Search

The present report outlines and summarises the activity of the Archaeological Excavation Modelling Working Group, a sub-group that was formed within WP 4.4.12. The group has been active since June 2020. The group was formed to investigate the potential of developing an Application Profile for excavation data, explore the current state of excavation data modelling and propose a roadmap for further activities. During the ARIADNEplus project, group participants have convened eight times, organised a virtual workshop on excavation data modelling and prepared two presentations, one at an ARIADNEplus meeting and another targeting wider audiences (EAA2022). The entire work of the group is summarised in the present report and attached annexes., {"references":["Bekiari, C., Bruseker, G., Doerr, M., Ore, C.-E., Stead, S. & Velios, A. June 2022. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model. Version 7.1.2. CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. https://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_version_7.1.2.pdf.","Doerr, M. & Theodoridou, M. 2014. CRMdig. An extension of CIDOC-CRM to support provenance metadata. Version 3.2. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig3.2.pdf.","Doerr, M. et al. 2019. Definition of the CRMarchaeo. An extension of CIDOC-CRM to support the archaeological excavation process. Version 1.4.8. PIN, University of Florence, Italy. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmarchaeo/sites/default/files/CRMarchaeo_v1.4.8.pdf.","Doerr, M. et al. 2020. Definition of the CRMsci. An Extension of CIDOC-CRM to support scientific observation. Version 1.2.8. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.2.8.pdf.","Felicetti, A., Meghini, C., Richards, J., Theodoridou, M. 2021. Towards the AO-Cat Ontology. Version: 1.1.","Hiebel, G., Doerr, M., Eide, Ø. Theodoridou, M. et al. 2015 (September). CRMgeo: a Spatiotemporal Model An Extension of CIDOC-CRM to link the CIDOC CRM to GeoSPARQL through a Spatiotemporal Refinement. Proposal for approval by CIDOC CRM-SIG Version 1.2. https://cidoc-crm.org/crmgeo/sites/default/files/CRMgeo1_2.pdf.","Katsianis, M., & Styliaras, G. (eds) 2022. Virtual Workshop on Semantic mapping of archaeological excavation data (1.0), with contributions by Bruseker, G., Derudas, P., Hiebel, G., Hivert, F., Katsianis, M., Kritsotakis, V., Marlet, O., Nenova, D., Nurra, F., Styliaras, G., Ore, C. E., Theodoridou, M.. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7112918.","Nenova, D., Bruseker, G., Derudas, P., Hiebel, G., Hivert, F., Katsianis, M., Marlet, O., Opitz, R., Ore, C.-E., & Uleberg, E., 2022 (September 27). Bringing Excavation Data Together. Are We There Yet and Where is That?. 28th EAA Annual Meeting (EAA 2022), Budapest, Hungary. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7117049.","Paveprime and collaborators 2018. CRMinf: the Argumentation Model. An extension of CIDOC-CRM to support argumentation. Version 0.10. https://cidoc-crm.org/crminf/sites/default/files/CRMinf%20ver%2010.1.pdf.","Ronzino, P., Niccolucci, F., Felicetti, A., Doerr, M. et al. 2014 (December). Definition of the CRMba An extension of CIDOC CRM to support buildings archaeology documentation. Proposal for approval by CIDOC CRM-SIG. Version 1.4. PIN S.c.r.l. https://cidoc-crm.org/crmba/sites/default/files/2016-12-3%23CRMba_v1.4.1_UR.pdf."]}

Archaeological data repositories usually integrate excavation data archives as single data collections with restricted capacities to accommodate excavation data interoperability at the sub-collection level. This is largely due to the complexity of excavation data archives that are compiled with different tools and methodologies, use distinct conceptual descriptions at variable granularities, can often be unfinished or open-ended and may be linked to all sorts of digital data types, each with its own complicated production workflow. In the past decades, several attempts to adapt CIDOC-CRM in order to provide more explicit descriptions of the excavation domain have resulted in several model extensions (e.g. CRMarchaeo, CRMsc, CRMba). Each focuses on corresponding aspects of the excavation research process, while their combined usage holds an already demonstrated potential to support expressive data mappings at the sub-collection level. As part of the ongoing ARIADNEplus project, several CIDOC-CRM developers and domain experts have been working as a group and engaging in conceptual mapping exercises to address the practicalities of bringing excavation data descriptions together. In this presentation we will consider several issues that may be affecting the applicability of existing solutions and link these to our overall expectations/aspirations in terms of excavation data discoverability and reusability.

