ariadne: report on e-archaeology frameworks and experiments

D17.1 Report on E-Archaeology Frameworksand Experiments

Authors: Guntram Geser (SRFG)Cesar Gonzalez-Perez (CSIC)

Ariadne is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme.

Theviewsandopinionsexpressedinthisreportarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.

ARIADNE–D15.3:ReportonSemanticAnnotationandLinkingPrepared byUSWAboutthisdocumentThis document is the “Report on E-Archaeology Frameworks and Experiments”, a contractual deliverable(D17.1)oftheprojectARIADNE-AdvancedResearchInfrastructureforArchaeologicalDatasetNetworkingin Europe. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’sSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2012-1)undergrantagreementnÅã313193.

Version:1.0(final) 28thJanuary2017

MainAuthors: GuntramGeser(SRFG)

CesarGonzalez-Perez(CSIC)

Contributers Chapters1-2:GuntramGeser(SRFG)andC.sarGonzalez-Perez(CSIC)

Chapters3-4:GuntramGeser(SRFG)

Chapter5–CaseStudies:

ArchaeologicalMethodology:C.sarGonzalez-Perez(CSIC)

ArchaeologicalOntology:AchilleFelicetti(PIN)

3DArchaeology:SorinHermon(CYI-STARC)

Geo-PhysicalFieldSurvey:SimonaSimionescu(ARHEO)

PhysicalAnthropology:OrsolyaL.szl.(MNM-NOK)

ArchaeobotanicalResearch:GuntramGeser(SRFG)

VREforCzechArchaeology:MartinKuna(ARUP-CAS)

SummaryofCaseStudiesResults:GuntramGeser(SRFG)

Chapter6:ConclusionsandRecommendations:GuntramGeser(SRFG)

Chapter7:MainReferences:GuntramGeser(SRFG)

Qualityreview: FrancoNiccolucciandPaolaRonzino(PIN)

ARIADNE–D17.1:ReportonE-ArchaeologyFrameworksandExperiments

ARIADNE 3 Deliverable17.1

TableofContents

1 ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................4

2 Introductionandoverview.................................................................................................................7

3 E-ArchaeologyFrameworks.............................................................................................................103.1 E-Archaeology.........................................................................................................................................103.2 BasicE-ResearchFrameworks.................................................................................................................103.3 SpecificE-ArchaeologyFrameworks.......................................................................................................133.4 SummaryofE-ArchaeologyFrameworks................................................................................................18

4 VirtualResearchEnvironments........................................................................................................214.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................214.2 VREDefinitions........................................................................................................................................214.3 VREDevelopment...................................................................................................................................234.4 TaxonomiesofVREsandResearchActivities..........................................................................................274.5 CurrentStateofVREsinArchaeology.....................................................................................................334.6 SummaryofVREs....................................................................................................................................38

5 CaseStudies.....................................................................................................................................425.1 IntroductionandOverview.....................................................................................................................425.2 ArchaeologicalMethodology(CSIC)........................................................................................................435.3 ArchaeologicalOntology(PIN)................................................................................................................605.4 3DArchaeology(CyI-STARC)...................................................................................................................665.5 Geo-PhysicalFieldSurvey(ArheoVest)...................................................................................................885.6 PhysicalAnthropology(MNM-NOK)........................................................................................................915.7 ArchaeobotanicalResearch(SRFG).........................................................................................................995.8 VirtualResearchEnvironmentforCzechArchaeology(ARUP-CAS)......................................................1185.9 SummaryofCaseStudiesResults(SRFG)..............................................................................................128

6 ConclusionsandRecommendations..............................................................................................132

7 MainReferences............................................................................................................................136



1 ExecutiveSummary

E-Archaeology

Inthisstudye-archaeologybasicallymeanstheuseofweb-baseddigitaldata,toolsandservicesforresearchpurposes.E-archaeologymaybesubsumedunderthesocalleddigitalhumanities,howeverhasitsowndisciplinarychallengesandsomedifferentcharacteristics.Thestudyincludesananalysisof significant differenceswhich should be taken account ofwhen developing environments for e-researchofhumanitiesscholarsorarchaeologists.

EnablingMulti-DisciplinaryE-Archaeology

Archaeologyisamulti-disciplinaryfieldofresearchthatinvolvesresearchers,especiallyfindexperts,with different disciplinary backgrounds and research questions. They all contribute to theinterpretation of archaeological sites, but their work requires different knowledge, methods andtools.Therefore,thestudyseesaneedoftwotypesofcollaborativee-researchsolutions:

o Anenvironmentthatallowsbringingtogether,integrateandinterpret(synthesise)theresultsofthedifferent investigationsonasite,of thecore teamofarchaeologists/excavatorsandof thedifferentfindsexpertswhoworkatthesiteand/orremotely.

o Environments for researchers in specialities (e.g. physical anthropology, archaeobotany andothers) thatarespecialisedfor theirparticulardataandterminologyand includeservices/toolsfortheidentification,descriptionandanalysisoftheirfinds.

Both environments are essential for collaborative generationof research results, in the context ofarchaeologicalexcavationsandtheresearchofarchaeologicalspecialities.Theenvironmentsshouldbedevelopedinviewofwiderrangeinvestigations(i.e.beyondindividualsites)basedonsharingofthecollecteddatathroughtheARIADNEe-researchinfrastructure.

ARIADNEandVirtualResearchEnvironments

Virtual Research Environments (VREs) are web-based environments that provide researchcommunitieswith tools, services and data resourceswhich they need to carry out researchworkonline. The ARIADNE data infrastructure currently allows discovery of and access to data acrossdistributed digital archives. One next step could be to provide VREs that enable carrying out alsoother,morespecificresearchtasksonline.SuchVREsmayrangefromlooselycoupledservices/toolsand data resources to tightly integrated workbenches and databases for specific researchcommunities.

The study looked into the development of VREs for various disciplines, including taxonomies ofdifferenttypesofVREandresearchactivitiestheymaysupport.The investigationfoundthattherehavebeenmanyVREprojectsforhumanitiesscholarswhostudytextualcontent,butfewattemptstobuildVREsforarchaeology.But,archaeologicalresearchersusevarioustoolstocarryout,analyseandpresent research results. Today themain variantof anarchaeological e-researchenvironmentarguably is theWeb GIS of an excavation project; also 3Dmodels are increasingly being used topresentresearchresults.

CaseStudies

Thecasestudiesdescribeexemplarycurrentdigitalpracticesintherespectivearea,recentprogressand/orexistingshortcomings,andoutlinehowtheareacouldadvance,orcontributetoadvancing,towardinnovativee-archaeology.AcommonperspectiveofthestudiesisthepotentialdevelopmentofVREs in the contextof theARIADNEe-infrastructure. The case studies cover awide rangeof e-archaeologytopicsandsubjectmatters:



o Archaeologicalmethodology

o Archaeologicalontologies

o E-infrastructureVREatthenationallevel

o 3Darchaeology

o Geo-physicalsurveying

o Physicalanthropology

o Archaeobotany

The conclusions and recommendationsof the case studieswith regard topotential advances in e-archaeology concern adoption of novel approaches, standards, methods, tools or other means,dependingonthesubjectareacovered.Theresultsaresummarisedinthefinalsectionofthecasestudieschapterandhavebeenincorporatedintheoverallconclusionsandrecommendations.

MainConclusionsandRecommendations

TheARIADNEe-infrastructurehelpstoovercomeasituationofhighfragmentationofarchaeologicaldatainEurope(andelsewhere).Atthesametime,itisasteptowardstheevenmoreambitiousgoalof providing a platform capable to support web-based research aimed to create new knowledge.Thusamajornextstepcouldbetoimplementvirtualresearchenvironments(VREs)that,inadditionto data access, provide services and tools which allow archaeological researchers carrying outresearchtasksonline.

GeneralRecommendationsforData,Tools/ServicesandVREs

VREsareweb-basedcollaborationenvironmentthatprovideasetofintegratedtoolsandservicesaswellasdataresourcesasneededbyresearchcommunitiestocarryoutresearchtasksonline.Withregardtodata,tools/servicesandVREsthegeneralrecommendationsofthisstudyare:

o ARIADNE should focus on major archaeological data resources, in particular field survey andexcavationdata,includingdataofresearchspecialties.

o Concerning data of research specialities ARIADNEwill have to considerwhich fields should befocusareasoffutureincorporationofadditionaldataresources.

o With regard to research tools the focus should be on tools/services of particular relevance toarchaeologists. One area already present in ARIADNE’s portfolio is online services for thegeneration, visualization and exploration of 3D models (Visual Media Service and LandscapeFactory).

o Otherpriorityareasoffutureadditionaltools/servicesshouldbeinvestigated.Thesecouldfocuson certain types of data (e.g. remote sensing data) and/or tasks (e.g. collaborative building ofonline reference collections). In general types of data and tasks that are relevant for broadsegments of researchers are preferable, at least in a first phase of extension of the ARIADNEserviceportfolio.

o Themain challenge forARIADNE to supporte-archaeology is themulti-disciplinaryof archaeo-logicalresearch.ThischallengemaybeaddressedbyprovidingVREsforcertaindomainsorfieldsof research, and an environment that allows bringing together, integrate and synthesise theresultsofdifferentinvestigations,i.e.withafocusonarchaeologicalsites.

o The environments should be developed in view of wider range investigations (i.e. beyondindividual sites) based on sharing of the collected data through the ARIADNE e-researchinfrastructure.



RecommendationsfortheDevelopmentofARIADNEVREs

Use of VREs on top the ARIADNE e-infrastructure could bring about significant progress in e-archaeology, in particular through enabling collaboration between and cross-fertilization ofknowledgeandresearchagendasofscholarsofdifferentdomains.WithregardtothedevelopmentofARIADNEVREsthestudyrecommends:

o Investigate further different concepts of virtual environments for archaeological research, e.g.which research tasks could research groups conduct more effectively online and whichrequirementsneedtobefulfilled.

o Promote the development of relevant VREs with functionalities (tools, services) and dataresourcesrequiredbyarchaeologiststocarryoutvariousresearchtasksonline.

o Takeaccountof theparticular requirementsofarchaeological researchers indifferentdomainsaswellasincross-domain/disciplinarycollaboration.

o Consider caseswhere researchers use datamediated by ARIADNE and by data infrastructuresandservicesofotherdisciplines(e.g.geo,environmental,biologicaldata).Forthedevelopmentof cross-domain VREs collaboration between e-infrastructure initiatives of different disciplinesmaybenecessary.

o Support the use of domain-specific vocabulary as well as integrating ontologies such as theCIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CIDOC CRM) and its recent extensions CRMsci,CRMarchaeo,CRMba,andothers.

o AimtodevelopVREsthatenablecollaborationbetweenandcross-fertilizationofknowledgeandresearchagendasofscholarsofdifferentdomains.

o Foster cross-fertilization also between scholars and developers of software tools for researchpurposes, inwhichdevelopers learnabouttherequirementsofscholars’projects,andscholarshowtoapplynoveltechnologicalsolutions.



2 Introductionandoverview

ARIADNEhasimplementedane-infrastructureplatformwherearchaeologicaldataresourcescanbeuniformly described, discovered and accessed. The ARIADNE data registry and portal help toovercomeasituationofhighfragmentationofarchaeologicaldatasetsinEurope(andelsewhere).Atthe same time, the ARIADNE e-infrastructure is a step towards the evenmore ambitious goal ofprovidinganenvironmentcapabletosupportweb-basedresearchaimedtocreatenewknowledge(e-archaeology).

Thusamajornextstepcouldbetoimplementvirtualresearchenvironments(VREs)that,inadditionto data access, provide services and tools which allow archaeological researchers carrying outresearch tasks online. Such environmentsmay range from loosely coupled services/tools anddataresourcestotightlyintegratedworkbenchesforresearchersofdifferentdomainsofarchaeology.Thecurrent ARIADNE project has not been charged to develop VREs, but the implemented datainfrastructureandportalprovideabasisforfuturearchaeologicalVREs.

E-archaeology

Inthisreporttheterm“e-archaeology”generallyreferstotheuseofweb-basedtools/servicesanddata resources for established and new forms of collaborative digital archaeological research (e-research). In archaeology, e-research is conducted in fieldwork (e.g. capture of data with variousdigitaltools)andpost-fieldworkprocessing,analysis,publicationandlinkingofdata.Inrecentyearsbothareashaveexperiencedanincreasinguseofdigitalmethodsandtools.

Fieldsurveysandexcavations

Withregardto fieldwork,evermoredatacapture technologieshavebeenaddedto the toolboxofarchaeologists. For example, the use of web-based geographic information systems (WebGIS) hasbecome a standard practice in field surveys and excavations. Other developments focus onstreamliningdataworkflows.Oneexampleis“paperlessarchaeology”.MobileapplicationsoniPadsor other tablets instead of paper-based recording templates are increasingly employed in fieldsurveysandexcavations.Thisavoidsthe“doubleentry”problem,first fillingpapertemplates, thenentry of data in a database. The goal clearly is to speed up data collection in the field and bring,wherepossible,alsothedataprocessingandanalysisclosertothetrench.

Thus the use of digital methods and tools has become an essential element of archaeologicalfieldwork.Butitisnotafocusareaofthestudiespresentedinthisreport.ARIADNEdoesnotaimtoprovidearchaeologistswithnoveltoolsforcapturingandprocessingdatainthefield,butfocusesonservices for online data sharing, discovery and re-use. To go beyond this, future developments inARIADNEwillconsiderhowweb-basedresearchtools/servicescouldbeprovidedinadditiontodataresources,ideallyintegratedasVREsfordifferentareasofarchaeologicalresearch.

Thissaid,werecogniseofcoursethatfieldworkandpost-fieldworkarenotfullyseparatedareasofarchaeological research. There are information loops, e.g. between excavators and finds expertsworking remotely, and also tools such as projectwikiswhich allow continued documentation andinterpretationduringandafterthefieldwork.

Reportfocusonpost-fieldworke-archaeology

The ARIADNE e-infrastructure allows registration, discovery, access to and use of data acrossdistributed digital archives/repositories. The project does not provide services/tools for capturingdatainthefield,butaimstosupporte-researchbasedonalreadyproduceddatathatissharedandaccessibleonline.Thesupportcurrently focusesonmakingdata resourcesbetterdiscoverableandaccessibleforresearchers,forexample,basedonenhanceddatadocumentation,sharing,linkingand



accessforre-use.ARIADNEservicessuchasdataregistration,searchandaccessaregenericservices,wherease-researchenvironmentsprovidespecialtools/servicesforresearchtasksofresearchersofdifferentdomainsofarchaeology.SomeARIADNEservicesalreadysignaladevelopmenttowardse-research capability, for example, the services for publication and exploration of visualmedia (e.g.interactive3Dmodelsofobjectsandlandscapes).

Because ARIADNE services do not support fieldwork (or laboratory work), theWP17 study groupdecidedtofocusonweb-basedtools/servicesanddataresourcesthatarerelevantfornewformsofdigital archaeological research. The study group recognised that there aremany online platformsavailablewhereresearchersshareinformation,socialmediasites(e.g.FlickrorYouTube)aswellasdedicatedprofessionalplatforms,i.e.Academia.edu,ResearchGate,andothers.Suchplatformswerenotconsideredasrelevantforthisstudy.

E-researchmethodologiesandcasestudies

ARIADNEdoesnotprescribee-researchmethodologies,butaimstosupportarchaeologicalresearchwithnovelapproachesandusefulservicesandtools.Therefore,theobjectivesofWP17havebeentocollect and review innovative e-research frameworks and approaches and assess their currentapplications.Theobjectivesdidnotincludetodiscussfundamentalquestionsofdifferentparadigms,theories,methodologies,etc.thatarepresentinthearchaeologicalresearchcommunity.Rathertheapproachshouldbeto look intocurrentpracticesandrelevantavailableormissingapplicationsforinnovativee-archaeology.

Furthermore,anumberofcasestudieshavebeenproducedaspilot investigationsforthedevelop-ment of e-archaeology scenarios and future experiments in the context of the ARIADNE datainfrastructure and portal. These investigations are different from those of the pilot deploymentexperimentsconductedinWorkPackage14.TheWP14demonstratorsemployedtheadvancedtoolsand services developed in ARIADNE to demonstrate their innovative capabilities; their results arepresented inDeliverable14.2.Compared to thesemostWP17 case studies intentionally address alower technological level to align with systems and tools archaeologists are familiar with.Furthermore,differentarchaeologicalsubjectshavebeenchosentocovertogetherawiderspectrumofsubjects.

Briefoverview

ThisdeliverablepresentstheresultsoftheWP17studyasfollows:

Chapter 3 – E-Archaeology Frameworks: This chapter addresses basic elements of e-archaeologyframeworkswhich include the general research and data lifecycles. In the last decades the cycleshavebecomeevermoresupportedbydigitaltoolsandservices,sothate-researchframeworkshaveemerged.Wheredigitalmeanshavebeendevelopedorspecialisedforusebyparticulardisciplinesorresearchspecialtieswecanspeakofspecifice-researchframeworks,e.g.e-archaeologyframeworks.Thechapteralsoidentifiesdifferencese-archaeologyandother“digitalhumanities”whichshouldbetaken account of in the development e-research environments for these disciplines aswell as forcross-/multi-disciplinarye-research.

Chapter 4 – Virtual Research Environments (VREs): This chapter looks into the definition anddevelopmentofVREssincethe1990s, includingtaxonomiesofdifferenttypesofVREandresearchactivitiestheymaysupport.Furthermore,asectiononthecurrentstateofdevelopmentanduseofVREsinthefieldofarchaeologyisincluded.

Chapter 5 – Case Studies: This chapter presents several case studies corresponding to different e-archaeologysettingsandapproaches,howeverwithexistingoremerginge-researchenvironmentsasa common perspective. The case studies cover a wide range of e-archaeology subject matters,including archaeological methodology, archaeological ontologies, archaeological research infra-



structure and VREs at the national level, geo-physical surveying, 3D archaeology, physicalanthropologyandarchaeobotany.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations: Summarises the overall conclusions of this report,takingaccountof theresultsconcerninge-archaeology frameworks,virtual researchenvironments,andtherelatedthematicordomain-focusedcasestudies.TherecommendationsgivenaremeantfortheARIADNEnetwork,closelyrelatedandotherorganisationsinfieldssuchase-infrastructure,datarepositories and other service providers which are interested in the development of e-research/scienceenvironments,tools/servicesanddataresources.

Chapter7:Literatureandweb-basedsources:Thechapterliststhereferencesforchapters1-4and6,aswellas includespublicationsofgeneral interestreferenced inthecasestudies.All referencesoftheindividualcasestudiesaregivenintherespectivesectionsofchapter5.

Please note that links forwebsites of important organisations, projects and other sources are notgiveninfootnotesbutincludedinthelistsofreferences.



3 E-ArchaeologyFrameworksThis chapter addresses basic elements of e-archaeology frameworks which include the generalresearch and data lifecycles. In the last decades the cycles have become evermore supported bydigital toolsandservices, so thate-research frameworkshaveemerged.Wheredigitalmeanshavebeendevelopedorspecialisedforusebyparticulardisciplinesorresearchspecialtieswecanspeakofspecific e-research frameworks, e.g. e-archaeology frameworks. The chapter also identifiesdifferences e-archaeology and other “digital humanities”which should be taken account of in thedevelopmente-researchenvironmentsforthesedisciplinesaswellasforcross-/multi-disciplinarye-research.

3.1 E-Archaeology

A core term throughout this report is “e-research”, which basically means the use of web-baseddigitaldata,toolsandservicesforresearchpurposes.Weprefer“e-research”to“e-science”,becausethelattertermcarrieswithitnotionsmainlyofdata-centriccomputationalmethodswithafocusonquantitative/mathematicalanalysis.E-researchismoreinclusiveofavarietyofresearchapproachesandmethods.Thus thevariant “e-archaeology” stands for theuseofweb-baseddigitaldata, toolsandservicesinarchaeologicalresearchforanyquantitativeand/orqualitativeresearchmethods.

It can be said that today all archaeologists are “e-archaeologists”, because they generate variousdigital content with software tools, publish information on project websites and professionalplatformssuchasAcademia.edu,andcommunicatewithcolleaguesdirectlyusinge-mail,skypeandotherservices.Butinthisstudywearelookingforsomethingmoreintegrated,whichsupportsICT-basedcollaborativeresearchwork,i.e.aVirtualResearchEnvironment(VRE).

E-archaeologymaybesubsumedunderthe“digitalhumanities”,althoughdigitalarchaeologyhasitsowndisciplinarychallengesandsomedifferent characteristics (cf.Huggett2012a/b). Indeed, thereare significant differences between archaeological and other humanities e-research practices. Forexample,digitalhumanities scholarsmostlyworkwithcultural content fromarchives, librariesandmuseums, while archaeologists produce most of their data themselves. This includes field andlaboratorywork,withmethods and tools typically not used in other humanities, e.g. data captureandanalysismethodssuchasterrestriallaserscanningandchemicalanalysesofmicro-remains.

We note, however, that there are also some commonalities or overlaps between historicalhumanities and archaeology. These can be found where researchers work with historical content(e.g.archivalrecords)andanalysesofmaterialremains, i.e. insomefieldsoftheClassics,MedievalHistory/Archaeology,orHistoricalArchaeology(thetermusedintheUnitedStatesformorerecenthistoricalperiods).

But existing differences are essential when it comes to specific e-research frameworks, data andtools afforded by the research in different scientific disciplines and specialities. For example,environmental archaeologists may need a set of tools which help them aggregate, visualise andanalyse data on ancient vegetation and land use, whereas a research environment for classicalstudies could help researchers to create a digital scholarly edition of ancient texts. Therefore,essential differences between e-archaeology and other digital humanities are discussed furtherbelow.Thenextsectionsfirstaddresscommonbasicelementsofe-research.

3.2 BasicE-ResearchFrameworks

Under basic research frameworkswe subsume the general research process (or lifecycle) and therelated data lifecycle. In the last decades the cycles have become evermore supported by digital



toolsandservices, so thate-research frameworkshaveemerged.Thesee-frameworkscompriseofdigital means (i.e. services/tools) that are generic and used by researchers of all disciplines andelements which may be specific for one or a few disciplines. Where digital means have beendeveloped or specialised for use by particular disciplines or research specialties we can speak ofspecifice-researchframeworks,e.g.e-archaeologyframeworks.

3.2.1 ResearchProcess/Lifecycle

Theresearchprocesscomprisesofthestepsfromaprojectideatothepublicationofthefinalresults,includingtheresearchdatalifecycle(seebelow).Furthermore,therearemanyrelatedactivities,forexamplereportingofprojectfinancialsandoutcomestofunders,oruseofprojectresultsinresearch-basededucationandtraining,whicharenotaddressedhere.

In theempiricaldisciplines theresearchprocess ingeneralcomprisesof the followingsteps,whichnowadaysareallsupportedbydigitalmeansthataregenericorhavebeenadaptedordevelopedforcarryingoutresearchtasksmoreeffectivelyor innovelways.The lattermayrangefromtoolsthatarebeingusedby researchersofmanydisciplines (e.g.GIS) toonlyoneproject (e.g.a softwareoralgorithmdevelopedforaparticularresearchproblem):

o Identificationandformulationoftheresearchproblem:Inthissteptheresearcherstakeaccountofthestateofknowledgeintheirfield/sofresearch,i.e.thecurrentliteratureandownpreviousresearch, and seek to identify a problem that is worth and possible to tackle. The specificresearchproblemisbeingformulated,includingtheobjectives,hypothesisetc.whichwilllargelydeterminetheappropriatemethodology.

o Definitionoftheresearchmethodologyanddesign:Inthissteptheempiricalapproachtoaddressthe research problem is being defined and designed, including the tools, procedures, datasources,andothermeansrequiredforcarryingouttheresearch.

o Dataacquisitionandorganisation:Thisstepconcernstheacquisitionofthedatawithparticulartoolsandmayalsoincludere-useofdatafrompreviousownorotherprojects.Thedataisbeingorganised (e.g. in a database) and may need dedicated management if the research processextendsoveralongperiod.

o Data processing, analysis and interpretation: In this step the data is being processed andanalysedwithappropriate toolsandprocedures (e.g. statistical analysis, simulations,etc.). Theresultsarescrutinizedandinterpreted(i.e.iftheyconfirmhypotheses),includingcomparisontoresultsofotherinvestigations,andconclusionsdrawnaboutwhatnewknowledgetheyprovideabouttheresearchproblemaddressed.

o Publicationoftheresearchresultsanddata:Finally,theresultsoftheinvestigationareformallypublished, including reviewbyother researchers,andbecomepartof thescientific recordandstateofknowledgeinrespectivefieldofresearch.Increasinglythisalsoincludesmakingavailablethedatawhichunderpinthepublishedresearchresultsthroughapubliclyaccessiblerepository,allowingforre-useofdataforfurtherresearch.

Indifferentempiricaldisciplinesandspecialities, theresearchapproachesdifferwith regard to themethodologies, tools, data, etc. that are being employed to address research questions. Somedisciplines and research specialities also have characteristics which they do not share with manyothers. For example in archaeology, in particular, excavation projects, the research process canextend over several excavation campaigns hence take many years. More importantly, excavationprojectsinvolveresearchmethodsandresultsofdifferentspecialties,whichneedtobecombinedtoarriveatsolidconclusionsaboutthepastcommunities,culturesandlifewayswhosematerialremainsandtracesarepreservedinthesocalledarchaeologicalrecordofsites.



3.2.2 ResearchDataLifecycle

The research data lifecycle concerns the “active” phases of data in the research process, thosephases inwhich the data is being generated and/or existing data re-used, processed, interpreted,presented and used for underpinning publications. The lifecycle thus concerns the whole processfromdataacquisitiontoproductssuchastablesorchartsinpublications.

Theresearchdatalifecyclelargelyoverlapswiththeresearchprocessmodel,andisoftenpresentedasidentical,buttherearesomeimportantdifferences.Firstly,thedatalifecycledoesnotincludetheresearchdesignphase,exceptwherere-use/purposingofavailabledataisconsidered.Secondly,theresearchprocessdoesnotnecessarily includedataarchiving for long-termcurationandaccess foreverybody.Asavailabledataareanasset,researcherskeepit,re-use/purposeitinnewprojects,alsosometimes share data directly with close colleagues. But such “active data” does not requiredepositing it in adata archive, includingpreparation anddescription (metadata), so that it canbepreservedandmadeavailablebythearchive.Furthermore, theresearchprocess includesessentialactivities which do not necessarily involve data, communication between project partners, forinstance.

Modelsoftheresearchdata lifecyclepresentedfromanarchivalperspective,suchasthemodelofthe UK Data Archive (Figure 1), introduce and emphasise (their) phases and tasks of long-termpreservation of and giving access to deposited research data. This has an “educational” functionbecausedigitalarchivesofcoursedoplayanimportantroleinanextendedresearchdatalifecycle.

Figure1.Researchdatalifecycle.UKDataArchive(n.y.).http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/life-cycle

Archivessetuptoensurelong-termcurationofdataareessentialforseveralreasons.Theseinclude,butarenot limitedto, thatarchivesprevent lossofvaluabledataandmake itavailable for furtheruse. Preserving and providing access to data is particularly important in archaeology, whereexcavationsdestroytheprimaryevidence.Therefore,archaeologistshaveastrongresponsibility to



share collecteddatawith the research community to enable further research, for example, askingnewquestionsfromcombineddatasets.

Through long-termcurationdigital archivesmakeanextended “active life”of datapossible. Somedatalifecyclemodelsunderstandalsoresearchersascurators,forexamplethemodelpromotedbytheDigitalCurationCentreUK(Higgins2008;Ball2012comparesittoothermodels).Onebasicideaof allmodels is that the data should finally be deposited,well described, in a digital archive. Butexcavation projects often take many years, if not decades, therefore data curation is essentialalreadyduringtheresearchprocess.

Some projects have looked into researchers’ data curation practices with the aim to developapproaches and tools that may enhance data practices. For example, the Data Curation Profilesproject (2008-2012) studied such practices extensively. The project invited researchers of severaldisciplinestodocumenthowtheyworkwithdata,differentformsandstagesofdata,toolsused,andwhat they consideras sharable formsofdata in their fieldof study (Craginetal. 2010;Wittetal.2009). Researchers of ARIADNE partner Athena RC (Digital Curation Unit), have proposed anextended digital curation lifecycle model (Constantopoulos et al. 2009). Also, they worked withhumanitiesresearcherstobetterunderstandtheirdigitalcurationrequirements(e.g.Benardouetal.2010).Dallas(2015)considersthecurationofarchaeologicalknowledge“inthedigitalcontinuum”asagrandchallengeofdigitalarchaeology.

3.3 SpecificE-ArchaeologyFrameworks

Havingestablishedsomebasicelementsofe-research frameworks,wenowask if thereareanye-archaeology specific aspects. Archaeology studies past cultures based on their material remains.Therefore, the discipline is generally subsumed under the humanities. However, archaeology is amulti-disciplinary fieldof research that involves researchers, especially findsexpertswithdifferentdisciplinarybackgroundswhoidentifyandanalysephysicalandbiologicalremainssuchasceramics,metals,bones,plants,etc.Theseexpertscomefromdifferentresearchspecialities(e.g.zooarchaeo-logyinthecaseofanimalbones),eachwiththeirownsubjectknowledgeandmethodologies.

Moreover, thematerial remainsofpast cultures includeobjects suchas cuneiform tablets,papyri,inscriptions, art works and others that are studied by scholars of ancient languages, literatures,religions,philosophies,etc.Inturn,thesecancontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsites.Hence,thereisthequestionofwheretodrawthelineandfocusone-archaeologyframeworksandtheirmethods,toolsanddata,therebyavoidinglessrelevantfieldsofresearch.

Inthesectionsthatfollow,firstweaddressarchaeologyasamulti-disciplinaryfieldofresearch,andthen point out important differences (and commonalities) between archaeology and humanitiesdisciplinesnotoronlyoccasionallyinvolvedinarchaeologicalresearch.Theidentifieddifferencescanhelp distinguishing between e-research frameworks, and to take them into account in thedevelopmentofdigitalresearchenvironmentsfordifferentdisciplines.

3.3.1 ArchaeologyasaMulti-DisciplinaryFieldofResearch

Theclassical “treeofknowledge”model splits thescientificandscholarlyknowledge intodifferentbranches (i.e. natural sciences, social sciences, arts & humanities), major disciplines within thesebranches,andthedisciplinesintosub-disciplinesandresearchspecialties. Inthedevelopmentofe-researchinfrastructuresitisveryimportanttotakeaccountofdifferencesbetweendisciplineswithregardtoresearchpractices.Archaeologyposesachallengebecauseitisamulti-disciplinaryfieldofresearch,inwhichtheoreticalconcepts,modelsandmethodsfromdifferentbranchesofknowledge



arebeingused.Sinclair(2014)providesavisualisationofthemulti-disciplinarymapofarchaeologicalresearch.

Archaeologycoversseveralfieldsofthehumanitiesaswellashasclosetieswiththeappliednaturalsciences and other disciplines. In a volume of papers on “Archaeology 2.0”, Eric C. Kansa notes:“Archaeology is an inherently multidisciplinary enterprise, with one foot in the humanities andinterpretive social sciences and another in the natural sciences. As such, case studies in digitalarchaeologycanhelpilluminatechangingpatternsinscholarlycommunicationsacrossawidearrayof disciplinary contexts” (Kansa 2011: 2). With regard to the natural science component ofarchaeology Degryse & Shortland (2013) highlight that “there are very few sciences that have norelevance to archaeology”, and see an increasing influx of scientific methods in archaeologicalresearch.

Archaeologyindeedcomprisesofdifferentdisciplinaryfieldsofresearch,wheresomefieldspresentmainly characteristics of the humanities (e.g. history of arts and architecture, classical studies,medieval history), others lean heavily towards the natural sciences and employ methods ofarchaeometryorbiologicalsciences,othersrelatetotheearth&environmentalsciences,whilestillothers use models and methods of the social sciences (e.g. models of social structure andethnologicalmethods,forinstance).

The paradigmatic case of multi-disciplinary archaeological research is excavation projects. Theseprojects are carried out by teams involving the excavating archaeologists and finds experts ofdifferent specialities who identify and analyse physical and biological remains such as ceramics,metals,bones,plants,etc.Theyallcontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsites,buttheirworkrequiresdifferentsubjectknowledgeandmethodologies.

Archaeologicalexcavationprojectsthusareessentiallyteam-basedandmulti-disciplinary.Therehasbeen (and still often is) the classical figureof the lead archaeologist at a site (“his/her site”). Alsotraditionaldivisionsarestillpresent, forexamplebetweenfieldand lab,excavatorsat thesiteandspecialistsworkingremotely,sendingreportstotheleadarchaeologist.

Killick (2015) describes the traditional model and its erosion in recent years as follows: “The oldmodelofsiteexcavationresembledawagonwheel,withtheprincipalarchaeologist(sitedirector)atthehub,aringofspecialistsaroundtherim,andthespokesofthewheelrepresentingtheseparatetwo-way communication between the site director and each specialist. Today the specialists oftenneedtocommunicatedirectlywitheachothertodotheirjob–forexample,thearchaeometallurgistneeds the geologist to identify ore samples, the botanist to identify charcoals, the lead isotopespecialisttodistinguishlocalfromexoticmetals.Synthesisandinterpretationtodaytendstobemadebyteamsratherthanbythesitedirector.Trendsinpublicationreflectthistendency;scientificstudiesnowtendtobepublishedseparatelyratherthanincludedasdryappendicesinthesitemonograph,asusedtobethecase”(Killick2015:170).

FirsteffortstowardsVREsforarchaeologicalexcavations(e.g.theVERAproject)aimedtomakethetraditional model more effective. However, as Killick’s describes, archaeological has become lesscentralised (around the principal archaeologist) and there is a need to support the interactionbetween researchers of different specialities. Moreover, different specialties could benefit fromhavingspecialisedVREswhichsupporttheirresearchspecifically.ConcerningsuchVREsitshouldbenotedthatresearcherswhoserveasfindsexpertsarealsoscholarsintheirspecialties.Thesescholarsseekresearchresults,oftenderivedfromworkatdifferentsites,whichareofparticular interesttotheirownspecialty,forexample,physicalanthropologyorarchaeobotany.

Thissuggestsaneedfortwotypesofcollaborativee-researchsolutions:a)aVREthatallowsbringingtogether,integrateandinterpret(synthesise)theresultsofthedifferentinvestigationsonasite,andb) VREs for researchers in specialities that are specialised for their particular data (incl. data



standards,terminology)andincludeservices/toolsfortheidentification,descriptionandanalysisoftheir finds (e.g. access to reference collections for the identification of finds). Importantly, bothshould be developed in view of wider range investigations (i.e. beyond individual sites) based onsharingofthecollecteddatathroughdomaine-researchinfrastructures(i.e.ARIADNE).

3.3.2 E-Archaeologyand/vs.DigitalHumanities

In a comparison of archaeology and humanities disciplines not or only occasionally involved inarchaeologicalresearchweidentifiedimportantdifferencesandsignificantcommonalitywithregardto digital practices. These can help to distinguish e-archaeology frameworks from others and toconceiveenvironmentsfore-researchofscholarsindifferentdisciplines.

Contextsofwork

With regard to contexts of work, the difference between humanities studies and archaeologicalresearch is rather clear. Humanities studies aremainly an activity of academicswith few externalconstraintsexceptgettingaccesstorelevantcontent,which isbeingheldand increasinglydigitisedbyarchivesandmuseums. Incontrast,work inarchaeology isconducted incontextswhich includegovernmental administrations, national heritage agencies, infrastructure development companies,and commercial archaeology services (contract archaeologists). Excavations are subject toregulations,requirespermit,entailreportingduties,etc.

Whilemostresearchersinthehumanitiesandcertainly“digitalhumanities”wouldnotagreetotheimage of the “lone scholar”, in archaeology research teams are common practice. Importantly, inresearchonarchaeologicalsitestheseareinterdisciplinaryteamsinvolvingexcavators,findsexperts,laboratory-basedresearchers,datamanagers,andothers.

Jeremy Huggett (2012b) sees few relations between e-archaeology and the “digital humanities”:“From an archaeological perspective, a relationship between Digital Archaeology and DigitalHumanities is largely absent and the evidence suggests that each is peripheralwith respect to theother”.Henotesthate-archaeologydoesnotneedthedigitalhumanitiesforlegitimacyandsupportbecause archaeology builds on its own arsenal of research approaches, including many well-establisheddigitalmethodsandtools.

OneexampleHuggettanalysesistheuseofGeographicInformationSystems(GIS)byarchaeologistscompared to which “DH [digital humanities] applications of GIS can seem very limited, evensimplistic, to archaeological eyes in that they often seem to focus on interactive hypermediavisualisationwithlittleuseofGISanalyticaltools”.Evenbetterexamplesaredatacapture,processingandvisualizationtoolswhichareessentialforarchaeological,butnototherhumanitiesresearch,e.g.terrestrial laser scanningorphotogrammetryandsoftware for thecreationandvisualizationof3Dreconstructionsofbuildingsandlandscapes.

DifferentResearchParadigms

Most“digitalhumanities”researchisinformedbyparadigmsoftextualandvisualstudiesofhistoricalandmodernculturalcontent.Archaeologists insteadfocusonthematerialremainsofpastculturesand their traces in the environment, including remains such as biologicalmaterial, artefacts, builtstructures as well as traces in the landscape (e.g. agriculture, routes between places, etc.).Accordingly, theparadigmsand tools for “reading” the remainsand tracesare verydifferent fromtextualanalysisandotherhumanitiesstudiesofculturalcontent.

Textual information plays a significant role in archaeology only for cultures and periods forwhichsuch information exists (e.g. cuneiform tablets, papyri, epigraphy, historical manuscripts). Whenconsidering texts, many archaeologists would first think of maybe available reports of fieldwork



already conducted at a site, nearby or in the region. As StuartDunn elaborates, “Texts occupy animportantplaceinarchaeologicalresearch,chiefly intheformofso-calledgreyliteraturereportsofexcavations, which are often the only extant records of those excavations, along with secondaryliteratureandpublications.Butthebulkofprimaryarchaeologicalexcavationdatacomesintheformofnumeric,graphic,statistical,andformaldescriptionsofthematerialrecord”(Dunn2011:95).

Ontheotherhand,materialobjectsandtracesofpastculturesasstudiedbyarchaeologistsusuallyare“notamongthestandardresourcesofacademicresearch inthehumanitiesandsocialsciences.Historiansareusedtodealingwithliterarysources,andalloursophisticatedmethodologyfocusesontheinvestigationofthese.Meanwhile,weobservethemarchofimagesintothehistorian’sstudy,butphysicalobjectsarestillmostlykeptatarm’slength”(H.O.SibuminAuslanderetal.2009:1384).

Buttherearesomecommonalitiesandoverlapsbetweenarchaeologyandhistoricalhumanities,forexampleinsomeresearchfieldsoftheClassics(Babeu2011),MedievalHistory(Graham-Campbell&Valor2007;Carver&Klápštĕ2011),andHistoricalArchaeology,i.e.thepost-ColumbianhistoryoftheAmericas(Hall&Silliman2006;Mehler2013).

The overlaps can be found where humanities scholars work with texts and evidence for certainhistoricaldevelopmentsdrawnfrommaterialsuchassculpturesandarchitecture,ormoremundaneobjectsofancienteverydaylife.Theoverlapisparticularlyclearbetweenarchaeologicalresearchandclassical studies, and also the adoption of information technologies in specialties of theClassics isparticularlyhigh.TheDigitalClassicistwikidocumentsover300projectsthatemployICTforancientandclassicalresearch.

AlisonBabeu(2011)givesanexcellentoverviewofthefieldof“digitalclassics”.Shecharacterisesitas an interdisciplinary field of research which includes (digital) classical archaeology, philology ofancientGreekandLatintexts,epigraphy,papyrologyandmanuscriptstudies,numismatics,classicalartandarchitecture,ancientworldgeography,andothers–eachwiththeirownobjectsofstudyandresearchmethods.Manyoftheprojectsconcernthecollaborativedevelopmentofdigitalresourcesandscholarlyeditionsofclassicalcontent.

DifferentDataandTools

E-researchpracticesof humanities scholars havebeen investigated in studies on the actual useofdigital tools and data in different fields (e.g. Benardouet al. 2010; Research InformationNetwork2011;Rutner&Schonfeld2012;Svensson2010).Onesignificantdifferencebetweenarchaeologyandotherhumanitiesdisciplinesarethe“data”thatarebeingused.

Scholarsinthesocalleddigitalhumanitiesusemainlyculturalcontent,e.g. literarytexts,paintings,photographs, music, films, etc., most of comes from collections of libraries, media archives andmuseums.Withoutthemassivedigitisationofandonlineaccesstothisculturalheritagecontent,andnovel tools for studying, annotating and interlinking of various content (and pieces thereof), therecentboomofdigitalhumanitiesscholarshipwouldnothavebeenpossible.

Incontrast,archaeologistsgeneratemostoftheirdatathemselves,variousdataproducedinsurveys,excavations,laboratoryanalysesofphysicalandbiologicalfinds,etc.Thearrayofdataalsoincludesdatafromspecialisedlaboratorieswhichservearchaeologistsamongotherclients(e.g.synchrotronfacilitiesorsequencinglabswithregardtoancientDNA).Furthermore,datanotproducedbutusedbyarchaeologists(ifaffordable)areairborneorsatelliteremotesensingandimagingdata.Somefieldsurveysandarchaeologicalexcavationsamasslargevolumesofvariousdata,butnot“bigdata”likethe volumes of continuously collected data from environmental sensors or generated by high-throughputDNAsequencingtechnologies.

Archaeologists and other humanities scholars need appropriate solutions for handling, bringingtogether and studying their data/content. In archaeology this often is a Geographic Information



System(GIS)ontopofadatabaseofgeo-referenceddigitalcontent.Inotherfieldsofthehumanitiesscholarsmayworkwithalargeamountofhigh-resolutionimagesoraudio-visualmaterial.Therefore,thescholarscouldbenefit fromusingadvancede-infrastructureandtools.Rather than formassivecomputation, in the first place they would need it to store, manage, remotely retrieve, load andvisualisethematerial(e.g.juxtaposeddisplayofimages).Thencomparison,transcription,annotationandotherworktypicalforscholarshipinthehumanitiescanbegin,withspecifictoolsforthesetasks.For example, Ainsworth & Meredith (2009) and de la Flor et al. (2010) describe prototypes forworkingwithhigh-resolutionimagesofancientandmedievalmanuscripts.

Many“classic”digitalhumanitiesproductsareso-calleddigitalscholarlyeditions,oneorafewrichlyannotatedculturalworks (Caylessetal.2009;Porter2013;O’Donnelletal.2015)oradatabaseofhundreds or thousands of objects, including images, translations, literature references, etc. Forexample, theEpigraphicDatabaseHeidelbergdocuments about74,000 inscriptions.Archaeologistsdo not create suchworks, butmaybe look up an epigraphic database to compare a newly foundinscription and contribute an image to the database. Indeed, the need to identify new finds bycomparing them to specimens of reference collections is one essential commonality amongresearchersindifferentspecialitiesofarchaeologyandotherhumanities.

LittleUsageofAdvancedComputation

One commonality of the digital humanities and archaeology is that researchers seldom employadvanced computation for their research. There has been much debate about the question if e-infrastructureforadvanceddataprocessingandcomputationasdevelopedforsomenaturalscienceand engineering disciplines can be adjusted to the needs of the humanities. In the debate, mostrepresentatives from the humanities hold that scholarship in these disciplines affords differentsolutionsthan“heavy”e-infrastructureformassiveGridorCloudbasedcomputing.Acommonviewisthatinnovationinthedigitalhumanitiesmaybebetterpromotedbyincomparisonsmallscalebuthighlyresearch-focusedITapplications(e.g.Svensson2010;Wouters&Beaulieu2006;vanZundert2012).

ThelimiteduseofadvancedcomputationasofferedbyDistributedComputingInfrastructures(DCIs)byhumanitiesresearcherssupportstheseassumptions.DCIsprovideasocalled“ScienceGateway”to (mostly) Grid-based e-infrastructure and software applications for data processing, storage andtransfer. User groups can share data resources and computing applications (i.e. virtualmachines)and, thereby, form a virtual research community. The leading promoter of DCIs is the EGI.eu -EuropeanGridInfrastructure.

TheDCIprovidershavesoughttoexpandtheiruserbase,notleasttolegitimatethehighinvestmentsin Grid and high-performance computing. But the demand for DCI has been limited in manydisciplinesasyet,especiallyinthehumanities.Oneexceptionisresearchgroupsthatneedtoprocesslarge corporaof texts, and thereare someotherexampleswhichdemonstratepotential forwiderusage. For example, in the “Digging intoData Challenge” program several humanities projects arepresent(http://diggingintodata.org).

