+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Who owns our archaeology? (/showthread.php?tid=3919)
Who owns our archaeology? - Marcus Brody - 4th May 2011
Sith Wrote:Either way, the numbers who could realistically be expected make use of this is so small that it would just be clogging up a chunk of bandwidth that could be better used for something else (like better on line reports).
That's basically what I was saying, that it would be better to spend more time on preparing more accessible reports for wider audiences. However, although I agree that the audience for 'raw' site data is likely to be limited, I do think you can make a reasonable case for doing it. Although later archaeologists wanting to re-assess the site may be happy to visit the archive, it would be simpler if the material was accessible online, particularly if they want to look at several sites in an area, whose physical archives may be located in a variety of disparate places. I also don't think it would only be pedants trying to find errors who would be interested - you'd also potentially get people who wished to use the information to draw their own conclusions about the site or to assess the validity of the official interpretation by looking at the unmediated data.
Who owns our archaeology? - pdurdin - 4th May 2011
Sith Wrote:... but the whole archive down to the last dog-eared context sheet? ... the numbers who could realistically be expected make use of this is so small that it would just be clogging up a chunk of bandwidth...1. Storage is incredibly cheap. It's not clogging up bandwidth unless the archive is only available in its entirety. If people have the ability to only download the bits they want to look at then it's not going to cause any bandwidth issues.
2. It may be simpler in some cases to make available an entire archive than to selectively choose which bits to put online.
3. Having an entire archive available provides extra searching and cross-referencing possibilities which might not be available with a limited subset of the data.
The number of people who would use such a resource may be questionable, but imagine having the ability to sit down and look at all the information available for any given site without having to search through multiple archives both online and offline. The real stumbling block for a site like that lies in the transfer of reports from paper (and the older the reports the worse it gets) -- without someone being paid to do it!
But, to get a bit more back on topic, if archaeology/heritage is owned by all, then such a (public) resource is ideal.
Who owns our archaeology? - P Prentice - 5th May 2011
Sith Wrote:Web-based publication of the results and considered interpretation of a site for a variety of audiences i can understand, but the whole archive down to the last dog-eared context sheet? Why? Only two groups of people could possibly be interested:
Later archaeologists wanting to check specific details and who would probably be happy visiting an archive to see them; and
Pedants who want to shout 'Gotcha' becuse a context has been mis-represented somewhere in the report or because they want to prove that a WSi wasn't followed to the nth degree.
Either way, the numbers who could realistically be expected make use of this is so small that it would just be clogging up a chunk of bandwidth that could be better used for something else (like better on line reports).
dont we make security copies anyway?
Who owns our archaeology? - kevin wooldridge - 5th May 2011
I recall a presentation by someone from the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) at TAG 2008. This showed how the amount of data storage space required for archaeological archives exponentially increased year on year, way beyond the realms of predictability. And this was only for data already in a digital format and didn't take account of any programmes to digitise the existing 'analogue' archive. He also made the point that some forms of technology being introduced into archaeology,although in a digital form, produced even more demand on the current systems....I think he made a particular mention of the point clouds produced by various forms of laser scanning...
Who owns our archaeology? - pdurdin - 5th May 2011
PMed you Kevin as this is going way off-topic! :face-huh:
Who owns our archaeology? - Sith - 5th May 2011
pdurdin Wrote:1. Storage is incredibly cheap.
Tell that to the ADS. The last time any of our subcontractors asked about this, the price quoted was astronomical.
Who owns our archaeology? - pdurdin - 5th May 2011
Sith Wrote:Tell that to the ADS. The last time any of our subcontractors asked about this, the price quoted was astronomical.Let me rephrase: storage hardware is incredibly cheap. The ADS are providing more than just a space to put data, and that is what they're charging for (this page details their charging policy -- at the base rate of 30p/MB it's several thousand times higher than the cost of hard drives!).
Who owns our archaeology? - Wax - 5th May 2011
The trouble with digital data is that the storage medium changes at a frightening rate and the archive needs to be migrated to the next medium. To get back to who does archaeology belong to? It belongs to who ever paid for it :face-stir: Yes I know it should belong to all but that is not the reality.
Who owns our archaeology? - P Prentice - 9th May 2011
Wax Wrote:The trouble with digital data is that the storage medium changes at a frightening rate and the archive needs to be migrated to the next medium. To get back to who does archaeology belong to? It belongs to who ever paid for it :face-stir: Yes I know it should belong to all but that is not the reality.
i will still contest that it actually belongs to all of us. whilst we allow ourselves to be constrained by a reactionary orthodoxy which insists otherwise, archaeologists will be at the mercy of vested interests with no regard for progress or vision. i say let's be subversive, let's free archaeology
Who owns our archaeology? - Wax - 9th May 2011
I agree it belongs to us all but how the hell do we ensure we all have access to it (not everybody has access to the WWW or wants it) . Especially in a world of commercial and academic interests who for a variety of reasons feel the need to restrict it. My constraints are driven by the contracts I have signed up to and like many people I am not that willing to put my job and lively hood on the line. I have to earn a living and do not have the good fortune to be able to choose my employer so I am at the mercy of vested interests.
Come the day I am free of these constraints I will crusade for archeaology for all (I already do but well below the radar
) Be subversive free archaology but rule number one is ....dont get caught doing it }
