The document outlines conventions for archaeological stratigraphic and chronological data, emphasizing the need for consistent standards in digital records. It discusses methodologies, challenges, and the evolution of archaeological stratigraphy while considering various factors influencing data outputs. The aim is to improve data interoperability and reuse in archaeological practices and research.

1. Conventions for Archaeological Stratigraphic
and Chronological Data
Presented by
Keith May FSA
Historic England
Visiting Prof at University of South Wales
@Keith_May
Dr James Taylor
University of York
Co-Field Director: Çatalhöyük
Ceri Binding
University of South Wales
Hypermedia Research Unit
Group
1
Group 2
Sub-Group
3.1
Group 3
Group 4
Sub-Group
2.1
Sub-Group
2.2
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Sub-Group
3.2
CAA2023 Amsterdam
George Cruikshank. The Antiquarian Society.
1812. © The Trustees of the British Museum
Behold!
a most curious
International
Convention

2. Conventional Concepts used in
Stratigraphic Recording and Analysis
Not to mention the CRMarchaeo v1.5.0
Phase Index – MOLA IAA.csv
CUD
Matrix
diagram
Dating evidence
Grouping
P h a s i n g
Stratigraphy
Bayesian
Chronological
Modelling
stratigraphic
units
Context
Deposits
Interfaces
C
u
t
s

3. Conventional Concepts of the Stratigraphic Process
Note: Duplication of field names
encountered in archive records
IAA Queries
1. MOLA only?
2. Do other people use similar
“Phasing Indexes”?
Is use of IAA.csv file –
1. Helping re-use?
2. Is it used consistently as a digital
standard across sites?
3. Note - no primary Stratigraphic
relationships in this index. Product of
MOLA archive process.

4. CRM-EH Ontological Model of Archaeological Information Domain - 2004
CRM-EH Ontological
Model initially
modelled the English
Heritage /
Historic England
Archaeological
Information recording
process. But is
applicable to the
more general
archaeological
methodology Single
Context Recording in
the UK (Harris Matrix)
Context modelled spatially
with a single context entity
for both Deposits and/or
Interfaces.
Groups as a spatial group
of spatial Contexts

5. CIDOC CRM - CRMarchaeo
“Archaeological Excavation Process” extension – followed on from CRM-EH
Fig. 4: Section drawing with A3 Stratigraphic Interfaces in square brackets [ ], A2 Stratigraphic Volume
Unit in round brackets (), the surfaces S1 and S2 created through A1 Excavation Process Units using
different methodologies and an A7 Embedding of a coin.
A1 Excavation Process Unit
A1 Excavation Process Unit
A3 Stratigraphic Interface
A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit
A7 Embedding
AP4 produced surface S1
with stratigraphic method
AP4 produced surface S2
with spit excavation method
CRMarchaeo v 1.4.8 (Feb 2019)
Image
Copyright
Lucasfilm

7. The Multiverse of Archaeological Investigation
Non-exhaustive list of external factors influencing archaeological digital outputs
Forthcoming Article
There is a multi-dimensional aspect
to how different workflow processes
are actually implemented in
archaeological practice.
1. Funding Source (Financial constraints)
– i.e. Tales from 2 River Banks
2. Project Management regime
- what stage when? (n.b. Frameworks BAA)
7. Research Objectives
- i.e. “Fashions” of changing Theory? (Post-Post-Modernism )
8. Epistemological Methods - Objective data recorded in the present i.e. scientific statements &
systematics (Dunnell 1971) as opposed to free text interpretation about “The Past” (humanities)
3. Location: e.g. Urban Vs Rural (vs mixed?)
- Type of site – depth of stratigraphic sequence
4. Scale: e.g. Infrastructure (Inter-site) vs Single site (Intra-site)
- Scale of archaeology encountered (e.g. infrastructure project)?
- Degree of dating evidence encountered in the stratigraphic units
5. Staff Resources & Digital Skills
6. Digital Practice: will continue to change & develop
e.g.
i. GIS
ii. SFM,
iii. Bayesian Chronological Modelling
…More to come
Concept of 8 multiple universes, with
the beginning (of time) in the middle.
Cc-by Wikipedia

