ARQUEOLOGÍA PREVENTIVA Y PLANEAMIENTO
Complutum
ISSN: 1131-6993
https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/cmpl.78570
Open archaeology. Advances and challenges in the management of archaeological
contents
Silvia Fernández Cacho1
Recibido: 19/03/2021 / Aceptado: 29/07/2021
Abstract. During the last two decades there has been a crucial change in the ways of producing, accessing and using
information from all branches of knowledge, including archaeology. Concepts such as open data and content, open
access, free software, social construction of knowledge, etc. have been installed in the theory and practice of scientific
research (open science) and administrative management (open government) to become an outstanding potential vector
for the advancement of scientific knowledge, the economy based on use of data and the transparency of institutions. In
the field of cultural heritage, the democratization of knowledge, social participation in public management or the rise of
cultural tourism, also affect the increasingly close relationship between the academic, professional and administrative
fields and these, in turn, with a population that ceases to be exclusively passive recipient of the information filtered from
these areas, to become involved in many of the aspects that concern its management. In this context, archaeology shows
some singularities that will be discussed in this paper, focusing on the Spanish case. For this purpose, the advances
that have taken place in the generation of open archaeological contents will be reviewed, as well as the main remaining
challenges.
Keywords: Open archaeology, open data, open access, open government, digital contents.
[es] Arqueología abierta. Avances y desafíos en la gestión de contenidos arqueológicos
Resumen. Durante las dos últimas décadas se ha producido un cambio crucial en las formas de producir, acceder y usar
la información procedente de todas las ramas del saber, incluida la arqueología. Conceptos como datos y contenidos
abiertos, acceso y código abierto, software libre, construcción social del conocimiento etc. se han instalado en la
teoría y en la práctica de la investigación científica (ciencia abierta) y la gestión administrativa (gobierno abierto)
hasta convertirse en un destacado vector potencial para el avance del conocimiento científico, la economía basada en
el uso de los datos y la transparencia de las instituciones. En el campo del patrimonio cultural, la democratización del
conocimiento, la participación social en la gestión pública o el auge del turismo cultural, también inciden en la relación
existente entre los ámbitos académico, profesional y administrativo y estos, a su vez, con una población que deja de ser
receptora pasiva de la información filtrada desde dichos ámbitos, para implicarse en aspectos que atañen a su gestión.
En este contexto, la arqueología presenta singularidades que serán analizadas en este trabajo, en el que se revisarán,
especialmente para el caso español, los avances producidos en la generación de contenidos abiertos y los principales
retos en esta materia.
Palabras Clave: Arqueología abierta, datos abiertos, acceso abierto, gobierno abierto, contenidos digitales.
Sumario. 1. Introduction. 2. Regarding data, information and knowledge. 3. Open access to information and knowledge.
4. Open archaeological data. 5. Coordinated and collaborative open management. 6. Conclusions. Acknowledgements.
References.
Como citar: Fernández Cacho, S. (2021): Open archaeology. Advances and challenges in the management of
archaeological contents. Complutum, 32(2): 443-457.
1
Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. Camino de los descubrimientos s/n. 41092-Sevilla. silvia.fernandez.cacho@juntadeandalucia.es
Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
443
444
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
1. Introduction
The concept of Open Archaeology has started to make inroads in the context of a change
in the forms of generation, access and use of
information and knowledge in all branches of
learning and in the administration and management of public organisations, especially
since the publication in 2012 of an issue of
World Archaeology devoted to the topic. In
its Introduction, the journal’s editor, M. Lake
(2012), alludes to the limited interest that this
topic arouses in the academic sphere, to all appearances poorly informed about its potential.
In this paper Open Archaeology will be understood as a set of procedures and practices
that enable the unrestrained cost-free enjoyment and reuse of information across all the aspects of its research and management. With the
expression ‘know to protect’ having become
an institutional byword for archaeological inventorying in Spain from the 1980s on (Querol
and Martínez 1996: 212 & ff.), the shackles are
now coming off this knowledge, enabling the
detection of inconsistencies and gaps, the generation of new knowledge and the conveyance
of the archaeological heritage’s values. This is
key for archaeological heritage to be brought
back to the present through being socially and
economically energized. Thus, not only is the
spotlight put on its -always necessary- legal
protection, but also on its valuation and safekeeping through the greater involvement of
a set of social stakeholders, including public
institutions and research centres who interact
with it through their professional practice, as
well as civic associations, or visitors driven by
intellectual curiosity.
Through this optic, the three best-known
challenges to the development of true Open
Archaeology will be highlighted, even though
the borders between them are fuzzy. In the area
of digital contents management these are:
– The open access to information and
knowledge
– The freeing-up of archaeological datasets for their reuse
– The progress towards governance models that encourage the collaboration, coordination and participation of the set of
stakeholders and their involvement in
information and knowledge production,
processing, access, use and dissemination.
2. Regarding
knowledge
data,
information
and
To simplify the concepts, it can be said
that data are the raw material of information
and knowledge generation. Large quantities
of data are produced, but alone they do not
enable conclusions to be drawn nor contribute to any decisions to be made. When these
data are grouped, contextualised and organised, information can be obtained, that is, phenomena can be recorded and meanings can be
attached. This information shows the relationships between the data and gives answers to
questions such as who, what, where and when.
For its part, knowledge is the result of filtering, interpreting and enriching information,
of processing it in consideration of a previous
conceptual framework in such a way that, the
more it is enriched through experience, the
closer one comes to attaining knowledge (or
wisdom). Knowledge is guided towards actions and decision-making in more complex
contexts. Knowledge and wisdom respond to
questions such as the why and the wherefore of
phenomena, i.e., towards their patterns and origins (García 1998; Bellinger, Castro and Mills
2004; Prada 2008) (Figure 1).
Digital contents include data, information
and knowledge presented in digital format
and can blend simple data, metadata, texts
(structured or not), sound files, videos, images, cartography, software, etc., i.e., any type of
human creation that can be accessed through
digital tools (Vivar and Vinader 2011)
For example, if one accesses the open file
record for the Roman town of Carteia (in the
town of San Roque, Cadiz province) in the
Digital Guide of Andalusian Cultural Heritage
(https://guiadigital.iaph.es) over 30,000 characters present the data in an interoperable format
(.jsonld), e.g., …”tipologia_smvList”:{“tipologia_smv”:[“Ciudades”,”Castillos”,”Asentamientos”,”Construcciones funerarias”,”Ciudades”,”Construcciones funerarias”]},”….
