Information flows as bases for archeology‐specific geodata infrastructures: An exploratory study in flanders

Accurate and detailed data recording is indispensable for documenting archeological projects and for subsequent information exchange. To prevent comprehension and accessibility issues in these cases, data infrastructures can be useful. The establishment of such data infrastructures requires a clear understanding of the business processes and information flows within the archeological domain. This study attempts to provide insights into how information is managed in Flemish archeological processes and how this management process can be enhanced: an exploratory study based on an analysis of the new Flemish Immovable Heritage Decree, informal interviews with Flemish archeological organizations, and the results of an international survey. Three main processes, in which certified archeologists and the Flemish Heritage agency are key actors, were identified. Multiple types of information, the majority of which contain a geographical component, are recorded, acquired, used, and exchanged. Geographical information systems (GIS) and geodatabases therefore appear to be valuable components of an archeology‐specific data infrastructure. This is of interest because GIS are widely adopted in archeology and multiple Flemish archeological organizations are in favor of a government‐provided exchange standard or database templates for data recording. Furthermore, free and open source software is preferred to ensure cost efficiency and customizability.

[1]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Cybertools and Archaeology , 2006, Science.

[2]  Philippe De Maeyer,et al.  The role, opportunities and challenges of 3D and geo-ICT in archaeology , 2014 .

[3]  M. Lake,et al.  Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology , 2006 .

[4]  Annemarie Draye Het Onroerenderfgoeddecreet van 12 juli 2013 , 2015 .

[5]  Machteld Bats,et al.  Development-led archaeology in Flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990-2010 , 2012 .

[6]  Robert Shaw,et al.  Developing a Spatial Data Infrastructure for Archaeological and Built Heritage , 2012, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[7]  Cornelis Stal,et al.  Integrating geomatics in archaeological research at the site of Thorikos (Greece) , 2014 .

[8]  Ethan Watrall,et al.  Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration , 2011 .

[9]  Gavin Lucas,et al.  Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice , 2000 .

[10]  H. Pyttersen Tzn,et al.  Memorie van Toelichting , 1894 .

[11]  Eric C. Kansa Archaeology 2.0: New Tools For Communication and Collaboration , 2011 .

[12]  Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu,et al.  Belgium is a federal state , 1994 .

[13]  Philippe De Maeyer,et al.  A Survey on the Use of GIS and Data Standards in Archaeology , 2013 .

[14]  Wilfried Swenden,et al.  The politics of Belgium: Institutions and policy under bipolar and centrifugal federalism , 2006 .

[15]  Philippe De Smedt,et al.  Towards a three-dimensional cost-effective registration of the archaeological heritage , 2013 .

[16]  Åsa Berggren,et al.  Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology , 2003, American Antiquity.

[17]  Angela M. Labrador Ontologies of the Future and Interfaces for All: Archaeological Databases for the Twenty-First Century , 2012, Archaeologies.

[18]  Markos Katsianis,et al.  A 3D digital workflow for archaeological intra-site research using GIS , 2008 .

[19]  Maurizio Forte,et al.  Cyber-Archaeology: Notes on the simulation of the past , 2011 .

[20]  John McAuley,et al.  Archiving Archaeological Spatial Data: Standards and Metadata , 2009 .

[21]  Van Der Sype,et al.  Vernietiging laatste zin artikel 6.1.2 van het Vlaamse decreet van 12 juli 2013 betreffende het onroerend erfgoed , 2016 .

[22]  Kristian Kristiansen,et al.  Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity , 2009 .

[23]  Julian Thomas,et al.  The great dark book: archaeology, experience and interpretation , 2004 .