Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
Open Access

Open Archaeology

Editor-in-Chief: Harding, Anthony

Covered by:
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

CiteScore 2018: 1.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.339
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.726

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Reproducibility in the Field: Transparency, Version Control and Collaboration on the Project Panormos Survey

Néhémie Strupler
  • Corresponding author
  • Archéologie et histoire ancienne: Méditerranée-Europe, ARCHIMÈDE (UMR 7044), Université de Strasbourg and Institut für Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde, Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Toby C. Wilkinson
  • Churchill College/McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-11-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2017-0019


Archaeological fieldwork is rarely considered reproducible in the sense of the ideal scientific method because of its destructive nature. But new digital technology now offers field practitioners a set of tools that can at least increase the transparency of the data-collection process as well as bring other benefits of an Open Science approach to archaeology. This article shares our perspectives, choices and experiences of piloting a set of tools (namely: ODK, Git, GitLab CE and R) which can address reproducibility of fieldwork in the form of an intensive survey project in western Turkey, and highlights the potential consequences of Open Science approaches for archaeology as a whole.

Keywords: Open Science; multi-vocality; decentralisation of data; reproducibility; post-field collaboration; transparency; ethics; fieldwork


  • Alcock, S., & Cherry, J. (Eds.). (2004). Side-by-side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2016). Ancient History, Modern Destruction: Assessing the Status of Syria’s Tentative World Heritage Sites Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery. https://www.aaas.org/page/ancienthistory-modern-destruction-assessing-status-syria-s-tentative-world-heritage-sites-7 (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Anokwa, Y., Hartung, C., Brunette, W., Lerer, A., & Borriello, G. (2009). Open Source Data Collection in the Developing World. IEEE Computer, 97-99. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MC.2009.328.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (Eds.). (2014). Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bazerman, C. (1983). Scientific Writing as a Social Act: A Review of the Literature of the Sociology of Science. In Paul V. Anderson R. John Brockmann & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 156-184). Amityville: Baywood. Google Scholar

  • Bevan, A. (2012). Value, Authority and the Open Society. Some Implications for Digital and Online Archaeology. In C. Bonacchi (Ed.), Archaeology and digital communication: Towards strategies of public engagement (pp. 1-14). London: Archetype.Google Scholar

  • Bevan, A. (2015). The data deluge. Antiquity, 89, 1473-1484. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bissell, M. (2013). Reproducibility: the Risks of the Replication Drive. Nature, 593, 333-334. https://doi.org/10.1038/503333a.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowers, J. (2011). Six steps to a Better Relationship with Your Future Self. The Political Methodologist, 18(2), 2-8.Google Scholar

  • Chacon, S., & Straub, B. (2014). Pro Git. https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2 (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Costa, S., Beck, A., Bevan, A., & Ogden, J. (2013). Defining and advocating open data in archaeology. In G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I. Romanowska, & D. Wheatley (Eds.), Archaeology in the Digital Era. Papers from the 40th Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, 26-29 March 2012 (pp. 449-456). http://dare.uva.nl/document/516092.Google Scholar

  • Creative Commons (2013). Responses of Creative Commons to House of Lords Comments Concerning the CC BY License. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/BIS_committee_UK_OA_Policy#Plagiarism (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Düring, B., & Glatz, C. (Eds.). (2016). Kinetic Landscapes. The Cide Archaeological Project: Surveying the Turkish Western Black Sea Region. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter Open. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110444971.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, S. J. (2016). Are We Ready for New (Digital) Ways to Record Archaeological Fieldwork? A Case Study from Pompeii. In E. W. Averett, J. M. Gordon, & D. B. Counts (Eds.), Mobilizing the past for a digital future: The potential of digital archaeology (pp. 51-75). Grand Forks: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota.Google Scholar

  • Ersoy, Y., & Koparal, E. (2008). Urla ve Seferihisar İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması 2007 Yılı çalışmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 26(3), 73-9.Google Scholar

  • Ersoy, Y., Tuna, N., & Koparal, E. (2010). Urla ve Seferihisar İlçeleri Yüzey Araştırması 2009 Yılı Çalışmaları. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 28(2), 339-360.Google Scholar

  • EU. (2016). H2020 Programme - Annotated Model Grant Agreement (Version 2.1.1). https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/494149a.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York: New York University.Google Scholar

  • Germán, D. M., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2016). Continuously mining distributed version control systems: An empirical study of how linux uses git. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(1), 260-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-014-9356-2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gewin, V. (2013). Turning Point: Carl Boettiger. Nature, 493, 711. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7434-711a.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Götz, N., & Marklund, C. (2014). The Paradox of Openness: Transparency and Participation in Nordic Cultures of Consensus. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., & King, C. J. (2010). Archaeology Case Study. In Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. (pp. 29-136). UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g.Google Scholar

