Mobilizing Archaeologists

Abstract

Data collection takes up much of the already limited time archaeologists have to excavate and often requires additional time to digitize. Moreover, despite efforts to standardize data, archaeologists often find errors such as blank or incorrectly recorded fields. To avoid these issues, several projects have made use of tablet computers to streamline and digitize data, but this process can be opaque, specialized, and expensive. Previous research has addressed neither the general feasibility of developing and utilizing mobile devices for data collection nor the quality and quantity of these data. In this article, I review existing methods and practices for integrating data collection on mobile devices in order to evaluate the costs and feasibility of transitioning to a mobile-based data collection system. Through a case study using OsteoSurvey, a series of bioarchaeological data collection forms for Android tablets, I assess the efficacy of data collection on mobile devices. An experiment comparing OsteoSurvey to traditional paper forms demonstrates that participants saved time and made fewer mistakes using the OsteoSurvey forms, resulting in the collection of 21–32 percent more data. Consequently, data collection with mobile devices can significantly increase the overall productivity and quality of archaeological research

Building Cultural Heritage Resilience through Remote Sensing: An Integrated Approach Using Multi-Temporal Site Monitoring, Datafication, and Web-GL Visualization

“…At the building level, our multitemporal 3D documentation and datafication are relevant because they produce highly accurate site snapshots and enable integrating orthophotos of elevations and damage maps with surface change information applied to natively digital data [102]. In the discussed Dechambeau Hotel and IOOF Hall example, the M3C2 analysis of multi-temporal point clouds provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of visible and "invisible" damages and structural irregularities, such as cracks and lateral displacements, caused by seismological activity near the site.…”

A Paperless and 3D Workflow for Documenting Excavations at Insula I.14, Pompeii, Italy

“…The advantages and disadvantages of a paperless workflow using tablet computers has been well documented in the literature (Austin 2014;Caraher 2016;Ellis 2016;Fee et al 2013;Gordon et al 2016;Lindsay and Kong 2020;Motz 2016;VanValkenburgh et al 2018;Wallrodt 2016;Wallrodt et al 2015). Many have found that recording archaeological data using paperless methods has saved time and resources, improved data quality and integrity, and enabled rapid data availability and access.…”

“…Instead of researchers spending weeks or months inputting field observations into a database, the data arrive in ready-to-analyze condition through the careful use of smart forms that standardize data capture, which not only eliminates data inconsistencies and typos but also helps in avoiding issues of illegible handwriting, limited space for recording comments, or running out of copies of forms in the field (Austin 2014:14). Scholars who have compared paperless methods to traditional data collection methods in lab settings have found that digital forms improve efficiency and data quality (Austin 2014;VanValkenburgh et al 2018).…”

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

“…Archaeologists employ numerous software including databases, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), photogrammetric tools, and 3D environments to process, integrate, and analyze archaeological data; in other words, we transform analog and digital 'items' to create new (derived) data for archaeological research. Additionally, we create 'natively digital,' ' digital-first,' ' digital-exclusive,' or 'intrinsic born' digital data (Austin 2014). In contrast to digitization of analog data, such natively digital data come from post-processing primary data or generating data that do not or did not have a physical counterpart.…”