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:Keith.May@english-heritage.org.uk

@Keith_May