8. Funding Sources and/or Recording Methods (UK)
These differences ARE reflected in Data outputs
Spatial Methodological Approach
Single Context Spatial Recording
(Hand-drawn Planning)
spatio-temporal?
Features Spatial Recording
(Hand-drawn Planning)
Spatio-functional?
Funding
Source
Development
Funded
(commercial)
MOLA
Oxford
Wessex
Framework
FAS
BUFAU??
Research
Funded
(UKRI,
HE,
etc)
Early Catalhoyuk?? Wasperton
(FAS - Carver)?
GIS based Recording
(Digital Planning)?
?
?
GIS based Recording
(Digital Planning)?
SFM, et al
3D or 4D?
MOLA
Oxford
Wessex
Framework
?
Later Catalhoyuk

9. How can Process Modelling for Analysis activities help with understanding the problem?
● Aim to Identify common
steps in the Analysis
process
● Interviews of 10 Main
Archaeological
organizations in UK
● Identify and clarify
differing approaches to
process
● Enable semantic
mappings between
common concepts and
terms used in Analysis
knowledge process(es)
Research
Funded
Project
process
Commercial
Developer
Funded
Projects
process
(CRM)
Typical (UK)
Archaeology
Project Stages
Published
Stratigraphic
Data
Archived
Stratigraphic
Data
Excavation - Archived
Stratigraphic
Data
Analyzed
Stratigraphic
Data
Re-Use Previous
Excavations
Stratigraphic Data
The Problem: Stratigraphic Archive data not Interoperable / Reusable

10. Stratigraphic Process has Matured?
or Evolved?
● Harris 1989 (Principles - Fig 57) “The process from excavation to the
publication of the site report is depicted as in Fig. 57”.
● But process can change, either deliberately or organically
● New methods emerge – digital GIS + SfM recording & analysis
● Spatial record methodologies have evolved from just hand drawn
Single Context Recording on permatrace.
● In General terms “Urban or Deep Strat” recording methods differ from
“Rural or Wide & Shallow Strat”
● Infrastructure projects can also require different project management
regimes and related recording and publication methods e.g.
Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5 - UK)
● Bayesian Chronological Modelling (Bcal, OxCal, etc) of Temporal Data
“Fig. 57 All of the stratigraphic data from an excavation goes into the
formation of the stratigraphic sequence, which is then used for all later
analyses of the artefacts and in the compilation of the site report.”
GIS +
SFM
recording
&
analysis
Bayesian
Chronological
Modelling
So… Big ???s around the consistency and re-usability (FAIRness) of the
digital by-products reaching the Archive records?

11. A14 Guidance – “State of the Art” for road scheme infrastructure sites.
Land-use is important
● But, not part of Harris Matrix method
● A later part of the “Process”
● So not part of Phaser software
Identify and assign ‘sub-groups’
for particular features.
Assign Periods to the 'groups’.
Input the 'groups' (incl 'periods’)
into the GIS.
Identify and assign 'groups'.
Assign Periods to the ‘sub-groups’.
Input the 'sub-groups' (incl 'periods') into the
Excel table exported from GIS.
Identify and assign ‘land-uses’
(including ‘Settlement’ Land-
Use).
Common stages in an iterative
process of “Grouping”
Assigning Periods to ‘groups’
A process AKA = Phasing?
'Groups' (incl 'periods’)
AKA = Phased Groups?
Create Phase plans in GIS?
Almost the same process for
sub-grouping ?
With Thanks to Alex Smith
Is this kind of PX-Analysis documentation now as rare as Rocking Horse Sh…?
P18

12. Modelling the Matrix - making explicit all the temporal relationships
Example: Silbury Hill (approx. 2400BC)
Approx. 30m
= 4400 Years
estimated to have involved about
4 million hours of work

