The Future of Archaeological Prospection

Within archaeological prospection, Deep Learning algorithms are developed to detect objects within large remotely sensed datasets. These approaches are generally tested in an (ideal) experimental setting but have not been applied in different contexts or ‘in the wild’, that is, incorporated in archaeological prospection. This research explores the applicability, knowledge discovery—on both a quantitative and qualitative level—and efficiency gain resulting from employing an automated detection tool called WODAN within (Dutch) archaeological practice. WODAN has been used to detect barrows and Celtic fields in LiDAR data from the Dutch Midden‐Limburg area, which differs in archaeology, geo‐(morpho)logy and land‐use from the Veluwe in which it was developed. The results show that WODAN was able to detect potential barrows and Celtic fields, including previously unknown examples, and provided information about the structuring of the landscape in the past. Based on the results, combined human‐computer strategies are argued, in which automated detection has a complementary, rather than a substitute role, to manual analysis. This can offset the inherent biases in manual analysis and deal with the problem that current automated detection methods only detect objects similar to the pre‐defined target class(es). The incorporation of automated detection into archaeological prospection, in which the results of automated detection are used to highlight areas of interest and to enhance and add detail to existing archaeological predictive maps, seems logical and feasible.

In British Columbia, Canada, the practice of archaeology has been strongly influenced by issues of First Nations rights and the ways government and industry have chosen to address them. In turn, this situation has affected academic (i.e., research-based) and consulting (i.e., cultural resource management) archaeology, which have had to respond to changes in the provincial Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) and to the implementation of archaeological overview assessments (AOAs) and traditional-use studies (TUSs).1 Protocols also encourage or require archaeologists to consult with First Nations regarding project design and implementation. However, the regional archaeological site assessment strategies and predictive models that are part of the process of heritage resource management have been viewed by First Nations as having mixed results, often falling short of either achieving a representative view of past land use activities (and a deeper understanding of their meaning) or adequately recognizing and protecting valued sites. While the consultation process has been politically motivated, it does encourage archaeologists to consider new research directions regarding past land use and its meaning. Worldwide, the incorporation of Indigenous explanations of past land use has often been used to verify existing theories based on objective observations of the archaeological record. Traditional knowledge provides archaeologists with essential information for locating and interpreting both individual archaeological sites and the larger social, settlement, and subsistence patterns they reflect. On the other hand, paying closer attention to traditional knowledge may lead to challenges of those theories or at least offer alternative explanations or greater awareness of non-Western ways of thinking about landscapes. Furthermore, what has often gone [End Page 350] unrecognized is the very restrictive relationship archaeologists have had with Indigenous peoples. While they have consulted with First Nations to obtain permission to work in their homelands and to acquire information on the past and present lifeways and have even begun to develop meaningful collaborations in recent years, the practice of archaeology has been politically dominated by non-Indigenous stakeholders.2 In this article I explore some of the implications of these developments for the study of precontact and historic Aboriginal land use. To what degree may Indigenous perspectives and politics constrain, channel, or encourage the development and application of archaeological method and theory in land use studies? I explore the situation in British Columbia, where First Nations' contributions to AOAS, TUSS, and the archaeological permitting process have influenced the development of predictive and explanatory models. There, as elsewhere, the increasing role of descendant communities in participating in or directing landscape-oriented studies—in a sense, decolonizing the archaeological process—clearly will influence how archaeologists need to perceive past cultural landscapes in the future. My choice of landscape as an organizing feature of this article is deliberate. Not only are landscape-scale studies a useful heuristic tool for archaeologists, but many Indigenous peoples contend that archaeological sites cannot be divorced from their larger environmental and cultural settings. The first part of this article examines the nature of archaeological landscapes and their importance in organizing and interpreting evidence of past human behavior. I next examine the historical context of archaeology in British Columbia over the past century and discuss how it has contributed to the colonization of First Nations through heritage legislation, archaeological resource management strategies, and the very limited ways in which traditional perspectives of the cultural landscape have been incorporated. In the final section, I outline four ways First Nations are seeking to decolonize the archaeological landscape, which include educational initiatives and the development of alternative resource management strategies. Understanding Past Cultural Landscapes The ways and means by which people have situated themselves on the landscape and behaved over space through time has always been a major [End Page 351] dimension of archaeological research, providing the means to explore relationships between people and their environmental/ecological settings.3 Understanding the various ways that people organized themselves...

