Digital Archaeological Data Research Articles

Digital Archiving in Archaeology: Assessing the State of the Art

The Saving European Archaeology from Digital Dark Age (SEADDA) COST Action (CA18128) is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union and aims to create a network for archaeologists and digital specialists to build capacity for the long-term preservation of digital data for archaeology. More than 20 countries are involved in SEADDA, and have undertaken surveys, publications, workshops, STSMs (Short Term Scientific Missions) and other activities carried out to increase awareness and share expertise. Within the scope of the project, Internet Archeology 58 2021, titled "Digital Archiving in Archeology: Assessing the State of the Art", and then Internet Archeology 63 2023, titled "Digital Archiving in Archeology: Additional State of the Art and Further Analyzes" were published. This article will give a brief introduction to SEADDA but will focus primarily on what we are learning from Internet Archaeology 58 and Internet Archaeology 63, how it is helping us to understand digital archaeological data around the world. In this study, 37 articles from 31 different countries were examined, according to three main categories: administrative structure, physical and digital archives for archaeological data. In the light of the data obtained, it is difficult to generalize about archaeological data processes and management; however, different countries and regions are applying different methods to create repositories. Legislation, budgets, and human resources are all factors which affect these processes for preserving digital archaeological data for future generations. But, all countries need to share expertise, and engage in capacity building, especially around legislations, human resources, standards and guidelines, whilst financial support needs to be prioritized.

The Impact of the SEADDA COST Action

The Saving Archaeology from the Digital Dark Age (SEADDA) COST Action ran from 2019 to 2023 and produced a wide range of publications, opportunities for capacity building and knowledge transfer. This paper will discuss the less tangible forms of impact resulting from the work of the SEADDA members working within and across their own networks. These impacts include the new avenues of communication and collaboration created through the data stewardship and management focussed National Workshops held in Norway, Serbia, Portugal, Turkey, France, Romania and Ireland. Each workshop took a different form to be suit the needs of their community, but all resulted in progress towards ensuring the long- term persistence of digital archaeological data. This paper will describe the impact of each of these National Workshops. SEADDA made and strengthened connections across a range of different areas of collaboration, primarily through work with members of the European Archaeological Council, the Digital Preservation Coalition, and the ARIADNE Infrastructure for archaeological data. Each of these connections has resulted in closer ties, ongoing collaboration and other forms of impact that would not have been possible without SEADDA. SEADDA was also committed to ensuring participation of non-EU countries which participate in the COST, and supporting doctoral students and early career researchers, and the impacts of these commitments will also be highlighted in this paper.

Archiving Digital Archaeological Data - Evaluation of a Survey in Germany

Archiving of digital research data based on established standards and methods is an important part of the research data lifecycle. It guarantees the long-term transparency and reusability of research results. In the case of archaeological data, this is of particular importance for the preservation of unique and irreplaceable cultural heritage. To gain insight into the current state of affairs regarding long-term archiving in Germany, the SEADDA (Saving European Archaeology from the Digital Dark Age) COST Action (1) and the Commission on Archaeology and Information Systems in the Association of German State Archaeologists (2), with the support of the IANUS Research Data Center of the DAI (3), conducted a survey in spring/summer 2021. This article presents the results of the survey together with recommendations for further and supporting measures targeted at improving the long-term archiving of digital archaeological data in Germany.

Curation of Digital Archaeological Data in Norway

Archaeological documentation from surveys and excavations in Norway are created by a limited number of actors. Excavations are mainly carried out by the five university museums. NIKU (Norwegian Institute for Cultural Research) is responsible for excavations of medieval cities and churches. Maritime museums excavate in lakes, rivers, and below past and present sea level. Archaeological surveys are mainly the responsibility of the counties. Riksantikvaren (Directorate of National Heritage) is responsible for the national Historic Environment Records (HER), Askeladden, which offers the possibility to upload or insert links to reports from archaeological investigations. Riksantikvaren also archives excavation documentation from churches and medieval cities. The Norwegian university museums have, since the 1990s, cooperated on digitising a national repository and making the collections available online. Presently there are also repositories at the maritime museums, Riksantikvaren and the counties. The infrastructure ADED (Archaeological Digital Excavation Documentation) is a repository for detailed excavation documentation, and the BItFROST infrastructure project contributes to better storage and availability of 3D data. Future development will be more complete national databases, and towards closer international cooperation, creating better integration and availability of several repositories.

