One Archaeology: A Manifesto for the Systematic and Effective Use of Mapped Data from Archaeological Fieldwork and Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this is a very timely and valuable article emphasising the need for a spatial data infrastructure in archaeology. 

However, I identified four major and several minor issues with the article:

Major issue 1: I do not find the article well-structured. In particular, there is considerable repetition. I would urge authors to rework the article to render it more concise. 

Major issue 2: Especially (but not exclusively) in section 4 the authors give examples (as far as I can see on the basis of their particular professional contexts) which is a good thing but these examples should follow thorough discussions on the matter and should not substitute them. Take for instance section 4.1.1. Excavation. We should be reading a discussion on spatial data-related challenges in the context of this section but after a very short paragraph, we immediately start to read about the situation in France. To repeat, it is not that the situation in France is not interesting but it does not make for a substantial discussion on the subject. The example can/should not substitute a general discussion about challenges related to spatial data recording and sharing in the context of archaeological excavations. Also, most of the time, it is not clear in the paper what the rationale is in presenting these case studies/examples. For instance, in the case of section 4.1.1.: is the situation in France an example to best practices? This is not clear.

Same goes for section 4.2.1. Airborne Mapping. It is not clear to me why we are suddenly reading on RCAHMS and RCAHMW. Another immediate example is section 4.2.3. Legacy Surveys and Site Plans where we read the case of Mayan city of Copan while there is so much to say on legacy surveys and analogues maps.  Also in section 4.2.4. Remote Sensing Techniques (lines 388 - 394) there is a similar problem. The fact that "The State Heritage Service of Baden-Württemberg uses LiDAR data to systematically investigate unknown archaeological sites across the state" does not mean that "The use of LiDAR visualisations is well established in archaeology". I know this is not what the authors suggest but limited general discussion followed immediately by examples on the issue makes for a strange argument. Yet, another similar case can be seen in Section 5.2 Societal Benefits (lines 679 - 693) where there is supposed to be a brief discussion on the historical and archaeological data's importance on interdisciplinary approaches. However, we suddenly start to read on CHERISH project and measures taken by Historic Environment Scotland.  

Major issue 3: Some of the existing important discussions on the subject is missing from the article such as McCoy's (2017) "Geospatial Big Data and archaeology" article in Journal of Archaeological Science and recent (2020) discussions in the Journal of Field Archaeology in "Archaeology in the Age of Big Data" special issue. 

Major issue 4: The article would like to make a case that the archaeological SDI becomes part of ARIADNE infrastrcutre. I agree with the authors on this but the article needs a paragraph or two that introduces ARIADNE to the readers as well as discusses and explains this suggestion related to ARIADNE. 

Minor issues:

• The authors should double check the quotations they use. I think some of them are incorrect such as: "the importance of public awareness is recognised in valuing and understanding the past and the threats to this heritage" (lines 62 and 63). Another example I could identify (I did not check all) is on line 118 where "represents" should be left out of the quotation (which should start as "a single episode of ...")
• Lines 80 & 81: "Services" should go into the paranthesis for the case of WFS or should be out for the case of WMS. 
• Line 104: I think "rendering data interoperable" would be a better choice of words than "harmonising data". 
• Section 3. "Barriers to Best Practice" starts with a discussion that is mainly on "archaeological events". While very interesting, it is not immediately clear to me how this discussion on events relate to "barriers of best practice" or the following two sub-sections (3.1 & 3.2). I think the authors should improve the structure here.  
• A brief justification of why invasive techniques other than "Excavation" are not included in the discussion in Section 4.1 (lines 192-195) needs to be made. Authors mention these techniques (e.g. test pitting) but they do not discuss them and do not clarify why not. 
• I am assuming that the image on page 7 (lines 249-250) is part of Figure 2. If so, it should be laid out correctly. If not, I am not sure what it is since it does not have a caption. 
• Lines 269 - 273: Why are these lines in bold? 
• On line 309 we suddenly read that " the focus of this paper is data created through born digital processes". This should have been said earlier in the article for better clarity of the aims.
• Section 5.1.1: This discussion on the data model of the archaeological SDI needs to be detailed and expanded. 
• The authors should avoid single-sentence paragraphs where possible. I don't think it helps the structure and argument (i.e. either the single-sentence paragraph can belong to the previous or next paragraph in which case it is not really necessary or it is a not well-developed idea which should either be developed better or left out).  
• Line 438: ArcGISServer should become "ArcGIS Server"
• Caption of Fig. 5 needs to explain the abbreviations used in the figure.
• There is a discrepancy between Figure 5 and the text that refers to it (lines 498 - 501). CIDOC CRM appears in the image with 4-star data but is correctly mentioned with 5-star data in the text. 
• I think Fig. 6a may be better off as Fig. 6 and Fig. 6b as Fig. 7.
• Line 734: the authors should consider adding "archaeological" in between "use of" and "spatial data". 
• Lines 743 & 781: I think "Findability" should be preferred as a term here instead of "Discoverability" to keep with FAIR terminology. 
• Lines 752 & 753: please delete "data should" (line 752) and "see" (line 753)

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of One Archaeology: A Manifesto for the Systematic and Effective Use of Mapped Data from Archaeological Fieldwork and Research

The authors of this paper present Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) from the perspective on national archives and heritage agencies on the European scale. The core aim of this paper is to call for an integrated archaeological SDI not just commercially but also in an academic setting. This is an ongoing aspiration, one which requires much more joined up thinking across Europe (and beyond), a conversation that is spearheaded through papers like this and initiatives like Ariadne, Ariadne-plus, and the SEADDA Cost Actions.