Collaborative Open Science is essential to addressing complex challenges whose solutions prioritize integrity and require cross-domain integrations. Today, building workflows, processes, and data flows across domains and sectors remains technically difficult and practically resource intensive, creating barriers to whole-systems change. While organizations increasingly aim to demonstrate accountability, they often lack the tools to take action effectively. By making it simple to connect data and platforms together in transparent, reusable and reproducible workflows, the OGC Open Science Persistent Demonstrator (OSPD) aims to enable responsible innovation through collaborative open science. The OSPD focuses specifically on using geospatial and earth observation (EO) data to enable and demonstrate solutions that create capacity for novel research and accelerate the practical implementation of this research.Collaborative Open Science and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data are widely recognized as critical tools for taking advantage of the opportunities created through addressing complex social and environmental challenges. To date, many millions have been invested in hundreds of initiatives to enable access to analytical tools, provide data management, data integration and exchange, translate research results, and support reproduction and testing of workflows for new applications. These investments have resulted in a plethora of new data, protocols, tools and workflows, but these resources frequently remain siloed, difficult to use, and poorly understood, and as a result they are falling short of their full potential for wider impact and their long term value is limited.This presentation will illustrate how the OGC OSPD Initiative, through its design, development and testing activities, provides answers to leading questions such as:How can we design Open Science workflows that enable integration across platforms designed for diverse applications used in different domains to increase their value? How can we lower barriers for end users (decision makers, managers in industry, scientists, community groups) who need to create Open Science workflows, processes, and data flows across domains and sectors remains technically difficult and practically resource intensive, creating? How can Open Science workflows and platforms enable collaboration between stakeholders in different domains and sectors? How can we empower organizations to demonstrate accountability in their analytical workflows, data, and representations of information through Open Science? What Open Science tools do organizations need to take action effectively? How can Open Science and FAIR data standards practically support accountability? How can we make it simple to connect data and platforms together in transparent, reusable and reproducible (FAIR) workflows? What are the specific challenges of using geospatial, earth observation (EO), and complementary data in this context?

Earth Observation scientists are confronted with unprecedent data volumes that are constantly growing as the number of satellite missions increases, as well as spatial and temporal resolution do. Traditional working modes, such as downloading satellite data and processing it on a local computer, do not apply anymore and EO science is moving quickly towards cloud technologies and open science practices. Even though these new technologies and practices are evolving quickly and are becoming community standard, there is not much educational material available to educate the next generation of EO scientists. The Massive Open Online Course Cubes & Clouds - Cloud Native Open Data Sciences for Earth Observation teaches the concepts of data cubes, cloud platforms and open science in the context of earth observation. It targets Earth Science students and researchers who want to increase their technical capabilities onto the newest standards in EO computing, as well as Data Scientists who want to dive into the world of EO and apply their technical background to a new field. Before starting,  prerequisites are a general knowledge of EO and python programming. The course explains the concepts of data cubes, EO cloud platforms and open science by applying them to a typical EO workflow from data discovery, data processing up to sharing the results in an open and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) way. An engaging mixture of videos, animated content, lectures, hands-on exercises and quizzes transmits the content. After finishing the participant will understand the theoretical concepts of cloud native EO processing and have gained practical experience by conducting an end-to-end EO workflow. The participant will be capable of independently using cloud platforms to approach EO related research questions and be confident in how to share research by adhering to the concepts of open science.The hands on exercises are carried out on the EO cloud platform Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem and are leveraging the Copernicus Data available through the STAC Catalogue and the cloud processing API openEO. In the final exercise the participants collaborate on a community mapping project adhering to open science and FAIR standards. A snow cover map is jointly created where every participants maps a small area of the alps and submits it to a STAC catalogue and web viewer. Ultimately, the map grows in space and time and every participant has contributed proving they are capable of EO cloud computing and open science practices.The talk will guide through the topics covered in the MOOC and show how they are presented in the EOCollege e-learning platform, the links to the exercises carried out on CDSE will be explored and the open science aspect will be shown in the community mapping project and the invitation to collaborate on the courses completely open GitHub repository.    