Is it the Thought that Counts? An evaluation of Digital Archaeological Data Archiving in Catalonia

Archaeological data archiving has not been a major concern in Catalonia. The heritage legal corpus does not engage with the archiving and curation of archaeological data other than the excavation reports. However, it highlights the responsibility of the administration in cataloguing and disseminating the cultural heritage. For this reason, a lot of effort has been invested during the past few years in inventorying known archaeological sites and publishing archaeological reports, with the aim of increasing the transparency of the administration towards its citizens. This article describes the present situation for archaeology in Catalonia, its legal framework and the main initiatives carried out to archive, manage, and publish archaeological data from a user's point of view. Its main aim is to evaluate the current state of archaeological data archives and public databases by analysing the existing platforms with a set of indicators. This assessment leads to the conclusion that the current repositories and databases could be more worthwhile if some limitations were overcome, but also that the advance in archaeological data archiving is restricted by existing law.

Digital chronological data reuse in archaeology: Three case studies with varying purposes and perspectives

A wealth of digital data are produced during an archaeological excavation and because so much of the fieldwork is unrepeatable, once the site is fully excavated, the digital records must be archived in a manner that best facilitates reuse. This paper presents three case studies of users wishing to reuse digital archaeological data from online repositories, with a specific focus on absolute and relative dating evidence. We discuss the problems encountered and how they reflect the wider issues of the reuse of digital archaeological data. Additionally, we provide recommendations specific to chronological data that seek to address the problems.

Stewardship of Digital Archaeological Data in Greece: a landscape of fragmentation

This article provides an overview of the current situation in Greece regarding digital archaeological data stewardship. A brief chronicle of Greek archaeology sets the scene for a better understanding of the present situation. Greek archaeology is supervised by the Ministry of Culture and Sports, with the Archaeological Service as the central organisation in charge of antiquities. However, archaeological data resulting from archaeological fieldwork are produced by several other entities. This article presents the policies governing both physical and digital documentation archives. It introduces the current practices for archaeological data preservation and the relevant digital infrastructures, attempting to showcase the existing environment. We categorise prevailing problems on three levels, all based on the fact that digital and open access arrived recently in a well-established environment formed gradually over almost two centuries. Even so, fragmentation and variation would be the proper terms to describe the status of the stewardship of digital archaeological data in Greece. Our review shows that there is substantial effort directed towards digital archaeological data stewardship and accessibility by all stakeholders within the archaeological sector. Finally, we add a few thoughts and suggestions, and indicate the need to generate a network that could take steps towards more inclusive strategies within digital data stewardship. The key to leveraging change is raising awareness about data sustainability and reuse, and the COVID-19 outbreak indicates a clear change in mentality in this direction, since open access resources have begun to be key to education and research conducted in Greece.

Digital Archaeological Data in the Wild West: the challenge of practising responsible digital data archiving and access in the United States

Archaeology in the United States is conducted by a number of different sorts of entities under a variety of legal mandates that lack uniform standards for data archiving. The difficulty of accessing data from projects in which one was not directly involved indicates an apparent reluctance to archive raw data and supplemental information with digital repositories to be reused in the future. There is hope that additional legislation, guidelines from professional organisations, and educational efforts will change these practices.

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

ABSTRACTArchaeological spatial databases have the potential to enable deep insights into human history. These compilations of data are at the interface of data management and data visualization. Yet issues of data governance such as the nature, management, quality, ownership, security, and accessibility of archaeological spatial databases are under examined in archaeology, a situation that can affect data intensive methods and “big” data approaches. Data governance including laws and policies associated with data have bearing on archaeological practices which, in turn, can impact map visualizations and subsequent decision-making. With the growth of the geospatial web and Web 2.0 technologies, there are increasing opportunities for archaeologists and the general public to collect and engage with digital archaeological data. In Canada, greater numbers of specialists from different sectors (research and education, government, private companies) now accumulate, store, and process digital archaeological data. We draw from the OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession) principles to shed light on data governance in archaeology, with a focus on archaeological spatial databases in Canadian archaeology. In this context, we draw attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples, the legal and policy issues associated with archaeological spatial databases, and a need for greater engagement with Indigenous data governance principles.