All of these data are insignificant on their
own, but grouped together and organised into
an information record on Carteia in conjunction with other digital contents such as photographs, cartography and documents, they offer
information of some importance. Although the
information given may be sufficient for some
purposes (planning a visit, using in some instructional activity, checking the protection
level, etc.), it will have to be related to and en-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
445
Figure 1. Data, information and knowledge. Prepared by the author inspired on (Ponjuan 1998: 2).
riched with a great deal of other information
from, for example, the archaeological record
of the excavations carried out there, the territorial and landscape context, studies of artefacts
deposited in museums, a comparative analysis
of other sites, etc., to produce knowledge in the
shape of a scientific monograph, for instance.
The monograph will enable trends to be identified and generalisations to be made, and will
help to explain phenomena. The greater the
scope of these phenomena, the more and the
better related they can be to prior experience,
i.e., to the previously-generated knowledge
on similar phenomena such as Romanisation,
evolution of construction techniques or commercial activities in Mediterranean regions in
Antiquity, among many other things.
It is easy to infer from all this that the availability of more data will normally result in a
greater volume of information which, the more
accessible it is, will generate more and better
knowledge for action to be taken or reliable
decisions to be made. In contrast, a lack of data
will lead to a lack of information and knowledge, which will result in inaction or incorrect
actions. Although all these things may seem
obvious, they are not so obvious if we resort
to an analysis of their quality or objectivity.
However, data availability also enables these
aspects to be addressed and, consequently,
their uncertainty to be handled with a greater
or lesser degree of accuracy (Tobalina-Pulido
and González-Perez 2020).
Despite access to knowledge being increasingly well-established in scientific practice,
open access to data is still not a wholly integrated part of this. Sometimes data are published with licences that do not allow them to
be freely reused, and very often they do not
comply with all the criteria for being totally
open (findable, accessible, interoperable and
reusable) and are only anecdotally linked, i.e.,
connected to other data (Figure 2).
3. Open access to information and knowledge
According to UNESCO, open access to scientific information is the online availability
of scholarly information to everyone, free of
most licensing and copyright barriers (UNESCO 2021). Normally it refers to peer-reviewed
scientific publications, although it can also include other academic, educational and creative
archives.
The first initiative of any importance to
promote open access was launched by the
Open Society Institute in Budapest in 2001,
but it was when the Max Planck Foundation
sponsored the Berlin Declaration in Germany two years later that a greater consensus
was reached around a set of commitments for
member organisations. Since its enactment,
the declaration has been endorsed by 665 scientific institutions, funding agencies, archives,
libraries and museums, whose open access
policies are widely supported by public institutions, including 65 in Spain.
The Directory of Open Access Journals
(DOAJ) was subsequently launched at the
Lund University (Sweden) in 2003 (https://
www.doaj.org). Funded by a wide range of
libraries, publishers and other organisations,
the DOAJ contains at present 16.336 peer-reviewed open access journals from 126 countries all over the world.
446
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
Figure 2. Sequence for the release of digital contents.
Prepared by the author inspired on (Berners-Lee 2012).
Other initiatives have been taken since
then and have continued to drive policies for
open access to scientific knowledge by way of
a number of the Unesco and European Union
support mechanisms for their implementation
(Table 1).
One reliable approximation of the number
of open access archaeological publications was
given on the University of New York’s Ancient
World On Line (AWOL) blog in December
2020 as 1,934 titles, including the best-known
Spanish journals such as Complutum (Complutense University of Madrid), Trabajos de
Prehistoria (CSIC), Spal (University of Seville) and Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología (University of Granada) (Institute for
Studies of the Ancient World, 2020). It should
be noted, however, that some of these journals
have recently applied open access policies.
The first Spanish open access electronic journal specialized in archaeology, ArqueoWeb,
was created by PhD students from the Complutense University of Madrid in 1998 (https://
webs.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/).
The process to convert these print scientific
journals into open access journals, and the publication of new journals in this format through
the exploitation of the Internet has been a success. Meanwhile, university repositories are
becoming great storerooms of their research
personnel’s scientific production. They are,
thus, taking control of the knowledge that they
generate, which, to date, has been in the hands
of publishers who, with a limited investment
compared to the cost of the research, have se-
cured large profits (Kansa 2012). Nevertheless, some of the funding, legal and scientific
issues that open access (and open data) entails
are still up for debate, including in the area of
archaeology (Costa et al. 2012; Hugget 2015;
Salisbury 2017).
There is a very relevant unique feature of archaeological practice in the generation of digital
contents. A great deal of archaeological information and knowledge also exists outside the academic circuits. What happens to the large volume
of information obtained after hundreds of archaeological interventions only partially published or
totally unpublished in the academic media? How
can the ‘grey’ literature in the archives of the
public administrations be accessed?
These documents do not have the scientific guarantee of a peer review, but they can
offer major support, not only for archaeological management tasks, but also for scientific
research and new knowledge generation. Such
is the case of archaeological site and materials
inventories and reports and records of archaeological interventions. Despite being limited,
the information that the former provides about
many both movable and immovable archaeological objects is structured and potentially
reusable, whereas the latter provide a greater
amount of information and knowledge about
specific archaeological effects and contain descriptive and interpretative texts that are more
difficult to process automatically.
In general, archaeological activities can be
carried out at the behest of the organisation in
charge of managing the archaeological her-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
Date
Milestone
447
Purpose
Berlin Declaration (https://openaccess.mpg.
de/Berliner-Erklaerung)
To promote open access to scientific documents.
Directory of Open Access Journals (https://
www.doaj.org/)
To increase visibility, accessibility, reputation of use
and impact of quality academic research journals.
2007-2012
European Union OpenAir and OpenAir Plus
projects (https://www.openaire.eu/)
Open access infrastructure to support the
implementation of open access in Europe.
2008
Policy Guidelines for the Development and
Promotion of Open Access (Unesco, 2008)
To provide information to those responsible for
open access policies in all countries.
2011
Global Open Access Portal (http://www.
unesco.org/new/en/communication-andinformation/portals-and-platforms/goap/)
To promote open access in member States to
facilitate understanding of its most relevant aspects.