Major impediments to using DCI in archaeology arguably are the diverse and complex types ofdatasets,lackofconsistentdatastructures,andincomplete,isolatedandoftennotopenlyavailabledatasources(cf.Hedges2009).However,someprogressmaybeachievedatthelevelofmetadata.For example, one project of the Digging into Data Challenge was DADAISM - Digging intoArchaeological Data and Image Search Metadata. The project developed search and retrievalproceduresforlargevolumesofimagesandgreyliterature.

In recent years, as a response to market developments and user demand, DCI providers haveincluded Cloud services in their offering (Curtis+Cartwright 2010; EGI-InSPIRE 2011; e-IRG 2012).Indeed,manyresearchinstitutionsandprojectsmaybeattractedby(academic)Cloudservicesfora



varietyofpurposes.ReliableandaffordableCloudservicescouldbeasolutiontomanyproblemsofresource-poor institutions and collaborative projects. The services could allow themminimize theeffortneededforlocalmanagementoftechnology,repository/collectionrelatedtasks,aswellastheneed for dedicated technical staff, that are often not available. These expectations howevermayunderestimate factors such as still required technical knowhow, mandatory control over own orthird-partycontent,andothers.Inanycase,adoptionofCloud-basedservices,inparticular,contentmanagement&curationsystems,requireshightrustofusersintheserviceprovider.

Finally, we briefly address High Performance Computing (HPC). HPC means advanced computingfacilities and services based on supercomputers. In Europe the field of HPC is represented by thePartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe (PRACE), which provides access to several HPCsystems.AfewyearsagoPRACEissuedtheirreport“TheScientificCaseforHPCinEurope”(PRACE2012).ThePRACEexpertpanels for this reportcoveredthesameHPCapplicationareasasawhitepaper of the European HPC in Europe Initiative/Taskforce in 2007. The five areas are: Weather,climatology and solid earth sciences; Astrophysics, high-energy and plasma physics; Materialsscience, chemistry and nanoscience; Life Sciences and medicine; and Engineering sciences andindustrialapplications.Thus“the scientific case” in2007and2012didnot include thehumanities,socialandeconomicsciences; there isnomentionof thesedisciplines, forexample,whytheymaynotneedHPC.

In summary, the primary needs of humanities researchers with regard to e-research tools andservicesclearlyconcernotheractivitiesthanprocessingoflargevolumesoftexts,imagesornumericdata. Such activities for example are to search & retrieve, handle, decipher, compare, translate,describe, annotate and link together digitised cultural objects. The varietyof such scholarly digitalpracticesisdescribedinschemesofsocalled“scholarlyprimitives”(seeSection4.4.3).

Whileweseelittlerelevanceofmassivedataprocessingandcomputinginthehumanities,wenoteanincreasingrecognitionthattheoppositionofqualitativevs.quantitativeanalysis,closereadingofindividualvs.processingoflargecorporaoftexts,individualstoriesvs.impersonalstatisticsgraphsisunproductive(cf.Anderson&Blanke2012).

3.4 SummaryofE-ArchaeologyFrameworks

E-Archaeology

Inthisstudye-archaeologybasicallymeanstheuseofweb-baseddigitaldata,toolsandservicesforresearchpurposes.E-archaeologymaybesubsumedunderthesocalleddigitalhumanities,howeverhasitsowndisciplinarychallengesandsomedifferentcharacteristics.Thestudyincludesananalysisof significant differenceswhich should be taken account ofwhen developing environments for e-researchofhumanitiesscholarsorarchaeologists.

BasicE-ResearchFrameworks

Under basic research frameworkswe subsume the general research process (or lifecycle) and therelateddatalifecycle. Inthelastdecadesthesecycleshavebecomeevermoresupportedbydigitaltoolsandservices,sothate-researchframeworkshaveemerged.Wherethedigitalmeanshavebeendeveloped or adapted for particular disciplines or research specialtieswe can speak of specific e-researchframeworks,e.g.e-archaeologyframeworks.

ResearchProcess/Lifecycle

The researchprocess comprisesof the steps from the identificationofa research idea/problemtothepublicationofthefinalresults,increasinglyalsothedatathatunderpinsthepublishedresearch.



In different empirical disciplines and specialities the approaches for addressing research problemsdiffer with regard to the methodologies, tools, data, etc. that are being employed to addressresearchquestions.

Archaeology, in particular, excavation based research projects, involves research methods andresultsofdifferentspecialties,whichneedtobecombinedtoarriveatrichandsolidconclusionsthesite.Thedevelopmentofe-archaeologyframeworksandenvironmentsneedstotakeaccountofthismulti-disciplinarityofarchaeology.

ResearchDataLifecycle

The research data lifecycle concerns the “active” phases of data in the research process, thosephases inwhich the data is being generated and/or existing data re-used, processed, interpreted,presented and used for underpinning publications. The lifecycle thus concerns the whole processfromdataacquisitiontoproductssuchastablesorchartsinpublications.

Theresearchdatalifecyclelargelyoverlapswiththeresearchprocessmodel,andisoftenpresentedasidentical,buttherearesomeimportantdifferences.Firstly,thedatalifecycledoesnotincludetheresearchdesignphase,exceptwherere-use/purposingofavailabledataisconsidered.Secondly,theresearchprocessdoesnotnecessarily includedataarchiving for long-termcurationandaccess foreverybody.However,thisisessentialasitcankeepextendthe“active”lifeofdatathroughre-use.

Archaeologicalexcavationprojectsoftentakemanyyears,ifnotdecades,thereforedatacurationisessential already during the research process. As excavation destroy the primary evidencearchaeologistshaveastrongresponsibility tosharecollecteddatawiththeresearchcommunity toenablefurtherresearch,forexample,askingnewquestionsfromcombineddatasets.

E-Archaeologyvs/andOtherDigitalHumanities

A comparison between e-archaeology and other digital humanities shows some significantdifferencesandcommonalities:

o Most digital humanities research is informed by paradigms of textual and visual studies ofhistoricalandmodernculturalcontent.Archaeologistsinsteadfocusonthematerialremainsofpastculturesandtheirtracesintheenvironment,includingremainssuchasbiologicalmaterial,artefacts,builtstructuresaswellastracesinthelandscape.

o Digital humanities scholarsmostlyworkwith digitised cultural content from libraries, archivesand museums; (e.g. literary texts, paintings, photographs, music, films, etc.). Archaeologistsproducemostof theirdata themselves, carriedout in fieldand laboratoryworkwithmethodsand tools typically not used by other humanities researchers (e.g. terrestrial laser scanning orchemicalanalysisofmaterials).

o Someoverlapsbetweenarchaeologyandotherhumanitiesexistwhereresearchersuse textualcontent (e.g. historical manuscripts) and analyses of material remains, for example MedievalArchaeology&History,butalsoearlierperiods(exceptofcourseprehistory).

o Material remains of past cultures include objects such as cuneiform tablets, inscriptions, artworks and others that are studied by scholars of ancient languages, literatures, religions,philosophies,etc.Inturn,thesecancontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsites.

o Bothe-archaeologistsanddigitalhumanitiesscholarsneedappropriatesolutions forcollecting,handling, bringing together and studying their data/content. But, except generic technologiessuch as databases, the digital tools and products are different: Typical digital humanitiesproducts are scholarly editions (e.g. of literary works), which require tools that support taskssuch as transcription, translation, annotation, and interlinking. Typical for e-archaeology isGISbasedintegrationofdataofsitesorvirtualreconstructionofancientbuildings.



o A common need is reference collections that allow comparison and identification of culturalproducts(e.g.pottery)ornaturalspecimens(e.g.remainsofplants).

o Another commonality is the little usage of advanced computation based on Grid-basedDistributed Computing Infrastructures (DCIs) and supercomputers of High PerformanceComputing(HPC)centres.

The identifieddifferences (andcommonalities) allowbasicdistinctionsbetweene-archaeologyandotherdigitalhumanitiesandshouldbetakenaccountofinthedevelopmentinthedevelopmentofenvironments for single discipline (or sub-domain/specialty) as well as cross-/multi-disciplinary e-research.

EnablingMulti-DisciplinaryE-Archaeology

Archaeologyisamulti-disciplinaryfieldofresearchthatinvolvesresearchers,especiallyfindexperts,with different disciplinary backgrounds and research questions. They all contribute to theinterpretation of archaeological sites, but their work requires different knowledge, methods andtools, forexample, to identifyandanalysephysicalandbiological remains suchaspottery,metals,bones,plants,etc.Therefore,weseeaneedoftwotypesofcollaborativee-researchsolutions:

o Anenvironmentthatallowsbringingtogether,integrateandinterpret(synthesise)theresultsofthedifferent investigationsonasite,of thecore teamofarchaeologists/excavatorsandof thedifferentfindsexpertswhoworkatthesiteand/orremotely.Typically,suchanenvironmentwillbuild on a relational database and GIS, a data model covering the excavation grid, differentfeatures, stratigraphic layers, and types ofmaterials/finds (i.e. sediments, soils, bones, plants,pottery,metalsandothers).

o Environments for researchers in specialities (e.g. physical anthropology, archaeobotany andothers) that are specialised for their particular data (incl. data standards, terminology) andincludeservices/toolsfortheidentification,descriptionandanalysisoftheirfinds(e.g.accesstoreferencecollectionsfortheidentificationoffinds).

Both environments are essential for collaborative generationof research results, in the context ofarchaeologicalexcavationsandtheresearchofarchaeologicalspecialities.Theenvironmentsshouldbedevelopedinviewofwiderrangeinvestigations(i.e.beyondindividualsites)basedonsharingofthecollecteddatathroughdomaine-researchinfrastructures,i.e.ARIADNE.



4 VirtualResearchEnvironments

4.1 Introduction

Virtual Research Environments (VREs) are web-based environments that provide researchcommunitieswith tools, services and data resourceswhich they need to carry out researchworkonline. The ARIADNE data infrastructure allows discovery of and access to data across distributeddigital archives. The rationale for a focusonVREs is that archaeological researchers in addition todatasearchandaccessneedservicesandtoolsthatallowthemcarryingoutresearchtasksonline.

Therefore, VREs will be one next step in the development of the ARIADNE e-infrastructure. VREsimplemented on top of the e-infrastructure would support researchers in archaeology and otherheritagescienceswithspecific services/tools forworkingwithdifferent typesofdata (e.g.numericdata, images, 3D models). Such VREs may range from loosely coupled services/tools and dataresources to tightly integratedworkbenchesanddatabases for specific research communities. ThecurrentARIADNEproject isnot charged todevelopVREs,but canprepare thegroundandpresentsomeprototypicexamplesinordertopromotefurtherdevelopment.

The development of e-research environments has been driven by a scientific enterprise that hasbecomeevermorecollaborative,distributedanddata-intensive(cf.Wuchty&Uzzi2007;Frenkenetal. 2010;Riding theWave2010; Llewellyn-Smithet al. 2011). Consequently, there is an increasingneedinalldisciplinestoenablesharingofdataresources,toolsandservicesovere-infrastructures,aimed to support online team-based and cross-domain/disciplinary collaboration. For the onlineenvironments which allow such collaboration the term Virtual Research Environments (also VRCommunityorCollaboratory)isbeingused.

The topic of VREs has been around since several years and addressed by many study reports,research papers and edited volumes. Some noteworthy examples are Allan (2009), Candela et al.(2013), Carusi & Reimer (2010), Dutton & Jeffreys (eds., 2010), eResearch2020 (2010), Hine (ed.,2006),Juanetal.(eds.,2012),Jankowski(ed.,2009),Olsonetal.(eds.,2008);Voß&Procter(2009),Woutersetal.(eds.,2012).

Indeed,a lotof researchhasalreadybeencarriedout to conceive,developand implementvirtualresearch environments. There is also a larger number of publications on such environments forscholars in thehumanities, forexampleAndersonetal. (2010),Babeu (2011),Blankeetal. (2010),Borgman (2009), Deegan & McCarty (eds., 2012), Dunn & Blanke (2009), Kansa et al. (2011),Svensson(2010).

Withregardtotheessentialcollaborativedimensionofe-researchenvironmentsJirotkaetal.(2013)pointoutthatthedevelopmenthasoftennottakenaccountoftheknowledgeavailableinthefieldofComputerSupportedCooperativeWork–CSCW(seealsothethreespecialissuesonVREsintheCSCWjournal:Jirotkaetal.2006;Leeetal.2010;Spenceretal.2011).

The followingsections look intothedefinitionanddevelopmentofVREssincethe1990s, includingtaxonomies of different types of VRE and research activities they may support. Furthermore, asectiononthecurrentstateofdevelopmentanduseofVREsinthefieldofarchaeologyisincluded.

4.2 VREDefinitions

IntheUnitedStatestheComputerScienceandTelecommunicationsBoardoftheNationalResearchCouncil promoted scientific “collaboratories” using information technology as early as 1993 (NRC-CSTB1993).Theaimwastoestablishnationalresearch&ITcentresashubsforthecollaborationof



naturalscientistsandtheircomputersciencecounterparts.OneexampleofanestablishedhubistheNational Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which provides access to biomedical andgenomicinformation.

Around2000, as an effect of the rapid spreadof the Internet, the concept of IT-enabled researchcollaboratorieshadbecomemuchbroader.Finholtsummariseditas,“Usingdistributed,media-richnetworkconnectionstolinkpeopletoeachother,tofacilities,andtoinformation”(Finholt2002:80;cf. Finholt&Olson2000). InEurope the termcollaboratorieshasbeenadopted in somecountries(e.g.theNetherlands),whileinothersVREbecamepopular.IntheUK,thededicatedVREprogrammeoftheJointInformationSystemsCommittee(JISC)startedfundingprojectsin2004.

TheoftenreferenceddefinitionofaVREbytheJISCProgrammeis,“AVREcomprisesasetofonlinetools and other network resources and technologies interoperatingwith each other to facilitate orenhance the processes of research practitioners within and across institutional boundaries. A keycharacteristic of a VRE is that it facilitates collaboration amongst researchers and research teamsprovidingthemwithmoreeffectivemeansofcollaborativelycollecting,manipulatingandmanagingdata,aswellascollaborativeknowledgecreation”(JISC2012).TheJISCdefinitionclearlyemphasisesthecollaborativedimensionofaVRE.

Inrecentyears,theinterestinVREshasbecomeevermorecentredonresearchenvironmentsbasedone-infrastructures,moststronglyintheframeworkoftheEUResearchInfrastructuresProgramme.ThelatestH2020callfor“e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments(VRE)”(H2020-EINFRA-9-2015) characterises VREs as supporting groups of researchers of a specific scientific community,typically widely dispersed, who are working together in a virtual environment based on e-infrastructure.Thee-infrastructure/swouldprovideubiquitous,trustedandeasyaccesstoservicesfornetworking,dataaccessandcomputing.ThedevelopmentoftheVREsshouldbecommunity-ledandemployuser-orientedservices.OveralltheVREsshouldalloweasierdiscovery,accessandre-useofsharedandintegratedresearchresources(datafrommultiplesources,softwaretools,computing)enablingmoreeffectivecollaborationandhigherproductivityofresearchers.AlsoemphasisedisthatVREsshouldfosterandsupportcross-/interdisciplinaryresearch.

Eightnewprojects forVREsofdifferentresearchdomainsresulted fromtheH2020-EINFRA-9-2015call, includingtwowithafocusonculturalheritage(seeSection4.3.2).Eachofthefundedprojectscharacterisestheintendede-infrastructureandVRE/sinsimilartermsandaccordingtotheirspecificcase.ParticularlynoteworthyishowBlueBRIDGE,amarinesciencefocusedproject,summarisesthekeyfeaturesofaVRE:

o “i.Itisaweb-basedworkingenvironmento ii.ItistailoredtoservetheneedsofaCommunityofPracticeo iii. It is expected to provide a Community of Practicewith thewhole array of commodities

neededtoaccomplishthecommunity’sgoal(s)o iv.Itisopenandflexiblewithrespecttotheoverallserviceofferingandlifetimeo v.Itpromotesfine-grainedcontrolledsharingofbothintermediateandfinalresearchresults

byguaranteeingownership,provenance,andattribution”(BlueBRIDGE2016a/b).

BlueBRIDGEemploystheD4Scienceinfrastructurewhichhasbeendevelopedspecificallyforsettingupandmanagingresearchenvironments ina“VREasaservice”approach(Candelaetal.2014).Atpresent the infrastructure supports mainly projects in fields of biodiversity, fisheries and marineresearch.



SummaryofDefinitions

AsasummaryofthevariousattributesofaVREmentionedindifferentdefinitions:

o AVRE isasaweb-basedcollaborationenvironment thatprovidesan integratedsetof servicesand tools according to the needs of a community of researchers; the set comprises of data,communicationandothercollaborationsupportservicesandtools.

o In general, a VRE is not a stand-alone solution for one project or institution, but based oncommone-infrastructure.

o Therearesomecontradictoryorat leastdifficulttofulfilexpectationsfromaVRE, i.e.openvs.controlled, flexible vs. tailored, and domain vs. cross-domain. For example, a VRE for cross-domainresearchwilltendtoprovidegenericservices/toolsorrequiremuchtailoringtosupportcollaborativeworkonparticular,interdisciplinaryresearchquestions.

4.3 VREDevelopment

Online environments for collaborative development, sharing and use for research purposes havebeen created since the 1990s. This section presents results of an analysis of the compilation ofinformationaboutsuchprojectsbytheScienceofCollaboratoriesstudy,andofprojectscarriedoutintheframeworksofVREprogrammesinEurope,atthenational level(Germany,Netherlands,UK)andattheEuropeanlevel.

4.3.1 ResearchCollaboratories

The US-based Science of Collaboratories project (SoC, 2001-2004) collected information aboutresearchcollaboratoriessincetheearly1990s.Theirlistcontainsabout700projects, includingover50entriesaddedafter2004,upto2010.Listedareprojectsacrossalldisciplinesandofvarioustypes;the taxonomy SoC used for the different types is described in Section 4.4.1. The compilation ofcollaboratories has a focus on Anglo-American countries, but includes also examples from others(e.g.GermanyandtheNetherlands),andofcourseinternationalprojects.

About 50 of the collaboratories can be subsumed under digital humanities. They range from theProjectRuneberg(startedin1992andstillactive),wherevolunteerscreatedigitaleditionsofclassicNordic literature, to the humanities e-infrastructures DARIAH (various arts and humanities) andCLARIN(languageresourcesandtools),whichhavebeenbuiltsince2006.

Manyoftheprojectscreateddigital libraries/collectionsofhistorical literatureand/orexploredtheuse of text annotation, search andmining tools, including the “e-science” approach ofGrid-baseddata processing. Other projects used various prototypic systems to describe, annotate, link etc.inscriptions, papyri, medieval manuscripts, historical maps, scholarly correspondence or historicalnewspapers(e.g.someoftheVREprojectsdevelopedinGermany,theNetherlandsandUK).

Other humanities entries on the SoC list are research centres, studios and labs, projects whichcollectedrequirementsofhumanitiesscholarstousedigitalresourcesandtools,projectsdevotedtoindividual thinkers, writers and artists, and large online databases, for example, ArchNet (Islamicarchitecture)andEuropeana.Alsoprojectsfordigitalarchivingsolutionshavebeenputonthelist.

Concerning archaeology, only four projects are present. The projects are ArchaeoTools (UK), thearchaeologynodeoftheArtsandHumanitiesDataService(UK),TransatlanticArchaeologyGateway(UKandUSA),andVirtualEnvironmentforResearchinArchaeology-VERA(UK).ArchaeoTools,2007-2009 funded by a UK e-Science Research Grant, was a pioneer in the use of Natural LanguageProcessingandSemanticWebstandardsandtechniquesforarchaeologicalinformation(Jeffreyetal.



2008and2009).ButtheprojectoutcomecertainlywasnotanonlinecollaboratoryorVRE.TheArtsand Humanities Data Service – Archaeology and the Transatlantic Archaeology Gateway arecollaboratoriesaimedtobuildandsharedataresources,while theVERAproject is thebestknownexampleofanarchaeologicalVRE(seeSections4.5.5and4.5.6).

4.3.2 VREFundingProgrammesandProjectsinEurope

In recent years, a major driver of VRE research & development has been dedicated fundingprogrammesinsomeEuropeancountries.IntheUK,theJISCVREProgrammestartedin2004andranuntil2011.IntheNetherlands,theSURFshareprogramme(2007-2011)oftheSURFFoundationhadaColllaboratoriescomponent,butotherfundersplayedanequallyimportantrole.Amongthefundingprogrammes of the German Research Foundation from 2009 to 2015 there was one strand for“Virtuelle Forschungsumgebungen” (VREs). We briefly address the general patterns of theseprogrammesandsomeexemplaryprojects.

JISCVREProgramme,UK,2004-2011

In the UK, the VRE Programme of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC, 2004-2011) inthree phases funded 29 projects (Brown 2012; JISC 2012). The projects produced requirementsstudies,experimentalandprototypicapplicationsand,inthefinalphase,aimedtobroadentheuseandembedsolutionsinactualresearchpractice.

Six projects had a humanities focus, including the VERA - Virtual Environment for Research inArchaeology, which is described in Section 4.5.6. The other projects concerned mainly VREs fortextualstudies.Forexample,atOxfordUniversitytheuserrequirementsdefinitionprojectBuildingaVRE for the Humanities (BVREH) was followed by the demonstrator project Virtual ResearchEnvironment for the Study of Documents and Manuscripts (VRE-SDM, 2007-2009). The TextVREproject at Kings’ College London (2009-2011) aimed to develop a collaborative environmentsupporting the complete research lifecycle of textual scholarship. The project built on the e-infrastructureoftheGermanTextGridproject(2006-2015).The“rapid innovation”projectgManatKings’CollegeLondon (2010) setupand testedaprototypicalVRE forClassical studies (papyriandinscriptions)onthee-infrastructureoftheEU-fundedD4Scienceproject.

Astheseexamplesshowtherehasbeen(andstill is)quitesomecollaboration inVREresearchanddevelopmentacrossEurope.TheJISCVREProgrammeendedin2011,butthereaftertwohumanitiesVRE-related projects were funded under the Research Tools part of the JISC Digital InfrastructureResearch programme (2011-2013). Increasing Interoperability between Corpus Tools was a highlytechnical project, while the Histore project aimed to raise the take-up of online research toolsamongsthistorians.

DFGVREFunding,Germany,2009-2015

Among the funding programmes of German Research Foundation (DFG), the “VirtuelleForschungsumgebungen”(VREs)strandstartedin2009andranuntilendof2015.In2016itbecamethee-Research Technologiesprogramme. The title of theprogrammemaybemisleading, becausethefocusisnottechnologicalresearchbutconsolidationandbetterapplicationandorganisationofexisting systems, and fostering their wider use in the relevant domain/s. The first call invitedproposalsconcerningthesustainabilityofresearchsoftware.

Unfortunately, theGEPRISdatabaseofprojects fundedby theDFGdoesnotallowspottingallVREprojectsfundedintheyears2009to2015.ButitappearsthatDFGsupportedmoreVREprojectsthanJISC in the UK (29). Already in the first two rounds in 2009 and 2010 DFG funded 22 projects(Schirmbacher2011);10werehumanitiesVREprojects.Theseconcernedarthistory, literatureand



cultural studies, history of education, study of religions, early, medieval and recent history, andhumangeography/culturallandscapes.

NoprojectaimedtobuildaVREforarchaeologicalresearchspecifically.Twoprojectsoftheclosestneighbour, Medieval history, focused on the content annotation aspect. For example, “Virtuellesdeutsches Urkundennetzwerk” (2010-2013) built a networking environment for manuscriptsarchives, including content digitisation, organisation and annotation workflows; the projectemployed the platform of the EU-funded project Monasterium. In art history, the Meta-Imageproject(2009-2014)developedthecollaborativeannotationtoolsforthePrometheusportal,whichconnects 88 databases of humanities research centres and museums. One project in the field ofhuman geography, “VKLandLab” (2010-2014), developed a VRE for spatio-temporal research onculturallandscapes,includinginterfacesforconnectingdatabasesanddigitallibraries,WebGIS,data-tagging,wikis/weblogs,projectmanagement,andothercomponents.

The most interesting VRE project with a cultural heritage aspect is the WissKI - ScientificCommunication Infrastructure (DFG-funded 2009-12 and 2014-16). The modular VRE is based onDrupalandsupportssemanticannotation(manualandsemi-automatic),integration,andqueryingofcontent.ItemploystheCIDOCCRMassemanticbackbonewhichcanbeextendedwithotherdomainvocabularies (i.e. LIDO formuseumobjects). TheWissKi environment has been applied to culturalheritagecollections,digitalhumanitiesandbiodiversityresearchusecases.TheprojectprovidesalloftheWissKicomponentsasfreeandopensourcesoftwarecodeonGitHub.

It appears that no archaeological research environment has been funded in the VRE programme.DFG’s GEPRIS database allows searching of all projects for infrastructure and systems aimed tosupportscholarlycommunication,researchdataande-research.InthiswidearrayofICTapplicationsonlytwoarchaeologicalprojectshavebeenfunded,inthecategory“Information-infrastructuresforResearch Data”: The projects are OpenInfRA, a web-based information system for thedocumentation and publication of archaeological research projects (Brandenburg University ofTechnology - Cottbus-Senftenberg, 2011-2016); and the IANUS - Research Data Centre forArchaeologyandClassicalStudies(fundedsince2011).TheIANUSprojectisbeingcoordinatedbytheGermanArchaeologicalInstitute(DAI),amemberoftheARIADNEconsortium.

SURFshareProgramme,Netherlands,2007-2011

In the Netherlands, the SURFshare programme (2007-2011) of the SURF Foundation had a ratherbroad focus, including Collaboratories, e-infrastructures, open access publications and data, andothers (van der Vaart 2010). Humanities collaboratories were funded in the first funding rounds,2007-2009.

VirtualKnowledgeStudioCollaboratory(1and2)wasacollaborationondigitalscholarshipbetweenthe Virtual Knowledge Studios in Amsterdam,Maastricht and Rotterdam. The VKS for HumanitiesandSocialSciencesinAmsterdamservedasthemainhubofthestudiosuntil2010.VKSAmsterdamalsohostedtheAlfaLab,a jointprojectof five institutesof theRoyalNetherlandsAcademyofArtsand Sciences (KNAW), which developed digital humanities resources and tools. In 2011 the VKSAmsterdam became the KNAW E-Humanities Group (until 2016), from which emerged theNetherlandsNetworkforHumanities,SocialSciencesandTechnology(eHumanities.nl).

Hublab (1 and 2) developed a research environment for social and economic historians. Thisenvironment was implemented in the second project phase by the Virtual Knowledge StudioRotterdam employing the Liferay collaboration platform. The Tales of the Revolt Collaboratory atLeiden University developed digital resources and tools for studying the role of memories of theDutchRevoltforpersonalandpublicidentitiesintheseventeenthcenturyLowCountries.Theprojectwas continued until 2013 with funding by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research(NWO)andLeidenUniversity.



AnarchaeologyfocushadtheSURFshareprojectEnrichedPublicationsinDutchArchaeology,whichexplorednovelformsofpublishingarchaeologicalresearchresults.ProjectpartnersweretheJournalof Archaeology in the Low Countries (open access e-journal), University of Amsterdam (DigitalProduction Centre), and the E-Depot for Dutch Archaeology (Adema 2011a/b). The DigitalCollaboratoryforCulturalDendrochronology(DCCD)projectofDANSandUtrechtUniversity,hostedby theCulturalHeritageAgency,was funded2008-2011by theHumanities sectionofNWO. Since2010otherEuropeanpartnersjoined,andsince2013someworkontheDCCDenvironmenthasbeencarriedoutwithinARIADNE.

EUFrameworkProgrammes(FP7,H2020)

IntherecentEUFrameworkProgrammestheVREthemehasbeenpresent intheE-Infrastructuresstrand of the Research Infrastructures programmes, as “Virtual Research Communities” and “e-ScienceEnvironments”inFP7and“e-InfrastructuresforVirtualResearch”inH2020.Thelattertopiccorrespondstotheincreasinginteresttodevelope-infrastructurebasedVREswithadvancedservicesandtoolsforresearchinandacrossdifferentdisciplines.

FromaResearch Infrastructurescall in2010 (INFRA-2010-1.2.3), tenVirtualResearchCommunitiesprojectsresulted,butnoneconcernedculturalheritageorarchaeology.OneexampleisViBRANT,theVirtual Biodiversity Research and Access Network for Taxonomy (12/2010-11/2013). ViBRANTdeveloped further the Scratchpads environmentwhich supports distributed groups of biodiversityresearchers. Scratchpads could serve as VRE platform for archaeobotanical researchers (see CaseStudy,Section5.7.3).

In2011,sevene-ScienceEnvironmentsprojectsresultedfromthecallINFRA-2011-1.2.1,alsowithnoproject focusedonculturalheritageorarchaeology.Anexampleofa fundedproject isBioVeL, theBiodiversity Virtual e-Laboratory (9/2011-12/2014). The project developed data workflows andanalysistoolsforusecasessuchasphylogeny,populationandnichemodellingforspecies,andeco-systems analysis. BioVel deployed and customised the Taverna/myExperiment and BioCataloguefamilyofsoftware.

ThelatestH2020callfor“e-InfrastructuresforVirtualResearchEnvironments(VRE)”(H2020-EINFRA-9-2015) led to eight funded projects. Two projects have a cultural heritage aspect: READ -Recognition and Enrichment of Archival Documents aims to make historical manuscripts betteraccessibleandusable forresearchers.READ isa follow-uptothetranScriptoriumproject (FP7, ICT,1/2013-12/2015). The future READ tools and services will bemade available on their Transkribusplatform.Thesecondproject,VI-SEEM,hasusecasesofvirtualcommunitiesinclimate,lifesciencesanddigitalculturalheritageresearch,withafocusonresearchers inSoutheastEuropeandEasternMediterraneanregions.

ConsideringonlyVREprojectsfundedundertheResearchInfrastructuresprogrammesdoesnotgiveafullpictureofEUfundeddevelopmentofresearchplatformsandtools.LiketransScriptorium,theprecursorofREAD,alsootherVREdevelopmentshavebeensupportedbytheFP7 ICTProgramme.Togivebutoneexampleofasuccessfuldevelopment, theopensourcePunditenvironmentofNetSeven (Italy) originated from the FP7-SME project Semantic Tools for Digital Libraries - SEMLIB(1/2011-12/2012). Pundit allows studying, annotating and linking together humanities researchcontent such as historical documents (Grassi et al. 2013). The environment has been adopted byother projects, for example, DigitalManuscripts to Europeana - DM2E (2012-2015) and EuropeanCorrespondencetoJacobBurckhardt-EUROCORR(2010-2015).



4.4 TaxonomiesofVREsandResearchActivities

To provide some systematics we briefly present two different taxonomies developed for onlinecollaboratories and VREs. Furthermore, taxonomies of so called “scholarly primitives”, which areactivitiescommontoscholarlyworkacrossdisciplines,areaddressed.

4.4.1 ATaxonomyofResearch“Collaboratories”

The Science of Collaboratories (SoC) project employed a taxonomy to distinguish between ninecategoriesofprojectsontheirlistofresearchcollaboratories(seeabove).Twocategoriesprovedtobe not useful, expert consultation and product development. Bos et al. (2007) present the othersevencategoriesanddiscussrelatedtechnicalandorganisationalissues.

Table1showstheirdimensionalclassificationofthecategoriesbasedonthetypeofresourcetobeshared (tools, information, knowledge) and the type of activity to be performed across distance(aggregate,co-create).Thelattertakesaccountoftheobservationthataggregationandorganisationofsomeresourcescanbedoneinaloosely-coupledsetup,whileothersrequiretightly-coupledwork.For example, the distinction between a Community Data System and an Open CommunityContribution System considers that in the former mainly data is being shared while in the lattereffortstowardacommonresearchproblem.

Tools(instruments) Information(data) Knowledge(newfindings)

Aggregatingacrossdistance(loosecoupling,oftenasynchronously)

SharedInstrument CommunityDataSystem

VirtualLearningCommunity,VirtualCommunityofPractice

Co-creatingacrossdistance(requirestightercoupling,oftensynchronously)

Infrastructure OpenCommunityContributionSystem

DistributedResearchCenter

Table1:Collaboratorytypesbyresourceandactivity,Bosetal.2007.

The authors hold that, in general, it ismore difficult to share knowledge than data or tools, andeasier to aggregate than co-create. Furthermore, that each category of collaboration requiresdifferenttechnologies,practicesandorganisationalstructures.

4.4.2 ATaxonomyof“VirtualLaboratories”

David&Spencesuggestataxonomyof“virtuallaboratories”thatismeantasusefulfordistinguishinge-scienceVREs(David&Spence2003:62-65).Aroundthetimewhenthetaxonomywasconceivede-sciencewas understood in the narrow sense of using advanced computing in the natural sciencesand engineering disciplines. However, David & Spence considered a wider range of VREs,distinguishedby theirprimary functionandactivities theyenable: community-centric,data-centric,computation-centric, and interaction-centric. Furthermore, they divided each of themup into twosub-categories,usingcategory-specificcharacteristics.



Figure2.Taxonomyofon-linecollaborativeactivities,David&Spence2003:63.

The“species”ofvirtuallaboratoriescanbebrieflydescribedasfollows.

o Community-centric:Theprimaryfunctionisbringingresearcherstogetherforcollaboration.Thetwosub-categoriesaredistinguishedconsideringthecommunicationtoolsthecommunityuses.Thecategorysynchronous(real-time),forexample,useschatroomsoravideoconferencingtool,theasynchronouscategorymailing-listsorbulletinboards.Animportantothercharacteristicthatshould be considered is if communitymembership is open or restricted to a certain group ofresearchers.

o Data-centric: This category concerns data-focused tasks such as generation,management andsharingofdata.Thesub-categoriesShareandCreatedistinguishbetween“laboratories”whichmainly make existing data accessible to researchers (share), or generate new data, includingmodification, annotation, etc. of existing data (create). Taxonomies of “scholarly primitives”distinguishbetweenmanymoredata/contentrelatedtasks(seeSection4.4.3).

o Computation-centric: The primary function is computer-based processing of data, which in e-science would include high-performance computing. The sub-categories concern the technicalquestionifthecomputingpowerisprovidedtoclientscentrally(e.g.byasuper-computer)viaaServerormobilisedfrommanydistributedcomputersbasedonapeer-to-peer(P2P)setup.

o Interaction-centric: This category overlaps with the synchronous variant of community-centricvirtual laboratories, i.e. requires real-time interaction. Inaddition tocommunication it involvesdecision-makingor interactionwith specificapplications (e.g. controlof instruments). The sub-categoriesconcernthequestionhowmanyparticipantsareinvolved(≥2).

David& Spence (2003) applied the taxonomy to 24pilot projects of theUK E-Science Programmewhichran from2001-2009. Interestinglynot thecomputation-centricbut thedata-centriccategorywas by far the most populated. In the community-centric category there was only one project,myGrid, which is still alive and their tools (Taverna, myExperiment) are being used by manyresearchersinthelifesciences.

4.4.3 Taxonomiesof“ScholarlyPrimitives”

ThetaxonomiespresentedabovedonotaddressindetailthewiderangeofactivitieswhichmaybesupportedbyVREs.Thisissuppliedbytaxonomiesofsocalled“scholarlyprimitives”.Thetermwascoined by Unsworth (2000) and means activities common to scholarly work across disciplines,independent of theoretical orientation, e.g. searching, collecting, comparing, etc. (cf. Jessop 2004;Blanke&Hedges2013).Unsworth referred tohumanities scholars’useofdigital content/dataandtoolsandthetermisbeingusedwidelyespeciallyinthiscontext.Differenttaxonomiesof“scholarlyprimitives”areavailable,e.g.Palmeretal.(2009),theTaxonomyofDigitalResearchActivitiesinthe



Humanities(TaDiRAH),andtheNeDiMAHMethodsOntology(NEMO).Belowwebrieflydescribethelattertwotaxonomies.

TaDiRAH-TaxonomyofDigitalResearchActivitiesintheHumanities

TaDiRAHhas been developed 2013-2014 by researchers of theGerman branch of DARIAH (DigitalResearchInfrastructurefortheArtsandHumanities)andtheDiRT-DigitalResearchToolsdirectory(Dombrowski& Perkins 2014; Borek et al. 2016). The pragmatic purpose of the taxonomywas toimprovethediscoveryofrelevanttoolsinthelargeDiRTregistry,buttheworkwascarriedoutalsoinviewof potential adoption of the taxonomyby other directory-likewebsites. The developers tookaccountof available classifications, i.e. the existingDiRT categoriesof tool functions, themethodspart of the extensive taxonomy of research projects of the UK arts-humanities.net (which ceasedoperation), and the tag-set of DARIAH-DE’s “Doing Digital Humanities” bibliography assembled onthe Zotero platform. Initial drafts of TaDiRAH were discussed and received suggestions by manycommunitymembers.

TaDiRAH breaks down the research process (lifecycle) into high-level “goals”, each with a set of“methods”. The eight top-level categories represent broad goals: Capture, Creation, Enrichment,Analysis, Interpretation, Storage, and Dissemination; in addition there is a “meta” category thatincludesactivitieswhich transcend theothers (e.g. “CommunityBuilding”).Each top-level categoryincludesthreetosevenmethods,intotal40.Inadditiontotheseclosedsetsofconcepts,therearetwoopenlists:onelistcoversspecificresearchtechniques(34),e.g.debuggingofsoftwareortopicmodelling, theother listdigital researchobjects (36),e.g.metadataormanuscript.Asanexample,the goal Analysis includes the methods Content Analysis, Network Analysis, Relational Analysis,SpatialAnalysis,StructuralAnalysis,StylisticAnalysis,andVisualization.Aparticulartool,forexamplethe QGIS desktop GIS application could be tagged with the terms Analysis (goal), Spatial Analysis(method),Georeferencing(technique)andMaps(object).

To make available TaDiRAH in a standards-based, machine-readable format, the developersproduced a W3C SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) based version, employing aninstanceoftheTemaTresVocabularyServer.SKOSisbeingusedwidelyforthesauriandclassificationsystems to support Linked Data. The SKOS version of TaDiRAH is available on GitHub under theCreative Commons Attribution license. It can be browsed online (http://tadirah.dariah.eu/vocab/),anddevelopersmayaccessitthroughanavailableTemaTresSPARQLendpoint.

Boreketal.(2016)mentionsomeexamplesof“earlyadoption”ofTaDiRAH.ThelargestexampleofactualuseistheDiRTdirectory.Otherprojectsplantoadoptitforstructuringtheircontent.Herethelargest project is the DHCommons directory of digital humanities projects, which intends to useTaDiRAH in a new project profile schema. Currently this directory documents 779 projects. About10% are tagged with the keyword “archaeology”, 35 only with this keyword while others mainlyinclude“ClassicsandAncientHistory”and“History”.

NeMO-NeDiMAHMethodsOntology

TheNeDiMAHMethodsOntology(NeMO)hasbeendevelopedbytheNetworkforDigitalMethodsinthe Arts and Humanities project (5/2011-4/2015), funded under the Research Networkingprogramme of the European Science Foundation. Experts of ARIADNE partner Athena ResearchCentre(DigitalCurationUnit)hadamajorrole inthedevelopmentofNeMO.Theontologymodelsresearch actors and their goals, processes (activities and methods), and resources (content/data,concepts, tools)manifest in scholarlydigitalpractices. ThedevelopmentofNeMOtookaccountofexisting taxonomies of scholarly methods and tools, e.g. TaDiRAH and Oxford taxonomies of ICTmethods,buthadhigherambitions.NeMO isanontologywithdefinedclasses (27)andproperties



(42), which means that the semantic relations between the (abstract) entities involved in themodelledscholarlydigitalpracticesareformallydefined/typed.

NeMO comprises of 27 classes, for example, Actor, Activity/ActivityType, InformationResource/InformationResourceType,MediaType,Method,Model, Object, Place, Project, Service, Time, Tool,Topic). Furthermore, there are 42 properties, according to the different classes. For example, theclass Method has eight properties, e.g. isUsedFor (ActivityType) or isReferencedIn (InformationResource);theclass InformationResourcehassevenproperties,e.g. isProductOf(Activity),hasTopic(Topic),hasFormat(MediaType).Conceptsoftaxonomiesarebeingusedatthe levelofclasstypes,particularly ActivityType (161 concepts), InformationResourceType (106), andMedia Types (1531).WhileinspiredbyTaDiRAH,theclasstypesarestructuredindifferentwaysandthetaxonomiesaremore extensive, for example,many concepts of theOxford taxonomies of ICTmethods are beingusedforMediaTypes.

NeMOhas been implemented based on theW3C RDF Schema (RDFS) specification,with the typetaxonomies inW3CSKOS (as TaDiRAH). Furthermore, theontology is generally compliantwith theCIDOCConceptualReferenceModel(CIDOC-CRM).NeMOcanbebrowsedonthewebsiteofAthena-DCU(http://nemo.dcu.gr),butthere isno informationwherethemachine-readableontologycouldbedownloadedoraccessedviaaSPARQLendpoint.ArecentpaperabstractmentionsthatSPARQLquerieshavebeenrunagainsttheontology,butnotifanycontenthasactuallybeenannotatedwiththe ontology (Constantopoulos et al. 2016). One use case of the NeMO developers concernsdocumentation of scholarly research conducted in the course of a synthetic study of the socio-economichistoryofClassicalCorinthia(Benardou2007;Benardouetal.2015).

4.4.4 VREsandResearchWorkflows

The taxonomies addressed in the previous section can be used to distinguish between differentresearchactivitiesthatmaybesupportedbyVREs.Forexample,TaDiRAHbreaksdowntheresearchprocess into steps such as data creation, enrichment, analysis, interpretation and dissemination,methodsand techniques that arebeingused in these steps, andvarious researchobjects that arebeing used in or result from the activities. However, the main purpose of this taxonomy is tostructure and annotate tools, content and other research items in order to make them betterdiscoverable.

NeMO goes a step further by introducing semantic relations between activities, methods andresources(content/data,concepts,tools)ofscholarlydigitalpractices.AfurtherstepwouldbethatanontologysuchasNeMOcanbeusedtoeffectivelysupportresearchworkflows.Thismeansthatthe ontology would underpin ICT applications which suggest, link together, and help carrying outresearch tasksasa sequenceofactivities.TheNeMOdevelopersdonot state thisasagoalof theontology, and such workflow engineering may also be perceived as inappropriate for humanitiesresearch,whichverymuchreliesoninterpretativeactsalongtheresearchprocess.

Inotherquartersofresearchsinceabout10yearstheapplicationofworkflowmanagementsystemshasenabledmuchprogress in thesystematic, IT-supportedconductof research (Curcin&Ghanem2008;Deelmanetal.2009;Talia2013;Morketal.2015).Mostsystemssupportresearchprocessesof thephysicalandbiological sciences,butsomearebeingusedalso inotherdomainsof research(e.g.KeplerandPegasus).However,wecouldnotfindausecaseinarchaeologicalresearch.

All archaeological research activities in the field and laboratory of course consist of successiveactivities(workflows),areguidedbycertainmethodologies,andsupportedbysometools,templatesetc. Inrecentyearstheuseof“paperless”,usuallymobilerecordingapplicationshasbecomemorewidespread in field surveys as well as excavations. Users in general report improvements in datacollection,processingandavailabilitytoteammembers,butare-organisationofworkflowsand(re-



)trainingofstaffisrequired(cf.Averettetal.2014:53-55;Caraher2013;Goodaleetal.2013;Motz&Carrier2012;Wallrodt2013).

OnesystemthatcouldbecharacterisedasaworkflowsystemforarchaeologicalfieldworkisFAIMS-FieldAcquiredInformationManagementSystems(Rossetal.2013and2015).FAIMSprovidesasuiteof tools for all stagesof thedigital data collectionandmanagement lifecycle.Clear candidates forapplying workflowmanagement systems are also archaeometry laboratories, where such systemscouldsupportworkflowautomation,controlofinstruments,andcapture,storageandmanagementofinformationobtainedinthecourseofthelaboratorywork.

One lineof researchconducted inARIADNE’sWorkPackage17specifically studiedworkprocesseswhich archaeologists carry out when they “do archaeology”, the things they create or use, thetemporalorganisationofthework,differentfunctions/rolesinvolved,etc.Methodologicalpracticesof archaeological research partners have been analysed based on their documentation of work.References tomethods followed,distinctunits and stagesofwork,producersand things involved,etc.havebeenextractedandmodelledinasituationalmethodengineeringapproach.Theformalizeddescriptionsofmethodologicalpracticescanbesharedandusedfordifferentpurposes.OnescenarioisamethodologycomposerthatallowsarchaeologiststoselectthemethodscomponentstheyneedforaprojectandassemblestheminaVREwhichsupportstheirdifferenttasksandworkflows.

