ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Hundreds of thousands of archaeological investigations in the United States conducted over the last several decades have documented a large portion of the recovered archaeological record in the United States. However, if we are to use this enormous corpus to achieve richer understandings of the past, it is essential that both CRM and academic archaeologists change how they manage their digital documents and data over the course of a project and how this information is preserved for future use. We explore the nature and scope of the problem and describe how it can be addressed. In particular, we argue that project workflows must ensure that the documents and data are fully documented and deposited in a publicly accessible, digital repository where they can be discovered, accessed, and reused to enable new insights and build cumulative knowledge.
Content may be subject to copyright.
tDAR
A Cultural Heritage Archive for Twenty-First-Century
Public Outreach, Research, and Resource Management
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
The use of digital equipment, methods, and tech-
niques for recording, describing, and analyzing data
has made it possible for archaeologists to take advan-
tage of new sources of data and research opportuni-
ties. Digital methods and techniques have increased
the amounts and intensity of eld and laboratory
data collection. However, few have confronted the
challenges of digital data access, reuse, and preser-
vation after data have been collected, described, and
analyzed.
Before the turn of the twenty-rst century, Hedstrom (1998)
described the challenges of digital data preservation faced by
libraries. Ten years ago, Kintigh (2006) summarized the situation
within archaeology. Waters (2007:8) described the increasing
availability and “greatly expanded ...scaleofhumanistic,social,
and scientic data for scholars to digest.” He paired the oppor-
ABSTRACT
Hundreds of thousands of archaeological investigations in the United States conducted over the last several decades have documented a
large portion of the recovered archaeological record in the United States. However, if we are to use this enormous corpus to achieve
richer understandings of the past, it is essential that both CRM and academic archaeologists change how they manage their digital
documents and data over the course of a project and how this information is preserved for future use. We explore the nature and scope
of the problem and describe how it can be addressed. In particular, we argue that project workflows must ensure that the documents and
data are fully documented and deposited in a publicly accessible, digital repository where they can be discovered, accessed, and reused
to enable new insights and build cumulative knowledge.
Cientos de miles de investigaciones arqueológicas en los Estados Unidos realizado en las últimas décadas han documentado una gran
parte del registro arqueológico recuperado en los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, si vamos a utilizar este enorme corpus para lograr
entendimientos más ricos del pasado, es esencial que CRM y los arqueólogos académicos cambian cómo administran sus documentos
digitales y los datos en el transcurso de un proyecto y cómo se conserva esta información para uso en el futuro. Exploramos la naturaleza
y el alcance del problema y describimos cómo se pueden abordarse. En particular, sostenemos que los flujos de trabajo de proyecto
deben asegurarse que los documentos y datos son totalmente documentados y depositados en un repositorio digital de acceso público,
donde puede ser descubiertos, acceder y reutilizados para activar nuevos conocimientos y construir conocimiento acumulativo.
tunities presented by digital data with a challenge that their use
creates, noting:
Individually and collectively, [scholars] must mobilize their
resources to create a dependable, deeply scaled, and
exible infrastructure to help faculty and students inter-
act with the electronic content in all the ways associated
with rigorous scholarship, including discovering evidence,
aggregating it, arranging and editing it for use, analyz-
ing and synthesizing it, and disseminating results through
reports and teaching.
Other recent articles (Hilton et al. 2013;Rumsey2016;Science
2011) describe the challenges and highlight the need to access
and preserve the vast amount of digital data produced by sci-
ence and humanities disciplines. Reviewing this topic broadly,
York and his colleagues (2016:3–4) warn of a “‘stewardship gap’
between the amount of valuable sponsored research data that is
produced, and the amount that is effectively stewarded.” Recog-
nizing the key roles of research and publication in the scientic
enterprise, Lord and his colleagues at the United Kingdom’s
Advances in Archaeological Practice 5(3), 2017, pp. 238–249
Copyright 2017 © Society for American Archaeology
DOI:10.1017/aap.2017.18
238
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
FIGURE 1. A model of integrated research, publication, and data curation processes (Lord et al. 2004).
Digital Curation Centre (2004) argue strongly for data curation
as a third key component in science and scholarship. Figure 1
illustrates the relationship of data curation to the well-recognized
“research” and “publication” processes and their interaction.
Digital data repositories are a central part of scientic inves-
tigations serving as sources of background research and new
hypotheses, as well as curation facilities in which newly gener-
ated research data are deposited at the end of an investigation.
Repositories are needed not just for data preservation, but to
ensure that data are easily discoverable, accessible, and usable
as sources for new research.
THE DIGITAL DATA DELUGE IN
ARCHAEOLOGY
Altschul and Patterson (2010:297) estimated that as much as $1
billion is spent annually in the United States by public agencies
and private sector companies involved in cultural resource man-
agement (CRM). Although it is impossible to precisely quantify
the amount of data produced by these investigations, Altschul’s
(2016) analysis of reports by federal agencies for the years 1985
to 2012 (Departmental Consulting Archeologist 2009:23–42,
2010:40–74; National Park Service [NPS] Archeology Program
2016) shows that staggering amounts of archaeological data
have been collected. During this 27-year period, federal agencies
report 851,271 archaeological eld studies that surveyed more
than 140,000,000 acres and recorded more than 880,000 archaeo-
logical sites. Among these eld studies are 33,327 data recovery
projects—an average of more than 30,000 eld studies, including
over 1,000 excavations per year. These numbers are substan-
tial underestimates, since not all federal agencies reported or
fully reported their cultural heritage work, and no state or local
projects are included.
Of course, each of these 800,000-plus studies generates one or
more digital les (e.g., reports, photographs, and data sets) that
describe, analyze, or interpret the resources investigated. Even
if each eld study reported in Altschul’s incomplete inventory
produced only a single report, each site merited a single photo-
graph, and each excavation merited a report, a database, and
20 photographs, that would total more than 2,000,000 digital
les, with substantial amounts added annually. Sufce 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).
The real problem is not that a great deal of digital data is being
generated. The real problem is that most data resulting from
older and current investigations are difcult or impossible to dis-
cover, access, and use. Our discipline’s data most certainly suffer
from the data “stewardship gap” (York et al. 2016).
Of course, vast quantities of this digital data are never curated
and are lost when hard drives fail, servers are replaced, or inves-
tigators retire or die. If the digital documents, images, and data
sets from cultural heritage studies are curated at all, they are usu-
ally deposited with the artifacts and paper records in repositories
that focus on maintaining physical objects. Few artifact reposito-
ries deal effectively with digital data—either to provide access or
to ensure long-term preservation (Childs and Kinsey 2004; Childs
et al. 2010:196–197; Faniel and Yakel 2017:109; Watts 2011).
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 239
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
Typically, the media containing the digital data are simply num-
bered, boxed, and curated as physical objects. The data are not
accompanied by sufcient metadata for others to nd or use
them, nor are they easily discoverable or accessible online. They
are not checked for readability or migrated as new digital le
formats become standard.
The millions of digital les are not only the products of enormous
public investments in cultural heritage management; they consti-
tute a treasure trove of information. However, in order to exploit
this incredible potential, we must be able to discover the exis-
tence of relevant les, and we must be able to acquire them in
formats that contemporary software can use. In addition, digital
les must be accompanied by the information that makes them
discoverable, meaningful, and reusable (ADS and DA 2013:46–52,
2016;FanielandYakel2017:115–116; Faniel et al. 2013:297–303;
Kansaetal.2014;Kintigh2010; Kintigh et al. 2015:8–11; McMana-
mon 2014). If reports were searchable only by title or author,
relevant documents would often not be found. What use can be
made of a digital photograph labeled only with an automatically
generated image number? A data set with numeric codes for
pottery types is useless in the absence of a key explaining the
codes. For digital data to be discoverable and useful in future
research, they must be documented by and linked with rich con-
textual and descriptive metadata.
Most physical collections repositories lack the expertise, proce-
dures, and resources to systematically acquire, make accessible,
manage, and preserve digital les and associated metadata nec-
essary for data sharing and reuse. Disciplinary digital repositories
have emerged in archaeology and in other elds to ll these
gaps. They have the expertise to provide the stewardship the
data require in order to be exploited to advance knowledge.
This stewardship is even more important in archaeology, where
resources are nonrenewable and data often literally irreplaceable.
What must be done to transform the mass of existing data from
an unusable backlog into an actively accessed, rich, and usable
archive? What must be done to prevent adding annually to an
inaccessible and unusable backlog? Without effective interven-
tion, curation, and active stewardship, these data will soon be for-
gotten and unavailable for future uses. The investment in human
energy, intellectual focus, and funding will be lost. The data and
information, both those in the existing backlog and those created
by current investigations, must be deposited in a digital archive
where they can be discovered, accessed, preserved, and used.
Digital data repositories focused on archaeology and cultural
heritage, such as the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR; Dig-
ital Antiquity 2016) in the United States and the Archaeology
Data Service (ADS 2017) repository in the United Kingdom,
were established as responses to these problems. They consti-
tute established infrastructure that is necessary if we are to take
advantage of the wealth of data from past investigations and
integrate it with information being created now and in the future.
However, while this infrastructure is essential, so are changes in
archaeological practice that will ensure the regular and system-
atic movement of data into these repositories (ADS and DA 2013,
2016; Kintigh et al. 2015; McManamon 2014).
If this tremendous store of data was easily discoverable and
accessible, it could be used to streamline the historic preserva-
tion review process required for most public undertakings, to
create informative new educational materials, to provide critical
information for comparative and synthetic research addressing
important scientic questions, to support traditional cultural
practices, and generally contribute to the advancement of knowl-
edge.
ACCESSING AND PRESERVING
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL
HERITAGE DIGITAL RESOURCES—
THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE
The Center for Digital Antiquity (Digital Antiquity) is one of a
number of organizations that provide access to digital cultural
heritage data. Some focus on particular regions, types of sites, or
topics and aggregate relevant data and information in databases
that are Internet-accessible. Some, like Digital Antiquity and the
ADS in the United Kingdom, also provide long-term data cura-
tion and preservation, while others, such as the Chaco Research
Archive (CRA) and OpenContext, utilize archival services pro-
vided by existing institutional repositories at major research
universities.
