Advertisement

Archaeological Data in the Cloud: Collaboration and Accessibility with the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS)

  • Lynsey A. BatesEmail author
  • Elizabeth A. Bollwerk
  • Jillian E. Galle
  • Fraser D. Neiman
Chapter

Abstract

The burgeoning Open Science movement has inspired the growth of a variety of archaeological and anthropological digital data repositories. Many of these repositories, however, have different methods and goals for curating digital data. With increasing pressure from granting agencies to create a data management plan, archaeologists and anthropologists looking to curate their data must navigate between these different offerings and select the best option to meet the needs of their particular dataset and research goals. This chapter will compare the different types of digital archives and repositories and then use the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS, www.daacs.org) as a case study to explicate some of the challenges inherent in curating archaeological data. DAACS is dedicated to preserving and  presenting legacy collections, and to making recently excavated site data available to the public within a year of excavation. This is a model that could be employed to document not only archaeological assemblages, but also museum objects, texts, and other media. DAACS methods highlight the benefits and challenges for scholars of any discipline who seek to engage in data for not just long-term curation and sharing but also research.

Keywords

Archaeology Artifacts Atlantic World Caribbean Chesapeake Database Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Jamaica Material culture Plantation PostgreSQL Protocols Ruby-on-Rails SQL (Structure Query Language) Slavery Virginia 

