Archaeological monitoring and recording along the Wivenhoe ...
EAA2013 Archaeological Recording Methods - How Many Archaeologists does it take to Make a Recording...
-
Upload
keithmay -
Category
Technology
-
view
444 -
download
1
description
Transcript of EAA2013 Archaeological Recording Methods - How Many Archaeologists does it take to Make a Recording...
How many archaeologists does it take to make a recording system? What are the implications of using different recording methodologies and terminologies for the data that we generate? What are the possible implications for semantically linked and open data?
by
Keith May@Keith_May
Incorporating work by (amongst others)
Prof Doug Tudhope, Ceri Binding Faculty of Advanced Technology
University of South Wales
Overview of Presentation
Conceptual Frameworks
Examples of different Methods
Similarities
Differences
Conclusions
The Archaeological Archipelagos
Data is derived at different stages in archaeological project
process
Archive data - may be re-used as Start of another Investigation
Investigation data - recording on site
Analysis data - studies, usually off-site
Publication data - results disseminated
Simplified Conceptual Reference Model for Interoperability
Key Concepts for data Interoperability
Contexts/SU, Finds, Groups, Samples, Phases, Research Objectives
Groups & Phases only come at Analysis & Publication stages
May also depend upon recording methodology
Stratigraphic Units
Spatial Coordinates
Finds
Contexts
are deposited in
Groups Samples
are taken from
Phases
Dates/Timespan
s
Periods
Investigations
are within
Took Place
at
are within
Identifies
Identifies
Identifies
date
datedateSpatio-
TemporalRelations
Research Objectives
Inform
Simplified Conceptual Model (CRM-EH)for Interoperability between archaeological records
Examination of some examples of Archaeological Recording Systems
UK - English Heritage
Germany - Bavaria
Italy - Rome
Catalhoyuk
Israeli - Tell es-Safi
Field record based data modellingModel common ‘core’ of Archaeological processesPrinciple archaeological concepts modelled as CRM entities & relationshipsLimited degree of minute detailMatrix holds stratigraphic relationshipsN.B. Distinguishing positive Deposits from negative Cuts
With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
English HeritageRecording
Manual
English HeritageRecording Manual with CRM-EH
German - e.g. Gottingen & BayerBefunde - Stratigraphic Unit /
Context
1. Bayer -Befundbuch (positive deposit?)
Bodenbefunde (soil SU)
Baubefunde (built SU e.g. Walls)
BefundeKomplex - Feature (Group)
Planum = Multi-context plans by level?
With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
BavarianRecording
Manual
Italy
Rome - Lo Scavo Archeologico manual
Unita startigraphica - Context
1.US muralia (walls)
2. US di rivestimento (painted plaster)
3.Etc
Distinguish Stratigraphic Units and relationships (matrix) & Positive & Negatives Units
Catalhoyuk
Units - Stratigraphic units, similar to
Contexts
Features - groupings of units or more
complex structures, similar to MoLA
Groups
Israeli - Tell es-SafiStratum - distinct level of human activity (horizon)
Locus - the basic features of excavation (e.g. a floor, a pit, a dump). Recorded with UID on a Locus card
Basket/Bucket - Unit of excavation with all finds from the same Locus
Stratigraphic relations recorded between Loci
Israeli – e.g.Tell es-SafiStratum - distinct level of human activity (horizon)
Locus - the basic features of excavation (e.g. a floor, a pit, a Layer). Recorded with UID on a Locus card
Basket/Bucket - Unit of excavation with all finds from the same Locus
Stratigraphic relations recorded between Loci
With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
Example of Israeli
Recording Practice
Digging by fixed levels - Spits
Non-stratigraphic approaches
America - Texas (Coulson) system
Other examples in Europe?
Conceptual Models and Knowledge Conceptual Models and Knowledge ResourcesResources
CIDOC CRM [ http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/ ] CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model International standard ISO 21127:2006
CRM-EH [ http://purl.org/crmeh ] English Heritage Ontological Model Extends CIDOC CRM for EH archaeological
domain SKOS [ http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/ ]
Simple Knowledge Organization System RDF representation of thesauri, glossaries,
taxonomies, classification schemes etc.
Other important mechanisms for Semantic interoperability include
syntactic alignment
Shared VocabulariesUsing E55 Type and SKOS to relate different terminologies together
see following diagram showing how CRM E55 types & SKOS work
“cast iron”
rdf:value
crm:P105F.consists_of
CRM data instance
EHE0009.ContextFind[http://...#..12345]
EHE0030.ContextFindMaterial[http://......]
Linking CRM E55 Type and SKOS
Property: EHP10F.is_represented_by (represents) Domain: crm:E55.TypeRange: skos:Concept
“cast iron”
skos:prefLabel
skos:broader
“Dating from the 15th century, it is a hard alloy of iron and carbon, melted and shaped into various moulded forms”
skos:scopeNote
SKOS thesaurus concept
skos:Concept[http://...#97992]
skos:Concept[http://...#97805]
EHP10F.is_represented_by
skos:ConceptCastle:c789
skos:ConceptMotte:c456
skos:broader skos:narrower
skos:ConceptBailey:c789
skos:ConceptMotte:c456
skos:related skos:related
skos:ConceptSchemeMonument:s123
skos:ConceptMotte:c456
skos:inScheme
SKOS_CONCEPTS – scheme_id, broader_id, related_id
Heritage Data Thesauri -Linked Open Data Heritage Data Thesauri -Linked Open Data (SKOS)(SKOS)
Monument types thesaurus- classification of monument type records
Evidence thesaurus- archaeological evidence
Object types thesaurus- archaeological objects
Building Materials thesaurus- construction materials
Archaeological Sciences thesaurus- sampling and processing methods and materials
Timelines thesaurus- periods, and time-based entities
LOD Heritage Vocabularies: http://heritagedata.orgeritagedata.org
Conclusions and ChallengesDifferent archaeological recording systems share common conceptual frameworks and semantic relationships
By conceptualising common relationships in our different data sets at a broad level we can cross-search data for patterns and broader answers to related research questions
The technologies are being developed but is their a common will for sharing archaeological data openly in the interests of improving research methods?
ReferencesSteve Roskams. "Excavation"
Catalin Pavel. "Describing and Interpreting the Past"
Tudhope, May, Binding, Vlachidis. "Connecting Archaeological Data and Grey Literature via Semantic Cross Search" - Internet Archaeology Vol 30 http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue30/tudhope_index.html
Contact:[email protected]
@Keith_May