Cited by 58Archaeological Research and ProtectionResearch Data Management PracticesDigital and Traditional Archives Management

What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data

Open access
Gupta, Neha, Blair, Sue, Nicholas, Ramona·2020·Journal of Field Archaeology

Abstract

Archaeological spatial databases have the potential to enable deep insights into human history. These compilations of data are at the interface of data management and data visualization. Yet issues of data governance such as the nature, management, quality, ownership, security, and accessibility of archaeological spatial databases are under examined in archaeology, a situation that can affect data intensive methods and “big” data approaches. Data governance including laws and policies associated with data have bearing on archaeological practices which, in turn, can impact map visualizations and subsequent decision-making. With the growth of the geospatial web and Web 2.0 technologies, there are increasing opportunities for archaeologists and the general public to collect and engage with digital archaeological data. In Canada, greater numbers of specialists from different sectors (research and education, government, private companies) now accumulate, store, and process digital archaeological data. We draw from the OCAP® (ownership, control, access, possession) principles to shed light on data governance in archaeology, with a focus on archaeological spatial databases in Canadian archaeology. In this context, we draw attention to the rights of Indigenous peoples, the legal and policy issues associated with archaeological spatial databases, and a need for greater engagement with Indigenous data governance principles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Allen K. M. S., 1990, Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology
  2. Andreson J., 2013, Museum Anthropology Review, 7, 105
  3. Bampton M., 2001, BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES, 931, 139
  4. Burley D. V., 1994, Journal of Canadian Archaeology, 18, 77
  5. Dent J., 2019, Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 43, 1
  6. First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014, Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP™): The Path to First Nations Information Governance
  7. IPinCH (Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage: Theory, Practice, Policy, Ethics), 2019, Declaration on the Safeguarding of Indigenous Ancestral Burial Grounds as Sacred Sites and Cultural Landscapes
  8. Marwick B., 2017, The SAA Archaeological Record, 17, 8
  9. Marwick B., 2018, The Practice of Reproducible Research: Case Studies and Lessons from the Data-Intensive Sciences
  10. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2012, Access to Provincial Archaeological Information
  11. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2019, Request Archaeological Information
  12. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, 2019, Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD)
  13. Rowley S., 2013, Museum Anthropology Review, 7, 22
  14. Scassa T., 2018, Data Ownership. CIGI Papers No. 187
  15. Smith M., 2011, Data Governance Workshop Final Report
  16. Tamplin M. J., 1999, Archaeology in the Age of the Internet. CAA97. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Conference, 53
  17. Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada
  18. Williamson R. F., 2018, Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 42, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, N., Blair, S., & Nicholas, R.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus (CA)
  • University of New Brunswick (CA)
Corresponding author
Gupta, Neha
Venue
Journal of Field Archaeology
Published
2020-02-12
Volume
45
Issue
sup1
Pages
S39-S50
ISSN
  • 0093-4690 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-4582
OpenAlex
W3006354322
Cited by
58
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
FWCI
12.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Field Archaeology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Digital and Traditional Archives Management
Keywords
data governance, Indigenous data sovereignty, indigenous rights, big data, data visualization, geospatial web, Web 2.0, data policy, Canadian archaeology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review