.gif)
Archaeology, by definition is a discipline requiring dissemination of information. In the past this was achieved by publishing excavation and field reports in either a one-off publication, a monograph; or in a succession of journal articles. Today you can still find many archaeologists who abide by this convention when publishing their conclusions. However, recent developments both in the theory of the discipline as well as in the computing technology in general, have caused the emergence of a debate whether or not it will be preferable to publish electronically. In this paper, my aim would be to attract the reader's attention to the various media with which information could be published electronically. Furthermore, I will attempt to present a series of advantages and disadvantages of electronic publication. Finally, wherever possible references and examples would be provided, in the light of supporting my argument demonstrating the realistic side in it.
Before moving on to the main argument, however, I would like to dwell briefly on the current mode of thinking and the circumstances that lead e-publication to be considered even at the smallest degree. Many archaeologists today, indeed most of them, are still attracted to the benefits of conventional paper publication. The format of that as mentioned earlier, would either be a monograph or a journal article. The monograph could be rather large including the excavation report, an extensive (and boring!) catalogue of finds, a discussion at the end and specialists reports attached to the same volume or in volumes to come. The journal article on the other hand, due to limitations of space mainly, would be a brief account of the work undergone that year, very rarely containing catalogues of finds or specialists reports. Immediately we are faced with two alternatives: the 'bulky' monograph or the short and concise solution of the journal article. One of the main restrictions of paper publication can be seen already. That is the publishing cost. Publishers would aim for profit and will be reluctant to publish all the information the project manager wants and at the quality demanded. Furthermore, problems like wider access to the data and publication speed seem to be a couple more issues that e-publication appears to provide solutions for. Problems like these, alongside with the current post-processual way of thinking, i.e. treating text as a 'dynamic process' capable of receiving alternate interpretations (cf. Staton, 1987); have lead to a feeling that the e-publication is more well equipped to deal with the problems presented through conventional paper publication.
When talking about e-publication today, people tend to refer to mainly the World Wide Web (WWW) and CD-ROM. Recently though, electronic journals like Internet Archaeology (IA http://intarch.ac.uk ) seem to be catching up. Although still at an infant level, the opportunities offered to archaeology through e-publication have already become apparent. However, it will still be a while before e-publishing is widely accepted. As Holtorf demonstrated in his IA article (1999), the time is right but the world is not yet prepared for it. The technology required to publish on-line or on a CD-ROM is available, but it will take institutional movement from various universities in order to make Holtorf's vision of an on-line 'linked' academia come to life.
Despite that initial note of pessimism, there is plenty of potential in e-publishing in archaeology. To name but a few of the advantages there would be ample storage space for large quantities of data both on line as well as on a CD-ROM. Information published on-line would be by far more widely accessible. The cost and the publication speed could become minimal, and last but not least, the web as a hyper-media offers the potential of linking to other relevant texts, offers downloadable material and the ability to access the web page at a later stage to update it.
In the conventional paper publication there were always restrictions to the amount of information and printing quality of photographs and plans set by the publisher. E-publication as an alternative solution, diminishes that problem, since a single CD could provide enough space for hundreds of high quality colour photographs with links to the relevant documentation or a database entry if applicable. The same goes for the web, with the additional advantage of extra storage space and interaction through the hyperlinks. Therefore, e-publication enhances if you like the visual aspect as well as the presentation aspect of the discipline. Furthermore, it increases by far the volume of information available to the public.
Another debatable area can be found in the cost necessary to produce the final publication. In conventional publication the costs included were enormous since most of the monographs involved endless lists of chapters as well as complimentary publications. Furthermore, there was the issue of multiple copies. According to Aldenderfer (1999) a standard CD-ROM publication would not cost more than $80,000. Similarly, the digital record of the Eynsham Abbey project cost was less than 2% of the total budget (data taken from Richards and Robinson, 2000). The full archive for the site excavated by the Oxford Archaeological Unit (OAU) could be found at the ArchSearch catalogue when operating a project search. Most of the information provided on this web site are downloadable, therefore available for further interpretation by the frequent users of the site if that may be the case. Project managers are encouraged to include into the original funding application, the cost for the creation of a digital record looking ahead to a fully integrated e-publication. In deed, many funding authorities today like the Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB), include in their policy terms which would force the grant holder to deliver a digital record to the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) for wider publication. The ADS itself provides annual workshops teaching and demonstrating ways to ask for specific funding for e-publication.
