Source Themes

Big, open data approaches assume that data are an objective representation of a complex reality, and rely on fixed classificatory schemes to enable aggregation and rigid labels to facilitate machine-readability. This Eurocentric view obscures systems of oppression and extraction, resulting in barriers and unequal benefits from digital technologies, and it diminishes the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and descendant communities to their heritage.

The proliferation of information and communication technologies in US archaeology has created myriad expectations for professional labor throughout the life cycle of data. Technological adoption has outpaced the development of professional and ethical frameworks, leaving archaeological data labor unsustainable in our under-resourced discipline. This article reviews traditional Western paradigms underpinning legal and intellectual property models that have shaped archaeological data standards and contribute to problematic outcomes for archaeological data labor, alienate publics from primary data of publicly mandated heritage preservation, disregard Indigenous Data Sovereignty, and enable the extractive commodification of heritage for AI enterprises.

We apply a “systems thinking” approach to produce such a high-level model of the US digital data system. We argue that understanding and visualizing this system will help us all “think bigger” (Heilen and Manney 2023); identify sources of knowledge, opportunities for critical analysis, collaboration, and capacity building; and increase much-needed archaeological digital literacy (Kansa and Kansa 2022).

Digitization of heritage in art gallery and museum contexts raises ethical concerns around ownership, consent, and use. It also highlights fundamental issues of access and engagement for blind and partially sighted (BPS) visitors, especially elders.

Archaeologists increasingly face a scenario where the re-use of archaeological data, particularly the processing and analysis of digital archaeological data, is posing pointed challenges to the practice of archaeology