2003
Table 1. Open access. Main milestones cited in the text. Prepared by the author.
itage, whether for protection or safekeeping
(museums), by professionals who do so as
part of environmental impact assessments, or
by public organisations research teams, such
as universities, research centres or museums,
usually taking part in broad scope projects.
One of the problems of the information obtained in them is that it is generated by various administrative, professional and academic
agents for different purposes and with different priorities. This makes it very complex to
manage in a homogenous way, as there are no
standardised units and resources for systematic
documentary work that enable the required IT
systems to be kept up to date.
The University of York’s Archaeology
Data Service (https://archaeologydataservice.
ac.uk/) has been an outstanding leader in this
field from very early on. By exploiting the
opportunities provided by the Internet, as far
back as 1996 it was offering infrastructure to
guarantee the integrity, reliability and longterm accessibility to its contents focused on
research in the United Kingdom (Richards
1997, 2017; Kansa 2012). The benefits are
self-evident, especially for those who need to
go through a large volume of grey literature on
archaeological interventions for their professional, research or teaching work (Costa et al.
2012: 453; Huggett 2015: 25; Richards 2017).
Progress made towards free access to similar documents in Spain is still lacking. Open
access to archaeological intervention reports is
only possible in Catalonia thanks to the Calaix
digital repository (http://www.calaix.cat/), developed in collaboration with the Consortium of
Catalonian University Services. This repository
holds a total of 5,338 records of interventions,
and although not all are accompanied by a report, they at least present metadata indicating
their author/s, site location and chronology with
the inclusion (or not) of inventories of stratigraphic units and archaeological materials.
Open access to inventory databases and catalogues of archaeological sites and materials is
more widespread, often with restrictions. The
information given in these instruments is much
more structured and can be more easily transferred to IT data management tools. There are
substantial differences in the volumes of information published in different countries and regions.
Some only allow total or partial access to information on protected archaeological sites, while
others permit much broader access to all known
archaeological sites. Such is the case of France,
which offers information on over 500,000 archaeological undertakings in the country recorded in its Atlas des Patrimoines (http://atlas.patrimoines.culture.fr) (Lorbo 2014).
Open access to this information is not
widespread in Spain. Catalunya and Andalusia
are leaders in making it publicly available. In
Catalonia, the inventory of archaeological and
paleontological heritage can be viewed online
and offers a set of structured data on its identification, description (with access), protection,
interventions and information sources (https://
sig.gencat.cat/portalsigcultura.html). Every
file or record includes images for the object’s
identification and basic 1:50,000 scale cartography for its localisation. This is complemented with the delimitation on a more detailed
scale of almost 12,000 archaeological sites
that can be examined through a map viewer.
The inventory of archaeological sites in Andalusia was digitised and disseminated online
448
in 1999 (Díaz 2002). In collaboration with the
central and peripheral services of the Andalusian Government’s cultural administration, the
Andalusian Institute for Historical Heritage’s
(IAPH) Documentation and Studies Centre
has succeeded in systematising, standardising
and digitising archaeological information that
currently includes some 16,000 sites. This information can be accessed through the Digital
Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia
(https://guiadigital.iaph.es/). It also contains
the locations of sites recorded in the General
Catalogue of Historical Heritage with the exception of caves and shelters with rock art, due
to their special vulnerability.
Be that as it may, the still poor coordination
between different administrations and the lack
of official support for open access policies make
it difficult to update the information, which does
not usually include that found in the inventories
and catalogues prepared by the public administrations as a whole, such as the information
from regulated archaeological surveys.
Information on archaeological materials is
even less accessible. Materials inventories are
usually included in archaeological intervention
reports but are not usually organised into open
access databases except in the case of those
provided by museums, which do not cover the
enormous quantity of archaeological objects
deposited in them. It is possible to review the
most important materials in these repositories
via the Spanish Digital Network of Museum
Collections (http://ceres.mcu.es) thanks to the
use of the same collection management system, Domus, sponsored by the Spanish Government. The use of standardised language
and structured data enables information to be
filtered by multiple descriptors. However, the
only way to download this information is by
individually downloading a .pdf of each of the
inventoried objects.
Despite the enactment of European directives and State and regional legislation on
the reuse of public sector information and the
promotion of open access policies, their application to archaeological documents held
by the administrations responsible for the cultural heritage is a goal that has still not been
reached. Academic institutions do not usually
share information either, and it reaches third
parties almost exclusively through scientific
publications, with limited access to the grey
literature that they generate or the data on
which knowledge is built.
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
4. Open archaeological data
Since the enactment of Directive 2003/98/
CE concerning the reuse of public sector information (European Union 2003), a number of
milestones have been reached on the path to
facilitating and moving forward in the publication of open data in Europe with the use of interoperable formats to stimulate the economy
through the development of the new products
and services that come from the different ways
of combining and exploiting these data (Cerrillo-i-Martínez 2012). Table 2 gives some of
the most important milestones, including those
related to the sphere of the cultural heritage, in
general, and archaeology, in particular.
From 2003 until the Directive was updated in 2019 to include, among others, the concept of ‘open data’ (European Union 2019),
awareness of the need to disseminate datasets
for their reuse has grown exponentially. A significant milestone in the area of cultural heritage on the European scale was the launch of
Europeana as a major collector of European
heritage digital contents, including scientific
documents, images, videos, sound files, etc. In
July 2021, Spain was in 9th place in searches
for digital contents in Europeana using the descriptor “archaeology” (with its linguistic variables) with a total of 22,303 items. This was
a long way behind Sweden, in first place with
671,072 items, but also a long way in front of
those in last place, Denmark with 6.
A recent advance in searches of sets of
open data on the international scale came into
operation in January 2020: Google Dataset
Search. According to the search engine itself,
had indexed almost thirty million datasets by
August 2020. When a search is made using the
descriptors “archaeology” + “Spain”, this tool
retrieves 20 datasets. The most significant of
these for archaeological research is the 2015
Antonio Gilman archive of radiocarbon determinations currently integrated into Idearq
(http://www.idearqueologia.org/), the Spanish Higher Research Council’s (CSIC) spatial
data infrastructure for the online publication of
geo-referenced archaeological scientific data,
which focuses on Levantine caves with rock art
stable isotopes and radiocarbon determinations.
