The Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE) Directive (2007) requires public organisations across Europe to share environmentally-related spatial datasets to support decision making and management of the environment. Despite the environmental focus of INSPIRE, it offers limited guidance for archaeological datasets. Most primary data is created outside, but ultimately curated within, the public sector. As spatial evidence from fieldwork activities is not considered by the Directive, it overlooks a range of barriers to sharing data, such as project-based fieldwork, a lack of data standards, and formatting and licencing variations. This paper submits that these challenges are best addressed through the formalised management of primary research data through an archaeological Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). SDIs deliver more efficient data management and release economic value by saving time and money. Better stewardship of archaeological data will also lead to more informed research and stewardship of the historic environment. ARIADNE already provides a digital infrastructure for research data, but the landscape and spatial component has been largely overlooked. However, rather than developing a separate solution, the full potential of spatial data from archaeological research can and should be realised through ARIADNE.

Heritage Science has a lot to gain from the Open Science movement but faces major challenges due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, as a vast array of technological and scientific methods can be applied to any imaginable material. Historical and cultural contexts are as significant as the methods and material properties, which is something the scientific templates for research data management rarely take into account. While the FAIR data principles are a good foundation, they do not offer enough practical help to researchers facing increasing demands from funders and collaborators. In order to identify the issues and needs that arise “on the ground floor”, the staff at the Heritage Laboratory at the Swedish National Heritage Board took part in a series of workshops with case studies. The results were used to develop guides for good data practices and a list of recommended online vocabularies for standardised descriptions, necessary for findable and interoperable data. However, the project also identified areas where there is a lack of useful vocabularies and the consequences this could have for discoverability of heritage studies on materials from areas of the world that have historically been marginalised by Western culture. If Heritage Science as a global field of study is to reach its full potential this must be addressed.

Heritage management in Sweden has undergone a substantial transformation in recent decades. The process of monitoring and managing heritage information has become increasingly digital, relying on interconnected systems to monitor registered archaeological remains to manage investigations and contract archaeology excavations. This also has to work together with the digital systems of the County Administrative Boards that administer all permissions for excavations. Current developments deal with archiving and dissemination of reports, and documentation from fieldwork. Documentation of archaeological excavations has predominantly been digital for the past 20 years, which brings both possibilities and challenges in making sure the information will adhere to the FAIR Principles. This article outlines some of these developments and exemplifies the possibilities of reusing legacy data through the Urdar project.

While other fields of the humanities have often brought forth intellectuals taking part in public discourse, influencing politics and society, archaeologists have been wary of sticking their necks out after the Second World War. However, the tradition of leaving it to others to connect prehistoric narratives to current politics or new scientific results is damaging both to the public understanding of our past and to our own discipline. In this article I argue that preconceptions of human past are guiding much decision making both locally and globally, and that it is therefore our responsibility to take an active part and to problematize this. Failing to do so only means that other people will cherry-pick our research for their own ends. More specifically, it will also lead to a drying up of funding in these difficult economic times, as archaeology takes a back seat to anthropology and sociology. I draw on personal experience to offer suggestions on how one could go about becoming part of the public debate and, in the long run, perhaps carve out a position as a public intellectual.