An example of a project focused on providing access to data is
the CRA (Heitman et al. 2016), an online archive and database
that integrates much of the widely dispersed archaeological data
collected from Chaco Canyon from the late 1890s through the
rst half of the twentieth century. The CRA (CRA 2017)includes
thousands of images, data, reports, and other documents from
investigations of ancient sites, architecture, and artifacts related
to the ancient culture found in and near Chaco Canyon in the
U.S. Southwest. A topically oriented project focused on data
sharing is the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slav-
ery (DAACS). DAACS (2016) is designed for intersite comparative
studies focused on slavery and the lives of enslaved people in the
United States and the Caribbean. Both DAACS and CRA focus
on providing easy access to and fostering research on particu-
lar kinds of archaeological and cultural heritage resources and
topics.
OpenContext focuses on publishing archaeological data sets,
making them more accessible and advocating for greater pro-
fessional attention to data archiving and publication (Atici et al.
2013; Kansa et al. 2014). Managed and supported by the Alexan-
dria Archive Institute (AAI), OpenContext is “an open access,
web-based publication system for archaeology and other eld
sciences” (AAI 2017). At present, OpenContext lists data from
98 projects—some complete, others in various states of editing.
Unlike the CRA and DAACS, OpenContext does not concentrate
on one area or topic. Projects in Open Context show a concen-
tration in the Middle East, but a number are in Europe and the
Americas. OpenContext concentrates its publication on data
sets, in particular archaeofaunal data. In a series of recent arti-
cles, OpenContext leaders Eric C. Kansa and Sarah Whitcher
Kansa and colleagues describe research involving reanalysis of
archaeofaunal data sets created by different researchers and
research projects (e.g., Arbuckle et al. 2014; Atici et al. 2013;
Kansa and Kansa 2013). The method for data publication advo-
cated by OpenContext is for data sets submitted by researchers
Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology August 2017
240
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
to be reviewed and modied as necessary for structural coher-
ence, consistency, and general and domain-specic quality by
OpenContext editors before they are published (Atici et al.
2013:675–677). Once published, the OpenContext data sets
are archived with the California Digital Library. Digital Antiq-
uity and the AAI are sharing links between archaeological site
data common in both the Digital Index of North American
Archaeology (DINAA) project in OpenContext and tDAR
resources.
Institutionally focused data repositories are available for faculty,
research staff, and students at a number of major research univer-
sities, such as the University of California system, the University
of Michigan, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and
the University of North Carolina. These “institutional reposito-
ries” focus on archiving research data created by their faculty,
research staff, and students (Johnson 2002;Lynch2003). While
they may provide access to the archived data, the breadth and
ease of access may be limited by the extent to which the data
are exposed to external search engines and any institutional lim-
itations placed on access to the data. Lynch (2017) has raised
a number of concerns regarding institutional repositories. He
notes that faculty use of such repositories is spotty and that as
universities come to realize the staff and technological commit-
ment required to run a dedicated, high-quality digital repository,
smaller institutions may nd the administrative and nancial com-
mitment too great (Lynch 2017:126–127). For individuals, CRM
rms, and other organizations outside of universities, there may
be no way that they can typically deposit the digital products
of their contracts or other research in institutional repositories.
It also may be difcult for external users to nd relevant data in
institutional repositories, because the diversity of research data
created by the wide range of disciplines encompassed by major
research universities makes it impossible to supply the level of
metadata detail needed for outside scholars to nd and access
the data (Ember et al. 2013:5).
Domain repositories provide digital data access, curation, and
preservation designed to serve specic scientic and scholarly
communities (Cambridge Concord Associates 2013; Ember et
al. 2013). They are particularly valuable because they combine
“domain-specic scientic knowledge, expertise in data steward-
ship, and close relationships with scientic communities” (Ember
et al. 2013:2). Digital Antiquity’s tDAR repository is an example, as
is the Archaeology Data Service’s repository in the United King-
dom (Archaeology Data Service 2017;Richards2017). Both tDAR
and the ADS repository focus on providing access to archaeolog-
ical data and its reuse, as well as actively curating data for their
long-term preservation.
CREATING THE CENTER FOR
DIGITAL ANTIQUITY AND tDAR
History
In the last years of the twentieth century, the difculty of access-
ing and integrating information from multiple archaeological
projects was a major obstacle to the synthetic research being
pursued by a group of Arizona State University (ASU) researchers.
This ASU team of archaeologists, computer scientists, and digital
librarians initiated an effort to develop general-purpose com-
putational tools for synthesizing data sets recorded by multiple
investigators using different coding conventions data sets. Their
early efforts resulted in a National Science Foundation (NSF)–
funded workshop in 2004. The 31 workshop participants, drawn
from archaeology and computer science and representing a vari-
ety of universities and public agencies, developed recommenda-
tions concerning archaeology’s need for information infrastruc-
ture (Kintigh 2006). The report’s recommendations were endorsed
by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), the Society for
Historical Archaeology, and the American Association of Phys-
ical Anthropologists. Based on these recommendations, NSF
funded development of a prototype information infrastructure
(from which tDAR ultimately developed) to facilitate synthetic and
comparative research.
This work to articulate and address discipline-wide concern
caught the eye of program ofcers at the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation. The Mellon Foundation has supported projects
involving archaeological data, including the CRA (2017; Heitman
et al. 2016), the DAACS (2016), and scanning of records and notes
of decades of excavations at the Athenian Agora and Ancient
Corinth (American School for Classical Studies in Athens 2016). In
2006, the foundation’s Scholarly Communications program con-
vened a multi-institutional group of archaeologists to consider
the feasibility of a large-scale digital repository for archaeologi-
cal data. The scope of the repository was to be comprehensive,
not limited to a single site, time period, culture, or region of
the world. Keith Kintigh (ASU), Tim Kohler (Washington State
University), Fred Limp (University of Arkansas), and Dean Snow
(Pennsylvania State University) were among the participants. In
2007, the Mellon Foundation funded a planning grant to develop
a proposal for a self-sufcient, disciplinary, digital repository and
an organization with a structure and business model that could
support it. Jeff Altschul (SRI Foundation), John Howard (ASU
Associate University Librarian), and Julian Richards (ADS and
University of York) joined those listed above as coauthors of the
proposal.
The following year, Mellon Foundation funded the implemen-
tation proposal submitted by ASU, with Kintigh as the lead
principal investigator, in partnership with co-PIs from the addi-
tional institutions involved in the original planning. The Mellon
grant supported the establishment of Digital Antiquity at ASU to
oversee the development of tDAR and manage it as a domain
repository for archaeology and cultural heritage. The grant pro-
vided initial support to hire staff with the administrative, archae-
ological, informatics, and programming expertise necessary to
transform the NSF-funded prototype into a usable, publically
available, global digital repository.
The tDAR Repository
Since its initial development as an experimental tool for data
integration, tDAR has grown into a full-edged digital repository
for storing, discovering, accessing, and using archaeological and
cultural heritage documents, images, data sets, and other digital
materials. This development effort started by identifying basic
design requirements for the repository, developing the software
to meet those requirements, and then rening the application
to improve and simplify the user experience. Cognizant of the
enormous scale of the backlog and the large annual ow of data,
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 241
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
the application was designed, from the beginning, to allow users
to contribute data directly—without staff intervention—through
easy-to-use forms for uploading and managing a user’s materials
and logical workows. Additional features assist in the manage-
ment of the repository, including tools such as “collections” and
“projects” that allow for the organization, management, and dis-
play of groups of records. In 2010, tDAR became an operational
repository with advanced tools to further archaeological and
cultural heritage data management and research.
The tDAR code is open-source and licensed under the Apache
2.0 license. Where possible, the tDAR development team lever-
ages existing standards and conventions in development,
employing common formats and tools above inventing new ones.
Digital Antiquity is working to ensure that tDAR complies with
the full OAIS standard (CCSDA 2012). The repository is a J2EE
application written using the Hibernate, Spring, Struts2, JQuery,
and Bootstrap open-source libraries to assist in the development
of basic infrastructure components. To ensure application quality,
the tDAR development environment contains over 1,100 tests
that must be passed before a new release is deployed. Wherever
feasible, the application is designed to be as modular as possible
to enable components to be replaced as more modern ones are
developed.
Digital Antiquity has a professional staff, including an executive
director, director of technology, archaeologist/project managers,
digital curators, administrative support, and programmers who
develop and maintain tDAR’s code, features, user interface, cura-
tion workows, and content. Digital Antiquity is overseen by an
independent Board of Directors, which includes the archaeolo-
gists who were involved in the earlier planning, as well as experts
in digital libraries, nance, law, and nonprot organization man-
agement. The organization’s mission is to extend knowledge of
the human past and improve the management of cultural her-
itage by permanently preserving digital archaeological data and
supporting their discovery, access, and reuse. Digital Antiquity
further seeks to transform the practice of archaeology such that
the digital data, reports, images, and records, accompanied by
appropriate metadata, are routinely discoverable, accessible,
used, and preserved.
The immediate operational objectives of Digital Antiquity are
to (1) provide long-term preservation and access to the docu-
ments and data in tDAR; (2) expand the user-contributed content
in tDAR and enlarge the community of tDAR users; (3) build a
consistent, regular revenue stream sufcient to sustain the cen-
ter and repository nancially; (4) enhance the experience and
research capabilities for tDAR users through a robust and scal-
able technical foundation; and (5) ensure that the administrative
and organizational framework provides a strong foundation for
growth and sustainability. As expressed in the organization’s
mission and objectives, commitment to improvements in pro-
fessional practice regarding data management and digital cura-
tion means that Digital Antiquity and associated experts invest
considerable time in promoting best practices. Professional
publications and particularly presentations and workshops are
among the activities undertaken (e.g., Ellison 2017; Ellison and
Brin 2015; Ellison et al. 2016;Kintigh2010; McManamon 2014,
2017; McManamon and Flores 2016; McManamon and Kintigh
2010a; McManamon and Richards 2015,2016; McManamon et al.