Archaeological documentation and data sharing: digital surveying and open data approach applied to archaeological fieldworks

<p>The open data paradigm is changing the research approach in many fields such as remote sensing and the social sciences. This is supported by governmental decisions and policies that are boosting the open data wave, and in this context archaeology is also affected by this new trend. In many countries, archaeological data are still protected or only limited access is allowed. However, the strong political and economic support for the publication of government data as open data will change the accessibility and disciplinary expertise in the archaeological field too. In order to maximize the impact of data, their technical openness is of primary importance. Indeed, since a spreadsheet is more usable than a PDF of a table, the availability of digital archaeological data, which is structured using standardised approaches, is of primary importance for the real usability of published data. In this context, the main aim of this paper is to present a workflow for archaeological data sharing as open data with a large level of technical usability and interoperability. Primary data is mainly acquired through the use of digital techniques (e.g. digital cameras and terrestrial laser scanning). The processing of this raw data is performed with commercial software for scan registration and image processing, allowing for a simple and semi-automated workflow. Outputs obtained from this step are then processed in modelling and drawing environments to generate digital models, both 2D and 3D. These crude geometrical data are then enriched with further information to generate a Geographic Information System (GIS) which is finally published as open data using Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards to maximise interoperability.</p><p><strong>Highlights:</strong></p><ul><li><p>Open data will change the accessibility and disciplinary expertise in the archaeological field.</p></li><li><p>The main aim of this paper is to present a workflow for archaeological data sharing as open data with a large level of interoperability.</p></li><li><p>Digital acquisition techniques are used to document archaeological excavations and a Geographic Information System (GIS) is generated that is published as open data.</p></li></ul>

Data Beyond the Archive in Digital Archaeology

ABSTRACTThis special section stems from discussions that took place in a forum at the Society for American Archaeology's annual conference in 2017. The forum, Beyond Data Management: A Conversation about “Digital Data Realities”, addressed challenges in fostering greater reuse of the digital archaeological data now curated in repositories. Forum discussants considered digital archaeology beyond the status quo of “data management” to better situate the sharing and reuse of data in archaeological practice. The five papers for this special section address key themes that emerged from these discussions, including: challenges in broadening data literacy by making instructional uses of data; strategies to make data more visible, better cited, and more integral to peer-review processes; and pathways to create higher-quality data better suited for reuse. These papers highlight how research data management needs to move beyond mere “check-box” compliance for granting requirements. The problems and proposed solutions articulated by these papers help communicate good practices that can jumpstart a virtuous cycle of better data creation leading to higher impact reuses of data.

SIKB0102: Synchronizing Excavation Data for Preservation and Re-Use

Key issue in re-using data from excavations is the need to understand the meaning of the contents. Integrating studies have a hard time using old datasets, for obvious reasons like finding the right data in the first place, understanding unknown codes, and the inherent difficulty of combining data from different excavations. These problems are commonly addressed by archiving and publishing harmonized data, which enables searching through combined datasets, but at the price of losing important detail.Despite hesitation, an interchange format for digital archaeological data was needed. We played a major role in the drafting group for what would later become the 'SIKB0102' interchange standard, where we ultimately focused on: 1) keeping the original level of detail while providing a harmonized view; 2) serving archiving as well as data interchange in active projects; 3) control of versions and 4) making sure that relations, key to solving archaeological mysteries, are central. An unusually flexible interchange format was created, that can hold detailed data together with, and linked to, harmonized data. Having the harmonized data makes it easy to search and combine datasets, while having the related detailed data makes it possible to drill down to the original level of detail. Archaeological data is all about structure and location, so we took care of including the vector geo-location data in the specification as well. Combining all these aspects in one interchange format make the SIKB0102 specification stands out.In The Netherlands the archaeological research data must be provided to the national archival institute (DANS), and the KNA (quality standard for the Dutch archaeology) demands submitting the data to the national archive. Today the KNA requires to provide archaeological excavation data according the SIKB0102 specification, which is a big step forward in re-using archaeological excavation data.

