Opening access to heritage resources: risk, opportunity or paradigm shift?
43
management, curatorial and research decisions are
based upon data that reflects the most-up-to date
information and knowledge. This must be an aspirati-
on for a discipline which progresses by re-analysing
and re-structuring it's primary data corpus.
The requirements
of an 'open' archaeological corpus: licences
Open Content is defined by the Open Knowledge
Foundation (OKF 2012a, 2012b) as follows, 'A piece
of content or data is open if anyone is free to use,
reuse, and redistribute it subject only, at most, to the
requirement to attribute and share-alike.' Essentially
content is open if the re-user is broadly unfettered in
the way they consume the content and share deriva-
tives. What provides this freedom is the licence asso-
ciated with the resource. The licence describes what
can be done with the content or data and how it
should be shared and referenced (if at all). OKF descri-
bes a number of different licences that conform to the
requirements of Open Data and other open content.
The two primary issues concern how data or content
is referenced (does the licence include a By Attribution
(By) clause) and what imposition the data sharer will
put on downstream licencing (is a third party user free
to do what they want or not). At the very least open
resources need licences that encourage re-use.
Ethics and open heritage resources
Open licences provide the mechanisms for effectively
sharing resources. However, they do not provide ans-
wers to how data and syntheses should be opened or
if they should be opened at all. This is the sphere of
ethics. Two broad issues will be discussed: the diffe-
rence between the ethical practices of those that pro-
duce and those that consume the corpus of archae-
ological knowledge.
Archaeological data is normally collected as either
part of the research process or as part of the planning
(or rescue) process - in advance of construction.
Hence archaeological work is normally conducted by
academics, government organizations or independent
contract units. Each of these bodies operate under
legal and Professional frameworks. The majority of
these frameworks mandate that these organisations
'make this evidence (and any archive generated), ubli-
cly accessible'. Both the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF: Department for Communities and
Local Government 2012) and Research Councils UK
(RCUK 2012a) have similar text for the UK. Obviously
the term 'publically accessible' is open to a variety of
interpretations - however, as the majority of archae-
ological data are 'born digital' it is likely that the
public (taxpayers) will expect digital resources to be
made available digitally. This brings us to the ethical
consumption of heritage data.
There are two broad ethical issues associated with the
consumption of heritage data:
1. Access to data and derivatives that still have reso-
nance for a community or cultural group (indigenous
groups, 20th Century war excavations and forensic
archaeology).
2. Providing access to data that facilitates looting and
the international trade in illegal artefacts.
The distinction between these two points is mainly
one of boundaries and certainty. In respect of point 1
it is reasonably clear when an activity may have ethi-
cal implications, even in retrospect. Remedial activities
can be taken and the corpus of evidence can be
redacted or obfuscated for different audiences accor-
dingly. However, point 2 is significantly more ambigu-
ous. The same data which is used to conduct archae-
ological research or curatorial management can be
used to target looting activities (for example, night
hawking: the illegal act of metal detecting without
the landowners consent or on scheduled sites). In the
latter example it is difficult to know what to do -
removal of access rights to the archaeological
knowledge base may reduce the problem but has a
profound Impact on legitimate activities. In respect of
access to digital data this is effectively the position
adopted by many curatorial authorities. Data can be
accessed by visiting curatorial facilities but is general-
ly not accessible on-demand externally.
This position is polarised and plays to the lowest com-
mon denominator: it is based on the premise that
accessible knowledge will inevitably be abused and
eschews any of the benefits that data sharing can pro-
vide. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has done
much to improve this Situation. In terms of consump-
tion, the data held within the PAS database is publi-
cally accessible but in a degraded format - the spatial
location and some attributes have been obfuscated.
By registering with the PAS different users can access
the data at different degrees of granularity including
a 'research' grade. This user accreditation framework
allows a more nuanced approach to knowledge Seg-
mentation which provides a re-use position based
upon accreditation and trust. However, it is not, in
principle, open. The PAS has an extensive regional and
national outreach Programme which has resulted in a
great deal of engagement and a conduit for Citizen
Science. Through this the PAS has helped to streng-
then the relationships between ethical metal detecto-
rists and the archaeological community. In 2007 it was
estimated that two thirds of metal detectorists belon-
ging to a club report some of their finds to the PAS.