The availability of geo-referenced archaeological data is another goal on the path to
Open Archaeology. The European Union’s
INSPIRE Directive (2007) created standards
for environmental geographical data to ena-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
Date
449
Milestone
Purpose
Enactment of Directive 2003/98/CE of the
European Parliament and the Council of 7th
November 2003, concerning the reuse of public
sector information (European Union, 2003)
General regulation for the reuse of public
sector documents in Europe to stimulate the
development of new products and services.
Open Context (https://opencontext.org/)
Publication and preservation open
archaeological content.
The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR)
(https://core.tdar.org)
Online archive for archaeological information.
2007
Law 37/2007 of 16th November, on the reuse of
public sector information
General regulation for the reuse of public
sector documents in Spain to stimulate the
development of new products and services.
2008
Europeana (https://www.europeana.eu)
Open content to support the digital
transformation of the cultural heritage sector.
2008
Hispana (https://hispana.mcu.es)
Portal for access to Spanish digital heritage
and national content aggregator for Europeana.
2011
Spanish open data portal (https://datos.gob.es/)
Single point of access to public administration
datasets.
2012
Journal of Open Archaeological Data (https://
openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/)
To describe and enable open archaeological
dataset searches.
2013 / 2020
ARIADNE and ARIADNEplus (https://ariadneinfrastructure.eu/)
To integrate archaeological datasets on the
European scale.
Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European
Parliament and the Council of 20th June 2019,
concerning open data and the reuse of public
sector information (European Union, 2019)
Revision of Directive 2003/98/CE to improve
the exploitation of public sector information
in Europe.
SEADDA (https://www.seadda.eu/)
Community of archaeologists and digital
specialists working together to secure the
future of archaeological data across Europe
and beyond.
Google Dataset Search (https://datasetsearch.
research.google.com/)
To help locate open and reusable datasets.
2003
2006
2019
2020
Table 2. Open data. Main milestones cited in the text. Prepared by the author.
ble information to be shared among member
states. These include protected cultural heritage, which in most countries means a very
small percentage of their known archaeological sites (McKeague et al. 2020). However,
archaeological fieldwork entails a large quantity of both small- and large-scale geographical data that can be shared and reused: from
archaeological locations identified in surveys
and inventories through basic graphical representation (usually by points or polygons) or
through data obtained from aerial photographs
or satellite images, to stratigraphic excavation
records (Previtali and Valenti 2019).
One of the reasons for the very limited
publication of open data is the format usual-
ly used by scientific journals, which does not
encourage the inclusion of large data tables
and means that only the most significant are
published in .pdf format (Costa et al. 2012;
D’Andrea 2013). Alternative types of media have emerged to publish these data with
quality filters that enable their recognition
in academic curricula. One of these is Open
Context, created in 2006 by the not-for-profit
organisation Alexandria Archive Institute in
collaboration with the University of California
library. Any type of content related to archaeological research in the world can be published
on this platform, including documents, images, maps, vocabularies, artefacts, ecofacts, etc.
(Kansa and Kansa 2013; Kansa 2016). A simi-
450
lar platform in the U.S. with some differences
that will not be listed here is The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) (Sheehan 2015),
created for the same purpose and in the same
year as the previous platform by the Center
for Digital Archaeology in collaboration with
other institutions. As of the beginning of 2021,
neither of these two repositories contains any
datasets published by Spanish organisations.
Another indexed and peer-reviewed journal that publishes open archaeological data
is the Journal of Open Archaeological Data.
This journal was created in 2012 to disseminate archaeological datasets through the publication of their description (methodology
used for their creation, structure and potential
reuse) and place where held, as they have to
be published in open repositories. In this case,
the data also usually come from scientific research on a very wide range of aspects such as
land surveys, radiocarbon dating, geoarchaeological, archaeobotanical, zooarchaeological
and palaeobotanical data, etc. During the 8
years it has been in existence, this journal has
disseminated a total of 38 open archaeological datasets, only one of which was Spanish
(Pardo-Gordó 2019). This number is not at all
representative of the volume of archaeological
interventions that have been produced in the
national and international contexts. It is clear
that, except for some isolated initiatives, there
has still been no move towards promoting the
open publication of research data in the academic sphere, despite universities developing
portals for this purpose and their library services providing technical support to researchers.
The cost of data processing for open publication, the scant availability of time and technological knowledge, research evaluation systems that do not consider data and resistance to
sharing data due to a generalised sense of ownership may be other reasons for this situation.
However, this freeing up of information could
benefit the social perception of the usefulness
of the discipline itself and the justification of
the costs that it generates, as well as —and
above all— preventing the loss of data through
inappropriate management of their life cycle
(Kansa and Kansa 2013; Faniel et al. 2018;
Aspöck 2019) (Figure 3).
In the national context, in 2007 the Government of Spain transposed Directive 2003/98/
CE into national law, created Hispana in 2008
as a portal to access digital heritage and a national aggregator for Europeana -ten years lat-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
Figure 3. Data life cycle according
to Faniel et al. (2018).
er it was providing almost 65% of Spanish records (Agenjo-Bullón and Hernández-Carrascal 2019)- and in 2011 launched its open data
portal. According to the portal itself, in 2011 it
contained a total of 443 datasets and this number had grown to 28,554 in November 2020.
On this last date, the availability of datasets for
cultural heritage in general and archaeology,
in particular, was (and continues to be) rather irrelevant. The latter include archaeological
datasets of a spatial nature (with their metadata) for the Autonomous Community of Valencia (data for 1998), an inventory of religious
buildings and castles in the Basque Country
and a dataset of almost 25,000 buildings (including archaeological buildings) taken from
the Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of
Andalusia (https://guiadigital.iaph.es/), which
offers all its contents as linked open data and
with no restrictions on its use.
Other institutions can be found that provide
token archaeological data in Spain, including the autonomous communities (regions),
which provide data on their protected assets
(e.g., Cantabria and Castile-La Mancha), local councils (e.g., Arganda del Rey), and other
public institutions such as museums, archives,
libraries, research centres, etc. Amongst these
last, there are some that stand out for having
become involved in projects funded by the European Union with the main aim of publishing
archaeological data on the continental scale.
