Internet Archaeology 58. Digital Archiving in Archaeology: The State of the Art

Archaeology produces large quantities of data, much of it already in a born-digital format. The preservation of these data is vital, as they result from unrepeatable actions, and access to and sharing of these data are the engine of research activities and knowledge development. The creation of archaeological data repositories, in addition to safeguarding data, is a valuable step in supporting research, but it requires a series of work processes, namely data standardisation and use of common nomenclatures, so published data are findable and reusable.The creation of an archaeological data repository for Portugal is a fundamental requirement. It would allow the safeguarding of data resulting from archaeological fieldwork, along with those resulting from research, making them findable, accessible and liable to be used in future research or even to be re-analysed using new technologies and tools. This article presents the evolution of the digitisation of archaeological information in Portugal, the responsibilities for its production and safeguarding, as well as the steps to be followed for its availability in a data repository.

The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic (MB SR) and the Regional Monuments Boards have been the state administrators of the cultural heritage, including archaeology, since 2002. This article aims to map the current state of archaeological digital archives within MB SR and eight Regional Monuments Boards, as well as present the usage and management of digital datasets within ongoing projects. The central archive of the MB SR maintains historical plans and cultural heritage documentation, created since the 1920s and continuously digitised (the collections of negatives, diapositives, projects, plans, schematic maps, and fieldwork documentation). Since 2012, MB SR has taken part in the Digital Monuments Fund project. Within this project, 2D and 3D documentation of a great number of cultural monuments has been created. In 2019 the implementation phase of the Monuments information system (PAMIS) project started. Its basic modules are the presentation layer, the knowledge agenda and state administration. There are several features in preparation within these modules, such as: updating; collection, consolidation and GIS processing of archaeological site data that belong to the monuments fund, including data from aerial laser scanning; the archaeological excavation registry and the archive of fieldwork reports; the registry of finds in the administration of MB SR; the electronic processing of the state administration activity within the protection of the archaeological cultural heritage. The PAMIS project will provide processed data and make them accessible to the state and public administration, owners of monuments, as well as to professionals and the general public, using online solutions (web GIS) with various approaches according to defined user roles.

Archaeological documentation from surveys and excavations in Norway are created by a limited number of actors. Excavations are mainly carried out by the five university museums. NIKU (Norwegian Institute for Cultural Research) is responsible for excavations of medieval cities and churches. Maritime museums excavate in lakes, rivers, and below past and present sea level. Archaeological surveys are mainly the responsibility of the counties.Riksantikvaren (Directorate of National Heritage) is responsible for the national Historic Environment Records (HER), Askeladden, which offers the possibility to upload or insert links to reports from archaeological investigations. Riksantikvaren also archives excavation documentation from churches and medieval cities. The Norwegian university museums have, since the 1990s, cooperated on digitising a national repository and making the collections available online. Presently there are also repositories at the maritime museums, Riksantikvaren and the counties. The infrastructure ADED (Archaeological Digital Excavation Documentation) is a repository for detailed excavation documentation, and the BItFROST infrastructure project contributes to better storage and availability of 3D data. Future development will be more complete national databases, and towards closer international cooperation, creating better integration and availability of several repositories.

In the past, data from archaeological investigations, as well as research projects led by universities have not been archived or made publicly accessible. Synthetic publications such as papers, reports and articles have been available, but not the underlying data files containing the original data to be reused or combined with new/other datasets for further research.Archaeological investigations are regulated within Sweden, but it has only recently been possible for that data to be preserved and disseminated in a more streamlined way. The mandatory requirement to archive research data at universities is often not enforced, resulting in a loss of data that is very problematic. This is now slowly changing owing to requirements from both governmental bodies and funding agencies, and therefore the future of archaeological data in Sweden looks a bit brighter.

This article provides a brief overview of archaeological digital archiving in Turkey. It introduces the legal framework and the stakeholders involved in conducting archaeological excavations and surveys. The current situation in archiving born-digital and digitised documentation produced during archaeological fieldwork is then introduced. Existing repositories serving as hubs for archaeological and heritage archiving are listed and briefly discussed. Analysis of online publishing practices for archaeological digital resources points to an eclectic landscape that only minimally complies with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles. We conclude that guidelines for best practice in metadata and semantic technologies, locally applicable standards (especially controlled vocabularies), technical know-how, and a larger acceptance of open data and scholarship remain much-needed assets for archaeological digital archiving in Turkey. We also conclude that the future promises progress towards more interoperable archaeological digital archives thanks to international training, network and knowledge transfer opportunities (e.g. SEADDA Project).

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.

This article discusses the state-of-the art of digital archives for archaeological research in Argentina. It also presents and characterises the national and international legal framework and the role played by funding agencies and professional bodies in archaeological practice. In addition, it reports how legal corpora regulate the impact on the management of archaeological digital data. Research infrastructures available at the national level are described, such as the Suquía, an institutional digital archive devoted to archaeology since 2016. Finally, we make a general evaluation of the status quo of research infrastructures mostly concerned with preserving and disseminating data from archaeological research at the national level.