Publication speed is a further issue under consideration. Hodder (1999) seems favourable to internet publication in that respect. He comments that most web sites attached to an archaeology project could be 'up and running' within 3-4 months. On the other hand, traditional publication methods, as it is bitterly known today, could take up to 5-10 years until the final draft reaches the publisher's desk. Some publishers insist on a duplicate record of both an e-copy as well as a paper copy. The e-copy could be anything from scanned pages of text to additional downloadable information only available on the web. Problems of inability to access those arise within this approach, that would be dealt with in due course of this paper.
One of the most common advantages of the web often quoted by its many users is the amount of interaction allowed within it. Conventional publication was a standard text providing you with a linear development of an argument. The reader was forced to follow the order of the 'table of contents'. E-publication, though, provides the reader with the possibility of jumping to and from different points within as well as without the published record. The reader can focus on a piece of information of interest to him, follow the link available and retrieve the information required. He can even jump to attached databases or link to external websites with further background information on the desired query. Holtorf (1999), talking about his thesis, says that he avoided following a set order of presentation. Instead he let the reader decide where to start and where to finish. He stressed in other words 'the power of making connections as an interpretative tool' (Holtorf, 1999). This kind of approach adopted here, is in line with theoretical frameworks which want the text to be 'alive' rather than just 'dumping' information to the reader. The reader has the power to decide what approach to take to the presented data (cf. Richards & Robinson, 2000).
Ian Hodder in his IA article (1999) makes extensive reference to the amount of traffic on his web site contrasting it with the number of monograph copies sold. He maintains the view that the web page behaves as the major means of 'transmitting information about the archaeological research'. In addition, a 'web-site' is 'placing side by side specialist and public perspectives' (Hodder, 1999). In other words interest from non-archaeology related groups could provide links to the web-site and lead to archaeological enquiry, although that was not the initial aim. Therefore, the issue of wider audiences is approached here in a way that was not possible in the conventional method of paper publication. However, admittedly the web page receives more visitors than a book on a library self. Nevertheless, there is no way of monitoring how many people would read a specific book over the course of the years. A last point I want to dwell upon, would be the wide availability of software available over the Internet such as VRML. Three dimensional models (3-D) could be re-produced on the web for public access. Even architectural simulations are possible today using software like VRML. Take a look for example at the Virtual reality tour produced by the Ohio State University, US of the Roman Baths at Isthmia, Greece: http://www.accad.ohio-state.edu/~japley/html/isthmia.html. That site although slow to download thanks to the heavy graphics involved, provides a good example of what VRML can do for the world of archaeology. Furthermore, Hodder's own web site of his project at Çatalhöyük, provides a few VRML examples available for consultation and helping towards the understanding of what is being said in the main text. In other words, the latest innovations in technology could help the reader significantly by showing him where the interpretations come from.
So far we have looked into the advantages of e-publication, in a quick and diagrammatic way. There is, however, as with most things in archaeology today, a flip-side on this 'coin' called e-publication. There are issues that could restrict or question the benefits of e-publication. To start off from the most simple argument, is to mention the software and hardware required. To work a CD-ROM you need a PC and if for further information you need to take advantage of the hyperlinks provided in that CD-ROM then you have to have access to the Internet. Furthermore, e-journals like IA are published only on the web restricting in that sense access to all those who do not have an Internet connection. The issue of democratising archaeological knowledge raised here is mentioned by both Huggett (1995) and Hodder (1999). Huggett goes on to talk about distinctions amongst archaeologists who 'have' and 'have not' access to the Internet, in the same way like the distinction we got today between archaeologists working in field units and those working in higher education (1995, 25). Therefore, it is important to emphasize the problem of access to the information provided either on-line or on disk. The archaeological record is for public display and not for discriminating use by the chosen few.
'We no longer operate in a world where archaeological data are created by archaeologists for archaeologists. As digitisation and computer literacy increase, the archaeological record will become more accessible and public' (Richards & Robinson, 2000).
Another case to bring forward here is the case of authenticity and the authority behind the CD-ROM or web-site we are using. Today it is very easy for independent groups or even individuals to produce media like these, promoting their own ideas on specific issues. To what extent, though, will we be aware whether or not these material are trustworthy or not? On-line journals can be peer reviewed and a certain feeling of security can be found amongst their pages. However, as Hodder (1999) argues, it is increasingly easy for independent groups to gain access to information which would give them the potential to create sites equally specialised as the professional ones. 'The archaeologist has to argue for an authority, not assume it' (Hodder, 1999).
