Comments on: Data Sharing in Archaeology

By: Brad Hafford

Brad Hafford — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:46:13 +0000

This is exactly the sort of thing I am hoping to discuss with everyone at THATCamp. Sharing data is what my project is all about and I’m particularly interested in how to share spatial information in an open-source way.

See you all at THATCamp CAA-NA

Brad

By: mmr03

mmr03 — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 23:03:08 +0000

Hi Ethan,

Brilliant! I like the idea. It will certainly allow the public and independent researchers to use general location data for spatial analysis without jeopardizing archaeological sites.

By: Ethan Gruber

Ethan Gruber — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:51:07 +0000

Hi Mandy,

The IGCH records findspots to the nearest modern town. The coordinates on the map aren’t the precise findspot, but coordinates of the town provided by wikipedia or geonames, which is usually the address of the town hall.

By: Tim Goddard

Tim Goddard — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:31:22 +0000

I am working both in Italy and the united states using Gis and/or WebGIS as a Portal to various databases. This way we don’t have to make one universal database(this has always been the problem in the past) we record everything in its spatial context as the unique identifier and then can link to a variety of different database types. This seems to give our projects the most flexibility to work with a wide variety data schema. As WebGIS expands there are many open and off the shelf options that work. With the advent of the cloud there are low cost solutions that don’t require a substantial infrastructure to build to host the WebGIS. As more archaeological websites abound the user interfaces will continue to reach a wider audience and allow them to access like never before. I think we are at a time were we need to experiment and work with the various stakeholders to develop user interfaces to meet their needs. A WebGIS I built in the states has found unexpected stakeholders such as realtors, architects, and school teachers beyond the historians, archaeologists, local homeowners, and students that I initially designed the site for.

By: Mandy Ranslow

Mandy Ranslow — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:25:58 +0000

So even though the lat/longs look pretty precise on that record, and I can plug them into Google Maps and get an exact location, it’s not necessarily the precise find spot of the coins?

By: Ethan Gruber

Ethan Gruber — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:49:41 +0000

This is an issue that we are tackling with coin hoards (3 or more coins found together in the same context) and also what the Portable Antiquities Scheme deals with daily. Archaeologists record precise geographical coordinates, but only make available to the public a more generalized "inhabited place" to prevent potential looting. With OCRE, we are interested in geographic distribution of coins on a more global scale. We're not concerned that two specimens of a particular coin type are found in adjacent rooms in a shop in Pompeii, but we'd like to know that there are two coins found in Pompeii. For our purposes, the nearest ancient (or modern) place is good enough--Pompeii, Alexandria, Homs, etc. This record from the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards merely lists Kerch in Crimea as its findspot.

By: Mandy Ranslow

Mandy Ranslow — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:11:07 +0000

I think this sounds like a very interesting project. I am interested in making archaeological data available online to the public, and I have been involved in discussions on how that could be done with state archaeological site files. I do stuggle with making all the information public. Are find spot locations of particular coins part of the OCRE? How precise is the location information? Is there any concern about looting of these sites if this information is public? While I enthusiastically embrace the ability to share archaeological information with the public digitally, I wonder where we need to draw the line for preservation’s sake.