

  6. Personal Action: What's one concrete thing you could do in the next month to help build Archaeobytology as a discipline?

Exercise: Design Your Dream Archaeobytology Program

Task: You've been hired to create the world's first Archaeobytology program at a university. Design it.

Part 1: Program Structure (500 words)

Part 2: Sample Syllabus (1000 words)

Create a syllabus for one course:

Include:

Part 3: Institutional Infrastructure (500 words)

Part 4: Career Pathways (500 words)

Part 5: Reflection (300 words)

Further Reading

On Discipline Formation

On Boundary Work

On Academic Legitimacy

On Professional Pathways

End of Chapter 6 — End of Part I: Foundations

Next: Part II — Excavation & Forensics Chapter 7 — Archaeological Methods for Digital Artifacts