2010).
Funding and Sustaining Digital Antiquity and
tDAR
Adequate funding to support a digital repository is, of course,
crucial. This is a challenge for archives and data repositories in
many elds. Digital Antiquity’s business plan is informed by the
growing body of research on sustaining a digital repository (e.g.,
Guthrie et al. 2008;Maron2014; Maron et al. 2009). In particu-
lar, surveys of existing institutions show that a diverse strategy,
securing revenue by providing a range of services and/or from a
number of different sources is common and may be a necessity
for nancial adaptation (Erway 2012; Erway and Rinehart 2016).
Potential sources listed by Maron and colleagues (2009:21–26)
include subscriptions, licensing to publishers and users, custom
services and consulting, corporate sponsorships and advertising,
deposit/upload fees, endowments, grants, and other sources of
donated funds.
The Digital Antiquity business model identies four revenue
streams: full-service digital curation; self-service curation; grants;
and institutional funds and services. Since Digital Antiquity was
created in 2009, most new revenue has come from full-service
curation for public agencies that use tDAR to preserve and make
their data accessible because they do not have the expertise or
staff to do so on their own. Full-service digital curation is charged
on an hourly basis for staff time, plus per-le upload fees. As part
of full-service projects, Digital Antiquity staff provide the data
management and digital curation consultation and carry out
related activities for clients. The activities may involve organizing
data and les, technical checking of le formats and integrity,
le uploads, metadata drafting and editing, and, in some cases,
specialized data management or digital curation programing.
We dene self-service digital curation as metadata record cre-
ation and le upload to tDAR by data contributors without any
intervention by Digital Antiquity staff. The tDAR website, which
provides a set of metadata record templates and instructions for
uploading les, enables this direct, “do-it-yourself” digital cura-
tion. Once the metadata records are created and les uploaded,
it also is easy for the depositor to manage data. Self-service cura-
tion has the greatest potential for long-term revenue growth,
as more contributors upload their own data. Digital Antiquity
charges $10 per le (up to 10 MB) for individual les. The charge
is discounted to $5 per le for purchase of 100 or more les.
Grants, notably from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, NSF,
and, very recently, the National Endowment for the Humani-
ties, directly support tDAR software development and Digital
Antiquity operations. Institutional support includes funding and
services provided to Digital Antiquity by ASU and the SAA in
support of its general operations, not specic project activities.
USING tDAR
Digital Antiquity provides digital curation services to individual
researchers and organizations that require a repository where
they can manage access to and preservation and use of their
data. Data in tDAR have been contributed by over 350 individuals
and organizations, afliated with a wide range of colleges and
universities, private sector consulting rms, and public agencies;
for example, the University of Washington, Washington State
University, the University of Arkansas, the Pennsylvania State
Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology August 2017
242
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
University, Harvard University, Brockington Associates, Statistical
Research Inc., the PaleoResearch Institute, the New York State
Museum, the North Carolina State Archaeologist’s Ofce, the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Air Force Environmental Center, and some units of the
NPS.
Data are deposited in tDAR for many reasons. Agencies, orga-
nizations, and individuals use the repository and services pro-
vided by Digital Antiquity to manage documents and data for
which they are responsible, including substantial amounts of
gray literature and data not destined to appear in traditional
scholarly publications. Some contributors deposit data to meet
their professional and ethical obligations, or grant or permit
requirements for open access to documents or research data.
Some tDAR depositors create collections of data to share among
their research team members who are located at different institu-
tions.
Depositing Data in tDAR
Depositing data in tDAR enables easy discovery and access and
secures the long-term preservation of diverse forms and formats
of digital archaeological data, including the most common digital
formats for documents, data sets, geospatial data, and 2D and
3D images. It equally serves both newly generated and legacy
data. Templates available on the website (Digital Antiquity 2017)
guide data contributors through a comprehensive process of
metadata entry and le upload.
Digital les deposited in tDAR can be documented thoroughly
by administrative and technical metadata for preservation,
descriptive metadata for effective resource discovery, and
detailed semantic metadata needed to permit sensible scien-
tic reuse of the data. tDAR’s metadata includes general and
bibliographic components incorporating Dublin Core and the
Library of Congress’s MODS metadata standard. The technical
metadata meets the Library of Congress’s PREMIS metadata stan-
dard for capturing technical, preservation, and rights information.
tDAR includes metadata elds tailored for archaeology such as
site numbers, feature types, cultural terms, period names, and
investigation types. For data sets, metadata includes detailed
information documenting data sets tables, columns, and nominal
values. Detailed guidance regarding the creation of tDAR meta-
data records and uploading of data are available in the tDAR
“Help and Tutorials” web pages (Digital Antiquity 2017).
Digital Object Identiers (DOIs) and persistent URLs are assigned
automatically to all records. These unique designations provide a
permanent means of citing and locating the records. tDAR meta-
data enables explicit crediting not only of authors or creators of
les but also records credit for a variety of other individual and
institutional roles, from laboratory analyst to funding agency to
landowner.
Access to tDAR content is provided through a web interface with
basic and advanced (including spatial) search capabilities. Con-
tent is indexed by Google and other major search engines. Apart
from legally protected condential data and data temporarily
embargoed by their contributors, all data are freely available over
the web to registered tDAR users. Metadata records are publi-
cally available without registration. Legally protected site loca-
tions are obfuscated in tDAR’s geographical search and display.
Data that are not designated as “condential” or “embargoed”
by their depositor may be reused, redistributed, or transformed,
subject only to the provision of appropriate credit to the author(s)
or data creator(s), proper citation, and indication of any changes
made (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License). All
data downloads include suggested citation information. tDAR’s
unique data integration tools advance scholars’ capacities for
comparative and synthetic research (e.g., Spielmann and Kintigh
2011).
tDAR Content and Uses
Content grows daily in tDAR. As of December 2016, tDAR
includes more than 383,000 records of archaeological reports
and other documents (over 9,800 of these include a digital full-
text le), 20,000 images, 1,100 data sets, 450 geospatial data sets,
150 landscape (lidar) or 3D object scan les (Figure 2). Data con-
tributors have created over 900 “projects” in tDAR to organize
their data and for the ease of data entry that this option provides.
Over 2,000 “collections” have been created by data contributors
to organize their data administratively or functionally.
Most of the data in tDAR are from North America. However, the
scope of the repository is international, spanning the archaeolog-
ical and historical records of all continents (Figure 3). In addition
to U.S.-based organizations, others located outside of the United
States are using tDAR for their digital data management needs.
In 2016, Digital Antiquity agreed to serve as the repository for
the Field Acquired Information Management Systems Project
(FAIMS) of Australia (FAIMS 2017). Digital Antiquity also estab-
lished an agreement with the Museum of Ontario Archaeology
and the University of Western Ontario to explore how their Sus-
tainable Archaeology Program can use tDAR as a repository for
access to and preservation of digital information related to its
physical collections.
Contributors of data to tDAR use their content to preserve, make
available, and otherwise manage access and use of their infor-
mation. Professional colleagues report that they use tDAR data
for various types of background research. Data depositors add to
and use tDAR content for research on a number of topics, includ-
ing research related to change over time in ancient economies
in the U.S. Southwest and Midwest (Neusius 2017; Spielmann
and Kintigh 2011). Broadly useful data being uploaded include
32,863 well-documented tree-ring dates and related metadata
from across the Southwest, the largest and most comprehensive
database of its kind to date (Kohler and Bocinsky 2015).
From nonspecialists, we receive e-mail messages about
using tDAR for research on family and local histories, locating
researchers whose work is represented in the archive’s records,
and locating copies of documents for which tDAR has only
citation-level data. In 2016, monthly page views of content have
typically ranged between 50,000 and 70,000. Since 2014, con-
tent downloads consistently have exceeded 1,000 per month.
Most content seekers discover tDAR records via simple Internet
search engine queries, although the website provides much more
sophisticated search capabilities.
Physical artifact curation facilities use tDAR as a “digital annex”
for their collections-associated digital les. Digital Antiquity
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 243
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
FIGURE 2. Cumulative growth of tDAR contents by year (2009 through end of 2016).
FIGURE 3. Schematic view of global contents of tDAR showing some examples.
worked with the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Labo-
ratory and Fort Lee Regional Repository to establish an archive
in tDAR for digital les from 17 military facilities for which these
two repositories curate physical collections and associated paper
records (Coeld and Eyre 2014; Department of Defense Legacy
Program 2014).
Publishers use tDAR to provide access to data that supplements
their publications or to distribute technical reports (notably
ones that are out of print). The University of Pennsylvania Uni-
versity Museum Press collection (University of Pennsylvania
Museum 2017) provides access to 46 data sets, 75 documents,
and over 100 images as data supplemental to their academic
publications. Statistical Research Inc., a large CRM rm, provides
access to its SRI Press Technical Reports series through tDAR
(SRI Press 2017). The NPS Midwest Archeological Center (2017)
provides access to its various report series through tDAR, as
well.
Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology August 2017
244
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
Research programs use tDAR so that collaborators at different
institutions have access to the same data (e.g., Kuril Biocomplex-
ity Research 2017; North Atlantic Ecodynamics 2017). A long-
lived research program that is using the archive is the Mimbres
Ceramic Database (2017; see also Hegmon et al. 2017:139). Orga-
nized by Steven LeBlanc (Harvard) and Michelle Hegmon (ASU),
this collection contains over 10,500 images from Mimbres vessels.