13. Process modelling diagram ('To Be' model)
To inform development of the prototype software

14. Allen Temporal Relationships - Checking Uncertainties

15. Dating evidence – five main formats of date evidence
Dating form Note Example data
Single date Single dates are actually
relatively rare in archaeology
203 AD
after c1760
Date range Most dates will be in this form 117 - 138 (coin)
Period date Could be as broad as “Roman”
But could potentially carry an
associated date range too
Early Roman
SABA - Reece Period 6
Probability date range Dating data: Probability Range
(Usually to a year with an
associated +/- error value)
c. AD99-134 Dendro 95%
confidence
Duration This is most likely a date range
but without necessarily fixed
start or end dates. Examples will
most likely occur during
Grouping and Phasing.
This may be especially relevant
to:
● Construction (e.g. < 1yr)
● Use – duration (> 1yr)
● Disuse (< 1yr)
The Building could only have
been in use for at most 50 years
(i.e. duration = min 0 – max 50).
5 main types of
dating evidence
‘conventionally’ used
in constructing
chronologies

16. • Musivaria stratigraphy - based
on interpreting the spatio-
temporal sequencing of the
order that the mosaic tiles
'must' have been placed in the
design. Not strictly following
'Law of superposition'
• Stratigraphic relations seen in
insertions to a brick wall or ceiling
- n.b. Does insertion strictly follow
letter of the 'Law of superposition'
Above (After)/Below (Before) relationships are spatiotemporal
• Fuliginochronology relations
seen on the walls and vaults of
caves and rock shelters, in
speleothems or deposits
resulting from anthropogenic
fires. Strictly speaking follows
inverse 'Law of superposition'
Law of Superposition: ”The principle is taken from geology.
Deposits or strata of rock can be observed superimposed one on
another. The stratum at the bottom of a series will have been laid
down earliest and those above it successively through time from
bottom to top” (Browne 1975: 21).
Law of Stratigraphical Succession: any given unit of archaeological
stratification takes its place in the stratigraphic sequence of a site
from its position between the undermost of all units which lie above it
and the uppermost of all those units which lie below it and with which
it has a physical contact, all other superpositional relationships being
regarded as redundant. (Harris 1989)
Law of spatio-temporal succession?
Earliest smoke/carbon deposits on the roof of the cav
e are gravitationally above later smoke deposits.
Stratigraphic relationships are spatiotemporal

17. Proposal:
A Law of Archaeological Spatiotemporal Succession
• A unit of archaeological stratification takes its spatiotemporal
position in the archaeological stratigraphic sequence from its
spatiotemporal juxtaposition between the end of the prior
archaeological stratigraphic unit (which lies spatiotemporally
prior to it) and beginning of the posterior archaeological
stratigraphic unit (which lies spatiotemporally posterior to it),
regardless of any other superpositional relationships in the
sequence, and presuming gravity has remained constant
between the stratigraphic unit’s deposition and recording. (was
excavation).

18. “The Archaeologists Guide to Good Practice”
AG2GP-Handbook Project AH/X006735/1
…PX Handbook for What? Just Stratigraphy or more?
https://www.york.ac.uk/archaeology/strat/startpage.html
With thanks to Steve
Roskams, F. Hammer, et al
Is the time right for a re-fresh?
Roskams - Not re-invent
broken wheels
What would make this most
useful & more sustainable?
FAME to maintain
Guidelines that ‘sign-post’ differing
methods used to create different data
(semantically auto-generate Paradata?)
The Code is more what
you’d call “Guidelines”
than actual Rules

19. Conventional Archaeological Stratigraphic Workflow

20. 2. Matrix Recommendations Cont’d:
• Recommendation 6.1. International
convention on stratigraphic
standards to provide more accurate
and interoperable records of the
“Jinji” boundary between human
made strata and naturally
deposited strata for (re-)use in
Anthropocene & Ecological research
within and beyond Archaeology
With Thanks to Matt Edgeworth

21. Existing practice: Bayesian Chronological Analysis
Left: Probability distributions of dates on human burials
from Tell Sabi Abyad, Operation III (from Bayliss 2015).
With thanks to
James Taylor
EVERYBODY’S GETTING A
BAYESIAN MODEL - IT’S
THE LATEST FAD, I GUESS
I COULD AFFORD A
BAYESIAN MODEL –
BUT I ASK MYSELF
THIS QUESTION –
WOULD HAVING A BAYESIAN
MODEL MAKE ME ANY
HAPPIER?
Above: Bayesian Stratigraphic analysis
on-site at Çatalhöyük.