They include the ARIADNE and ARIADNE-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
plus (Advanced Research Infrastructure for
Archaeological Data Networking in Europe),
research infrastructure created for sharing in
Europe, which currently holds 2,000,000 archaeological datasets and is integrated into the
National Research Centre for Human Evolution
(CENIEH) and the University of Barcelona, as
well as the development of SEADDA (Save
European Archaeology from the Digital Dark
Age), a community of specialists in archaeology and digital infrastructure whose purpose
is to drive coordinated actions for the management, archiving, preservation, dissemination
and reuse of open archaeological data and involves not only CENIEH but also research personnel from CSIC and the Universities of Santiago de Compostela and Zaragoza (Aspöck
2019). In this regard it is important to note that
most of these projects are partner-based, which
means that institutions not directly involved in
the projects get little support to participate and
no funding, creating not only a digital gap but
also inequality in data representation.
5. Coordinated and collaborative open
management
This is, perhaps, the most difficult point of adjustment for developing Open Archaeology in
all its dimensions, including its social dimension, as it entails a substantial change to current models of heritage management. Diverse
legislation initiatives seek to spark new mod-
Date
Milestone
451
els of participative governance, including in
the area of heritage (Table 3).
In 1990, Icomos adopted the International
Charter for the Protection and Management
of Archaeological Heritage which stipulates
that participation by the public has to form
part of conservation policies (Art. 2) and also
states that this participation has to be knowledge-based and can even extend to site management (Art. 6) (Icomos 1990).
In 2000, the Council of Europe enacted the
European Landscape Convention. Although it
did not apply solely to landscapes of cultural
interest, it gave a major boost to the principle
that landscape management cannot be achieved
successfully without the involvement of the
public in the decision-making process (Art. 5)
(Council of Europe 2000). Subsequently, the
Council of Europe Framework Convention
on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society
(Council of Europe 2005) was adopted in Faro,
this time directly applicable to the management
of the cultural heritage. The convention not
only supported democratic public participation
in heritage management but also encouraged
the adoption of measures to promote synergies
between the competences of all the affected
public, private and institutional stakeholders
(Art. 1). In 2017, the Council published its European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21st
Century, which established three main components: the social component, sustainable territorial and economic development and knowledge and education (Council of Europe 2017).
Purpose
1990
International Charter for the Protection
and Management of the Archaeological
Heritage (Icomos, 1990)
To establish principles applicable to the various sectors
related to the management of the archaeological
heritage.
2000
European Landscape Convention (Council
of Europe, 2000)
To promote European cooperation for landscape
protection, management and planning.
2005
Faro Convention (Council of Europe, 2005)
To recognise the right to cultural heritage, to its
conservation, transfer and public participation,
2006
Ibero-American Cultural Charter (OEI,
2006)
To foster cultural cooperation between Ibero-American
countries and advance the knowledge of their cultural
wealth through the improved circulation of the region’s
cultural assets and products.
2017
European cultural heritage strategy for the
21st century (Council of Europe, 2017)
To share good practice online with the main threads
of the strategy: promotion and social participation,
sustainable economic and territorial development and
contribution to research and education.
Table 3. Participatory management. Main milestones cited in the text. Prepared by the author.
452
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
These components interact with each other by way of various targets and recommendations, and although the strategy deploys a
good number of measures related to what is
called the social component, there is a specific
recommendation (S5) that proposes the promotion and evaluation of civic participation
practices and procedures through the following actions:
– Identification of existing barriers to civic
participation and proposal of solutions
– Evaluation of existing practices to develop civic participation in the governance
of the cultural heritage
– On the basis of the above, adoption of
procedures to improve participation
– Implementation of new participatory focuses
Mention should also be made here of the
Ibero-American Cultural Charter adopted by
the Organisation of Ibero-American States in
Montevideo (Uruguay) (OEI 2006). This Charter states its purposes, principles and areas of
application. It is the principle of participation
that reflects the need to establish cross-cutting
legislative and institutional frameworks to facilitate social participation in all its forms.
The production of archaeological information is highly specialised and does not invite
participation to the same extent as other types
of heritage with which people interact more
actively in their daily life, especially the built
and intangible heritage. In general, people are
passive receivers of archaeological information
mainly offered through training activities, the
Internet, visiting excavations open to the public, exhibitions and museums, and scientific
publications. However, in parallel with this, the
use of digital media enables the generation of
content that is disseminated through a variety of
social stakeholders on blogs, social networks,
collaborative applications, websites, etc.
It is also difficult to construct collaborative
inter-institutional environments between the
different administrative levels and/or levels of
competence for the production of digital contents. How can richer interaction be driven between academia, the administration, the professional sector and the rest of interested society?
There are a few collaborations promoted
by the public institutions in the field that this
work is focused on, the production of cultural
heritage information, in general, and archae-
ological information, in particular. Those of
the autonomous governments of the regions of
Aragon and Andalusia, the National Archaeological Museum and the Autonomous University of Barcelona can serve as examples.
The Aragon Cultural Heritage Information
System (http://www.sipca.es), sponsored by
the Government of Aragon, offers authoritative
information produced through a network of institutional collaboration that includes two provincial councils and 21 districts (Boleá 2012).
Interinstitutional collaboration is well consolidated but the system involves mainly architectural and intangible heritage assets and provides
very little archaeological information.
In May 2020, the Andalusian Government’s
Department of Culture and Historical Heritage
launched the Network of Andalusian Cultural
Heritage Informants to strengthen institutional
and civic collaboration in the production of information (IAPH n.d.). Despite this initiative
being recent, cultural and academic institutions, associations, companies, professionals
and other interested parties have already joined
the Network and, after being validated by the
IAPH, the information is added to its Digital
Guide. The following can be named among the
group of non-institutional social stakeholders
in the Network directly related to the archaeological heritage: the Unidos por Turaniana
platform, the Amigos de la Alcazaba de Almería Association, the Malache Arqueología Association, the Viaje a la Prehistoria Association and the Casa Bonsor in Mairena del Alcor.
So, the IAPH offers a platform for the dissemination of local heritage and the preservation
of the contributed data, which, in turn, enables
more up-to-date information to be offered to
the interested population as a whole.
Other innovative initiatives in this line are
the formalisation of collaborations between
Wikipedia and institutions as the National
Archaeological Museum (Ojeda and Tramullas 2019) or the Autonomous University of
Barcelona (UAB 2015) to spread knowledge
and improve the quality of the archaeological
information in the free and collaborative encyclopaedia.
