Skip to main content
Log in

Ontologies of the Future and Interfaces for All: Archaeological Databases for the Twenty-First Century

  • Research
  • Published:
Archaeologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Archaeological database management systems serve the basic and important functions of ordering, archiving, and disseminating archaeological data. The increased availability of computers and data storage over the past two decades has enabled the exponential growth of archaeological databases and data models. Despite their importance and ubiquity, archaeological database systems are rarely the subject of theoretical analysis within the discipline due to their “black box” nature and the perceived objectivity of computerized systems. Inspired by H. Martin Wobst’s meditations on materiality and disciplinary ethics, in this paper I explore how archaeological database systems structure archaeological interpretation and disciplinary practice. In turn, I offer suggestions for how archaeological database systems can better support pressing anthropological research topics of the 21st century including multivocality, participatory research and ethics, social memory, and social complexity studies.

Résumé

Les systèmes de gestion de base de données archéologiques remplissent des fonctions élémentaires importantes consistant à ordonner, archiver et disséminer les données archéologiques. La présence croissante d’ordinateurs et de solutions de stockage de données au cours des deux dernières décennies a permis un accroissement exponentiel des bases de données archéologiques et des modèles de données. En dépit de leur importance et de leur ubiquité, les systèmes de bases de données archéologiques font rarement l’objet d’analyses théoriques au sein de la discipline en raison de leur caractère de « boîte noire » et de l’objectivité perçue des systèmes informatiques. Les méditations de H. Martin Wobst sur la matérialité et l’éthique de la discipline ont inspiré cet article dans lequel j’explore la façon dont les systèmes de bases de données archéologiques structurent l’interprétation archéologique et les pratiques de la discipline. Ce faisant, j’offre des suggestions sur la façon dont les systèmes de bases de données archéologiques peuvent appuyer de manière plus efficace la recherche anthropologique courante sur les sujets d’intérêt du 21e siècle dont la multivocalité, la recherche et l’éthique participatives, la mémoire sociale et les études de la complexité sociale.

Resumen

Los sistemas de gestión de bases de datos arqueológicos sirven para las funciones básicas e importantes de ordenar, archivar y difundir los datos arqueológicos. La creciente disponibilidad de ordenadores y almacenamiento de datos a lo largo de las dos últimas décadas ha permitido el crecimiento exponencial de las bases de datos arqueológicos y de modelos de datos. A pesar de su importancia y ubicuidad, los sistemas de bases de datos arqueológicos son raras veces el objeto del análisis teórico dentro de la disciplina debido a su naturaleza de “caja negra” y la objetividad percibida de los sistemas informatizados. Inspirado por las meditaciones de H. Martin Wobst sobre la materialidad y la ética disciplinaria, en el presente documento exploro cómo los sistemas de bases de datos arqueológicos estructuran la interpretación arqueológica y la práctica disciplinaria. A su vez, ofrezco sugerencias sobre cómo los sistemas de bases de datos arqueológicos pueden apoyar mejor los temas acuciantes de la investigación antropológica del siglo XXI, incluidos los estudios sobre multivocalidad, investigación participativa y ética, memoria social y complejidad social.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References Cited

  • Adams, M.O. 2007. Analyzing Archives and Finding Facts: Use and Users of Digital Data Records. Archival Science 7:21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G.C. 2000. Biodiversity Datadiversity. Social Studies of Science 30(5):643–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L. (2000) Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, MIT PressCambridge MA.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruchac, M.M. (2007) Historical Erasure and Cultural Recovery: Indigenous People in the Connecticut River Valley (PhD Dissertation), University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherst.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Locke, S., and G. Nicholas 2011. Working Towards Greater Equity and Understanding: Examples of Collaborative Archaeology and Museum Initiatives with Indigenous Peoples in North America [Electronic Document] Accessed 10 August 2012 http://sfaanews.sfaa.net/2011/02/01/working-towards-greater-equity-and-understanding-examples-of-collaborative-archaeology-and-museum-initiatives-with-indigenous-peoples-in-north-america/?like=1&_wpnonce=f2012b233d.

