Openness and archaeology's information ecosystem

Kansa, Eric

doi:10.1080/00438243.2012.737575

Cited by 69 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After all, archaeological codes include not only spatial context, but frequently a large variety of variables coded into alphanumeric shorthand make archaeological datasets difficult reading. While data validation routines can identify and sometimes clean problematic data (Kansa and Kansa 2014), certain similarly spelled words or codes, in addition to numerals are notoriously difficult to retroactively identify and fix.…”

Section: Data Methods and Taxonomiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Collection in Zooarchaeology: Incorporating Touch-Screen, Speech-Recognition, Barcodes, and GIS

Dibble

2015

EBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barcode labels, alongside legible text, enable a rapid and accurate printing and recording of excavation IDs. The cost of the label paper and scanner is easily offset by the time and errors an analyst can save by making this change. Integrating this coded information to a spatial representation of anatomical elements (a simple GIS), it is possible to design a data entry system where analysts can click or touch an anatomical zone or landmark, rather than memorizing codes. Touch-screen or speech-recognition enabled databases are simple to design through the use of buttons, which prompt users for information and answer questions. The change from pressing "g" for goat to touching a labeled illustrated button, or speaking aloud its caption, can increase efficiency and reduce a significant amount of error. Speechrecognition allows for hands-free recording and an investigator to remain focused on the material. None of these methods are innovative but the combination creates a synergetic data entry system with a wide range of potential use in various field and lab settings. However, it should be noted that, while the digital recording methods described below will reduce human errors, they will not entirely eliminate all forms of careless mistakes, nor the incorrect use of basic zooarchaeological methods. IntroductionModern technology commonly facilitates the process of archaeological data collection, especially on large datasets with thousands of entries. While research teams generally recognize the need for well-crafted, rigorous project-wide databases, too frequently individual researchers persist in using low-tech solutions (paper and pencil, train-of-thought word processing documents, or disorganized spreadsheets) for large datasets.Zooarchaeological data recording is an essential, but time-consuming and tedious process. Detailing the attributes of an individual bone specimen -and all its potential value for interpretation -into database format requires utilizing many arbitrary codes or IDs representing excavation context, taxonomic status, anatomical location, tooth-wear stage, etc. (Driver 1992;Gifford and Crader 1977; Kansa 2013, 2014). The potential for transcription errors can be high, especially among zooarchaeological assemblages where analysts are working under budgetary and time constraints, or in challenging field settings. A variety of new digital approaches for data collection offer high potential for a dramatic improvement in efficiency in the lab as well as a substantial reduction in the potential for data-recording error that is inherent in conventional lab practices. Data Collection in

show abstract

Section: Data Methods and Taxonomiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Collection in Zooarchaeology: Incorporating Touch-Screen, Speech-Recognition, Barcodes, and GIS

Dibble

2015

EBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within this rapidly evolving landscape, Open Access, Open Data, and Big Data approaches are hot topics that, however, still remain at the margins of archaeological practice (Kansa 2012). To change the scholarly information infrastructure, we need to apply not only new forms of data recording but also change dissemination practices.…”

Section: Going Openmentioning

confidence: 99%

NEARCHOS. Networked Archaeological Open Science: Advances in Archaeology Through Field Analytics and Scientific Community Sharing

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full release and circulation of excavation results often takes decades, thus slowing down progress in archaeology to a degree not in keeping with other scientific fields. The nonconformity of released data for digital processing also requires vast and costly data input and adaptation. Archaeology should face the cognitive challenges posed by digital environments, changing in scope and rhythm. We advocate the adoption of a synergy between recording techniques, field analytics, and a collaborative approach to create a new epistemological perspective, one in which research questions are constantly redefined through real-time, collaborative analysis of data as they are collected and/or searched for in an excavation. Since new questions are defined in science discourse after previous results have been disseminated and discussed within the scientific community, sharing evidence in remote with colleagues, both in the process of field collection and subsequent study, will be a key innovative feature, allowing a complex and real-time distant interaction with the scholarly community and leading to more rapid improvements in research agendas and queries.

show abstract

“…Sufficient open data An enormous amount of information about the ancient world remains inaccessible to the general public and researchers at all but a handful of elite institutions [9]. However, the tightly-knitted nature of the field has meant that much interrelated material, especially ancient text, is increasingly available.…”

Section: Why the Ancient World?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pelagios and the emerging graph of ancient world data

Isaksen

Simon

Barker

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses an emerging cloud of Linked Open Data in the humanities sometimes referred to as the Graph of Ancient World Data (GAWD). It provides historical background to the domain, before gong on to describe the open and decentralised characteristics which have partially characterised its development. This is done principally through the lens of Pelagios, a collaborative initiative led by the authors which connects online historical resources based on common references to places. The benefits and limitations of the approach are evaluated, in particular its low barrier to entry, open architecture and restricted scope. The paper concludes with a number of suggestion for encouraging the adoption of Linked Open Data within other humanities communities and beyond.

show abstract

Openness and archaeology's information ecosystem

Abstract: ABSTRACT

Cited by 69 publications

References 23 publications

Data Collection in Zooarchaeology: Incorporating Touch-Screen, Speech-Recognition, Barcodes, and GIS

Data Collection in Zooarchaeology: Incorporating Touch-Screen, Speech-Recognition, Barcodes, and GIS

NEARCHOS. Networked Archaeological Open Science: Advances in Archaeology Through Field Analytics and Scientific Community Sharing

Pelagios and the emerging graph of ancient world data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About