ExampleVRE:AMethodologyComposerforArchaeology(CSIC)

It is often said that a goodproduct canonly come froma goodprocess. Theway inwhichwedothingsaffectswhatweproduce,be it adocument, an idea,or aphysical artefact. For this reason,takingcaretoemployarigorousandwell-knownmethodologywhencarryingoutresearchwork isparamount.Withoutagood-qualitymethodology,theresultsthatweobtainwillprobablybedifficultto validate, reproduce and reuse. Archaeological practice has traditionallyworried about this, andtheliteraturecontainsmanyexamplesofwhatasoundarchaeologicalmethodologyshouldlooklike.However, observation tells us that no comprehensive effort has been attempted so far to reusemethodologicalknowledgeinarchaeologyinasystematicmanner.

ReusingMethodologicalKnowledge

Reusingmethodologicalknowledgehasanobviousbenefit: itallowsus toproceedalong lines thathavebeenshowntoworkwellinsituationslikeours,anddiscardapproachesthathavebeenshowntowastetime,beineffective,orill-adaptedtoourneeds.Inanycase,reusemustalwaysoccurinasituatedcontext; that is,noteveryapproach isapplicabletoeverysituation.Onthecontrary,eachkind of project, theoretical approach, or research line needs its particularmethodology. Thismayseemtomeanthatarchaeologistsarecondemnedtocreatingcustom-mademethodologiesforeachnewproject they tackle,missing thebenefitsof reusingwell-establishedknowledge.However, thisdoesnotneedtobethecase.

AsdescribedinthecasestudybyCSIConarchaeologicalmethodology(seeSection5.2),thedisciplineof SituationalMethod Engineering (SME) has long proven that methodological knowledge can besystematically reused and enhanced over time by decomposing good practices into small, self-containedblockscalled“methodcomponents”.Amethodcomponentmaydescribewhataparticulartaskconsistsof,whataspecificinterimproductshouldlooklike,orwhatresponsibilitiesaparticularroleor team is expected tohave.Amethodology, then, is conceivedas anorganised collectionofinter-connectedmethodcomponentsthatareselectedandassembledforaspecificsituationsuchasanarchaeologicalproject.

AVREBasedonMethodologyComposition

Avirtual researchenvironment (VRE)basedonmethodologycomposition is thussuggested, takingthe Situational Method Engineering case study of CSIC as a basis. This VRE would allow an



archaeologisttodescribetheprojecttobetackledintermsofsomevariablesrelatedtotheprojectitself(e.g.howmuchtimeisavailable),theproductstobegeneratedasaresult(e.g.whatdegreeofqualityassurancetheyneed),andtheorganisationtacklingit(e.g.whatskillsarepresentorabsentinthe team).Once this is done, theVREwould suggest anoverallmethodological approach, rangingfromverysimple“waterfall”-stylesequenceoftaskstoaverycomplex,distributed,parallelprojectlifecycle. Then, the archaeologist would be able to browse a large catalogue (or “repository”) ofmethod components, organised by type (tasks, techniques, documents, models, artefacts, ideas,teams,roles, tools,phases,milestones,etc.),source, reliabilityorotherparameters,andselect thecomponentsthatbestfittheprojectneedsandtheadoptedmethodologicalapproach.

Since method components are inter-linked in the repository, the VRE may suggest additionalcomponents every time the archaeologist incorporates one to themethodology. For example, thearchaeologistmayselectaparticularprecisionaerialsurveytechniquefromtherepository.TheVRE,knowingthatthistechniqueneedsqualifiedspecialiststoflythecraft,wouldsuggest incorporatingthemtotheteam.Similarly,theVRE,knowingthatvegetationshouldberemovedfromtheareastobesurveyedbefore the flights,wouldsuggest thatanadditional landclearance task is carriedout,accompanied by the necessary timing and personnel requirements. Of course, the archaeologistwouldalwayshavethelastwordonwhatisadoptedaspartofthemethodologyandwhatisnot.

Onceallthedependenciesbetweenmethodcomponentshavebeenresolvedandthearchaeologistishappywiththeresult,theVREwouldputthemethodologyindocumentformat,orintheformofasearchablewebsite,ordistributeittointerestedpartiesinanysuitablemanner.

Duringtheproject,theVREwouldcontinuesupportingtheprojectthrough“justintime”enactmentofthemethodology.Thismeansthatthemethodologyretainsahighflexibility. It isonly“enacted”(i.e. actually carried out) gradually and component by component as the necessary conditions aremet. At any given time, any teammember could view a list of what work is pending and to betackled. Since the VRE knows themethodology being carried out, and the status of each interimproductiskeptuptodatewithit, itwouldbeabletoevaluatetherelevantdependenciesandspotbottlenecks,newneeds,andevenfutureissueswiththeenactment.Forexample,theVREwouldbeable to suggest delaying lab work for a collection of samples by two weeks if the necessaryexcavationandpreparationworksarenotprogressingattheexpectedpace.

Finally,designatedteammemberswouldbeabletoprovidefeedbackintotheVREabouthowwelleach selectedmethodcomponent isworking,andsuggestways to improve it. Forexample,a taskthat was not well described, or which was missing an important aspect, can be suggested to bereformulated. In this manner, future projects that adopt that task would benefit from theaccumulatedpreviousexperienceofotherarchaeologists.

MajorIssuesandRequirements

A toolsetnot toodifferent from theVREheredescribedwasproposedand specifiedbyGonzalez-PerezandHenderson-Sellers(2008).Themajorbarriersforadoption,whicharealsoexpectedtoplayapartinthecurrentarchaeologicalproposal,werethefollowing:

• A sizeable method component repository is needed before this approach can be useful.Developingacomprehensiverepositoryisexpensiveandtime-consuming;pleaseseeCSIC’scasestudyinthenextchapterfordetails.

• Specialised software tools must be constructed in three areas: repository construction andmaintenance,methodologycomposition,andmethodologyenactment.Without tools,applyingSituationalMethodEngineeringisverytediousanderror-prone.

• Some kinds of organisations and disciplines have traditionally rejected automated or assistedapproaches to planning and managing specialised work. This is probably based on the



assumption that these approaches are too rigid, and are thus seen as a straightjacket thathindersprogressand limits creativework.However, current SME techniquesare far from this.Some educationwork is needed tomake potential users aware of realistic benefits and costsbeforeanSME-basedVREisattempted.

Inconclusion, ifaVRE is tobedeveloped forarchaeologicalmethodologycomposition, then theseissuesare tobe tackled.Allof thementail researchaswell asnon-trivialdesignanddevelopmentwork,sotheappropriatefundingschemestosupportthemshouldbesought.

4.5 CurrentStateofVREsinArchaeology

InthepreviouschapterswelearnedthatVirtualResearchEnvironment(VRE)isanumbrellatermfordifferent types of digital/ICT-based environments which support collaborative research of VRCommunitiesorCollaboratories.AmongthecommonfeaturesofVREsarethattheyareintendedtohelp connecting researchers to each other, to content/data resources, and to research tools andservices.SomeVREsmaycentremoreonscholarlycommunicationandnetworking,onbuildingandsharingdataresources,orprovidingresearchtoolsandservices.

AninternationalonlinesurveyonVREsdevelopeduntil2009/2010askedaboutwhichfunctionstheyarebeingusedfor.Accordingtothe86respondentsmostoftenthiswas:sharedatawithothers(72),supportcommunicationinateam(64),andprovideaccesstotools,servicesoraninfrastructure(55).Somewhat less present were support of project management (44), collaboratively annotate data(41),andanalyseandprocessdata(32).Mostofthe86respondentswerelocatedinEurope,NorthAmericaandAustralia;notablythearts&humanitiesandsocialscienceswerestronglypresentinthissurvey(Carusi&Reimer2010:9-10and19).

InthischapterwelookintothecurrentstateofVREsinarchaeology.TakingthegeneralfeaturesofVREsasastartingpoint,wedefineanarchaeologicalVREsimplyasaweb-basedenvironmentthatcombinesdigitaltools/servicesandcontent/dataresourceswithfeaturesthatallowcollaborationonsometasksofarchaeologicalresearch.ThelatterfeaturesarecrucialbecausenoenvironmentwouldbeconsideredasaVREwhichdoesnothaveacollaborativecomponent,i.e.supportproject-focusedcommunication/ interaction between researchers. On the other hand, communication/interactiontoolsalonedonotrepresentaVRE.

4.5.1 Web2.0/SocialMediaPlatforms

In the discussion about e-science infrastructures so called Web 2.0 or social media tools andplatforms are often mentioned as an alternative solution to enabling collaboration betweenresearchers.Suchtoolsandplatformsincludecollaborativeweblogs,contentsharingplatformssuchas Flickr and YouTube, and professional platforms such as Academia.edu. They are presented asbottom-up,flexibleandarguablymorereadilyaccessiblesolutionsforresearchersandpractitionersthanVREsdeveloped in thecontextofe-science infrastructure.However,Web2.0or socialmediaplatformsmainlyservetheneedofprofessionalnetworkingandinformationexchange(Colley2013;Dunn2011;Kansa2011),whereasthebuildingandusageofdatacollectionsandprocessingsoftwarerequireothersystems.

Eric Kansa notes: “While Web 2.0’s impact is far reaching, it does seem to have limits. Web 2.0platforms and services mainly facilitate informal communications among archaeologists. Web 2.0systemsaresimpletouse,fast,andgearedtocontentthatrequiresrelativelyminimalinvestmenttocreate.Archaeologists tendnot touseWeb2.0platformsas theprimarydisseminationchannel forformsofcontentthattakeagreatdealofeffortandexpertisetocreate. Inthis light,datasetsand



sophisticated scholarly manuscripts see less circulation in Web 2.0 channels.” (Kansa 2011: 5; cf.Dunn2011).

Results of substantial surveyson theuseof such tools by academics confirm that they aremainlyperceivedasan informalsupplement toacademiccommunicationchannels.Furthermore, theyareactivelyusedonlybyasmallsegmentofresearchersand,surprisinglymaybe,youngscholarsarenotamongtheavidusers(cf.Procteretal.2010a/b;ResearchInformationNetwork2010;UCL&Emerald2010).Inshort,Web2.0orsocialmediaplatformssupportprofessionalcommunication,networkingandcontent sharingbut canhardly serveasVREs.On theotherhand, these functionalities shouldalsobeprovidedbyVREs.

4.5.2 Wiki-basedCollaboration

WikisaresometimessubsumedunderWeb2.0orsocialmediaapplications,buttheyareadistinctcategoryofonlinecollaborationwithmuchpotentialfore-researchapplications.Forexample,inthebiological research community many Wiki-based environments have been developed for sharingmodels and descriptions of biological entities and processes (Waldrop 2008). Some proposedsolutions did notmake it into actual use (i.e.WikiGenes,WikiProteins)while others proved to beuseful,e.g.EcoliWiki(McIntoshetal.2011),WikiPathways(Kutmonetal.2015)andProteopedia,the“3D-encyclopedia”ofproteins&othermolecules(Prilusky&Sussman2016).

AtypicalexampleofWikiuseinthehumanitiesmaybetheDigitalClassicist,whichisawebsitethatlinks together several information resources and allows researchers to catalogue projects, tools,publications, etc. (Mahony 2011). For research purposes a semantic Wiki can provide a usefulcollaborative environment. According to the WikiApiary the Semantic MediaWiki is being usedworldwide by over 1700 projects, including many digital humanities projects, e.g. CARE - Corpusarchitecturae religiosaeeuropeae, IV-X saec. (Leclercq&Savonnet2010and2011;Chevalieretal.2013), and Semantic MediaWiki for Collaborative Corpora Analysis - SMW-CorA (Schindler et al.2011;Elletal.2013).

AgroupofarchaeologistsattheUniversityofSiena,DepartmentofHistoricalSciencesandCulturalHeritage since 2006 uses a MediaWiki, called GQBWiki, as the digital documentation andinterpretationplatform for their investigations in theByzantineQuarternear thePythion shrine inGortyn, Crete (Costa & Carabia 2016). 10-15 team members used GQBWiki during and afterexcavation campaigns. They produced over 2000 wiki pages, with over 28,000modifications, andabout 16,000 internal links. Thewiki pages include journal entries, documentationof stratigraphicunits, context plans, find records, 3200 images, bibliographic and other references, often withextensivenotesonresearchresultsonothersites.

TheGQBWikipresentsa caseofwiki-basedLinkedData,withauniqueURI foreach journalentry,stratigraphicunit,significantfind,etc. ItusestheSemanticMediaWikiextensionwitha lightweightontologyoftypedinternallinks,forexample,betweenpagesdescribingstratigraphicunits,findsandunits,etc.Theexcavationhasbeenpreparedforatraditionalnarrativeandsyntheticpublication,butwithaccompanyingwiki-baseddata.TheGQBWikihasbeenmadeopenaccessundertheCCBY-SAlicensein2015,alreadybeforetheprintedition.Thereleaseofthecollaborativeworkaimstoallowattributionofallcontributorsinatransparentway.

Huvila (2012) addresses challenges faced in the development of an archaeological e-researchenvironment based on the Semantic MediaWiki. Some of the issues may have to do with theintendedusergroupofcontractarchaeologistswhotypicallyworkonshort-termprojectsandhaveparticularreportingrequirementsdefinedbytheirclients.



4.5.3 GIS-basedEnvironments

It may be argued that a web-based Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is themain e-researchenvironment of many if not most archaeologists. A GIS allows them bringing together data ofindividual excavations as well as regional analyses of many sites (e.g. settlement patterns).Consequently, archaeologists have acquired great mastery in the use of GIS, muchmore so thanother humanities scholars who’s usage of GIS “can seem very limited, even simplistic, toarchaeological eyes” (Huggett 2012b).However, there are of course also advanceduses ofGIS byotherhumanities,forexampleamongtheover150examplescollectedbytheGeoHumanitiesSIGoftheAllianceofDigitalHumanitiesOrganizations.

AlthoughtheapplicationofGIS inarchaeologicalprojects iswellestablished (Conolly&Lake2006;Campana & Remondino 2014), the proceedings of the Computer Applications & QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology (CAA) conferences still regularly contain many papers on advances inarchaeological GIS. Among the more recent developments is the integration of GIS and 3Dtechnologies for web-based presentation and exploration of archaeological sites and landscapes.Someexamplesare the3D-GISenvironmentof theSwedishPompeiiProject for thePompeiancityblock,InsulaV1,developedsince2011basedontheESRIArcGIS10suite(Landeschietal.2014);the3D-GIS component of theMapping the Via Appia project, which is led by the Spatial InformationLaboratory (SPINlab) of theVUUniversity (de Kleijnet al. 2015); and theMayaArch3Dweb-basedenvironmentforarchaeologicalresearch(vonSchwerinetal.2016).

MayaArch3Dispresentedas“avirtualresearchenvironmentforthedocumentationandanalysisofcomplexarchaeologicalsites–specifically,itisaweb-based,3D-GISthatcanintegrate3Dmodelsofcities, landscapes, and objects with associated, geo-referenced archaeological data”. TheMayaArch3D project started in 2009 in work on the UNESCO World Heritage site of Copan inHondurasandbecameaninternationalproject.ItisbeingledbytheGermanArchaeologicalInstituteand the GIScience Research Group at University of Heidelberg (funded by the German FederalMinistry of Education and Research). MayaArch3D offers tools for analysing 3D models andassociated spatio-temporal data online. The system is intended to support collaborative research,but it does not support live communication among researchers. Also the other GIS-basedenvironmentslackthisimportantcomponentofcollaborativeVREs.

4.5.4 3DVirtualRealityEnvironments

Beside the widespread use of GIS, virtual representation of archaeological monuments, sites andlandscapes based on various 3D recording and visualization technologies is a major field ofarchaeological IT. The case study on 3D Archaeology gives an overview of several methods andtechniquesthatarebeingemployedinthisfieldofresearch(seeSection5.4).

3Dtechnologieshavebeenappliedbyevermoreprojectssincetheearly1990s,werealreadyratherwellestablished10yearsago(Frischer2008),withnumerousprojectsreportedsincetheninCAAandother conference sessions devoted to advances in 3D applications for archaeological purposes. Assomeexamples in the fieldofclassicalarchaeologyBabeu (2011)mentionsDigitalKarnak,PompeyProjectandprojects focusedonancientRome,DigitalRomanForum,PlandeRome,RomeRebornandStanfordDigital FormaUrbisRomae.Projects suchas3D-ICONS (EU, ICT-PSP,2/2012-1/2015),which provided 3D content to Europeana, exemplify that the use of 3D technologies for singleobjectsandmonumentshasalreadyreachedahighdegreeofmaturation.Indeed,inrecentyearstheemphasisison3Dvirtualreconstructionandvisualizationofcomplexarchitectures(cf.the3D-ARCH[ISPRS&CIPA]workshops,http://www.3d-arch.org).



As with other environments our key point with regards to archaeological 3D virtual realityenvironments is that they usually do not support research collaboration, hence do not qualify asVREs.Thisincludeson-siteCAVEs(e.g.Gaugeetal.2014;Knabbetal.2014;Smithetal.2013)aswellas many online 3D environments. Exceptions are some online virtual reality environments whichexperimentedwith tele-immersive approaches involving avatars or othermeansof co-presenceofandcommunicationbetweenresearchers(Forte&Pietroni2009;Kurilloetal.2010;Kurillo&Forte2012).Bennettetal.(2014)conductedexperimentswitharchaeologiststoevaluatetheirpreferenceofandactualcapability to identifyarchaeologically relevant featureswithaGISdesktop,a3Dwebapplication,andaCAVE-typeimmersivesystem.TheyfoundthatthearchaeologiststendedtoprefertheCAVEsystembutperformedbetterwiththe3DWebapplication;onlyonepreferredusingaGISdesktopapplication.

4.5.5 DataArchivesasCollaboratories

IntheliteraturedataarchivingandpublicationservicesaresometimespresentedascollaboratoriesorpotentialVREs.Forexample,amongthefourexamplesofarchaeologicalcollaboratoriesidentifiedby the ScienceofCollaboratoriesproject (seeSection4.3.1) is the formerUKArts andHumanitiesDataService(AHDS)andtheTransatlanticArchaeologyGateway(TAG)project.Amongthefivedigitalarchives of the AHDSwas one for archaeological data.When the AHDS ceased operation in 2008(after cut of JISC funding) only this archive survived and became the Archaeological Data Service(ADS). The Transatlantic Archaeology Gateway investigated cross-searching of and semanticinteroperability between digital records of the Archaeology Data Service (UK) and The DigitalArchaeological Record (tDAR) archive of the Digital Antiquity consortium (USA). TAG alsoimplementedaprototypic searchportal. Theprojectwas carriedout2009-2011, jointly fundedbytheJISC(UK)andtheNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities(USA).

AlisonBabeuprovidesanextensiveoverviewe-researchenvironmentsdevelopedforDigitalClassics(Babeu2011). In the chapteron classical archaeology shementions theArchaeologyData Service,The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), and the archaeological data publication platform OpenContext(AlexandriaArchiveInstitute).Similarly,articlesinavolumeonArchaeology2.0(Kansaetal.2011)addresstheArchaeologyDataServiceandOpenContextasinnovativeservicesfordatasharingand access (Richards et al. 2011; Kansa & Whitcher-Kansa 2011). Data archives can indeed beunderstoodascollaboratoriesfordatamobilization,sharingandaccesshoweverwedonotsubsumethemunderVREs.Theiractivitiesallowthe“collaborative”buildingofdigitalresources,butthereisnodirectinteractionbetweenthedatasharersandusers,hence,noonlineresearchcollaboration.

However,weseesomepotentialfordataarchivestobecomeVREs,iftheyincorporateaddedvalueservices for researchtasks.Forexample, theArchaeologyDataServicehas implementeda3DHOP-based3Dviewerforaccessingandexploring3Dmodelsdepositedintheirdigitalarchive.Theviewerextends the web-based browsing functionality of the ADS project archives by enabling users tobrowse 3D geometry directly. The greater ambition is to provide an interactive 3D web-basedworking environment for the management, visualisation and analysis of archaeological data. Thiswould include different layers of archaeological stratigraphy, e.g. 3D metric reproductions of theexcavationprocess,andtheinterpretationsmadebydifferentscholarsofthesamecontext(Galeazzi2015;Galeazzietal.2016).



4.5.6 VERAandVariousOtherExamples

VERA-VirtualEnvironmentforResearchinArchaeology

In the literature themost often described example of an archaeological VRE is VERA, the VirtualEnvironment for Research in Archaeology, which has been developed in the context of the large-scaleexcavationsoftheSilchesterTownLifeProject(UK).VERAwasfundedinthefirstandsecondphase of the JISC VRE Programme and ran fromDecember 2004 toMarch 2009. The projectwascarried out by the University Reading (Department of Archaeology and School of SystemsEngineering) in partnership with the York Archaeological Trust and the University College London(SchoolofLibrary,ArchiveandInformationStudies).TheUCLresearchersconductedtheusertestingandanalysisinthesecondphaseoftheproject.

VERAbuiltonthefunctionalityoftheIntegratedArchaeologicalDatabase(IADB)andaddedfeatureswhich improved the online collaboration of the excavators and finds specialists, particularly thosegeographicallyremotefromtheprojectbaseorinvolvedwiththeprojectonapart-timebasis(Rains2011 and 2015). Furthermore, the VERA project trialled data entry with digital pens and mobiledevices.ThreepapersattheCAA2009inWilliamsburgdescribevariousaspectsoftheVERAproject,includingthetechnicalinfrastructure(Mills&Baker2009)andissuesintheintegrationofnewtoolssuchashand-helddevicesinestablishedarchaeologicalpractice(Clarke&O’Riordan2009;Fisheretal.2009;seealsoWarwicketal.2009).

VariousOtherExamples

Here we briefly describe four examples that do not fit in the categories such as GIS or 3Denvironmentsaddressedabovebutpresentsomeinterestingaspects.

BoneCommons

BoneCommons is an open access system aimed to advance communication and sharing ofinformationwithinthezooarchaeologicalcommunity.ItissponsoredbytheInternationalCouncilforArchaeozoology (ICAZ) and managed by the Alexandria Archive Institute (Whitcher-Kansa &Deblauwe2011;Whitcher-Kansa&Kansa2011).TheBoneCommonswebsiteisbasedontheOmekaopen source content management software. It hosts information of the ICAZ NeotropicalZooarchaeologyWorkingGroup(meetings,newsletter,bibliography)andoffersforums/collectionstowhich researchers can post announcements, publications and data (mainly images of bonespecimens). The website also experimented with displaying a filtered subset of zooarchaeologyrelatedcontent fromtheOpenContextdatapublishingplatform.All informationcomeswithclearlicensinginformationandcitationandisarchivedproperly.Particularlyinterestingisthedatasharingfunctionalitywhichmostoftenisbeingusedforseekinghelpofcolleagueswiththeidentificationofbonespecimens.

ETANA

Babeu(2011)inachapterondigitalclassicalarchaeologymentionstheETANA-ElectronicToolsandAncient Near Eastern Archives. ETANA is an advanced digital library, built since 2000 in a multi-institutional collaborative effort. It allows searching of various resources, but research tools aremissing. For example, the eTACT resource (translations of Akkadianmaterials), could benefit fromsupporting tools.CurrentlyeTACTcontainsonly29 translations,although ithasbeenpromotedbytheInternationalAssociationforAssyriology.

FAIMS

The FAIMS - Field Acquired InformationManagement Systems (formerly Federated ArchaeologicalInformationManagement Systems) initiative developed e-infrastructure, tools and services for thearchaeology sector in Australia (Ross et al. 2013 and 2015). The project has been funded by the



National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources (NeCTAR) program of the AustralianGovernment. FAIMS provides a suite of digital tools and services, including advanced mobilerecording applications, an online database system, and federated data services (i.e. The DigitalArchaeologicalRecord-tDARarchive),whichreplaceFAIMS’owndatarepository.FAIMSisnotaVREbutcanbeemployedtobuildone.AstheFAIMSsuiteof integratedtools/servicessupportsseveralstagesofthedatalifecycleitmayserveasaworkflowsystemforarchaeologicalsurveys.

OCHRE

TheOCHRE-OnlineCulturalHeritageResearchEnvironment isanotherdigitalclassicalarchaeologyexampleaddressedbyBabeu(2011).OCHRE isanadvancedonlinedatabasemanagementsolutionwhichhasaVREflavour.ThedevelopersofOCHREclaimthatitisparticularlywell-suitedforscholarlycollaborativeprojects.TheyemphasisetheOCHREdatamodelwhich,amongotherfeatures,allowsattributionofspecificcontenttothecontributingscholaranddistinctinterpretationsofsingleitemsbydifferentscholars.Furthermore,variousoptionstoshareandaccessdataaswellasinterfacesfordifferentusers/audiencesareprovided.FiveprojectsarepresentwithanopenlyaccessibleOCHREinstance,includingdigitalclassics(e.g.RasShamraTabletInventory)andarchaeologicalprojects(e.g.TheLeonLevyExpeditiontoAshkelon). It isalsoworthtomentionthattheOpenContextplatformusesasubsetoftheOCHREdatamodeltosupportdiverseculturalheritagecontent.

4.6 SummaryofVREs

Definitions

AsasummaryofthevariousattributesofaVREmentionedindifferentdefinitions:

o AVRE isasaweb-basedcollaborationenvironment thatprovidesan integratedsetof servicesand tools according to the needs of a community of researchers; the set comprises of data,communicationandothercollaborationsupportservicesandtools.

o In general, a VRE is not a stand-alone solution for one project or institution, but based oncommone-infrastructure.

o Therearesomecontradictoryorat leastdifficulttofulfilexpectationsfromaVRE, i.e.openvs.controlled, flexible vs. tailored, and domain vs. cross-domain. For example, a VRE for cross-domainresearchwilltendtoprovidegenericservices/toolsorrequiremuchtailoringtosupportcollaborativeworkonparticular,interdisciplinaryresearchquestions.

VREDevelopment

SomegeneralaspectsofthedevelopmentofVREsare:

o TherehavebeenalargenumberofprojectsaimedtodevelopaVRE.TheseincludedmanyVREsforhumanitiesscholarsandthemainfocusherewasstudiesoftextualcontent(e.g.inscriptions,papyri,manuscripts).

o OnlyfewVREprojectshadanarchaeologicalfocus.ThemainexampleistheVirtualEnvironmentfor Research in Archaeology – VERA, developed in the UK, with funding from the JISC VREProgramme.

o Otherprojectswhichconcernedarchaeologicaldata,butdonotqualifyasVREs,forexampleareArtsandHumanitiesDataService–Archaeology,TransatlanticArchaeologyGateway(UK/USA),Digital Collaboratory for Cultural Dendrochronology (Netherlands) and the IANUS - ResearchDataCentreforArchaeologyandClassicalStudies(Germany).Thesearecollaboratoriesaimedtobuildshareddataresources.



o The fundingofVREprojectscontributedto thedevelopmentofhumanitiese-researchcentres,for example the centres at Oxford University and King’s College London and the VirtualKnowledgeStudiosintheNetherlands.

o Astypicalforresearch&technologicaldevelopmenttherewereprojectsfundedmorethanonce,ideallytoproceedfromaprototypetoaproductivesolution.This,however,happenedonlyinafewcases,forexamplePunditandScratchpads.ThesearesolutionsforbuildingVREs:Punditfordigitalhumanitiesresearchwithafocusontextualcontent,Scratchpadsfortaxonomyandotherbiodiversityresearch.

o Thecurrentdevelopment trend is tobuildVREsontopof researchdata infrastructures.This isevident in the Research Infrastructures strand of the EU Horizon 2020 as well as in nationalfundingprogrammes.

TaxonomiesofVREsandResearchActivities

Someprojectshavedevelopedsystematicsofonlinecollaboratories,virtuallaboratoriesorVREs,andtaxonomies of activities scholars could carry out with resources (services, tools, content/data)providedbysuchenvironments:

o The Science of Collaboratories (SoC) project categorised a large number online collaboratoriesbased on the type of resource to be shared and the type of activity to be performed. Theresource could be tools, information or knowledge, and the type of activity to be performedonlineeitheraggregationorco-creation.NewknowledgewouldbebroughttogetherbyaVirtualCommunityofPracticewhileco-creationofknowledgebya(virtual)DistributedResearchCenter.

o In the context of the UK E-Science Programme a taxonomy of Virtual Laboratories has beenproposedandappliedtoanumberpilotprojects.Thetaxonomydistinguishessuchlaboratoriesbased on their primary function and activities in four categories: community-centric, data-centric,computation-centric,and interaction-centric.Furthermore,specificcharacteristicsallowdistinguishing different exemplars within these categories. For example, if a data-centriccollaborationfocusesmoreoncreatingorsharingofdata.

o Taxonomies of so called “scholarly primitives” distinguish different activities and sub-tasks ofscholarly work in all or a larger number of research domains. While the previous twoclassificationschemesfocusontypesofVREs,thesetaxonomiesdetail theactivitiesthataVREcouldsupport.WelookedintotwotaxonomiesTaDiRAHandNeDiMAHwhichrecentlyhavebeendevelopedfordigitalhumanities.

o The Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities (TaDiRAH) has been mainlydevelopedforregistriesofresearchresources,i.e.theDiRTdirectoryoftools.Itbreaksdowntheresearchprocess(lifecycle)intoeighthigh-level“goals”(e.g.Creation,AnalysisorDissemination),eachwithasetof“methods”(e.g.SpatialAnalysis).Furthermore,researchtoolbasedactivitiescanbedistinguishedwithregardspecifictechniques(e.g.Georeferencing)andresearchobjects(e.g.maps).Amachine-readableversionofTaDiRAHisavailableinW3CSKOS(SimpleKnowledgeOrganizationSystem)format.BesidetheDiRTdirectoryadoptionofthetaxonomyisreportedlyintendedbytheDHCommonsdirectoryofdigitalhumanitiesprojects.

o TheNeDiMAHMethodsOntology (NEMO)providesamodelof researchactorsandtheirgoals,processes (activities and methods), and resources (content/data, concepts, tools) manifest inscholarlydigitalpractices.Asanontology ithasdefinedclasses (27)andproperties (42),whichmeans that the semantic relations between the (abstract) entities involved in the modelledpracticesareformallydefined/typed.Atthelevelofclasstypesconceptsofavailabletaxonomiescan be used (e.g. 161 concepts for ActivityType). NeMO has been implemented in machine-readableW3CRDFSchema,withthetypetaxonomiesinW3CSKOS(asTaDiRAH).Reportedlyitis



also generally compliant with the CIDOC Conceptual ReferenceModel (CIDOC-CRM). One usecasehasbeenreportedrecently.

o Onemotivation to look into TaDiRAH and NEMO has been that such knowledge organisationsystemsmightbeusedforprocessessupportedVREs.AtaxonomylikeTaDiRAHcouldbeusedtostructure and annotate available content, tools and other research resources to make thembetter discoverable. NeMO might be developed further to support research workflows. Anapplication using such an ontology could help tie together sequences of VRE based activities,includingtools,content/dataandotherresources.

o Workflowmanagement systemsarequite common in thephysical andbiological sciences, butnot yet in the humanities. In archaeology “paperless”, usually mobile data recording in fieldsurveysandexcavations isoneof the recentdevelopments tomakeworkflowsmoreseamlessand effective. A suite of tools and services that supports several steps of the archaeologicalworkflowistheFAIMSsystem.

o We expect that in near future support for the researchworkflow (or lifecycle), i.e. thewholeresearch data lifecycle,will become an important topic. A save bet here is that itwill requiremuchattentiontostandards,includingdata,metadataandvocabularies.

o At the higher level ofmethodologies, one case study of this report addresses the potential offormalised descriptions ofmethodological practices.One scenario is amethodology composerthat allows archaeologists to select the methods components they need for a project andassemblestheminaVREwhichsupportstheirdifferenttasksandworkflows.

VREsinCurrentArchaeology

Thetopicofvirtualresearchenvironmentsorcollaboratorieshasbeenaroundsincemanyyearsanda lot of research has already been carried out to conceive, develop and implement solutions,specificallyalsoforresearchersinthehumanities.However,fewhadanarchaeologicalfocusandthemainexampleofaVREistheVERAVirtualEnvironmentforResearchinArchaeology.

Looked at from a wider perspective, there are various environments that archaeologists use forcarryingoutandpresentingresultsoftheirresearch.TheseincludeGIS-basedenvironments,3DandVirtualRealityenvironments,projectwikis,anddomaindatabasesandarchives,amongothers.

In our reviewweapplied asmain criterion for aVRE that it should allowweb-based collaborativeresearch. An environment that lacks such a collaborative component, i.e. research-focusedinteractionbetweenresearchers,wouldnotbeconsideredasaVRE.Ontheotherhand,aplatformmainlyforresearchcommunicationisalsonotaVRE.

The main result of our survey is that most identified environments lack a component forcollaborativeresearchinaninteractivemode:

o Data archiving and publication services: In the literature these are sometimes presented asresearch collaboratories. Their activities allow the building of content/data resources, buttypicallythereisnodirect interactionbetweenthedatasharersandusersinvolved.VREscouldincludesuchservicesforsuchinteraction.

o Web GIS-based environments: Are among the most widely employed environments archaeo-logists are using. A Web GIS allows the visualization and exploration of geo-referenced datastored in the database underlying the online frontend. Project members collaborate throughbuildingacommonresourcebyaddingandannotatingcontentinthedatabase.

o Web3Denvironments:Thesearemainlyemployedtopresentandallowexplorationofproductssuch3Dmodels of objects, buildings, sites and landscapes, including virtual reconstructions.Amorerecenttrendisincreasinguseof3DWebGISinarchaeology.



o OnlineVirtualRealityenvironments:Canallowuserstoexploretherepresentedenvironmentandobjectswithin it. Avatars or othermeans of co-presence can allow user to communicatewitheach other. There have been experiments with tele-immersive approaches for collaborativeresearch,butitseemsunlikelythatareadoptedbypracticingarchaeologists.

o Wiki-basedcollaboration:Manyprojectsusewikistodescribeandcommunicateongoingwork.There are also examples where a wiki is being used by archaeologists for the collaborativedocumentationandinterpretationoftheresearchcontent.

o Social media platforms: This category includes content sharing and information disseminationplatformssuchasFlickr,SlideShare,YouTube,Facebook,Twitter (andothers)whichclearlyarenotVREs.AlsodedicatedplatformssuchasAcademia.eduorResearchGatearenotVREsasthesemainlyserveprofessionalnetworkingandinformationsharingpurposes.

Somegeneralcharacteristicsofthedigitalenvironmentofarchaeology(seenasawhole)are

o Itcomprisesofamixofvarious,mostlyproject-centredenvironments,

o Theseenvironmentsareoftenisolated,notoronlylooselyconnectedtoothers,

o Todaythemainvariantofanarchaeologicale-researchenvironmentarguablyistheWebGISofanexcavationproject.



5 CaseStudies

5.1 IntroductionandOverview

Thischapterpresentsseveralcasestudiescorrespondingtodifferentdigitalarchaeologysettingsandapproaches. The objectives of theWP17 case studies have been to collect and review cases of e-research systems and tools that are currently being used by the archaeological community and,basedonthisreview,considerwhatisrequiredforadvancesine-archaeology.

Thecasestudieshavebeenproducedaspilot investigations for thedevelopmentofe-archaeologyscenarios and future experiments in the context of theARIADNEdata infrastructure and portal. Acommonperspectiveofthestudiesisthepotentialdevelopmentofvirtualresearchenvironmentsontopoforconnectedtothedatainfrastructure.

TheWP17investigationsaredifferentfromthoseofthepilotdeploymentexperimentsconductedinWorkPackage14.TheWP14demonstratorsemployedtheadvancedtoolsandservicesdevelopedinARIADNEtodemonstratetheirinnovativecapabilities;theirresultsarepresentedinDeliverable14.2.Comparedtothese,mostWP17casestudiesintentionallyaddressalowertechnologicalleveltoalignwithsystemsandtoolsarchaeologistsarefamiliarwith.

Thecasestudiescoverawiderangeofe-archaeologytopicsandsubjectmatters,

o Archaeologicalmethodology

o Archaeologicalontologies

o E-infrastructureVREatthenationallevel

o 3Darchaeology

o Geo-physicalsurveying

o Physicalanthropology

o Archaeobotany

The studies describe exemplary current practices in the respective area, recent advances and/orexisting shortcomings, and outline how the area could be developed further. The conclusions andrecommendations can concern adoption of novel approaches, standards,methods, tools or othermeans,dependingonthetopicsandsubjectareasaddressed.



5.2 ArchaeologicalMethodology(CSIC)

5.2.1 IntroductionandOverviewArchaeologistsnotonlydocument thephysical evidences that they findor the interpretationsandconclusionsthattheydraw.Theyalsoneedtodocumenttheresearchprocessitself;inotherwords,what they do and how they do it. This is often done in a descriptivemanner, so that a record isgeneratedof thework thatwasdone, theproducts thatweregenerated,and the teamsandtoolsinvolved, usually with the goal to provide context for whatever research question was beingaddressed.However,itcanalsobedoneinaprescriptivemanner,toguidefutureprojectsregardingwhatworkistobedone,whatkindsofartefactsshouldbegenerated,andwhoshouldtacklewhat.Whateverwayitisdone,therigorousdescriptionofarchaeologicalmethodologiesisacrucialaspectofarchaeologicalresearch,andcomprisesthefocusofthiscasestudy.

Throughthiscasestudy,differentarchaeologicalpracticeshavebeenstudiedandanalysedwiththeaim to create semi-formal models of them by using the Situational Method Engineering (SME)approach. SMEacknowledges that “no size fits all”, that is, no singlemethodology is applicable toeverysituation,andthereforemethodologiesmustbesituatedinacontext.Also,itusesanapproachby which methodologies are not considered to be monolithic, but made of individual methodcomponents that get assembled together into ameaningfulwhole. These components are usuallytakenfromanexistingrepositoryandimprovedduringuse,thusachievingavirtuousfeedbackloopthatsystematicallyreuseseverimprovingmethodologicalknowledge.

A method component repository was created as part of the work, and populated with methodcomponents derived from several of the analysed archaeological practices. This constitutes a firststep towards a potential virtual research environment for "method composing", as described in apreviouschapter.

5.2.2 CurrentDigitalPractices

SituationalMethodEngineering

Thecomprehensivestudyandanalysisofmethodologies,regardlessoftheirfieldofapplication,hasbeen tackled for the last couple of decades by the field of situationalmethod engineering (SME).AlthoughSMEwasbornasadisciplineinsidesoftwareengineering(KumarandWelke1992;RollandandPrakash1996),ithassincebeenappliedtoavarietyoffields,suchasbusinessprocessmodelling(Gonzalez-PerezandHenderson-Sellers2010),archaeology(Gonzalez-PerezandHug2013)andotherareas of the humanities (Hug et al. 2011). The fact that it is the word “method” (rather than“methodology”)whichappearsin“situationalmethodengineering”obeystohistoricalreasons,andtheliteraturehasrepeatedlyremarkedthat“method”and“methodology”shouldbeunderstoodassynonymswithinthiscontext(ISO/IEC2014,section3.2).

SME acknowledges that each methodology needs to be specifically situated, or adjusted to theproject or endeavour to which it is going to be applied. At the same time, it tries to avoidcircumstancesthat involvereinventingthewheeleverytime,byprovidingasolidknowledgereuseframework, so that methodologies are never created from scratch. In particular, and from theperspective of SME, a methodology is not a monolithic entity, but an assembly of methodcomponents that are carefully connected together after being selected from a pre-existingrepository. Once amethodology has been created by assembling selected components, it can beenacted on an endeavour (i.e. applied to a project or other activity). During enactment, theperformanceofeachcomponentcanbeassessed,andtheresultofthisevaluationfedbackintotherepository in the formof improvements to thecomponentsstoredthere.Thisway,methodologiesthat are assembled in the future from the improved components will take advantage from the



accumulated enhancements that occur over time, thanks to the ongoing feedback loop. Figure 3showsanoverviewoftheprocessesinvolved.

Figure 3. Overview of the dynamics of Situational Method Engineering (SME). The three major processesinvolvedaredepictedasdarkblueboxes.Methodcomponentsaredepictedassmallhexagons.Thecontinuousimprovementloopisdepictedasalightbluecirculararrowinthebackground.

Thereareafewaspectsthatneedtobeclarified.Firstofall,andasdescribedin(Gonzalez-PerezandHug2013;Gonzalez-PerezandHenderson-Sellers2008),methodcomponentsarereusable,atomic,self-containedpackagesofmethodologicalknowledge, i.e.knowledgethat is relatedtohowthingsshould be done, what artefacts are involved in doing them, who should do them, or similarmethodologicalaspects.DifferentcoloursinFigure3aremeanttodepictdifferent“kinds”ofmethodcomponents(butseebelowinthissectionforfurtherdiscussiononthispoint).

Secondly, and although it is often assumed that the collection of method components in therepositorychangeslittleovertime,thespecificwaysinwhichmethodcomponentsarecombinedinordertomakeupmethodologiesarehighlydiverse,asarethewaysinwhichsaidmethodologiescanbe later enacted on specific endeavours.Method construction andmethod enactment, therefore,rely heavily onmethodological requirements, shown in green in Figure 3. These requirements areoften described in terms of what outcomes (such as documents, theoretical models or physicalobjects)theendeavourisaimingtoachieve,theconditionsoftheenvironmentwheretheendeavourwilltakeplace(suchasanytimeorresourceconstraintsthattheremayexist),andthesociotechnicalcharacteristicsoftheorganisationalenvironment(suchasteammanagementstyleorevenpersonalpreferences).

Third and last, what types ofmethod component are considered, and theways inwhichmethodcomponentscanbeassembledandenactedareoftenregulatedbyaformalismcalledametamodel.This metamodel acts as a “grammar” that dictates what kinds of combinations are permissible,avoiding meaningless arrangements. The metamodel is not depicted in Figure 3, but it can bethought of as a set of operating rules that permeate everything that one does in SME, like thegrammar rules thatunderpin theEnglish languagewhenweuse it to talkorwrite. Thus, having a

Requirements

MethodConstruction

MethodEnactment

RepositoryMaintenance

repository

newcomponents

performancedata

methodology

endeavour

methodcomponents



solid and expressive metamodel is crucial for a successful application of SME. This case studyselectedtheISO/IEC24744standardmetamodelforthispurpose.

PreviousWorks

Theapplicationofsituationalmethodengineeringtothehumanities ingeneral,andarchaeology inparticular,hasbeenvery scarceso far.However, some initialworks strongly suggest thatSMEcanprovidesignificantbenefitstothearchaeologicalpractice.

In(Gonzalez-PerezandHug2013),theauthorsproposethehypothesisthatSME"canbeappliedtotheconstruction,documentationand improvementofmethodologies inarchaeologyand,possibly,the humanities and social sciences in general, as a response to a long-standing and increasingdemandforattentiontoprocess-relatedissueswithinthesecommunities".Also,theyidentifyseveralbenefits of doing so, including the fact that methodologies tailored to specific projects could bequickly assembled from well-known components; they would be easier to communicate andinstitutionalise,becausethecomponentstheyaremadeofwouldbealreadydocumented;andtheywouldbeeasiertoimproveovertime.

In(Hugetal.2011),theauthorsshowthattheprocessmodelsthatareoftenusedinthehumanities(and in archaeology in particular) are barely suitable, and that finding an adequate modellinglanguagetodescribemethodologiesisveryimportant.

In (Gonzalez-Perez and Martín-Rodilla 2013), the authors describe the initial analysis of textualsources of methodological knowledge in archaeology in order to construct a method componentrepository.Benefitsreportedincludeobtainingahigh-qualityrecordofwhatwasdone,when,howandbywhom;thepossibilitytoverifythateveryartefactproducedinaprojecthasawell-knowngoalandisusedforsomething;andthefactthatdynamicreplanningbecomesmucheasier.Despitethesebenefits, the authors identify some open issues, especially related to the fact that most of thesampled archaeological organisations rely heavily in tacit previous experience and develop veryscarceencodingoftheirknowledge.

In(Gonzalez-Perez,Martín-Rodilla,andEpure2016),theauthorsreportonamoreadvancestageofthesameworkasabove,andintroduceanexplicitconnectiontonatural languageprocessing(NLP)techniquesinordertoassisttheanalysisofthetextualsources.Theneedforspecifictoolsthathelparchaeologistsexploitmethodcomponentrepositoriesishighlighted.

Insummary,thescarceliteratureonthetopicseemstosuggestthat:• There is a need to develop and/or adopt suitable modelling languages to express and

communicatemethodologiesinarchaeology.• Tacit knowledge "in the head"must be extracted and put "in the system", if wewant to

benefitfromthemethodologyimprovementfeedbackloop.• Specific tools to manipulate and exploit method components repositories are needed;

withoutthem,SMEisdifficulttoapply.

ISO/IEC24744

ISO/IEC 24744 Metamodel for Development Methodologies (ISO/IEC 2014) is an internationalstandardthatdefinesa“grammar”forsituationalmethodengineering.Itcontainsaformallanguage,a recommended graphical notation, and a collection of usage and extension guidelines. ISO/IEC24744ishighlyextensible,sothatshortcomingswithregardtoitsapplicationtoWP17canbeeasilyresolvedbycustom-madeextensions.TheISO/IEC24744extensionmechanismishighlyformalandwelldocumentedaspartofthestandardspecification,sovery littleambiguity is introducedatthispoint.



