Integrating Older Survey Data into Modern Research Paradigms

Abstract

The data from older archaeological surveys are incredibly important resources, often containing our only information about sites that have been destroyed or that are now inaccessible. These surveys occurred before the advent of GPS technology, however, so their spatial accuracy is often uncertain. Many types of locational errors accumulate in such “legacy” datasets, so using them in modern GIS-based spatial analyses is frequently problematic. Many of the sources of error can be identified and quantified, however, and systematic and random errors (derived mainly from Cartesian, rounding, and human error) can largely be mitigated by scanning the original field maps, georectifying the maps to trusted imagery, and then digitizing sites directly. The remaining “mislocation” errors derive from difficulty identifying locations in the field. The original survey notes may contain clues about mislocation error, but it is impossible to mitigate these errors without re-recording site locations with more accurate survey instruments. Instead, I advocate the use of GIS-based models to estimate the influence of specific surveying practices on site location accuracy. These models can provide a standardized, quantifiable measure of mislocation error in a legacy dataset, which can help guide its use in modern GIS analyses that require accurate site locations.

Digitally-Mediated Practices of Geospatial Archaeological Data: Transformation, Integration, & Interpretation

“…Lessons: While labor-intensive and time-consuming, the process of digitizing, georeferencing, and attributing maps created with differing methods, at multiple scales, and in different languages (English, Spanish, German, and French), and then painstakingly vectorizing them provided new insights and sparked new archaeological questions about the Mahler, or prismatic, method of mapping Maya sites (Hutson 2012) and Copán's site typology (Richards-Rissetto 2010, 2012; Richards-Rissetto and Landau 2014; Willey and Leventhal 1979). Our experience was similar to that of Ullah's (2015) exploration of the minute details and large errors of legacy survey data in Jordan. Here Wood's (1990) second and third steps apply: the various paper maps must be subjected to external criticism (are they authentic?)…”

“…total station, laser scanning, and photogrammetry). Others have legacy data from earlier surveys, excavations, and analysis (Allison 2008;Clarke 2015;Faniel et al 2013;Kansa and Kansa 2018;Ullah 2015;Witcher 2008), which provide data that are 'lost' due to the destructive nature of excavation, urbanization, agriculture, looting, taphonomic processes, natural disasters, and more (e.g. Gruen, Remondino & Zhang 2004).…”

“…These analog data provide a rich source of information that can be converted to and subsequently integrated with digital data to generate not only new data, but to lead to new forms of archaeological practice and scholarship (Faniel et al 2013;Gunnarsson 2018;Tringham 2010;Wells et al 2014;Wylie 2017). The use of digital geospatial data has revolutionized the practice of archaeology, but archaeologists must still be vigilant of its origins and context (Ullah 2015).…”

“…Benardou et al 2018;Dallas 2007;Holdaway, Emmitt, Phillipps & Masoud-Ansari 2019; MacFarland and Vokes 2016; Wright and Richards 2018), effects of the digital on archaeological practice and scholarship remain understudied. For example, initial conversations on preservation of cultural heritage materials have shifted to include access and reuse-focusing not simply on making data available for future inspection, but also preparing them for contemporary reuse (Clarke 2015;Esteva et al 2010;Lukas, Engel & Mazzucato 2018;MacFarland and Vokes 2016;Ullah 2015;Witcher 2008;Wylie 2017). In this vein, we focus on transforming analog legacy data to digital geospatial data (i.e.…”

“…Datafication involves what digital scholars call metadata and paradata. While the term metadata describes information about the data themselves (Clarke 2015;Esteva et al 2010;Hodder 1997;Roosevelt et al 2017;Ullah 2015;Witcher 2008), paradata more specifically concern intrepetive decisions. Recording paradata, the "information choices or the process of interpretation so that the aims, contexts and reliability" of methods can be evaluated (Bentkowska-Kafel and Denard 2012:1) is a major challenge.…”