43
management, curatorial and research decisions are
based upon data that reflects the most-up-to date
information and knowledge. This must be an aspirati-
on for a discipline which progresses by re-analysing
and re-structuring it's primary data corpus.
The requirements
of an 'open' archaeological corpus: licences
Open Content is defined by the Open Knowledge
Foundation (OKF 2012a, 2012b) as follows, 'A piece
of content or data is open if anyone is free to use,
reuse, and redistribute it subject only, at most, to the
requirement to attribute and share-alike.' Essentially
content is open if the re-user is broadly unfettered in
the way they consume the content and share deriva-
tives. What provides this freedom is the licence asso-
ciated with the resource. The licence describes what
can be done with the content or data and how it
should be shared and referenced (if at all). OKF descri-
bes a number of different licences that conform to the
requirements of Open Data and other open content.
The two primary issues concern how data or content
is referenced (does the licence include a By Attribution
(By) clause) and what imposition the data sharer will
put on downstream licencing (is a third party user free
to do what they want or not). At the very least open
resources need licences that encourage re-use.
Ethics and open heritage resources
Open licences provide the mechanisms for effectively
sharing resources. However, they do not provide ans-
wers to how data and syntheses should be opened or
if they should be opened at all. This is the sphere of
ethics. Two broad issues will be discussed: the diffe-
rence between the ethical practices of those that pro-
duce and those that consume the corpus of archae-
ological knowledge.
Archaeological data is normally collected as either
part of the research process or as part of the planning
(or rescue) process - in advance of construction.
Hence archaeological work is normally conducted by
academics, government organizations or independent
contract units. Each of these bodies operate under
legal and Professional frameworks. The majority of
these frameworks mandate that these organisations
'make this evidence (and any archive generated), ubli-
cly accessible'. Both the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF: Department for Communities and
Local Government 2012) and Research Councils UK
(RCUK 2012a) have similar text for the UK. Obviously
the term 'publically accessible' is open to a variety of
interpretations - however, as the majority of archae-
ological data are 'born digital' it is likely that the
public (taxpayers) will expect digital resources to be
made available digitally. This brings us to the ethical
consumption of heritage data.
There are two broad ethical issues associated with the
consumption of heritage data:
1. Access to data and derivatives that still have reso-
nance for a community or cultural group (indigenous
groups, 20th Century war excavations and forensic
archaeology).
2. Providing access to data that facilitates looting and
the international trade in illegal artefacts.
The distinction between these two points is mainly
one of boundaries and certainty. In respect of point 1
it is reasonably clear when an activity may have ethi-
cal implications, even in retrospect. Remedial activities
can be taken and the corpus of evidence can be
redacted or obfuscated for different audiences accor-
dingly. However, point 2 is significantly more ambigu-
ous. The same data which is used to conduct archae-
ological research or curatorial management can be
used to target looting activities (for example, night
hawking: the illegal act of metal detecting without
the landowners consent or on scheduled sites). In the
latter example it is difficult to know what to do -
removal of access rights to the archaeological
knowledge base may reduce the problem but has a
profound Impact on legitimate activities. In respect of
access to digital data this is effectively the position
adopted by many curatorial authorities. Data can be
accessed by visiting curatorial facilities but is general-
ly not accessible on-demand externally.
This position is polarised and plays to the lowest com-
mon denominator: it is based on the premise that
accessible knowledge will inevitably be abused and
eschews any of the benefits that data sharing can pro-
vide. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has done
much to improve this Situation. In terms of consump-
tion, the data held within the PAS database is publi-
cally accessible but in a degraded format - the spatial
location and some attributes have been obfuscated.
By registering with the PAS different users can access
the data at different degrees of granularity including
a 'research' grade. This user accreditation framework
allows a more nuanced approach to knowledge Seg-
mentation which provides a re-use position based
upon accreditation and trust. However, it is not, in
principle, open. The PAS has an extensive regional and
national outreach Programme which has resulted in a
great deal of engagement and a conduit for Citizen
Science. Through this the PAS has helped to streng-
then the relationships between ethical metal detecto-
rists and the archaeological community. In 2007 it was
estimated that two thirds of metal detectorists belon-
ging to a club report some of their finds to the PAS.