  • HEFCE. (2015). Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework: Updated July 2015. Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/ (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Heller, L., The, R., & Bartling, S. (2014). Dynamic Publication Formats and Collaborative Authoring. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 191-211). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (1999). The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hodder, I. (2008). Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. In J. Habu, C. Fawcett, & J. M. Matsunaga (Eds.), Evaluating multiple narratives: Beyond nationalist, colonialist, imperialist archaeologies (pp. 196-200). New York: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71825-5_13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huggett, J. (2015). Digital Haystacks: Open Data and the Transformation of Archaeological Knowledge. In A. T. Wilson and B. Edwards (Ed.), Open source archaeology (pp. 6-29). Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter Open. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110440171-003.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ihaka, R., & Gentleman, R. (1996). R: A Language for Data Analysis and Graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(3), 299-314.Google Scholar

  • Journal of Open Archaeology Data. (2017). Research integrity. http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/about/researchintegrity/ (May 25, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44(4), 498-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.737575.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kansa, E. (2014). The Need to Humanize Open Science. In S. A. Moore (Ed.), Issues in open research data (pp. 31-58). London: Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/10.5334/ban.c.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kansa, E., & Whitcher Kansa, S. (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/10.1353/ema.2013.0007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., & Arbuckle, B. (2014). Publishing and Pushing: Mixing Models for Communicating Research Data in Archaeology. International Journal of Digital Curation, 9.1, 57-70. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelty, C. M. (2005). Free Science. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 415-430). MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Durham: Duke University Press. http://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Kelty, C. M. (2014). Beyond Copyright and Technology: What Open Access can tell us about Precarity, Authority, Innovation, and Automation in the University Today. Cultural Anthropology, 29(2), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca29.2.02.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Knorr, K. D., & Knorr, D. W. (1978). From Scenes to Scripts: On the Relationship between Laboratory Research and Published Paper in Science. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

  • Knuth, D. E. (1984). Literate Programming. The Computer Journal, 27(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/27.2.97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lagoze, C., Block, W. C., Williams, J., Abowd, J., & Vilhuber, L. (2013). Data management of confidential data. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(1), 265-278.Google Scholar

  • Lake, M. (2012). Open archaeology. World Archaeology, 44(4), 471-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.748521.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Marwick, B. (2016). Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Masic, I. (2012). Plagiarism in scientific publishing. Acta Informatica Medica, 20(4), 208-213. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2012.20.208-213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Matthews, R., & Glatz, C. (Eds.). (2009). At Empires’ Edge. Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-Central Turkey. London: British Institute at Ankara.Google Scholar

  • Morin, A., Urban, J., Adams, P. D., Foster, I., Sali, A., Baker, D., & Sliz, P. (2012). Shining Light into Black Boxes. Science, 336(6078), 159-160. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218263.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nielsen, M. (2011). An informal definition of openscience. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=454 (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves - and how they can stop. Nature, 526, 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1038/526182a.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Open Definition. (2016). Conformant license (version 2.1). http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Schloen, D. (2001). Archaeological Data Models and Web Publication Using XML. Computers and the Humanities, 35(2), 123-152. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30204847.Google Scholar

  • Schloen, D., & Schloen, S. (2014). Beyond Gutenberg: Transcending the Document Paradigm in Digital Humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 8(4). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/8/4/000196/000196.html.Google Scholar

  • Smith, J. (2013). Adapting Git for simple data. https://theodi.org/blog/adapting-git-simple-data (May 14, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Strupler, N. (2016). Archaeology as Community Enterprise. In S. Campana, R. Scopigno, G. Carpentiero, & M. Cirillo (Eds.), CAA2015 keep the revolution going, proceedings of the 43 rd annual conference on computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology (Vol. 1, pp. 1015-1018).Google Scholar

  • The Free Software Foundation. (2016). Various Licenses and Comments about Them. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html (May 18, 2017).Google Scholar

  • Vinck, D., & Clivaz, C. (2014). The Humanities Unbound. Knowledge and Culture Reinvented Outside the Book. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 8(4), a-w. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.025.0682.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wallis, J., Rolando, E., & Borgman, C. (2013). If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067332.Google Scholar

  • Wallrodt, J. (2016). Why Paperless: Technology and Changes in Archaeological Practice, 1996-2016. In E. W. Averett, J. M. Gordon, & D. B. Counts (Eds.), Mobilizing the past for a digital future: The potential of digital archaeology (pp. 33-50). Grand Forks: The Digital Press at the University of North Dakota.Google Scholar

  • Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic Documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman; Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

  • Xie, Y. (2016). Knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R (R package version 1.12). http://yihui.name/knitr/.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-10-19

Accepted: 2017-07-10

Published Online: 2017-11-14

Published in Print: 2017-11-27

Citation Information: Open Archaeology, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 279–304, ISSN (Online) 2300-6560, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2017-0019.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in