The most basic aspect that is regulated by a metamodel for SME is what types of methodcomponents may exist, and how they can be combined with one another. According to ISO/IEC24744,theessentialmethodcomponenttypesareasfollows:

• Workunits.Aworkunitisajobthatiscarriedout,orintendedtobecarriedout,withinanendeavour. These include large-grained jobs that describe an area of expertise (calledprocesses), small-grained jobs that focus onwhat is to be done (called tasks), and small-grainedjobsthatfocusonhowtodoit(calledtechniques).

• Workproducts.Aworkproduct isathingof interesttotheendeavour,eitherbecause it iscreated by it or because it is used by it, or both. Pre-defined subtypes of work productsincludedocuments andmodels.Additionalarchaeology-orientedsubtypesweredefinedasthroughextension,asdescribedinthenextsection.

• Producers.Aproducerisanagentthathastheresponsibilitytocarryoutworkunits.Typesofproducers include the individuals involved in theendeavour (appropriatelycalledpersons),theabstractsetsofresponsibilitiesthataredefinedandnamed(calledroles),anyorganisedset of producers that collectively focus on common work units (called teams), and eveninstruments that help other producers to better carry out their responsibilities in anautomatedfashion(calledtools).

• Stages. A stage is a managed time frame within the endeavour. Work units (see above)describewhat is supposed tobedone,but theydonot saywhen.Stages,on thecontrary,establisha time frame forworkunits tooccur.Themajor typesof stagesare thoseduringwhichtheendeavourchangeslevelsofabstraction(calledphases),andthosethatrepresentapointintimethatmarkasignificanteventwithintheendeavour(calledmilestones).

ISO/IEC 24744 also defines other relevant types of method components and additional concepts,such asactions,outcomes,guidelines, languages andnotations. Additionally, it defines attributes(i.e. properties) of each of these concepts; for example, it defines that every work product(regardlessof itssubtype)hasaTitle,aCreationTime,andaStatus,whichcanbe Initial,Complete,Accepted orApproved. Similarly, ISO/IEC24744defineswhat relationships exist between concepts(thusdetermininghowmethodcomponentsofeachtypemaybeassembledtogether);forexample,it defines that each task may cause effects on work products, and that these effects may be ofseveraltypes(Create,Modify,ReadOnlyorDelete).AcomprehensivedescriptionofISO/IEC24744isbeyondthescopeofthisreport;therelevantaspectsthatareneededtounderstandeachsectionwillbebrieflydescribedondemand. Inaddition,andfor furtherdetailsaboutthestandard,pleasesee(Gonzalez-PerezandHug2013)foraspecificapplicationtoarchaeologicalmethodologies,(Gonzalez-Perez andHenderson-Sellers 2006) for an ontology-oriented description, or (ISO/IEC 2014) for thecompletespecification.

5.2.3 CaseStudyAsshowninFigure3,situationalmethodengineering(SME) isbasedontheexistenceofamethodcomponent repository, i.e. a database of suitablemethod components. In the case ofWP17, thismeans that a good collection of archaeologicalmethod componentsmust be gathered in the firstplace.Withoutthis,thefeedbackloop,andthustheaddedvalueofSME,willnotwork.MuchoftheworkdonesofarinWP17fitsintothe“RepositoryMaintenance”boxinFigure3;inotherwords,itaims at the production of solid, reusable method components that can be later used byarchaeologistsaspartoftheirmethodologies.

TheSMEliteratureshowsthatthebestwaytopopulatearepositorywithmethodcomponentsisto“mine” them out of existing methodologies (Gonzalez-Perez et al. 2004; Henderson-Sellers,Debenham, and Tran2004),which areoften expressed in natural language. Project partnerswere



asked todocument theirusualpracticeswitha five-monthdeadline, andweregiven the followingguidelines:

Documentation should be concise and informal. Use plain English, diagrams, tables orwhateverothermeansyoufindnecessarytodescribetheworkthatyourorganisationand/oryourpartnerscarryout.Pleasefocusonthefollowingaspects:

• Theprocessthatyoufollow,i.e.whattasks,activitiesortechniquesyouperform.• The products that you engage, i.e. what documents, models, artefacts and other

relevantthingsyouuseand/orcreateduringsaidprocess.• Thepeopleinchargeoftheformer,i.e.whatteams,rolesoreventoolsareemployed.• Thestagesthatyouusetoorganisealloftheaboveovertime,i.e.whatmajorphases

ormilestonesareimportantinyourwork.

A wide array of archaeological practices was documented in this manner, covering the followingareas:

• 2Dand3Ddocumentationoffeaturesandlandscapes• Sitelocationanalysis• Recordingduringsurveying• Recordingduringexcavation• Recordingofrockart• Recordingandanalysisofstratigraphy• Managementandtreatmentoffinds• Analysis of stone, ceramic,wood, charcoal, phytolith, carpological, humananthropological,

andarchaeozoologicalfinds• Strontiumandoxygenisotopeanalysis• Archaeologicalimpactmanagement• Publicationofarchaeologicalresults

All inputwas collected and analysed centrally. The documents providedwere in plain English andmadeheavyuseofgraphicsandothernon-discursivematerial.Mostofthedocumentswerehighlystructuredaroundthefoursuggestedaxes(process,products,peopleandstages).Thelevelofdetailvariedsignificantlybetweendocumentsandbetweensources,andevenwithinthesamedocument,ranging from very abstract descriptions of processes to highly detailed accounts of protocols anddatastructures.Therewassomethematicoverlapbetweendocuments,whichwasverywelcomesothatmultipleapproachestosolvingthesameproblemscouldbeobtained.

Analysisconsistedoftheidentificationofdiscourseelementsintheprovideddocumentsthatmadeclearreferencetoindividualworkunits,workproducts,producers,orstages;thecharacterisationofthe corresponding method component; and its cross-referencing to other method componentsextractedfromrelateddiscourseelements.Figure4illustratesthisprocess.



Figure 4. Excerpt of the Charcoal Analysis document provided by one of the partners. Colours are used tohighlightdifferentelementsofthediscoursethathavebeenidentifiedasmakingreferencetospecificmethodcomponents.Thetextannotationsaroundthecolouredexcerptareasampleoftheanalyst’snotes.

Analysis was conducted mostly by hand and by SME specialists with a significant experience inarchaeology.Also,Natural LanguageProcessing (NLP) techniqueswereemployedas an aid to findprocess-product relationships in the texts (Gonzalez-Perez, Martín-Rodilla and Epure, 2016). AsFigure 4 shows, the analysis process not only identified method components from the provideddocuments;italsoraisedinterestingquestionsandhighlightedfurtherareastoexplore.Inaddition,the analysis process on the provided documentation suggested that ISO/IEC 24744 should beextended in order to cope with a number of new demands. The next section describes thesetechnologicaladaptations.

ImplementedExtensionstoISO/IEC24744

WhenapplyingISO/IEC24744toadomainotherthansoftwareengineering,itistobeexpectedthatan extension is necessary, in order to add the required concepts.WP17 of ARIADNE entailed theanalysisofasmallcorpusoftextsdescribingdifferentportionsofarchaeologicalmethodologies,andthe constructionof a database to store andmanage thismethodological knowledge.During theseworks,theconceptualneedsforanISO/IEC24744extensionbecameapparent.Theseneedscanbesummarisedasfollows.

1. The subtypes of WorkProduct that are included in ISO/IEC 24744 were insufficient forarchaeologicalwork. In particular, two kinds ofwork productswere foundmissing: purelycognitiveartefactsthatexistonlyinthemindofaproducer,suchasaplanorahypothesis;and physical objects that are relevant to the archaeological record, such as a rock, aconstructionoracoalfragment.

2. Thestandarddoesnotdistinguishbetweenworkproductsthatarecreatedbytheendeavourteamfromthosethatareprovidedbyexternalpartiesorarereadilyavailabletowithintheorganisation.Thesetwosituationsturneduptobeverycommoninarchaeologicalworks.

3. Sometimes,aworkproductsuchasadocumentoramodelgoesthroughdifferentstatesasthe endeavour progresses. The work product is still the same, but its state changes. Forexample,a3Dmodelofanarchaeologicalfeaturemaystartitslifeasadraft,thenmovetorevised,andendupasfinalasmoredetailsareaddedandchecksperformed.Thestandarddoesn’tcaterforworkproductstates,sothisfeatureneedstobeadded.

4. Work in WP17 showed that, in some cases, the methodology being applied to anarchaeological project is often awork product aswell. This entails a non-trivial degree ofrecursiveness.Forexample,somedecisionsthatanexcavationdirectormaymakeonwhattechniquetousetocontinuediggingdependontheoutcomesofpreviousdiggingwork;thismeans that the enactment of the methodology (what technique to use) is affected by

Beforeanalysiscanstart, a licensetoalter (an archaeologicalobject)hastobeobtainedbythearchaeologistfromtheNationalMuseumofIrelandinDublin.InotherEuropeancountries,thisisnotalwaysneeded.

One charcoal fragment is randomly selected from a sample. Using abinocular microscope or lens with low magnification (usually x10-x90)generalobservationsaremadeandmeasurements (length,width,height)takenwithanelectroniccalliperinmm.

Thecharcoalpiecesareusuallyheldwiththefingersbutwhencharcoal isvery fragile it can be impregnated in polyethylene glycol and cut intoslices.

Process

Task

Technique

Workproduct

Tool

Process“PermissionRequest”,tobedescribed.

Task“Selectfragmentfromsample”;Howisrandomnessguaranteed?

Task“Makegeneralobservations”;

Whatisthefocus/goal?

Technique“Polyethyleneglycolimpregnation”;Findoutdetails.



informationgeneratedduringtheenactmentitself(outcomesofpreviousdiggingwork).Thestandardcannotcapturethisinformationinitsbaseform.

Needs 2 and 3 are not particularly specific to archaeology, and can certainly be relevant to anydomain.Forthisreason,wehavenotedthemdownaspotentialimprovementsforafuturerevisionofISO/IEC24744.Need1,ontheotherhand, isspecificallyarchaeological.Need4, inturn,maybeapplicable tootherdomainsaswell, although some research isneeded toascertain thedegree towhichdifferentdisciplinesemploytherecursivenatureofenactmentasdescribedabove.

This section contains the semi-formal specification of the ISO/IEC 2474 extension for archaeology,expressedthroughUMLclassdiagramsandnaturallanguage,andfollowingasimilarstructureasinthestandarditself.Italsocontainsmatchingnotationalextensions.Thenotationalgraphicalfamiliesused by the standard have been maintained so that the new symbols integrate well with thestandardones.

WorkProductSubtypes

Fourclassesintwopowertypepatternshavebeenintroduced,asshowninFigure5andFigure6.Thissatisfiesneednumber1above.

Figure5.Newworkproductendeavour-levelclasses,highlightedingreen.

Figure6.Newworkproductmethod-levelclasses,highlightedingreen.Modifiedclassesarehighlightedinblue.

The powertype patterns are composed by name-matching classes, following the same namingconventionasinthestandard:CognitiveElement/*KindandPhysicalObject/*Kind.

Acognitiveelementisapurelycognitiveworkproduct,inthemindofaproducer.Examplesincludeahypothesisoraplan.

Aphysicalobjectkindisaspecifickindofphysicalobject,characterisedbyitstypeaccordingtoanyrelevantclassificationscheme.

+CreationTime+LastChangeTime+Status

WorkProduct

+Title+Version

Document0..*

+RepresentedSubject

0..*

Model

SoftwareItem

HardwareItem

CompositeWorkProduct

0..*

1..*

CognitiveElement

PhysicalObject

+Description+IsExternallyAvailable+IsInternallyAvailable

WorkProductKind

DocumentKind0..*

+RepresentedSubject

0..*

ModelKind

SoftwareItemKind

HardwareItemKind

CompositeWorkProductKind+Composite

0..*

+Component

1..*

CognitiveElementKind

PhysicalObjectKind



Figure7showsthesymbolsusedforthenewclassesPhysicalObjectKindandCognitiveElementKind.

Figure7.SymbolsusedforPhysicalObjectKindandCognitiveElementKind.

WorkProductAvailability

Twoattributeshavebeenadded toWorkProductKind inorder to satisfyneednumber2above,asshowninFigure6.

IsExternallyAvailable (Boolean) specifies whether work products of this kind are readily availablefromexternalsourcesduringenactment.

IsInternallyAvailable (Boolean)specifieswhetherworkproductsofthiskindare internallyavailableintheorganisationduringenactment.

Figure8showsthenotationemployedtomarkworkproductkindsthatareexternallyandinternallyavailable,respectively.Thisnotationisbasedonthatofactionkinds.

Figure8.Symbolsused forexternallyand internallyavailableworkproductkinds, respectively.The"e" insidethecirclestandsfor"external",whereasthe"i"standsfor"internal".

WorkProductStates

Twoclassesinonepowertypepattern,aswellasanumberofassociations,havebeenintroducedtocaterforneednumber3above.ThisisshowninFigure9andFigure10.

Figure9.Newendeavour-levelclassandassociationsforworkproductstates,highlightedingreen.

Awork product state is an endeavour element representing a specific state of a particular workproduct. Forexample, if aparticulardocumentgoes fromdraft toapprovedwithinaproject,bothdraftandapprovedareworkproductstates.

<PhysicalObjectKind>

<CognitiveElementKind>

WorkProductKindA

e WorkProductKindB i

+CreationTime+LastChangeTime

WorkProductState

EndeavourElement


WorkProduct

1 0..*

Action0..*

0..1Took4

0..*

0..1

Produced4



Figure10.Newmethod-levelclassandassociationsforworkproductstates,highlightedingreen.

The powertype pattern is composed by name-matching classes, following the same namingconventionasinthestandard:WorkProductState/*Kind.

Aworkproductstatekind isaspecifickindofworkproductstate,characterisedbyitssemanticsinrelationtothelifecycleoftheassociatedworkproductkind.

Note thatactionsworkas themechanism thatentail state transitions forworkproductswithinanendeavour.Inthisregard,eachactionmaytakeaparticularinitialstateandproduceaparticularfinalstateuponcompletion.Similarly,actionkindscanbeusedtomodelwhatworkproductkindstatesarerequireduponstartandwhichareensureduponsuccessfulcompletion.

The different states that awork product kindmay be in a particularmethodological situation aredepictedaslabelsinsquarebracketsnexttotherelatedactionkindcircle,asshowninFigure11.

Figure11.Notationexampleforworkproductstates.Seethemaintextforadetaileddescription.

The"[Raw]"labelnexttothe"C"actionkindindicatesthatthe"Exporttotalstationdata"taskkindensuresthatthecoordinatelistfileproducedisleftinarawstate.The"[Raw]:[Fixed]"labelnexttothe"M"actionkind indicates that the"Post-process total stationdata" taskkind requires that thecoordinate list file tobemodified is ina rawstate,andensures that it is left ina fixedstateuponsuccessful completion. The text before the colon indicates a required or taken state,whereas thetextafterthecolonindicatesanensuredorproducedstate.

+Description+IsExternallyAvailable+IsInternallyAvailable

WorkProductKind

+NameWorkProductStateKind

1 0..*

+NameTemplate

+Type+Optionality+WorkProductRole

ActionKind

0..*

0..1

Requires4

0..*

0..1

Ensures4

Export total station data

Post-process total station data

CoordinateListFile

C

M

~

:[Raw]

[Raw]:[Fixed]



RecursivenessofEnactment

Neednumber4aboveisimplementedbytheadditionofanassociation,asshowninFigure12.

Figure12.Newassociationtosupportenactmentrecursiveness,highlightedingreen.

By using this association, situations can bemodelled where a particular work product (such as aredesigned work plan or altered hypothesis) occurring during an enactment determines, fully orpartially,anumberofassociatedworkunits(suchasanewtasktogatherextrainformationordiginadifferentplace).

Thefactthatworkproductsofaparticularkindmaydetermineoneormorekindsofworkunitscanbedepictedbyusingalabelledgenericlinkbetweentherelevantsymbols,asshowninFigure13.

Figure13.Notationexampleforenactmentrecursiveness.Theworkproductkindistheonewhichdeterminestheworkunitkind. Inthisexample,theoccurrenceofcoalfragmentsdeterminestheneedtocarryoutacoalanalysisprocess.

MethodComponentRepository

Once thenecessary extensions to ISO/IEC 24744were clear, amethod component repositorywasconstructed. This was implemented as a Microsoft Jet relational database, which implemented astructure following the ISO/IEC 24744 plus the added extensions. The database contents weredeliveredinXMLform,usingaschemachosenformaximuminteroperability.

RepositoryStructure

TheXMLrepositorythat isattachedtothisdocumenthasthefollowingstructure.19XMLfilesareprovidedinaZIPpackage,correspondingtothefollowing:

• 14 files correspond to ISO/IEC 24744 (or extension) classes. These are named after thematchingclass,suchas“ProcessKinds.xml”(forthe“Process”class).

• 4 filescorrespondto ISO/IEC24744 (orextension)associations.Thesearenamedafter thematching owner class and associationor role, such as “TeamKinds_Members.xml” (for the“TeamKind”classandits“Members”role).

• 1 filecorresponds to ISO/IEC24744 (orextension)enumeratedtypesand items.This file isnamed“_Enums.xml”.

EachXMLfilecontainsanembeddedXSDschemaplusdata.Cross-referencesaremanagedthroughrepository-uniquecodes.

ContentSample

A small selection of themethod components in the repository is shown below. These have beenobtainedasaresultofanalysingtheinputprovidedbypartnersusingthemethodologydescribedinprevioussections.

According to the documents provided by one of the partners, the “Total Station and GPSGeoreferencing” process comprises a series of tasks, such as “Create total station surveying


WorkProduct+StartTime+EndTime+Duration

WorkUnit+Cause

0..*

+Effect

0..*

Determines4

Coal Fragment Coal Analysis

Determines



network”, “Set up total station equipment”, etc. Roles such as “Total StationOperator” and toolssuchas“TotalStation”areidentified.Figure14showsadiagramdepictingthis.

Figure14.Processdiagramforthe“TotalStationandGPSGeoreferencing”processkindofoneofthepartners.TheISO/IEC24744graphicalnotationisused.Pleaseseethetextforadescriptionofthisfigure.

For some tasks, a number of optional techniques are provided; in Figure 14, three alternativetechniquesareshownfortasks“Setuptotalstationequipment”and“Collecttotalstationdata”.Forexample, one could choose to carryout these tasks by “Free Station in Local Coordinate System”,“PositioningbyResection”,or“PositioningbyGPS”.

Thetasksintheprocess,inturn,operateonaseriesofworkproductsand,indoingso,theseworkproductsgetcreated,changedandused.Figure15showsadiagramillustratingthis.

Total Station and GPS Georeferencing

ProK.2

Total Station

TolK.1

Create total station surveying network

TskK.1

Set up total station equipment

TskK.2

Collect total station data

TskK.3


TskK.4

Create drawing from total station data

TskK.6

TotalStationOperator

RolK.1

SurveyingAssistant

RolK.2

Drawing Software Package

TolK.3

Spreadsheet Software Package

TolK.2


TskK.5

Free Station in Local Coordinate

System

TchK.1

Positioning by Resection

TchK.2

Positioning by GPS

TchK.3

1

2

~



Figure15.Actiondiagramfor“TotalStationandGPSGeoreferencing”.TheISO/IEC24744graphicalnotationisused.Pleaseseethetextforadescriptionofthisfigure.

In Figure 15, the “Create total station surveying network” task is depicted as acting upon twodifferentworkproducts: it“reads” (i.e.usesbutwithoutmodifying) the“PhysicalCulturalHeritageElement”beingdocumented(which,bytheway,isexternallyavailable,asmarkedbyan“e”);anditcreates a new “Total Station Survey Network Parameters”. Other tasks operate on other workproductsofdifferenttypesallthewaydownto“DrawingFile”.

Thesetwoexamplesillustratetwodifferentlevelsintheabstractionscale:fromaveryabstractviewoftheprocessdiagraminFigure14tothehighlevelofdetailoftheactiondiagraminFigure15.Itisnot always possible or necessary to describemethodologies in as such a detailedmanner as thatshowninFigure15,butwehaveincludedithereforthesakeofillustration.

UsingtheMethodComponentRepository

Themethod component repositorywas circulated to collaborating partners, and several attemptswere made to use it in real-world settings to assist with the documentation of archaeologicalmethodologies. In most cases, significant barriers were found for adoption by final users (i.e.archaeologists),althoughconsultingwithanSMEspecialistalleviatedthelearningcurveremarkably.Also, it was found that most methodological carried out by the involved archaeologists was of adescriptive, rather than prescriptive, nature. Although the SME approach and the methodcomponent repository can be applied in this kind of setting, the benefits of the continuousimprovement loop aremaximised in prescriptive situations. The lack of specialized software toolsthat canhelpusers to explore the repository and composemethods from the stored componentswasanadditionalissue.

Physical Cultural Heritage Element

PhoK.3

SwiK.9

CoordinateListFile

SwiK.10

DrawingFile

Total Station Survey Network

Parameters

CogK.8

SwiK.8

RawTotalStationData

Create total station surveying network

TskK.1

Set up total station equipment

TskK.2

Collect total station data

TskK.3


TskK.4

Create drawing from total station data

TskK.6


TskK.5

CR

R

C

R

C

R

R

R

C

e

M~



5.2.4 ConclusionsandRecommendationsThemajorconclusionsofthisworkarethree:

• “Mining” textual descriptions of archaeological practices by hand is extremely tedious anderror-prone.Althoughnatural languageprocessingtechniquescanhelp,abettermethod isneededforassistedknowledgeextraction.

• SMEworkswell inahumanitiessetting,despitethefactthatitwasideatedforengineeringpurposes. Through small extensions, ISO/IEC 24744 has proven capable of describingcomplexarchaeologicalpracticesasdescribedbytheactualpractitioners.

• AdoptionofamethodcomponentrepositorybyarchaeologistsisdifficultifnotaccompaniedbyanSMEspecialistwhocancoachthemthrough.ThisisverylikelyaconsequenceofSMEbeingaforeigndomaintoarchaeology,aswellasthelackofspecialisedsoftwaretools.

Based on these, we can recommend the development of a comprehensive toolset for SME inarchaeology. This would entail tools for repository creation and population, possibly from textualsources, as well as tools for repository usage and exploitation. Also, we suggest that the ISO/IEC24744standardisaugmentedtoadoptsomeoftheextensionsthatwereimplementedinthiscasestudy as part of the standard. This is especially the case of internally/externally available workproducts,workproductstatemachines,andmethodologicalself-referencing.

SpecificApplicationScenarios

Ourexperiencewith applying SME to archaeological practice suggests that the following scenariosaregoodcandidatesforSMEadoptionandapplication,andcanbeusedasaguideforadoption.

SimpleProject

Letusimagineasimplearchaeologicalprojectwhereasmallteamledbyanindividualisexpectedtocarryout somework. This couldbea small excavation, a survey,or a labanalysis, forexample. Insituationslikethis,majormethodologicalissuesusuallyinvolveagreeingonwhodoeswhat,makingsurethattherelevantdeadlinesareobserved,andensuringthatthefinaloutcomeoftheproject(anarchaeologicalreport,asetoflabresults,etc.)isdeliveredwithacceptablequality.Smallprojectsareusuallyextremelysensitivetoirregularitiesintheproductivityofindividuals;forexample,oneteammemberfallingillusuallyhasabigimpactintheoverallproject.Forthisreason,acleardistributionoftasksandresponsibilitiesiscrucialinsmallprojects.

Inthiscontext,theprojectleaderwouldfirstdeterminewhatthefinalprojectoutcomesareintermsof work products, and then back track from them in order to define the necessary process andinterimproducts.First, theproject leaderwouldask themselves"whatspecific taskdoweneedtocarryoutinordertoobtaintheseproducts?"Theanswertothiswouldprobablyinvolveoneormoreinterimworkproducts.Foreachofthem,theywouldaskagain"whatdoweneedtodoinordertoobtain this?", and so on and so forth, until the necessary inputs are all available from internal orexternalsources.Forexample,letusimaginethatthedesiredfinaloutcomeisanexcavationreport.Whenaskingourselves"whatdoweneedinordertoobtainthis?",wedeterminethatwecanonlywriteupthereportifwehaveexcavationfinddata,aHarrismatrixofthesite,andlabresults.Theseareintermediateproducts.Nowwefocus,forexample,ontheHarrismatrix,andaskagainwhatweneedtoobtainit.Weanswerthisbysayingthatweneedanexcavatedsite.Again,thisisaninterimproduct. Eventually we would reach a point in which every new product that we need is eitheravailablefromwithintheteam(suchasmapsofthesiteoradatabasetorecordinformation)orfromexternalsources(suchasthephysicalsiteitself).

Atthispointwewouldhaveconstructedanetworkofproductslinkedbydependencyrelationships.Nowwewouldexplorewhattasksarenecessarytofulfileachdependency.Forexample,goingfrom



excavationfinddata,theHarrismatrixofthesiteplusthelabresultstothefinalreportwouldneedwritingthereport.Thisisatask.Similarly,goingfromtheexcavatedsitetotheHarrismatrixwouldinvolvediggingthesite.Byrepeatingthislogicoverthewholenetwork,wewillhavedeterminedtheprocesstocarryoutintermsofspecifictasks.

Finally,wewould allocate each task to one ormore teammembers according to their profiles orexpertise.

This process can easily bedoneonpaper for a small project. The first timewedo this,wewouldprobably need to definemost products and tasks from scratch, by drawing on our experience asarchaeologistsandperhapspreviousprojectsofasimilarnature.ThevalueofSMEisrealisedwhenwe startwriting down the tasks andproducts thatwe identified for a project in order to re-usingthem next time. To create a method component repository, we can write down a name anddescriptionforeachworkproduct,aswellasanameandpurposeforeachtask.Wecandothisonasmalldatabase,aspreadsheet,orevenonindexcards.

During the project, we would observe howwell each task and product works.Wewould look atissuessuchashowwelltheproductscovertheexpressiveneedsintheproject,whethertheplannedtasksaresufficienttoconvert"input"productsinto"outputs",andhowwellthetasksareadjustedtothe skills of the teammembers. We would be able to correct defects and update the names ordescriptionsofthecomponentsintherepositorywithnewinformationasweseefit.

Nexttimeweneedtoplanforaproject,wewouldusethisrepositoryasastartingpoint.Wewouldprobablyfindthatsomeoftheworkproductsthatweneedforthenewprojecthavealreadybeendefined in the repository, so thatwe can take themas they are to get an immediate overviewofwhattheassociatedtasksareandwhatotherinterimproductsareneeded.Inthisregard,themoreprojectsweapproachbyusingthismethod,thefewertasksandproductswewillneedtodefinefromscratch,becausewewillbefindingmoreandmorepre-definedandpre-testedmethodcomponentsintherepository.

Co-OrdinatedProject

Let us imagine a complex archaeological project where different teams carry out different sub-projectsoractivities,andaco-ordinating teamor individual superviseseverything.This couldbealargeexcavation,acomparativestudyofgeographical-distributedsites,oramultidisciplinaryprojectinvolving archaeologists, anthropologists and sociologists, for example. In projects like these, themajorconcernsareco-ordinationanddependencymanagement,sothatnooneisstalledbecauseanecessaryinterimproductisnotavailablewhenitshould.Additionalconcernsinvolvetheclearandunambiguous dissemination ofwhat is expected from each project participant, andmanaging thedelegationmechanismsbetweenandwithinsub-teams.

In this context, the project leaders would create an overall plan like in the previous case, butfocussing on products and avoiding the specification of tasks as much as possible. If a methodcomponent repository exists from previous projects, they should use it to find already definedproducts.Oncetheoverallplanisready,theywouldallocatespecificproductstospecificsub-teams.Atthisstage,itiscrucialthatallthesub-teamshaveaclearideaofwhattheirallocatedproductsare,and what dependencies they have to other products, both upstream (what other products andthereforesub-teamstheydependon)anddownstream(whatandwhodependonthem).

Then, each sub-teamwould create a specific plan for theirwork, by taking their allocated interimproducts as if theywere the final products in a project, anddeterminingwhat tasks, andperhapsadditional interim products, are needed. Also, tasks would be allocated to individuals as in thepreviouscase.Thebacktrackingprocesswill finishonceeverynewproductthat isneeded iseitheravailable fromwithin thesub-team, theenvironment,orupstreamsub-teams.Again, thisplanning



processisbestcarriedoutifamethodcomponentrepositoryisavailable.Ifthiswasthecasefortheleading team, then they should make the repository available to all sub-teams to facilitatemethodologicalintegration.

Sometimes, parallel collaboration on specific products is necessary. Thismeans that two ormoresub-teamsworkatthesametimeonthesameproduct.Insituationslikethis,oneofthesub-teamsmust be designated as the "owner" of the product, and the changes or interactions of other sub-teams must be clearly specified, in order to avoid clashes and instances of the "tragedy of thecommons".

During theproject, and like in theprevious case, sub-teammemberswouldupdate the repositorywiththenecessaryadjustmentsastheprojectprogresses.

OrganisationalMethodologicalGuidelines

Letusimaginealargeorganisation,suchasasizeablecompanyoragovernmentagency,whowantstoinstitutionaliseaparticularapproachtoworkinginarchaeology.Thiscouldinvolve,forexample,agovernment agency establishing the minimum requirements for any approved excavation, or aninterventioncompanyestablishingthestandardstobemetforanyoftheirprojects.Insituationslikethese, the focus is not carrying out a particular project, but setting up an infrastructure that,hopefully,will servemultipleprojects in the futurebyprovidingcommonbaseswhile,at thesametime,allowingthemtodivergeinapproachandscopeasmuchasnecessary.

Inthiscontext,asmallteamwouldbeinchargeofsettingupthemethodologicalguidelinesfortheorganisation. The guidelines themselves would probably take the form or a method componentrepository, perhaps together with some textual description of what is expected. Populating themethod component repository would be carried out by "mining" previous projects that areconsideredsuccessfulorexemplary inanywayformethodcomponents.Thiswilloften involvetheanalysisofreportsorfielddiariesinordertodeterminewhattaskswerecarriedout,whatproductsweregeneratedandused,andwhatconnectionexistedbetweenboth.Theobjectiveshouldnotbetocovereverythingthateverysuccessfulprojectdidinthepast,buttoconstructasolidbackboneonwhichfutureprojectscandevelop.Inthisregard,theteamshouldbetterfocusonhigh-levelprocess-oriented constructs such as phasesor processes rather than specific tasks. For example, the teamcoulddefinewhat standardphasesaprojectgoes through,andwhatprocessesareusuallycarriedoutateachphase.The teamcouldalsodescribe themajor typicalproducts,especially in termsofwhatfinaloutcomesareexpected,andwithwhichkindsofcontentsandquality.

Once the methodological guidelines are in place, any project that happened and to which theguidelineswereapplicablewouldneedaccess to theassociatedmethodcomponent repository, sothattheywouldbeabletoincorporatetheapplicablephases,processesandproductsintheirplans,andcompletethemwithcustomizedtasksandadditionalproducts.

Feedback to the repositorywould be probably controlled by the team in charge, instead of beingfreelyavailabletoanyone.Thismeansthatanyprojectmemberwishingtocontributeachangetoamethod component in the corporate repository would probably need to go through a processsupervisedbytheteamincharge,inordertomaintaintheconsistencyofthechangesandmakesurethateveryproposedchangeispotentiallyusefultoallthepartiesinvolved.

GovernmentRecommendation

Letus imagineagovernmentagency thatwants toestablisha recommendation forarchaeologicalwork thatwill affect third parties outside the agency. This is the case, for example,when specificrequirementsonstandards,contentsandformatsofarchaeologicalinformationareestablishedbyagovernmentagencyso that researchersandcompaniesworkingonthearchaeological recordmustcomplywithit.



Thissituationisverysimilartothepreviousone,butincorporatesthecomplicationthatthemethodcomponentrepositorymustbemadepubliclyavailablesothatanyonecandrawcomponentsfromit,andsuggestchangestotheexistingcomponentsoreventheincorporationofnewcomponents.Thisoften involvesweb-basedtoolsandsoftware-assistedplanningandmethoddesignapproaches.Forexample, thegovernmentagencymaymake their repositoryavailable througha collectionofwebservices, and distribute a desktop app that archaeologists can use in order to plan their project,recordtheirdata,anduploaditwhenfinished.Alternatively,thiscanbedonefullyontheweb.

5.2.5 SummaryIn this case study we have briefly introduced situational method engineering (SME) as aninfrastructuralsolutionformethodologymanagementinarchaeology.Inparticular,wehavelookedathowtheadoptionofaparticularmodellinglanguagetoexpressandcommunicatemethodologiesin archaeology canhelp, andwehave recommended ISO/IEC24744.Wehave alsodescribedhowtacit knowledge “in thehead” canbepartially extracted andput “in the system” in the formof amethod component repository constructed from textual accounts of archaeological practices fromseveral partners. The repository was structured along the lines of the ISO/IEC 24744 standardmetamodelplussomecustomextensionstocaterforthearchaeologicaldomain.AlthoughadoptionoftherepositoryforactualmethodologicalworkwasdifficultintheabsenceofanSMEspecialist,anumberofapplicationscenarioshavebeenidentified.TheneedforsoftwaretoolswasemphasisedthroughoutthephasesoftheSMEapplication.

5.2.6 ReferencesGonzalez-Perez, Cesar, andBrianHenderson-Sellers. 2006.AnOntology for SoftwareDevelopmentMethodologies and Endeavours. InOntologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology,editedbyF.RuizGonzález,C.CaleroandM.Piattini:Springer-Verlag.

Gonzalez-Perez,Cesar,andBrianHenderson-Sellers.2008.MetamodellingforSoftwareEngineering.Chichester(UK):Wiley.

Gonzalez-Perez, Cesar, and Brian Henderson-Sellers. 2010. Specifying Business Methods with theWork Product Pool Approach. In Fourth International Conference on Research Challenges inInformationScience(RCIS),2010,editedbyP.LoucopoulosandJ.L.Cavarero:IEEEComputerSociety.

Gonzalez-Perez, Cesar, Brian Henderson-Sellers, John Debenham, Graham Low, and Quynh-NhuNumi Tran. 2004. Incorporating Elements from CAMLE in the OPEN Repository. Paper read atInternational Conference on Intelligent Information Processing (IIP 2004), 21-23 October 2004, atNewYork.

Gonzalez-Perez,Cesar,andCharlotteHug.2013.CraftingArchaeologicalMethodologies:SuggestingMethod Engineering for the Humanities and Social Sciences. In Archaeology in the Digital Era,VolumeII;e-Papersfromthe40thConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology, edited by G. Earl, T. Sly, A. Chrysanthi, P. Murrieta-Flores, C. Papadopoulos, I.RomanowskaandD.Wheatley:AmsterdamUniversityPress.

Gonzalez-Perez, Cesar, Patricia Martín-Rodilla, and Elena Viorica Epure. 2016. Formalization andReuseofMethodologicalKnowledgeonArchaeologyacrossEuropeanOrganizations.Paper readatthe44thConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology(CAA),Oslo,Norway,April2016.

Henderson-Sellers, Brian, John Debenham, and Quynh-Nhu Numi Tran. 2004. Incorporating theElementsoftheMASEMethodologyintoAgentOPEN.InProcs.ofthe6thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems2004.



Hug, Charlotte, Camille Salinesi, Rebecca Deneckère, and Stéphane Lamassé. 2011. ProcessModellingforHumanities:TracingandAnalysingScientificProcesses.InRevivethePast:Proceedingofthe39thConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethods inArchaeology,editedbyM.Zhou,I.Romanowska,Z.Wu,P.XuandP.Verhagen:AmsterdamUniversityPress.

ISO/IEC. 2014. Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies. Geneva:InternationalStandardsOrganization/InternationalElectrotechnicalCommission.

Kumar, Kuldeep, and Richard J. Welke. 1992. Methodology Engineering: a Proposal for Situation-Specific Methodology Construction. In Challenges and Strategies for Research in SystemsDevelopment,editedbyW.W.CottermanandJ.A.Senn.Chichester(UK):JohnWiley&Sons.

Rolland,Colette,andNaveenPrakash.1996.AProposalforContext-SpecificMethodEngineering.InProcs. IFIP WG8 International Conference on Method Engineering, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K.LyytinenandR.J.Welke:Springer.



5.3 ArchaeologicalOntology(PIN)

5.3.1 IntroductionandOverviewPIN,togetherwithotherARIADNEpartners,hasbeen involved inthedefinitionofCRMarchaeo,anextensionofCIDOCCRMcreatedtosupportthearchaeologicalexcavationprocessandallthevariousentities and activities related to it. The model was created starting from standards and modelsalready inusebynationaland international culturalheritage institutions,andhasevolved throughdeepanalysisofexistingmetadatafromrealarchaeologicaldocumentation.Ithasbeenenrichedbycontinuous collaborationwith various communities of archaeologists from different countries andschools.Furthermore,ittakesadvantageoftheconceptsprovidedbyCRMsci,fromwhichitinheritsmostofthegeologicalandstratigraphicprinciplesthatgovernarchaeologicalstratigraphy,extendingtheseprinciples.

CRMarchaeo is the result of collaborationbetweenarchaeological institutions andCRMexpertsofother research centres involved inARIADNE.The firstneed that themodelattempts tomeet is tocreate a common ground for the integration of archaeological records on every level, from rawexcavation data to official documentation produced according to national and institutionalstandards.Thisdocumentdescribesacommunitymodel,whichhasbeenapprovedbytheCRMSIGtobeformallyandmethodologicallycompatiblewithCIDOCCRM.However,inabroadersense,itisalwaysopen toanypossible integrationandaddition thatmaybecomenecessaryasa resultof itspractical use on real archaeological problems on a large scale. The model is intended to bemaintainedandpromotedasaninternationalstandard.

5.3.2 CurrentDigitalPracticesTheCIDOCCRMisalreadyinwideusebyleadinginstitutionsoftheculturalheritagesector.Adoptionin archaeology has been hampered by the lack of an extension that takes account of the specificrequirementsofarchaeologicalresearch,particularlythedocumentationofexcavations.

CRMarchaeo

CRMarchaeo is intended to provide all necessary tools to manage and integrate existingdocumentation in order to formalise knowledge extracted from observations made byarchaeologists,recordedinvariouswaysandadoptingdifferentstandards.Inthissense,itspurposeis to facilitate the semantic encoding, exchange, interoperability, and access of existingarchaeologicaldocumentation.Themodeltakesinspirationfromthebasicideaonwhicharchaeologyisbasedaccordingto(Harris1989),thatthefeaturesofanarchaeologicalsitearetobefoundinthestratifiedcontext,which is investigatedbyanarchaeologicalexcavation. It takes intoconsiderationthephysicalarrangementofarchaeologicalstratificationandtheeventsthatledtotheformationofa particular stratigraphic situation. The model comprises entities and properties for describingstratigraphicgenesisandmodificationsandthenaturalphenomenaorhumaninterventionthat ledtotheircreation,thenatureandshapeofexistingstratificationsandsurfaces,andtheanalysisofthehumanremainsorartefactsfoundwithinthestrata.Thiswillenablearchaeologiststodeterminetherelative chronological order in which stratification was formed. The interpretation of thechronological sequences, also based on the space-time analysis of a specific site, provides all theelements needed for the reconstruction of the identity, life, beliefs, behaviour, and activities of agivengroupofpeopleinthepastinthatspecificplace.

Furthermore, the model documents, in a transparent way, the various aspects of archaeologicalexcavationprocess, including the technicaldetails concerningdifferentmethodsofexcavation, thereasons for theirapplicationand theobservationsmadebyarchaeologistsduring theiractivities inthe field.Thisapproachallows thecreationofanobjectivedocumentation that canguarantee the



scientificvalidityoftheresults,makingthemrevisablefollowingfurtherinvestigationsandreusablein different research contexts, in order to answer further (and potentially different) researchquestions.

One of themost important goals of themodel is to overcome the differences resulting from theapplication of different excavation techniques and procedures, e.g. from different traditions andschools of archaeology, revealing the commonways of thinking that characterise the stratigraphicexcavation.Thiswillservetoprovideaunifiedviewthatcanexpressthecommonconceptswithoutimposing any specific recording or investigation technique, on stratigraphic activity, and will alsoprovideasoundbasisfortheintegrationofvariousmethods.

TheConceptualModel

CRMarchaeo, from a technical point of view, provides conceptual descriptions of classes andproperties inanencoding-agnosticformalism, inheritedfromCIDOCCRM,allowingimplementationof its concepts and relationships using various languages and formal encodings (such as RDF andOWL),therebyprovidingmaximumflexibilityforoperationsofmappingandconversionandgivingITexpertsthefreedomtoimplementitinthewaytheyprefer.

Figure16.TheARIADNEReferenceModel.

The interpretation of the chronological sequences, based on the analysis of time and space of aspecific site,offersall theelements to reconstruct the identityofagroup ina specificplaceandatime-span.OneofthefundamentalelementsofCRMarchaeomodelis,infact,tooffertheabilitytorecordinformationrelatingtothephysicallayoutofthearchaeologicalstratificationandtheeventsthatledtoitsformation,inordertoallowthedocumentationandsubsequentlytheinterpretationofthe archaeological stratification. CRMarchaeo provides a tool for archaeologists to support thedeterminationofarelativechronologyofthelayers.TheCRMarchaeohasbeendevelopedfromthedefinitionofthemainentitiesinvolvedduringthearchaeologicalexcavation,theStratigraphicUnits(SU)andtheStratigraphicInterface(SI).



Figure17.TheStratigraphicUnitrepresentationinCRMarchaeo.

Stratigraphic units, which comprise the minimum unit of information, are characterized by theirspace-time nature, being placed in a certain place for a certain period and linked with otherstratigraphicunits. InCRMarchaeo,StratigraphicUnithasbeenrepresentedbytheA8StratigraphicUnitclass,subclassofS20PhysicalFeature.ThisentityhasbeendevelopedwithinanotherextensionoftheCIDOCCRM,CRMsci,originallydefinedtodescribethegeologicalstratigraphyentities.S20isasubclassofE18PhysicalThingandE53Place,bothclassesof theCIDOCCRMmodel; therefore,A8StratigraphicUnitinheritsthephysicalandspatialcharacteristicsofthem.TheA8StratigraphicUnitclassiscomposedofavolumetricpartdefinedwiththeA2Volumestratigraphicunitclass,andfromthe stratigraphic interface, represented by the A3 Stratigraphic Interface class. The activities andprocessesrelatedtothecreationofstratigraphicunitshavebeenrepresented inCRMarchaeowiththeA4StratigraphicGenesisclass,whiletheprocesses,whichhavesubsequentlymodifiedtheshapeandposition,areencodedthroughtheA5StratigraphicModificationclass.TheobjectsfoundintheSU are encoded by CIDOC CRME18 Physical Thing class. Their condition to be "content"within astratigraphicunitisencodedbythisconceptualtriple:E18PhysicalThing(physicalobject)->AP18isembedded(isincluded)->A7Embedding(Container).

Stratigraphic relationships between different SU are expressed through the AP11 has physicalrelationsproperty,which,throughtheAP11.1hastypepropertydescribestherelationsbetweenUSbyreferringtoacommonarchaeologicaldictionarytodocumenttherelationshipbetweenSU.ThetermsusedbyCRMarchaeoarefills/isfilledby,cut/iscutby,isbondedwith,butted,jointed,above,below.StratigraphicrelationshipsbetweenSUareencodedwiththeAP13hasstratigraphicrelationproperty,representedbythesetypesofreports:before/after/sameas.

5.3.3 CaseStudyWithin ARIADNE, PIN and the Italian Central Institute for Catalogue and Documentation (ICCD)collaboratedinordertofacilitatetheprocessofstandardizationofnationalarchaeologicaldata.ICCDcreates a series of resources and recommendations, which includes a set of schemas to collectinformationinastructuredway,thesauriandterminologicaltoolstoensurelanguagehomogeneity.Amongst this set of schemas, theRA schema, used to recordmovableobjects, is oneof themostused for Italian archaeology because of the huge and ever increasing amount of artefacts foundduringexcavations.Relatedtothisschema,ICCDprovidedadetailedthesaurustoproduceacorrectencoding.

The RA Schema contains a large number of descriptive information and “cross-sections” allowingcross references with other ICCD resources. The RA Schema, together with the RA Thesaurus,featuresoneofthebesttoolsofthiskindintheinternationalpanoramaofcataloguingsystems.



Over the past years of research, a deep analysis of RA schema and thesauruswas conducted, formappingtoCIDOCCRMandotherinternationalstandards.

ThepreviousmappingworkwascarriedoutonCIDOCCRMandtookadvantageofversion5ofthemodel,releasedin2013.Version6andtheCRMarchaeoandCRMsciextensions,muchmoresuitablefor the description of archaeological phenomena, have strongly enhanced the representation andmappingofexcavationentities.Given this, ithasbeendecided toupdate thepreviousmapping inordertoprovideastrongerarchaeology-orientedlogictothevariousconceptsandrelationshipsthattheRASchemapresents.