22. FAIR+O Cookbook for Heritage Data?
Use the Life Sciences approach as a model? https://faircookbook.elixir-europe.org/content/home.html

23. Experiences, Challenges, & Conclusions:
FAIR stratigraphic data
including representation of
other Allen relationships
4
● Use Data Management Plans (DMPs) to make this
fundamental archaeological data more sustainably
Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and
Reusable (FAIR Principles 2016) across present day
geo-political (period), and spatio-temporal, boundaries?
Recycle FAIRly
Agree standards for sharing digital
stratigraphic data records and enable
better structured Legacy/hardcopy data
3
● Is there a need for an International Convention on
Archaeological Stratigraphic & Chronological Methods
and Data? To facilitate better understanding and
communication.
Reuse
Data that is fit for purpose
2
● Matrix data should be re-usable effectively e.g. minimum
as CSV files, rather than as images of matrix diagrams buried
in a PDF document.
● Practically derived from existing processes (eg. Harris
Matrix) to facilitate ease of use and re-use
1
• Need more consistent standards in digital records of
stratigraphic and temporal relationships (amongst others)
Reduce
Avoid proliferation of
unnecessary digital materials.
With acknowledgement to Jeremy Huggett (remix is good too!)

24. References & Acknowledgments
● Allen, J.F. (1983) 'Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals'. Communications of the ACM 26, 11, 832-843.
● Binding, C. (2010) Implementing archaeological time periods using CIDOC CRM and SKOS .The Semantic Web: Research and Applications : 7th Extended
Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2010.
● Bradley, R. 2006. ‘‘Bridging the Two Cultures. Commercial Archaeology and the Study of Prehistoric Britain,’’ Antiquaries Journal 86: 1–13.
● Carver, M. Archaeological Investigation. (2009)
● Cripps, P., Greenhalgh, A. Fellows, D., May, K., David Robinson, D. (2004) Ontological Modelling of the work of the Centre for Archaeology, CIDOC CRM
technical paper: pdf file. Also available: The CRM Diagram, pdf file.
● Davies, Dafydd. (2017) “The Development Of Archaeological Post-Excavation Within British Professional Archaeology” BAJR Guide 46
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRGuides/46_PostEx_Theory_Application/46%20Archaeological%20PostExcavation.pdf
● Dye, T.S. & Buck, C.E. (2015) Archaeological sequence diagrams and Bayesian chronological models.Journal of Archaeological Science, 63. 84 - 93. ISSN 0305-
4403
● Harris, E.C. (1979) Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (1st Edition). London: Academic Press.
● Huggett, J. Reuse remix recycle: repurposing archaeological digital data. Advances in Archaeological Practice (2018), doi:10.1017/aap.2018.1
● May, K., Taylor, J.S. (2023) Stratigraphic Analysis and The Matrix: connecting and reusing Archaeological Stratigraphic Records and Archives, Internet
Archaeology 61 https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.61.2
● May, K. 2020 The Matrix: Connecting Time and Space in Archaeological Stratigraphic Records and Archives, Internet
Archaeology 55. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.8
● Papadakis, M., Doerr, M. and Plexousakis, D. "Fuzzy times on space-time volumes," eChallenges e-2014 Conference Proceedings, Belfast, 2014, pp. 1-11.
● Roskams, S. (2001) Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
● Taylor, J.S. (2016) Making Time For Space At Çatalhöyük: GIS as a tool for exploring intra-site spatiotemporality within complex stratigraphic sequences. PhD
thesis, University of York.
● Tudhope, D., May, K., Binding, C. and Vlachidis, A. (2011) 'Connecting Archaeological Data and Grey Literature via Semantic Cross Search', Internet
Archaeology 30. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.30.5