This report documents the presentations and discussions which took place on 15 June 2022 at the "Virtual Workshop on Semantic mapping of excavation data" on Zoom. The event was organised as an open forum to illustrate aspects of the work carried out by the Archaeological Excavation Modelling Working Group, a sub-group within WP 4.4.12. The presenters, both Partners and Associate Partners of the ARIADNEplus consortium, explored semantic modelling and the use of CIDOC CRM, as well as the tools developed to assist researchers with mapping their data. Five case studies on semantic mapping of excavation data were also presented. Each presentation was followed by a Q&A, while a discussion at the end of each session allowed participants to engage in conversation and contribute their experiences and ideas with a view to making excavation data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable).

Markos Katsianis and Giorgos Styliaras (University of Patras) describeprevious work in building and implementing a conceptual model for 3D excavation research and discussed some of the challenges in archiving this dataset 10 plus years later, from the semantics point of view. The Paliambela Kolindros archaeological project in Greece, which became the testing ground for the advancement of a 3D documentation workflow between 2000-2010, provides the case-study. Within the ARIADNEplus consortium, the dataset was used to explore item-level integration within its infrastructure. In this respect, the initial excavation data model, which was mapped using CIDOC CRM v. 4.4.3, has been reworked to update its compatibility and explicitness with respect to the current CIDOC CRM family of models and the ARIADNE Data Model, as well as considering FAIR data provisions.

This dataset is the outcome of an INSTAP-funded project “An Aegean Prehistory Written in Radiocarbon Dates”. It includes 3159 14C dates from 353 sites in Greece and reflects an attempt to exhaustively collect and cross-check all published radiocarbon dates from existing databases, original publications and preliminary reports using both international and Greek sources (376 sources in total). Although originally targeting prehistoric dates, all dates coming from archaeological or environmental sampling were integrated in the final dataset regardless of chronological period. Sites have been identified and positioned as accurately as possible, while additional information on sampling procedures, sample material and stratigraphic context have been recorded. Funding statement: The Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) provided the core funding for the “An Aegean Prehistory Written in Radiocarbon Dates” project which ran between 2016–2017. Previous support by INSTAP to Yannis Maniatis for the radiocarbon dating of Early Neolithic settlements in Greece in NCSR Demokritos Radiocarbon Laboratory allowed for several dates to be processed and included in the present work. Work related to data cleaning and terminology mapping was implemented as part of the dataset preparation process to be ingested in the ARIADNEplus portal. ARIADNEplus (Advanced Research Infrastructure for Archaeological Database Networking in Europe) is a project funded by the European Commission under the H2020 Programme, contract no. H2020-INFRAIA-2018-1-823914. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Table_2_(Pollen) for Long-term trends of land use and demography in Greece: A comparative study by C Neil Roberts, Ralph Fyfe, Stephen Shennan, Andrew Bevan, Jessie Woodbridge, Alessio Palmisano, Erika Weiberg, Andrew Bevan, Katerina Kouli, Markos Katsianis, Jessie Woodbridge, Anton Bonnier, Max Engel, Martin Finn�, Ralph Fyfe, Yannis Maniatis, Alessio Palmisano, Sampson Panajiotidis, C Neil Roberts and Stephen Shennan in The Holocene