Already dwelled upon, the cost of e-publication is significantly cheaper than conventional publication. However, the cost of e-publication could rise when one considers the effort, time and technical expertise required to produce the initial digital archive to attach to the publication, if required. It is therefore advisable to plan ahead from the beginning of the excavation. Project managers should choose a way of recording in a digital format easily transferable on the web or onto a CD-ROM. Apart from obvious practical and convenience benefits, this strategy will speed up the publication process and once published -if electronically -all the data recorded on the field could become accessible.
The preservation of information is another important issue to touch upon at this point. Holtorf believes that "'living' WWW pages are one of the most durable forms of publication in the electronic age, as they are most likely to get automatically updated as every new software generation arrives"(1999). That is more or less the case, but caution should be introduced since the existence of the web page depends a lot on the existence of the server who hosts it. If for some reason the server goes 'bust', then there goes the web page with all the crucial information contained within it. This is what happened to the first on-line journals. Lacking support and enthusiasm they were ignored and eventually the server who provided for them seeing no particular traffic on the web site had to remove them from its services. Obviously, people looking for data that have been published in those journals are now for ever lost! On similar lines, the life expectancy of a CD-ROM today, even under optimum preservation conditions would not exceed 20-25 years. Therefore, the owner of the publication should make sure that the format in which he chooses to publish is regularly updated, and if on line, make sure that the host is a reliable one, preferably archaeology related, like the ADS.
As with conventional publication copyright issues pose a great obstacle to the acknowledgement of e-publication as a valid publication media. When the copyright owner is asked for permission to reproduce his/her work is faced with a huge surprise when he realises that once the original permission is given then there is no telling to how many copies will be reproduced. Currently, there are strict rules on copyright on the web and most recognised authorities, like ADS, request a written permission transferring the rights to them for reproducing the material over the web.
Finally, there are a few technical issues that need to be mentioned when it comes to e-publication. I mentioned earlier that extras like VRML and 3-D graphics can enhance the visualisation of the publication. However, they could be very slow to download depending on the user's connection. When that happens it could easily leave a bad impression to the user and prevent him form re-using the site in the future. That was one of the reasons why Prof. Ian Hodder decided not to use more than the necessary visual material on his web-site -strictly for access reasons.
Furthermore, the 'transience of computer technology' mentioned in Livingwood (1996) is something all of us should be aware. Software as well as hardware change so rapidly, that it is not to wonder when data we had stored safely a few years ago may not be accessible today. A successful way round that would be, as suggested in the ADS's 'Digital Archives from Excavation and Fieldwork: Guide to Good Practice'(Richards & Robinson, 2000), to transfer information from older hardware and software systems to more recent systems. It might sound simple, but the example of the Newham Museum Archaeological Service as presented in Richards & Robinson (2000) is a true, painful and unfortunately, quite common story. The digital archive given to ADS when the service closed down, was held in archaic formats or in older software making it difficult to impossible to rescue the data. In deed, even today about 10-15% of the data is still inaccessible. In addition, the absence of metadata made things more difficult and literally of little re-use potential. Although this example was related to an archive and not to a publication, it nevertheless emphasises the importance of maintaining a healthy digital record, regularly updated to the latest formats available satisfying the safe preservation of our data.
Up until now, I dealt with some of the major advantages and disadvantages of e-publication. In this final section of this paper, I will concentrate on possible solutions to some of those problems. Furthermore, I will touch upon some 'hot' issues that are debatable today.
In order to utilise all of the earlier suggestions a well organised infrastructure is required. That infrastructure does not have to come from the academia or the organised government, although it definitely depends on them. This infrastructure begins on day one of every archaeological project. Awareness of what steps, project managers should take so as the finished result of their work could be electronically published, would be nothing else but a significant help towards the preservation and dissemination of their project. Beyond that level, a legal as well as a practical framework is required for all of the excavators to abide by. Project managers should make known to the funding body that a certain amount will be spent for digitising and electronic publishing. As mentioned earlier some of those funding bodies, i.e. AHRB, already include in their policy such a clause. Therefore, the importance of a central regulating body is clearly seen. In the UK, such action is taken up by the Arts and Humanities Data Service (AHDS) and its correspondent branches, depending on the discipline in question. In archaeology, the organisation in question would be the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) based at the University of York.