Part of the collection is accessible to registered users; access to
a fuller database requires review and approval by Hegmon. tDAR
allows data contributors to permit general public access to part
of their collection but also provides for control of broader access
to vetted researchers. Public agencies use tDAR to share data
among different contractors working on particular programs.
One example of this is the Bureau of Land Management’s Per-
mian Basin Program (2017), which shares some of its reports (in
redacted form) with the general public and limits access to full
reports to CRM rms and researchers working with their program.
DIGITAL ANTIQUITY USER EXAMPLES
Digital Antiquity provides a variety of data management and dig-
ital curation services. Among the most common are self-service
digital curation, in which contributors directly deposit data in
tDAR without intervention by Digital Antiquity staff, and full-
service digital curation, in which Digital Antiquity staff provide the
organization, le check and upload, and metadata drafting and
editing for clients. The following are a few examples from among
the work Digital Antiquity has done or that is underway.
Self-Service Curation
The Eastern Mimbres Archaeological Project (EMAP) uses self-
service curation. EMAP is an extensive and long-term investi-
gation of the post-AD 1000 history of the eastern Mimbres area
in southwest New Mexico that is codirected by Drs. Margaret
Nelson and Michelle Hegmon. The tDAR collection of data from
EMAP began in 2012 (Nelson and Hegmon 2016). Included in
this collection are excavation records and reports for the sites
studied, analysis tables and data sets, dating results, eld notes
and maps, photographs, and reports. Most of the EMAP data
and information are publically accessible. This includes about 300
reports, articles, or other documents; about 80 images; and 20
data sets. Postdoctoral fellows and graduate students working
for EMAP are familiar with the tDAR data upload and metadata
creation templates by using them on a regular basis. With a little
experience, they easily create project records and upload les to
the repository. The project principals and afliated researchers
access and manage the records without any direct intervention
from Digital Antiquity.
A second example of self-service digital curation is the large col-
lection of research reports (3,298 documents so far) being built
by Dr. Linda Scott Cummings of the PaleoResearch Institute and
her staff (Cummings 2016). This collection was set up in 2012.
Most of the reports are publically accessible, although a few of
the PaleoResearch clients have requested that their reports be
held as condential and only made available following review
of the request for access by Dr. Cummings or the clients them-
selves, a procedure that is easily conducted for les designated
by contributors as “condential” in tDAR.
Full-Service Curation
Beginning in 2011, Digital Antiquity undertook full-service cura-
tion work for the CRM program of the Phoenix Area Ofce
(PXAO) of the Bureau of Reclamation (Digital Antiquity 2013).
The PXAO is responsible for extensive cultural resource data
and records collected and created since the 1970s as part of
large investigations carried out on the canal reaches, lands, and
reservoirs constructed and managed by the agency in central
and southern Arizona. These paper reports, other documents,
images, and related data occupied considerable space in PXAO
ofces, and specic contents of this paper archive were dif-
cult to locate, search, use, and share among staff, contractors,
researchers, and the interested public. PXAO faced three prob-
lems in managing the information for which it is responsible: (1)
how to make the large amount of legacy data useful internally
and externally, (2) how to ensure its long-term preservation eco-
nomically, and (3) how to treat new data in a way that could make
it immediately useful within a system that would ensure its preser-
vation
The PXAO had already digitized many of the paper records
related to its older archaeological projects, in particular from
various parts of the Central Arizona Project. Together, Digital
Antiquity and PXAO staff created a simple full-service workow
to manage the deposit of records into tDAR. Digital Antiquity
staff checked the digital documents for completeness and appro-
priate formatting and passed the PDF les through an optical
character reader (OCR) program so that they could be easily
searched. Digital Antiquity’s curators reviewed the texts and illus-
trations to identify sensitive information that might need to be
redacted or designated as “condential.” When encountered,
a redacted version of the report, which could be made public,
was created with the sensitive information (mainly detailed site
location) removed using Adobe Acrobat Pro’s redaction tools.
The full report, marked as “condential” in tDAR, is accessible
to users authorized by PXAO. Digital curators created appro-
priate descriptive and administrative metadata for each PXAO
le record, then uploaded it to tDAR as “draft” for the PXAO
to review. Staff also organized the PXAO digital archive so that
documents, images, and data sets could be retrieved easily for
administrative, educational, management, or research purposes.
Once the PXAO CRM ofce staff reviewed and approved the
tDAR metadata records, curators changed the records’ status to
“active,” making the metadata public and the les, if they are not
marked “condential,” freely accessible to users.
Outreach to professionals and the general public became possi-
ble when the collections and records were made public (Bureau
of Reclamation 2016). A recent example involved the PXAO
Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological Project (2017), includ-
ing detailed technical site reports, synthesis volumes, shorter
descriptive articles, and data sets from the Bureau’s multiyear set
of investigations in the Tonto Basin of central Arizona (McMana-
mon and Kintigh 2016).
Digital Antiquity curators also provided assistance and training
to the three “on-call” PXAO contractors who deposit informa-
tion from new PXAO cultural resource projects through tDAR’s
self-service website interface. Requiring contractors to enter the
data, and placing the requirement in the on-call contract, the
PXAO is able to avoid growth in a backlog of data not properly
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 245
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
curated. This workow is an effective and economical and should
be adopted widely.
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY ARCHIVES:
MAKING DIGITAL CURATION A
REGULAR PART OF ARCHAEOLOGY
The research value of and critical need for effective digital archiv-
ing for archaeological and related data and information is high-
lighted in the concluding paragraph in a recent article in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences addressing
Grand Challenges for Archaeology:
Although new archaeological eld work will be needed,
the greatest payoff will derive from exploiting the explo-
sion in systematically collected archaeological data
that has occurred since the mid-20th century, largely in
response to laws protecting archaeological resources.
Both the needed modeling and synthetic research will
require far more comprehensive online access to thor-
oughly documented research data and to unpublished
reports detailing the contextual information essential for
the comparative analyses. Indeed, our survey emphatically
reinforced the need for the kinds of online access provided
by the Digital Archaeological Record (United States) and
the Archaeology Data Service (United Kingdom) [Kintigh
et al. 2014a:879, 2014b].
Recognizing that archaeological resources are nonrenewable,
SAA’s statement of ethical principles include “Principle No. 7:
Records and Preservation: Archaeologists should work actively for
the preservation of, and long-term access to, archaeological col-
lections, records, and reports” (Society for American Archaeology
1996; see also Kintigh 2006:571–572; McManamon and Kintigh
2010b).
Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC (CHP), a DC-based law rm,
conducted a legal analysis of the requirements for curation of
digital archaeological and cultural heritage data based on the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeologi-
cal Resources Protection Act (ARPA), and regulations (36 CFR
1220.1–1220.20) promulgated by the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Their report concludes that
“relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies mandate that
digital archaeological data generated by federal agencies must
be deposited in an appropriate repository with the capability of
providing long-term digital curation and accessibility to qualied
users” (CHP 2012:10). Public agencies responsible for the care of
archaeological and cultural heritage resources and related data,
whether they have direct resource management or grant-related
responsibilities, must enforce these requirements to ensure long-
term preservation of and access to digital data. Consequences
of the absence of enforcement include the loss of data, less
informed and effective research, poorer resource management,
and the squandering of scarce public funding.
Maintaining digital data documenting cultural heritage in a
robust repository provides important benets for a broad com-
munity of archaeologists, cultural heritage specialists, librarians,
ecologists, historians, historical architects, economists, climate
scientists, and other researchers who need the unique long-term
data that only archaeology can provide. Members of the general
public likewise value archaeological information as a means of
learning about the ancient or historical past.
Despite compelling research demands, ethical obligations, fed-
eral regulations, NSF and NEH requirements for data manage-
ment plans, government calls for open access (e.g., Ofce of
Science and Technology Policy 2014; White House 2013), and
evident benets to a number of constituencies, appropriate stew-
ardship of archaeological data is far from commonplace. The
discipline must embrace project workows and practices that
ensure both newly created and legacy documents and data are
fully documented and deposited in a publicly accessible digital
repository where they can be discovered, accessed, and reused
to enable new insights and build cumulative knowledge. Grant-
ing, regulatory, and resource management agencies must ensure
that research products of their actions are deposited in public
repositories that provide for data discovery, access, reuse, and
preservation. Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies sponsor-
ing or permitting archaeological investigations must require the
deposit of data from these investigations in such repositories
as a part of the each project’s scope of work. All archaeologists
share an obligation for effective stewardship of these irreplace-
able data. The public and the profession all benet when that
obligation is met.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the Andrew W.
Mellon Foundation, Scholarly Communications Program, by the
National Science Foundation under grant numbers 0433959,
0624341, and 1202413, and by a joint award, number PX 50022
09, from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the
Joint Information Systems Committee (United Kingdom). No
permits were required for the research done as part of this arti-
cle. The authors thank Rachel Fernandez, Digital Antiquity, for
her assistance with the Spanish translation of the abstract. The
authors appreciate the detailed comments we have received
from the outside experts who reviewed the manuscript. We also
appreciate very much the trust placed in Digital Antiquity by our
clients. We work diligently and steadily with a focused mission to
keep their data safe and manage how it is accessed according to
their directions.
Data Availability Statement
Examples of data and collections of data referred to in the
text are available in tDAR (the Digital Archaeological Record;
www.tdar.org). In most or all cases, the specic links to data col-
lections referred to in the text are included in the References
Cited section of this work.
REFERENCES CITED
Alexandria Archive Institute (AAI)
2017 About the Alexandria Archive Institute. Electronic document,
https://alexandriaarchive.org/about/, accessed February 17, 2017.
Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology August 2017
246
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
Altschul, Jeffrey H.
2016 The Role of Synthesis in American Archaeology and Cultural
Resource Management as Seen through an Arizona Lens. Journal of
Arizona Archaeology 4(1):68–81.
Altschul, Jeffrey H., and Thomas Patterson
2010 Trends in Employment and Training in American Archaeology. In
Voices in American Archaeology,editedbyWendyAshmore,Dorothy
T. Lippert, and Barbara J. Mills, pp. 291–316. Society for American
Archaeology Press, Washington, DC.