A tentative evaluation framework for digital archaeological data sites

ABSTRACTIn this poster presentation, we describe a tentative evaluation framework for digital archaeological data sites and a test of this framework using 148 Virginia archaeological websites. Archaeological data dissemination situates in the overlapping demands of openness, scholarship and outreach. This analysis suggests that, while there are some exemplary websites, much of the archaeological record remains publicly inaccessible. These websites did provide many supporting characteristics for public outreach, but concerns about preservation, data “openness” and limited datasets remain.

Migrating 2 and 3D Datasets: Preserving AutoCAD at the Archaeology Data Service

The Archaeology Data Service (ADS) is a digital archive that has been promoting good practice in the use of digital archaeological data and supporting research, learning and teaching with high quality and dependable digital resources for twenty years. The ADS does this by preserving digital data in the long-term and by promoting and disseminating, open and free datasets, gathered from all sectors of archaeology. An integral component of the ADS remit has been the life-cycle principle of preservation, curation and dissemination of data in order to enable re-use. The ADS practices a combination of normalization, version migration, format migration and refreshment for the active management and ongoing preservation of all archived data types. This paper highlights the importance of the ongoing management of research data for long-term preservation. In particular this paper focuses on the challenges of migrating spatial data, specifically Computer Aided Design (CAD) files. Successful data migration of these files ensures that data is accessible and usable, and provides many opportunities through data re-use to combine and re-interrogate datasets, allowing new archaeological interpretations to be developed.

Teaching with Digital Archaeological Data: A Research Archive in the University Classroom

Digital tools and techniques have revolutionized archaeological research and allow analyses unimagined by previous generations of scholars. However, digital archaeological data appear to be an underappreciated resource for teaching. Here, the authors draw on their experiences as university instructors using digital data contained in the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org) to teach in a variety of higher education settings, from method-intensive thematic courses for graduate students to general education science courses for undergraduates. The authors provide concrete examples of how they use digital archaeological data to accomplish a range of pedagogical goals. These include teaching basic artifact identification and simple statistical methods as well as developing skills in critical thinking, inference from data, and problem solving and communication. The paper concludes with a discussion of how archaeologists can use digital data to address ethical and curricular issues, such as preservation, professional training, and public accountability that are crucial to the discipline and relevant to the academy at large.

Automating the Extraction of Metadata from Archaeological Data Using iRods Rules

The Texas Advanced Computing Center and the Institute for Classical Archaeology at the University of Texas at Austin developed a method that uses iRods rules and a Jython script to automate the extraction of metadata from digital archaeological data. The first step was to create a record-keeping system to classify the data. The record-keeping system employs file and directory hierarchy naming conventions designed specifically to maintain the relationship between the data objects and map the archaeological documentation process. The metadata implicit in the record-keeping system is automatically extracted upon ingest, combined with additional sources of metadata, and stored alongside the data in the iRods preservation environment. This method enables a more organized workflow for the researchers, helps them archive their data close to the moment of data creation, and avoids error prone manual metadata input. We describe the types of metadata extracted and provide technical details of the extraction process and storage of the data and metadata.

From the Site to Long-term Preservation: A Reflexive System to Manage and Archive Digital Archaeological Data

A collaboration between the Texas Advanced Computing Center and the Institute of Classical Archaeology at the University of Texas at Austin has resulted in the development of strategies and a cyberinfrastructure model for the management and preservation of 1) primary archaeological data, 2) the process history generated as those data are analyzed, manipulated, and interpreted, and 3) the final interpretive results. This project draws on the concept of reflexive archaeology to map the lifecycle of archaeological research, and the evolving archive that such research creates, to provide a richer view of both data and process that will make it easier for the data to be reused and to evaluate the interpretations.