[open-archaeology] Ethics, archaeology and open data

Tue May 11 10:22:35 UTC 2010

Hey, thanks for starting this one!
Some comments below.

Cheers,

Ben

> Anyway, the position as I see it:
> 
>     • there is an ingrained friction to providing open data
>         • complex underpinning rationale:
>             • contract units (whose data is it anyway?)
>             • national bodies (organisations inertia)
>             • academics (stealing of publication thunder? Does anyone
> have any documented evidence that this has EVER happened?)

I would say that if you have been directing an excavation, then
you will be in a position to know more about it than anyone else and
enjoy an information monopoly which gives you the edge for publication.
Having said that, I have seen geophysics results getting "stolen" ONCE.
But: there are legal tools against this already in place, so we don't
need to worry about this and pretend that we need to be "sheriffing"
something that is already covered by existing law.

>             • individuals (it’s just not something people are used to
> doing)

"People" also used to toss their toilet bowl's contents out the window
and into the public streets at one point. Boy, did things ever get better
when they re-learned!

>     • Public access is provided to some data (either patchy coverage
> or generalised)

The real thing would be to make that mandatory though. Wouldn't it be
nice if archaeological science did not have to rely on data charity
any longer?

>         • Regional and national monuments record

Those are (y)ours, anyway. Power to the people!

>         • Repositories (like the ADS: offering static as opposed to
> dynamic data holdings)
>     • The really interesting and useful stuff is grey (source data is
> silo-ed and inaccessible)
> 
> The oft touted reason, in the UK at least, is that if access is given
> to this information then it will be exploited by “night hawkers”
> (irresponsible metal-detectorists) and other “treasure hunters” and
> sites (I don’t like that word) will be destroyed. This is obviously
> biased and plays to the lowest common denominator. It does not bring
> into play any of the benefits that data sharing can provide.

I'd like to state that your average "treasure hunter" knows about 50 x
more sites in his hunting grounds than his fellow heritage officials do.
These people have and sell stuff that would make any archaeologist's
eyes watery by just thinking about it. They will probably take a look
at our maps and then have a good laugh pointing at all the ones we
missed...

> 
> I think the opposite argument is about those archaeologists who have
> sat on their archive for 10’s of years. We know of its significance
> but it is not available for academic and research analysis and does
> not inform the planning process. It is in someone’s attic waiting to
> be written up in their dotage. This has enormous impact on local
> planning policy, public and academic understanding, theory, practice
> etc. etc. Since PPG16 came in (essentially commercial archaeology) in
> the UK (early 90s (?)) there has been less of this approach. However,
> there are a number of locations where these grey records are the most
> intact heritage statements for substantial areas of the UK.

In terms of negative impact on science, I am actually unable to see any
notable difference between these site squatters and professional treasure
hunters. Except: the treasure hunters' sites are not off-limits to us...

> 
> In my mind those are the polarised worst case ethical scenarios.
> Somewhere in between lies the path of reason. So basically I'm asking:
> 
> 
> 
>     • Is this the kind of thing we should do?
>     • Who should do it (I'm happy to lead or just to participate: if
> this floats someone elses boat)?
>     • Do we need legal advice (can OKFN help in this capacity - you
> do, after all, have some lawyers on board)
>     • Should we align this with other international organisations (I
> think so: UNESCO, ICOMOS and EAC spring to mind)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ant
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside I believe the heritage system, or the UK heritage system
> at least, has too much of a bias towards the generation of synthetic
> material: time and money, IMHO, that could be better spent on putting
> the data in order and making it available. How can we realistically
> advocate informed regional research agendas (which we do in the UK)
> when the data to support these agendas is not available or generalised
> to such an extent that it is not useful?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology

------
Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information.