American School for Classical Studies in Athens (ASCSA)
2016 ASCSA website. Electronic documents, http://agora.ascsa.net/
research?v=default and http://corinth.ascsa.net/research?v=default,
accessed December 8, 2016.
Arbuckle, Benjamin S., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Eric Kansa, David Orton,
Canan Cakirlar, Lionel Gourichon, Levent Atici, Alfred Galik, Arkadiusz
Marciniak, Jacqui Mulville, Hijlke Buitenhuis, Denise Carruthers, Bea De
Cupere, Arzu Demiregi, Sheelagh Frame, Daniel Helmer, Louis Martin,
Joris Peters, Nadja Pollath, Kamilla Pawlowska, Nerissa Russell, Katheryn
Twiss, and Doris Wurthenberger
2014 Data Sharing Reveals Complexity in the Westward Spread of
Domestic Animals across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS ONE 9(6):e99845.
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0099845, accessed June 22, 2017.
Archaeology Data Service (ADS)
2017 Home page, ADS Website. Electronic document, http://
archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/, accessed February 17, 2017.
ADS and DA (Archaeology Data Service and the Center for Digital Antiquity)
2013 Caring for Digital Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice.
Oxbow Books, Oxford, and Oakville, Connecticut.
2016 Guides to Good Practice in Digital Archiving for Archaeology.
Electronic document, http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/,
accessed February 23, 2016.
Atici, Levent, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Justing Lev-Tov, and Eric C. Kansa
2013 Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of
Publishing Primary Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
20:663–681. DOI:10.1007/s10816-012-9132-9, accessed June 22, 2017.
Bureau of Reclamation
2016 USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Ofce Collection.
Electronic document, https://core.tdar.org/collection/17756/
usdi-bureau-of-reclamation- phoenix-area- ofce-pxao, accessed
December 8, 2016.
Cambridge Concord Associates
2013 Sustaining Domain Repositories for Digital Data: A Call for Change
from an Interdisciplinary Working Group of Domain Repositories.
Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).
Electronic document, https://www.icsu-wds.org/les/Domain_
Repositories_Call_to_Action_16_Sept_2013.pdf, accessed February 17,
2017.
Chaco Research Archive (CRA)
2017 About the Chaco Research Archive. Electronic document,
http://www.chacoarchive.org/cra, accessed February 17, 2017.
Childs, S. Terry, and Karolyn Kinsey
2004 A Survey of SHPO Archeological Reports Bibliographic Systems,
2002. Studies in Archeology and Ethnography #5. Archeology Program,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Electronic document, https://core.tdar.org/document/377011/
a-survey- of-shpo- archeological-reports-bibliographic-systems-2002,
accessed November 9, 2016.
Childs, S. Terry, Karolyn Kinsey, and Seth Kagan
2010 Repository Fees for Archaeological Collections. Heritage
Management 3(2):189–212.
Clarke, Mary
2015 The Digital Dilemma: Preservation and the Digital Archaeological
Record. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(4):313–330. DOI:10.7183/
2326-3768.3.4.313, accessed April 20, 2017.
Coeld, Sara Rivers, and Jodi Reeves Eyre
2014 Evaluating a Cooperative Approach to the Management of Digital
Archaeological Records. Project No. 13–711. Department of Defense
Legacy Resource Management Program, Washington, DC.
DOI:10.6067/XCV8WH2R30, accessed November 30, 2016.
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS)
2012 Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS),
Recommended Practice, Issue 2. CCSDS Secretariat, Space Communica-
tions and Navigation Ofce, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC.
Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC (CHP)
2012 Federal Laws and Regulations Requiring Curation of Digital
Archaeological Documents and Data. Report prepared for the Ofce of
General Counsel, Arizona State University. Electronic document,
http://www.digitalantiquity.org/wp-uploads/2013/05/2013- CHP-Legal-
Analysis-of- Fed-Req- for-Curation- of-Dig- Arch-Docs-Data- .pdf, accessed
August 10, 2014.
Cummings, Linda Scott
2016 PaleoResearch Institute Collection. Electronic document, https://core.
tdar.org/collection/19627/paleoresearch-institute, accessed December 8,
2016.
Departmental Consulting Archeologist (DCA)
2009 The Goals and Accomplishments of the Federal Archaeology
Program. Archaeology Program, National Park Service, Department of
the Interior, Washington, DC. DOI:10.6067/XCV81N7ZR4, accessed
November 30, 2016.
2010 The Secretary of the Interior’s Report to Congress on the Federal
Archaeology Program. Archaeology Program, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. DOI:10.6067/XCV8Q81DZV,
accessed November 30, 2016.
Department of Defense Legacy Program
2014 Evaluating a Cooperative Approach to the Management of Digital
Archaeological Records (ECAMDAR), Project # 13–711. Electronic
document, http://www.digitalantiquity.org/wp-uploads/2011/07/
Evaluating-a- Cooperative-Approach- to-the-Management- of-
Digital-Archaeologial-Records.pdf, accessed November 30, 2016.
Digital Antiquity
2013 Case Study: Using tDAR to Manage Legacy and New Archaeological
Documents and Data, The Phoenix Area Ofce of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Electronic document, http://www.digitalantiquity.org/
wp-uploads/2011/07/Using- tDAR-to- Manage- Legacy-and- New-
Archaeological-Documents-and-Data- the-Phoenix-Area-Ofce-
of-the- Bureau-of- Reclamation-.pdf, accessed November 30,
2016.
2016 Home page, tDAR (the Digital Archaeological Record).
Electronic document, https://www.tdar.org, accessed 8 December
2016.
2017 Help and Tutorials and Contribute Data web pages, tDAR (the Digital
Archaeological Record). Electronic document, https://www.tdar.org/
about/help/, accessed April 23, 2017.
Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS)
2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery website.
Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/, accessed December 8,
2016.
Ellison, Leigh Anne
2017 Taking Good Care of Your Digital Data—Developing Good Digital
Curation Habits for Students. Workshop given at 82nd Annual Meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC.
Ellison, Leigh Anne, and Adam Brin
2015 Synthesizing Legacy Data: Using tDAR’s Data Integration Tool. Poster
presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, San Francisco, California. DOI:10.6067/XCV8W95B95,
accessed November 30, 2016.
Ellison, Leigh Anne, Jodi Reeves Eyre, and Adam Brin
2016 Curating and Preserving Digital Archaeological Data: A Guide to
Good Practice. Poster presented at the 69th Northwest Anthropological
Conference, Tacoma, WA. DOI:10.6067/XCV8HH6MTJ, accessed
November 30, 2016.
Ember, Carol, Robert Hanisch, George Alter, Helen Berman, Margaret
Hedstrom, and Mary Vardigan
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 247
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison, and Adam Brin
2013 Sustaining Domain Repositories for Digital Data: A White Paper.
Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Electronic document, http://datacommunity.icpsr.
umich.edu/sites/default/les/WhitePaper_ICPSR_SDRDD_121113.pdf,
accessed November 4, 2016.
Erway, Ricky
2012 Lasting Impact: Sustainability of Disciplinary Repositories.OCLC
Research, Dublin, Ohio. Electronic document, http://www.oclc.org/
content/dam/research/publications/library/2012/2012-03.pdf, accessed
February 28, 2017.
Erway, Ricky, and Amanda Rinehart
2016 If You Build It, Will They Fund? Making Research Data Management
Sustainable. OCLC, Online Computer Library Center Inc., Dublin, Ohio.
Electronic document, http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/
publications/2016/oclcresearch-making-research- data-management-
sustainable-2016.pdf, accessed November 29, 2016.
Faniel, Ixchel M., and Elizabeth Yakel
2017 Practices Do Not Make Perfect: Disciplinary Data Sharing and Reuse
Practices and Their Implications for Repository Data Curation. In Curating
Research Data, Volume One: Practical Strategies for Your Digital
Repository, pp. 103–126. Association of College and Research Libraries,
Chicago, Illinois. Electronic document, http://www.oclc.org/research/
publications/2017/practices-do- not-make- perfect.html, accessed April
19, 2017.
Faniel, Ixchel, Eric Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Julianna Barrera-Gomez, and
Elizabeth Yakel
2013 The Challenges of Digging Data: A Study of Context in Archaeologi-
cal Data Reuse. Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference
on Digital Libraries, New York City.
Field Acquired Information Management Systems (FAIMS)
2017 FAIMS Project home page. Electronic document, https://www.
fedarch.org/#Federated, accessed February 25, 2017.
Guthrie, Kevin, Rebecca Grifths, and Nancy Maron
2008 Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources:
An Ithaka Report.IthakaS+R, New York City. Electronic document,
http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/sustainability-and- revenue-models-
for-online-academic- resources/, accessed February 20, 2017.
Hedstrom, Margaret
1998 Digital Preservation: A Time Bomb for Digital Libraries. Computers
for the Humanities 31:189–202.
Hegmon, Michelle, James R. McGrath, and Marit K. Munson
2017 The Potential and Pitfalls of Large Multi-Source Collections. Advances
in Archaeological Practice 5(2):138–146. DOI:10.1017/aap.2017.2,
accessed June 8, 2017.
Heitman, Carrie, Worthy Martin, and Stephen Plog
2016 Legacy Records and Digital Innovation: The Chaco Research Archive
and Beyond. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Orlando, Florida. DOI:10.6067/XCV85B04G2,
accessed December 8, 2016.
Hilton, James L., Tom Cramer, Sebastian Korner, and David Minor
2013 The Case for Building a Digital Preservation Network. Educause
Review July/August:37–47. Electronic document, http://er.educause.edu/
articles/2013/8/the-case- for-building-a-digital- preservation-network,
accessed December 8, 2016.
Johnson, Richard K.
