Digital and computational archaeology in Germany

2.1 Course collection by the IANUS research data center

The collection of German-speaking countries’ courses on DCA was initiated by the IANUS Research Data Centre in 2014^[4] and is currently overseen by the University of Cologne’s Archäoinformatik chair. The collection was developed to highlight learning opportunities on these subjects and provide students with the option to select courses that align with their interests. However, it should also be regarded as a means of self-promotion by institutes seeking to enhance their reputation by offering a DCA course. The following information will be analyzed here:

1. Institute in City (collected since 2014)

2. Content (keywords, multiple choice, 2016–2021)

3. Type of course (collected since 2015)

4. Target group (collected since 2016)

The collection is based on voluntary and self-directed reports of teaching offers and makes no claim to completeness. It is now hosted by the German Archaeological Institute on a GitHub repository^[5] and can be edited by pull requests. However, this technical hurdle can be circumvented by providing the information via email as well, which is being used frequently and regularly queried by the chair of DCA at the University of Cologne. Unfortunately, the academic seasons summer 2019, winter 2019/20, winter 2021/22, summer 2022 and winter 2022/23 are not included in the PDF archive. 696 courses were suitable for analysis, of which 506 were tagged with keywords. The following analyses have been published in more detail by Sophie Schmidt [14].^[6]

An analysis of the data reveals a notable increase in the number of DCA courses offered, with a peak of 136 entries recorded in the 2016 summer semester (see Figure 1). This coincided with the establishment of the first permanent chair in Archäoinformatik at the University of Cologne. However, the numbers have been subject to fluctuations, which may be attributed to the voluntary nature of the data collection process. Another factor that may be contributing to this variability is the lack of permanent positions for lecturers in DCA topics at their teaching institutions, which can lead to changes in the courses offered. The notable decline observed in the summer 2023 data is likely attributable to the new option of providing information via GitHub. Overall, since 2020, there has been a decline in both the number of courses and the number of institutions reporting courses. One potential reason for this change could be the conclusion of the IANUS project in 2018, which may have reduced the level of familiarity with the platform.

Figure 1:

Number of offered courses at German institutions in the field of DCA. Gaps in data are due to lack of archiving practices.

In order to ascertain which institutions boast a strong teaching tradition in DCA, the number of courses offered at the university (of applied sciences) per semester is calculated and summarized in a box plot graph (Figure 2). The representation of the individual data points in the graph shows how often entries were made for the city, and it becomes clear that only about half of the cities regularly transfer courses to the collection. The reasons for the variation in the number of courses offered across different semesters and institutions remain unclear, but potential explanations may include variations in course delivery or registration processes.

Figure 2:

Boxplots show the number of courses taught in a semester per institution. Grey points are jittered on the x-axis (10 %) to reduce overlap. Institutions are ordered by median.

The University of Applied Sciences in Mainz (Technische Hochschule Mainz) has the highest median of eight courses per semester, with entries having been made for only three semesters. Nonetheless, the courses by Prof. Bruhn and colleagues are known to have been continuously offered. The universities in Kiel and Cologne are much more diligent in reporting the DCA courses. At the University of Cologne all in all more courses were offered (n = 92), whereas at the University of Kiel the (n = 76) courses seem to have been distributed more evenly and consistently over the semesters. The University of Applied Sciences in Berlin (Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin) is in the median ranking, on the same level as the University of Cologne, but the courses per semester are more widely distributed and have been reported more sporadically (n = 28). A similar case can be made for the University of Tübingen (n = 23) and Bochum (n = 42). Heidelberg (n = 61) is another strong university in DCA, which has benefited from a working group ‘Digital Humanities/Digital Cultural Heritage’. However, the courses have been reported more randomly over the years. A rather ‘strong middle field’ follows these institutions, where usually three or more courses are offered per semester (Bamberg, Hamburg, Mainz, Göttingen, Leipzig and Freie Universität Berlin).

We can see a number of strong universities (of applied sciences), which partly overlap with those discussed above as research institutions with DCA chairs or staff. A long ‘tail’ of other institutions shows a wide range of dedication to the topic: While some institutes offered only one or two courses at all (e.g. Freiburg, Regensburg), others maintain a consistent supply of one or two courses each semester (e.g. Stuttgart, Erlangen). In some cases, the course distribution may be subject to significant variation.

As illustrated in Figure 3, the degree to which institutions offer a diverse range of teaching or whether certain topics are covered universally can be observed. Some smaller institutions demonstrate a distinct specialization, as evidenced by Bamberg’s emphasis on 3D technologies and the presentation of digital media, or Würzburg’s notable focus on markup languages. In certain locations, there is an occasional offering of courses on various topics, as seen in Stuttgart, Düsseldorf, and Potsdam. In larger institutions, teaching is more comprehensive and almost all keywords have been mentioned at least once during the period under review. Clear specializations are rare, for example ‘space syntax’ in Cologne or ‘digital data processing’ in Kiel.

Figure 3:

Course content by institution: The labels show the absolute count of a keyword in these higher education institutions and the color describes the percentage this count constitutes of the total count of this keyword in all institutions.

