The Cyber-Unit

[gwyl]

Intrasis - which Kevin has mentioned above - is a very good tool for on-site recording of all finds as they come pretty well out of the ground, and each one has a UI for the word go, in addition to their context number. Furthermore, if you have plotted in 3-D (as opposed to shaken the finds off the end of your shovel, for example) then you have each individual sherd in its place, without the need to create and mange two sheets of paper - context records and small finds sheets - they are already integrated in the database.

Moreover, digital photographs can be attached to the record on the go, rather than trawling through contact sheets squinting at out-of-focus (cos the there's half the site on the lens, for example) or scratched (cos the there's half the site in the camera, for example) negs missing photographic board, or streaming photgraphic board, and trying to tie neg numbers to photo sheet numbers, not to forget that someone didn't realise that the camera counts down and they'd counted up when taking the snaps and have modified it on the hoof and... so forth.

As it's a GIS you can print out as small or big an area of site to hunt for elusive features, integrating rectified historic maps, where necessary.

Field-staff can start the post-ex in the field, rather than leave it to someone else to sort out in post-ex; i would in fact suggest that digital recording has when used democratically the potential to be one of the most empowering tools for field staff.

I wish more were done on my sites like that. But it is too expensive for small units. I am a bit cheesed off right now cross referencing my Access database and then copying data and dumping it into excel and then into the word doc. This probably also says more about skill-set with Access and so forth than i would usually admit to...xx(

[Lucky]

Hi,

I am very very keen on the using of digital data, but one of the major issues which I can see holding back its use in archaeological projects is the lack of digital archives, or rather, appropriately managed digital archives (ie. not just cds shoved in a filing cabinet) once the project is complete - while it is great to use digital, there is a real issue over where the data then gets archived. Unfortunately, my experience is that, while the curators and co are keen on the use of digital data, most archives are not set up to appropriately store digital data. This is often out of the curators control, especially where the archive depositories are separate museums. Where there aren’t any appropriate digital archives it is hard for an DC archaeologist to accept projects being undertaken which generate primarily digital data without a paper copy, as without the paper archive all the data, rather than just the digital data, could be lost in the near future, contradicting the principle of ‘preservation by record’.

One of the things I could see making the biggest changes in archaeological projects would be museums doing more to address the issue of digital, archaeological, archiving – while I appreciate people are working on this in the museums sector, perhaps this is an area we could all be pushing for improvements in?

[Windbag]

Coming at this from a slightly different angle, I can see another business model starting to develop that might make its way into archaeology. I'll call it the project manager monster. It consists of a small coterie of well paid, male, middle-aged project managers with excellent links in the (pick at random) industry, supported by a handful of (usually female) administrators who actually run the thing. They then farm out all the non-project management work to self-employed "consultants" working on short-term contracts (not really contracts) in the field or lab. When times are bad, they shed the short-term staff, tighten their belts (don't buy a convertible that year) and wait for the next big project win.

This description started off as a description of a project management company I know, but then evolved into a description of an archaeological unit. I'll not be naming names of course!

[GnomeKing]

information and access perpetuate each other - more access creates demand for more info - more info creates demand for more access.

this is certainly an area with potential (and has been for sometime)

It should be a key Game Plan of the Heritage Sector as a whole.

[kevin wooldridge]

My answer when anyone asks about the question of the commutability and storage of digital data is to look at the newspaper and press agency industry. As well as making money from the profits of selling papers, selling news stories and attracting advertising, one of the long term sources of income to newpsapers is from their photo and news archives. Every news agency and newspaper in the UK has gone over to digital photography. All of their archives are now geared towards digital storage and digital reproduction. Very many newspapers have now digitised their paper archives as well. OK I am not saying that as a result they have ditched the 'originals', but the fact is that nothing new is being added to the archive now EXCEPT in digital format. If a business that relies on archive as a source of income is certain that digital archives are operable and maintainable, why can't an industry like archaeology accept the same.