2002 Institutional Repositories: Partnering with Faculty to Enhance
Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine 8(11). Electronic document,
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/johnson/11johnson.html, accessed
February 17, 2017.
Kansa, Eric C., and Sarah Whitcher Kansa
2013 We All Know That a 14 Is a Sheep: Data Publication and
Professionalism in Archaeological Communication. Journal of Eastern
Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1(1):88–97.
Kansa, Eric C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, and Benjamin Arbuckle
2014 Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research
Data in Archaeology. International Journal of Digital Curation 9(1):57–70.
Kintigh, Keith W.
2006 The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration.
American Antiquity 71:567–578.
2010 Sustaining Database Semantics. Proceedings of the 38th Conference
on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,
Granda, Spain.
Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert D. Drennan,
Ann P. Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Fredrick Limp, Herbert D.G.
Maschner, William K. Michener, Timothy R. Pauketat, Peter Peregrine,
Jeremy A. Sabloff, Tony. J. Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright, and Melinda
A. Zeder
2014a Grand Challenges for Archaeology. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science (PNAS) 111(3):879–880.
2014b Grand Challenges for Archaeology. American Antiquity 79:5–24.
Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Ann P. Kinzig, W. Fredrick Limp, William
K. Michener, Jeremy A. Sabloff, Edward J. Hackett, Timothy A. Kohler,
Bertram Ludäscher, and Clifford A. Lynch
2015 Cultural Dynamics, Deep Time, and Data Planning Cyberinfrastruc-
ture Investments for Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice
3(1):1–15.
Kohler, Timothy A., and R. Kyle Bocinsky
2015 Compiled Tree-ring Dates from the Southwestern United States
(Unrestricted). Electronic document, https://core.tdar.org/dataset/399315/
compiled-tree-ring-dates- from-the- southwestern-united-states-
unrestricted, accessed April 24, 2017.
Kuril Biocomplexity Research
2017 Kuril Biocomplexity Research tDAR collection. Electronic document,
http://core.tdar.org/collection/14832/kuril-biocomplexity- research,
accessed February 25, 2017.
Lord, Phillip, Alison Macdonald, Liz Lyon, and David Giaretta
2004 From Data Deluge to Data Curation. In Proceedings of the UK
e-Science All Hands Meeting, 2004. Electronic document, http://www.
ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/e.j.lyon/150.pdf, accessed December 9, 2016.
Lynch, Clifford L.
2003 Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in
the Digital Age. Libraries and the Academy 3(2):327–336. Electronic
document, http://muse.jhu.edu/article/42865, accessed February 17,
2017.
2017 Updating the Agenda for Academic Libraries and Scholarly
Communications. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. 40.
Electronic document, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/40,
accessed April 20, 2017.
McManamon, Francis P.
2014 Digital Archaeological Data: Ensuring Access, Use, and Preservation.
Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, pp.
2124–2127. Springer Science+Business Media, New York City.
2017 On-line and In-person Professional Training for Archaeological Data
Management and Digital Curation. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
McManamon, Francis P., and Jodi Flores
2016 Heritage in the Digital Age: Guidelines for Preserving and Sharing
Heritage with Digital Technologies. Poster presented at the 81st Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, Florida.
Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/document/404347/
heritage-in- the-digital- age- guidelines-for-preserving- and-sharing-
heritage-with- digital-techniques, accessed April 20, 2017.
McManamon, Francis P., and Keith W. Kintigh
2010a Designing Digital Antiquity. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual
Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Amelia Island, Florida.
2010b Digital Antiquity: Transforming Archaeological Data into
Knowledge. SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37–40.
2016 Making Archaeological Data and Information Discoverable,
Accessible, and Usable for 21st Century Research: The Theodore
Roosevelt Dam Archaeological Project, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Journal of
Arizona Archaeology 4(1):60–67.
Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology August 2017
248
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
tDAR
McManamon, Francis P., and Julian Richards
2015 Best Practices for Good Digital Curation. Poster presented at the
80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San
Francisco, California. DOI:10.6067/XCV8KW5H54, accessed November
30, 2016.
2016 What Do We Mean by “Digital Curation”? Symposium presented at
the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Orlando, Florida. Electronic document, https://core.tdar.org/collection/
58243/what-do- we-mean- by-digital-curation, accessed November 30,
2016.
McManamon, Francis P., Keith W. Kintigh, and Adam Brin
2010 Digital Antiquity and the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR):
Broadening Access and Ensuring Long-Term Preservation for Digital
Archaeological Data. CSA Newsletter XXIII (2). Center for the Study of
Architecture. Electronic document, http://csanet.org/newsletter/fall10/
nlf1002.html, accessed December 8, 2016.
Maron, Nancy L.
2014 A Guide to the Best Revenue Models and Funding Sources for your
Digital Resources.IthakaS+R, New York City. Electronic document,
http://sr.ithaka.org/?p=22805, accessed February 28, 2017.
Maron, Nancy L., K. Kirby Smith, and Matthew Loy
2009 Sustaining Digital Repositories: An On-the-Ground View of Projects
Today: Ithaka Case Studies in Sustainability.IthakaS+R, New York City.
DOI:10.18665/sr.22408, accessed November 29, 2016.
Midwest Archaeological Center (MWAC)
2017 Midwest Archeological Center Publications tDAR collection.
Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/collection/14640/
midwest-archeological-center-publications, accessed February 25, 2017.
Mimbres Ceramic Database
2017 Mimbres Ceramic Database tDAR collection. Electronic document,
http://core.tdar.org/collection/22070/mimbres-ceramic- database,
accessed February 25, 2017.
National Park Service (NPS) Archeology Program
2016 Secretary of the Interior’s Report to Congress on Federal Archeology
web page. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/SRC/
index.htm, accessed November 3, 2016.
Nelson, Margaret, and Michelle Hegmon
2016 Eastern Mimbres Archaeological Project (EMAP) collection. Electronic
document, http://core.tdar.org/collection/13541/eastern-mimbres-
archaeological-project-emap, accessed December 8, 2016.
Neusius, Sarah
2017 Making Faunal Matter in Archaic Period Research: Exploring
Adaptation, Population Growth, A Cultural Practice Through the Digital
Integration of Eastern Archaic Faunal Datasets. Symposium at the 82nd
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC.
North Atlantic Ecodynamics
2017 North Atlantic Archaeology, Culture, History, and Human Eco-
dynamics tDAR collection. Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/
collection/30654/north-atlantic- archaeology-culture- history-and- human-
ecodynamics, accessed February 25, 2017.
Ofce of Science and Technology Policy
2014 Improving the Management of and Access to Scientic Collections,
Ofce of the President, Washington, DC. Electronic document,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/les/microsites/ostp/
ostp_memo_scientic_collections_march_2014.pdf, accessed May 2,
2017.
PaleoResearch Institute
2017 PaleoResearch Institute tDAR collection. Electronic document,
http://core.tdar.org/collection/19627/paleoresearch-institute, accessed
February 25, 2017.
Permian Basin Program, Bureau of Land Management
2017 Digital Repository of the Bureau of Land Management,
Carlsbad Field Ofce tDAR collection. Electronic document,
http://core.tdar.org/collection/24252/digital-repository- of-the- bureau-of-
land-management- carlsbad-eld- ofce, accessed February 25, 2017.
Richards, Julian
2017 Twenty Years of Preserving Data: A View from the United Kingdom.
Advances in Archaeological Practice 5(3). DOI:10.1017/aap.2017.11.
Rumsey, Abby Smith
2016 The Risk of Digital Oblivion: What Knowledge Should We Save?
Chronicle of Higher Education (4 May 2016). Electronic document,
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Risk-of-Digital- Oblivian/236342/,
accessed December 21, 2016.
Science
2011 Challenges and Opportunities. Science 331(6018):692–693.
DOI:10.1126/science.331.6018.692, accessed February 17, 2014.
Society for American Archaeology
1996 Ethics in Archaeology: Society for American Archaeology Principles of
Archaeological Ethics. American Antiquity 61:451–452.
Spielmann, Katherine A., and Keith W. Kintigh
2011 The Digital Archaeological Record: The Potentials of Archaeozoolog-
ical Data Integration through tDAR. SAA Archaeological Record
11(1):22–25.
SRI Press
2017 SRI Press tDAR collection. Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/
collection/28812/sri-press, accessed February 25, 2017.
Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological Project
2017 Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological Project tDAR collection.
Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/collection/59352/theodore-
roosevelt-dam-archaeological-project, accessed February 25, 2017.
University of Pennsylvania Museum
2017 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
tDAR Collection. Electronic document, http://core.tdar.org/collection/
14186/university-of- pennsylvania-museum- of- archaeology-and-
anthropology?selectedResourceTypes=PROJECT&startRecord=0,
accessed February 25, 2017.
Waters, Donald J.
2007 “Doing Much More Than We Have So Far Attempted.” EDUCAUSE
Review (September/October):8–9.
Watts, Joshua
2011 Policies, Preservation, and Access to Digital Resources: The Digital
Antiquity 2010 National Repositories Survey. Reports in Digital
Archaeology, Number 2. Center for Digital Antiquity, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona. Electronic document, http://www.
digitalantiquity.org/wp-uploads/2011/07/20111215_Final.pdf, accessed
November 30, 2016.
White House
2013 Executive Order: Making Open and Machine Readable the New
Default for Government Information. Electronic document, http://www.
whitehouse.gov/the-press-ofce/2013/05/09/executive-order-making-
open-and- machine-readable- new-default-government- , accessed
August 28, 2014.
York, Jeremy, Myron Gutmann, and Francine Berman
2016 What Do We Know about the Stewardship Gap? University of
Michigan Library, Deep Blue Repository, Ann Arbor. Electronic document,
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/122726, accessed February 21, 2017.