Works Cited

  1. Agbe-Davies, A. S., Galle, J. E., Hauser, M. W., & Neiman, F. D. (2013). Teaching with Digital Archaeological Data: A Research Archive in the University Classroom. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21, 837–861.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9178-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul, J. H., Kintigh, K. W., Klein, T. H., Doelle, W. H., Hays-Gilpin, K. A., Herr, S. A., Kohler, T. A., Mills, B. J., Montgomery, L. M., Nelson, M. C., Ortman, S. G., Parker, J. N., Peeples, M. A., & Sabloff, J. A. (2018). Fostering Collaborative Synthetic Research in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbuckle, B. S., Kansa, S. W., Kansa, E., Orton, D., Çakırlar, C., Gourichon, L., Atici, L., Galik, A., Marciniak, A., Mulville, J., Buitenhuis, H., Carruthers, D., De Cupere, B., Demirergi, A., Frame, S., Helmer, D., Martin, L., Peters, J., Pöllath, N., Pawłowska, K., Russell, N., Twiss, K., & Würtenberger, D. (2014). Data Sharing Reveals Complexity in the Westward Spread of Domestic Animals Across Neolithic Turkey. PLoS One, 9(6), e99845.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. V. (1990). The Old Village and the Great House. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, D. V. (2011). Rediscovering the African Jamaican Settlements at Seville Plantation, St. Ann’s Bay. In J. Delle, M. A. Hauser, & D. V. Armstrong (Eds.), Out of Many, One People: The Historical Archaeology of Colonial Jamaica (pp. 77–101). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  6. Atici, L., Kansa, S., Lev-Tov, J., & Kansa, E. (2013). Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1(3), 1–19.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, L. A. (2011). Comparative Spatial Analysis of Nevisian Plantation Landscapes. Paper Presented at the Society for Caribbean Studies Annual Meeting, Liverpool.Google Scholar
  8. Berlin, I. (1998). Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. DAACS. (2017a). Project List: Current Archaeological Sites in DAACS. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery Website. http://www.daacs.org/about-the-database/project-list. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.
  10. DAACS. (2017b). DAACS Cataloging Manuals. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery Website. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/catalogingManual.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.
  11. DAACS. (2017c). DAACS Database Structure. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery Website. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/structure.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2017.
  12. Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Kansa, S. W., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The Challenges of Digging Data: A Study of Context in Archaeological Data Reuse. In JCDL 2013 Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 295–304). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farber, G. K., & Weiss, L. (2011). Core Facilities: Maximizing the Return on Investment. Science Translational Medicine, 3(95), 95CM21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin, M. (1997). Out of Site, Out of Mind: The Archaeology of an Enslaved Virginian Household, ca. 1740–1778. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, M. A. (2015). “Not for Casual Readers:” An Evaluation of Digital Data from Virginia Archaeological Websites. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3476/
  16. Galle, J. E. (2004). Designing Women: Measuring Acquisition and Access at the Hermitage Plantation. In J. E. Galle & A. L. Young (Eds.), Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective (pp. 39–72). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  17. Galle, J. E. (2006). Strategic Consumption: Archaeological Evidence for Costly Signaling Among Enslaved Men and Women in the 18th-Century Chesapeake. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Virginia. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  18. Galle, J. E. (2010). Costly Signaling and Gendered Social Strategies Among Slaves in the 18th-Century Chesapeake. American Antiquity, 75(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galle, J. E. (2011). Assessing the Impacts of Time, Agricultural Cycles and Demography on the Consumer Activities of Enslaved Men and Women in 18th-Century Jamaica and Virginia. In J. Delle, M. Hauser, & D. Armstrong (Eds.), Out of Many, One People: The Historical Archaeology of Colonial Jamaica (pp. 211–242). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  20. Galle, J. E. (2012). Will Today’s Graduate Training in Historical Archaeology Predict the Future of Digital Research Archives? Society for Historical Archaeology Blog. http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=1684
  21. Galle, J. E., Neiman, F. D., Cooper, L., Wheeler, D., Leech, R., & Philpott, R. (2009). Sugar, Slaves, and Shovel-Test-Pits: Preliminary Results from Nevis. Scientific Poster Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  22. Galle, J. E., Neiman, F. D., & Bollwerk, E. A. (2019). The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery: A Case Study in Open Data and Collaboration in the Field of Archaeology. In R. Allen & B. Ford (Eds.), New Life for Old Collections (pp. 54–90). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press and the Society for Historical Archaeology.Google Scholar
  23. Higman, B. W. (1998). Montpelier, Jamaica: A Plantation Community in Slavery and Freedom, 1739–1912. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kansa, S. W. (2015). Using Linked Open Data to Improve Data Reuse in Zooarchaeology. Ethnobiology Letters, 6(2), 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kansa, E., & Kansa, S. W. (2011). Toward a Do-it-Yourself Cyberinfrastructure: Open Data, Incentives, and Reducing Costs and Complexities of Data Sharing. In E. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration (pp. 57–92). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kansa, E., Kansa, S. W., & Arbuckle, B. (2014). Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communication Research Data in Archaeology. International Journal of Digital Curation, 9(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kintigh, K. W. (2006). The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration. American Antiquity, 71(3), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kintigh, K. W. (2009). The Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration. In Technology and Methodology for Archaeological Practice: Practical Applications for the Past Reconstruction (BAR International Series S, 2029, pp. 81–86). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  29. Kintigh, K. W., & Altschul, J. H. (2010). Sustaining the Digital Archaeological Record. Heritage Management, 3(2), 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kintigh, K. W., Altschul, J. H., Beaudry, M. C., Drennan, R. D., Kinzig, A. P., & Kohler, T. (2014). Grand Challenges for Archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(3), 879–880.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324000111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kintigh, K. W., Spielmann, K. A., Brin, A., Selcuk Candan, K., Clark, T. C., & Peebles, M. (2018). Data Integration in the Service of Synthetic Research. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(1), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lupia, A., & Elman, C. (2014). Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(01), 19–42.Google Scholar
  33. Marwick, B. (2015). How Computers Broke Science – And What We Can Do to Fix It. https://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-it-49938. Accessed 22 Feb 2017.
  34. Marwick, B. (2016). Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9.
  35. Marwick, B., & Birch, S. (2018). A Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Archaeological Data as an Incentive to Data Sharing. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.3.
  36. McKee, L. (1995). The Earth Is Their Witness. The Sciences, 35(2), 36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2326-1951.1995.tb03183.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K. M., Gerber, A., Glennerster, R., Green, D. P., Humphreys, M., Imbens, G., Laitin, D., Madon, T., Nelson, L., Nosek, B. A., Petersen, M., Sedlmayr, R., Simmons, J. P., Simonsohn, U., & Van der Laan, M. (2014). Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research. Science, 343(6166), 30.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgan, P. D. (1998). Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  39. Neiman, F. D. (2008). The Lost World of Monticello in Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 64, 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ortiz, F. (1947). Cuban Counterpoint. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Ross, S., & Gow, A. (1999). Digital Archaeology: Rescuing Neglected and Damaged Data Resources. In Project Report. London: Library Information Technology Centre, South Bank University. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/100304/1/100304.pdf.Google Scholar
  42. Russell, A. E. (1997). Material Culture and African American Spirituality at the Hermitage. Historical Archaeology, 31(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Samford, P. (1996). The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture. The William and Mary Quarterly, 53, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Samford, P. (2007). Subfloor Pits, and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, K. Y., & Neiman, F. D. (2007). Frequency Seriation, Correspondence Analysis, and Woodland Period Ceramic Assemblage Variation in the Deep South. Southeastern Archaeology, 26(1), 47–72.Google Scholar
  46. Spielmann, K. A., & Kintigh, K. W. (2011). The Digital Archaeological Record: The Potentials of Archaeozoological Data Integration Through tDAR. SAA Archaeological Record, 11(1), 22–25.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas, B. W. (1998). Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity, 63(4), 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waters, D. J. (2009). Archives, Edition-Making, and the Future of Scholarly Communication. https://mellon.org/media/filer_public/30/9d/309de9a1-94fa-40fb-bb1f-f087333e8658/djw-archives-edition-making-2009.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2015.
  49. Watrall, E. (2011). iAKS: A Web 2.0 Archaeological Knowledge Management System. In E. Kansa, S. W. Kansa, & E. Watrall (Eds.), Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches to Communication and Collaboration (pp. 171–184). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, G., Bryan, J., Cranston, K., Kitzes, J., Nederbragt, L., & Teal, T. K. (2017). Good Enough Practices in Scientific Computing. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(6), e1005510.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynsey A. Bates
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth A. Bollwerk
    • 1
  • Jillian E. Galle
    • 1
  • Fraser D. Neiman
    • 2
  1. 1.Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery, Thomas Jefferson FoundationCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson FoundationCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations