Comparing and matching archaeological excavation data for

integration in ontologies

ANJA MASUR and KEITH MAY

Ideal world scenario

@ Mr. Hiebel: Can you send me the

documentation on this early Hallstatt excavations, please?

I need some information for my comparative

studies!

@Mr. May No problem, we have it in the

database already. In which format do you need it? I will send

you a link for the download!

Mr. May Mr. Hiebel

Ideal world scenario

@ Mr. Hiebel: Can you send me the

documentation on this early Hallstatt excavations, please?

I need some information for my comparative

studies!

@Mr. May No problem, we have it in the

database already. In which format do you need it? I will send

you a link for the download!

Mr. May Mr. Hiebel

Mr. May can integrate and

compare the data easily and without

loss of content!

Ideal world scenario

@ Mr. Hiebel: Can you send me the

documentation on this early Hallstatt excavations, please?

I need some information for my comparative

studies!

@Mr. May No problem, we have it in the

database already. In which format do you need it? I will send

you a link for the download!

Mr. May Mr. Hiebel

Mr. May can integrate and

compare the data easily and without

loss of content!

STOP!

What part of this scenario is unrealistic?

1. Problem The Archaeological Archipelagos

• different vocabularies, different methodologies, different languages •independent and isolated databases

”Every archaeological site is itself a document. It can be read by a skilled excavator, but it is destroyed by the very process which enables us to read it. Unlike the study of an ancient document, the study of a site by excavation is an unrepeatable experiment.” (Barker 1982: 12)

Outline

1. Method

2. Again….Problems

3. Approach

4. Conclusion/Challenges

2. ARIADNE

• Under the direction of ICS FORTH and Martin Doerr in Greece

• Task: extension of the CIDOC CRM for archaeological demands

o CIDOC CRM as ontology used the most in the archaeological world

o provides definitions and formal structure for CH concepts

o enables information exchange

Documentation

• Different excavation methods bring differing documentation

• Comparison of different documentation sheets

• Excavation sheet are abstraction of reality (based on ontologies)

Bavaria

EH

Israel

Documentation Defined key concepts:

site find area

Stratigra-phic unit

Phys. relationships

Strat. relationships

samples

within

within

within

within

Aggregation relationships

Excavation Methodology

• stratigraphic • in spits / arbitrary • mix

Stratigraphic Unit

Excavation Methodology In spits:

context

Locus Excavation

Unit

Lot

Level

Stratum Behälter (Troy)

(Basket)

Semantics One language - one meaning – different terms

Stratigra-phic Unit

Stratigraphic Unit Unité

stratigraphique

Stratigrafiskt objekt

Stratigraphische Einheit

stratigrafske enote

unità stratigrafica

Semantics Different languages - same meaning – different terms

context

Locus

Excavation Unit

Lot

Level

Stratum Behält

er (Troy)

(Basket)

Ideal world scenario

I need some

information for my comparative

studies!

Mr. May Mr. Hiebel

Semantic gap -Different languages

- Different methodologies -Different concepts

Common archaeological understanding

(Conceptual Reference Model)

Mr. Hiebel knows how to transfer the data to the model

Mr. May knows how to interpret the data mapped

to the common model

CRMarchaeo – an extension of CIDOC CRM

A1 Excavation Process Unit

A2 Stratigraphic Unit

A Stratigraphic Unit is a connected portion of terrain or other solid

structure on, in, or under the surface of earth or seafloor with

some homogeneity of structure or substance. It is completely

bounded by surfaces or discontinuities in substance or structure

with respect to other portions of the terrain or surfaces of

objects/finds. It may contain physical objects. Furthermore is is

regarded as product of the same genesis event or process.

The intentional activity of excavating in units defined by the archaeological methodology chosen as appropriate regarding the research question. The A1 EPU may follow an A2 SU or an arbitrary volume of matter like a basket or spit. Even if the A1 follows an A2 and completely removes it they should be documented separately.

AP1 produced

AP5 cut

AP3 excavated

A1 Excavation Process Unit

P33 used specific technique

SP2 Phenomenal Place

SP6 Declarative Place

Q11 approximates

A2 Stratigraphic Unit

P13 destroyed

A9 Constellation of Matter

S11 Amount of Matter

P17 was motivated by

E73 Information Object

P21 had general purpose

E55 Type

E55 Type

E7 Activity

AP6 occupied

Class of CIDOC CRM

Other extensions

Class of CRMarchaeo

Conclusions:

• Although there exist different excavation methods and documentation with different terminology they share common conceptual frameworks and semantic relationships which allow an implementation in ontologies.

Challenges/Gaps

• Elaborating of CRMarchaeo

• Some poblems with archaeological excavation guidelines :

rarely give definitions of terms (what is a SU?)

don´t describe systems which are used/that can be used

ARIADNE is a project funded by the European Commission under the Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, contract no. FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2012-1-313193.

The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.