AUTHORS INFORMATION
Francis P. McManamon, Keith W. Kintigh, Leigh Anne Ellison,
and Adam Brin Center for Digital Antiquity, School of Human Evolution
and Social Change, Arizona State University, PO Box 872402, Tempe, AZ
85287-2402, USA
August 2017 Advances in Archaeological Practice A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology 249
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.18
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Arizona State University Libraries, on 11 Sep 2017 at 18:48:21, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
... Digital archiving of cultural resource management reports in State Historic Preservation Offices, where they are often available by request though perhaps at a cost, is common; however, digitally archiving the datasets and other supporting materials that went into the creation of those documents is not. Though a vocal minority advocates for responsible digital archiving practices (Kansa and Kansa 2013;Kansa et al. 2019;Kintigh and Altschul 2010;Marwick et al. 2017;McManamon et al. 2017a;2017b;Wells et al. 2019;Wilshusen et al. 2016), the US is facing a digital curation crisis (Kintigh and Altschul 2010;Majewski 2010;Thomson 2014;Witze 2019). Most archaeologists are simply not engaged in preserving the digital data that document their archaeological investigations. ...
... Submissions to these institutions are complicated by myriad factors, including 1) inadequate incentives that promote good archiving practices (Kansa and Kansa 2013), 2) financial and labour costs of archiving, 3) Government agencies have yet to explicitly require curation of archaeological analytical documentation and supporting materials in a qualified digital archive and there are no simple means to assess penalties for non-compliance with current curation standards, and finally 4) not complying with ethical guidelines laid out by professional organisations. Despite these impediments, both real and perceived, there is a move by some CRM firms and governmental agencies responsible for cultural heritage management to use publicly available digital repositories (e.g., the Digital Archaeological Record [tDAR], OpenContext, and Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery [DAACS]) to archive, and make accessible, their digital documents and datasets (Bates et al. 2020;Galle et al. 2019;McManamon et al. 2017b;2019;McManamon and Kintigh 2016;Schlanger et al. 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Archaeology in the United States is conducted by a number of different sorts of entities under a variety of legal mandates that lack uniform standards for data archiving. The difficulty of accessing data from projects in which one was not directly involved indicates an apparent reluctance to archive raw data and supplemental information with digital repositories to be reused in the future. There is hope that additional legislation, guidelines from professional organisations, and educational efforts will change these practices.
... These data need to be archived into standardized, digitally readable formats, with sufficient metadata to make them useable. While it would be ideal if all such data used common ontologies (i.e., terms and their referents), accessibility and metadata can go a long way toward making legacy collections useful for the large-scale comparative analyses essential for understanding cultural transmission, social interaction, human ecology, adaptation, niche construction, technological change, and biocultural evolution Burke et al., 2018;Clark et al., 2019;Dibble, 1995;Marwick, 2017;McManamon et al., 2017;Neeley & Barton, 1994;Reynolds & Riede, 2019;Stephens et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
The creation of cultural taxonomies has been a common feature of European Paleolithic archaeology since its inception nearly two centuries ago. Endeavoring to establish a scientific basis for the fledgling discipline, early prehistorians adopted the practices of paleontologists and biological systematists for artifacts recovered from Paleolithic sites. However, the absence of robust conceptual frameworks for cultural evolution and lack of common analytical protocols led to inconsistent terminology, idiosyncratic classifications, and weak links between the archaeological record, human behavior, and culture. This history continues to plague Paleolithic archaeology, hindering sophisticated research on human ecology, obscuring the processes that drove cultural and technological evolution, and making regional-scale syntheses nearly impossible. Pleistocene prehistory can certainly benefit from more consistent and transparent classification practices, common and well-defined terminology, and more replicable quantification. However, there are also fundamental conceptual issues underlying Paleolithic cultural taxonomies and their meaning that cannot be resolved by better analytical practices alone. We discuss the cultural, social, and technological processes responsible for pattern in the archaeological record. We focus on the typological systematics commonly used to measure variation within and among lithic assemblages, the socio-ecological-technological processes that generated that variation, and the complex relationships between assemblage characteristics and the nature of cultural knowledge transmission in social contexts. We conclude with a discussion of the usefulness of cultural taxonomies for the research objectives of twenty-first century Paleolithic archaeology.
... Archaeology would benefit from the development of domain-specific registration templates, such as that for Social Psychology (van 't Veer and Giner-Sorolla 2016), or perhaps for specific types of research, on the model of the "replication recipe" for conducting replication experiments in various disciplines (Brandt et al. 2014). We hope that the current chapter can inform the development of such templates, perhaps in consultation with the proprietors of archaeological data repositories like Open Context (see Bissell 2010), tDAR (McManamon andKintigh 2016;McManamon et al. 2017), and the Archaeology Data Service, whose data dissemination and reuse expertise complements the field data management experience of the FAIMS Project. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Archaeology has an issue with "just-in-time" research, where insufficient attention is paid to articulating a research design before fieldwork begins. Data collection, management, and analysis approaches are under-planned and, often, evolve during fieldwork. While reducing the amount of preparation time for busy researchers, these tendencies reduce the reliability of research by exacerbating the effects of cognitive biases and perverse professional incentives. They cost time later through the accrual of technical debt. Worse, these practices hinder research transparency and scalability by undermining the quality, consistency, and compatibility of data. Archaeologists would benefit from embracing the "preregistration revolution" sweeping other disciplines. By publicly committing to research design and methodology ahead of time, researchers can produce more robust research, generate useful and reusable datasets, and reduce the time spent correcting problems with data. Preregistration can accommodate the diversity of archaeological research, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating research paradigms, and place-specific and generalizing aims. It is appropriate regardless of the technical approach to data collection and analysis. More broadly, it encourages a more considered, thoughtful approach to research design. Preregistration templates for the social sciences can be adopted for use by archaeologists.
... Where we fall short is in synthesizing those data into knowledge about the past and then sharing that knowledge with the public. Such knowledge production requires several things, but we especially need to improve the accessibility of this mass of data that we have been collecting (e.g., McManamon et al. 2017), and we need funding sources to support synthesis efforts (e.g., Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
A quick search on antonyms for “creative” yields obvious results such as “uncreative,” “unimaginative,” and “uninspired,” but also terms such as “dull,” “derivative,” and “stodgy.” In the world of cultural resources and mitigation of adverse effects, “creative” is most often opposed to “standard.” That sounds like a good thing, right? Good old, reliable, dependable, predictable standard mitigation. But as we will see from the articles in this special issue, remarkable things can happen when those designing mitigation programs replace or augment “standard” approaches. What is it about a mitigation measure or program that leads us to term it “creative”? How can we expand those defining qualities of creative mitigation measures and programs to enhance the quality of standard mitigation approaches? How can we make the standard approaches, if not creative, at least not stodgy?
... Some projects and programs in the United States and elsewhere have focused on making archaeological data (e.g., reports, images, data sets, and other kinds of information) more easily accessible for these kinds of comparative studies (e.g., Faniel et al. 2018, McManamon et al. 2017, McManamon & Kintigh 2016, Richards 2017). Altschul and colleagues (Altschul 2016a;Altschul et al. 2017Altschul et al. , 2018 promote new approaches to the synthesis of archaeological data and information to address important cultural, historic, and scientific topics. ...
Article
Keywords archaeology and the law, history of archaeology, cultural resource management, CRM Abstract Since its enactment over five decades ago, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the organizations, policies, and regulations implementing it have strongly influenced how archaeology is conducted in the United States. The NHPA created a national network of archaeologists in government agencies. This network reviews the possible impact on important archaeological resources of tens of thousands of public projects planned each year. These reviews often include investigations, of which there have been millions. The archaeological profession has shifted from one oriented mainly on academic research and teaching to one focused on field investigations, planning, resource management, public outreach, and resource protection, bundled under the term cultural resource management (CRM). Since 1966, growth has produced good outcomes as well as some troubling developments. Current and new challenges include avoiding lock-step, overly bureaucratic procedures and finding the financial, professional, and technical resources, as well as political support, to build on the achievements so far. 553 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:553-574. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Arizona State University on 10/25/18. For personal use only.
... Currently, there are three acceptable means of securing these datasets. First, the data can be curated on a management platform like tDAR, OpenTopography, or other repositories such as Zenodo ( Fernandez-Diaz et al. 2014, McManamon et al. 2017://about.zenodo.org/policies/). These organizations specify goals to ensure the long-term storage and accessibility of these datasets, but each has their unique weaknesses (e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
Maya archaeology has witnessed a paradigm shift in interpretations of the past with regards to the structure and organization of ancient societies as a result of the introduction of lidar to the field a decade ago. Lidar provided control of spatial parameters in a way that had not been previously possible. But, the introduction of this technology has also involved researchers in a series of broader ethical debates. While archaeology has always provided huge data sets for processing, the digital lidar files are even larger and also need appropriate long-term storage and management considerations. It is here that there are differences of opinion worldwide on how to treat lidar data as scientific and open yet national and protected datasets. Some countries do not want fully public access to these files because of the potential danger posed to the looting of their heritage and security or military concerns. Yet, to a large extent, technology is overtaking some of the debate over accessibility, especially as newer satellite technology will surely alter the perceived physical boundaries and challenge the sovereignty of modern nation-states. However, how lidar is used and accessed in the future has become a cross-national issue that is worthy of being addressed in greater detail.
Article
Overview Spatial and shape data represented by 3D digital models have become a central component of our archaeological datasets. Immersive visual and audio interaction with these models offers an intuitive way to use these data. The mixing of the virtual with the real world suits archaeological work particularly well, and the technologies of augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) enable this type of interaction. Much past work on these technologies has involved public engagement, but they also hold the potential for valuable deployment directly in archaeological practice and research, especially the seamless integration offered by MR. This review examines the range of experiments archaeologists are currently undertaking with AR and MR, and it looks to the future applications of these technologies.
