Presentation by Anja Masur and Keith May OAW ( Austrian Academy of Sciences). OREA (Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology). English Heritage; University of South Wales Full-day session on archaeological infrastructures and services at the 18th Cultural Heritage and New Technologies (CHNT) conference Vienna, Austria 11th -13th November 2013

1. Comparing and matching archaeological excavation data for integration in ontologies
ANJA MASUR and KEITH MAY

2. 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

3. 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!

4. 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? 

5. 1. Problem
The Archaeological Archipelagos
• different vocabularies, different methodologies, different languages
•independent and isolated databases

6. ”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)

8. Outline
1.Method
2.Again….Problems
3.Approach
4.Conclusion/Challenges

9. 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

10. Documentation
•Different excavation methods bring differing documentation
•Comparison of different documentation sheets
•Excavation sheet are abstraction of reality (based on ontologies)

11. Bavaria

12. EH

13. Israel

14. Documentation
Defined key concepts:
site
find
area
Stratigra- phic unit
Phys. relationships
Strat. relationships
samples
within
within
within
within
Aggregation relationships

15. Excavation Methodology
• stratigraphic
• in spits / arbitrary
• mix
Stratigraphic Unit

16. Excavation Methodology
In spits:

17. context
Locus
Excavation Unit
Lot
Level
Stratum
Behälter (Troy)
(Basket)
Semantics One language - one meaning – different terms
Stratigra- phic Unit

18. 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
Behälter (Troy)
(Basket)

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.