This paper offers a comparative study of land use and demographic development in northern and southern Greece from the Neolithic to the Byzantine period. Results from summed probability densities (SPD) of archaeological radiocarbon dates and settlement numbers derived from archaeological site surveys are combined with results from cluster-based analysis of published pollen core assemblages to offer an integrated view of human pressure on the Greek landscape through time. We demonstrate that SPDs offer a useful approach to outline differences between regions and a useful complement to archaeological site surveys, evaluated here especially for the onset of the Neolithic and for the Final Neolithic (FN)/Early Bronze Age (EBA) transition. Pollen analysis highlight differences in vegetation between the two sub-regions, but also several parallel changes. The comparison of land cover dynamics between two sub-regions of Greece further demonstrates the significance of the bioclimatic conditions of core locations and that apparent oppositions between regions may in fact be two sides of the same coin in terms of socio-ecological trajectories. We also assess the balance between anthropogenic and climate-related impacts on vegetation and suggest that climatic variability was as an important factor for vegetation regrowth. Finally, our evidence suggests that the impact of humans on land cover is amplified from the Late Bronze Age (LBA) onwards as more extensive herding and agricultural practices are introduced. Domesticated Landscapes of the Peloponnese (DoLP)

Η εργασία συνοψίζει τα αποτελέσματα της προσπάθειας αναβάθμισης ενός συμβατικού ανασκαφικού αρχείου με τη χρήση τεχνολογιών Γεωγραφικών Συστημάτων Πληροφοριών (ΓΣΠ), με στόχο τη δια- χείριση των δεδομένων, την υποστήριξη της στρωματογραφικής ανάλυσης και την οπτική διερεύνηση της χωρικής κατανομής των ευρημάτων στις τρεις διαστάσεις (3Δ). Το ανασκαφικό πρόγραμμα στο σπήλαιο της Αγίας Τριάδας, στη Νότια Εύβοια, λειτούργησε ως περίπτωση εφαρμογής όπου επιχει- ρήθηκε η ενσωμάτωση διαφόρων τύπων ανασκαφικών δεδομένων (καταχωρίσεις ανασκαφικού ημε- ρολογίου, σχέδια, κατάλογοι ευρημάτων, φωτογραφίες) σε ένα συνεκτικό σύνολο δεδομένων για 3Δ ΓΣΠ. Ο συνδυασμός όλων των τεκμηρίων σε ένα ενιαίο ψηφιακό αρχείο συντέλεσε στην αρτιότερη διαχείριση, την πρόσβαση και την αντιπαραβολή των πληροφοριών. Η χωρική αναπαράσταση στις τρεις διαστάσεις και η οπτική διερεύνηση των δεδομένων συνέβαλε στη συγκρότηση ενός χρήσιμου αναλυτικού μέσου για την τρέχουσα μετα-ανασκαφική μελέτη που επέτρεψε την καλύτερη κατανό- ηση των πολύπλοκων στρωματογραφικών και ταφονομικών συνθηκών εντός του σπηλαίου. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, η χρήση της ψηφιακής τεχνολογίας για την αναδιάρθρωση παλαιότερων ή συμβατικών συλλογών δεδομένων σε νέα συγκρίσιμα ψηφιακά αρχεία μπορεί να συμβάλλει σημαντικά τόσο στην ενδο-ανασκαφική όσο και στην περιφερειακή αρχαιολογική έρευνα.