Oneofthemostdifficultproblemstosolve inthepreviousmappingwastherepresentationofthe“finding”event,intendedastheexcavationactivityduringwhichobjectsarefound.Thiseventisofparamount importance in archaeology because it is fundamental to trace the object’s provenanceand to reconstruct its history. Following the CIDOC-CRMmodel, archaeological objects have beenrepresentedbyusingtheE22Man-MadeObjectclass.However,todescribetheirrelationshipswiththe two important activities of “survey” (corresponding to the “RE” field of the RA Schema) and“excavation”(specifiedinthe“DSC”field),CIDOCCRMcoreonlyprovideda"changeofownership”relationshipthathardlyfitsherebutwedecidedtouseitanyway.OurpreviousmappingappearedasshowninFigure18.

Figure18.ICCD-RA/CIDOC-CRMmapping.

Thankstothereleaseofthenewextensionsandadeepanalysisofthecross-sectionrelatingtheRASchema, the new mapping shows a more accurate rendering of these concepts. To express the“object foundduringanexcavation” relationship,CRMarchaeoprovides theO19iwasobject foundbyproperty,throughwhichitispossibletolinktheartefactwiththenewS19EncounterEventclass,expresslydesignedtorendertheconceptof“finding”asaneventwhichoccurred(P7tookplaceat)atagivenSite(E7)identifiedbyagivenappellation(P57isidentifiedby–>E44PlaceAppellation),asshowninFigure19.Thisconstitutesamoreaccuraterepresentationoftheseconcepts.

Figure19.ICCD-RA/CIDOC-CRM-CRMarchaeomapping.

UsingtheMappingMemoryManagerTool

ThemappingprocesswasassistedbytheX3MLmappingframeworkdevelopedbyFORTH,anditwasachieved by the close cooperation of the CIDOC CRM experts. The X3ML mapping frameworkincludestheX3MLmappingdefinitionlanguage,the3MMappingMemoryManager,the3MEditorand the X3ML engine The X3ML framework takes a completely different approach to other datamapping tools.Designed to separateoutmanyof the technical aspects of creating LinkedData, itallows data experts to play a larger role in Linked Data generation creating better end resultsrelevantforlargerandwideraudiences.



Figure20.Using3MforICCD-RAmapping.

The 3M Editor is specifically designed to support mapping to richer ontologies and the CIDOCConceptual Reference Model. The 3M Editor provides a simple user interface where the mainmappingscreenconcentratessimplyonmappingeachelementofasourceschematoanappropriatesequence (path) of CIDOCCRM relationships and entities. The specificationof theURI (addresses)generationisacompletelyseparateprocess,whichaugmentstheX3MLmappingdefinitionfilewithinstancegeneration functions.X3MLprovidesa clear,human readable format fordefining schemamappings.

5.3.4 ConclusionsandRecommendationsData standardization is amilestone topromote the long-termpreservationof archaeological data.CRMarchaeohasbeenrealizedwithintheframeworkoftheARIADNEproject, inwhichCIDOCCRMencoding of archaeological datasets has played the role of the “Electronic Esperanto”, ensuring adeeper standardization, looking towards the perspective of sustainability. CRMarchaeo has beencreated tosupport thearchaeologicalexcavationprocessand toprovidean instrument tomanageand integrate existing archaeological documentation. The main goal is the formalization of theheterogeneous knowledge produced by archaeologists, often recorded in different standards. Themappingofacomplexschema,suchasICCD-RA,hasalreadydemonstrated,atleastfromthelogicalpoint of view, the coherence with CIDOC CRM / CRMarchaeo and a wide compatibility with itsschema.Fromamethodologicalpointofview,theworkcarriedouthashighlightedbothconceptualandprocedural challenges that arisewhen attempts aremade to handle a complex structure in astandard tool. The results achieved are considered satisfactory. ARIADNE assisted ICCD in buildingand evaluating this process in every phase, from logical mapping to physical conversion ofarchaeological data. ARIADNE carried out similar activities with other European archaeologicalinstitutions(partnersoftheproject)toachieveitsmaingoal:theimplementationofinteroperabilityamongarchaeologicaldataataEuropeanlevel.

Recommendations

The CIDOC CRM extension CRMarchaeo allows addressing better the complexity of archaeologicaldocumentationineffortsaimedtointegratesuchdocumentation.Therefore,useofCRMarchaeo(aswellasCRMsciandotherCRMextensions)canberecommendedtoarchaeologicalresearchcentresandprojects fordata integration.This is recommended for integrationat the local/project levelaswellasacrossdifferentprojectsandinstitutions,forexampleintheframeworkofARIADNE.



Institutions and projects intending to apply the CRM, CRMarchaeo and other extensions arerecommendedtolookintoalreadyavailableapplicationcasesandusetheprovenMappingMemoryManager(3M)fordatabasemappings.

5.3.5 SummaryOver the last years of research, the CIDOC CRMproject expanded its vision, becoming amodularmodel.TheCRMcollectionofmodels(extensions)includesCRMarchaeowhichhasbeendevelopedin the context of ARIADNE specifically for advanced integration of archaeological documentation.ARIADNE recommendsutilizing it at the local/project level aswell as across different projects andinstitutions, andprovidesa framework for integrationofCRMcompliantdatasetsat theEuropeanlevel.

5.3.6 ReferencesCIDOCCRMhttp://www.cidoc-crm.org/

CRMarchaeohttp://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/index_main.php?l=e&c=711

CRMscihttp://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/index_main.php?l=e&c=663

Doerr M., Theodoridou M., Aspöck E. & Masur A. (2016): Mapping Archaeological Databases toCIDOC CRM, pp. 443-451, in: CAA 2015 - Keep the Revolution Going: Proceedings of the 43rdConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology(Siena,April2015),Volume1.Oxford:Archaeopress

Felicetti,A.,Galluccio, I., Luddi,C.,Mancinelli,M.L.,Scarselli,T.,Madonna,A.D. (2015): IntegratingTerminological Tools and Semantic Archaeological Information: the ICCD RA and Thesaurus,ProceedingsWorkshop EMF-CRM2015, Poznań, Poland, September 17, 2015, CEUR-WS.org, onlineCEUR-WS.org/Vol-1656/paper3.pdf

Felicetti,A.,Scarselli,T.,Mancinelli,M.L.,Niccolucci,F.(2013):MappingICCDArchaeologicalDatatoCIDOC-CRM: the RA Schema, Vladimir Alexiev, Vladimir Ivanov, Maurice Grinberg (eds.): PracticalExperiences with CIDOC CRM and its Extensions (CRMEX 2013) Workshop, 17th InternationalConferenceon Theory andPracticeofDigital Libraries (TPDL2013), Valetta,Malta, September 26,2013,CEUR-WS.org/Vol-1117,pp11-22

Harris,E.:PrinciplesofArchaeologicalStratigraphy,1979.http://www.harrismatrix.com

Ronzino, P. (2015): Standard e interoperabilità in ARIADNE, Proceedings Workshop InDarD 2015L’integrazionedeidatiarcheologicidigitali -Esperienzeeprospettive in Italia2015Lecce, Italia,1-2Ottobre,2015.http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1634/paper5.pdf

Ronzino, P. (ed., 2015): Extending,Mapping and Focusing the CRM. Proceedings of the EMF-CRMworkshop at the 19th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL2015),Poznan,Poland,17September2015,http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1656/paper4.pdf



5.4 3DArchaeology(CyI-STARC)

State-of-the-ArtandFutureDirections

3D Archaeology is the creation and use of 3Dmodels for representing, discussing and advancingarchaeological knowledge. The fieldof3DArchaeologypresentsahighlyadvanced state-of-the-artwith regard to the technical capabilities to capture data, model and present 3D models ofarchaeologicalartefacts.Muchlessadvancedistheuseof3Dmodelsforcollaborativeresearchthatadvancesarchaeologicalknowledgeaboutpastcultures.Thiscasestudyfirstoutlinesthenecessarycomponents for detailed, comprehensive and accurate studies of artefactual remains. Second, thevariouscurrentpracticesofrepresentingarchaeologicalartefactsarepresented.Wenotethattheserepresentations, as such, lack the capability for collaborative research allowing discussion andcollaborative advancement of archaeological knowledge in an e-research mode. E-research heremeans online representation, critical discussion and knowledge creation involving the researcherswhoproposeaknowledge representationandotherswhoscrutinize it, annotate itwithadditionalinformation,suggesttakingadifferentresearchperspective,andsoforth.Wesuggest investigatinge-researchenvironmentsthatprovidesuchcapabilityandplacethecollaborativeresearchprocessinthecentreof3DArchaeology.

5.4.1 ArchaeologyinaNutshellArchaeology is the study ofmaterial culture from the past. Its primary objective is to reconstructsocial,cultural,economicorspiritualaspectsofpastsocietiesthroughresearchonmaterialremains,products of these societies, within their anthropogenic and natural recovery context. The mainassumption of archaeology is that matter, shape and decoration of artefacts reflect deliberatechoicesmadebytheartisansproducingthem,withingivensocial,culturalandeconomicconstraints.Therefore, a detailed, comprehensive and accurate study of such remains may reveal theseconstraintsandthusenableabetterunderstandingofpastsocieties.

Figure21.Archaeologicalresearch,bycomponentsandinvestigationapproaches.

Basicresearchstartsatarchaeologicalsites–physicalplaceswhereadeliberatehumanactivityinthepastyieldedmaterialcultureremainsandisinvestigatedinthepresent.Thefocusofstudyisthusonartefacts, built features and structure, their physical location and their relationships with othermaterial cultureassets.Research integrates results fromanalytical investigations, suchaschemicaland physical properties, with geometrical measurements and shape comparisons and art historyapproaches (e.g. style). Figure21describes thebasic frameworkof anarchaeological investigationanditsmainmethodologicalapproaches.



5.4.2 Importantcomponents

Artefacts

Themostfrequenttestimonyofapasthumanactivity,andconsequentlythemostcommonsubjectofarchaeologicalinvestigationistheartefact–anintentionallymodifiedobjectfromthepast.Itcanbestudiedalone,or,asoftenoccurs, inrelationwithotherobjects(associationofartefacts).Thesearecollections,orassemblages,whereacausalrelationbetweenobjectsmustbeformallyexpressedand validated. Such relations often derive from a conjuncture of their discovery context (closelylocatedtoeachother,repetitivenessofsuchassociationsinseveralarchaeologicalsites,etc.).Whilethe subject of study of such objectsmay be an understanding of theirmanufacture process, theirpossibleuseinthepastorthesocialroletheymayhaveplayed,thestudyofassociationofartefactsis a key component for establishing cultural affinity of archaeological sites and their chronologicalpositioning.Furthercomparisonsbetweenassemblagesareperformedtoassesslarge-scaleculturaldevelopmentsorchangesthroughtime/geographicspaceorfurther insights intosocial,economicorculturalorganisationsofpastsocieties.

A conceptual tool (chaine opératoire) has been proposed as a main framework for the study ofartefacts. It focusesresearchondescribingeachcrucialstep in its lifespanandontherelationshipsbetweensteps:

Stage 0Acquisition

Which raw materials were used, their provenance and strategy ofprocurement.

Stage 1Production

How and where objects were made – technical production andinfluencingsocial/cultural/economicfactors.

Stage 4Utilization

Howandwhereobjectswereutilizedandinwhichmanner.

Stage 5Discard

How,whereandwhyobjectswerediscardedandwhathappenedtothemuntiltheirrecoveryinmoderntimes.

Table1.Mainstagesofthe“chaineopératoire”conceptualtool

An“operativeschema”fortheanalysisofmaterialcultureremainscanbethereforereconstructed.Itsdescriptivecriteriaare:

• Complexityofconceptualscheme,i.e.thementalconstructionthatguidesexecution.• Degreeofchaîneopératoirepreconception–precisionofforwardplanning.• Discrepancybetweenaprojectanditsachievement–indicativeofabilityforproblem-solving.• Qualityofproduction–theresultofthecompromisebetweentechnicalskillsandtheplanned

work.• Utilitarianproductivity–thecapabilitytoadjustproductiontoneeds.

StructuresandFeatures

Further to the investigationof artefacts themselves, archaeology is concernedwith the context ofartefacts’discovery,withinarchaeologicalexcavationsitesorwhencollectedfromtheearthsurfaceduringreconnaissancesurveys.Suchacontextcanbeanancientnaturallandscapeorhabitat(e.g.acave, rock shelter, palaeo-surface), a modified natural landscape (e.g. a rock-cut tomb, anundergrounddwelling,etc.)or, as inmost cases, the context consistsofbuilt remainsof ahumansettlement (buildings of various sizes and functions, industrial installations, defence constructions,watersystems,etc.).Suchremainsmayoftenoverlap,testifyingforseveralepisodesofhabitationat



the same site, along a givenperiodof time. Therefore, amajor taskof archaeologists is to clearlyidentifyandseparatebetweenoccupationlayers,eachcorrespondingtoadistinctepisodeofhumanactivityatthesite,withinalimitedsegmentoftime.Consequently,anothereffortinarchaeologicalinvestigation is directed towards understanding the nature of relations between structures andartefacts found within a delineated space and to assess their socio-cultural meaning (Figure 22).Structures,associationofstructures,whereacausalrelationbetweenstructureshasbeenidentified(e.g.avillage),orcomparativestudiesbetweengroupsofstructuresarecommonresearchtopicsaswell.

PastEnvironment

Archaeological research often investigates natural past ecological systems and how they haveinfluenced choicesmade by humans who produced thematerial culture under investigation. Thismay be related to, among others, choices made by humans in the past on settlement locations,strategiesforexploitingnaturalresources,pathstaken,sacredareasordefencesystems.Acommonreferencetermis“culturallandscapes”,wheremanifestationsofpasthumanactivitiesareanalysedwithin their natural environment. Research in this domain focuses on reconstructing paleo-environments, using several approaches, such as the study of pollen, phytoliths, faunal / floralremains from archaeological sites, palaeo-climate studies, etc. Once environmental conditions forthe interested period / geographic area are set, the relationship humans / environment can beexplored, mainly through various approaches of simulation or modelling. Typical subjects of suchresearchisperformingasite-catchmentanalysis,i.e.estimatingthecapacityofagivenenvironment(in termsofwatersourcesandenergysources (food) tosupportagivenpopulation,bycalculatingtheenergyapopulationneedstoinvest inordertogainsufficientenergyfromtheenvironmenttobeself-sustained.

TheTime/SpaceConundrum

Archaeologistsoftenattemptatdelineatingmaterialculturealongatime/spaceaxis,tryingtoisolateuniquecharacteristicsofmaterialculturewithinalimitedtime/spaceborder(Figure22)inordertocompare themwith other characteristics of other time/space segments. Thesemay be arbitrarilydecided, may be related to a historic / natural event or may derive from direct chronological /geographic observations. Figure 22 presents various scenarios of analysis ofmaterial culture: in agivenpointintime/space(thehumansettlementinRomeinthefirstquarterofthe5thcenturyBC,withinarestrictedgeographicspace,delimitedbymeaningfulfactorsandoveragiventimespan(e.g.the temples dedicated to Jupiter in Rome between the 5th – 1st centuries B.C.), over a chosengeographicextensionandwithinalimitedtimespan(thedistributionofpotterykilnsinEtruriaofthe6thcenturyBC).

Figure22.Archaeologicalinvestigationalongthetime/spaceaxis.

Fromtheabove it isclearthatdealingwithtimeandspace,andtime/spaceaswellcanbeatrickything. Neither time nor space borders can be easily andmeaningfully defined and thus require a



specialattention.Amostrecentproposalonhowtosolvetheambiguityoftime/spacecanbefoundinNiccolucciandHermon(2015).

AgentsinArchaeology

Alongsideresearchonartefactsandstructureswithintheircontextandenvironment,archaeologicalresearch identifies, isolates, and characterizes all factors (sometimes referred to as “agents”) thatcontributed,inthepastandinthepresent,totheircurrentstateofexistence.Aconsiderableeffortisthusinvestedinestimatingtheimpactofsuchagentsontheanalysedmaterialculture:

• Agentsactiveduringthe lifespanoftheanalysedartefact,directlyrelatedtothesocio-culturalcontext,i.e.thesocietyandtheindividualwhoproducedit.Theseareanalysedwithintwomainframeworks:o Technical production - the knowledge and know-how at the concept level methods and

techniques,i.e.technicalbehaviour,expressedintermsof:§ Conceptualknowledge(connaissance)acquiredthroughmemorizationofconcepts–“mentalrepresentationofidealformsandthematerialsinvolved.

§ Memorizationofoperationmodesandprocedureknowledge(savoirfaire):o Ideational,arisingfromintelligenceandmemory,oro Physicalmovement,presupposingbodilyskilled.

o Techno-sociologicalaxis-cultural,spatialandeconomicimplicationsonwhichthisproductiondepends.

• Post-depositionalfactors,i.e.theprocessesthatinfluencedthestateandtheconditionofanartefactwhileburiedintheground,suchas:

o Naturalagents§ soilmoisture§ rain§ wind§ earthquake

o Anthropogenicactions§ agriculturalactivities§ demolitions§ re-use

Archaeologists analysing artefacts within the framework of such agents face several challenges:correctly identifying them, evaluating their influence on the analysed artefacts and understandinghow they relate and influence each other. Research in this domain focuses on relating particularshapes,featuresorcharacteristicsoftheanalysedartefactstoaparticularagentortoacombinationofthem.Suchstudiesoftenrelyonexperimentation(attemptsatcreatingthesametypesofobjects,under the same (estimated) constraints as in the past and monitoring such a production.Physicochemical studies are particularly relevant here as well, helping in identifying productionsequences,materialsusedortechniquesapplied.

Understanding the influence of post-depositional agents (taphonomical studies) requires directobservationsatthearchaeologicalsites,whichmayincludegeo-morphologicalstudies,geo-chemicalmeasurements,environmentalstudies,etc.Asabove,understandinghowoneagent influencesandinteracts with others is crucial in correctly assessing their overall influence on the nature of theanalysed artefacts and their archaeological sites. Simulation of natural events and theirmodellingmayhelpassessingtheirimpactonthestudiedartefacts.

ArchaeologyandSocialScience

Archaeology relates to the study of past societies. As such, it derives much of its theoreticalframework from social sciences and anthropology. Ethnographic studies are often consulted and



their conclusions are compared with the archaeological evidences. Models of social and culturalstructures,basedonsociologicaland/oranthropologicalstudies,maybeconstructedandevaluatedagainstthearchaeologicalevidences;theoppositeprocessoccursaswell–basedontheanalysisofmaterialremains,socio-culturalstructuresareconstructedandcorroboratedwithexistingtheoriesincultural anthropology or sociology. Here again, such research relies on the ability to constructeffectivemodellingofsuchstructuresandsimulationoftheirbehaviour.

ArchaeologyandHumanities

Archaeologists who study historical periods (i.e. from when written sources are available) oftencorroborate their conclusions with historical research and thus an exchange of knowledge occursbetween archaeologists, historians, epigraphists, philologists and so forth. Such researchmay alsolookathistoriceventsfromanarchaeologicalperspective,orevaluatethewrittenevidenceagainstthematerialremains,asfoundinarchaeologicalexcavations.

Art history and architectural history are popular branches of humanities that often interact witharchaeological research. Similarly, archaeologists analyse material culture from an art historicalperspective, or rely on methods of architectural history to interpret standing monuments andstructuresunearthedduringexcavationsorurbancontexts.Recurrentconceptsare,amongothers,analysis of decorative styles,methods of construction / production or social / culturalmeaning ofobjects.

Summary

Insummary,archaeologyasanintegrativediscipline,thatreliesonandintegratesresultsfromawidespectrumofdisciplines.

Figure23.Archaeologyasanintegrativediscipline.

Thefigureillustrateshow3DArchaeologycansupportthesynthesisofresultsofdifferentdisciplinesbasedonitscapabilitytointegrateresultsinthe3Dmodellingofartefacts,buildingsandlandscapes,simulatetheintegrationandenabletheanalysisoftheoutcome.Thisisofcourseaniterativeprocessin which new results are incorporated in the knowledge base, allowing improvements of 3Drepresentationsaswellassubstantialrevisions.



5.4.3 3Dmethodsandtechniques

3DRealityBasedModellinginArchaeology

It iscommontodaythatarchaeologistsstill relyontraditional fielddocumentationmethods,basedon hand made sketches and tape measurements, for recording most information about anexcavation. The traditional outputs are often considered two-dimensional line drawings whichhoweverarenotanobjectiverecordofreality.

Nowadays,thankstothedevelopmentsinotherfieldofstudiesandtothemultidisciplinaryapproachinthehumanitiesdomain,dealofarchaeologicaldatais‘borndigital’inthefieldorlab.Thismeansdatabases, pictures and 3D models of finds and excavation contexts. Together with the photorealistic qualities, these data provide a unique source for morphological, geometrical andstratigraphicfeaturesofanarchaeologicalsite.

Differenttechniquesaretodayavailableforthedocumentationofanarchaeologicalarea,accordingwith theneeds requestedby theproject. The twomaindomains are representedby imagebasedmodelling techniques exploiting passive sensors (digital cameras) and range based techniquesexploitingactivesensors(3Dscanner).Bothofthemcanindifferentlyoperateonterrestrialoraerialplatforms.

ImageBasedModelling:AnOverview

StructurefromMotiontechnology(SfM)functionsbysiftingthroughaseriesofoverlappingphotostaken fromavarietyofconsistentangles (Figure24),and findingpointsbetweenthemthatmatch(Keypoints). After turning the matched points into a point cloud (Dense Stereo Matching), thesoftwareinterpolatesthegeometrybetweenthepointsandbuildsamodel(mesh).Sincethemodelisgeneratedfrom2Dphotographs,thesoftwarecombinesthemintoasinglephotorealistictexturewhich is wrapped over the geometry, resulting in an objective depiction of reality. For furtheraccuracyandadditionaluses,controlpoints inthescenearemeasuredusingatotalstationorGPSandusedtogeo-referencethemodel.Thelatter,ishenceplacedinareal-worldlocation,allowinganeasy integration with GIS software to produce overall site-plans and conduct a variety of spatialanalyses.

Figure24.PhotogrammetricGeometricPrinciple.

The benefits introduced by the image based modelling techniques not mentioned above arerepresentedespeciallybythe lowcostandtheportabilityoftheequipmentrequired.Todaydigital



photogrammetry can be a feasible and flexible solution and a quasi-standard procedure may befoundtosuggestgeneralbestpracticesforsystematic3Dsurveys.

Forthedocumentationofarchaeologicalsites,whichcouldindetailsrangefromthelayertolayer3Drecording, to complex area digitization, different user friendly software are today available andwidely used by professionals without a specific IT background (Agisoft Photoscan, Pix4D, CaptureReality,etc.).

RangeBasedModelling:AnOverview

Rangebasedmodellingtechniquesrelyontheuseof3Dscannerswhichareabletoacquirealargeamountofthreedimensionaldataandthereforeareabletodescribethesiteanditsmainmetricalfeatures,freezingitsmorphologicalmemoryatthetimeofthesurvey.

3D scanners fallunder theacronymof LiDARwhich stand for LightDetectingandRangingandaremainlydividedindeviceswhichexploitlaserlightorvisiblelight.Eachtechnologycomeswithitsownlimitations,advantagesandcosts.Manylimitationsinthekindofobjectsthatcanbedigitizedarestillpresent, for example, optical technologies encounter many difficulties with shiny, mirroring ortransparentobjects.

ThescannersmainlyusedonarchaeologicalsitesarerepresentedbyTerrestrialLaserScanners(TLS),based respectively on Time of Flight (ToF) (Figure 25) and Phase Shift (PS) principles due to theirrangeofacquisition.Atime-of-flightdeviceisarangeimagingsystemthatresolvesdistancebasedontheknownspeedoflight,measuringthetime-of-flightofalightsignalbetweenthecameraandthesubject for eachpoint of the image.Aphase-shift scanner compares the intensity of phaseof thelasersourcewhentheradiationisemittedandwhenitisreceivedbackagaintothescannerafteritsreflectiononobject’ssurface-

A high definition 3D Scanner survey creates amodel (point cloud)where the object’s shapes anddimensionsaredescribedbymillionsofpoints.Fromthepointclouddataispossiblethentoextractgeometricinformation,withthemainaimtoproduce:

-traditional2DCADdrawings(plan;verticalandlongitudinalsections);

-polygonalmeshtocreateinteractivephotorealistic3Dmodelsforcommunicationpurposes;

-imagesfromdifferentpointofviews.

Figure25.TOFWorkingSystem(source:Guidietal.2010).



Inordertodigitizeobjectsfrommediumtosmallsizedifferentkindofscannercanbeused,namelyStructuredLightScannerorTriangulatedLaserScanners.

Structuredlight3Dscannersprojectapatternoflightonthesubjectanddetectthedeformationofthepatternonthesubject.Thepatternmaybeonedimensionalortwodimensional.Anexampleofaone-dimensionalpatternisaline.ThelineisprojectedontothesubjectusingeitheranLCDprojectorora sweeping laser.Acamera,offset slightly fromthepatternprojector, records the shapeof theline(Figure26).

Figure26.Structuredlightsystem.

ATriangulation Laser Scanner consists of a transmittingdevice, sending a laserbeamat a definedanglefromoneendofamechanicalbaseontotheobject,andaCCDcameraattheotherendofthisbasewhichdetects the laser spot (or line)on theobject. The3Dpositionof the reflecting surfaceelementcanbederivedfromtheresultingtriangle(Figure27).TriangulatedLSisusuallyusedwhenanhigh resolution (micron) is requiredand thedimensionof theobject todigitize is less than fewmeters(archaeologicalartefacts,statues,etc.).



Figure27.TriangulationLSWorkingSystem(source:Guidietal.2010).

UseforDocumentation

Comprehensiveguidelinesfortheuseofthree-dimensionalmodellingtechniquesfordocumentationofculturalheritagehavebeendevelopedbytheGettyConservationInstitute(Letellier2007) inLosAngeles (USA)andby theEnglishHeritage (Barber&Mills2011) in theUK for theso-called range-basedtechniques.

Duringthearchaeologicalresearchthereisoftentheneedtorecord,detectandpreservesitesandobjects, as the documentation is an indispensable prerequisite for the analysis, the study andinterpretationofartefactsandarchaeologicalareas.

Nowadaysourculturalheritageisunderconstantthreatanddanger.Architectonicalstructuresandarchaeological sites are threatened by pollution (Figure 28 A), mass tourism (Figure 28 B), wars(Figure28C)aswellasenvironmentaldisasterslikeearthquakesorfloodsorclimaticchanges(Figure28D).

A B



C D

Figure28.Threatenedheritage.

Theavailabletechnologiesandmethodologiesfordigitalrecordingofarchaeologicalsitesandobjectsare really promising and the whole heritage community is trying to adapt these approaches forfastest,detailedandeasy3Ddocumentations.Indeed3Dmodellingcouldbeextremelypowerfultoimproveidentification,monitoring,conservationandrestoration.

Ithasbecomeevidentthatthedevelopmentofnon-destructiveinvestigationhasled,togetherwiththe corresponding increasing of archaeologist’s computer skills, to the creation of datasets ofextremelycomplexstructures.Theactivityofthree-dimensionaldocumentationisradicallychangingthe documentation process in archaeology, as well as in architecture. We are moving from 2Ddocumentationasbasicdatafortheknowledgeofanobjecttothe3Ddocumentationfromwhichitispossibletoextractanunlimitedamountofinformationinaveryshorttime.

At the landscape scales, digital 3D modelling and data analysis allow archaeologists to integrate,withoutbreaks,differentarchaeologicalfeaturesandphysicalcontextandbetterdocumentthearea.Atthemonuments/sitesscale,3Dcangiveaccuratemeasurementsandobjectivedocumentationaswell as a new view under a different point of view. At the artefact scale, 3Dmodelling allows toreproduceaccuratedigital/physicalreplicaofeveryartefactthatcanbestudied,measured,showed.

EnvironmentsforDataAnalysis

Nowadays different software and platform environments are available to analyse archaeologicaldigital born data, even though some of themwere not specifically designed for heritage orientedtasks.Fourdifferentareasofsoftwarecanbedistinguished:

o 3Dacquisition

o 3Dpostprocessing

o Dataanalysis

o Onlinevisualization

Thissectionbrieflypresentseachoftheseareas.

Softwarefor3DAcquisition

Mostof theproductsavailable for theacquisitionandprocessingofdigital threedimensionaldataaretodaycommercialoriented.

Few efforts have been done in the open source community. However, often the trade-off isrepresented by the difficult process for installation and setup and by the absence of aGUIwhichforcetheusertoruncommandsthroughtraditionalcommandlinesinput.



In the range based modelling domain the acquisition software is always bound to the hardware(Figure 29). The major scanner vendors indeed provide software packages which allow dataacquisition and traditional post-processing tasks in the 3D modelling pipeline (alignment, noiseremoval,filteringetc.).

Figure29.SurphExpressacquisitionsoftwareuserinterfaceforSurphaserPSscanner.

Forwhatconcernstructurefrommotiontechnique,todayawidepanoramaofsolutionsareavailableboth open source (Visual Structure from Motion, MicMac, Open Multi View Geometry, PytonPhotogrammetry Toolbox, 123DCatch) and commercial (Photomodeler, Agisoft Photoscan, Pix4D,RealityCapture)(Figure30).

Figure30.AgisoftPhotoscanUI.

However most of the products do not offer any tool, or a very limited number of options, foradvanceddataanalysisandinterpretation.



Softwarefor3DPost-Processing

Postprocessingpackages(i.e.Geomagic,Polyworks,JRCReconstructor)areavailableasstandaloneproductsbythird-partsoftwarehouses(Figure31).Althoughnotspecificallydesigntoaddressissuesrelated to CH, these SW suites arewidely used by institutionworking in archaeology due to theirpotentiality to extracts geometrical information such as sections, plans, elevation maps andperformeddetailedmorphologicalanalysis.

Figure31.JRCReconstructorsoftware.

SoftwareforDataAnalysis

Beside traditional operations described above, for scientific data analysis other software packagesmaybeusedtointerpretandextrapolateinformationfromdigitalarchaeologicaldataset.

AusefulresourcefordataanalysisinthearchaeologicaldomainisprovidedbytheBAJRArchaeologySoftware -BritishArchaeological JobsResource1.Despiteofbeingan integratedplatform, it lists awide number of software useful for data interpretation and analysis, including GIS software,visualizationpackagesandgeometricalextractingfeaturestools.

A product widely used today by the 3D heritage community is the open source softwareCloudCompare2.CloudCompareisa3Dpointcloud(andtriangularmesh)processingsoftware.Ithasbeenoriginallydesigned toperformcomparisonbetween two3Dpoint cloudsorbetweenapointcloud and a triangular mesh. It relieson a specific octree structure that enables greatperformancesinthisparticularfunction.Itwasalsomeanttodealwithhugepointclouds.

Manyalgorithmshavebeen implemented intothesoftwarethanks to thecontributionofdifferentresearchinstitutionenablingtoperformawidearrayofanalysisfromgeometricalaccuracychecktoobjectandfeaturesclassification(Figure32).

1http://www.bajr.org/bajrresources/software.asp2http://www.danielgm.net/cc/



Figure32.CloudCompareUI.

MeshLabis anadvanced3Dmeshprocessingsoftware system that isoriented to themanagementandprocessingofunstructuredlargemeshesandprovidesasetoftoolsforediting,cleaning,healing,inspecting,rendering,andconvertingthesekindsofmeshes3.Itiswellknowninthemoretechnicalfields of 3D development and data handling but widely used by the heritage documentation andpreservationcommunity(Figure33).

Figure33.MeshlabUI.

OnlineVisualizationSoftware

Usuallytodayarchaeologicaldataare‘borndigital’.Thismeansdatabases,picturesand3Dmodelsoffindsandexcavationcontextscouldbeavailableforpubliccommunicationandsharing.Researchers

3http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/



usuallyrestrictaccesstotheirdatatoasmallgroupofpeople.Itfollowsthatdatasharingisnotsowidespreadamongarchaeologists,anddisseminationofresearchisstillmostlybasedontraditionalpre-digitalmeanslikescientificpapers,journalarticlesandbooks.

Disseminationandcommunicationofarchaeologicaldataonline through theweb is todaypossiblethankstomanyplatformsfordatasharingand3Dvisualization.However,thispracticeispreventedmainlybytheissuesrelatedtoIntellectualPropertyRights(IPR),whichdiscouragearchaeologiststopublishandsharedatacollectedonsiteandelaboratedaftertimeconsumingprocess.

Besidenotopenclientserverarchitecture,todayareavailablefreetools forthevisualizationof3Ddataontheweb.

Themost used systems adoptedby the virtual archaeological community are3DHop4 andPotree5which allow creating interactiveWeb presentations of high-resolution 3Dmodels, oriented to theCulturalHeritagefieldexploitingtraditionalwebbrowsers(Figure34).Theyaredevelopedadoptingauser-friendlyapproachsoevenuserswithoutdedicatedITskillsareabletocustomizethem.Besidesvisualizing3Ddata,freeingtheuser(client)fromanyconfigurationissue,theseWebGLopensourcepackageshavefunctionalitiesforbasic3Dgeometricfeaturesextraction.

Figure34.PointcloudvisualizationwithPotreethroughFirefoxwebbrowser.

The OpenSceneGraph library is an open source high performance 3D graphics toolkit, used byapplicationdevelopersinfieldssuchasvisualsimulation,games,virtualreality,scientificvisualizationand modelling. However, compared with the examples mentioned above it requires a deepbackgroundinITandspecificallyinstandardC++andOpenGLlanguage.

Simulation

Simulatingeventsandactionshavebeenalwaysapartofarchaeologicalresearchwhichhavelargelybenefitsfromtheapplicationofcomplexcomputeralgorithms.

4http://3dhop.net/5http://www.potree.org/



Mathematicaltoolshavebeenusedtodescribeculturalprocesses,constructandevaluatesimulationmodels, and explore the potential of archaeology’s unique data in the study of long-term culturalchange.

Computer simulations in virtual archaeology can largely benefits from the use of GeographicalInformation System (GIS) software. This research methodology have been used successfully toreproduce,simulateandanalyseancientspaces,providinganinterpretativeframeworkwhichallowsarchaeologiststodetectsymbolicmeaningsembodiedinthematerialevidenceofthepast.Especiallyinrecentyears,advances in3DvisualizationandGIStechnologyhavepermittednewstrategies forinvestigatinghumanperceptionandthespatialconfigurationofhumanvisualspace.

3D simulation has shaded lights on the use of spaces and buildings by digital people performingspecific rites, acting as guides or merely walking around. The use of virtual crowds for CulturalHeritage can help to predict behaviours or to help scholars draw more educated conclusions onunknownmatters(Figure35).

Figure35.RomeRebornproject,masspeoplesimulation(source:http://romereborn.frischerconsulting.com).

ReconstructingancientbuildingsandcitiesfromtheirremainshasbeenoneofthemainapplicationsofcomputergraphicsinArchaeologyforitsvisualpotential.Behindagenericimaginativeeffectthatmightbeconsideredfakeorpurelyspectacularbyabranchofthearchaeologicalscientists,inseveralcasesithasbeendemonstratedthatseeingareconstructedobjectinasimulatedenvironment,mayallow obtaining new archaeological discoveries. The visualization of actual shapes and theirgeometrical relationshipswith the contextmay act as a trigger to imagine novel scenarios (Figure36).



Figure36.VillaofLivia,virtualreconstruction(source:LucciBaldassarietal.2013).

DirectAnalysis(3DShape)

Many analytical techniques are today available for geometrical analysis for heritage applications.Thesetechniquesaredirectedatexpertsinarchaeology,historyand/orconservation,ratherthanforcommunicationwithorengagementofthegeneralpublic.

Themajorityoftheresearchprojectsrelatedtomicro-geometricanalysisfocusontwomainculturalheritageapplications:perceptionenhancementandrestoration.

TraditionalquestionswhichariseintheCHdomain,are“howwasthisobjectwasmade?”,“whywasitrealizedthisway?”,“howhasthischangedthroughthecenturies?”,and“howcanthisobjectbestbeprotectedfromdamage?”

Atmicro scale, geometric operators are usually applied to high-resolution 3Dmodels, to analyze,extractsmallfeaturesandstructures,andenhancethedetails,suchashigh-frequencysignalsthataredifficulttoperceive(Figure37).



Figure37.Grindingstonemicroroughnesssurfaceanalysis.

Another general problem in cultural heritage is themonitoring of micro-geometric changes overtime.Many3Dacquisitionsperformed inadesignedtime lapsareuseful totrack finedeformationand degradation of artworks switching the concept from three dimensional to fourth dimensionalmodelling,wherethefourthdimensionisrepresentedbythetime(Figure38).

Figure38.Microfracturemonitoring(Bathowetal.2010).

Micro-scale analysis and geometrical features extraction have proven to be a central part ofreassembly applications in the restoration fieldof study.Whendealingwith the reconstructionoffracturedphysicalartefactsoften thepieceshavegenerallybeenscatteredover time,so thatnoaprioriinformationisavailableabouttheoriginalaspectandshape.Digitalfragmentsre-compositionisatopicstillunderdevelopmentaccordingtodifferentapproachesproposedintheliterature.Theseapplicationsmakeuseofvarioustypesofdataprimarilygeometric,butRGBinformationandsurface



propertiesarealsoused.Manymethodsaimtobefullyautomatic,whileothersmake inferadeeptimeconsuminguserinteraction(Figure39).

Figure39.3Dfragmentsmodelsre-assembly(source:GRAVITATEproject,https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/l.dorst/gravitate.html).

Atlargearchaeologicalscale,geometricalanalysisisusuallyusedtocomputemacromeasurementsandcalculationssuchasdistances,areas,volumeswhichcanhelpbothinthequantitativeanalysisofanexcavationand/or inthequalitativeassessmentof thedata.Auseful tool is representedbythepossibilitytocreateheightmapswhichcanenabletheuserto identifyclearlyarchaeological layersbelongingtothesameperiod(Figure40).

Figure40.Heightmap.



Geometry.ComparisonandRefitting

Digitalmetrologicalmethods, techniques and procedures can be fruitfully used for a comparativegeometricalanalysisandevaluationof the3Ddata (foreachsingleobject/techniqueandbetweenobjects/techniques)ofheritagerelatedartefacts.

Thedatacanbecomparedandanalysedusingdifferentsoftwareinordertoobtainqualitativedataabout a set of similar objects highlighting features otherwise difficult to understand likemorpho-logical similarities, manufacturing details (vases production, coins production etc.) or anatomicalfeatureswhenworkingintheanthropologicalfield(Figure41).

Figure41.3Dstonetoolscomparison.

Many archaeological finds uncovered during excavations are fragments which may belong to thesame artefact. Archaeologists select identifiable ones in order to assign their type, to understandcultural,economic,chronologicalandsocialaspectsofthesiteunderinvestigation.Themainstepsofpotsherdsstudyare:orientationoffragments,diameterestimation,profileestimationanddrawing(diameter,verticalprojection,profile).

In order to accomplish the second task digital techniques can result an invaluable resource toproduceaccuratereconstructionforthecorrectidentificationofthefragmentspositionandserveasimportanttoolfortherestorationwhichwilltakeover.Thusfar,virtualreconstructionhasbeenthemostcommonCHapplicationof3Dgraphics.Thefocusofthesetechnologiesisnotjusttoproducevisualrepresentations,buttopermittheexperimentationandassessmentofdifferentreconstructionhypotheses. These technologies thus increase knowledge rather than just producing visualization-relatedresults.Such3Dapplicationscanalsoassistwitheitherrealorvirtualreassemblyofbrokenordismantled artwork or be used as output for creation of physical replicas through 3D printingtechniques(Figure42).



Figure42.3Dvirtualrestoration(source:Scopignoetal.2011).

StructuralAnalysis

The introduction of newmeasuring devices such as 3D laser scanners, spherical photogrammetry,structure-from-motionphotogrammetryandthelatestmethodsofimage-basedmodellingproduceda strong change in themode of acquisition, treatment and restitution ofmetric information. Theincreasing reliability of these techniques has allowed to successfully implement their use in thebuildingsurveyingandstructuralmodellingpipeline.

Manystudieshaveshownthecontributionthatdigitaltechnologiescanprovideto:

• understandthestructuralbehaviourofbuildings;• identifytheoriginsandsignificanceofcracksandmisplacementofarchitectonicelements;• createelaboratedsimulationusingFiniteElementAnalysis(FEM)software.

In order for such contributions to effectively support decision making on different preservationapproaches for complex structures, it is crucial to provide accurate and complete representations(Figure 43). To achieve such representations, all important values such asmaterial properties andmaterialbehavioursunderstressconditionsmustbetakenintoaccount.

Figure43.Structuralanalysis.



Onlywithagoodcomprehensionofthewaytheentirestructurebehaves,andwithaclearpictureofthe origins and reasons of damages, it is possible to diagnose and propose further preservationactions.

5.4.4 DiscussionandFutureDirections

DiscussionoftheCurrentStateof3DArchaeology

In the previous sections we have shown that the field of 3D Archaeology has achieved highlyadvanced technical capabilities to capture data, model, present and analyse 3D models ofarchaeological objects and buildings. These capabilities can be used for various research,documentationandconservationpurposes.

Despitethissuccessfuldevelopmentthescientificvalueof3DrepresentationsisstillbeingdebatedLanjouw (2016) provides an overviewof the discussion since the 1990s. As a brief summary: Firstthere were mainly concerns about inaccurate and potentially deceptive 3D reconstructions, i.e.artistic3Dmodelsforthepublic.Thiswasfollowedbyafocusonscientificcriteria,i.e.findingwaysto visualize uncertainty in 3Dmodels and providing detailed background (so called “paradata”) toallow scrutinizing representations (see London Charter 2009). Furthermore, the need of going“beyond illustration” by developing 3D based virtual reality into an experimental tool for digitalheuristicsandhypothesisverificationhasbeenemphasised(Frischer&Dakouri-Hild2008).

The current situation presents a mixed picture. There are archaeologists who largely ignore thediscussionaboutthescientificvalueof3Drepresentationsandstrivetoimprovetheirusefulnessforarchaeological documentation, for example by integrating them in GIS, e.g. the 3D-GIS projectsMayaArch3D (vonSchwerinetal. 2016) andMapping theViaAppia (deKleijnetal. 2015).Othershighlightadvances inarchaeological3Dachievedbasedongoodpracticeand suggestareaswheretechnicalandresearchcapabilitiesmightbedevelopedfurther (Remondino&Campana2014).Stillothersarguethat3Dmustbemuchbetterexploitedinvirtualrealityenvironmentsforresearch,forexample by developing tele-immersive capability (Forte& Pietroni 2009; Kurillo et al. 2010; Forte2014).

In conclusion: There is a gap between the highly advanced technical state-of-the-art of 3DArchaeologyanditscapabilitytouse3Drepresentationsforgeneratingnewknowledge,forexamplebyintegratingandsynthesisingresultsofdifferentdisciplines.

FutureDirections

Theperceivegapbetweenthetechnicalandtheresearchcapabilityof3DArchaeologysuggestthatweneedadifferentapproach forexploiting3D representationsas research tools.Generatingnewscientific knowledge is a collaborative process that proceeds basedon scrutinizing and refuting oraccepting (always provisionally) knowledge claims. 3D representations essentially are knowledgeclaims. This is most evident concerning 3D virtual reconstructions of large objects, acknowledgedwhen “adding”missing pieces to smaller objects, and ignored when the representation seems topresentanobjects“asis”.

We suggest that 3D Archaeology research should aim to provide advanced capability forcollaborative development, critical discussion and verification of knowledge represented by 3Dmodels. This requires embedding the scientific process in the 3D model generation andrepresentationenvironment.

Online services recently developed in ARIADNE have verymuch eased the generation, publicationandvisualization (ARIADNEVisualMediaService,online).Nowthenext stepcouldbe toprovideavirtualresearchenvironmentthatenablesresearcherstostudyapublished3Dmodel,examinetheresearchandtechnicalbackgroundofthisknowledgerepresentation(i.e.meta/para-data),propose



incorporation of new research results of different disciplines, discuss suggested revisions, andannotatethecurrent3Dmodelwithinformationforasuchrevision.Thisinformationcouldthenbefedbackintothe3Dmodelgenerationtobeintegratedinanewversion,whichthenformsthebasisthenextloopofthiscollaborativee-research.

Thuswe suggest investigatinge-researchenvironments thatprovide such capabilitybyplacing thecollaborativeprocessofknowledgegenerationandvalidationinthecentreof3DArchaeology.

5.4.5 ReferencesBarberD.&Mills J. (eds.,2011): 3DLaserScanning forHeritage.Adviceandguidance tousersonlaserscanninginarchaeologyandarchitecture.2ndEdition,October2011.EnglishHeritagePublishing

BathowC.,BreuckmannB.,CallieriM.,CorsiniM.,DellepianeM.,DercksU.,ScopignoR.,SigismondiR.(2010):DocumentingandMonitoringSmallFracturesonMichelangelo’sDavid.In:ProceedingsofComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology-CAA2010,Granada,Spain.