Alongside with the previous point comes the issue of information control, touched upon in Livingwood (1996). Not all information are allowed to be published on the web. One has to realise that the web is a public media and any age or ethnic group can and will have access to the data presented. Sensitive issues, such as burials will have to be very well presented and official permission should be sought before broadcasting on the WWW. Numerous cases of the short are known in the US, especially with Native American Indian burial sites. Closer to home, though, ADS recently received a certain amount of 'legal hassle' when they received the digital archive of the English Heritage excavations from the Christ Church Spitalfields. Evidently, the bodies recovered were not fully decayed and the resulting images had a rather revolting effect even to those with the hardest stomachs. The images were termed too 'obscene' to publish widely over the web. It therefore 'becomes clear that universal access to all the data produced in an archaeological excavation may be problematical' (Livingwood, 1996).
Integrated monographs combined with Internet publication is another form to publish electronically, considered by many as the ideal way to do so. This form of publication has been chosen for the Fyfield and Overton Downs project as well as theAnglian and Anglo-Scandinavian Cottam project. For the latter the title chosen by Richards, i.e. 'Linking digital publication and archive' ( Internet Archaeology, 2001) is in itself an indication of why people believe this is the ideal way to publish. It combines the bonuses of a traditional integrated report with the addition of the web's flexible and versatile environment. The potential hidden within the hyperlinks materialise fully in this short of publication and the user is able to chase down the arguments posed by the author within the database and other related records in the attached archive. Furthermore, as in the case of Cottam, these data are downloadable providing therefore, additional flexibility and insight to the authors mind, i.e. 'how did he come up with those conclusions?' and 'is there space for alternative interpretation based on the same evidence?'. In other words, this kind of publication is believed to be the 'champion' of everything the Internet stands for. No surprise then when people promote it as the way to behave on the World Wide Web.
Whereas the CD-ROM is a one-off 'shut' publication, the Internet encourages dialogue between different users and the author of the web-site. You may even find links from web-sites to the so called 'forums' where people can put forward their opinions on set topics and commence a discussion through a series of e-mails. Frequently, the author of the web-site participates in these discussions, as it was the case with Ian Hodder and Anita Louise, one of the leaders of the Goddess movement who visited the site of Çatalhöyük in 1998. Such an interaction is impossible with the alternative e-version of the CD-ROM, not to mention the conventional method of paper publication. The potential (in the web) is there for a dynamic discussion group to formulate. The web-users today and the public interest can be of such diverse background, that it is a challenge for archaeology to be able to appeal to such a mixed audience.
The final point I would like to make is one which currently features in every debate over e-publication. It is inevitable, since web pages are so easily updateable, for people to think what is there to stop the various authors not to go back after some time from the 'publication' and alter the content of their argument to fit the current theoretical movement? This admittedly is a fair point to make. The truth is, to my opinion, that there is nothing there to stop them whoever they are, to go back and alter everything they have said. There is little the central 'government' can do about it. The only way out of this issue is to have e-journals like Internet Archaeology forbidding any alteration in the text once the article is published. Furthermore, the academia, including the students are increasingly encouraged to state the date of access to a particular web site when consulting it. This way the idea is that the author will realise for himself what trouble he causes if he keeps changing the text of his own publication. Maybe that was what the National Library of Wales feared when Holtorf insisted on handing in his thesis in HTML and not a CD-ROM. Fear of afterthought could well have been the obstacle to Holtorf's initial aim. To give a more substantial example, imagine the chaos that would have been caused if someone would walk into the British Library and start making changes to all those thousands of books that numerous academics and students have based their thesis upon. The result, as you may imagine, would not have been very pleasant! A similar case could be supported in e-publishing as well. Personally, I would acknowledge the flexibility of updating the web pages, but I will turn the scale to emphasise that it is more important to be consistent in our views, especially the published ones. There is no real need to alter what you once believed. Let us all remind ourselves that what we say or write today could be quoted at any point by anyone!
In conclusion, I presented in this paper some of the most obvious advantages and disadvantages of e-publication today. The most observing of you may have noticed that a few of the advantages could also be twisted around and turn into disadvantages. The so called 'boomerang' debate. That, in itself is a fair point to make about the whole ongoing debate around e-publication. Many issues about it are still not resolved and it will take more than individual motive to come to a universal solution. All of the authors and evidence I used for the production of this paper were biased, if you may, since all of them are involved in one way or the other in some short of highly advanced electronic resource related to archaeology. My most sincere apologies for that one-sided view. I would like to believe that the supporting evidence I provided would be enough to persuade the reader that the debate is still 'hot' and there always would be a 'flip-side' to the coin.
| page created 24th November 2001 |
| last updated 26th November 2001 |
| by mm178 |
| E-mail: mm178@york.ac.uk |