Contact: nlharris@lbl.gov

From early discussions of the disruptive potential of computer technologies for archaeological applications, to the present era of digital archaeology as the technical underpinning of modern archaeological practice, we have continued to debate the potential impacts of digital communication and digital capture and storage on our knowledge, profession and communications. The increased use of digital tools and methods for archaeological research and dissemination, as well as what Roosevelt (2015) has referred to as the shift to the digital paradigm within archaeological practice, leads us to suggest that the impact of this paradigm shift requires careful and critical examination. This article will examine the edges of the disciplines of archaeology and sociology, where we aim to advance our understanding of the relationship between digital technologies and archaeological knowledge from a uniquely social perspective, using the theoretical approaches of both classic and modern sociologists. The application of this lens of sociology to digital archaeology equips us to understand how archaeology and archaeological practice is situated in a social world, which is especially relevant in the Global West, where digital technology is ubiquitous. Through a critical consideration of the complexity of use of digital technologies within digital archaeology, we can begin to shift our focus away from the character and method of tools and workflow, to the background of intellectual power and influence.

A vision for the next phase of JRST

This paper explores the mechanisms by which open science and scientific ethics, supported by research funding agencies, drive the enhancement of new productivity. Open science promotes knowledge sharing and collaboration, thereby increasing research efficiency and innovation capacity, while scientific ethics provide behavioral guidelines that ensure integrity and social responsibility in research processes. Research funding agencies play a crucial role in promoting the implementation of open science and scientific ethics through policy-making, funding support and infrastructure, supervision and evaluation mechanisms, promoting interdisciplinary and international cooperation, establishing incentives and reward mechanisms, and providing education and training. The research demonstrates that the implementation of open science policies and scientific ethics standards not only increases research efficiency and innovation capacity but also improves the quality and social acceptance of scientific research, thereby effectively enhancing new productivity. Based on the current practices, the paper forecasts future efforts of research funding agencies in strengthening open science policies, improving scientific ethics standards, promoting interdisciplinary and international cooperation, and advancing research system reforms.

Landscape has emerged as a significant site for archaeological practice: for our explorations of the past, our contributions to heritage conservation, management and planning and our interventions in the lives of others. Given this, it is imperative that we – archaeological researchers and practitioners, heritage managers and professionals – engage in an ongoing ethical discourse concerning our landscape work. In this article, I aim to contribute to that process. I present a thematic review of developments in theory, ethics and practice across the landscape disciplines and provide a selective analysis of archaeological positions on these matters. From there, and drawing in particular on work in the recently emerged field of ‘landscape ethics’, I develop principles for a relational ethics of archaeological landscape practice. I suggest that these principles provide an explicit ethical platform for engaging with the circumstances of archaeological practice as they are emerging in the twenty-first century, not least as defined by widely relevant supranational landscape policies. More than that, these principles provide a basis for archaeologists to contribute, through their work, to the attainment of landscape justice, i.e. fairness and due reward in relation to landscape matters.

In the modern educational and research university environment there are new models of organization of investigations, as well as educational and scientific activities, based on innovative technological solutions and pedagogical approaches to open science. Issues of setting up cloud-based open science tools and services for users, forming open science systems within the educational and scientific environment of the educational institution in order to maximize the pedagogical potential of their use, improving learning and research outcomes, and improving the organization of research and educational activities are the subject of the article. Conceptual aspects of formation and development of high-tech learning and research environment of educational institution with the use of cloud-oriented systems of open science, as well as organization of access to electronic resources and services to support investigative activities based on cloud computing and research infrastructures are outlined.

