Natives of a connected world: free and open source software in archaeology

Ducke, Benjamin

doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.743259

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…. Using open software like GRASS allows the methodology to be more completely tailored (i.e., from the source code up), promotes intellectual equality by removing financial obstacles, allows full transparency, and encourages critique and enhancement of the methods and tools (Ducke 2012). I deploy the four models in the context of the Wadi al-Hasa case study by using the freely available, void-filled, 90-m resolution topographic data for the Wadi al-Hasa region from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) (USGS 2012) to show example results.…”

Section: Modeling Inherent Error In Legacy Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Older Survey Data into Modern Research Paradigms

Ullah

2015

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Inherent Error In Legacy Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Older Survey Data into Modern Research Paradigms

Ullah

2015

Adv. archaeol. pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We wanted to demonstrate the efficiency of a spatial analysis carried out under a free and open source GIS software. While some authors have stressed the need to use such open source software in order to ensure a healthier scientific practice (Ducke, 2012;Ince et al, 2012;Morin et al, 2012), others have shown the advantages of open source GIS software over proprietary software for archaeological research (Orengo, 2015). This is especially important in a context where GIS has become an indispensable tool for archaeologists Howey and Brouwer Burg, 2017;Orengo, 2015;Richards-Rissetto, 2017;Whitley, 2017).…”

Section: Methodological Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial patterning of Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages at the Abri du Maras, Southeast France: Combining GIS analysis and 3D palaeotopographic reconstructions

Guillemot

Jaillet

Chacón

et al. 2023

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…the details of preparing archaeological samples for scientific analysis) and computational methods, such as settings used for analysis, models and statistical methods. It has also been pointed out that FOSS, free and open-source software, is not just open software but it can also be seen as a repository of knowledge about the tool (Ducke 2012). Open methods are important to allow reproducibility of research, meaning to be able to repeat a study with the same materials and methods in order to achieve the same result.…”

Section: Introduction: Scientific Openness In Archaeologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards an Open Archaeology: projects, opportunities and challenges

Aspöck

2019

Mitteilungen der VÖB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally, open science practices are only slowly having an impact on mainstream archaeological practice. An exception is the open access to publications, which, together with open data and open methodologies may represent those practices most relevant for archaeological researchers. This article introduces a selection of archaeology projects that embrace and facilitate open science practices. Finally there will be a discussion of some of the questions and challenges the discipline is facing in its move towards an Open Archaeology. Zusammenfassung: Im Allgemeinen haben Open Science-Praktiken nur langsam Auswirkungen auf die gängige archäologische Praxis. Eine Ausnahme bildet der offene Zugang zu Publikationen, der -zusammen mit offenen Daten und Methoden -zu den für Archäolog*innen wahrscheinlich wichtigsten offenen Praktiken zählt. Dieser Artikel stellt eine Auswahl von Archäologieprojekten vor, die offene wissenschaftliche Praktiken anwenden und fördern. Schließlich wird es eine Diskussion über einige der Fragen und Herausforderungen geben, denen sich die Disziplin auf ihrem Weg zu einer Open Archaeology gegenübersieht.

show abstract

Natives of a connected world: free and open source software in archaeology

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Integrating Older Survey Data into Modern Research Paradigms

Integrating Older Survey Data into Modern Research Paradigms

Spatial patterning of Middle Palaeolithic lithic assemblages at the Abri du Maras, Southeast France: Combining GIS analysis and 3D palaeotopographic reconstructions

Moving towards an Open Archaeology: projects, opportunities and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About