KMay_EAA2024_Rome_#381_Capacity Building for FAIR Data Sharing and Digital Preservation_SlideShare.pptx

EAA2024 Rome presentation in session #381 "Capacity Building for FAIR Data Sharing and Digital Preservation"

1. Re-engineering Which Processes ? To what extent are post-excavation (PX) practices, techniques and documentation as well established as methods for on-site recording? Dr James Taylor University of York Lecturer in Field Archaeology & Digital Methods Dr Kenneth Aitchison Dr Doug Rocks-Macqueen Landward Research Presented by Prof Keith May FSA [email protected] Historic England & AHRC Leadership Fellow Visiting Professor University of South Wales - Hypermedia Research Unit Honorary Senior Research Fellow University of Sheffield – Maths & Statistics

2. The Data Problem: Lack of I nteroperability and Reuse in digital project data ( un-FAIR ) Evidence (Primary ) & Interpretive ( Secon dary ) data in PX not consistently archived . Aim to C ollate PX manuals & map Output data to conceptual models for synthesis Project One – Background of The Matrix project PX Analysis practices – Consistent or Inconsistent? Re-use of Stratigraphic data – Primary Excv records & PX interpretations Project Two – Archaeologists Guide To Good Practice – Handbook Online AG2GP-Handbook – Sign-posting Outputs in digital archives Facilitating more consistent practice – CPD & Teaching Recommendations & Discussion Topics Presentation Overview

3. Matrix Project - 9 key variables influencing PX Outputs Funding source and financial constraints ( i.e . research or commercially led) Project management regime ( i.e. research, commercial, or infrastructure) Location ( i.e. urban or rural)  Scale ( i.e . Infrastructure or single site project); considering: Practical size/layout of the “site” e.g. in UK - HS2 / Must Farm / 1 trench Watching Brief? Complexity/depth of stratigraphy of archaeology encountered Amount of dating evidence encountered in the stratigraphic units Methodological choices ( i.e . single context vs multi-context, planum, locus, etc) Staff resources & digital skills ( i.e . required training & continuing professional development) Digital practice and changes which will continue to develop (consider for example the impact of GIS, 3D technologies, Bayesian chronological modelling). Research Objectives ( i.e. “fashions” of changing theory) Data recorded in the present ( i.e . scientific statements & systematics; after Dunnell 1971 ) as opposed to less precise free text interpretation about “The Past”. 3 that may especially increase the variability ( unFAIRness ) in archaeological data, but which we could signpost better?

4. How does Process Model l ing for Analysis activities help with understanding the problem ? Aim to Identify common steps in the Analysis process Interviews of 10 Main Archaeological organizations in UK Identify and clarify differing approaches to PX process Enable semantic mappings between common concepts and terms used in Analysis knowledge process(es) to enhance synthesis Research Funded Project process Commercial Developer Funded Projects process (CRM) Typical (UK) Archaeology Project Stages Published Stratigraphic Data Archived Stratigraphic Data Excavation - Archived Stratigraphic Data Analyzed Stratigraphic Data Re-Use Previous Excavations Stratigraphic Data The Problem: Stratigraphic Archive data not Interoperable / Reusable Update DMP Update DMP Update DMP ArchiveFinal DMP & reference/cite in New DMP Tales From Two River Banks DMP = D ata M anagement P lan

5. The Code is more what you’d call “Guidelines” than actual Rules AG2GP-Handbook - To what extent are PX practices, techniques and documentation as well established as the methods for on-site recording Principles Exploring the feasibility , cost benefits, & business viability for a consortium of commercial archaeological practitioners to develop & sustain an online handbook Sustainability of the online resources – A consortium to share costs in future Scope of what’s needed (PX start – need correct fit with Recording & other stages of work too ?) What about producing related CPD materials ? – partner organizations to cover own needs? What already exists that could be useful? – any examples from beyond UK? General Question to audience - Any examples of similar business models from elsewhere in Europe? Globally? Practicals – if aiming for sustainable resource online Collaborative work between experienced archaeologists across the UK from developer funded and academic backgrounds Guidelines that ‘sign-post’ differing digital Outputs created by different methods Undertaking for staff resource to sustain a PX Handbook alive & up to date over time (FAIR). Incorporating existing/new Continuing Professional Development (CPD) materials (CIfA & FAME) Linkages to University and Community courses e.g. MOOCs? (UAUK, CBA & CIfA in the UK)

