This study explores issues in using data generated by other analysts. Three researchers independently analyzed an orphaned, decades-old zooarchaeological dataset and then compared their analytical approaches and results. Although they took a similar initial approach to determine the dataset’s suitability for analysis, the three researchers generated markedly different interpretive conclusions. In examining how researchers use legacy data, this paper highlights interpretive issues, data integrity concerns, and data documentation needs. In order to meet these needs, we propose greater professional recognition for data dissemination, favoring models of “data publication” over “data sharing” or “data archiving.”
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Alizadeh, A. (2008). Chogha Mish II: The development of a prehistoric regional center in lowland Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final report on the last six seasons of excavations, 1972–1978. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications volume 130.
Amorosi, T., Woollett, J., Perdikaris, S., & McGovern, T. (1996). Regional zooarchaeology and global change: Problems and potentials. World Archaeology, 28, 126–157.
Atici, L., Lev-Tov, J., & Kansa, S. W. (2010). Chogha Mish fauna (overview). (Released 2010-08-24), in: Atici, L., Lev-Tov, J., Kansa, S.W. (eds.), Open context. <http://opencontext.org/projects/497ADEAD-0C2A-4C62-FEEF-9079FB09B1A5>. California Digital Library Identifier <ark:/28722/k2v97zq9g>.
Carraway, L. N. (2011). On preserving knowledge. American Midland Naturalist, 166, 1–12.
Chaplin, R. E. (1971). The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. London: Seminar Press.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1975). A system for the retrieval of data relating to animal remains from archaeological sites. In A. T. Clason (Ed.), Archaeozoological studies (pp. 21–34). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Costello, M. J. (2009). Motivating online publication of data. BioScience, 59, 418–427.
Davis, S. (1987). The archaeology of animal bones. London: Yale University Press.
Driver, J. C. (1991). Identification, classification and zooarchaeology. Circaea, 9, 35–47.
Gamble, C. (1978). Optimising information from studies of faunal remains. In J. F. Cherry, C. Gamble, & S. Shennan (Eds.), Sampling in contemporary British Archaeology (pp. 321–353). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Gobalet, K. W. (2001). A critique of faunal analysis; inconsistency among experts in blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 377–386.
Grigson, C. (1978). Towards a blueprint for animal bone reports in archaeology. In D. Brothwell, K. D. Thomas, & J. Clutton-Brock (Eds.), Research problems in zooarchaeology (pp. 121–128). London: University of London.
Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g (accessed October 7, 2010).
Hesse, B., & Wapnish, P. (1985). Animal bone archaeology: From objectives to analysis. Manuals on archaeology 5. Washington: Taraxacum.
Kansa, E. C. (2010). Open context in context: Cyberinfrastructure and distributed approaches to publish and preserve archaeological data. The SAA Archaeological Record, 10, 12–16.
Kansa, S. W., & Kansa, E. C. (2011). Beyond bone commons: Recent developments in zooarchaeological data sharing. The SAA Archaeological Record, 11, 26–29.
Kansa, E. C., Schultz, J., & Bissell, A. N. (2005). Protecting traditional knowledge and expanding access to scientific data. International Journal of Cultural Property, 12, 285–314.
Kansa, S. W., Atici, L., Kansa, E. C., & Meadow, R. H. (in preparation). Guidelines for collecting and disseminating zooarchaeological data, from the field to the Web.
Kintigh, K. W. (2006). The promise and challenge of archaeological data integration. American Antiquity, 71, 567–578.
Klein, R. G. (1989). Why does skeletal part representation differ between smaller and larger bovids at Klasies River Mouth and other archaeological sites? Journal of Archaeological Science, 16, 363–381.
Klein, R. G., & Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984). The analysis of animal bones from archaeological sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lev-Tov, J., Atici, L., & Kansa, S. W. (in preparation). A cooperative study of faunal remains from Chogha Mish, Iran after 40 years of data in the wilderness.
Lyman, R. L. (1994a). Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology. American Antiquity, 59, 36–71.
Lyman, R. L. (1994b). Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyman, R. L. (2008). Quantitative paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meadow, R. H. (1978). “Bonecode” a system of numerical coding for faunal data from Middle Eastern sites. In R. H. Meadow & M. A. Zeder (Eds.), Approaches to faunal analysis in the Middle East (pp. 169–186). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Meadow, R. H. (1980). Animal bones; problems for the archaeologist together with some possible solutions. Paleorient, 6, 65–77.
Nature Editors. (2009). Data's shameful neglect. Nature, 461, 145.
O'Connor, T. P. (2003). The analysis of urban animal bone assemblages: A handbook for archaeologists. York: Council for British Archaeology.
Onsrud, H., & Campbell, J. (2007). Big opportunities in access to "Small Science" data. Data Science Journal, 6, 58–66.
Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (2008). Zooarchaeology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. (2004). Online archives. Internet archaeology http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue15/richards_index.html (Accessed on: March 18, 2008).
Ringrose, T. J. (1993). Bone counts and statistics: A critique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 20, 121–157.
Silver, I. A. (1969). The ageing of domestic animals. In D. Brothwell & E. Higgs (Eds.), Science and archaeology (pp. 283–302). London: Thames & Hudson.
Snow, D. R., Gahegan, M., Giles, C. L., Hirth, K. G., Milner, G. R., Mitra, P., et al. (2006). Cybertools and archaeology. Science, 311, 958–959.
Speth, J. D. (1983). Bison kills and bone counts. Decision making by ancient hunters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, K. D. (1996). Zooarchaeology: past, present, and future. World Archaeology, 28, 1–4.
Turner, A. (1989). Sample selection, Schlepp effects and scavenging: The implications of partial recovery for interpretations of the terrestrial mammal assemblage from Klasies River mouth. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16, 1–12.
Uerpmann, H.-P. (1973). Animal bone finds and economic archaeology: A critical study of ‘osteo-archaeological’ method. World Archaeology, 4(3), 307–322.
Uerpmann, H.-P. (1978). The KNOCOD system for processing data on animal bones from archaeological sites. In R. H. Meadow & M. A. Zeder (Eds.), Approaches to faunal analysis in the Middle East (pp. 149–167). Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
Wheeler Pires Ferreira, J., Atici, L., Lev-Tov, J., & Kansa, S. W. (2010). Chogha Mish fauna (released 2010-08-24). In: Atici, L., Lev-Tov, J., Kansa, S.W. (eds.), table generated by: Open context editors. Open context. <http://opencontext.org/tables/39fd14fe7196aea0821ce8c7e08251f8> California Digital Library Archival Identifier < ark:/28722/k2c824d31>.
We thank Abbas Alizadeh (University of Chicago) for making this dataset publicly available and encouraging our use of these data. We also note that this study would not have been possible without Jane Wheeler’s original analysis, and her contribution is recognized in Open Context, where a copy of these data is published and archived. We wish to acknowledge and thank three anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved the presentation and the strength of this paper. This study is part of a broader endeavor exploring user needs in archaeological data sharing, carried out by the Alexandria Archive Institute and funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Advancing Knowledge: The IMLS/NEH Digital Partnership program.
About this article
Cite this article
Atici, L., Kansa, S.W., Lev-Tov, J. et al. Other People’s Data: A Demonstration of the Imperative of Publishing Primary Data. J Archaeol Method Theory 20, 663–681 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-012-9132-9
- Data integrity
- Blind test
- Faunal analysis
- Legacy data