Article
Full-text available
Sedimentary charcoal analysis is increasingly used in archaeological and paleoecological research to examine human-environmental relationships at multiple scales. The recent availability of low-cost digital microscopes and imaging software has resulted in the rapid adoption of digital image analysis in charcoal studies. However, most published studies include only minimal accounts of software configurations or utilize proprietary image analysis programs, thus hindering replication, standardization, and comparability of charcoal analyses across the field. In an effort to encourage replicable methods and a culture of open science, this paper presents the Charcoal Quantification Tool (CharTool), a free, open-source suite of charcoal and sediment quantification tools designed for use with ImageJ. CharTool blends standard methods in visual and digital charcoal analysis to increase the analyst’s participation in identifying and measuring charcoal metrics. Each CharTool module is described and demonstrated in a vignette using sedimentary charcoal collected from the Son Servera study area, Mallorca, Spain. A suggested workflow, user-guide, scripted analyses for processing outputs, and download instructions are included as supplementary materials to this article.
Article
Full-text available
Big data have arrived in archaeology, in the form of both large-scale datasets themselves and in the analytics and approaches of data science. Aerial data collected from satellite-, airborne- and UAV-mounted sensors have been particularly transformational, allowing us to capture more sites and features, over larger areas, at greater resolution, and in formerly inaccessible landscapes. However, these new means of collecting, processing, and visualizing datasets also present fresh challenges for archaeologists. What kinds of questions are these methods suited to answer, and where do they fall short? How do they articulate with the work of collecting smaller scale and lower resolution data? How are our relationships with “local” communities impacted by working at the scales of entire provinces, nation-states, and continents? This themed issue seeks to foster a conversation about how the unprecedented expansion of archaeological site detection, the globalization of archaeological data structures and databases, and the use of high-resolution aerial datasets are changing both the way archaeologists envision the past and the way we work in the present. In our introduction to the issue, presented here, we outline a series of conceptual and ethical issues posed by big data approaches in archaeology and provide an overview of how the nine essays that comprise this volume each address them.
Article
Full-text available
As archaeologists expand the accessibility of legacy data, they have an opportunity to use these datasets to design future research. We argue that legacy data can be a critical resource to help predict characteristics of sites and socioeconomic systems. In this article, we present a combined geographic information system (GIS) and network analysis methodology that turns site location data into testable hypotheses about site characteristics and the organization of regional settlement systems. We demonstrate the utility of this approach with a case study: Bronze Age (2700-1100 BC) settlement patterns in the mining region of Hunedoara in southwest Transylvania, Romania. We leverage unsystematically collected site location information in legacy datasets to develop testable predictions about sites, regional networks, and socioeconomic systems that can be evaluated through future systematic surveys and large-scale excavations. Such testable hypotheses can inform archaeological research design by providing a quantitative basis for determining where to focus research efforts and can also help secure funding and fieldwork permits. The method developed here can be applied in diverse archaeological contexts to reinvigorate legacy data as part of future archaeological research design.
Article
Full-text available
In the 21st century, digital data drive innovation and decision-making in nearly every field. However, little is known about the total size, characteristics, and sustainability of these data. In the scholarly sphere, it is widely suspected that there is a gap between the amount of valuable digital data that is produced and the amount that is effectively stewarded and made accessible. The Stewardship Gap Project (http://bit.ly/stewardshipgap) investigates characteristics of, and measures, the stewardship gap for sponsored scholarly activity in the United States. This paper presents a preliminary definition of the stewardship gap based on a review of relevant literature and investigates areas of the stewardship gap for which metrics have been developed and measurements made, and where work to measure the stewardship gap is yet to be done. The main findings presented are 1) there is not one stewardship gap but rather multiple “gaps” that contribute to whether data is responsibly stewarded; 2) there are relationships between the gaps that can be used to guide strategies for addressing the various stewardship gaps; and 3) there are imbalances in the types and depths of studies that have been conducted to measure the stewardship gap.
Article
Full-text available
and data sets resulting from the archaeological investigations un-dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the Tonto Basin of central Arizona. At present, this tDAR collection includes over two dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus several articles that present the results of the investigations undertaken as a part of the Roosevelt Dam project. In addition, we present 205 spreadsheets of key data tables extracted from the comprehensive database of the largest of these projects (the Roosevelt Platform Mound Study [RPMS]) along with the complete database of archaeological data for that project. We intend to continue to expand this collection, especially with databases and extracted spreadsheets from the other two projects. Making the collection of data and information available in tDAR allows anyone with an Internet connection to benefit from unlimited, text-searchable access to the full set of reports that represents core documentation of the Salado phenomenon, important aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed case study of the economic and social organization of village-scale human societies. By providing access to key data tables and the full database we hope to facilitate and stimulate comparative studies and additional analysis of this enormous set of data that will further advance our knowledge of these ancient cultures and the workings of human societies more generally.
Chapter
Full-text available
Main Sections: Agriculture and Domestication.- Archaeology of Art.- Archaeology in the Modern World.- Archaeological Science.- Bioarchaeology and Human Osteology.- Classical Archaeology.- Conservation and Preservation.- Cultural Heritage Management.- Environmental Archaeology.- Ethics.- Extreme Environments.- Field Archaeology.- Geographical and Cultural Overview Essays.- Historical Archaeology.- History of Archaeology.- Human Evolution.- Hunter-Gatherer and Mid-Range Societies.- Indiginous Archaeology.- Islamic Archaeology.- Legislation.- Medieval Archaeology.- Museums.- Near East .- Political and Social Archaeology.- Public Education.- Theory.- Underwater and Maritme Archaeology.- World Heritage.
Article
Full-text available
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 the inevitable choice between one obligation and another, one ethical and one legal. While the amount of digital data grows and the solutions for their 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 archival, data publication, and data preservation repositories and how, as solutions to the digital dilemma, they can be integrated into multiple workflows. I also propose new directions for archaeological associations in 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.
Article
In 2016 the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) was 20 years old. Since its birth the ADS has had to respond to rapid changes in technology, as well as major cultural and organizational changes in the external operating environment, from which a sustainable business model for digital preservation has emerged. This article will take a retrospective look at challenges that have been faced and will review current and future priorities for those seeking to establish digital repositories. Digital preservation and open access to research data are now much higher up the agenda of funding bodies, but there is still lack of agreement on what constitutes a core digital archive from a fieldwork project. The paper will review what the significant properties of an archaeological archive are, and how reuse can be supported, linking data and publications. It will consider the challenge of dealing with the gray literature and of avoiding creating further data silos, featuring new initiatives to provide interoperability between digital repositories. It will review the role of data and metadata standards, and consider how the profession needs to address its responsibilities over the next 20 years.
Article
Archaeologists’ newfound ability to access vast digital collections creates opportunities but also presents challenges when those collections are from varied sources, including public institutions and private collectors. We illustrate these challenges by comparing two analyses of gender in Mimbres pottery images. Both analyses used the same procedures, but one included material in private collections, while the second drew on a smaller but more controlled sample. Gender distinctions and division of labor were revealed by the first analysis, but the results were not duplicated in the reanalysis using the controlled sample. We consider reasons for the difference, addressing how collectors’ interests may skew collections and suggesting that some particularly desirable Mimbres pottery designs were created using modern paint. The article concludes with recommendations for how archaeologists can best use mixed collections. These include considering how collections might be skewed and designing analyses to counterbalance likely issues, more chemical analyses with representative samples to gauge the extent of modern manipulation of Mimbres vessels, collecting data on the provenance (i.e., collection history) of material in order to try to trace the likelihood of post-excavation modifications, and studying the process of collecting as a means of understanding the authenticity of artifacts.
Article
This issue of C&RL is focused on scholarly communication, and it seems appropriate, in this invited guest editorial, to step back and examine the broader agenda that academic and research libraries need to consider today in engaging with scholarly communications as a way of framing the issue. My view is that this agenda is ripe for re-thinking. The overall environment has changed significantly in the last few years, underscoring the growing irrelevance of some long-held ideas, and at the same time, clearly identifying new and urgent priorities. What I hope to do here is to summarize very succinctly my thoughts on the most pressing issues and the areas most needing reconsideration. Articles in this issue touch upon aspects of many of these topics; I hope that future authors may also find topical inspirations here. You’ll note that many of these are issues that have been important to the CNI agenda in recent years, and I’ve included a few references to some of these materials.
Article
For more than 30 years, an increasing number of repositories across the US charge fees for curatorial services when archaeological collections are deposited with them. These fees are instituted to meet the costs of providing high-quality collections care and upholding professional curatorial standards. An informal yet systematic study of repository fees was performed in 1997/98, 2002 and, most recently, in 2007/08 to examine these charges. This article provides current information on curation fee structures across the US, criteria used to establish those fees, and the variability of fees. Significant trends and issues evident over the last ten years and relevant to both the archaeological and curatorial communities are discussed. These include the costs of the archaeological associated records, the impact of curation costs on archaeological fieldwork, the lack of curation space, and the possible need for accreditation or certification of repositories that charge fees for curation.Durante más de 30 años, en todos los EEUU ha habido un número cada vez mayor de repositorios que cobran una comisión para servicios de conservación cuando colecciones de objetos arqueológicos son depositados en ellos. Estas tarifas se instituyen para sufragar los gastos asociados con la prestación de servicios de alta calidad de conservación de colecciones y la mantención de normas profesionales curatoriales. Se realizó un estudio informal pero sistemático sobre las comisiones cobradas por los repositorios en 1997/98, 2002, y, más recientemente, en 2007/08 para examinar estas comisiones. Este artículo proporciona información actualizada sobre las estructuras de las comisiones cobradas por servicios de conservación en todos los EEUU, los criterios utilizados para establecer esas comisiones, y la variabilidad entre dichas comisiones. Tendencias y problemas importantes que se han hecho evidentes durante los últimos diez años y que son relevantes para las comunidades arqueológicas y curatoriales se discuten. Estos incluyen los costos de registros asociados arqueológicos, el impacto de los costos de conservación en el trabajo de campo arqueológico, la falta de espacio para la conservación de objetos, y la posible necesidad de acreditación or certificación de los repositorios que cobran comisiones para servicios de conservación