6. https://archgoodpractice.com/

7. Next Step - Linking Analysis Outputs to the Data in Archives Handbook to highlight Good Practice Examples that exist in Archives or Publications Signposting where PX analysis data resides in archives Better enabling Findability & Reusability of data for synthesis

8. Overview of Current Practices for Digital Data from PX encountered during Matrix & AG2GP projects There is no commonly accepted consistent (FAIR & Open) practice for ensuring that primary stratigraphic data from excavations is included in digital archives. This position for stratigraphic data seems symptomatic of broader issues with PX digital data V aluable initiatives, such as the CIfA “Dig Digital Toolkit” ( https://www.archaeologists.net/digdigital ), have begun to address what is included in the digital archive from excavations , but the processes used in post-excavation (PX) analysis stage of projects still varies quite markedly. T herefore, the by-products from the PX stage of the archaeological process are far less consistent in any resulting digital archives . Experience in the UK , as reported through ARIADNE+, shows “comparison of the number of archives deposited with the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) against an estimated number of projects found that, at best, 2-3% of all commercial projects have been digitally archived with the ADS” (Tsang 2021). Netherlands (comparativel y) – “ C ommercial archaeology” is responsible for approximately 90% of all archaeological research in the Netherlands. Data & Reports deposited with DANS. “ constraints explain the mosaic nature of the resulting datasets. They serve their legal purpose of evaluating the archaeological value of the area, but they usually do not carry enough information for a full-fledged analysis of the site. ” ( Peixe 2022 – Thesis)

9. Capacity Building To Bridge PX skills covered in University Courses & Commercial Practice Professional Development Gaps: Consider the effects of training gaps on quality and consistency in archaeological practices and resulting data outputs in archives. Importance of PX Skills: PX skills are crucial for analysing, preserving, and effectively FAIR sharing of findings and results. Need for Structured Training Programs: Emphasise the urgency in addressing these gaps to maintain integrity in archaeological work. Recommendations: the need for best practice guidelines, modular updatable handbooks, and other structured programs. Better consistency between PX practices covered in University courses & commercial practice – Theoretical Knowledge vs Practical Skills

10. University Education Shortfalls Current Training Gaps: U niversities primarily focus on theoretical knowledge and limited basic fieldwork skills. Impact on Graduates: T his leaves most archaeology graduates unprepared for the complexities of PX work, such as artefact analysis, digital skills and report writing. On-the-Job Learning: PX skills often acquired through informal, project-based learning. Variability in Skill Levels: I nconsistency in skill acquisition and variable knowledge transfer due to the lack of structured programs. Continuing Professional Development and Reliance on Informal Training Methods Capacity Building & Filling Training Gaps

11. Proposed Training & CPD Resources Best Practice Guidelines: benefits of standardised guidelines. Modular Handbook: comprehensive, flexible resource can cater to varying expertise levels. MOOCs: O nline courses offer accessible, structured learning for CPD. Workshops and Day Schools: benefits of short, intensive training sessions for hands-on learning. Teaching Resources: S tandardised materials for educators and trainers to deliver consistent, high-quality training. Mentoring Programs and Apprenticeships: B enefits of mentoring and on-the-job training.

12. Summary of Initial Recommendations Implementation in Tertiary Education Supplementing Existing Curricula : Strategies to enrich university curricula with practical PX training resources, workshops, and elective courses. Overcoming Institutional Constraints : Address challenges related to schedules, resources, and theoretical perceptions. Enhancing Student Engagement : S trategies to increase student participation in PX training. Deployment in the Commercial Sector Advocate formal training programs and consistent mentorship structures. Tailored CPD Programs : CDP initiatives to address specific skill gaps. Integration with Project Schedules: S trategies for integrating training into existing workflows. Collaboration with Professional Bodies : Importance of accreditation and standardisation through collaboration with bodies such as CIfA . Challenges and Further Considerations B alancing Theory and Practice : Acknowledge the challenge of balancing theoretical knowledge with practical skills. Ensuring Accessibility and Inclusivity : Emphasise the importance of accessible training resources for a diverse audience. Future-Proofing Content : Suggest strategies for regularly updating training materials to reflect the latest practices.