This deliverable describes the activities carried out during the four years of the ARIADNEplus project on the implementation of the ARIADNEplus Ontology within Task 4.4 of Work Package 4 (WP4). Other Tasks of WP4, including the operation of the help desk, the procedure for mapping datasets to the data model and supporting the 3M mapping tool, and the integration of digital libraries were reported in Deliverable D4.3. Related work has taken place under WP2 (Extending and Supporting the ARIADNE community), WP5 (Extending the ARIADNEplus data infrastructure), WP12 (data integration and interoperability), and WP14 (The ARIADNEplus knowledge management system), and these provide the focus of other deliverables (D2.5, D5.4, D12.5, and D14.2). The overall objective of WP4 was to Integrate the datasets of the Archaeological Research Communities, and Task 4.4 was focussed on Implementing the ARIADNE ontology - the AO-Cat - and the ontology extensions, known as application profiles, to specific sub-domains of archaeology and archaeological science. The work was organised in subtasks by domain. In this report we finalise the presentation of the AO-Cat in Section 3. The outcome of progress on each of the fourteen potential application profiles is reported in Section 4. In Deliverable D4.2 we presented three case studies in detail (for Heritage Science, Bio-Archaeology and Ancient DNA, and Inscriptions). In Section 5 of this deliverable we present one further case study for Fieldwork activities, an extensive investigation of how the ARIADNE Ontology can be used to model particularly complex and articulated scenarios of archaeological investigations and activities. The results achieved by Task 4.4 (in collaboration with WP14) have gone far beyond the expectations framed at the beginning of the project. Indeed, the development process of the application profiles and their systematisation as part of the general ARIADNE ontological framework have not only allowed the efficient and complete representation of the entire ARIADNE information ecosystem, but have also greatly contributed to the advancement of research in the field of the development of ontologies and conceptual models for cultural heritage. Of particular note was the development of the AO-Cat, a completely new standard that allowed us to construct the ARIADNE Catalogue in an effective and straightforward way, and to achieve an outstanding level of integration of over three million archaeological resources encompassing all sub-domains. The AO-Cat has proved to be perfectly adequate and sufficient for modelling data on palaeo-anthropology (subtask 4.4.1), maritime and underwater archaeology (subtask 4.4.11) and for most of the information in the domains of environmental archaeology (subtask 4.4.3) and public archaeological finds (subtask 4.4.7), in which the extensive use of controlled vocabularies to assign specific concepts to each of the defined instances has also allowed to reach a particularly extensive level of integration. The fact that a slightly modified version of the AO-Cat is now proving itself fit for purpose for data aggregation of maritime heritage data drawn from all of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demonstrates its applicability to projects beyond ARIADNE. The AO-Cat has also proved to be efficient in combination with the extensions of the CIDOC CRM ecosystem used for field survey information (subtask 4.4.6 in combination with CRMarchaeo), standing structures (subtask 4.4.9, in interaction with CRMba) and inscriptions (subtask 4.4.13 together with CRMtex). In some cases it was sufficient to combine AO-Cat with a specialised service, such as that of spatio-temporal ARIADNEplus D4.4 (Public) 6 data (subtask 4.4.10) set up for interoperability of geographical information, to achieve optimal integration without any need to define additional dedicated conceptual tools. Among the new models, in addition to the AO-Cat, the development of the application profile for scientific data (CRMhs, for subtasks 4.4.4 and 4.4.5) and for bio-archaeology and ancient DNA (subtask 4.4.2) was also of considerable interest. These are two entirely new models, harmonised with each other, and devoted to the study of the specific problems of heritage science. The classes and properties introduced by these models have also proved to be of great use in other subdomains. In fact, one of the most interesting strategies adopted in the development phase was the reuse of models previously defined in ARIADNEplus, (CRMhs and aDNA in particular) for the definition of subsequent application profiles, such as those for remote sensing (subtask 4.4.8) and burials (4.4.14). In this case, the conceptual foundations and the logic with which the