Bentkowski-Kafel A., Denard H. & Baker D. (eds., 2014): Paradata and Transparency in VirtualHeritage.Farnham:Ashgate

de Kleijn M., de Hond R., Martinez-Rubi O. & Svetachov P. (2015): A 3D Geographic InformationSystemfor‘MappingtheViaAppia’.ResearchMemorandum2015-1,VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam

Forte M. & Pietroni E. (2009): 3D Collaborative Environments in Archaeology: Experiencing theReconstructionofthePast.In:InternationalJournalofArchitecturalComputing,7(1):57-75

Forte,M.(2014):Virtualreality,cyberarchaeology,teleimmersivearchaeology.In:RemondinoF.&Campana,S.(eds.):3DRecordingandModellinginArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage.Theoryandbestpractices.Archaeopress

Frischer B. & Dakouri-Hild A. (eds., 2008): Beyond Illustration: 2D and 3DDigital Technologies asToolsforDiscoveryinArchaeology.Oxford:Archaeopress

Guidi, G., Russo, M., Beraldin, J-A (2010): Acquisizione 3D e modellazione poligonale. Milano:McGrawHill.

KurilloG., ForteM.&BajcsyR. (2010): Cyber-archaeology andVirtual Collaborative Environments,pp.109-117,in:Forte,Maurizio(ed.):IntroductiontoCyber-Archaeology.Oxford:Archeopress

Lanjouw,Tijm(2016):Discussingtheobviousordefendingthecontested:whyarewestilldiscussingthe ‘scientific value’ of 3D applications in archaeology? In: Kamermans H. et al. (eds.): The ThreeDimensionsofArchaeology.XVIIUISPPWorldCongress2016,Burgos,Spain.Vol.7.Archaeopress.

Letellier,R. (2007):Recording,Documentation,and InformationManagement for theConservationofHeritagePlaces.Guidingprinciples.GettyConservationInstitute

LondonCharterforthecomputer-basedvisualizationofculturalheritage.Version2.1,February2009,http://www.londoncharter.org

LucciBaldassariG.,DemetrescuE.,PescarinS.,ErikssonJ.,GrafH.(2013):BehindLivia’sVilla-ACaseStudyfortheDevolutionofLargeScaleInteractive“in-site”to“on-line”.ProceedingsofDUXU2013-2ndDesign,UserExperienceandUsabilityConf.,LasVegas/USA,Volume4

RemondinoF.&CampanaS. (eds,2014):3DRecordingandModelling inArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage.Theoryandbestpractices.Oxford:Archaeopress

Scopigno R., CallieriM., Cignoni P., CorsiniM., DellepianeM., Ponchio F., Ranzuglia G. (2011): 3DModelsforCulturalHeritage:BeyondPlainVisualization.In:IEEEComputer,Vol.44(7),July2011.

vonSchwerinJ.,LyonsM.,LoosL.,BillenN.,AuerM.&ZipfA.(2016):Showmethedata!:Structuringarchaeologicaldata todeliver interactive transparent3D reconstructions ina3DWebGIS,pp.198-230,in:MünsterS.etal.(eds.):3DResearchChallengesinCulturalHeritageII.Springer(LNCS10025)



5.5 Geo-PhysicalFieldSurvey(ArheoVest)

5.5.1 IntroductionandOverviewIn recent years digital geo-physical resources, particularly open access resources available on theweb,havecreatedasolidbasisforvariousresearchactivities.Withtheapplicationofdifferentnon-invasivesurveyingtechnologies,theavailabilityandcirculationofinformationandre-usabledataonarchaeological siteshas improved,providingadvantages forboth thescientific communityand thewider public. This however requires proper organisation of the geo-physical field survey results inweb-accessible databases. Such databases can focus on bibliographic information on scientificpublications which present and discuss results of geo-physical prospections, technical reports ondifferentsurveymethodsandtheirapplication,andthegeo-physicaldatageneratedinfieldsurveys.Furthermore, there are websites which offer access to specialized programs for data processing(mostlybasedonacommerciallicense).

Ingeneral,uploadingof rawdataofgeo-physicalprospectionsontoadatabasedoesnotallow forintegratingresearchresults.Becausemanyfactorsneedtobetakenaccountofintheprocessingandinterpretationof survey results,which can result fromdifferentmethods (e.g.GroundPenetratingRadar (GPR), Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), Magnetometry, and others). Therefore, thedevelopment of unifying databases for geo-physical research requires the coverage of variouspossiblecomponentstiedtogetherbyapreciseaswellas flexiblemethodology.Somepartsof themethodology may be rather common while others may differ considerably depending on theparticular circumstances and techniques employed in different surveys (Becker 1995; Becker &Fassbinder2001;BritishArchaeological JobsResource2005;Clark1997;Kvamme2006; Schmidt&Ernenwein2009).

5.5.2 CurrentDigitalPracticesAlthoughgeo-physicalprospectionsareknownsincethe1970s,andhavebeenincreasinglyusedtoobtaindataonarchaeologicalsites,therestillareonlyfewcentral,unifyingdatabasesofmetadataanddatasetsof suchprospections.Therehavebeenanumberof initiatives foramorecentralisedapproachtoprospectiondata,forexamplebyorganizationsinEnglandandIreland(HistoricEngland2012; National Roads Authority Ireland 2014). However, no database exists at the European levelwhich integrates themetadataor, even, datasetsof prospections conducted indifferent countriesandregions.

Thelackofdatabasesforregisteringdatasetsonthenationallevelisduetothespecificrequirementsandoften restrictivepracticeof sharing results of geo-physical prospectionprojects. Suchprojectsrequire a research methodology which comprises of systematic data acquisition, processing andinterpretation, takingaccountof theparticularitiesof theprospectedarea.Therefore,geo-physicalrawdataassuchhaslimitedutility.Ratherdatabasesmustprovideaccesstodetaileddescriptionoftheresearchmethods,toolsemployed,andthedatapresentedaccordingtoestablishedstandards.

Theintegrationoftheresultsofsuchresearchworkindatabasesindeedisamorerecentpractice.Inthe mentioned cases, Historic England and National Roads Authority Ireland, access to theprospectiondatabaseshasbeenmainlymotivatedby theneedofmakingpublicly fundedresearchdataavailable.

5.5.3 CaseStudies

HistoricEnglandGeophysicalSurveyDatabase

TheGeophysicalSurveyDatabasedevelopedbyHistoricEngland(2012)isagoodexampleofhowtheresultsof geo-physicalprospections canbe integrated inadatabase (Linford&Cottrell 1997). The



databasecontainsrecordsofmorethan2700surveys inEnglandstretchingbacktothe late1960s;furthermore, a small number of surveys in Scotland have been included. The survey database isbasedonOracle7withawebfront-endthatfacilitatesthepublicaccesstothedata.Importantly,thedatabaseprovidesunique identifiers,EnglishHeritageSurveyVisitNo.andOASIS (OnlineAccesstothe Index of Archaeological Investigations) identifiers, because in 2006 the survey database wasmerged with the OASIS system to create a more comprehensive record of UK archaeologicalgeophysicalsurveys.

The survey database provides 21 interrogation possibilities, including location identifications(national or regional monument number, the administrative department, the area’s size given ingeographical coordinatesetc.);methodologyelements (instruments type, the reading frequencyofdata,theelectrodesconfigurationincaseofERT,etc.);detailsabouttheresearchedmonumenttype,dataabout landuseand itsgeology;and informationontheavailabilityofrelatedreportsorsomebibliographyattachedtothesurveyrecord.Very important isthedetailing,withinthedatabase,oftheworkmethodologyfollowingthestandardsforthespecificmethodsemployed.ThedatabaseisaccompaniedbyadocumentwhichexplainsitsstructureandthedatabasetablescanbedownloadedinCSVformat.

ProblemsandLimitations

OnelimitationoftheGeophysicalSurveyDatabase isthatuserscannotemploy it forownresearchandpopulateitwithnewdata,i.e.onlytheavailabledataasof2011canbedownloaded.Howeverthedatabase,particularlyitsmethodologypartsareveryuseful,sothatitcanserveasbasisforotherresearch,withsomeadaptionsaccordingspecificrequirementsofresearchprojectsand/ornationalguidelines.

NationalRoadsAuthorityArchaeologicalGeophysicalSurveyDatabase

The database of the National Roads Authority makes publicly accessible results of geo-physicalresearch conducted between 2001 and 2010, commissioned to identify archaeological sites andmonuments in advance of the construction of several roads in Ireland. The online database waslaunched in April 2013. It records geo-physical surveys on 73 road schemes across the country,covering a total area of just over 1,750 hectares. 733 surveys were undertaken at individuallocations, including Recorded Monuments or Areas of Archaeological Potential; surveys forprospecting purposes also took place along the entire length of 26 road schemes, over areas ofunknownarchaeologicalpotential(Bonsalletal.2013).

The database can be interrogated based on 14 criteria of which two merit special mention,investigationmethod(MagneticGradiometry,EarthResistance,GroundPenetratingRadar,etc.),andgeology typemet (Igneous,Metamorphic & Igneous, Sedimentary, etc.). Practically, the databaserepresentsacollectionofresearchreportsin.pdfformat,whichcontainrichinformationabouteachprospectionincluding,forexample,theauthorizationnumber,geophysicalexpert,prospectedarea,etc.Basedongeographiccoordinates,someinformationcanalsobebrowsedonaninteractivemap.


Thedatabaserepresentsmainlyacollectionofresearchreports.Therefore,itdoesnotoffermultiplepossibilities to sort and access data. Furthermore, it cannot be used to document own researchand/or to add data. Similar to the previous case, the database is primarily an instrument fordisseminatingofcommissionedresearchresults.

5.5.4 ConclusionsandRecommendationsThestudylookedintotwodatabasesofgeo-physicalsurveyscreatedandownedbynationalpublicauthorities.Suchdatabasesareusefulasameanstodisseminateavailableresultsofresearchwork



commissionedbytheauthorities.TherearenotmanysuchcentraldatabasesandnodatabaseexistsattheEuropeanlevelwhichintegratesthemetadataor,even,datasetsofprospectionsconductedindifferent countries and regions. The content of the existing online databases may be used forresearch purposes, but the databases cannot be (re-)used for documenting research projects orcontributing new results. For e-research in the field of geo-physical surveys there is a need ofstandardiseddatabasesdedicatedtosuchresearch.

5.5.5 SummaryE-researchinthefieldofgeo-physicalsurveysrequiresstandardiseddatabasescapabletodocumentthe complex research methodology of such surveys, including the systematic data acquisition,processing and interpretation, taking account of the particularities of the prospected area. Anappropriate research database should allow documenting all variables, for example, including themachines type employed, the surfaces sweep method, etc. For further progress in geo-physicalsurveying, research publications should come with access to the underlying datasets, ideallycontainedinashareddatabaseoftheresearchcommunity.Thiswouldallowthatpublishedresearchresultscanbescrutinizedandcorroboratedwithdatafromdifferentresearchmethods.

5.5.6 ReferencesBeckerH.&FassbinderJ.W.E.(2001):CombinedCaesiumMagnetometryandResistivitySurveyinPalmyra(Syria)1997and1998.In:MagneticProspectinginArchaeologicalSites(ICOMOS),Vol.6,76-80.

Becker,Helmut(1995):FromNanoteslatoPicotesla-aNewWindowforMagneticProspectinginArchaeology.In:ArchaeologicalProspection(UniversityofBradford,Dept.ofArchaeologicalSciences),Vol.2.4,217-228

BonsallJ.,GaffneyC.&ArmitI.(2013):Backandforth:pavingthewayforwardbyassessing10yearsofgeophysicalsurveysonIrishroadschemes.In:KellyB.etal.(eds.):FuturesandPasts:archaeologicalscienceonIrishroadschemes.NationalRoadsAuthority,http://www.tii.ie/technical-services/archaeology/resources/Bonsall-et-al-paper.pdf

BritishArchaeologicalJobsResource(2005):ArchaeologicalGeophysics:aShortGuide.Abingdon

Clark,AnthonyO.(1997):SeeingbeneaththeSoil:ProspectingMethodsinArchaeology.NewYork:Routledge

HistoricEngland(2012):TheGeophysicalSurveyDatabase.ADSCollection:1091,http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/ehgsdb_eh_2011/index.cfm

Kvamme,KennethL.(2006):Dataprocessingandpresentation.In:Johnson,J.K.(ed.):RemoteSensinginArchaeology.UniversityofAlabamaPress

Linford P. & Cottrell P. (1997): The English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database: Part I: DataStructure and Definitions, Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 72/96 (updated 02/07/97),http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/ehgsdb_eh_2011/downloads.cfm

NationalRoadsAuthority(2014):ArchaeologicalGeophysicalSurveyDatabase,http://field2archive.org/map.php

SchmidtA.&ErnenweinE.(2009):GeophysicalDatainArchaeology.2ndedition.ArchaeologyDataService&DigitalAntiquityGuidestoGoodPractice,http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Geophysics_Toc



5.6 PhysicalAnthropology(MNM-NOK)

Toenablesuchresearch,advancesinscholarlypracticesarerequiredsuchasstandardisationofdatarecording, data sharing and collaborative development of online databases. In the last decades,information about physical anthropology collections and research has generally become moreaccessible.Researchershavealsoshownanincreasedinteresttocollaborateonlinesincesharingofdatamakescost-effectiveresearchonlargerdatasetspossible.Avirtualresearchenvironmentwouldallow online collaboration of researchers for combining datasets and conducting more complexresearchwithnovelanalysistools.Butthiswillrequiresubstantialadvancesinthewaydatabasesforphysicalanthropologyarebeingdeveloped,sharedandresearchedonline.

5.6.1 IntroductionandOverviewIn thedomainofphysical anthropology, the increasinguseofdedicateddatabasesandweb-basedsolutionsforthedisseminationofscientificinformationhavegeneratedfertilegroundforsharingofdata, which allows faster and more comprehensive research. The demand for effective datamanagement and access first appeared in the context of large industrial developments that havelargely increased the number of archaeological rescue excavations. There was strong need toconductexcavationsatlargescaleandfasteraswellastoemploymoreeffectivedatamanagementsolutionsforthegrowingstockofarchaeologicaldocumentation.

Physical anthropologists have also been challenged because there was a significant increase ofhuman skeletal remains from the rescue excavations. Therefore, the analytical process, datarecording and other methods for these remains needed to be reassessed. Furthermore, thesechanges promoted the establishment of guidelines and protocols for standardized recording andanalyticalmethods inmanycountries.Different solutionshavebeendevelopedsuchas specializeddatabasesandsoftwaretohelpphysicalanthropologistsrecordmorecomprehensivedataandfastentheiranalysesandpublication(someofthesolutionsaredescribedinthiscasestudy).

Amajoradvancebroughtaboutbythementionedchangeswasthat, inmostcases,theanalysisofhuman remains became connected directly with the archaeological work process, both financiallyand logistically. This made possible that the anthropological investigations usually could startalongside the archaeological fieldwork. Furthermore, new and expensive analytical methods (e.g.DNA,stableisotope)couldbeinvolvedwhichpreviouslywereratherexceptional.

This new acquisitions of skeletal material allowed researchers to get acquainted with collectionsamples from different geographic area and periods, but there was a need for new technicalsolutionstostore,manage,processandanalyzethegrowingvolumeofdata.Alsonoteworthyisthatnew digital recording and visualization methods, especially 3D, have been adopted that allow anadvancedanalysisofskeletalremains.

Initiativeshavesoonappearedtosupporttheorganizationandstudyofdataindigitalform.Differentdatabase solutions have been developed to help researchers record and analyse samples (e.g.Bernert 2005; Osteoware and others) and allow access their documentation (e.g. Museum ofLondon’s Wellcome Osteological Research Database). Information and data have become moreaccessibleandstartedtoflow,allowingmoreinteractionbetweenresearchprojectsandinstitutes.

Researchershaveshownanincreasedinterestinthesenewadvancessinceobtaininglargersamplesthroughthewebmakescostandtimeeffectivelarge-scalestudiespossible.Digitalformsofdatacanbeappliedinamorecomplexway,notonly inresearchbutalsoineducationor indemonstrationsforthepublic(e.g.3Dmodels).Indeed,whereclassical,paper-basedmethodscametoanend,digitalmethodshaveopenednewavenuesforadvancingphysicalanthropologyinvariousrespects.



This case study looks into some examples of web-accessible databases in the field of physicalanthropology.Thestudyaimstoillustratecurrentapproaches,discussesthekindofresearchfieldsorphasestheysupport,andindicatesexistingproblemsandlimitations.Theexamplesincludedatabasesolutions designed to permit the recording andquerying of human remains data for research andcuration of museum collections, databases of pathological skeletal remains in new formats (3D),onlinedatabasesofexcavatedhumanremainsfromarchaeologicalsites,andsolutionsproposedforspecificarchaeologicalresearchquestions.

5.6.2 CurrentDigitalPracticesResearchersinthefieldofphysicalanthropologyneeddatabasesforvariouspurposeswhichincludefinding and selecting relevant samples for investigations, consultation of reference examples,documentation of samples from new excavations, and use of samples for addressing particularresearch topics. In recent years a number of databases have been developed which, however,presentsomeproblems.Amongtheseproblemsarethatmosthavebeencreatedmainlyforusebyone instituteandthatthecoverageofsamples is limited.Therefore,thedataofthesesamplesarenotrepresentativeregardingthegeographicalareaand/ortimeperiods.

A major issue also is that the existing databases are not harmonized based on an internationalstandard, which is missing, so that the data cannot be easily compared and combined forcollaborativeprojects.Addingtothisisthatthepreferredmethodsusedfordatarecordingcandifferbetween institutes of different countries and, even,within one country. In different countries thesame applied methods can vary while others match, so that a database specialised for certainresearchgroupsmaynotallowrecordingof thedata fromthevarietyofmethodswhicharebeingapplied.However,insomecountriesguidelinesforrecordinghumanremainshavebeendeveloped,forexample,Buikstra&Ubelaker (1994) in theUnitedStates,Megan&McKinley (2004) in theUKandPapetal.(2009)inHungary.

Still another problem is that the recording of certain skeletal data can be difficult (e.g. codes forlesions due to non-specific infections). Where this is the case, recordings can be interpretedcomprehensivelyonlywiththeintegrationofotherdata likesexandage,anatomicalelementsetc.Sometimes also the application of different statistical methods is necessary to get to a finalconclusion. Therefore, databases are required which provide effective solutions for dataexport/importandcombinationofdifferentdatatypes(bothquantitativeandqualitative)sothattherequiredroutetowardsdataprocessingandanalysiscanbetaken.

Moreover, due to new analytical methods some the recording of particular features of skeletalremains can change and becomemore detailed as well asmore complex. This requires a flexibledatabasetobeabletoincorporatemethodologicalandtechnicaladvances.Ontheotherhand,it isalsodifficulttodefinehowdetailedandcomplexadatabaseanditsuserinterfaceshouldbe.Ifitisnotuser-friendlythedataentryandotherprocessescanbecumbersome,andthedatabasesolutionnotacceptable forawider rangeofprofessionals. In thatcase, if it isnotavoidable,muchtrainingandsupportmustbeprovided.Inconclusion,astandardizeddatabaseandwidelyadoptedcanonlybeestablishedbyacooperationofaninternationalteamofphysicalanthropologistswithsignificantITandfinancialbackground.

5.6.3 CaseStudies

Osteoware

TheOsteowaredatabasehasbeendevelopedbytheSmithsonianNationalNaturalHistoryMuseum(2011). It is inuseat themuseumandavailable for installationalsobyotherusers.Osteoware isagoodexampleofacurrent solution for recordingphysicalanthropologydata. In technical terms, it



employs the Sybase Advantage Data Architect database, a data management system which isfreewareandcanbedownloadedfromtheOsteowarewebsite.

Osteoware allows the systematic recording of human skeletal material from archaeological sitesand/or creation of a museum collection catalogue according to basic and widely recognisedguidelines(Buikstra&Ubelaker1994).Thedatabasecanmanagedatasetsofdifferentsitesandeachsiteandevenindividualcanbedistinguishedbyanidentificationnumber(called‘catkey’).Osteowareprovidestwelvedataentrymodules, includingmodulesfor inventory,age&sex,pathology,cranialand dental data, etc. The interface provides check boxes and radio buttons for standardised dataentrywhichfollowsgeneralmethodswhicharenamedintherelevantmodule.Additionally,detaileddescriptionscanbegivenincommentfields.Therearealsosomespecialfunctions,forexample,formanagingphotoandx-rayrequeststolaboratorystaff.

Theentereddataofeachindividualcanbesummarisedinreportsbyarrangingtextsandcommentsfrom the modules in a designed paragraph. In order to efficiently query, extract and processaggregated data some knowledge of SQL is required. With SQL, there are options for creatingcomplexqueriesbasedon joining twoormore tables,and theextractionof combineddataallowssubsequentmeta-analyses.Adetailedusermanualisavailableonthewebsitewhichprovideshelpfulstep-by-stepinstructionswithgoodqualityphotos.RegisteringasauserwiththeOsteowareForumallowspostingquestionsonline,reportingbugs,andvoicingsuggestionsforfutureversions.


UsingOsteoware for data of our skeletalmaterials catalogue, for example, to enter our cataloguenumbersanddatasubsets(e.g.archaeologicalsites),firstrequiresinstallationoftheAdvantageDataArchitect.TheOsteowaredevelopersnotethatsettingupthedatabasewithsitedataandinventorycodesisanadvancedfunctionandbestlefttoanexperienceddatabasemanager.Suchamanagerisnot necessarily available at smaller museums or as a member of an archaeological project team,whichmakesthedatabasedifficulttoadoptbymanypotentialusers.However,reportedlyaneasiertoimplementsolutionisindevelopment.

The database is very detailed and complex, however, some parts are not compatible with thestandardsof institutes inothercountries (e.g. inHungarysexingofsamples isbasedonadifferentstandardbasedonÉryetal.1963).Also,itwouldbeanadvantageifcertainarchaeologicaldatacouldbeentered,forexample,culturalperiods,whosetimespancanvaryindifferentcountries.Thiswouldallowusersfilteringsitesorindividualstoperiodorcombineskeletalandotherarchaeologicaldata(e.g. like sacral pits). We note again that advanced processing of data with Osteoware requiresknowledgeofSQLmethodstoquery,extractandanalysedata, theeffectivenessdependingonthepracticalskills.

On-lineCollectionsofPathologicalSpecimens

Study of ancient diseases based on pathological skeletal material is a major field of research inphysical anthropology. It informs far-rangingarchaeological topics suchas the impactof infectiousdiseasesoncommunitiesoreffectsofdifferentdietarypracticesduetosocialinequalities.Withtheintroductionofdigitalrecordingofspecimensmanynewpossibilitieshaveappeared.Theseincludehigh-resolution images or 3D replicas of pathological specimens that can be brought together asonlinereferencecollectionssupportingtheidentification,comparisonanddescriptionofnewcases.Theinvestigationscanbecarriedoutwiththedigitalrepresentationsinsteadofthephysicalsampleswhichmaybecuratedbydifferentcollections.Webrieflydescribetwoexamplesofonlineaccessiblecollections.

ThePaleopathologicalDatabaseofRizziGiovanni&Co.ArchaeologicalResearch(Bressanone,Italy)isadatabaseofover650high-resolution images (includingsomex-raysandmicroscopic images)and



descriptionofpathologicalskeletalremains.TheskeletalmaterialcamefromsevenexcavationsitesintheAutonomousProvinceofBolzano-AltoAdige,Italy,thathasco-financedtheproductionofthedatabase.Thedatabaseincludessomehistoricalbackgroundonthedifferentsites.

DigitisedDiseasesisanonlinedigitalresourceofpathologicalspecimensmadeupofmorethan16003Dmodelsofhumanremains.ThisdatabasehasbeendevelopedinjointinitiativeoftheUniversityof Bradford (Anthropology Research Centre and Centre for Visual Computing), the Museum ofLondon Archaeology and the Royal College of Surgeons of England, funded by JISC (UK).DigitisedDiseasescontains3Dlaserscanning,computedtomographyscansandhighresolutionphotographywithnewclinicaldescriptionsandhistoricalillustrations.Themanyweb-accessiblephotorealistic3Dmodels are a useful resource for various disciplines including osteologists, palaeo-pathologists,archaeologistsaswellasmedicalhistoriansandtrainees.However,forthearchaeologicalspecimensthe contextual information is rather limited.DigitisedDiseases enablesaccess todigital replicasofvaluableandrarematerialsthatpreviouslymayhavebeenavailableonlyforcertainresearchersandstudies. Pathological specimens are often themost handled bones within skeletal collections andtherefore the most fragile ones. Therefore, initiatives such asDigitised Diseases can also play animportant role in conserving scientific resourceswhich otherwise are at risk of being degraded ordamaged.


Themainproblemwithsuchdatabasesfromanarchaeologicalperspective isthattheywill tendtobe limitedwithregardtotheircoverage.Thisconcernseithertherangeofpathologicalspecimens,i.e. fromanumberof regional sites as in the Italian case, or limitedarchaeological information asDigitised Diseases. The latter case arguably is due to an agreed minimal common descriptiontemplate.Bradford’sAnthropologyResearchCentreandMuseumofLondonArchaeologymayhavericher documentation of samples. However smaller centres due to lack of funds and technicalsupportwillfinditdifficulttocontribute3Dmodelstoashareddatabase.Ingeneral,representationof samples in 3D of course exceeds the limits of standard recording by collections of skeletalmaterial.

DatabasesofHumanSkeletalRemainsCollections

New research on skeletal remains from sites in large or different countries could be eased byintegrated databases of such remains held by collections of museums and other institutions. Thedatabases would cross-searchable and include sufficient information about the archaeologicalcontext from which the stored remains come, if they have already been studied by a physicalanthropologist,where study reports are available, etc. Thiswould the researchers spotting onlinerelevant samples for their research, instead of visiting collections and going through specimencataloguesorolderfindingaidsto(maybe)identifyspecimentheywouldliketostudy.

Unfortunately,comprehensivenationaldatabasesofskeletoncollectionsandsamplesdonotexistasyet,consequentlyalsonotattheEuropeanlevel.Sometimesreferencedasanexistingsearchindexisa“BritishandIrishOn-lineDatabaseIndextoExcavatedhumanremainS(BODIES)”,butthisremainedaproposal in2004tocreatesuchanindex.Theproposerspointedoutthatacomprehensive indexcouldallow researchers“locateandaccesshuman remainsgermane to their researchquestions. Itwillalsoenable thestateagencieswhichmanagearchaeological resources toknowwhathasbeenexcavated,toidentifygapsinknowledge(e.g.byperiodorfunerarycontext)andthustoplaceneworproposedexcavationsinabettercontext”(Millard&Roberts2004).Arecentguidancedocumentofthe British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology still cannot point to anavailableindexbutadvisestocontacttheHistoricEnvironmentRecordofficesandrelevantmuseums(BABAO2015).



Researchers can try and sift through online collection databases of individualmuseums that holdskeletalmaterial.However,oftentheydonotincludeinformationaboutsuchmaterialinthepubliclysearchable catalogue, and allow access only to legitimate users upon request. Furthermore,researchersmayexploreburialdatabaseswherethesehavebeenmadeaccessibleonline.Typically,suchdatabasesconcernoneexcavation(e.g.anurnfieldorcemetery),althoughthereareexamplesthathavebrought together resultsofa largernumberofexcavations. Forexample,PastPeopleofOxfordshire,launchedinJanuary2016,collatedover7000burialsexcavatedfromarchaeologicalsiteswithin the county of Oxfordshire, UK. The database documents archaeological background, burialpractices and, where available, osteological information; also if remains were reburied or havebecomepartofacollectionisnoted.


The described situation is limiting the possibility of researchers to easily discover and collectinformation about available skeletal material that could be relevant to study for their researchquestions.Thisproblemispresentincountrieswithmanymuseumsandotherinstitutionsthatholdskeletal remains and, subsequently, at the European level. Therefore, international researchcollaboration and projects are difficult to establish. Such projects, however, could increase ourknowledgeaboutpastculturesand lifeways indifferentregionsandperiodsbasedoncomparativestudiesofhumanskeletonremains.

DatabasesDesignedforSpecialResearchQuestions

Humanbioarchaeologyallowsposingmanyresearchquestionsthatcanbeaddressedbycombininginformationofphysicalanthropologyandotherarchaeological investigations.The informationmayrequire detailed recording of the skeletal and other finds or features of the sites included in theinvestigation. Asanexampleherewechose IndexofCare,whichisawebsitethat implementsthebioarchaeologyofcaremethodologydevelopedbyLornaTilley(2013,2015).

IndexofCare invites researchers todocumentarchaeologicalcases thatevidencecareprovision toseriouslydisabledindividuals(Tilley&Cameron2014).Theweb-baseddatabaseapplicationisfreetouse for registeredusers. Itprovidesdifferent sectionsandworksheetsdesigned fororganizingandrecording available information, guides the user through the process, explains concepts of themethodology, and provides a template for systematic interpretation of the information. Theapplicationsuggestsreflectingabouttheimpactofthedisabilityontheindividual,thecaregivinganditssocialcontext.Asindividualcasesareanalysedtheapplicationsupportsexplicitreasoningtoallowtransparency inanalysisandreview.Acasestudyofaprehistoricdisabled individual illustratestheapproach.


Many special studies in archaeology are based on individual cases collected from different sites.OnlineenvironmentslikeIndexofCarethatsupportthesystematicconductofsuchstudiesarerare.However, such solutions could help advancing the knowledge base of archaeological researchspecialtieswhosestudiesdependtoa largedegreeonqualitativeanalysis. Incasebasestudiesthecasesareofcourserandomsothatcarefulreasoningabouttheavailableinformation,itsprovenanceandlimitationiscrucial.

Increasing the knowledgebasebyproviding anonline facility to document and share case, ideallyalsoanonlinediscussion forum, certainlyaregoodwaysof collaborativeknowledgegeneration.Amajor issue is that researchers are often not willing to contribute data to a community onlinedatabase. This problem is likely to be present even more where they are meant to follow amethodologyandusetemplatesdevelopedbyothers.



5.6.4 ConclusionsandRecommendations

Projectsinphysicalanthropologyneeddatabasesthatsupportthediscoveryofrelevantsamplesforinvestigations,data recordingandanalysis, through topublicationof results (reportsanddata) forfurtherresearchonvariousresearchtopics.

At the bottom, the catalogues of institutions that hold collections of or include skeletal materialrelevant for physical anthropology in the context of archaeology, present several difficulties: thecatalogues, ifdigitised,arenoteasytoaccessonline(e.g.only for legitimateregisteredusers),andarenotyetfederatedtoallowcross-cataloguesearches.

Further, at the levelof researchdatabases, thosewhichhavebeendeveloped in recentyearsalsopresentsignificantproblems:These include lackof international standardisation,hencedifferencesinthedatarecording; individualsolutionsofinstitutes,hencelimitedcoverageofanalysedsampleswithregardtogeographicalareaand/ortimeperiods.Also,agoodinteroperabilityofthesesolutionscannotbeassumed.

This leads to a situation where skeletal material samples and data cannot be easily discovered,compared and combined for collaborative projects, especially projects with a cross-country orEuropean scope. Suchprojectswouldhave a lot of researchpotential, for examplewith regard toresearch on populations of cultures of which remains are distributed over several countries. Alsoosteopathologicalresearchbasedondatafromdifferentcountriescouldyieldimportantresults(e.g.ontheimpactofinfectiousdiseasesoncultures).

Moreover, integrateddatabaseswithrichdocumentationcouldallowidentifyingofparticularcaseswhich are relevant for special studies of bioarchaeologists, for example cases as required for theIndexofCareandsimilaronlineresearchsolutions.

Concerningrecentinitiativestoprovide3Dmodelsofskeletalmaterial,theseshouldcomewithrichdocumentationofthearchaeologicalcontextfromwhichthematerialhasbeencollected.Otherwisetherelevanceofsuchmodelsforarchaeologicalresearchersislimited.

Conclusions

o Collections of skeletal material: There is a need to federate the catalogues to allow cross-collection search of samples relevant for research questions in physical anthropology andarchaeology.

o Research databases: Physical anthropology research databases should become morestandardizedandinteroperabletoallowdatarecordingandintegrationforcomparativestudies.ThisrequiresajointinitiativeofmajorinstitutionsattheEuropean/internationallevel.

o Virtualresearchenvironment:Givenahigherinteroperabilityoftheresearchdatabases,includingdatabasesofotherdomains,thedevelopmentofavirtualresearchenvironmentforcomparativeresearchwouldbepossible.Independentfromlarge-scaledatabaseintegration,VREscouldalsobedevelopedforcasestudybasedinvestigations.

RecommendationsforARIADNE

o Coverageofphysicalanthropologyresearchdata:TheARIADNEdatasetcataloguecontainsonlyasmallnumberofrecordsconcerningdataandreportsofstudiesofhumanskeletalremains.Thusan important area of information for archaeological researchers is not well covered yet.Therefore, more sets of data and reports should be incorporated. This concerns researchdatabases,notdatabasesofskeletalmaterial.

o Standardization of research data and databases: Standardization of data recording anddatabases in physical anthropology (and any other primary archaeological data) is not a focus



area of ARIADNE. However, ARIADNE could promote and contribute to standardisationinitiatives,especiallyfromtheperspectiveofdatasetregistration,federationandintegration.

o Developmentofvirtualresearchenvironments(VREs):Demonstrationoftheresearchpotentialofinteroperablephysicalanthropologydatabasesmaypromotefurtherstandardisationandsharingofdatabases.Therefore,aVREwouldbebeneficialthatcandemonstratesuchpotentialbasedonanumberofintegrateddatabasesofphysicalanthropologyandotherarchaeologicaldata.

Itshouldbeclearthattheproposedactivitiesrequireaclosecollaborationbetweenanthropologists,archaeologists,databasemanagers,andtechnicalresearchersanddevelopers.

5.6.5 SummaryThe case study addresses the development of databases in the field of physical anthropology,describes some current examples, and points out existing issues aswell as potential for advancestowardsinnovativee-archaeology.

Identified major challenges for e-archaeology are: data recording that is not based on aninternationalstandard,databases thathavebeendevelopedwithonlyone institution inmind,andlack of federated, cross-searchable databases; the latter concerns both collections of skeletalmaterialandresearchdatabases.

For ARIADNE the case study recommends: to include in the ARIADNE registry/portalmore sets ofresearchdataandreportsofphysicalanthropology;tocontributetothestandardisationofdatabasesin this field fromARIADNE’sperspectiveofdataset registration, federationand integration;and toconsider the development of a virtual research environment that demonstrates the researchpotentialofinteroperablephysicalanthropologyandotherarchaeologicaldatabases.

The case study emphasises that these objectives require a close collaboration betweenanthropologists,archaeologists,databasemanagers,andtechnicalresearchersanddevelopers.

5.6.6 ReferencesWebsitesofSelectedDatabases

DigitisedDiseases.Accessed2017/01/04–http://www.digitiseddiseases.org/mrn.php?mrn=xx

IndexofCare.ContentanddesignbyLornaTilley,SchoolofArchaeology&Anthropology,AustralianNationalUniversity).Accessed2017/01/04–http://www.indexofcare.org

Osteoware:StandardizedSkeletalDocumentationSoftware.Accessed2017/07104–SmithsonianNationalMuseumofNaturalHistory.2017/01/04–https://osteoware.si.edu/

PastPeopleofOxfordshire,OxfordUniversity-SchoolofArchaeologyetal.Accessed2017/01/04–http://pastpeopleoxon.uk

WellcomeOsteologicalResearchDatabase(WORD),CentreforHumanBioarchaeology,MuseumofLondon.Accessed2017/01/04–http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/Centre-for-Human-Bioarchaeology/Database/Bibliography.htm

PaleopathologicalDatabase.Accessed2017/01/04-RizziGiovanni&Co.ArchaeologicalResearch,Bressanone–http://www.paleopatologia.com/en/home.html

Bibliography

BABAO-BritishAssociationofBiologicalAnthropologyandOsteoarchaeology(2015):AdviceandguidanceaboutaccessingcollectionsofhumanremainsintheUnitedKingdom.BABAOCommittee,August2015(http://babao.org.uk/docs/AGFACHRUK.pdf)



Bernert,Zs.2005.Paleoanthropologicalprogrampackage[Paleoantropológiaiprogramcsomag].FoliaAnthropologica,3,71–74.

BrickleyM.&McKinleyJ.I.(eds.).2004.GuidelinestotheStandardsforRecordingHumanRemains.IFAPaperNo.7.BABAOandInstituteofFieldArchaeologists,UK

Buikstra,J.E.,Ubelaker,D.H.(eds)1994.Standardsfordatacollectionfromhumanskeletalremains.Fayetteville,AR,ArchaeologicalSurvey.ResearchSeminarSeries44.

Éry,K.,Kralovánszky,A.,Nemeskéri,J.1963.Történetinépességekrekonstrukciójánakreprezentációja.AnthropológiaiKözlemények,7,41-90.

Millard,A.&Roberts,C.2004:BODIES-TheBritishandIrishOn-lineDatabaseIndextoExcavatedhumanremains.Accessed2016/07/04–https://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/BODIES/

PapI.,FóthiE.,JózsaL.,BernertZs.,HajduT.,MolnárE.,BereczkiZs.,LovászG.,PálfiGy.2004.HistoricalAnthropologicalProtocolforrecovering,curation,caringandpreliminaryanthropologicalinvestigationsoftheanthropologicalmaterialsderivingfromarchaeologicalexcavation.[TörténetiEmebrtaniProtokollaRégészetiFeltárásokEmbertaniAnyagainakKezelésére,AlapszintűFeldolgozásáraésElsődlegesTudományosVizsgálatára].AnthropolgiaiKözlemények,50,105-123.

Tilley,L.&Cameron,T.(2014):IntroducingtheIndexofCare:Aweb-basedapplicationsupportingarchaeologicalresearchintohealth-relatedcare.InternationalJournalofPalaeopathology,6(1):5-9.

Tilley,Lorna(2013):Towardsabioarchaeologyofcare:acontextualisedapproachforidentifyingandinterpretinghealth-relatedcareinprehistory.PhDThesis,AustralianNationalUniversity.

Tilley,Lorna(2015):TheoryandPracticeintheBioarchaeologyofCare.NewYork:Springer.



5.7 ArchaeobotanicalResearch(SRFG)

5.7.1 IntroductionandOverviewThis case study first introduces archaeobotany with regard to its disciplinary scope and currentdevelopments. The latter include an increased accessibility of studies and data online, i.e. datashared throughopenaccess repositories,whichcontribute to researchquestionsofenvironmentalarchaeology. Next, the case study addresses archaeobotanical research in the context ofarchaeological sites. This concerns the investigation of remains of plants as a contribution to theoverall interpretation of sites. The study focuses on the identification of the plant remains,whichmeans determining the plant species. The task often requires comparison of samples toarchaeobotanicalreferencematerialaswellasaskingcolleaguesforhelpwiththeidentification.Thiscouldbeeasedbyavirtual referencecollectionandenvironment that collects imagesandcontextdescriptions from many researchers and provides tools for discussion and collaborativeidentification.However,anappropriatesolutionhasintricaterequirementsinprofessional,technicalandotherrespects.Thecasestudypresentsaspecificationoftherequirementswhichincludesalsointeroperabilityofdatawithresearche-infrastructures,i.e.ARIADNE.

5.7.2 CurrentDigitalPractices

Thissectionfirstintroducesarchaeobotanyasaresearchspecialtywithinthewide,multi-disciplinaryfieldof archaeologyandpointsout some issuesof archaeobotanists. Thenext section thenbrieflydescribesthecurrentstateofdigitalpracticesinarchaeobotanyasseenbyauthorsofamajorrecentvolumeofthedomain.

Archaeobotany–Definition,DisciplinaryScope,andIssues

Archaeobotany (also named Palaeobotany or Palaeoethnobotany) concerns the study of plantremainspreservedonarchaeologicalsitesandtheirwidernaturalenvironment.Thesecanbemacro-remains suchaswood/charcoal andpreserved seedsaswell asmicro-remains (e.g. spores,pollen,starch grains, phytoliths). In recent years, methods for the identification and analysis of micro-remainshavereceivedevermoreattention,includingmolecularanalysis(i.e.ancientDNAanalysis).

Thearchaeobotanical study resultsarebeingused toanalysewhatpeoplegatheredandcultivatedfor their subsistence, includinghowandwhere itwas stored,processedand consumed.Of courseagriculture, food supply and diets, and their change over time, are essential archaeobotanicalresearch themes. Other research themes for example are the use of plants for constructions,decoration, drugs and medical treatment. Collected remains of wood are also being fordendrochronology. Moreover, archaeobotanical studies contribute to research questions ofenvironmental archaeology. These concern past conditions and changes of landscapes andvegetation, ecology/biodiversity, land use etc.with a focus on reconstructing human relationshipswiththenaturalworld.

Archaeobotanyisawell-establishedfieldofresearch,with itsowntopics,methodsandprocedures(seee.g.Day2013;Pearsall2016),acoreprofessionalassociation,theInternationalWorkGroupforPaleoethnobotany,andsubgroupsofwider researchcommunities (e.g. InternationalAssociationofWood Anatomists, Society of Economic Botany, Society of Ethnobiology and others) as well asregionallyfocusedgroups(i.e.InternationalWorkshopforAfricanArchaeobotany).Thecorejournalis Vegetation History and Archaeobotany and there are many others which regularly publisharchaeobotanicalpapers (e.g.ArchaeologicalandAnthropologicalSciences, JournalofEthnobiologyandothers).Togiveanimpressionofthenumberofresearchersactiveand/orinterestedtobeupto



date about publications in this field, on Academia.edu the topic of Archaeobotany has over 7000followers.

SomeyearsagothearchaeobotanistNaomiMillerconductedanonlinesurveyonresearchpractices,issuesandpotential improvements inthefield(Miller2010and2011).120respondentscompletedthe survey questionnaire, including contributions from Europe (65), North America (42), LatinAmerica(9)andothercountries(4)completedthesurveyquestionnaire.63livedandmostlyworkedin Europe, 42 in North America and 15 in other regions. Most respondents were practicingarchaeobotanistswithaPh.D.whohadpublishedthreeormoreresearchreports.Abouthalf listedarchaeology as their highestdegree, about a third listedanthropology, and the remainder studiedbotany,ecologyandearthsciences.ArchaeobotanistsinEuropemostlyhadstudiedarchaeologyandbotany or ecology. The research interests of most respondents were focused on small-scaleagriculturalcommunities,foodproductionanddiet,andtheenvironmentofarchaeologicalsites.

Thesurveycoveredallphasesoftheresearchprocessandaskedforsuggestionsonhowtoaddressperceivedchallenges.Issuesthereweremany,includingnotenoughjobs,inadequatetimetodothework,andinsomecountriesneedofbettertrainingandlaboratoryfacilities.Themainphasewherethearchaeobotanistsfacedproblemsintheirresearchwastheidentificationofseedsandplantparts(seebelow).Overall respondentswantedtohavetheirworkandresultsbetter integratedwiththearchaeological study, being part of the planning, execution, analysis and publication stages ofprojects,“gettingthedirtarchaeologiststounderstandthevalueofourstudiesandstopthemfromstickingusintoappendices”(asonerespondentsummarisedtheissue).

CurrentStateofDigitalPractices

In 2015 the book Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany (Marston et al. 2015a) appeared,accordingtoonereviewer“anexcellentvolumethatisthefirstofitskindtobepublishedinover25years”(Perrotti2015). Inthefirstchaptertheeditorsdescribetheestablishmentofarchaeobotanyasadisciplineandendwiththreefuturedirectionstheyseeforthediscipline(Marstonetal.2015b).The directions are increased accessibility of data online, more training of archaeobotanists indevelopingcountries(leadingtomorepublicationsfromthosecountries),andagreaterrelevanceofarchaeobotanical researchbeyondarchaeology,particularlywith regard to issuesofenvironmentalandclimatechange.Ourmaininteresthereisinthefirstdirection,whichcanalsosupporttheothertwo.

Asevidenceforatrendtowardsincreasedpublicationofdataonlinetheeditorsmentionanumberof resourcessuchasdistributionalmaps (i.e.ArchaeobotanicalDatabaseofEasternMediterraneanandNearEasternsites),imagesharingwebsites(e.g.Paleobot.org),onlinebibliographies(e.g.Kroll’sLiteratureonArchaeological Remainsof CultivatedPlants 1981–2004, and the JISCArchaeobotanyListserv. The latter is not really that newbecause this Listserv is active since2002.Amore recentprofessionalpracticeinarchaeobotany,however,isthearchivingofentireprimarydatasetsindigitalrepositories such as DRYAD (biological data), PANGAEA (environmental data), Open Context andtDAR (archaeological repositories). This is increasingly being requested or at least encouraged byfundingbodiesandjournals.