13. Improving PX practices for Dating Evidence Improved consistency PX practice (and ergo archive data) could increase re-use of data for improving accuracy of finds dating evidence. Quantifying Uncertainty in Expert Archaeological Dating Evidence - QUEADE Project. Potential to extend Bayesian Chronological Modelling methods to enable better consistency in quantifyin g finds dating from finds experts for use alongside scientific dates and stratigraphic data relationships. With thanks to James Taylor Bayliss, A, and Marshall, P, 2022 Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling: Guidelines and Best Practice (Historic England, London).

14. AG2GP- Handbook: Next Steps FAME did not want to host an S&G resource UK- 21 st Century Challenges for Archaeology Programme - HE CIfA S&G – Toolkit Glossary mappings Semantics of process Signposting data Outputs

15. Conclusion: Re-engineer for Re-Use FAIR archaeological data including better sign-posting of key Outputs from PX 4 Use Data Management Plans (DMPs) to make this fundamental archaeological data more sustainably Findable , Accessible , Interoperable and Reusable  ( FAIR Principles  2016) across present day geo-political (period), and spatio -temporal, boundaries? Recycle FAIRly Agree standards for openly sharing digital PX analysis data records and enable better structured Legacy/hardcopy data 3 FAIR data should imply Open data for sharing between humans , not just machine interoperable metadata. To facilitate better understanding, communication and knowledge transfer. Reuse Data that is fit for purpose 2 Stratigraphic data should be re-usable effectively e.g. minimum as CSV files, rather than as images of matrix diagrams buried in a PDF document. Practically derived from existing processes ( eg. Harris Matrix ) to facilitate ease of use and re-use 1 Need more consistent practice for digital records of PX analyses such as stratigraphic, phasing and temporal relationships (amongst others) to enable better synthesis. Reduce Avoid proliferation of unnecessary digital materials. With acknowledgement to Jeremy Huggett ( remix is good too!)

16. Bradley, R. 2006 ‘‘Bridging the Two Cultures. Commercial Archaeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain,’’ Antiquaries Journal 86: 1–13. Dye, T.S. & Buck, C.E. 2015 Archaeological sequence diagrams and Bayesian chronological models. Journal of Archaeological Science, 63. 84 - 93. ISSN 0305-4403 Harris, E.C. 1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (2 nd Edition) . London: Academic Press. Huggett, J. Reuse remix recycle: repurposing archaeological digital data. Advances in Archaeological Practice (2018), doi:10.1017/aap.2018.1 May, K., Taylor, J.S., and Binding, C. 2023 Stratigraphic Analysis and The Matrix: connecting and reusing digital records and archives of archaeological investigations,  Internet Archaeology 61 .  https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.61.2 May, K. 2020 The Matrix: Connecting Time and Space in Archaeological Stratigraphic Records and Archives,  Internet Archaeology  55.  https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.8 Moody, B., Dye, T., May, K., Wright. H., Buck, C. Digital chronological data reuse in archaeology: Three case studies with varying purposes and perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 40(11) DOI:  10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103188 Roskams, S. 2001 Excavation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor J.S., May K. Resurrecting, reinterpreting and reusing stratigraphy: an afterlife for archaeological data.  Antiquity . 2024;98(399):805-820. doi:10.15184/aqy.2024.60 Taylor, J.S. 2016 Making Time For Space At Çatalhöyük: GIS as a tool for exploring intra-site spatiotemporality within complex stratigraphic sequences. PhD thesis , University of York . Tudhope, D., May, K., Binding, C. and Vlachidis, A.  2011 'Connecting Archaeological Data and Grey Literature via Semantic Cross Search', Internet Archaeology 30. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.30.5 Th e M a tr ix pr oje ct w e b pa ge : https://stratigraphic.github.io/matrix/ AG2GP-Handbook project web page: https://archgoodpractice.com/ References & Acknowledgments