reused entities had previously been defined in the original ontologies have also been taken up and adapted to the rationales of the new models. A very sophisticated case was that of fieldwork activity (task 4.4.12), where the complexity of the domain and of the multiple events and activities that it involves required the deployment of most of the ARIADNE Ontology models alongside CRMarchaeo for the development of the application profile. The definition of such an assorted and well-orchestrated set of ontological models is an extraordinary achievement for a project like ARIADNEplus which has put integration and interoperability at the heart of its research programme. Beyond their immediate usefulness for the construction of the ARIADNE semantic data space, the importance of this development work lies in the ability to conceptually model the infinite facets of a complex domain such as that of archaeology. The application profiles are innovative tools, ready to be used in external contexts, as an effective standard for the information of other research domains. The ARIADNE Ontology is squarely placed in the family of CIDOC CRM ontologies, which it enriches and with which it forms a synergistic system for modelling any type of information produced by the domains of Cultural Heritage and Heritage Science., {"references":["Aspöck, E., Theodoridou, M. and Felicetti, A. 2022. Types of burial data and proposal of a Mortuary Data Application Profile for ARIADNEplus (WP4.4.14) (1.2). ARIADNEplus Project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7252485","Bombini, A., Castelli, L., dell'Agnello, L., Felicetti, A., Giacomini, F., Niccolucci, F. and Taccetti, F., 2021. CHNet cloud: an EOSC-based cloud for physical technologies applied to cultural heritages. In Proceedings of the Conferenza GARR 2021 - Sostenibile/Digitale. Dati e tecnologie per il futuro; GARR., Ed. Associazione Consortium GARR, Vol. Selected Papers. https://doi.org/10.26314/GARR-Conf21- proceedings-09.","Castelli, L., Felicetti, A. and Proietti, F. 2021. Heritage Science and Cultural Heritage: standards and tools for establishing cross-domain data interoperability. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 22, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-019-00275-2.","Correia, M.-J, and Santos Silva, A.. forthcoming. Aggregating Historic Buildings information in the ARIADNE catalogue. Internet Archaeology","de Haas, T. and van Leusen, M. 2020. FAIR survey: improving documentation and archiving practices in archaeological field survey through CIDOC CRM. FastiOnline - FOLD&R Archaeological Survey Series, Nr.12, The Journal of Fasti Online http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-sur-2020-12.pdf","Felicetti, A., Gerth, P., Meghini, C. and Theodoridou, M. 2015. Integrating het-erogeneous coin datasets in the context of archaeological research, Paola Ronzino and Franco Niccolucci (eds.): Extending, Mapping and Focusing the CIDOC CRM (CRMEX 2015) Workshop, 19th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2015), Poznan, Poland, September 17, 2015. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1656/paper2.pdf.","Felicetti, A. and Galluccio, I. 2021. Retrieving and Integrating Archaeo-logical Data on the Web. The Herculaneum Case Study. Börner, Wolfgang; Kral-Börner, Christina; Rohland, Hendrik. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies. 2021. https://doi.org/10.11588/propylaeum.747.","Felicetti, A. and Murano, F. 2021a. Ce qui est écrit et ce qui est parlé. CRMtex for modelling textual entities on the Semantic Web. Semantic Web Journal, Vol.12(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-200418.","Felicetti, A. and Murano, F. 2021b. Semantic modeling of textual entities: The CRMtex model and the ontological description of ancient texts. Umanistica Digitale, 11, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2532-8816/13674.","Kandel, A.W., Kanaeva, Z. and Haidle, M.N. forthcoming. The Aggregation of ROAD Data in the ARIADNE Pipeline: Pitfalls and Successes. Internet Archaeology","Katsianis, M., Nenova, D., Bruseker, G., Derudas, P., Felicetti, A., Hiebel, G., Hivert, F., Martlet, O., Opitz, R., Richards, J., Roulet, T., Styliaras, G., Smith Ore, C-E. and Uleberg, E. 2022. Archaeological Excavation Modelling Working Group: WP 4.4.12 excavation data, ARIADNE Project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7377910.","Katsianis, M., Styliaras, G., Bruseker, G., Derudas, P., Hiebel, G., Hivert, F., Kritsotakis, V., Martlet, O., Nenova, D., Nurra F., Smith Ore, C-E. and Theodoridou, M. 2022. Virtual Workshop on Semantic mapping of archaeological excavation data, ARIADNE Project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7112918.","Kritsotaki, A., Fafalios, P. and Doerr, M. 2022. SeaLiT Ontology - An extension of CIDOC-CRM for the modelling of Maritime History information https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6797750.","Novák, D. and Hasil J. 2022. An analysis of spatial data and how it can be integrated into the AOCAT\". ARIADNEplus Project. https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/wpcontent/ uploads/2021/12/T4_4_10_Final_Report_public_v1.pdf.","Opitz, R., Štular, B., Felicetti, A. and Novák, D. 2022. Recommendations and Application Profile Proposal for archaeological remote and near-surface sensing data in ARIADNEplus. ARIADNEplus Project. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6373050.","Psonis, N., Tabakaki, E., and Vassou, D. 2022. Ancient DNA glossary (1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7433124","Ronzino, P., Toth, A., and Falcidieno, B. 2022. Documenting the Structure and Adaptive Reuse of Roman Amphitheatres through the CIDOC CRMba Model. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 15(2): 36:1-36:23. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3485466."]}

This deliverable provides an initial report on the work done on ontology implementation during the first 24 months of ARIADNEplus, assessing it and planning the related activities for the second period, i.e. months 25-48. The activity happens primarily under T4.4, but related work also takes place under WP2 (Extending and Supporting the ARIADNE community), WP5 (Extending the ARIADNEplus data infrastructure), WP12 (data integration and interoperability), and WP14 (The ARIADNEplus knowledge management system), and these provide the focus of other deliverables either already submitted (D2.2 and D5.2) or due shortly (D12.2 and D14.1). The overall objective of WP4 is to Integrate the datasets of the Archaeological Research Communities, and Task 4.4 is focussed on Implementing the ARIADNE ontology. The task concerns the implementation of the ARIADNE ontology extensions, known as application profiles, to specific subdomains of archaeology and archaeological science. The work is organized in subtasks by domain. The deliverable introduces the AO-Cat and it discusses the distinction between collection and item-level records. It reports on the state of progress on the development of application profiles in each subdomain and introduces the plans for harmonisation of the profiles at the implementation stage. The AO-Cat itself provides a suitable application profile for sites and monument records and excavation reports (sub-task 4.4.0), as well as for individual artefacts (sub-task 4.4.7). It also appears that it will be sufficient to describe site-level information within most of the other sub-domains. However, it is anticipated that more specific application profiles will be required for other subtasks, including palaeo-anthropology (4.4.1). The most advanced application profile is an extension of the CIDOC CRM for Heritage Science. It appears that this may be adapted to cover several laboratorybased sub-domains, including Bio-archaeology and Ancient DNA (4.4.2), Environmental Archaeology (4.4.3), Inorganic Materials study (4.4.4), and Dating (4.4.5). The sub-domain of field survey (4.4.6) may also need its own application profile, as will specific aspects of remote sensing (4.4.8), and standing structures (4.4.9), although the working group on spatiotemporal data (4.4.10) has agreed that the field is so diverse and fragmented that the first priority has to be a catalogue of geospatial services. Maritime and underwater archaeology (4.4.11) is currently on hold, but is served by AO-Cat to some extent. Archaeological fieldwork (4.4.12) is also covered by AO-Cat at site level, but detailed excavation archives would require a complex application profile, although several partners have already done work on mapping their databases to the CIDOC-CRM and work is underway on developing an application profile. The applications profiles for inscriptions (4.4.13) and burials (4.4.14) are also relatively well advanced. The next priorities are to complete work on those application profiles that are already well advanced, to assess which sub-domains which are underway can be amalgamated and harmonised using the CIDOC CRM and its extensions, such as CRMarchaeo, and to complete the outstanding profiles, where possible. Workshops are planned to investigate how the application profiles can be implemented within VREs to be developed in D4Science, and how these will help address the research questions of archaeologists by allowing them to combine multiple datasets., All ARIADNEplus deliverables are available at: https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/resources/ariadneplus-deliverables/