This document discusses different archaeological recording methodologies and their implications for linked open data. It provides examples of recording systems from the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Israel. While the systems vary in their specific terminology, they generally conceptualize common relationships like stratigraphic units, finds, and phases. The document argues these commonalities allow data from different systems to be semantically linked to enable cross-searching for broader research insights. However, challenges remain around developing shared technologies and willingness to openly share archaeological data.

1. 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

2. Overview of Presentation
Conceptual Frameworks
Examples of different
Methods
Similarities
Differences
Conclusions

3. The Archaeological Archipelagos

4. 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

5. 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

6. Stratigraphic Units
Spatial Coordinates
Finds
Contexts
are deposited in
Groups Samples
are taken from
Phases
Dates/
Timespans
Periods
Investigations
are within
Took Place
at
are within
Identifies
Identifies
Identifies
date
datedate
Spatio-
Temporal
Relations
Research
Objectives
Inform
Simplified Conceptual Model (CRM-EH)
for Interoperability between archaeological records

7. Examination of some examples of
Archaeological Recording Systems
UK - English Heritage
Germany - Bavaria
Italy - Rome
Catalhoyuk
Israeli - Tell es-Safi

8. Field record based data modelling
Model common ‘core’ of Archaeological
processes
Principle archaeological concepts modelled
as CRM entities & relationships
Limited degree of minute detail
Matrix holds stratigraphic relationships
N.B. Distinguishing positive Deposits
from negative Cuts

9. With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
English Heritage
Recording Manual

10. English Heritage
Recording Manual with CRM-EH

11. German - e.g. Gottingen & Bayer
Befunde - 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?

12. With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
Bavarian
Recording Manual

13. 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

14. Catalhoyuk
Units - Stratigraphic units,
similar to Contexts
Features - groupings of
units or more complex
structures, similar to
MoLA Groups

15. Israeli - Tell es-Safi
Stratum - 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

16. Israeli – e.g.Tell es-Safi
Stratum - 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

17. With thanks to Gerald Hiebel
Example of Israeli
Recording Practice

18. Digging by fixed levels - Spits
Non-stratigraphic approaches
America - Texas (Coulson) system
Other examples in Europe?

19. Conceptual Models and Knowledge ResourcesConceptual Models and Knowledge Resources
 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.

20. Other important mechanisms for Semantic
interoperability include syntactic alignment
Shared Vocabularies
Using E55 Type and SKOS to relate
different terminologies together
see following diagram showing how
CRM E55 types & SKOS work

21. “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.Type
Range: 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

22. skos:Concept
Castle:c789
skos:Concept
Motte:c456
skos:broader skos:narrower
skos:Concept
Bailey:c789
skos:Concept
Motte:c456
skos:related skos:related
skos:ConceptScheme
Monument:s123
skos:Concept
Motte:c456
skos:inScheme
SKOS_CONCEPTS – scheme_id, broader_id, related_id

23. Heritage Data Thesauri -Linked Open Data (SKOS)Heritage Data Thesauri -Linked Open Data (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

24. LOD Heritage Vocabularies: http://heritagedata.orgeritagedata.org

26. Conclusions and Challenges
Different 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?

27. References
Steve 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