Cite this as: Novák, D., Oniszczuk, A. and Gumbert, B. 2023 Digital Archaeological Archiving Policies and Practice in Europe: the EAC call for action, Internet Archaeology 63. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.63.7
The digital transition in archaeology is often taken for granted, yet the process is far from complete. The topic of digital archiving has been addressed by both the EAC Working Group for Archaeological Archives and the SEADDA COST Action. These two entities joined forces to produce a special issue of Internet Archaeology, bringing together contributions on digital archiving practices from over two dozen countries. The articles were later analysed by EAC and SEADDA to compare the international situation. The results reveal both shared difficulties associated with the issue of documentary archives worldwide and examples of good practices that help to overcome these problems. A questionnaire survey was also carried out to complement the findings resulting from the interpretation of the published articles, with supporting data covering the whole European area in a balanced way. The survey allowed for the compilation of an overview of the situation in 27 countries (30 regions) of Europe. All respondents were experts involved in digital archiving and/or heritage data management in individual countries. Based on the collected information, the discrepancy between the value of archaeological data and its position within heritage management practice is already proving to be a major shortcoming.
There are imbalances in the level of attention – and the resulting level of protection – given to archives of (digital) archaeological documentation. If we want to find a way to improve the situation, it is necessary to initiate systemic changes, which should manifest themselves on a number of levels. However, these changes are conditional on a political decision that will give the whole process legitimacy, the necessary resources, a clear framework, and the required tools. It is needed to formulate general principles and co-create an environment, including a legislative one, in which archaeological archiving can be carried out in a sustainable and meaningful way in order to bring the highest possible public benefit. Compared with other initiatives, we consider it essential to primarily follow the systemic changes (top-down approach) rather than strive for change in the individual practice of researchers. It is the only way to achieve the real persistence of irreplaceable archaeological data. This article summarises the results achieved and presents proposed approaches to improve the situation in digital archaeological archiving. It concludes, among other things, by proposing a set of guiding principles for archiving primary archaeological data.
Corresponding author: David Novák
novak@arup.cas.cz
Institute of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague
Agnieszka Oniszczuk
aoniszczuk@nid.pl
National Institute of Cultural Heritage, Poland
Barbara Gumbert
b.m.gumbert@erfgoedleiden.nl
Heritage Leiden, Netherlands
Figure 1: Countries or regions with recorded response to the survey. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 2: Spatial summary of responses to question 1 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 3: Spatial summary of responses to question 1 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 4: Spatial summary of responses to question 1 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 5: Spatial summary of responses to question 2 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 6: Spatial summary of responses to question 2 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 7: Spatial summary of responses to question 2 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 8: Spatial summary of responses to question 3 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 9: Spatial summary of responses to question 3 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 10: Spatial summary of responses to question 3 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 11: Spatial summary of responses to question 4 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 12: Spatial summary of responses to question 4 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 13: Spatial summary of responses to question 4 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 14: Summary of answers to questions 3 and 4. The answers to question 4 have been inverted so that the percentage ranges always reflect the proportion of materials digitised, making the data more easily comparable. a – fieldwork data; b – fieldwork reports; c – secondary data. The colour scheme corresponds to the maps.
