The Digital Dilemma

Abstract

The long-term care of collected and created data is an ethical obligation in the fields of archaeology and cultural heritage management. With the growing application of digital methodologies in these fields and the complexity of the resulting data, this task has become complicated. Digital data preservation firms have emerged since this methodological shift, but their policies—championing the democratization of academic data—may conflict with the legal obligations dictated by the countries where data originate. Scholars thus face an inevitable choice between two obligations, one ethical and one legal. While the amount of digital data grows and the options for preservation remain fundamentally misaligned with research norms and project workflows, the digital dilemma places the integrity of data at risk of loss. This article addresses this dilemma by evaluating the existing data publication, archiving, and preservation repositories and considering how, as solutions to the digital dilemma, they can be integrated into multiple workflows. I also propose new directions for archaeological associations, suggesting that they should establish a means of evaluation and approval for third-party preservation firms managing the future of academic research prior to their inevitable ubiquity.

Survey of 3D digital heritage repositories and platforms

“…Echoing Lloyd's (2016) study, Statham (2019) suggests that we should present extended information to support 3D visualisation of online heritage assets, and proposes 17 considerations for an 'information package'. There are other preliminary studies, from Guidazzoli et al (2017), Scopigno et al (2017), Koller et al (2009), Champion (2018Champion ( , 2019, Flynn (2019) and Clarke (2015). However, these studies are not comprehensive, they do not provide clear guidelines for the target market: the GLAM sector (plus related communities and hobbyists) to showcase their 3D digital assets.…”

“…3D documentation of cultural heritage is of particular importance for historic preservation, tourism, education and dissemination of cultural values (Clarke, 2015;Kiourt, Koutsoudis, Markantonatou, & Pavlidis, 2016). Despite an increasing number of 3D models (Munster, 2018), there are few online libraries and accessible depositories for VR-ready 3D models.…”

3D Digital Heritage Models as Sustainable Scholarly Resources

“…Increasing the use of metadata and Linked Open Data tools [25] and frameworks would help increase the visibility and probably also the usage of digital heritage models. However, the single most effective way to increase public access to 3D digital models, we argue, is to develop various levels of copyright specifically for 3D content that allow owners to share various levels of resolution (or precision) of their 3D models and 3D data [26], along with incentives for them to share various levels of resolution and precision of those models.…”

tDAR

“…Even if each field study reported in Altschul's incomplete inventory produced only a single report, each site merited a single photograph, and each excavation merited a report, a database, and 20 photographs, that would total more than 2,000,000 digital files, with substantial amounts added annually. Suffice it to say that we have a huge backlog of legacy data, and each year, an enormous amount of new digital data are created, all of which need to be managed to ensure access and preservation for future use (Archaeology Data Service and Digital Antiquity [ADS and DA] 2013:9–60, 2016; Clarke 2015:313–318, 324; Lord et al 2004; Rumsey 2016).…”