I have some key questions and remarks, these follow, line numbers are included when relevant.

The introductory section of this paper is rather cumbersome, from line 45 the authors bring in geology as a comparable situation. I would air caution regarding looking too closely at geology, while similar it lacks a cultural/human element which adds significant complexity to the archaeological situation. Geology returns in the conclusion and is not part of the body of the paper, the authors should consider its relevance in this paper. At line 44 AI is mentioned, it does not appear anywhere else in the paper. If it is to be included then the authors should raise the use of Predictive Modelling (Minnesota Model, Dutch expectation maps, etc.), how does moving to AI enhance predictive models and how does it help with the associated planning policies and decisions? If this is not discussed, then the AI comment should be removed.

There is a clear focus on ‘Event’, the UK HER system utilises a Monument and Event model. An event being the action – be this a desk-based assessment, geophysical survey, or archaeological intervention. The Monument, recording of the actual archaeology, this is not explicitly mentioned and is taken for granted. Archaeology is part of the Historic Environment, should we also be concerned with the built environment, for instance should listed buildings be included in any SDI?

This paper comes across with a strong UK focus, while also incorporating European examples, particularly from Flanders (part of Belgium), Sweden. Within the UK Wales is omitted, it has a very good integrated national HER system through Archwilio. It would be greatly beneficial to this paper to reflect on this system to see if it is a system which could inspire a broader solution for archaeological spatial data. The authors should state whether a similar approach should be pursued, enhanced, or avoided. It would be useful to discuss further the multilingual issues which surround the Flanders system particularly since it is not a national system but regional within a country with two official languages, similar to the Welsh situation.

While focusing on governmental and academic sectors, the public element is somewhat neglected. Initiatives such as the Flanders’ Public Built Heritage Database (BE), the Dutch Portable Antiquities Nederland (PAN), and the UK’s Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) could easily be incorporated in the Societal Benefits section.

Intrasis has recently incorporated a 3D viewer, this demonstrates the requirement for ongoing development of the SDI and the ontologies, even the underlying data. This highlights the importance for long-term development of SDIs as our methodologies and technologies evolve. The paper highlights the financial saving through mitigation archaeology has on the construction industry, more could be made of his if the authors want to speculate regarding the funding of SDIs.

From my own experience, it is far easier for commercial archaeology to conform to standards through their procedures and protacols. In academic situations each researcher has their database or a series of databases (including spreadsheets). Even within a university, excavation/survey databases can be separate from zooarchaeological, botanical and other related datasets. Space is often the only aspect which unites these datasets. Getting universities to manage their archaeological data internally as well as externally, even with Data Management Plans is a big challenge.

The paper raises standard terminologies and importance of spatial training [222-228], I would strongly argue that it should be made explicit that such training must go beyond the use of GIS as a tool to incorporate broader concepts surrounding spatial thinking as raised by Lock and Pouncett (2017). The manner in which GIS is approached in the paper is rather traditional, it seems to use terminology consistent with ArcGIS and the 1990’s-2000’s. Geospatial datasets are referred to as layers rather than a set of geospatial geometries. ‘GIS’ technologies have been diversifying and broadening, for instance through (geo)spatial databases, the (geo)json format. An area which is missing is acknowledgement of emerging spatial technologies, currently Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been brought into Heritage (HBIM). This is a development from CAD and non-geographical systems. Given the Historic England report which refers to its use for archaeology (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/bim-for-heritage/), is BIM compatible with real world spatial recording of 2.5D and 3D archaeology without geometric oversimplification? This is a big question which goes beyond the scope of this paper but an aspect which could be raised.

Remote sensing is raised, from lines 324 – 331 “… archaeological objects and sites but of the built heritage …”, the landscape should also be listed. The term 3D is used in its colloquial sense. DSM and DTMs are 2.5D, they have a surface area (2D) but no volume (3D), the misuse of these terms is currently prolific in archaeology (and beyond), 3D should be reserved for volumetric datasets. This is particularly pertinent for a paper which raises standardisation.

Line 539 – “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, while a popular phrase, it could be worded better to be stronger – i.e. areas lacking investigation are not necessary absent of the archaeological resource.

Line 610 – Intrasis and ARK are raised, ARK, developed by L – P Archaeology is a bespoke system, even though it is being developed for broader use. I would like to hear a little about platforms like HBSMR, given it is over 10 since I was working in a HER is it still in use? What about other generic systems like OpenContext and the Arches Project – also Archwilio?

Despite the length of my review and my comments, there are no fundamental problems with this paper, it is strongly welcomed. The comments above should be considered and if deemed relevant by the authors resolved through minor edits. It builds on the problems associated with data management within Digital Archaeology, which have been present for decades, focusing on broad scale. I am currently building/developing a 3D SDI for a born-digital archaeological excavation (Kaymakci Archaeological Project - KAP). Outside of this paper I would welcome discussions between these ‘global’ or national initiatives and ‘local’ SDIs which are site specific. Since this journal operates an open review process following publication I reserve my right to revealing my identity to the authors during this review to facilitate further discussions

I anticipate this paper will be used as a firm foundation as these discussions continue.

Lock, G., & Pouncett, J. (2017). Spatial thinking in archaeology : Is GIS the answer? Journal of Archaeological Science, 84, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.06.002

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for a careful consideration of the review comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

No further comments