Figure 15: Spatial summary of responses to question 5 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 16: Spatial summary of responses to question 5 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 17: Spatial summary of responses to question 5 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 18: Spatial summary of responses to question 6 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 19: Spatial summary of responses to question 6 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 20: Spatial summary of responses to question 6 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 21: Spatial summary of responses to question 7 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 22: Spatial summary of responses to question 7 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 23: Spatial summary of responses to question 7 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 24: Spatial summary of responses to question 8 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 25: Spatial summary of responses to question 8 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 26: Spatial summary of responses to question 8 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 27: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering availability. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 28: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering storage capacity. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 29: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering guidelines and workflows. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 30: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering user support. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 31: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering user interfaces. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 32: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering quality monitoring. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 33: Spatial summary of responses to question 9 considering sustainability. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 34: Spatial summary of responses to question 10 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 35: Spatial summary of responses to question 10 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 36: Spatial summary of responses to question 10 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 37: Spatial summary of responses to question 11 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 38: Spatial summary of responses to question 11 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 39: Spatial summary of responses to question 11 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 40: Spatial summary of responses to question 12 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 41: Spatial summary of responses to question 12 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 42: Spatial summary of responses to question 12 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 43: Spatial summary of responses to question 13 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 44: Spatial summary of responses to question 13 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 45: Spatial summary of responses to question 13 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 46: Spatial summary of responses to question 14 considering fieldwork data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 47: Spatial summary of responses to question 14 considering fieldwork reports. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 48: Spatial summary of responses to question 14 considering secondary data. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 49: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering ruleset and planning. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 50: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering missing repository/database. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 51: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering state of digitization. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 52: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering lack of resources. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 53: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering community-related issues. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 54: Spatial summary of responses to question 15 considering lack of FAIRness. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 55: Summary of responses to question 15 (biggest barriers to reuse)
Figure 56: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering better ruleset and planning. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 57: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering increased repository/database availability. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 58: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering technical development. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 59: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering better funding and staffing. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 60: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering digitization. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 61: Spatial summary of responses to question 16 considering community development. Administrative boundaries: European Commission – Eurostat/GISCO
Figure 62: Summary of responses to question 16 (most crucial improvements)
Figure 63: Prerequisites for changes in research culture according to Nosek (2019)
Table 1: Summarised responses to question 9
Council of Europe 2005 Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, CETS No. 199, https://www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention [Last accessed: 30 January 2023].
Council of Europe 2016 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the Internet of citizens, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 February 2016, at the 1247th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, CM/Rec(2016)2.
Council of Europe 2017 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Big Data for culture, literacy and democracy, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 September 2017 at the 1295th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, CM/Rec(2017)8.
Council of Europe 2018 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on culture's contribution to strengthening the internet as an emancipatory force, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 November 2018 at the 1329th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, CM/Rec(2018)10.
European Union 2007 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, 1–14, 32007L0002 - EN - EUR-Lex [Last accessed: 30 January 2023].
Geser, G., Richards, J.D., Massara, F. and Wright, H. 2022. Data Management Policies and Practices of Digital Archaeological Repositories, Internet Archaeology 59. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.59.2
Nosek, B. 2019 Strategy for Culture Change, Center for Open Science. https://www.cos.io/blog/strategy-for-culture-change [Last accessed: 20 February 2023].
Oniszczuk, A., Tsang, C., Brown, D.H., Novák, D. and de Langhe, K. 2021 Guidance on Selection in Archaeological Archiving, EAC Guidelines 3, Namur: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium. https://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/eac-guidlines
Perrin, K., Brown, D.H., Lange, G., Bibby, D., Carlsson, A., Degraeve, A., Kuna, M., Larsson, Y., Pálsdóttir, S.U., Stoll-Tucker, B., Dunning, C. and Rogalla von Bieberstein, A. 2014 A Standard and Guide to Best Practice in Archaeological Archiving in Europe, EAC Guidelines 1. Namur: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium. https://www.europae-archaeologiae-consilium.org/eac-guidlines
Richards, J.D., Jakobsson, U., Novák, D., Štular, B. and Wright, H. 2021 'Digital archiving in archaeology: the state of the art. Introduction', Internet Archaeology 58. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.23
UNESCO 2003 Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, Adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 32nd session, Paris, 15 October 2003.
Internet Archaeology is an open access journal based in the Department of Archaeology, University of York. Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY) Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI are given.
Terms and Conditions | Legal Statements | Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Citing Internet Archaeology
Internet Archaeology content is preserved for the long term with the Archaeology Data Service. Help sustain and support open access publication by donating to our Open Access Archaeology Fund.
Home