Obviously the editors expectmost from this development because “it has the potential to reduceBalkanizationofthefield”andenablere-useandintegrationofpublishedprimarydatasets,“whichremainsuncommoninthefield”.Butthiswouldallowlarger-scaleanalysesandregionalsyntheses.Indeed,theeditorsstressthatmandatorydigitalarchivinginestablishedrepositories(suchasthosementionedabove)wouldallowthat“largenumbersofbotanicaldatasetsthathavebeenburiedingreyliteraturewillbecomeaccessibleandcontributetofuturepaleoethnobotanicalresearch”.

The impression given by this account is that the landscape of digital practices and resources inarchaeobotanicalresearchpresentsaratherpatchypicture.However,onebookchapteronDigitizing



the Archaeobotanical Record describes the uptake of data recording (e.g. digital photography),communication (e.g.online forums)anddisseminationtools (e.g. imagesharingsites)over the last30yearsandaddressessomeexamplesingreaterdetail(Warinner&d’AlpoimGuedes2015).

NaomiMiller’ssurvey(Miller2010[appendix])providesavaluable,verylikelystillvalidindicatorofwhichkindofweb-accessible informationarchaeobotanistsfindusefulwhentheyareworkingonalaboratoryanalysisandreport.Thetopthreeofthe54websites,eachwithover10mentionswere:USDA Plants Database (16),Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands (12), and InsideWood (11). TheAtlasmayrequiresomeexplanation:itcontainsover4000fullcolourdigitalphotographstakenwithamicroscope and represents 1828 taxa,mainly ofwild plant species. Thehigh-quality images anddescriptions are not only relevant for plant identification of Dutch archaeobotanists (of which 3participatedinthesurvey),butformanyothers inEuropeandbeyond.Mostoftheotherwebsiteswerementionedbyonlyoneortwosurveyparticipants:“representative”withregardtothetypeofcontent are regionally focused databases (e.g. Tropicos), seeds characteristics/images (many),ethnobotany, including plant names (Hawaiian EthnobotanyOnline Database), and scientific plantnames(e.g.InternationalPlantNameIndex).

5.7.3 CaseStudyThe case study addresses archaeobotanical research in the context of archaeological sites. Thisconcernstheinvestigationofremainsofplantsasacontributiontotheoverallinterpretationofsites.The study focuses on the identification of the plant remains, whichmeans determining the plantspecies. The task often requires comparison of samples to archaeobotanical referencematerial aswellasaskingcolleaguesforhelpwiththeidentification.Thiscouldbeeasedbyavirtualreferencecollectionandenvironmentthatcollectsimagesandcontextdescriptionsfrommanyresearchersandprovidestoolsfordiscussionandcollaborativeidentification.Butsuchacollectionenvironmentisnoteasy to build. The case study looks into a number of available options, including a collectionmanagementsystem(AdlibMuseum),awiki-basedenvironment(MediaWiki),asystemforspecimenbasedbiologicalresearchprojects(Morphbank),theScratchpadsplatform,andPaleobot.org,aweb-sitedevelopedbyagroupofarchaeobotanists.Basedontheresultsofthecasestudyaspecificationof the requirements of an appropriate virtual environment has been developed. The set ofrequirementsispresentedanddiscussedinnextsection.

DigitalPracticesintheResearchProcess

Thecasestudylooksintotheprocessofarchaeobotanicalresearchinthecontextofarchaeologicalsites.Theresearchprocesscomprisesof

o collectionofsamplesofplantremainsfromexcavatedsoil,

o identification,descriptionandquantificationoffinds,

o analysisandinterpretationofthedata,

o writingareportwhichpresentsandsummarisestheresults(whichareincludedinaninterimorfinalreportontheexcavation),and

o useoftheresearchresultsforacademicpublications.

This study mainly addresses digital practices and means which are or could be involved in theprocess,leavingasidegeneralpurposetoolsfortabulardataandtext.Thefocusisondigitalimageswhichareveryimportantforthedocumentationandidentificationofplantremains.Indeed,digitalimagesofsamplesplayakeyrolewhenarchaeobotanistsmustlookforreferencespecimensoraskremote colleagues for help with the identification of finds. The main focus of this study is theidentificationphaseofarchaeobotanicalstudies.



Reports,PublicationsandDataSharing

One general topic worth addressing concerns the archaeobotanical research results, i.e. reports,papers, and data of investigations. Archaeobotanists often complain that their contribution to theinterpretation of a site is not being recognised appropriately, and that their data, analysis andinterpretationendupasappendicestositeexcavationsreports.Thisisaproblemmainlyofcontractbasedwork,wheretheoutcomesarenotcarriedforwardtoacademicarchaeobotanicalpapersor,maybeasafirststep,aPhDthesis.

Research papers: These typically are short research reports on some interesting archaeobotanicalresults fromonesite inconferenceproceedingsor journals,ora long journalpaperpresentingthemajor final results (and detailed evidence) for one or several sites. Professional contractarchaeobotanistsmay have problems to exploit their data for publications because of contractualconditions, lack of time, or lost interest in academic recognition. A PhD candidate working at anexcavationsite (seeexamplebelow) is typicallyallowedand, indeed,encouragedtopublishresultsbasedonhis/herdata,because itextendstheacademicrecordofthatexcavation.Thefinalresultson thePhD’s archaeobotanical topic, foroneor several sites, here is thePhD thesis,which is alsoexploitedforshortpapersandatleastonelongpaper,ideallyinacorejournalofthedomain.

Research data: The full research data of archaeobotanical and other archaeological studies istypically notmade available or only after publication of the final results, i.e. by depositing it in apublicly accessible repository. In recent years the latter has become a digital practice because ofopen data mandates of funding bodies, which means that publicly funded research projects areobligedtomakethedataavailable.

Researchers’referencecollections:Archaeobotanicalresearcherstypicallyhaveanowncollectionofselectedphysicalmaterialandalotofdigitalimagesofsamples,whichtheyusefortheidentificationofnewfindswhosespeciestheycannoteasilydetermine.Theseimages,producedovermanyyearsunder sometimes difficult circumstances, are an essential professional asset of archaeobotanists.Evenmorevaluableistheirexpertknowledgewhenplantfindsaredifficulttoidentify.Expertsinthefieldoftenhelpcolleagueswhoaskforhelp,forexample,ontheJISCArchaeobotanye-mailing list.Sharing of many own images, e.g. to build a community reference collection is a different story,whichweaddressinlatersectionsofthiscasestudy.

DigitalImages

Digitalimagesofplantremainsareregularlyproducedinthelaboratory,whichinlargerexcavationscan alsobe establishedon-site. The images arebeingused todocument samples, identify unclearfinds,presentanddiscussfinds,andasevidenceinreportsandpublications.

Figure44showstheworkenvironmentofaBritishPhDstudenttakingimagesofcharredseedsinalabatthelarge-scaleexcavationoftheNeolithicsettlementsiteÇatalhöyükinTurkey(Green2015).The researcher specialises in wild plant species (weeds), whichmay be well-preserved in charredform (i.e. in the context of hearths or burned down grains storage). A typical work day of theresearcher consisted of sorting through samples of excavated and sieved/flotated soil, picking outwhatappearedtobecharredseeds,andusealightmicroscopewithdigitalcameratoexamineandphotograph relevant specimens. The detailed identification, documentation and analysis sheconductedbackhomebasedontheseimages.



Figure 44. Photographing charred ‘weed’ seeds atÇatalhöyük.Source:Green2015.

ThesetupcomprisesofaLeica lightmicroscopewithadigital camera on top from which images taken aretransferredviaanUSBcableontothelaptop;thelaptopis equipped with software for managing the imagecollection. In interviews of the eIUS project withresearchers of the large-scale excavations of theSilchester Town Life Project (UK) an archaeobotanistdescribedasimilarsetup.Therethemicroscopeimageswerealsouploadedtoacentralexcavationdatabaseandthe researcher could give others a context or samplenumbertolookthemup(eIUS2009[interviewee5]).

“I also spent parts of the day photographing some of the wild taxa that I found, using a specialcamerathatfitsontothemicroscope,inorderforthemtobemoreaccuratelyidentifiedbackintheUK. Identifyingseedstospeciescanbeverytimeconsuming,particularly forwild taxa,and itoftenrequiresacomprehensivemodernseedreferencecollection.Unfortunately,thisisnotsomethingthatcanbebroughtalongwithme,nordidIhaveenoughtimethisvisit,soqualityphotosofthecharredspecimensforidentificationbackhomearethenextbestthing.(…)Nowbackin(rainy)Oxford,Iamcurrently processing through the many images taken during my fieldwork and sorting them intodifferentweedtypes.Thelengthyprocessofidentificationnowbegins…”(Green2015).

IdentificationastheMainProblem

Identificationofthespeciesoftheplantremainsisthemostimportantphaseinthearchaeobotanicalresearch process as all further steps and their outcomes depend on this. According to theMillersurveyitisthemainphaseinwhichtheresearchersfaceproblems(Miller2010and2011).Herethesurvey respondents wanted to have better online reference collections/ databases aiding thetaxonomic identification. Also online access to other resources (reports, datasets) was onrespondents’wish lists. But reference collections/databases for seed and plant part identification,withadequatespecimens,imagesanddescription,wasclearlythemostpressingneed.Thisneedwasexpressedalsobyrespondentswhoworkinregionswhereancientflorasaregenerallywellknown.

NaomiMiller notes important requirements for appropriate online databases, which “need to beinstitutionallyand/orcommunallymaintainedandshouldbesetupsothatcontentcouldbeaddedbyindividuals”, and emphasises, “what we really need are databases that can be contributed tocollectivelybypractitionersandthatwilloutlivetheircreators”(Miller2010:3and21).

WhyTypicalBotanicalReferenceCollectionsareOftenNotAdequate

Since the later 1990s natural history museums, botanical gardens and herbaria have increasinglydigitisedandbroughtonline theirbotanical collection records.These recordspresentanddescribewell-preservedspecimens, collected for taxonomicand referencepurposes, i.e. someare socalledtypespecimensassociatedwiththeauthoritativescientificnameofthespecies.Althoughtherehavebeenquitesomeeffortstoaggregateandintegratebotanicalreferencecollectionsonline,manyarestill isolatedwebversionsof the institutions’ collectiondatabases.These research resourcesare ingeneral openly accessible, but structured in different ways, and varied coverage of species andregionsaswellasqualityofspecimendocumentation(images,description,literaturereferences).

However,thecoreprobleminourstudycontextisthatrecordsofsuchonlinereferencecollectionsare of limited relevance to archaeobotanists. Their visual content is scans of botanical sheets anddrawingsorphotographsofcarefullyselectedandstoredspecimens.Thiscontentmaybehelpfulinsome cases to identify well-preserved plant remains recovered in excavations. But archaeological



plantremainstypicallyhaveundergoneprocessessuchasdesiccationandcarbonization,whichcanalter their appearance and often poses a challenge for their taxonomic identification. Therefore,archaeobotanists need online reference material for such remains with high-quality images,contextualinformation,and,ideally,identificationkeysforsuchremains.

Warinneretal.(2011)notethatthereferencematerialofbotanicalonlinecollections(e.g.botanicalsheets),“aregenerallynotusefulforaidingintheidentificationofmacro-ormicro-fossils”.Theyare“biasedtowardcommontaxa”(i.e.maynotincludeancientspecies)andlacktheimagesrequiredforthe identification of such plant remains.With regard to the (few) online resourceswhich containimagesforarchaeobotanicalresearch,theauthorsnotethattheirgeographiccoverage“isgenerallyrestricted to only a few,mostly OldWorld, cultural areas”.Archaeobotanists whowork in under-studied regions or are engaged in cross-regional projects will find little for their research online.Moreover, the existing resources are “heavily biased toward macro-botanical remains”. Micro-remainssuchasstarchandphytolithsareofcoursealsonotcoveredbystandardbotanicalreferencecollections.

Askingcolleaguesforhelp

The situationdescribedabove raises thequestionwhat archaeobotanists dowhen they are facingdifficulttoidentifyplantremains.Theanswerofcourseisaskingcolleaguesforhelp.Therearenotmany archaeobotanical specialists around even at a large excavation or institute. Therefore, theyoftencontactexpertsoftheircircleofpeers.BeforetheInternetresearchershadtosendcolleaguescopiesofslidesofunidentifiedfindsphysicallybymailorarrangeanin-personvisit.

Oneopportunity toask several colleagues forhelpdirectlyarededicatedworkshops.Forexample,the Archaeological Soil Micromorphology Working Group has organised such meetings since theearly 1990s as “hands on” workshops where participants bring thin sections of material formicroscope-basedexamination,discussionandcollaborativeidentification.

In a focus group interview with archaeologists working on the large-scale excavations of theSilchesterTownLifeProject(UK),onearchaeobotanistexplained:“ThewayI interactwithpeopleisgoing to workshops with all my slides. They have them quite regularly, it’s the International SoilMicromorphologyWorkingGroup,whichhappensusuallyyearly,so I tendtogotothose.Thenyoucantakeallyourslidesandaskforotherpeople’sopinions.Andeveryoneelsebringstheirslidesaswell[…].Youcould[sharetheimagesonline],butIthinktheproblemwithlookingatthisstuffonlineisthatyou’relookingatmicroscopeimages,soit’softendifficulttointerpretsomethingjustfromaphotograph.[…]Because[ifyouarethere]youcanlookattheslideasawhole,alsothepersonmighthavephotographsofthesitethat it’scomefrom,but Ireallyneedto lookatthewholeslideratherthan just one little bit. [...] I do email backward and forwards the odd photo and ask for theircommentsorwhatever,butit’snotthesameasbeingthere.[...]Iemailindividualpeople[ratherthanmailinglists],Iusuallyknowwhototargettoaskspecificthings”(eIUS2009[interviewee5])

The Internetprovidednewways to askpeers forhelpbye-mailing close colleaguesdigital imagesand/orpostarequesttosubscribersofamailinglistoftheresearchcommunity.

MailingLists

The internationally most widely used mailing list is the JISC Archaeobotany Listserv (over 700subscribers), which facilitates the exchange of information on all relevant topics. Since 2002,hundredsofrequestsforhelpwithidentificationofplantremainshavebeenpostedand,obviously,usefulhelphasbeenprovided.

Identification requests typically concernoneora few findsand include images,general contextualinformation (i.e. region and historical period of the project), and further details relevant for theidentificationoftheplantremain.Alsopostersoftenmentionanassumptionofwhatitmightbe.In



October2016,5of14JISClistservmessages,inNovember6of18weresuchrequestsforhelp.Othermessages concerned calls for papers, post doc positions, upcoming workshops, change of e-mailaddresses,etc.Somerequests initiatedthreadsofdiscussionbyseveralexperts,othersreceivedatleastonesuggestion(mostoften2-4),andonerequestconcerningseedsfromcentralThailandbyanAmericanresearcherdidnotgetaresponse.

Below one example of a request and suggestions is presented (without the names, institutionalaffiliation,andcourtesiesoftheparticipants).Therequestwasonthe17thofOctober2016,around9am,andthesuggestionsgivenduringthesameday.

IDhelpMedievalOslo:“IneedhelpwiththeidentificationoftwoseedsfromtheFolloLineProjectinOslo.The first looksa lot likeseveral seeds found in theLamiaceae family, justnotexactly likeanyoneinmyliterature.Theotherisunfamiliartome,anditisplentifulinonlyoneofoursamples.Thescaleinthephotosis1mm”.

Figure45.Varia

Figure46.Lamiaceae

R1[Germany]:“TwoseedsofDaphniainapod...Animalkingdom!”

R2[Germany]:“VariaareephippiaofDaphnidae/Daphnia(waterfleas),theLamiaceaecouldbeabitcorrodedPrunellavulgaris,abitdifficulttoidentifyfromthefoto”.

ResponsetoR2:“Asothershavealsosuggested,mypictureshowsdormantEphippiafromDaphnia.Thisisveryusefultotheinterpretationofthestructurethesampleistakenfrom.AsfortheLamiaceae,itisnotaPrunella.Theseoccurfrequentlyinmysamples,soI’vehadtheopportunitytocomparethetwo”.

R3[Netherlands]:“IwouldthinktowardstheStachysdirection…arvensis/sylvatica?”

R4[Norway]:“Iagreewith[R3]forbothfinds.FindsofDaphniaareindicatorsoffreshwaterandlocalhydrology,andthusofhelpintheinterpretationofpastenvironment.

ResponsetoR3andR4:“IhavecomparedtheseedswithStachysintheliteraturebefore,andalsowithStachyssylvaticathatIhaveinmyreferencecollection.Theyseemabittooroundtobeamatch,butstillitmaybevariationswithinthespecies.Ihavenobettersuggestionmyself”.

Some interesting aspects of the conversation are: The researcher has an own reference collectionandalsouses the literature,but in the caseof these ratherwell preserved twoLamiaceae (of themint family of flowering plants) no conclusion was reached, also not with the help of otherspecialists. The Daphnia (water fleas), easily identified by two experts, illustrate thatarchaeobotanistsofcoursealsofaceremainsofanimals.Forexample,athreadinNovember2016,“Euphorbialathyris?”,discussedthequestionifimagesofan(assumed)assemblageofcaperspurgeseeds froma latemedieval French settlementmaynot showplant tubersor sheep/goator rabbitfaecalpellets.Theseedandtubersuggestionswererefuted.



Whatisofparticularimportanceinsuchdiscussions(orsingleresponsestoanidentificationrequest)is that specialists give advice on how to identify unknown remains. For example, “a closer lookreveals thepresenceofdetachment scars,which suggests theyareactually tubers. To confirmyoucanbreakone in transverse sectionand look forparenchymaon it”,or“Tuber shouldhavea clear‘lower’ crown related to where the roots were and I can’t see this”. One specialist also offered asuggestiononhowtomaybedistinguishbetweensheepandgoatpellets.

Therefore, a collaborative, community-built virtual reference collection aimed to help with theidentificationofremainsshouldalsoretainthesuggestionsandadvicegiven,notonlytheconclusion.

ThekeyconclusionwithregardtotheJiscM@ilArchaeobotanyListserv(andothersuchmailinglists)isthatitdoesnotbuildareferencecollection.Hundredsofidentificationrequests,imagesandexpertsuggestions are buried among other messages, do not follow a common template, and are notstructuredsystematicallytoallowforeasysearchandconsultation.

Towardsacommunityonlinereferencecollection

Theprevioussectionsmadeclearthattheidentificationofthespeciesofallcollectedplantremainsisthemostimportantstepinthearchaeobotanicalresearchprocess.Archaeobotanistswithalotofexperience sometimes cannotdo this or areunsure about some finds, andevenmore so youngerscholars. Consulting online reference collections of museums and herbaria is not helpful in suchcases.Thereforetheresearchersaskclosecolleaguesfortheiropinionand/orusetheJISCArchaeo-botany mailing list to solicit assistance from other experts. This does not generate a communityonlinereferencecollectionwhichpractitionersperceiveasanurgentneed,i.e.,“whatwereallyneedare databases that can be contributed to collectively by practitioners and that will outlive theircreators”(Miller2010:21).

Such an online archaeobotanical reference collection, developed collaboratively based on digitalimagesanddescriptionsharedbymanydomainresearchers,doesnotexistasyet.Therehavebeenattemptsby individualand small groupsof researchers topromoteone,but thesewereof limitedsuccess. There are several reasons for this concerning professional issues and collection systemrequirements.Amongtheprofessionalreasonsarethatarchaeobotanistsarewillingtosharecontentand expertise, but within certain limits. With regard to the system setup a community-builtknowledge resource has many requirements which are not fulfilled well by current solutions,particularlynottheonespractitionersimplemented.

We looked into a number of implemented as well as other options to build a community onlinereference collection of archaebotanical material which fulfils most or at least some of therequirements identified in this case study. The full set is given in the section RequirementsSpecification.We did not systematically apply the specification to the examples discussed below,because there are many, mostly not fulfilled requirements. The specification includes also datainfrastructure requirements, in view of promoting interoperability between community referencecollectionsandsuchinfrastructures,i.e.ARIADNE.

Inthesectionsthatfollowfirstwebsitesofindividualresearchersareaddressed.Theseofcoursedonot fulfil the core requirement of being community-built, although researchers often invitecontributions. The main purpose of including such websites is to make clear why an individualapproachisnotappropriateforthetaskathand.Otherexamplesconcernavailablesolutionswithafocusonscientific imagesand/orcollaborativeonlinework.Weexcludedthepossibilitytocreateacollaborativeenvironmentfromscratch.

WebsitesofIndividualResearchers

Archaeobotanical practitioners emphasise that a community reference collectionmust be broughttogetherfrom“bottomup”contributionsofindividualresearchersandresearchgroupsinthefield.



Due inparttothefactthatasolutionwhichsupportthiswasmissing,many individualresearcherscreatedtheirownwebsitestoshareusefulinformationandinvitecontributionsbyothers.Therearequitesomeproblemswiththisapproach.

Individualwebsitesarenecessarilylimitedwithregardtothecoverageoftypesofarchaeobotanicalremains and/or regional coverage.With regard to the technical realization they tend to be rathersimpleHTMLbasedwebsites,withnofunctionalitytoallowstructured inputbyotherscholars.Butcreating and maintaining a state-of-the-art solution would be costly. There are freely availablepopularcontentsharingplatformslikeFlickrforimages.Butthesemaynotallowthestructuredinputandpresentationrequiredforareferencecollection,andalsoseemnottheappropriateplaceforanonlinecollectionofscientificcontent.Alsothereisnoguaranteethatfreecontentsharingplatformswillcontinuetoprovidetheirserviceintothefuture.Law&Morgan(2014)haveanalysedthelossofusefulwebsiteswiththeclosurein2009ofGeocities,whichwasoneoftheworld’slargestprovideroffreewebhosting,usedalsobymanyarchaeologists.

These issues have contributed to the proliferation of individual referencematerial sites dispersedacrosstheInternet.Mostoftenthesetaketheformofanannotatedlistoflinkstousefulresources.One initiative, WikiArc, intended to collect such websites to allow an overview and possiblyimplementasearchenginecapableoffindingresultsacrossthedifferentresources(Lawetal.2013).Theideawastocrowd-sourcecontributionsoflinksanddescriptions.Unfortunately,WikiArcbecameanother link list with a few seed references and no possibility for researchers to effectivelycontribute.

Amongthegeneralproblemswithindividualwebsitealsoarethatresearcherswhostartedbuildingausefulresourcesimpledonotfindenoughtimetoextendtheinformation.Ifafundedprojectallowsimproving the website, the initiative often stalls when the funding ends and the resource is notmaintained and extended. In many cases resources also go offline when the creators move toanother institution, change research interests, etc. Important to note is also that providing aninformation website or, even, rich database is typically not assigned academic recognition.Nevertheless, many individual archaeobotanists provide very useful information online and arerecognisedbycolleaguesfordoingso.

MuseumCollectionManagementSystems

In thesurvey itbecameclear thatusinganexistingmuseumcollectionmanagementsystemwouldnot fit well for the purpose of a “bottom-up”, researcher-managed archaeobotanical referencecollection. One point here is limited support of essential community features for discussion andcollaborative identification of finds. To provide but one example, representative formany others:TheAdlibCMS(customizedformuseumsaswellasarchivesandlibraries)isanadvancedsystemthatis in wide use in the sector. Adlib Museum is specifically designed for recording, managing anddisplaying collections information. The Adlib Internet Server includes tagging and commentingfeatures.Museums can “engage”web visitors to apply keywords to database records (to improvesearchresults)orsubmitcommentsoncollectionmaterial;alsouploadofmediafilescanbeallowed.Alsowhatvisitorscandowithsearchresultsisexceptional:thegalleryoptionallowsuserstoselectsearchresultswhichcanprinted,e-mailedordownloaded.However,thesefeaturesareforindividualusers,collaborativeactivitiesforbuildingasharedcollectionarenotenabled.

Another importantpoint is that it seems inappropriate to feedcommunitycontent intoamuseumcollectionmanagement system. Themuseumwould not feel comfortable with information aboutspecimensitdoesnotholdandcurate.Thecollectioncatalogueofamuseumofarchaeologymightbe an exception, but the lack of essential features (asmentioned)would pose a problem.On theotherhand, sucha solutionwouldnotnecessarily generate the senseofownership required for acommunity-generatedresource,whichpromotessharedresponsibilityandcontributions.However,



an archaeology or natural historymuseummight still be an appropriate institution for hosting anonlinearchaeobotanicalreferencecollectionofthewidercommunity.Anevenbettersolutionwouldbeabotanicalresearchcentrethathasafocusonarchaeobotanyandalsocarriesoutprojectsinthisfield, for example institutions like the W. Szafer Institute of Botany of the Polish Academy ofSciences.

ScientificWikis-basedSystems

A rather easy to use solution for building a reference collection is a Wiki. Wikis fall under thecategory of solutions for computer supported collaborative work. Beside collaborative onlineauthoring and editing functionality many also provide good support for communication anddiscussion.ThebiologicalresearchcommunityhasdevelopedseveralWiki-basedsystemstoadvancethe collaborativebuildingof collectionsof researchmodels anddata (seeSection4.5.2). Examplesare EcoliWiki and Proteopedia, which are based on the MediaWiki, or the custom-built Wiki-Pathways. It would be possible to create a Wiki-based collection of structured archaeobotanicalimagesanddescriptions, includingcollaborativeannotation,discussionandother functionality. Forexample,EcoliWikiusesthecategorisationfunctionalityofMediaWikiandpairscontentpageswithpageswhereuserscandiscusscontent.However,itseemsdifficulttore-usecustomizedMediaWikisforourpurpose,andbuildingonefromscratchisnotintended.

MorphbankandMorphoBank

MorphBank andMorphoBankwe included inoursamplebecausebothareestablishedsystems forspecimen-based biological research projects and therefore support the annotation of scientificimages.BothsystemshavebeendevelopedandaremaintainedintheUnitedStates(basedonNSFfunding)butarebeingheavilyusedalsobyresearchersaroundtheworld.Morphbankhasabroadscope including comparative studies of animals and plants, morphology of species, taxonomy,phylogenetics and other fields.MorphoBank focuses on morphology specifically and provides fullsupport to collaboratively produce, edit, illustrate, and annotatemorphological charactermatricesformorphologicalphylogenetics(Werning2014).

The problemwith these systems in our context is that they do not supportwell the building of areference collection, certainly not MorphoBank, whose data repository is meant for contentassociated with peer-reviewed publications. The data is released upon publication. It cannot becross-searched, only accessed per project. Morphbank allows researchers to upload/deposit,organise and describe images they use for their studies. It provides a template to describe thespecimens, e.g. taxon name, locality, specimen part, sex, stage, etc. The Morphbank databaseschemaismappedtoDarwinCoreandABCD.Supportforcollaborativeworkislimited.Researchersmayusethesamecollectionandannotate images,butthereappearstobenodiscussionfunction.Thefull-textsearchworkswell, thetaxonomictreeallows(cumbersome) filteringofcontent;map-basedsearch isnotavailable.Apositiveaspect is that thecontentcanbe linkedexternallyathighgranularity. Thiswould allow creating a list of species taxons externally and link to content pageswithinMorphbank. Thereby images of specimens could be discussed externally, but annotationswouldhavetobedonebyregisteredusers.

Scratchpads

AvirtualresearchenvironmentwhichfulfilsseveralofourrequirementsistheScratchpadsplatform.TheplatformhasbeencreatedandisbeingmaintainedbyresearchersanddevelopersoftheNaturalHistoryMuseumLondon(Smithetal.2011).Itisinproductiveusesince2007andatpresentfreelysupports over 1000 Scratchpads sites of large and small user groups (up from 300 in September2011).Onlyfewhavemore50contributors,manyoneortwo,butsitesofsmallgroupsareamongthemost visited. In December 2016 there have over 4800 active users, people who signed in to



modify a site’s content.Visitorsbrowsing the sitewithoutbeing logged in arenot included in thisfigure,butforviewsofsiteobjectsofwhichtherewere2.7million.

The platform offers various functionalities for biodiversity researchers and could also be used forbuilding an archaeobotanical reference collection. Some of the functionalities specifically fortaxonomists have been developed in EU funded projects, e.g. Virtual Biodiversity Research andAccess Network for Taxonomy – ViBRANT (EU, FP7, 2010-2013). However, Scratchpads are beingused for different purposes, including online reference collections. The individual sites(collaboratories)aremaintainedandmanagedbytheirowners.Theycanchoosetowhatextenttheymake thecontentof theirwebsitepubliclyavailable.Forsharingcontent theScratchpadsplatformrecommendstheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike(CCBY-NC-SA)license.

Technically the Scratchpads platform offers users a Drupal based site which comes with variousgeneral andbiodiversity research specific tools. Scratchpadsofferusers tools tomanagebiologicalclassifications, rich taxon pages (with structured descriptions, specimen records, and distributiondata/maps),media (images, audio-/visual content) andbibliography. Furthermore, variouswaysofcommunicatingwithsitemembersandvisitorssuchasnewsletters,blogs,forumsandacommentingsystem.InourcontextparticularlyimportantisthataScratchpadallowseasycreation(orre-use)ofwebformstogatheruser-contributedcontentsuchasspecimenimagesanddescriptions,linkthemto taxonomic names/terms, and curate this collection online. Also a number of web services areprovided of which the option to include Encyclopedia of Life species pages arguably is the mostrelevant.AsmetadatastandardforScratchpadsrecordsDarwinCore(DwC-A)isbeingused.DarwinCore is the main standard in the field biodiversity and natural history which allows exchange ofinformationbetweenmanysystemsinthesectorandbeyond.I

Paleobot.org

Asolutionthatfulfilssomeofourrequirements isPaleobot.orgwhich,finally, isawebsitethathasbeen developed by a group of archaeobotanists (Warinner et al. 2011). Paleobot.org has beenfounded and launched in 2010 by two PhD students while at Harvard University, Jade d’AlpoimGuedes(nowPaleoethnobotanyLaboratoryatWashingtonStateUniversity)andChristinaWarinner(nowLaboratoriesofMolecularAnthropologyandMicrobiomeResearch,UniversityofOklahoma).

ThewebsitestatesthatthegoalofPaleobot.orgis“tobringtogetherthearchaeobotanycommunitytosharedata,information,andexpertiseforthecommonpurposeofimprovingtheidentificationofarchaeobotanical specimens.Weprovideaplatform for researchers to uploadand share referencecollection images and to engage in collaborative identification of unknown archaeobotanicalspecimens”.

Paleobot.org is basedon theDrupal framework. Thewebsite has sections formacro-remains (e.g.seeds),pollen,phytoliths,starch,andstableisotopes.Atpresentitcontains112recordsofwhich103concernmacro-remains, 2 starch, 4 phytoliths, 3 pollen and no one isotopes. 41 records concernunknown macro-remains. A record of a macro-remain comprises of the following information,illustrated by a seed collected and identified by Robert N. Spengler III (uploaded 06/10/2010):http://paleobot.org/node/127

PolygonaceaePolygonum1

o Taxonomy:Polygonaceae>Polygonumo CommonName:KnotWeedo Region:CentralAsiao LocationCollected:TuzusaiAlatau,Kazakhstano CollectionType:Archaeological



o CollectionContext:Heartho CulturalAffiliation:-800to-100o CulturalPeriod:IronAgeo CollectionOrigin:ArchaeologicalExcavationo SpeciesNativeHomeland:NativeSpecieso Collector:RobertNSpenglerIII

SeedMacro1MacroSeed

o ImageType:Photoo ImageCredit:Selfo Analyst:RobertNSpenglerIIIo BotanicalPart:Seed[thumbnailimage,butalargeoneisgiven]

ThewebsiteandpublicationsofthePaleobot.orgteamdonotmentioniftherecordsarebasedonametadatastandard.Mostspecimenrecords,47identifiedwhile23not,comefromthePaleoethno-botanyLaboratoryatWashingtonStateUniversitywhichisledbyJaded'AlpoimGuedesandemploysfurtherfiveresearchers.Thelaboratoryhasreferencecollectionsandstateoftheartfacilitiesfortheextraction, identificationand interpretationof archaeobotanicalmaterials, includingmicro-remains(pollen,phytoliths,starchgrains),andstableisotopesofsuchmaterialsandsediments.

16 other researchers uploaded 42 records of macro-remains, 23 identified and 19 unknown. 141“profiles”ofcontributorsare listed,manywithphotoandaffiliation,anda link tocontributions toPaleobot.org, but most with none. Importantly, the website does not provide a feature forannotating or discussing unknownmaterial, also not how to download information.Maybe this ispossible for registered users, but not mentioned under FAQ. The website mentions plans tosupplement the database with additional resources, such as publications, identification guides,laboratoryprotocols,andinstructionalvideos.Butthereisalonglistofselectedlinksofherbariaandonlinebotanicalinformation,websitesonmacro-andmicro-remains,etc.

Insummary, thePaleobot.orgprojectmustbe laudedforprovidingaccess torelevant information.But it has not yet achieved itsmain objective to bring together the archaeobotany community toshareinformationandexpertiseandengageincollaborativeidentificationofunknownspecimens.

LinkingRecordsandDiscussion

Surprisingly Paleobot.org does not refer contributors to the JISC Archaeobotany mailing list topossibly receive suggestions for the identification of unknown material. The BoneCommonszooarchaeology community website (see Section 4.5.6) utilizes the JISC ZOOARCH list for thispurpose.BoneCommons invites researchers to upload identified and unknown samples and in thelattercasepostarequestforhelpbyspecialists.TheZOOARCHlist,whichhasover1200subscribersworldwide,doesnotallowpostingimages.ButresearcherscanusethelinkforthesamplerecordintheBoneCommonsdatabasetopointcolleaguesonthemailinglisttothematerialtobediscussedand identified (there are nearly 300 such “ZOOARCH Attachments”). However, the material onBoneCommons and the suggestions and discussion on the ZOOARCH list remain separated.Mckechnie&Whitcher-Kansa(2011)describethesetupandmentionthatBoneCommonsdisplaysafeedofthediscussionthreat.Suchfeedsarenotthereanymore,maybetoodifficulttomaintainordue to other reasons. However, the BoneCommons website notes that a feed of the ZOOARCHdiscussion about samples is available via the Zooarchaeology Ning Network (which is a closedmembers-onlysocialnetwork).Thereasonsforthiscomplexsetupremainunclear.



5.7.4 RequirementsSpecification

This section specifies requirements of an online reference collection of archaeobotanicalmaterial,developed and maintained by members of the research community, but interoperable with theARIADNEe-infrastructure.Therequirementsspecificationispartofapilotinvestigationforavirtualarchaeobotanical research environment within the wider network of the ARIADNE data infra-structureandservices.

Wedistinguishbetweenthefollowingrequirements:

o Datainfrastructure&standardsrequirements

o Social&technicalsystemrequirements

o Contentrequirements

o Organisationalandprofessionaltrainingrequirements

Someitemsinthissetofrequirementsareofcoursecloselyintertwined.

DataInfrastructure&Standards

Apotential interplayofdigital reference collectionswith researche-infrastructures arguably is notyetontheradarofmanyarchaeologicalresearchersaswellascuratorsofmuseumcollections.Geser&Niccolucci(2012)addressthetopicwithregardtovirtualmuseumsinthefieldofculturalheritageandnaturalhistory.Thepaperdistinguishes threecurrentvariantsofvirtualmuseumswhich focuson content, communication or collaboration, but in rather self-contained ways. A new variant issuggestedwhich is part of an e-infrastructure network and highlight the important role of digitalreference collections as e-research resources of arts & humanities, natural history and otherdisciplines.

As a crucial requirement for the realization of this scenario the paper emphasises to pay carefulattention to conceptual reference models (ontologies) and vocabularies. These should allow toreflect the richness of heritage content and contexts (including archaeological) to allow forintelligent,concepts-baseddiscovery,navigationandaccess.InthisregarduseofCIDOC-CRM,LIDO(museummetadatastandard)andotherstandards(e.g.W3CLinkedDatarecommendations)isbeingsuggested.

Thisrequirementbecomesevenmoreimportantinthecontextofdigitalreferencecollectionswhichare intended to be developed “bottom-up” by researchers based on their own content (i.e. notmuseumcollectioncontent).Obviouslymost researchersarenot familiarwithmetadata standardsand formalised vocabulary. For example, articles of proponents of researcher-generated/curateddigitalreferencecollectionsofplantandanimalremainsdonotmentionstandardsandvocabularies,exceptofcoursescientificnamesofspecies(e.g.Lawetal.2013;Warinneretal.2011).Therefore,supportbyexperts inthesematters isnecessary, ideallyexperts intherespectiveresearchdomainandwithcarefulattentiontodatainteroperability

The same, however, concerns developers of e-infrastructures which are meant to serve a wholedisciplineand,evenmoreso,inthecaseofmulti-disciplinaryfieldsofresearchsuchasarchaeology.If theARIADNEproject aims to incorporate research resources of domains such as archaeobotanyand zooarchaeology, the ARIADNE e-infrastructure and services must be able to support at leastessential standards such as Darwin Core, nomenclature and taxonomies (i.e. scientific names ofplantsandanimals).Thesearethemajorpillarsonwhichmostbiodiversityinformaticsapplicationsrely.

ThereforeARIADNE,amongotherrequirements,wouldhaveto includeinthedataregistrationandportalservicesataxonomicbackbone(CatalogueofLife),sothatrecordscontaintheproperscientific



namesofspecies(alsovernaculars)andtheportaluserscansearch&browsedataresourcesbasedonthesenamesandtaxonomichierarchy.ThesameofcourseappliestoVREswithregardtothedataorganisationofunderlyingdatabasesand/orannotationofanynewdigitalcontentthatisbeingusedorgeneratedinsuchVREs,forexample,inourcase,adigitalreferencecollectionofarchaeobotanicalmaterial.Thiswouldalsoincludespecialisedvocabulariesformaterialsuchasphytoliths(Madellaetal.2005).

Requirementssummary:

o A tight interplay between reference collections, VREs ande-infrastructure services is required.The interoperabilitymust be ensured bottom up by community reference collections that arebasedonessentialdomainstandards.

o In the case of archaeobotany (and zooarchaeology) the general biodiversity standard DarwinCoremightfitbest(seeWieczoreketal.2012),althoughitseemsthatitisnotinwideuseyetinthe field of archaeobotany. Another option is Dublin Core with a few additional elements, ifrequired.

o Useof vocabulariesneeds careful attention, especially scientificnames, typeofplant remains,etc.,butalsogeneralonessuchasgazetteersforplaces,periods,andothers.

o Mostarchaeologicalresearchers(i.e.archaeobotanists)arenotfamiliarwithmetadatastandardsandformalizevocabulariesor,even,semanticLinkedData.Therefore“bottomup”initiativesforresearcher-generated/curated digital reference collections need support by experts in thesematters.

o E-infrastructure systems and services (i.e. ARIADNE) must be capable to support the mainstandardsinthedomainstheyaimtoserve.Akeyroleinthedomainsaddressedplayscientificnamesofplants(andanimals)whichmustbeincludedinrecordsofspecimendatasets.

o A taxonomic backbone is necessary for data registration and portal services so that users cansearch & browse data resources based on scientific names (also vernaculars) and taxonomichierarchy.TherichestandregularlyupdatedbackboneistheCatalogueofLife.

o All of the above applies also to VREs for the domains addressed, with regard to underlyingdatabasesandannotationofanynewdigitalcontentthatisbeinggenerated,sharedandusedinsuchVREs(inourcase,adigitalreferencecollectionsystem).

Social&TechnicalSystemRequirements

Someoftheserequirementsarementioned,albeitoftenimplicitly,inpublicationsofproponentsofresearcher-generateddigital referencecollectionsofplantandanimal remain (i.e. Lawetal.2013;Miller2010and2011;Warinneretal.2011):

o Thecorerequirementisthatanonlinearchaeobotanicalreferencecollectionmustbedevelopedcollaborativelybasedoncontent(digitalimagesanddescription)sharedbydomainresearchers.

o Itisunderstoodthatthereferencecollectionshouldbeanopenaccessresourcethatallowsfreeaccesstothecontent.Whilefree/openaccesscontent,thetermsandconditionsof(re-)usemustbeclear(i.e.opencontentlicensing).

o The reference collection systemmust allow individual researchers (but also research groups /projects) to upload images and description (i.e. site information) of plant remains they haveidentifiedorareunknown/uncleartothem.Thesharedidentificationsoftheplantspeciesof“difficult”archaeobotanicalremainscanthenhelptowithothersuchcases.

o Thesystemshouldallowandrequestpropercitation(attribution)ofrecordsbasedonastandard“howtocite”form,includingthelinkfortherecord.



o Thesystemmustprovideastablelink(URL/URI)forthispurposeandforpointingresearcherstoreferencematerialaswellasspecimenwhichhaveyettobeidentified.

o The system should also enable researchers to solicit assistancewith difficult identifications byother experts in the field. Therefore the system needs to allow comments and discussion,capturethisinformation(i.e.discussionthreads)andaddittotherecordofthesample.

Here someexplanationmaybehelpful tounderstand importantprofessional implicationsof theserequirements: Promoters of a community-based reference collection for archaeobotanists will beaware, but do not make explicit, that identifications of difficult materials, including images andarchaeological context information, are valuable assets of researchers who work as professionalarchaeobotanists.Alsoofcoursethespecialknowledge,whichexpertssometimesshare,whentheyhelpothersone-maillistswithdetailedsuggestionsonhowtoidentifydifficultsamples.Therefore,identifications they share deserve recognition, attribution, and proper citation in any use madethereof.Asystemwhichdoesnotverywellsupportthisisunlikelytoreceivemanycontributions.

Contentrequirements

The content for the main purposes of the reference collections are high-quality images of plantremainsandsufficientcontextinformation.

Descriptiveinformation:

o Keyamongthedescriptiveinformationofaspecimenrecordisthescientificnameofthespecies,where the specimen has been collected, and who collected and identified it. The descriptiveelementsofthePaleobot.orgrecords(seetheexampleabove)couldbeagoodstartingpointforastandardisedrecord.

o For the purposes of the online reference collection a much more detailed record is notnecessary. For example, variousmeasurements as expected for physical specimens by theUQArchaeobotanyReferenceCollectionwouldnotberequired.

o Fortherelativelysmallsetofsufficientcontextinformationsupportofseverallanguageswillnotbenecessary.

Requirementsconcerningimagesandcoverage:

o High-quality images of specimens are required to allow comparison to (and possibly identifi-cationof) collected remainsofplantswhose species is oftendifficult todetermine. Formicro-remains these would for example be high-quality light microscope or scanning electronmicroscope(SEM)imageswhichcontainthedistinguishingfeaturesofthespecies.

o Thus high-quality here does notmean the state of preservation of the specimens, rather theimages should present plant remains as encountered by archaeobotanists,which oftenmeanspoorlypreservedspecimens.

o Imagesofwell-preserved specimensofmuseumandherbaria collections areoftennothelpfulfor the identification task. This does notmean that such images are irrelevant. Theremay becaseswherelinkingofmuseum/herbariarecordscanbebeneficial.Forexample,researchersmayencounter remainsofoldplantspecies,butnooronly fewarchaeobotanical imagesare in thecommunitysystem.

o Archaeobotanists mention as particularly relevant reference material images of “old”, “rare”,“under-recorded”and“unusualcases”. It isalsooftenassumedthatresearchers lackreferencematerialforsomeregionsmorethanforothers.Therefore,thereferencecollectionshouldmakeclearforwhichcasescontributionsaremostwelcome.



Organisationalandprofessionaltrainingrequirements

Buildingandmaintaining thecommunity referencecollection requires communityand institutionalsupport,furthermoreitsprofessionaltrainingfunctionshouldbehighlighted:

o Community support means many researchers who wish to have and will contribute to thecollectionandsupportbyassociationsinthisfield(i.e.InternationalWorkGroupforPaleoethno-botany,SocietyofEconomicBotany,SocietyofEthnobiology,andothers).

o Institutionalsupportmeansaninstitutionthathoststhecollectionandprovidessometechnicalassistance(ITservices,datastorage,etc.).Agoodcandidatecouldbeabotanicalresearchcentrethat has a focus on archaeobotany and also carries out projects in this field; also a majorarchaeologyornaturalhistorymuseummayfit.

o Thedescribedreferencecollectioncouldgreatlysupportprofessionaltraining: itprovidescasesof difficult to identify material (which have been solved), captures experts often “implicitknowledge” (here expressed when advising on how to tackle difficult cases), and promotesmutualassistanceandopendata.

o Trainingprogrammes/workshopscouldbenefitfromthesystemaswellascontributetoit(i.e.identification of plant remains inworkshops anduploadof the results); the system could alsoofferacentraldigitallibraryofidentificationkeysandotherrelevantmaterial.

o Wedo not address approaches for ensuring the sustainability of the system, butmeeting theaboverequirementscouldhelp.