The development of course content can be outlined by breaking down the keywords by semester (see Figure 4). Significant shifts can only be observed in specific cases: ‘R’ and ‘programming’ were much less common in the beginning than from 2020 onward, suggesting the growing importance of open-source technologies and increased expertise in scripting languages. This might also indicate a greater focus on not only using software but also developing it further. The term ‘digital data analysis’ has been consistently present since 2020, and since the summer semester of that year, ‘3D scanning’ has become more prominent than ‘laser scanning’. ‘3D modeling’ has grown in importance, while ‘CAD’ has decreased. Data management topics are always popular, with ‘data curation’, ‘metadata’ and ‘archiving’ being less prevalent than ‘databases’ and ‘data management’. These subjects extend beyond the scope of individual projects, emphasizing long-term archiving practices.

Figure 4:

Course content by semester: fill and label describe the absolute count of this tag recorded in a certain semester.

The final analysis examines the target audience for the courses by combining the target group with the type of course (see Figure 5). Most courses are targeted at BA and MA students, followed by courses exclusively for BA students. Only two courses in the dataset were specifically designed for doctoral students, which may be because summer schools and workshops for doctoral students were not reported to the IANUS center. However, around 17 % of the courses are also intended for PhD students (about 20 % if ‘other’ is included), indicating a lack of differentiation in training by experience. This is somewhat common in archaeology, where only a few universities differentiate between introductory and advanced semester courses, and many courses are open to BA and MA students at the same time. It is notable that 133 courses were listed without a target group, and the event type is missing from 35 entries. Exercises dominate the courses reported in the collection, highlighting the practical nature of DCA courses (see also [11], [21]). Lectures, which are theoretical, make up only a very small portion. Notably, colloquia, field trips and workshops – all course types in which external experts offer their knowledge – are very rare, suggesting potential for enhanced open teaching exchange with colleagues from external institutions.

Figure 5:

Heatmap of cross tabulation of type of course and target group.

The analysis of the IANUS course collection is limited in its explanatory power due to the unreliability of the data, with clear gaps in some cases and a more in-depth understanding of the teaching landscape required to understand the distribution in others. However, the analysis does offer some indications of the current state of DCA in Germany. This field is highly heterogeneous, widely taught in only a few places and represented by one or two courses per semester at most institutions. In terms of content, programming techniques appear to have gained importance in recent years. Overall, apart from the institutes with a strong connection to the subject, the distribution of teaching content is sporadic.

A recent conference organized by the German association of pre- and protohistory (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte e. V., DGUF) discussed how to improve the curricula of the prehistoric archaeology field to make them ‘fit for the future’.^[7] A similar analysis was presented there. One point that was well received by attendees was the need to integrate basic courses on digital methods in BA degrees so that students were better equipped to deal with the realities of modern archaeological work. Secondly, this would facilitate advanced courses on digital topics in the master programs, with basics being covered beforehand [14]. Colson et al. [22] criticize a tendency for ‘digital over-skilling’ in recent years, which can not be observed with the available data. In fact, students often express a desire for better training in this area. Two student surveys were conducted by the umbrella association of the German-speaking student unions (Dachverband Archäologischer Studierendenvertretungen e.V., DASV). The first exploratory study, conducted in the summer semester of 2022 [23] with a sample of 30 students, revealed that respondents are well aware of the relevance of DCA, but only half of them are satisfied with the existing courses offered in the field [23], p. 23]. In the second DASV survey in the summer semester of 2023, 44 % of BA students stated that digital methods were not being taught extensively enough [24].

2.2 Higher education in DCA in Germany

It is evident that the subject of DCA is taught at varying levels in different German institutions, ranging from distinct specializations in methods (e.g. Bamberg, Mainz) or in conjunction to a specific discipline (e.g. Lepizig, Bamberg) to broader offers (e.g. Cologne, Berlin, Kiel, Heidelberg) or limited availability (e.g. Jena, Trier, Freiburg). Conversely, surveys have highlighted a clear demand for DCA courses, whether as specialized programs or selective courses. However, not all universities possess the resources to offer dedicated DCA courses within their archaeology programs.

Here, the potential of Open Educational Resources (OER) and the teaching by external experts becomes a key consideration. In 2019, a working group initiated by the universities of Frankfurt and Darmstadt, known as Objekte.Digitalität.Hochschulen (Objects.Digitality.Universities), called for engagement in various special interest groups, one of which focused on Data Literacy and Digital Teaching. This group, comprising lecturers in archaeology, DCA and related fields, holds regular meetings to discuss the need for teaching digital competences within archaeology. It is organized by Marion Bolder-Boss of the University of Darmstadt and Sebastian Hageneuer of the University of Cologne. The group’s aim is to foster contacts, tools and methods for archaeology programs not specialized in DCA to offer digital competences within their archaeology curriculum. In 2023, the group successfully participated in a call for proposals to promote scientific networks by the Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre (Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education) and initiated the DiKopA project (Digitale Kompetenzen in der Archäologie).^[8] This three-year project aims to collect and create educational resources for teaching and learning digital competences within archaeology, with a view to making them available for archaeological chairs without a specialization in DCA within Germany. The project is still ongoing and in its preparatory phase, but initiatives such as these demonstrate the need for more DCA teaching, as well as the possibilities for meeting these needs.

Courses on topics of data management and archiving are under development in cooperation with the NFDI4Objects consortium. The supply of open educational resources on these topics are part of the aims of their Task Area 6.^[9]