  • Christie, M. 2004. Words, Ontologies and Aboriginal Databases. Charles Darwin University [Electronic Document] Accessed 28 October 2011 http://www.cdu.edu.au/centresc/ik/publications/WordsOntologiesAbDB.pdf.

  • Hine, C. 2006. Databases as Scientific Instruments and Their Role in the Ordering of Scientific Work. Social Studies of Science 36(2):269–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, P.H. (1993) History as an Art of Memory, University of Vermont PressBurlington.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Indigenous Knowledge and Resource Management in Northern Australia 2006. TAMI—A Database and File Management System for Indigenous Use [Electronic Document] Accessed 10 August 2012 http://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ik/db_TAMI.html.

  • Kirakosian, K.V. (2011) An Archaeologically Focused Ethnography of Shell Heap/Midden Research on Cape Cod and the Islands through Discourse and Narrative Analyses. Doctoral Dissertation Prospectus, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherst.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Labrador, A.M., and E.S. Chilton 2009. Re-locating Meaning in Heritage Archives: A Call for Participatory Heritage Databases. Proceedings of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2009, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA. March 22–26, 2009. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.

  • Neville, J., Ö. Şimşek, and D. Jensen 2004. Autocorrelation and Relational Learning: Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Workshop on Statistical Relational Learning, 21st International Conference on Machine Learning [Electronic Document] Accessed 29 October 2011 http://kdl.cs.umass.edu/papers/neville-et-al-srl2004.pdf.

  • Neville, J. and D. Jensen 2002. Supporting Relational Knowledge Discovery: Lessons in Architecture and Algorithm Design. Papers of the ICML 2002 Workshop on Data Mining Lessons Learned [Electronic Document] Accessed 21 January 2007 http://kdl.cs.umass.edu/papers/neville-jensen-dmll2002.pdf.

  • Nicholas, G.P., Roberts, A., Schaepe, D.M., Watkins, J., Leader-Elliot, L., Rowley, S. 2011. A Consideration of Theory, Principles and Practice in Collaborative Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(2):11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D.W. (2009) Artifact Classification: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach, Left Coast PressWalnut Creek.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (2006) Memory, History, Forgetting, University of Chicago PressChicago.,

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, R.A., and J. Neville 2011. Representations and Ensemble Methods for Dynamic Relational Classification [Electronic Document] Accessed 10 August 2012 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.5312.pdf.

  • RRN 2012. The Reciprocal Research Network [Electronic Document] Accessed 10 August 2012 http://www.rrnpilot.org/.

  • Simon, N., 2010. The Participatory Museum [Electronic Document] Accessed 29 October 2011 http://www.participatorymuseum.org/.

  • Srinivasan, R., Huang, J. 2005. Fluid Ontologies for Digital Museums. International Journal on Digital Libraries 5(3):193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Holocaust Museum 2011. Children of the Lodz Ghetto Research Project [Electronic Document] Accessed 29 October 2011 http://online.ushmm.org/lodzchildren/.

  • Vander Wal, T., 2007. Folksoomy [Electronic Document] Accessed 9 August 2012 http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html.

  • Verran, H., 2007. The Educational Value of Explicit Non-coherence: Software for Helping Aboriginal Children Learn about Place. In Kritt, David W. and Winegar, Lucien T. (editors), Education and Technology: Critical Perspectives and Possible Futures, Lexington Books, Plymouth, UK, pp. 101–124.

  • Weissman, R.F.E. 1994. Archives and the New Information Architecture of the Late 1990 s. The American Archivist 57(2):20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wobst, H.M. (1999) Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. In Material Meanings Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culturepp. 118–132, edited by E.S. Chilton, University of Utah PressSalt Lake City.,

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I offer many thanks to the organizers of this special issue, Broughton Anderson, Kimberly Kasper, and Robert Paynter, for their invitation and work, as well as to the anonymous peer reviewers for their feedback; Elizabeth Chilton for earlier discussions and work on “heritage 2.0” archives; Neil Silberman for his ever-thoughtful feedback; and most importantly, H. Martin Wobst for his inspiration, support, and insight.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela M. Labrador.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Labrador, A.M. Ontologies of the Future and Interfaces for All: Archaeological Databases for the Twenty-First Century. Arch 8, 236–249 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-012-9203-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-012-9203-2

Key Word

Navigation