Sometimes it is social stakeholders who
bear no direct relationship with regulated heritage management or research who, individually or collectively, lead actions for the generation of a diverse range of archaeological
information. Such are the cases of Patrimonio
Galego (http://patrimoniogalego.net/) Cas-
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
tillosNet (https://www.castillosnet.org), Arte
Sureño (http://www.arte-sur.com/) Viajando
entre piedras (https://www.viajandoentrepiedras.com) and Arqueoblog (http://arqueoblog.
com/), among many others.
However, there is still a long road ahead.
Social participation in the field of archaeology
is not an easy task in the traditional work dynamics of the discipline and, as in other areas
of knowledge requires some deep thought to
analyse who the people are who are participating, what they are participating in and why, so
that Open Archaeology might also be ethical
and inclusive and not simply the switching of
responsibility from the public administrations
to the population as a whole, given the former’s lack of resources to perform the functions that they have been mandated, nor a simple exercise to disseminate and spread information (Guillen et al. 2009; Fredheim 2020;
Jiménez-Esquinas 2020).
Although with difficulties, public participation in archaeology is becoming more and
more common, its visibility increasing in the
academic field, as can be seen, for example, in
the edition of a special volume dedicated to this
subject in the European Journal of Postclassical Archaeology (AA.VV. 2019). To expand
along these lines, alliances need to be forged to
generate social interest, uphold the discipline
and commit the community to its heritage, as
when alliances have been formed in a diverse
range of contexts, the result has been positive (Simpson 2008; Tait et al. 2013; Almansa
2014; Ayán 2014). Nevertheless, the context
has to be analysed at each location, as must the
area of management that can be shared and the
type of participation that is possible and viable and can be engaged in each case. It must
never be forgotten that knowledge production
from archaeological interventions implies the
destruction of the physical record of the past so
should be addressed with the full guarantee that
the data will be scientifically processed. Social
participation is just as necessary a part of the
production and management of archaeological
information as are the specialists in archaeology who have the responsibility to lead knowledge production and its appropriate transfer.
6. Conclusions
It seems that there is currently broad acceptance of the fact that public sector data have be-
453
come a key resource which, according to some
approximations, by 2013 were already generating some 40 billion Euros per year in Europe (D’Andrea 2013). There is only a limited
number of studies that focus on the demand
for open archaeological contents and the impact that it produces. The Archaeological Data
Service has made some estimates as to the
value of the service it provides. These studies
have confirmed that the benefits greatly outweigh the operating cost and that the service is
greatly appreciated by the archaeological community and other agents who make use of it
(Beagrie and Houghton 2013; Richards 2017).
No similar studies have been carried out
in Spain, although there have been some that
have focused on the reuse of public sector
open data in general. These studies highlight
the fact that the most common uses made by
those who reuse these data are culture related,
although the applications produced with an associated business model are mostly related to
health, the environment and transport (Abella
2019).
For its part, in 2016 the IAPH estimated
the impact of the information that it makes
publicly available through the Digital Guide
of the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia. At that
time, the information could only be accessed
for consultation. The conclusions of the study
were published —along with all the information on which it was based— in the IAPH’s
repository of digital assets (Fernández et al.
2016) and showed that there was sustained
growth in the references to the said information in the scientific and cultural and educational heritage management spheres from 1995
to 2015, as well as in the way that the public,
in general, rated its use. This growth became
more evident during the last five years that
were analysed.
The volume of academic archaeological
content on open access platforms, normally in
.pdf format, is enormous. An estimation of its
use can be made on the basis of metrics of citations in scientific production and they underpin
today’s process of scientific research. However, the same is not true of open data, few of
which have been published and the reuse of
which is almost insignificant (Huggett 2018;
Kansa and Kansa 2018). As J. Hugget (2018)
states, and despite the fact that there does not
seem to be a consensus regarding optimal levels of data reuse, the apparent low level of
reuse of archaeological contents preserved in
454
digital repositories may well cast doubts on
their usefulness in terms of the resources invested in their production, processing and in
the progress (or lack thereof) towards taking
them available to the wider public. One might,
therefore, wonder what would have happened if documents in historical archives had
been destroyed once their original use was no
longer called for. Data reuse may still be difficult, but once the technology for their preservation, sharing and reuse is known, they must
be kept available to advance knowledge in the
relatively near future, when a new generation
of better-educated professionals can take on
the task with improved knowledge and technological skills.
Although the availability of archaeological data is increasing progressively, the speed
of the paradigm change for their release and
reuse is not improving in parallel with their
production in either the heritage management or academic worlds, as has been stated
in some works (Whysel 2015). However, the
success of some of the cited initiatives would
not only represent significant progress in archaeological research with new opportunities
for development, the ability to compare results
and to make the resources invested in them
cost-effective (Kansa and Kansa 2013), but the
qualification of preventive and urgent archaeological interventions could also be planned
in an increasingly effective way in line with
improvements to the efficiency of access to
pre-existing information (D’Andrea 2013).
However, for broad-spectrum Open Archaeology to be put into practice, it has to be
incentivised through public initiatives linked
to, for example, the dissemination of already
existing data, knowledge of which can, on occasion, be seen to be very limited (Costa et al.
2012; Agenjo-Bullón and Hernández-Carrascal 2019), to it being valued in processes to
award competitive projects in tenders and the
promotion of actions to drive its reuse. Encapsulated knowledge, knowledge to which access is restricted or which is difficult for the
public at large to understand would not seem
to be the best path to sparking an appreciation
of the archaeological heritage, having its value
acknowledged and furthering its preservation
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
as a scientific, cultural, social and economic
territorial asset.
All this leads to the conclusion that in the
discipline of archaeology, in the medium term,
progress will have to be made in the provision
of open and interconnected data and structured
information, in the generation of knowledge
distributed and managed in a shared fashion
and in driving competitive excellence research
with free access and open data as another parameter of quality to complete the cycle. In
order to achieve this, it would be desirable to
improve the quality and standardization of the
metadata, so that datasets can be more easily
related, which still depends on the investment
of time and human resources dedicated to this
task. The Data Archiving and Networked Services (https://dans.knaw.nl) of the Netherlands
can be an example in this regard, as it defines
clear guidelines, also for the digital exchange
of archaeological data. At the same time, it
might be necessary to start bringing professionals in the fields of documentation and social mediation into the research teams, in the
same way that collaboration with professionals
in physical anthropology, geology, chemistry
and many other disciplines and areas associated with the natural sciences already seems to
have been accepted.
