Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
To come to well-grounded conclusions, spatial, semantic and administrative data need to be handled simultaneously in archaeology. This data integration is still not fully accomplished today due to the increasing time-pressure imposed by the capitalistic market and the maladjustment of GIS to archaeological data. Furthermore, exchanging and integrating archaeological data is hampered by the diverse organization- or project-specific databases. The reuse of archaeological data is consequently very limited, although valuable information is likely to result from it. Therefore, an archaeological geodata infrastructure that allows for the integration of spatial, semantic and administrative data will contribute to the data management, analysis, reuse and exchange. This paper demonstrates that the flexible Archaeological DAta Model (ADAM) can form the basis for an archaeology-specific geodata infrastructure by means of two case studies. The first case, SeArch project, focusses on the integration of different data sources and a user-friendly WebGIS and management tool for marine archaeological heritage. The second case concerns the design of an archaeological infrastructure useful for registration, management and analysis of urban excavations. By implementing the points for improvement and ideas for extension indicated by the potential end-users, the value of the application for both management and research will even increase.
Keywords: Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI), Web-based GIS, Data Model, Archaeological Data Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
The records of archaeological data acquired during fieldwork constitute mostly the only raw residuals of archaeological investigation along with the found material remains. The way these records are created influences the future interpretation, the resulting reports and ensuing policy decisions [1]. This increasing consciousness of excavations' destructive nature combined with the current development-led archaeology has resulted in on the one hand an increasing emphasis on data recording and on the other hand a growing gap between fieldwork and interpretation [2, 3]. The first is even strengthened by the widespread use of spatial recording techniques, such as GPS, total station and laser scanning [3, 4]. These fast and accurate topographic measurements result in born-digital spatial data that can be used in Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Notwithstanding the geographic component in the majority of archaeological data and its importance in research, integrating spatial, thematic and administrative data during management and analysis is not fully exploited in contemporary archaeological research [5]. Two main reasons...