Fact is that the biggest danger to our current archaeological archives is that they are NOT being actively curated to the point (particularly regarding fiche and film readers and reproductions of photo negatives) that in a very short time much of the data contained within will already be unusable or only useable at great expense. And don't get me started on how little investment is being put into converitng existing data into a digital accessible form that is usable via the Internet and not tied to attending one physical location. Even in some of our current county record offices, access is limited (for historical reasons perhaps) to one location often far removed from major centres of population or potential use, cos of earlier 'depositum' ideas rather than thinking of the most convenient place for researchers to access the material.

[kevin wooldridge]

Field-staff can start the post-ex in the field, rather than leave it to someone else to sort out in post-ex; i would in fact suggest that digital recording has when used democratically the potential to be one of the most empowering tools for field staff. I wish more were done on my sites like that. But it is too expensive for small units. I am a bit cheesed off right now cross referencing my Access database and then copying data and dumping it into excel and then into the word doc. This probably also says more about skill-set with Access and so forth than i would usually admit to...xx(

I think Gwyl that digital recording systems might be cheaper than you think and perhaps you should at least get a quote from a company like Intrasis. You might be surprised...

.....the point you make about the staff being more involved in the field is correct. The amount of time (and therefore money) that might can be saved in avoiding repetitive mundane time consuming tasks at the post-ex stage is another important point and one where efficiences can be made that will pay-back the cost of the initial investment.

I personally think that one of the main hinderances in UK archaeology to the furtherance of digital archaeology, is the way that in most projects, costs are divided up between excavation and post-excavation tasks. If you wanted to make the field work slightly more expensive to justify making the post-ex massively cheaper, you would probably lose contracts at the intial tendering point and never get the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of a fully digital system. Hence the reason that Intrasis for example is very popular in countries or organisations where field and post-ex funding is integrated and tendering is not an issue.

[gwyl]

I think Gwyl that digital recording systems might be cheaper than you think and perhaps you should at least get a quote from a company like Intrasis. You might be surprised...

it's a while since i went through the Intrasis training (2004, i think) and my employer previous to that had not trained people up as their argument was that it was too expensive
i think tho that you're absolutely right in terms of reducing time spent on and number of tedious repetitive tasks, while freeing up people to enjoy reflexive archaeology... or even digging

[mpoole]

With the new technology becoming more affordable all the time, especially small units like the iPad and various MS-based similar items, there will be a real revolution in the next five years or so in providing affordable units to field workers. A unit that has GPS, built-in camera and keypad, with the appropriate software is something that should be looked at now for people who are interested in that side of developing things. Surely, an archaeologist or two with a bit of imagination and the ability to create a format that would be simple for the average user to work could capture a reasonable segment of the market, internationally.

Publication of site reports would be speeded up immeasurably if the move to a digital format is taken. There is no reason why hard copies can't be archived but the expense of publication would be on the reader, on an individual basis rather than the report writer. The cost savings of this would be significant and make it easy to keep a document 'in print' and accessible to those with an interest in the information.

I can access more information online now than ever before via such sites as ADS, which are adding more digital information all the time. It's been an absolute boon to be able to download information and use search functions to pinpoint the information I need. So much of what I'd like to read is out of print or impossible to get hold of without a subscription to JSTOR, which is out of my reach as we're independent researchers rather than members of an institution.

[squeejay]

We should all love :face-approve:the ADS and all new archaeologists should be aware of it, I spilt my tea break beverage when I realised some folk hadn't heard of them! Internet Archaeology is doing a sterling job of showcasing digital publication in archaeology (as well as the the latest silchester monograph/companion website http://silchester.rdg.ac.uk/cit/index ) and is a cheap and well worth it subscription. My last 'proper' job looked at digital field recording (vera.rdg.ac.uk) and was awesome and successful but funding came to an end . I would be wary of ipads though, being as they are the worst kind of propriety technology - stick with something more open source and that won't lose all your data if steve jobs keels over!

[mpoole]

I agree about proprietary technology, I mentioned it as an example of the kind of technology that's already out there and relatively affordable compared to the cost of small hand-held PDAs from a few years ago. I bought Mike an HP PDA several years ago in a fit of generousity, cost over 300 squid for something that my phone can do now, for a third the price or less!

I'm not an archaeologist (no, really!) but I rely on the information provided by them for what we do and I would love to see more available information in a digital format.

Thanks for the Silchester link, it's bookmarked and will be looked at later.