EPILOGUE: One example of an extraordinary achievement that science can accomplish through information sharing has, without
doubt, been to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine in
an extremely short period of time. Perhaps, as
the British daily newspaper The Guardian reported in December 2020, this experience has
changed science forever (Sample 2020).
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work has been received from
the LAPat Project, the Open Heritage Laboratory, of whose research team the author is a
member. The LAPat Project has been funded
by the Andalusian Government`s Andalusian
Research, Development and Innovation Plan
(PY18-4334). I would like to thank César
González Pérez (Incipit-CSIC) for his revision
of this text and his valuable suggestions.
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
455
References
AA.VV. (2019): Participatory Research in Archaeology. Legal Issues and Good Practices. European
Journal of Post Classical Archaeology, 9: 9-302. [URL: http://www.postclassical.it/PCA_Vol.9.html]
Accessed 25/07/2021
Abella García, A. (2019): La reutilización de datos abiertos en España II. DesideDatum. [URL: https://
www.desidedatum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/La_reutilizacio%CC%81n_datos_abiertos_en_
espan%CC%83a_2019.pdf] Accessed 23/01/2021
Agenjo-Bullón, X.; Hernández-Carrascal, F. (2019): Diez años de Europeana. Anuario ThinkEPI, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3145/hinkepi.2019.e13f01
Almansa Sánchez, J. (2014): Arqueología pública y gestión del patrimonio: condenados a encontrarse.
Debates de Arqueología Medieval, 4: 11-28
Aspöck, E. (2019): Moving towards an open archaeology: projects, opportunities and challenges.
Mitteilungen der VÖB, 72 (2): 538-554. https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v72i2.3249
Ayán Vila, X. M. (2014): El capital social del patrimonio arqueológico. La gestión para el desarrollo y la
participación de las comunidades locales. El pasado en su lugar: Patrimonio Arqueológico, desarrollo y
turismo (J. Vives-Ferrándiz and C. Ferrer García, coords.), Museu de Prehistòria de València, Valencia:
139-176
Beagrie, N.; Houghton, J. (2013): The value and impact of the archaeology data service: A study and
methods for enhancing sustainability. Unpublished Report. [URL: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5509/1/
ADSReport_final.pdf] Accessed 26/07/2021
Bellinger, G.; Castro, D.; Mills, A. (2004): Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom [URL: http://www.
systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm] Accessed 26/07/2020
Berners-Lee, T. (2012): Five Stars Open Data. [URL: https://5stardata.info/en/] Accessed 10/01/2021
Boleá Aguarón, F. (2012): El Sistema de Información del Patrimonio Cultural Aragonés (SIPCA). Actas
del I Congreso de Cultura y Patrimonio de Los Pirineos. 18-20 de mayo de 2012. Centro de Creación
y Cultura del Pirineo, Graus: 234-240
Cerrillo-i-Martínez, A. (2012): The Reuse of Public Sector Information in Europe and its Impact on
Transparency. European Law Journal, 18 (6): 770-792. http://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12003
Council of Europe (2000): European Landscape Convention. [URL: https://rm.coe.int/16802f3fbd]
Accessed 10/02/2021
Council of Europe (2005): Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society [URL: https://www.
coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/faro-convention] Accessed 26/07/2021
Council of Europe (2017): Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the
European Cultural Heritage Strategy for the 21st century. Consejo de Europa. [URL: https://rm.coe.
int/16806f6a03] Accessed 7/02/2021
Costa, S.; Beck, A.; Bevan, A.; Ogden, J. (2012): Defining and Advocating Open Data in Archaeology.
Proceedings of the 40th Conference in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology,
Southampton, United Kingdom, 26-30 March 2012, pp. 449-456). Amsterdam University Press,
Amsterdam. [URL: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1379503/4/Bevan_Costaetal14.pdf] Accessed
25/01/2021
D’Andrea, A. (2013): Preventive archaeology, open data and common heritage. Twenty years after Malta:
preventive archaeology in Europe and in Italy (M.P. Guermandi and K. Salas Rossenbach, eds.), Istituto
per i Beni Artistici, Culturali e Naturali, Bologna: 117-127
Díaz Iglesias, J.M. (2002): Los productos de difusión de ARQUEOS. ARQUEOS. Sistema de Información
del Patrimonio Arqueológico de Andalucía (S. Fernández Cacho, ed.), Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio
Histórico, Granada: 167-183.
European Union (2003): Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information. Oficial Journal L 345, 31/12/2003: 90-96
[URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32003L0098] Accessed 27/07/2021]
European Union (2007): Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007
establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Oficial Journal
L 108: 1-14 [URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007L0002]
Accessed 27/07/2021
456
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
European Union (2019): Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20
June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. Oficial Journal L 172: 56-83. [URL:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L1024] Accessed 27/07/2021
Faniel, I. M.; Austin, A.; Kansa, E.; Kansa, S. W.; France, P.; Jacobs, J.; Boytner, R.; Yakel, E. (2018):
Beyond the Archive: Bridging Data Creation and Reuse in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 6(02): 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.2.
Fredheim, L.H. (2020): Decuopling ‘Open’ and ‘Ethical’ Archaeologies: Rethinking Deficits and Expertise
for Ethical Public Participation in Archaeology and Heritage. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 5:
5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2020.1738540
García Marco, F. J. (1998): El concepto de información: una aproximación transdisciplinar. Revista General
de Información y Documentación, 8 (1): 303-326
Gobierno de España (2007): Ley 37/2007, de 16 de noviembre, sobre reutilización de la información
del sector público. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 275: 1-15 [URL: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.
php?id=BOE-A-2007-19814] Accessed 27/07/2021
Guillén, A.; Sáenz, K.; Badii, M.H.; Castillo, J. (2009): Origen, espacio y niveles de participación ciudadana.
Daena: International Journal of Good Conscience, 4(1):179-193. [URL: http://www.spentamexico.org/
v4-n1/4(1)%20179-193.pdf] Accessed 27/12/2020
Huggett, J. (2015): Digital Haystacks: Open Data and the Transformation of Archaeological Knowledge.
