Ethical challenges in the practice of remote sensing and geophysical archaeology

Within archaeology, concern over ethics has become a centre point of debate, particularly in terms of cultural patrimony, repatriation, intellectual property rights, and the display of sensitive items (Conkey & Gero, 1997; Fabian, 2010; Lynott, 1997; Ortner, 2016; Richardson, 2018; Scarre & Scarre, 2006; Scheper-Hughes, 1995). Most of these debates centre around objects, information and narratives acquired and built through archaeological excavations and antiquarian collections, although far less attention has been paid to projects that rely on remote sensing technologies (some early exceptions include Myers, 2010; Ur, 2006). Remote sensing technologies are typically viewed as non-destructive and non-invasive, resulting in non-sensitive data (Sanger & Barnett, 2021). As such, the ability to record objects remotely, be that from space, the air or the ground, has resulted in a massive expansion of archaeological data over the past several decades, and the use of these techniques has grown considerably since the turn of the 21st century (Boellstorff & Maurer, 2015; Cooper & Green, 2016; Huggett, 2020; Luo et al., 2019). With this massive expansion in use, researchers are increasingly considering the broader social, political, economic, and cultural ramifications of using remote sensing technologies and therefore how they can best be deployed in an ethical manner. Despite a recent increase in studies highlighting the ethical dilemmas within archaeological remote sensing (e.g. Chase et al., 2020; Cohen et al., 2020; Davis, 2020; Fernandez-Diaz et al., 2018; Fernandez-Diaz & Cohen, 2020; Gupta et al., 2020; Rączkowski, 2020; Sanger & Barnett, 2021), the conversation on this topic is still underwhelming (see Tables 1 and 2). For this reason, among many others, we felt that a formalized discussion of these ethical issues was overdue. In what follows, we will present several major themes of the articles contained in this special issue. Next, we will synthesize the articles contained in this issue. Finally, we will discuss some future goals for remote sensing and geophysical archaeology, particularly detailing what we see as necessary steps for the subdiscipline as it matures and takes its ethical responsibilities seriously. 2 | ETHICS, REMOTE SENSING AND ARCHAEOLOGY

practitioners that their deployment does not impact local or descendent communities, a point that researchers have begun to question (see Garstki, 2020;Richardson, 2018). In fact, with digital datasets, a wider range of potential negative impacts can befall stakeholders, including the dehumanization of past peoples (and their modern descendants), the claim of open access of information when such data are rarely accessible to those outside of academia, and a widening distance between local community knowledge and archaeological research (Dennis, 2020;Garstki, 2020;Gupta et al., 2020;Huggett, 2020;Mickel, 2020;Richardson, 2018). These potential pitfalls can be even more plentiful and hazardous when working with Indigenous communities, including Native Americans, as the deployment of digital techniques can feed into stereotypical tropes pitting 'science' versus Natives, while also devaluing traditional knowledge holders and desecrating places that are home to ancestral peoples (Sanger & Barnett, 2021).
Remote sensing certainly must grapple with all of these issues: By its nature, these techniques are non-invasive and so are often utilized   Gupta et al., 2020;Myers, 2010;Parcak, 2009).
Although the ethical issues surrounding remote sensing are diverse, we suggest that archaeologists ought to consider several key parameters when using remote sensing technologies if they hope to conduct this work in an ethical manner, which we detail below.

| Methods are always deployed in a broader sociopolitical context
Understanding the impact of archaeology beyond the boundaries of academic discourse has been crucial in the maturation of our discipline from antiquarian collecting to our current state of debate about how to best serve contemporary communities, work with Indigenous groups and rewrite broader nationalistic, imperialistic, and racist narratives of the past (e.g. Deloria, 1969;Gallivan et al., 2011;Gosden, 2006;Kohl, 1998;Lewis, 1998;Salzman, 2002 archaeologists need to consider how their access to remote sensing technologies and data often emerges from already pre-existing power imbalances and the ways in which their work can be complicit in the maintenance of these power structures. These considerations can seem unnecessary as remote sensing often appears to have little direct impact on local communities who may not even realize such work has occurred. In this manner, remote sensing is akin to surveillance, a topic now undergoing its own ethical reformulation as researchers have largely come to the conclusion that data acquisition often requires some level of consent even when it could be conducted without the knowledge of the surveilled individual (Davis et al., this issue;Myers, 2010;Rączkowski, 2020). This leads to ethical quandaries concerning informed consent when conducting remote sensing projects, as the natures of these technologies are not common knowledge among all people. Given the unfamiliarity of how satellites and drones (among other geophysical instruments) operate, can local stakeholder communities truly provide consent for the recording of information by means that they do not fully understand?
One solution to this particular ethical concern stems from educa- In what follows, we introduce the articles included in this special issue. These papers provide insights from a multitude of scholars and cover a broad range of geographies, topics, and perspectives. Ultimately, they all align in their focus on directly confronting the potential implications of advancing technological methods in our discipline.
These articles are, therefore, an important set of references for the development of ethical guidelines for geophysical archaeological practice and scholarship.  and promote an equitable archaeological practice that benefits local communities and academics alike. Similar approaches has been applied elsewhere (e.g. Davis et al., 2020;Verhagen & Whitley, 2012; also see Lambers et al., 2019), and such engagement with local communities is a central theme of many articles within this special issue ( Ensuring that proper permissions are granted by stakeholder communities to researchers studying significant cultural sites is a longstanding issue around the world, as many Indigenous communities still struggle in maintaining autonomy over their cultural heritage (e.g. Cohen et al., 2020;Gupta et al., 2020). This is an important consideration in any research project, but even more so in sensitive

| CONCLUSIONS
The applications of remote sensing and geophysical instruments in archaeology have expanded rapidly in recent decades. With the explosion in new methodological and research applications of these technologies, a reflection on the part of researchers is needed on the ethical issues that may result from their use. Among the many dilemmas with which researchers must grapple include: (1) informed consent and inclusivity, (2) data stewardship and privacy, (3) education and outreach, and (4) best practices for geophysical investigations in areas of high cultural sensitivity. These four components are certainly not all-encompassing, but rather consist of a starting set of principles that all researchers should be aware of prior to the start of any research programme.
Ultimately, researchers should strive to establish strong relationships with local communities to ensure that all voices are incorporated into research projects and, by extension, all results are disseminated equally between all involved parties (Wadsworth et al., 2021).
The collection of articles presented in this special issue seek to advance professional conversations among archaeologists that challenge how we practice geophysical archaeology. Fisher et al.
(this issue) echo an important sentiment of this special issue when they emphasize that the number of archaeological remote sensing projects has risen exponentially, as has the amount of digital data, presenting a significant need for researchers to face ethical concerns related to these datasets. Ethical codes and standards are central to modern archaeological practice, and yet, the methods employed by remote sensing specialists within this field are often absent from such professional guidelines (see Dennis, 2020; also see Davis et al., this issue). These methods are becoming commonplace within archaeology and therefore require ethical standards to ensure they are used appropriately. As such, we hope that the discussions offered by this special issue will serve as a set of guidelines for future remote sensing archaeology to ensure that such research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.