Embracing the Complexities of ‘Big Data’ in Archaeology: the Case of the English Landscape and Identities Project

This paper considers recent attempts within archaeology to create, integrate and interpret digital data on an unprecedented scale—a movement that resonates with the much wider so-called big data phenomenon. Using the example of our work with a particularly large and complex dataset collated for the purpose of the English Landscape and Identities project (EngLaID), Oxford, UK, and drawing on insights from social scientists’ studies of information infrastructures much more broadly, we make the following key points. Firstly, alongside scrutinising and homogenising digital records for research purposes, it is vital that we continue to appreciate the broader interpretative value of ‘characterful’ archaeological data (those that have histories and flaws of various kinds). Secondly, given the intricate and pliable nature of archaeological data and the substantial challenges faced by researchers seeking to create a cyber-infrastructure for archaeology, it is essential that we develop interim measures that allow us to explore the parameters and potentials of working with archaeological evidence on an unprecedented scale. We also consider some of the practical and ethical consequences of working in this vein.

[1]  Michael B. Schiffer,et al.  Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , 1978 .

[2]  I. Hodder.  Archaeology in 1984 , 1984, Antiquity.

[3]  A. Wylie.  Putting shakertown back together: Critical theory in archaeology , 1985 .

[4]  Linda E. Patrik.  Is There an Archaeological Record , 1985 .

[5]  Michael Shanks,et al.  Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice , 1987 .

[6]  Henry Cleere,et al.  Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World , 1991 .

[7]  M A Musen,et al.  Dimensions of knowledge sharing and reuse. , 1992, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[8]  Thomas H. McGovern,et al.  Regional zooarchaeology and global change: Problems and potentials , 1996 .

[9]  Christopher Tilley.  Archaeology: the loss of isolation , 1998, Antiquity.

[10]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 1999 .

[11]  L. Daston.  Biographies of scientific objects , 2000 .

[12]  Kenneth W. Gobalet,et al.  A Critique of Faunal Analysis; Inconsistency among Experts in Blind Tests , 2001 .

[13]  Gavin Lucas,et al.  Destruction and the Rhetoric of Excavation , 2001 .

[14]  Thomas Yarrow,et al.  Artefactual Persons: The Relational Capacities of Persons and Things in the Practice of Excavation , 2003 .

[15]  Glenn O. Brown,et al.  The Field Archaeology of the Salisbury Plain Training Area , 2002, Britannia.

[16]  Scott R. Hutson,et al.  Reading the past: Index , 2003 .

[17]  Matt Edgeworth,et al.  Acts of discovery : an ethnography of archaeological practice , 2003 .

[18]  Henrik Jarl Hansen,et al.  The European Digital Resource in Archaeology: Sites and Monuments Data as a Common European Web Resource , 2005 .

[19]  B. Latour.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[20]  Sarita Albagli,et al.  Memory Practices in the Sciences , 2008 .

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

[22]  Gary Lock,et al.  Confronting scale in archaeology : issues of theory and practice , 2006 .

[23]  Keith W. Kintigh,et al.  The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration , 2005, American Antiquity.

[24]  Perspective Matters: Traversing Scale through Archaeological Practice , 2006 .

[25]  James Campbell,et al.  Big Opportunities in Access to "Small Science" Data , 2007, Data Sci. J..

[26]  Planning Uncertainty: Creating an Artefact Density Index for North Yorkshire, England , 2007 .

[27]  Jeremy M. G. Taylor.  An atlas of Roman rural settlement in England , 2007 .

[28]  M. Whyman,et al.  Categorising the past: lessons from the archaeological resource assessment for Yorkshire , 2007 .

[29]  David Bawden,et al.  The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[30]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Standards and their stories : how quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life , 2009 .

[31]  Florence Millerand,et al.  Metadata Standards. Trajectories and Enactment in the Life of an Ontology , 2009 .

[32]  John Pybus,et al.  Joining the dots: Exploring technical and social issues in e-Science approaches to linking landscape and artefactual data in British archaeology , 2009, 2009 5th IEEE International Conference on E-Science Workshops.

[33]  Into the Future , 2009 .

[34]  GIS, e-Science and the Humanities Grid , 2010 .

[35]  F. Nicolucci.  Breaking Down National Barriers: ARENA – A Portal to European Heritage Information , 2010 .

[36]  T. Harris,et al.  The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship , 2010 .

[37]  S. Worrell,et al.  A Decade of Discovery , 2010 .

[38]  P. N. Edwards.  A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming , 2010 .

[39]  Keith W. Kintigh,et al.  THE DIGITAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD: THE POTENTIALS OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL DATA INTEGRATION THROUGH TDAR , 2011 .

[40]  Olivier Gargominy,et al.  NATIONAL INVENTORY OF NATURAL HERITAGE WEBSITE.: RECENT, HISTORICAL, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA , 2011 .

[41]  Archaeology in broad strokes: collating data for England from 1500 BC to AD 1086 , 2011 .

[42]  William E. Connolly,et al.  A World of Becoming , 2011, International Dialogue.

[43]  Martin Newman,et al.  The Database as Material Culture , 2011 .

[44]  Michael Fulford,et al.  Assessing the Contribution of Commercial Archaeology to the Study of the Roman Period in England, 1990–2004 , 2011, The Antiquaries Journal.

[45]  D. Boyd,et al.  CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA , 2012 .

[46]  B. Latour,et al.  'The whole is always smaller than its parts': a digital test of Gabriel Tardes' monads. , 2012, The British journal of sociology.

[47]  Development-led archaeology in Denmark , 2012 .

[48]  D. Weinberger.  Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room , 2012 .

[49]  Gavin Lucas,et al.  Understanding the Archaeological Record , 2012 .

[50]  Edmund Lee.  ‘Everything We Know Informs Everything We Do’: A Vision for Historic Environment Sector Knowledge and Information Management , 2012 .

[51]  R. Bradley,et al.  Development-led Archaeology in Northwest Europe , 2012 .

[52]  Amalia S. Levi.  Humanities ‘big data’: Myths, challenges, and lessons , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Big Data.

[53]  L. Gitelman.  "Raw Data" Is an Oxymoron , 2013 .

[54]  Tim Evans,et al.  Holes in the Archaeological Record? A Comparison of National Event Databases for the Historic Environment in England , 2013 .

[55]  Andrew Prescott.  Bibliographic records as humanities big data , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Big Data.

[56]  Lisa Gitelman.  Data Bite Man: The Work of Sustaining a Long-Term Study , 2013 .

[57]  Dean Goodman,et al.  GPR Remote Sensing in Archaeology , 2013 .

[58]  Eric C. Kansa,et al.  Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data , 2012, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.

[59]  Katherine J Robbins,et al.  Balancing the Scales: Exploring the Variable Effects of Collection Bias on Data Collected by the Portable Antiquities Scheme , 2013 .

[60]  Graeme Earl,et al.  Archaeology in the digital era : papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26-29 March 2012 , 2013 .