Week 2: Bias in Archives

An important theme that stood out to me from this week’s readings was the notion that archived history is not the same as accurate history. Noriega’s “Preservation Matters” points out flaws surrounding the system of archiving information. An archive implies a complete collection of all existing documentation, gathered and preserved to represent history in its entirety. However, the reality is that not all existing documents find their way to an archive – if the information is even in a documentable form to begin with. A lot of data does not find its way into an archive, and therefore these pieces of history don’t “exist.” Julia Gaffield’s article, “Digging for Lost Documents,” brings up the issue of a fact – a historical occurrence – actually being doubted if it isn’t documented; Haiti’s Declaration of Independence could not be located, and because this physical document didn’t exist, the country’s independence could not be “reaffirmed” (Gaffield). A document was needed to validate this country’s important occurrence, and without it in a locatable archive, that piece of history was not valid. There were many reasons for this archival mishap; Gaffield identifies that “negligence, natural disasters, lack of funding, and political turmoil” can all lead to history being lost and undocumented. Even though those historical events happened, it was not archived, and therefore lost its value to the rest of the world until it was able to be located.

If a document isn’t included in an archive, it’s automatically excluded. Similarly, if a “group isn’t included in an archive, they’re automatically excluded” (Noriega). I took a class last year in Information Studies, where we discussed this social responsibility of the archivist. Noriega’s article reminds me of this modern day issue that if something isn’t online, we assume it doesn’t exist – this can be applied to the notion of an archive as well, as the internet serves as an online archive. Professor Srinivasan of Information Studies at UCLA is a strong advocate for “indigenous and ethnic communities’ appropriated use of media technologies” (Srinivasan) so that underrepresented groups can create their own presence online instead of risking misrepresentation or lack of representation. Srinivasan’s project “Tribal Peace” (http://www.tribalpeace.org/) does exactly this. The website is not only a tool for this Native community, but also serves as an online presence and therefore representation, depicted in a way chosen by the group themselves. Without the help of activists like Srinivasan, financial constraints and bad experiences (Noriega) working on a collaborative project – such as the archivist imposing their own historical account onto a group or event instead of the people being allowed to create their own vision – lead to the lack of an archive for a group. It is important to “facilitate and support” (Noriega) archival efforts in order to achieve complete, unbiased archives and therefore a more accurate account of history.

Chon Noriega, “Preservation Matters”

Gaffield, Julia, “Haiti’s Declaration of Independence: Digging for Lost Documents in the Archives of the Atlantic World”

Srinivasan, “Tribal Peace” http://www.tribalpeace.org/

Week 2 – Metadata

Field Notes (2)

 

This is an example of the process followed and field notes taken on a dig by the Museum of London (click on the image to zoom in).

Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn, 2000. Excavation in Archaeology:Theory, Methods, and Practice. 106-116.

National Information Standards Organization, “What is Metadata?” (Bethesda, MD: NISO Press, 2004)

The similarity between metadata for digital object and the cataloging data and field records given to archaeological artifacts is astounding. Because archaeology is a destructive science, precise documentation and careful records of almost every aspect of the excavation are crucial. These pre-set pieces of information are standardized across the field of archaeology, and include data such as the precise location and depth of the object when it was uncovered, its relationship to any stratigraphic elements (stratigraphy is just the study of the successive layering of different soil over time, and to over-simplify, allows one to assume that deeper layers are older, while layers nearer the surface are more recent), and even the consistency and color of the soil it was found in. These types of data are standard across the field – even to the point that there is a standardized scale of soil colors (same concept as the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, TEI, METS, EAD, MODS)– so that archaeologists will have the interoperability that the Open Archives Initiative is striving for. In the same way, the interoperability allows archaeologists who were not in the field to look into the field records and draw their own conclusions or new questions/projects from the universally understandable data.

These archaeological records also include the idea of metadata schema. For instance, the location of the artifact is noted using a predetermined code, which refers to the general area of the excavation down to the actual square meter grid in which it was found. In the United States, archaeological sites themselves have standard coded titles, such as 47-DR153, which refers first to the state, by its numerical location in an alphabetized list, the abbreviation for the county, and the site number.

These records are also crucial for future identification and preservation, both of which are also main goals of metadata. One concern about these digital projects is that the objects themselves will be lost, outdated, or inaccessible in the future, a concern which metadata can alleviate. In much the same way, if an artifact ever becomes lost in transport or in a messy lab, archaeologists can still study the piece through its detailed field records, even well into the future (for example, we still have access to field notes from the late 1800s, even though some of the objects excavated went missing during WWII).

In keeping with this class, a new program is being developed here at UCLA’s Cotsen Institute of Archaeology where archaeologists can use iPads in the field to embed all of this information into a QR code. The code goes on the bag the object(s) are kept in, and all the pertinent data can be accessed immediately with a quick scan!

Week 1 Blog

Mapping Time

 

http://www.haohaohuang.com/project.php?id=38

http://kindred.stanford.edu/#/path/full/none/none/I5457/I3904/

This week’s readings included a database site titled Kindred Britain that offers a beautifully visualized network of nearly 30,000 individuals within the British culture who are connected through familial terms such as through blood, marriage, or affiliation. First began as an individual research project by Stanford University English professor, Nicholas Jenkins, who was mainly interested in examining the family connections in British culture and history, the project eventually developed into a collaboration amongst designers, coders, developers, and digital visualization specialists that produced Kindred Britain. Much like Jenkins, multi-media designer Hao Hao Huang was also interested in the extensive study of a national and family history – and Huang’s own role within it. Huang’s codified visualization, Mapping Time in comparison to Kindred Britain offers a juxtaposing counterexample of another artist’s approach to examining a heritage.

Data Vis 2, an extensive, book collection of the most compelling data visualization work across the world features Huang’s work on a two page spread and manages to document the artist’s laborious process. Working with a primary collection of information from past events and genealogy, Huang codifies his timeline onto a 25-metre scroll that covers the entire floor with hand-written numbers. He paints these numbers by hand, marking “official” facts colder shades while indicating personal events with warmer shades. The artist works his way slowly, but surely, across his timeline of landmark events within his national and family history.

Although the mediums of data visualization are obviously different, the overwhelming database is strikingly apparent in both Kindred Britain and Mapping Time. Huang chose to mediate his database into a handwritten scroll, perhaps an ode to his Chinese heritage. However, because of the intricacy of his tedious system, the end result of his scroll visually appears like columns of colorful code on a screen. Kindred Britain definitely offers a more interactive experience in finding the connections amongst the thousands of individuals while Mapping Time can only offer a more static representation of the insights made of Huang’s national and family history. Although Kindred Britain is an extremely impressive accomplishment within digital visualization, the team’s process can only really be understood through their FAQ page. Huang’s solo trek in mapping a similar subject like Kindred Britain was physical, using just his mind to compute his data. What is strikingly beautiful and humanistic about Huang’s work is that his process is clearly evident by observing the scroll itself. Every irregularly shaped circle that he painted himself shows nearly everything a viewer needs to know about Huang’s process.