Open Source Archaeology. Ethics and Practice (T. Wilson and B. Edwars, eds.), De Gruyter, Berlin:
6-29. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440171
Huggett, J. (2018): Reuse remix recycle: repurposing archaeological digital data. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 6(2): 93-104. http://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.1
Icomos (1990): Carta Internacional para la gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico. [URL: https://www.
icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/arch_sp.pdf] Accessed 10/02/2021
IAPH (n.d.): Red de Agentes Informantes del Patrimonio Cultural. [URL: https://juntadeandalucia.
es/organismos/culturaypatrimoniohistorico/iaph/areas/documentacion-patrimonio/red-agentesinformantes.html] Accessed 10/02/2021
Institute for Studies of the Ancient World (2020): AWOL. The Ancient World Online. [URL: http://
ancientworldonline.blogspot.com/] Accessed 27/12/2020
Jiménez-Esquinas, G. (2020): El papel de las comunidades en el patrimonio: una reflexión en torno al
patrimonio arqueológico. Revista PH, 101: 100-121. https://doi.org/10.33349/2020.101.4648
Kansa, E. (2012): Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44 (4). https://
doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.737575
Kansa, E. C.; Kansa, S.W. (2013): We All Know That a 14 Is a Sheep: Data Publication and Professionalism
in Archaeological Communication. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage
Studies 1 (1): 88-97. https://doi.org/10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.1.1.0088
Kansa, S.W.; Kansa, E. (2018): Data Beyond the Archive in Digital Archaeology. An Introduction to the
Special Section. Advances in Archaeological Practice 6(2): 89-92. http://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2018.7
Lake, M. (2012): Open Archaeology. World Archaeology, 44 (4): 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/004382
43.2012.748521
Lorbo, T. (2014): Patrimoine Archéologique et Système d’Information Géographique. La carte et le
patrimoine, actes de la journée d’étude du 29 novembre 2013 (N. Gastaldi and H. Richard, eds.) Cartes
& géomatique, 220: pp. 39-52. [URL: http://www.lecfc.fr/new/articles/220-article-51.pdf ] Accessed
27/12/2020
McKeague, P.; Corns, A.; Larsson, Å.; Moreau, A.; Posluschny, A.; Van Daele, K.; Evans, T. (2020): One
Archaeology: A Manifesto for the Systematic and Efective Use of Mapped Data from Archaeological
Fieldwork and Research. Information, 11 (222). https://doi.org/10.3390/info11040222
OEI (2006): Carta Cultural Iberoamericana. [URL: https://www.segib.org/wp-content/uploads/Cartacultural-iberoamericana.pdf] Accessed 10/02/2021
Ponjuán Dante, G. (1998): Gestión de información en las Organizaciones: Principios, conceptos y
aplicaciones. Santiago de Chile: CECAPI
Prada Madrid, E. (2008): Los insumos invisibles de decisión: datos, información y conocimiento. Anales
de Documentación, 11: 183-196. [URL: https://revistas.um.es/analesdoc/article/view/24881] Accessed
26/12/2020
Fernández Cacho, S. Complutum 32(2) 2021: 443-457
457
Previtali, M.; Valente, R. (2019): Archaeological documentation and data sharing: digital surveying and
open data approach applied to archaeological fieldworks. Virtual Archaeology Review, 10 (20): 17-27.
https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019
Querol Fernández, M.A.; Martínez Díaz, B. (1996): La gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en España.
Madrid: Alianza Editorial
Richards, J. D. (1997): Preservation and re-use of digital data: the role of the Archaeology Data Service.
Antiquity, 71 (274): 1057-1059. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00086014
Richards, J.D. (2017): Twenty Years Preserving Data. A View from the United Kingdom. Advances in
Archaeological Practice 5(3): 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2017.11
Ojeda, R.; Tramullas, J. (2019): Líneas para el Desarrollo de proyectos con Wikipedia y Wikimedia
Commons en museos y bibliotecas. Actas de las IV Jornadas de Bibliotecas de Museos BIMUS. Madrid:
111-120. [URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246565] Accessed 27/07/2021
Salisbury, R.B. (2017): Open Access, archaeology, and the future. The European Archaeologist, 51: 12-14.
Sample, I. (2020): The great project: how Covid changed science for ever. The Guardian, 15 December [URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/15/the-great-project-how-covid-changed-science-for-ever]
Accessed 20/12/2020
Simpson, F. (2008): Community Archaeology Under Scrutiny. Conservation and management of
archaeological sites, 10 (1): 2-16
Sheehan, B. (2015): Comparing Digital Archaeological Repositories: tDAR versus Open Context.
Behavioral & Social Sciencies Librarian, 34:4: 173-2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.10
96155
Tait, E.; MacLeod, M.; Beel, D.; Wallace C.; Mellish, C.; Taylor, S. (2013): Linking to the past: an analysis
of community digital heritage initiatives. Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 65 No. 6: 564-580. https://doi.
org/10.1108/AP-05-2013-0039
Tobalina-Pulido, L.; González-Pérez, C. (2020): Valoración de la calidad de los datos arqueológicos a
través de la gestión de su vaguedad. Aplicación al estudio del poblamiento tardorromano. Complutum,
31 (2): 343-360 https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/cmpl.72488
Unesco (2008): Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access. [URL: http://
www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communicationmaterials/publications/full-list/policy-guidelines-for-the-development-and-promotion-of-open-access/]
Accessed 9/02/2021
Unesco (2021): Open Access to Scientific Information. [URL: https://en.unesco.org/themes/open-accessscientific-information] Accessed 9/02/2021
UAB (2015): La UAB y la Viquipedia colaboran para hacer divulgación científica y aprendizaje
colaborativo. Sala de Prensa. [URL: https://www.uab.cat/web/sala-de-prensa/detalle-noticia/la-uab-yla-viquipedia-colaboran-para-hacer-divulgacion-cientifica-y-aprendizaje-colaborativo-1345667994339.
html?noticiaid=1345687700101] Accessed 10/02/2021
Vivar Zurita, H.; Vinader Segura, R. (2011): El impulso de la industria de los contenidos digitales. CIC.
Cuadernos de Información y Comunicación, 16: 115-124. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CIYC.2011.
v16.6