BackgroundThe Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines describe modular standards that journals can adopt to promote open science. The TOP Factor is a metric to describe the extent to which journals have adopted the TOP Guidelines in their policies. Systematic methods and rating instruments are needed to calculate the TOP Factor. Moreover, implementation of these open science policies depends on journal procedures and practices, for which TOP provides no standards or rating instruments.MethodsWe describe a process for assessing journal policies, procedures, and practices according to the TOP Guidelines. We developed this process as part of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) Initiative to advance open science in the social intervention research ecosystem. We also provide new instruments for rating journal instructions to authors (policies), manuscript submission systems (procedures), and published articles (practices) according to standards in the TOP Guidelines. In addition, we describe how to determine the TOP Factor score for a journal, calculate reliability of journal ratings, and assess coherence among a journal’s policies, procedures, and practices. As a demonstration of this process, we describe a protocol for studying approximately 345 influential journals that have published research used to inform evidence-based policy.DiscussionThe TRUST Process includes systematic methods and rating instruments for assessing and facilitating implementation of the TOP Guidelines by journals across disciplines. Our study of journals publishing influential social intervention research will provide a comprehensive account of whether these journals have policies, procedures, and practices that are consistent with standards for open science and thereby facilitate the publication of trustworthy findings to inform evidence-based policy. Through this demonstration, we expect to identify ways to refine the TOP Guidelines and the TOP Factor. Refinements could include: improving templates for adoption in journal instructions to authors, manuscript submission systems, and published articles; revising explanatory guidance intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the TOP Guidelines; and clarifying the distinctions among different levels of implementation.Research materials are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/txyr3/.

This essay will examine the cross-overs that can increasingly be seen between archaeological research and practice, and contemporary art: artistic installation and intervention becomes archaeological, if anything other than the most literal and conservative of definitions is used; archaeological practice is performance, and like much art, the process matters more than the result - the journey more than the destination; and finally art can be used to interpret historic places and events, in some cases more effectively than conventional heritage facilities, and archaeological evidence. Here I will use a range of examples to examine how artists are archaeologists, and vice versa.

Open science in mental health research

With the rise of data volume and computing power, seismological research requires more advanced skills in data processing, numerical methods, and parallel computing. We present the experience of conducting training workshops in various forms of delivery to support the adoption of large-scale high-performance computing (HPC) and cloud computing, advancing seismological research. The seismological foci were on earthquake source parameter estimation in catalogs, forward and adjoint wavefield simulations in 2D and 3D at local, regional, and global scales, earthquake dynamics, ambient noise seismology, and machine learning. This contribution describes the series of workshops delivered as part of research projects, the learning outcomes for participants, and lessons learned by the instructors. Our curriculum was grounded on open and reproducible science, large-scale scientific computing and data mining, and computing infrastructure (access and usage) for HPC and the cloud. We also describe the types of teaching materials that have proven beneficial to the instruction and the sustainability of the program. We propose guidelines to deliver future workshops on these topics.

Archaeology in South Asia was a colonial import, superimposed on multiple existing forms of knowledge about and orientations toward the past. Substantive research on prehistory was initiated by colonial scholar-administrators, and the institutions, chronological frameworks, field methods, and dominant approaches to archaeological work all emerged out of British colonial rule. Here, I highlight three orientations toward the past that are especially important for understanding archaeological coloniality: ( a ) the priority of textual evidence; ( b ) the focus on continuity and singular narratives of change, especially progressive or civilizational change; and ( c ) a tendency to use essentialist identity formations such as community, caste, and culture as explanatory. These basic orientations interact with the systematics and practices of archaeology, shaping research questions, field practices, and analysis. Decolonial reorientation will require attention to these broad habits of thought as well as to more concrete issues such as resources and opportunities.