Since 2005, the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Baden-Württemberg has been collecting semi-structured archaeological digital project data with the aim of one day turning that data into a real long-term digital archive. This process is still ongoing. In the last 15 years appropriate data formats have been defined, and the transition from CAD to GIS as the mainstay of project recording in Baden-Württemberg has been made. The research-driven development of the Software Survey2GIS (GNU GPL), initiated by the Landesamt für Denkmalpflege Baden-Württemberg, facilitates on the one hand an easy-to-use transition of field data into GIS and on the other better control of data formats. We are learning to cope with increasingly more complex data - laser scan, LIDAR and sfm data. The recent advent of commercial archaeology in the state of Baden Württemberg is another factor with which we are confronted. We have experimented with the best methods of convincing archaeologists, technicians and ancillary staff of the necessity of saving their data in a central repository - for example friendliness, even occasional coercion, as well as the guarantee of recoverable data if the deposition rules are followed. The boundary of each saved excavation or survey project is uploaded to the State's own cultural heritage GIS-Application - ADAB - where it can be accessed by researchers. A simple click within the polygon will invoke metadata about the project as well as a selection of quintessential photos. The excavation archive in Baden-Württemberg is, as yet, by no means a fully accessible, usable 'real' digital archive. But we are succeeding in saving the data in a structured manner for future transition into that 'real' archive - hopefully as a pilot project within the framework of the federally financed NFDI infrastructure.

As in other countries, Czech archaeology has embarked on a journey of digitisation. This creates the need to cope with the rapid growth of digital data, which must be stored securely over the long term and be accessible in a comprehensible and useful way. This causes several problems. Although there is a centralised and well-resourced digital agenda that meets the requirements of the Heritage Law, outdated legislation and the absence of comprehensive rules do nothing to regulate the management of the most valuable data - the primary documentation of fieldwork events. At present, only summary information on archaeological fieldwork and the final reports, which should contain a substantial selection of documentation, are centrally collected and stored. This is a situation that is difficult to accept as primary (raw) data with a greater information value is disappearing into thin air. The premise for change lies in supplying the existing central infrastructure - The Archaeological Information System of the Czech Republic (AIS CR) - with the tools to acquire and archive primary data on a larger scale, while at the same time, amending the legal obligations imposed on archaeological practitioners. Sustainable change requires a significant overhaul of the current concept, objectives and especially the practice of archaeological fieldwork projects, particularly in the planning and post-excavation phases.

In the Republic of Serbia, digitisation of cultural heritage was recognised as a segment of cultural development, while the digitisation process is understood as part of a complex system of managing cultural heritage in institutions of protection, such as museums, institutes for the protection of cultural heritage etc. By focusing on the issue of electronic/digital archaeological heritage management in Serbia's institutes for protection, this article briefly describes the national framework of archaeology in the country and presents some crucial moments in the journey towards digitisation and electronic management of archaeological heritage in Serbia since the 1990s. It also discusses recent efforts by the Ministry of Culture and Information in terms of regulating the procedure of cultural heritage digitisation and establishing a common information system. Finally, it identifies current challenges in archaeological data management in cultural heritage institutions and briefly discusses possible future scenarios.

In Hungary, certain site documents, such as the Preliminary Archaeological Documentation (PAD), 30-day report and 1-year report, have to be submitted to centralised institutions. The content and format of these documents are regulated, facilitating their digital archiving and accessibility. However, further documents (inventories, databases, scientific assessments, interdisciplinary analysis, photos, drawings, etc.), mainly created by the museum that carried out the excavation, may not end up in the designated repositories. Instead, these documents are stored in the local museums that carried out the excavations and/or where the finds are kept.It is a major problem that there is no officially-appointed, centralised hard copy and/or digital repository in Hungary where all site documents are stored and made accessible. In this respect, there are millions of files stored in museums all over the country that are neither used nor reused and are not accessible, and without the archaeological community, or even central institutions, being aware of them. Another problem is that digital archiving of archaeological documents is not regulated either on a national or local level.The only repository that includes both metadata and documents in Hungary is the Archaeology Database of the National Museum. This database provides a solution for depositing digital documents, and it could serve as a national repository where documents can be stored and accessed online in one place (through access levels). However, submitting digital documents to the archaeology database is unregulated and it is completely voluntary. The archaeology database has the potential to assist archiving on a national level should it become compulsory to submit documents to it, as its structure was designed in accordance with the protocols and it hosts documents.

Japan is producing a vast amount of archaeological data because of the high number of rescue excavations taking place every year in the country. However, municipal administrations are struggling to cope with storing and disseminating the accumulated data. This article gives an overview of how fieldwork reports and archaeological illustrations are framed in national policies and how that affects the way they are handled locally, both in physical and digital form.Article has an altmetric score of 6

Archaeological data archiving has not been a major concern in Catalonia. The heritage legal corpus does not engage with the archiving and curation of archaeological data other than the excavation reports. However, it highlights the responsibility of the administration in cataloguing and disseminating the cultural heritage. For this reason, a lot of effort has been invested during the past few years in inventorying known archaeological sites and publishing archaeological reports, with the aim of increasing the transparency of the administration towards its citizens.This article describes the present situation for archaeology in Catalonia, its legal framework and the main initiatives carried out to archive, manage, and publish archaeological data from a user's point of view. Its main aim is to evaluate the current state of archaeological data archives and public databases by analysing the existing platforms with a set of indicators. This assessment leads to the conclusion that the current repositories and databases could be more worthwhile if some limitations were overcome, but also that the advance in archaeological data archiving is restricted by existing law.

This article highlights how the Italian Central Institute for Archaeology (ICA) is developing the National Geoportal for Archaeology (GNA), based on the ARIADNEplus infrastructure and its policy framework. Thanks to the GNA project, it will be possible to search and learn about archaeological documentation managed by Superintendencies and Universities holding a significant amount of archaeological data, much of which is either completely or partially unpublished.