5.7.5 ConclusionsandRecommendations

Thestudyinvestigatestherequirementsofanonlinereferencecollectionandresearchenvironmentforarchaeobotanists.Theonlinecollectionandenvironmentwouldallowarchaeobotaniststotackleacommonproblemcollaboratively: theoftendifficult identificationofthespeciesofplantremainsfromexcavations.Thestudypresentsaspecificationoftherequirements.

FortheARIADNEprojectmainlytherequirementsconcerningtheinterplayofitsdatainfrastructureandserviceswithonline referencecollectionsare important.These requirementsareessentialnotonly in thecaseofarchaeobotany,but concernall caseswhereARIADNEaims to incorporatedataresourcesandtosupportscholarsinspecialfieldsofarchaeologicalresearch.

Thesecanbebrieflysummarisesasfollows:

o ItisnecessarytoinvestigatehowatightinterplaybetweentheARIADNEe-infrastructureandtheenvironments and resources of special fields of research can be achieved. In each case theresearch resources (i.e. numerical data, 3Dmodels, referencematerial, etc.)may be differentandthevirtualresearchenvironmentshaveafocusonparticulartasks.

o In the present case the resources are relatively simple: images of plant remains and basicinformation of the archaeological context. The main task (identification) is demanding andrequires expert knowledge. Some of this expertise is explicit (identification keys), but hardlyknowledgeinthesenseofformalised,machine-processiblesemantics.

o The focus of ARIADNE in each case should be on ensuring interoperability with regard to thedata,metadata and knowledge organization systems (KOSs), i.e. thesauri and ontologies. ThisconcernsLinkedDatasolutions,whileothertechnologieswillberequiredforspecific tasks (i.e.3Dorimagerecognitiontechnologies).

o With regard to interoperability at the level of metadata and KOSs, the research field ofarchaeobotanypresentsadisciplinaryoverlapofappliedbotany,biodiversityandarchaeology.If



theARIADNEprojectaimstocoversuchfields, itse-infrastructuresystemandservicesmustbecapabletoalignwiththemainstandards(metadata,KOSs)oftheinvolveddisciplines.

o In the present case these are Darwin Core, the core standard for biodiversity data, botanicalnomenclature (scientific names of species) and taxonomy, and archaeological metadata andKOSsasrequired.

o For the ARIADNE e-infrastructure capability to use scientific names of species (animals, plantsand others) and taxonomy for various services can be recommended. Data records inarchaeobotany and zooarchaeology will generally include the scientific species names and ofcourse all records in biodiversity andmany other disciplines. Furthermore, records of variousarchaeologicalinvestigationsmayincludesuchnames.

o Useofataxonomicbackbone is recommendedfordataregistrationandportalservicessothatuserscansearch&browsedataresourcesbasedonscientificnames(alsocommonnames)andtaxonomichierarchy.TherichestandregularlyupdatedbackboneistheCatalogueofLife.

o Datasets of archaeobotanical reference collections and investigations will generally includeinformationonlocations,culturalperiod(daterange)andbasiccontexts(cf.themetadataofthePaleobot.orgsystem).Vocabularysupport indatasetregistrationandsearchbasedonlocations(i.e.GeoNamesgazetter),periods(PeriodO)andrelatedsubjects(i.e.AAT)arealreadyavailableintheARIADNEregistryandportal.

5.7.6 Summary

Thestudyaddressesarchaeobotanicalinvestigationsanddatawhichcontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsitesaswellasresearchquestionsofenvironmentalarchaeology.Thestudyfoundthat themost important step in the archaeobotanical research process is the identification of theplantremains.Researchersoftencannoteasilydeterminetheplantspecies,needspecificreferencematerialaswellasaskcolleaguesforhelpwiththeidentification.

This could be eased by a virtual reference collection and environment that collects images andcontext descriptions from many researchers and provides tools for discussion and collaborativeidentification.However,anappropriatesolutionhasintricaterequirementsinprofessional,technicalandotherrespects.Thestudypresentsaspecificationoftherequirements.EssentialforARIADNEaremainly the requirements concerning the interoperability of e-infrastructure and virtual researchenvironments(VREs),includingreferencecollections.

Withregardtothisinteroperabilitythestudyrecommendstakingaccountofthemainmetadataandknowledge organization systems in the respective field of research. Archaeobotany presents adisciplinaryoverlapof appliedbotany, biodiversity and archaeology. Therefore, the study suggeststhat the ARIADNE e-infrastructure and services (data registry/portal) should provide support forDarwinCore,thecorestandardforbiodiversitydata,andbotanicalnomenclature(scientificnamesofspecies)andtaxonomy(i.e.CatalogueofLife).

5.7.7 References

Websites

Academia.edu:Archaeobotany,followers,http://www.academia.edu/People/Archaeobotany

Adlib:AdlibInternetServer,http://www.adlibsoft.com/products/internetserver-uk

ArchaeobotanicalDatabaseofEasternMediterraneanandNearEasternSites,http://www.cuminum.de/archaeobotany



BoneCommons,http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/

CatalogueofLife,http://www.catalogueoflife.org

DigitalSeedAtlasoftheNetherlands,http://seeds.eldoc.ub.rug.nl

EncyclopediaofLife(EOL),http://eol.org

HawaiianEthnobotanyOnlineDatabase(BishopMuseum),http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/ethnobotanydb/

InsideWood(NorthCarolinaStateUniversity),http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu

InternationalPlantNameIndex,http://www.ipni.org

JISCArchaeobotanyListserv,https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=ARCHAEOBOTANY

JISCZOOARCHListserv,https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=zooarch

Kroll,Helmut:LiteratureonArchaeologicalRemainsofCultivatedPlants1981–2004,http://www.archaeobotany.de

Morphbank-BiologicalImaging,http://www.morphbank.net

MorphoBank,http://www.morphobank.org

PaleoethnobotanyLaboratoryatWashingtonStateUniversity,https://labs.wsu.edu/guedes/the-paleoethnobotany-laboratory/

Scratchpads(NaturalHistoryMuseumLondon),http://scratchpads.eu

Tropicos(MissouriBotanicalGarden),http://www.tropicos.org

UQArchaeobotanyReferenceCollection(UniversityofQueensland),http://uqarchaeologyreference.metadata.net/archaeobotany/

USDAPlantsDatabase,http://plants.usda.gov

ViBRANT-VirtualBiodiversityResearchandAccessNetworkforTaxonomy(EU,FP7,Infrastructures/VirtualResearchCommunities,12/2010-11/2013),http://vbrant.eu

W.SzaferInstituteofBotanyofthePolishAcademyofSciences,DepartmentofPalaeobotany,http://www.botany.pl/index.php/en/departments-lab/department-of-palaeobotany

WikiArc,http://www.wikiarc.org

Bibliography

Day,Jo(2013):Botanymeetsarchaeology:peopleandplantsinthepast.In:JournalofExperimentalBotany,64(18):5805-16,https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert068

eIUS-e-InfrastructureUseCasesandServiceUsageModelsproject(2009):ArchaeologyExperienceReport,July2009,http://projects.oucs.ox.ac.uk/eius/outputs/Archaeology_ExpRep-pub.pdf

GeserG.&NiccolucciF.(2012):Virtualmuseums,digitalreferencecollectionsande-scienceenvironments.In:UncommonCulture,Vol.3,no.5/6,12-37,http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/UC/article/view/4714/3677

Green,Laura(2015):LifeasanArchaeobotanistatNeolithicÇatalhöyük,Turkey.In:AssociationforEnvironmentalArchaeologyweblog,10August2015,http://envarch.net/student-blog-life-as-an-archaeobotanist-at-neolithic-catalhoyuk-turkey/

LawM.&MorganC.(2014):TheArchaeologyofDigitalAbandonment:OnlineSustainabilityandArchaeologicalSites.In:PresentPasts,6(1),http://www.presentpasts.info/article/10.5334/pp.58/



LawM.,SykesN.,WarinnerC.&d’AlpoimGuedesJ.(2013):TheCaseforDigitalReferenceCollectionsinEnvironmentalArchaeology.PosterpresentedattheUKArchaeologicalScience(UKAS)BiennialConferenceinCardiff,England,11-14April2013,https://www.academia.edu/3384133/The_Case_for_Digital_Reference_Collections_in_Environmental_Archaeology_poster_with_Naomi_Sykes_Christina_Warinner_and_Jade_dAlpoim_Guedes_

MadellaM.,AlexandreA.&BallT.(2005):InternationalCodeforPhytolithNomenclature1.0.In:AnnalsofBotany96(2):253-60,http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/2/253.full.pdf

MarstonJ.M.,d’AlpoimGuedesJ.&WarinnerC.(eds.)(2015a):MethodandTheoryinPaleoethnobotany.UniversityPressofColorado

MarstonJ.M.,WarinnerC.&d’AlpoimGuedesJ.(2015b):PaleoethnobotanicalMethodandTheoryintheTwenty-FirstCentury,pp.1-15,in:MarstonJ.M.etal.(eds.):MethodandTheoryinPaleoethnobotany.UniversityPressofColorado,http://upcolorado.com/university-press-of-colorado/item/download/413_71219af18691cb3bc3bd4d441a092430

MckechnieI.&WhitcherKansaS.(2011):TransformationsinDigitalCommunicationandCollaboration:RecentPerspectivesFromZooarchaeology.In:TheSAAArchaeologicalRecord,11(1):26-29,http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/archive/files/kansa-and-mckechnie-2011-special-issue_3f9061d26f.pdf

Miller,NaomiF.(2010):ArchaeobotanyQuestionnairePreliminaryResults.PreparedforSocietyforAmericanArchaeologyForum:QuantificationandPresentation:EffectiveMeansofPresentingPlantEvidenceinArchaeology(16April2010),UPMEthnobotanicalLaboratoryReport49,https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~nmiller0/papers/AbotQ.pdf

Miller,NaomiF.(2011):ArchaeobotanicalMethodology:ResultsofanArchaeobotanyQuestionnaire.In:theSAAArchaeologicalRecord11(4):8-10,http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/Publications/thesaaarchrec/Sept_2011.pdf

Pearsall,DeborahM.(2016):Paleoethnobotany:AHandbookofProcedures.ThirdEdition.Routledge

Perrotti,Angelina(2015):NewOutlooksinPaleoethnobotany.In:AnthropologyBookForum.2015,http://journals.sfu.ca/abf/index.php/abf/article/download/22/42

SmithV.S.,RycroftS.D.,BrakeI.etal.(2011):Scratchpads2.0:aVirtualResearchEnvironmentsupportingscholarlycollaboration,communicationanddatapublicationinbiodiversityscience.In:Zookeys150:53–70,http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2193

WarinnerC.&d’AlpoimGuedesJ.(2015):DigitizingtheArchaeobotanicalRecord,pp.147-162,in:MarstonJ.M.etal.(eds.):MethodandTheoryinPaleoethnobotany.UniversityPressofColorado

WarinnerC.,d’AlpoimGuedesJ.&GoodeD.(2011):Paleobot.org:Establishingopen-accessonlinereferencecollectionsforarchaeobotanicalresearch.In:VegetationHistoryandArchaeobotany,20(3):241-244;prepr.,https://www.academia.edu/3497484/Paleobot.org_establishing_open-access_online_reference_collections_for_archaeobotanical_research

Werning,Sarah(2014):SharingPaleodata:MorphoBank.In:TheIntegrativePaleontologistsweblog,17March2014,http://blogs.plos.org/paleo/2014/03/17/sharing-paleodata-part-3-morphobank/

WieczorekJ.,BloomD.,GuralnickR.,BlumS.etal.(2012):DarwinCore:AnEvolvingCommunity-DevelopedBiodiversityDataStandard.In:PLoSONE,7(1):e29715,http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715



5.8 VirtualResearchEnvironmentforCzechArchaeology(ARUP-CAS)

5.8.1 IntroductionandOverviewThe case study comprises of two main parts: The first part presents recent e-infrastructuredevelopments for the archaeological sector of the Czech Republic. As a specific case the AerialArchaeologyArchive(AAA)oftheInstituteofArchaeologyisdescribed,asanelementoftheDigitalArchiveoftheInstituteandtherecentlylaunchedArchaeologicalMapoftheCzechRepublic(AMČR).

TheAMČR aims to integrate the various data resources generated by archaeological research andheritagemanagementinstitutions;furthermore,advancedservicesandtoolsarebeingdevelopedforthetasksoftheinstitutions,archaeologistsandheritagemanagers.ItisenvisagedthattheAMČRwillbecomeavirtual researchenvironment for thewholesectorofarchaeology in theCzechRepublic.Therefore, the secondpartof the case studyaddressesmajor requirementsof suchan integratingenvironment, with a particular focus on requirements for progress and innovation in the area ofresearch.

5.8.2 CurrentDigitalPracticesThe last twenty years have proven ever clearer that high-quality, complete and easily-availablearchaeological data are a key factor in the effective scientific research and the management ofarchaeologicalheritage.Ithasalsobeendemonstratedthatitdoesnotsufficetomerelycollectdata,itisnecessarytodescribeitusingreliablemetadataandtointerconnectdataofvariouscategories.

Systematic collecting, organizing and presentation represent an imperative demand of thearchaeologicaldiscipline:ifnotdoneinduecourse,thearchaeologicalsector,researchandresourcemanagement will be severely restricted in their capability to address effectively existing andemergingchallenges,forexample,increaseddevelopmentwork,pressureonhistoriclandscapes,andcostsofheritagepreservation.

Aerial photography, both historical and newly generated, contributes to our understanding oflandscape development, monitoring of known archaeological sites as well as discovery of newlocations.Thusarchivesofaerialphotographycanplayan importantrole inarchaeology;however,moreneedstobedonetoimprovetheiraccessibility(i.e.digitisation,state-of-the-artmetadata)andintegrationindigitalresearchenvironments(CowleyandStichelbaut2012,HansonandOltean2013;Standringetal.2010).Forboth,digitisedhistoricalmaterialaswellasnewlycollectedimagesnoveltoolswillbenecessarytoidentify,interpretandannotaterelevantfeatures.

Aearial photography is of course still a booming field of research, thanks to easy employablenewdata capture vehicles such as drones (The SAAArchaeological Record 2016), or the application ofadvance sensing technologies such as LiDAR, which allow rediscovering archaeological sites andlandscapes(Chaseetal.2012;Edgeworth2014;Johnson&Quimet2014).

5.8.3 CaseStudies

Part1:BuildingSystems

ThefirstpartofthecasestudydescribestheAerialArchaeologyArchiveasapartofboth,theDigitalArchiveof the InstituteofArchaeologyandtheArchaeologicalMapof theCzechRepublic (AMČR).Thesetup,datamodelsandintegrationofthesystemsisoutlinedandtheirrolease-infrastructurecomponentshighlighted.

TheArchaeologicalMapoftheCzechRepublic(AMČR)

TheArchaeologicalMapoftheCzechRepublicsystem(henceforthAMČR)hasbeendevelopedasapart of the spinal infrastructure for Czech archaeology. It combines the daily duties of the



management of archaeological fieldwork (i.e. registry of field interventions, ameans for assigningrescue excavations to the organizations authorized to carry them out) with the summarizingdatabaseofarchaeologicaldata.Furthermore,itsupportstheretrospectivecollectionofinformationonarchaeologicalfieldwork,sitesandfindsinthe19thcentury(whichmeansadatabaseofthe‘sitesandmonumentsrecord’type).

The structure and functions of the AMČR System were designed at the Institute of Archaeology,Prague(henceforth IAP), inthecourseofaprojectofthesamenameintheyears2012–5; in2017thissystemwillbeputintofulloperation.Itisadesktopapplicationworkingwithdatastoredinthenetandallowingtheuserstodrawdatabaseinformationortocontributetoit.

The system is based on a dynamic model of archaeological fieldwork as the means of obtainingspecializedscientificinformation(Figure47).Typically,archaeologicalfieldworkundergoesanumberofphasesfromdefiningitsaimsandspatialplanning,includingthefieldworkitself,afunctionalandchronologicalanalysisoftheresults,uptoasynthesisofthedataanditsinterpretation.

Figure47.AgeneralizedmodeloftheinformationflowanddataclassesoftheAMČR.

Each phase uses specific terminology and evidence units corresponding to individual categories ofthesystem:‘projects’,‘fieldworkevents’and‘sites’,‘components’and‘landscapeentities’(thelast-mentionedcategoryhasonlybeensuggestedanddoesnotbearanycontentsyet).Apartfromthesecategories,theAMČRoffersadditionalfourdatacategories,whichservethedetaileddescriptionandcontextual classification of the former categories. These are the ‘finds’ (details on thearchaeologically recorded movable and immovable items), ‘PIAN spatial units’ (PIAN being anabbreviation of the Czech phrase for ‘spatial identification of archaeological finds’), ‘documents’(metadataofthefieldrecords)and‘externalsources’,i.e.bibliographicentries.

TheAMČRsystemunderstandsaerialphotographs,ofwhichabout20,000arestoredattheInstituteofArchaeology,asasortof‘documents’thatsharethesamewayofdescriptionandstorageasotherdocuments. The analogue aerial images (slides and negatives) and associated documents (maps,positiveenlargedcopies,printviews,etc.)arestoredintheAerialArchaeologyArchive,apartoftheArchive of the IAP. In the AMČR project, digital (digital-born) images and electronic copies of



analogue images have been integrated into the Digital Archive of the IAP as a part of the AMČRsystem(seebelow).

AerialArchaeologyArchiveoftheIAP

TheAerialArchaeologyArchive(AAA)wasfoundedin1992inviewofstoringthephotographsfromaerialprospection(Gojda2008).Inthe1990saerialprospectionwaswholeheartedlypromotedintheIAP(until1989thisactivityhadbeenmoreorlessforbiddenunderthecommunistregime);between1998and2016 the IAPevenownedaCessna172 for its surveys.Currently,ascharter flightshavebecomemoreaffordable,owninganaircraftisnotfavourableanymore;apartfromthis,othermeansareusedinaerialsurvey,suchasdrones.Ofgrowingimportanceisalsotheinformationthatcanbeobtained frompublicallyavailablemapservers (e.g.GoogleEarth,andwww.mapy.cz for theCzechRepublic), which offer permanent access to geo-referential surveying aerial photographscontinuously covering the surface of the whole continent (in some countries available even in anumber of time series) and most recently even digital contour models of the earth surface (LLSimages,hithertoonlyinanumberofcountriesincludingtheCzechRepublic).

After 2002, in connection with the consequences of the Prague Flood, we started to digitize allarchival material of the IAP, which concerned the aerial photographs as well. The digitization(scanning) of analogue documents in the archive of the IAP was accomplished in 2012.Simultaneouslywealsomadea transition fromanaloguedocuments todigital technologies as themainwayofcollectingprimarydata(digital-borndata;especiallyphotographs,graduallyalsoplansand database files). Currently all images in the AAA are part of theDigital Archive of the IAP, forwhich(partiallyalsowiththesupportoftheARIADNEproject)thewebapplicationhasbeencreated.

DataModelforAerialArchaeology

TheAAAdatamodelconsistsofanumberofinterconnectedtableslinkedtothreebasiccategoriesofdata:photographedsites,individualphotographs(documents)andflights(‘events’ofaerialsurveys;cf. Figure 48). In the sites data class (SITES), individual spatial units with archaeological marks orfeatures are identified. They are also assigned unambiguous identifiers and a basic descriptionincludingthenameofthesite,thecadastre(parish),region,PIANspatialunitandotherinformation.TheAMČRdistinguishesbetweentwomainsortsofsites:(i)sitesintrinsictoaerialarchaeologyandmostlynewlydiscoveredusingthismethod(mainlythroughcroporsoilmarks,etc.)and(ii)sitesthatwereprimarilyrecordedbyothermethodsofarchaeologicaland/orhistoricalsurvey.Inthecaseofthe latter category the aerial photography just provides additional information or attractiveillustrations(mostlystandingbuildingsorruinssurvivingabovethegroundsuchascastles,hillforts,etc.).Thereforeattentionmustbepaidtotheharmonizationofidentifiersthatmustbesharedwithotherpartsoftheinformationsystem.

Individual sites canbedescribed inmoredetail using so-calleddocumentationunits (spatial units;dataclassDOCUMENTATIONUNITS)andcomponents (dataclassCOMPONENTS),whicharespatialgroupsof finds tied to specificperiodsand functions (specific ‘activityareas’ in the terminologyofNeustupný 1998). In the case of sites that are recognised by aerial photographs only, thechronological and functional specification can of course be difficult; it is, however, not impossible(seebelow).Anyway,wesupposethattheidentificationofcomponentsatsitesdeterminedbyaerialsurveywill be carried out as automatically generated summarization of the information from thecomponents of individual aerial photographs. A further data class is FLIGHTS, which containsinformationon thedateandhourof the flight, thenameof thepilotandsurveyor,departureandarrivalairport,weatherconditions,visibility,etc.



Figure48.TheAMČRdatamodel:tablesconcerningaerialarchaeology.

In theAMČR,aerialphotographs (PHOTOS) representa subcategoryof theDOCUMENTSdataclassanditsEXTRADATAextension.Wewillmainlyincludeinformationonthephotographerandhis/herorganisation,dateofthephotograph,descriptionoftheimageandthedefinitionofits‘access’, i.e.the group of persons that will be allowed access. In the case of aerial photographs the lastmentionedaspectisespeciallyimportantsincetheimagesmayoftenincludeinformationthatcouldbemisused,forexample,bylooterswithmetaldetectors.Inallcasesitisnecessarytodecide,whomayseethem:achoicewillbedonebetween‘allusers’,‘registeredusers’,‘researchspecialistsonly’or‘nobodyexceptthearchivistorsystemadministrator’.

Theaerialphotographsaredescribedfromtheviewoftheirscientificcontents.Ifchronologicalandfunctional categories of the finds can be deduced, they will be inserted into the data classes ofDOCUMENTCOMPONENTSandFINDS. Ifwecan identify, forexample,aNeolithic settlementwithcharacteristic groundplansofhouses,wewill enter ‘Neolithic-settlement’, the secondwill contain‘immovableobject-building/building-dwelling+pole/postconstruction’.Apartfromthis,theSHAPESdata class will provide a formal description of the surveyed features using descriptive categoriesspecifictoaerialsurvey(forexample‘maculae’,‘largerectangularenclosure’,etc.).

ThemetadatainthePHOTOSdataclassarelinkedtophysicalfilesinthedigitalrepositoryoftheIAP.The FILES description linked to these files contains technical details of the associated files, as, forexample,itssizeinMB,thefiletypeandlastmodifieddate.

TheDigitalArchiveoftheIAPWebApplication

TheabovedescriptionoftheaerialphotographsoftheIAPwasalsoappliedtothedatafileprovidedfor the vast network of the ARIADNE research infrastructure. The web application of the DigitalArchive (Figure 49) was developed with support by the ARIADNE project; it makes the aerialphotographs from AAA and other documents of the AMČR available to the scientific and laycommunity. The web application of the Digital Archive is linked to the AMČR, from which it



automaticallytransfersdocumentsandmetadata.Theapplicationoffersamulti-criteriasearchofthedocuments,theirsortinganddisplay,aswellasaspatialqueryusingamap.

Figure49.OneofthescreensoftheDigitalArchivewebapplication.

The Digital Archive divides the documents into five categories (TEXTS, PHOTOS, AERIAL PHOTOS,PLANS AND MAPS and DIGITAL DATA); as soon as the data will be ready and transferred, theapplicationwill contain about 250K files. AERIAL PHOTOS can further be indexed using filters andfacets (for example by author, year, cadastre, site type and others) or they can be subjectedaccording to similar principles to an advanced multi-criteria search. Each document is assignedinformationonthesite,thedocument,itscontents(components),etc.thatwereextractedfromthedatacategoriesoftheAMČR.

Themetadataoftheselecteddocumentscanbedisplayedinanumberofdifferentways:tablewithminiatures,galleryorthemetadatatablealone.Clickingthebuttonswillunfold informationonthecontents of thedocuments and the according site; clicking theminiaturesopens awindowwith aview of the document. The viewer window has sufficient resolution to enable viewing thephotographsingreaterdetailandtoreadthetextdocuments;thecurrentsettingoftheapplicationdoesnotallowdownloadingdocuments.Amovabletimelinetodefinethechronologicalscopeofthedocumentsaccordingtohistoricalperiodsrepresentsautilityratherforthebroaderpublic.Themapwindowshowsthepositionofthesite,fromwhichtheimagesaretaken;usingthiswindow,wecanalsoperformageographicqueryofthedocuments.

Toshowthegeographic locationofaerialphotographscanbeforbiddenbysystemadministrator ifthepresentationcouldendangerthesite.Accesscanbelimitedintwoways:eitheritisnotpossibletoopenacertaindocumentintheviewerwindow(theuserwillbeprovidedonlywithmetadataandminiatures of the document) or the link to the appropriate site is interrupted (the imagemay beviewed,buttheusercanviewinformationonthecadastralareaonly,notthesite).



WeconsidertheDigitalArchiveapplicationanimportantsteptowardstheopeningupofarchaeologyto a broader audience. Currently the application is being translated into English. The translationconsidersthescreens,filters,facetsandallindex-likemetadata.Thisway,theAMČRDigitalArchivewill allow persistent linking to individual documents. The web application will be releasedsimultaneouslywiththeAMČRsysteminmid-2017.

Part2:FromInformationSystemstoanIntegratingVRE

It is envisaged that theAMČRwill becomea virtual researchenvironment for thewhole sectorofarchaeology in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the second part of the case study addressesmajorrequirements of such an environment, with a particular focus on requirements for progress andinnovationintheareaofresearch.

TowardsaQualitativeShiftinArchaeology

The fundamental courses for any future development in the field of “digital archaeology” includemultidisciplinary approaches, implementation of international standards, Open Source as well asOpen Access concepts, ensuring broader application of archaeological data, and, mainly, creativeinfrastructureutilisationinthefieldofresearchaswellasarchaeologicalheritagemanagement.

The authors believe that the development of archaeological information sources in the CzechRepublic shouldaimat the integrationofdepartmental information systemsboth in termsofdataconnectivityanduserinterfacesinordertodesignanddeliverthisdatawithcommonheuristicandanalytictools.Theseeffortsshouldresultinthecreationofaunifiedvirtualresearchenvironment.

AqualitativeshiftcanoccurinCzecharchaeologyonlyiftheapproachtoprocessingprimarydataisfundamentallychanged.Thequantityofcommonlyprocesseddatashouldincreasealongwiththeiraccessibility; the variety of analytical procedures and tools should expand and, last but not least,fundamental theoreticalandmethodological concepts shouldbecodified. In the followingsectionsweaddresssomeoftherequirementsofthisqualitativeshift.

EnsuringAppropriateLicensingConditions

Thedecisivefactorsincreatinge-infrastructures,amongotherthings,arethestipulationoflicensingterms, the editing of user rights as well as arrangements applied for the sharing and secondaryapplication of the content. One of the most important problems hindering the development ofexisting digital services appears to be a dependency on particular software providers, theircompetencetomeettheneedsofresearchinfrastructuresaswellasthelong-termsustainabilityoftheresultingsolutions.TheapplicationofOpenSourceconceptscanprovideananswertotheseaswell as other challenges. Software based on the Open Source code is open both in terms ofaccessibilityandlicensesforsharingandchanging.Thus, itsfurtherdevelopment is independentoftheoriginalsuppliersandtherearenoproblemsregardingitsreplicationinothersystems.

Dataprovidedwithinthescopeofe-infrastructuresareprotected inthesamewayasthesoftwareitself.Currently,Czecharchaeologysuffersinthisrespectbyacertainvacuumstemmingfrom(i)theill-definedrelationshipsbetweentheprovidersandthedataadministratorsand(ii)theapplicationofcommon copyright law protection instead of specifically defined licensing terms. The generalintention is,however,providingthe largestpossibleamountof researchdatatothegeneralpublicforuseanddistribution in theOpenAccessmode. This approachmanifests itself in an increase infreelyavailabledigitalresources.Researchdatashouldbeunderstoodasaproductofpublicserviceandtheirconcealingcannotberationallybased,asitonlyburdenstheacademicenvironment.



BringingTogethertheArchaeologicalandITExpertise

Further development of archaeological e-infrastructures will lead to the direct involvement of ITspecialistsinscientificprojectsand,atthesametime,thestrengtheningofsimilarcompetenciesofprofessionalarchaeologicalstaffwillbealsosupported.Wearecurrentlyfacingasituationinwhichinformation science in archaeology is not only the matter of archaeologists but also technically-oriented professionals with an interdisciplinary overlap. In a longer perspective, it will probablybecomestandardproceduretoemploysoftwaredevelopersintheacademicinstitutions.Moreover,itwill be necessary for such specialists to have direct insight into archaeology and a closemutualcooperationwithinthescopeofjointmultidisciplinaryteams.

EnablingAdvancedInteroperabilityofDigitalResources

The integration and interoperability of digital resources requires not only the coordination of theactivities of institutions involved in building common information systems, but also theestablishmentoflong-termexistingrulesandregulationsthatalloworientationwithinthedataandmetadata.Theaimistounitethedatamodelsoftherelatedbutstillindependentsystemsinsuchaway that the extraction of information will not require any additional user intervention, but willproceedonasemiautomaticorfullyautomatedlevel.

Toachievethisgoal,nationallyandmainlyinternationallyrecognizedstandardsneedtobeapplied;their observancehelps to streamline thedigital space. The standards canbe applied in twoways:eitherbybuilding thesystemdirectlyon thebasisof thestandard,orbyutilizingspecific tools formapping the data classes into standard forms. Standardization is one of the key pillars of dataintegration inheritagemanagement,promotingnetworkingservicesandcontents thatcanbeveryheterogeneous.Atthesametime,standardizationencouragesthecreationandgrowthofcatalogueandaggregationservicesthatcombineindependentlygenerateddata,openupnewpossibilitiesforthecomparativestudyofdifferentdatasets,and,thankstouniformsemantics,reducetheimpactoflanguagebarriers.

The AMČR system was built to include basic components of international standards (e.g. DublinCore), but itwill benecessary to establishnewprocedures for themappingof individual schemeswithintheframeworkoftheplannedpublicAPI.Thestandardizationofoutputsmainlyintheformofmachine-readabledata represents a task that requires the further conceptual developmentof thesystem.TherapidspreadandefficiencyoftheCIDOC-CRMreferencemodelshowsthatinthecourseofthedevelopmentofthebranchinfrastructuresstandardizationwillnecessarilyhavetocomeintofocus.

PreventingInformationLoss

While looking at the complex system and immense volumes of information and considering thedevelopment of digital infrastructures we are inevitably led to ponder how much informationescapesourcurrent scope.Unquestionably, it isaproblemwehave tried to solve foryears,but itwas only the complex approach and the insight (that could never be achieved in the analogueenvironment) thathas revealed thewide rangeof topicswhose solution represents a task for thecoming years. These problems were caused by the methods of existing evidence systems, theirhistorical and regionally conditioned development as well as by the nature of archaeology. Thecreation of integration of information resources has been hindered by division of competences,different institutional arrangements of archaeological fieldwork, varying technical capabilities andinformationmanagementsystems,selectiveaccesstothedata,varyingfunding,andotheraspects.Developingthe ideaofaunifiedplatformisanchoredinanattempttoreducethe information lossratewithinarchaeologicalfieldworkaswellastoensureastablepositionforCzecharchaeologyinaninterdisciplinaryandinternationalenvironment.However,thispathalsoenvisagesthedevelopmentofnewcompetenciesamongarchaeologists,notablyinthefieldofdigitalresourcesmanagement.



RecognisingAdditionalSourcesofEvidence

Thecontextualisationthroughdataandresourcesbuiltonalternativesourceevidenceisataskthatisas equally important as the collectionofold and the creationofnewarchaeological data.Writtenhistorical records of a narrative and official nature describing independently from archaeologicalevidencethepastlandscapeaswellasthedistributionofhumanactivityareas,representanaturalsourceofinformationthathavenotbeensignificantlyandsystematicallyexploitedintheCRsofar.Asignificantamountofcriticaleditionsofhistoricaldocuments thathavebeenpublishedalready forover two centuries and that especially for the earlier part of theMiddle Ages have coveredmostrelevantsourcesfortheterritoryoftheCRmayserveasagoodstartingpointtomeetsuchagoal.Theproblemwiththisgroupofsourceslies,ofcourse,inthedifferentlevelofeditorialpracticeandeditorialapparatus(e.g.localanddataindexes,etc.)andthealmostcompleteabsenceofeffortstopresent the data in a spatial manner. In this regard, it is necessary to perform a great deal ofmethodological work that will be followed up by a demanding retrieval of structured data fromvarioussources.

RequiredAdvancesinResearchTools

Withtheexceptionofsecuringtheinfrastructureitself,systemmanagementanddatacollection,itiscrucial for any further development to offer utilities that will be helpful (1) in the course oftheoreticalresearch; (2)asmethodologicalandpracticalsupport forarchaeologicaldatacollection;and(3)asanefficienttool fordataanalysis.Thefulfilmentofthesetasks isanongoingandnever-endingprocessthatwillactuallyreacttoandideallyalsoanticipatetheneedsofthetargetgroupsaswellastheprofessionalenvironmentasawhole.

Atthetheoreticallevelitisnecessarytofurtherdeveloptheideaofthelandscapeasanareagivenmeaninginthecourseofhumanactivities(landscapeas“anenvironmentwithpurpose”,acomplexartefact).Thelandscapecanbeseenasasetofchronologicallyandspatiallyoverlappingareas(i.e.artefacts) which underwent dynamic development, the static reflections of which are depicted invarious categories of sources. The existing evidence, including the AMČR, is primarily based oncollecting these static images. If you wish to understand the landscape’s past dynamics, it isnecessarytomodeltheseprocessesonthebasisofacquireddata.Theresultingmodelshavetoagainundergofurthercriticaldiscussion.Toreachviablemodelswehavetoagreeonthebasicconceptsandtomodifytheexistinginfrastructurestomatchtheirapplications.

Thus,we see threebasic directions for furtherdevelopment that are complementary and validateeachother,theyareasfollows:

• The creation and application of a common data model for sciences studying the pastlandscapes (archaeology, history, historical geography, etc.) that will allow fundamentalsynthesesofdataindependentlyofthesourcecategory.

• Theapplicationofarchaeologicalremotesensingasasourceofnewinformationonthepastlandscape.

• The creation of tools for predictivemodelling, whichmust be based on a set of complexcriteria,respectingthenatureofarchaeologicaldata(transformationprocesses,theprocessoftheircollection,etc.).

However, neither of these approaches can be meaningfully applied without enough quality datacollected by a uniform method. Data acquisition is time-consuming and the most personneldemandingphaseofbuildinganarchaeological infrastructure.Thus, itcannotbeassumedthatoneorganisationoranyofitsworkinggroupswillbeabletoconsistentlycoverthisactivityinstitutionallyor even justwithin the scopeof short-termprojects. The temporary suspensionor interruptionofdata collection will always cause a gap in their consistency, and its reverse filling is usually very



difficult. For this reason, it is necessary to lay the weight of data acquisition upon the wholecommunityofusers (dataconsumers), i.e. toapplyakindof crowdsourcingprinciple.Theconceptshouldcoverasmanyaspossibleareas,especiallyconsideringthehugeincreaseindatacollectedbytheuncoordinatedapplicationof the remote sensing, theneed toprocess theas yetnon-digitizedlistsandsurveys(publishedandunpublishedaswell)andtheneedtoinitiateintensivecooperationintheintegrationofinterdisciplinarydata.Datasharingbythewholecommunityalsorepresentsanextremelyvaluableopportunitytoprofessionallyengageamateurarchaeologists,mainlytheusersofmetaldetectors.

Unlikeaspecial-purposeinformationsystem,thecreationofinfrastructuresisonlymeaningfulinthelong-termperspective.Thisaspectshouldalsobereflected inthesignificancegiventosuchtask inthe evaluation of professional institutions engaged both in theoretical and applied research (i.e.heritagemanagementinthecaseofarchaeology).Ontheotherhand,researchinfrastructuresneedto be understood as an integral and necessary part of the cycle of scientific cognition, not as itsalternative.Theyareawelcometool,notagoalinandofthemselves.

5.8.4 ConclusionsandRecommendationsWhetherthedevelopmentoftheAMCRandotherarchaeologicalinfrastructureswilltakeanyoftheoutlineddirectionsornot,itisnecessarytorepaythedebtresultingfromtheunderestimationofthissphere of archaeology in the long-term perspective. In the text above, several topics have beenmentionedwhichareseenascrucialforaproperdevelopmentofaVREinCzecharchaeology.Inthefollowingparagraphs,letussummarizethemainpoints.

Currently,thekeytaskrepresentstheeffectiveinvolvementofusers.Ifwereallywanttotalkaboutthe provision of services within the framework of archaeological VREs, usersmust be seen as anintegral part of them andmust, therefore, be given the same attention as system administration,technical solutionsand thecontaineddata.Practicehasclearly shown thataddressing suchcrucialtasks in theCzechRepubliccannotbecarriedoutwithin thecurrentarrangementofdecentralizeddatamanagement.Thus, the formationofacoordinationplatform intheformofaworkinggroup,whererepresentativesofthemaininstitutionsandprojectswilltakepart,mustbeinitiated.Suchaworking group should disseminate information about the current state as well as planneddevelopments in the field of archaeological informatics. Moreover, it can act as a spokespersonrepresentingthearchaeologicalinfrastructuresasawholetonotonlystateadministrationandotherhumanities, but mainly to the wider archaeological environment and educational institutions. Itshould also be a partner on the international level and serve as a medium for the transfer ofappropriatemodels, ideasand standards thatwill beactively soughtafter throughparticipation inrelevantinternationalfora.

Unlikeaspecial-purposeinformationsystem,thecreationofinfrastructuresisonlymeaningfulinthelong-termperspective.Thisaspectshouldalsobereflected inthesignificancegiventosuchtask inthe evaluation of professional institutions engaged both in theoretical and applied research (i.e.heritagemanagementinthecaseofarchaeology).Ontheotherhand,researchinfrastructuresneedto be understood as an integral and necessary part of the cycle of scientific cognition, not as itsalternative.Theyareawelcometool,notagoalinandofthemselves.

Conclusions:

o Itisnecessarytopaymoreattentiontodata;inarchaeology,ifdataisnotproperlycollected,recordedandprotected,majorpartsofitmaybesoonlostforever.

o Integrationandstandardizationofinformationonanational(orevenwider)levelisurgentlyneeded.

o UsersmustbeseenaspartoftheVREs.



Recommendations:

o New types of data available should be considered (e.g. LLS images) and its impact on thegeneraldatamodelshouldbediscussed.

o Nationaland/orinternationalplatforms(workinggroups)shouldbecreated.

o Long-termvisionsoftheVREscopesanddevelopmentshouldbearticulatedandfollowed.

o CriticalevaluationsoftheachievementswithintheVREsshouldbecarriedout.

o Archaeology shouldbeopen to thepublicasmuchaspossible; it isnecessary topersuadethepublicthat“archaeologicalknowledgematters”.

5.8.5 SummaryArchaeologicalresearchinfrastructuresmustbedevelopedwithavisionfortheneedsofthefutureprofessional community. The authors from the ARUP-CAS team are convinced that it is crucial tosystemizeaccesstoarchaeologicalknowledgeatthecentrallevelandtoinvolveusersdirectlyintheprocessofdatacreation.Theyputanemphasisontheimportanceofasuitablelegalframeworkandinstitutional cooperation, the advantages of Open Access, Open Source and data standardization,andoutlinedirectionsofdataharvestingandnewtooldevelopment.These“futurevisons”maybeconsideredasaroadmapsketchoftheprocessleadingtoanationalarchaeologicalvirtualresearchenvironment.

5.8.6 References

ArchaeologicalMapoftheCzechRepublic(AMČR),http://archeologickamapa.cz

Chase A.F., Chase D.Z., Fisher C.T.et al. 2012. Geospatial revolution and remote sensing LiDAR inMesoamerican archaeology. In: PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(3):12916-21.

Cowley, D.C. & Stichelbaut, B.B. 2012. Historic Aerial Photographic Archives for EuropeanArchaeology.In:EuropeanJournalofArchaeology,15(2):217-236.

Edgeworth,M.2014.FromSpade-WorktoScreen-Work:NewFormsofArchaeologicalDiscovery inDigital Space, pp. 40-58, in: Carusi, A. et al. (eds.): Visualization in the Age of Computerization.Routledge.

Gojda, M. 2008: Archiv leteckých snímků Archeologického ústavu AV ČR v Praze 1992-2007 (TheArchiveofAerial Images inthePragueInstituteofArchaeology1992-2007).Archeologickérozhledy60,144-146.

Hanson,W.&Oltean,I.(eds.).2013.ArchaeologyfromHistoricalAerialandSatelliteArchives.NewYork:Springer.

Johnson, K.M. & Quimet,W.B. 2014: Rediscovering the lost archaeological landscape of southernNew England using airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR). In: Journal of ArchaeologicalScience,43:9-20.

Kuna, M., Hasil, J., Novák, D., Boháčová, I. et al. 2015: Structuring archaeological evidence. TheArchaeologicalMapoftheCzechRepublicandrelatedinformationsystems.Prague:ARUPCAS.

Neustupný,E.(ed.)1998:SpaceinprehistoricBohemia.Praha:InstituteofArchaeologyCAS.

Standring, R.A., Cowley D.C & Abicht, M.J. (eds.). 2010. Landscapes Through the Lens: AerialPhotographsandtheHistoricEnvironment.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

TheSAAArchaeologicalRecord,16(2),March2016,SpecialIssue:DronesinArchaeology.



5.9 SummaryofCaseStudiesResults(SRFG)

Thecasestudiesdescribeexemplarycurrentpracticesintherespectivearea,recentadvancesand/orexisting shortcomings, and outline how the area could be developed further. The conclusions andrecommendations can concern adoption of novel approaches, standards,methods, tools or othermeans,dependingonthesubjectareacovered.

Summaryofindividualcasestudies

We briefly summarise the individual case studies with regard to their subjects, perspectives, andmainconclusions.

ArchaeologicalMethodology:Thecasestudyaddressesthemethodologieswhicharebeingusedinarchaeological research. The study does not focus on methodological theory, but extraction ofmethodscomponentsfromactualpracticeanddescriptioninaformthatcouldallowbettersupportbye-archaeologyapplications.TheworktakesaSituationalMethodEngineering(SME)approachandapplies the ISO/IEC24744 standard (Metamodel forDevelopmentMethodologies)whichdefines a“grammar” for SME. The study then shows that this modelling language allows expressing andcommunicatinginaformalisedwaymethodologiesinarchaeology.Thisworkinvolvedtheextractionof methods components from textual accounts of actual archaeological practices, and thedevelopment of a repository to store and manage their formalised descriptions. Furthermore anumberofapplicationscenarioshavebeenidentified.

ArchaeologicalOntology:ThecasestudypresentsanapplicationcaseofCRMarchaeo,anextensionoftheISOstandardCIDOCCRMspecificallydesignedtomodelthearchaeologicalexcavationprocessandto integratethecomplexdocumentationofexcavationswhichareoftenrecordedaccordingtodifferent standards. The study presents the application of CIDOC-CRM/CRMarchaeo to a verycomplex documentation schema, which has been achieved with good results, and suggests thatCRMarchaeoarguablycanbeutilizedinmostothercases.Indeed,workisunderwayonanumberofcases. Importantly,a tool, theMappingMemoryManager (3M) isavailable for thiswork.Thecasestudy concludes that CIDOC-CRM/CRMarchaeo allow addressing better the complexity ofarchaeological documentation in efforts aimed to integrate such documentation. Therefore theirapplication can be recommended to archaeological research centres and projects for dataintegration.Thisisrecommendedforintegrationatthelocal/projectlevelaswellasacrossdifferentprojectsandinstitutions,forexampleintheframeworkofARIADNE.

3DArchaeology:Thecasestudyfirstdescribesaframeworkof3DArchaeologyinwhich3Dmodelswouldrepresentandallowscrutinizingtheresultofbringingtogetherknowledgefromresearchersofdifferentdisciplinesconcerningarchaeologicalartefacts.Nextthestudydescribesthewiderangeof3D methods that are being used by archaeologists, however, mainly to represent, not to enableadvancementofarchaeologicalknowledgeincollaborativee-archaeology.Suche-archaeologywoulduseonlinerepresentation,annotationandcriticaldiscussionofknowledgeclaims,feedingtheresultsbackintothe3Dmodeldevelopmentprocess.Thusthescientific,essentiallycollaborativeprocessofknowledge generation, in which researchers scrutinize, refute or accept (always provisionally)knowledge claims should be built into the 3D environment. The study suggests investigating e-researchenvironmentsthatprovidesuchcapabilityandplacethecollaborativeresearchprocess inthecentreof3DArchaeology.

Geo-Physical Field Survey: The case study addresses the situation of databases of geo-physicalsurveydatawhichcanprovideessentialinformationforstudiesonarchaeologicalsitesandareas.Asexamples twodatabasesofnationalauthoritieshavebeen inspected, showing limitedcapability to(re-)usethedatabasesfordocumentingresearchprojectsortodirectlycontributenewresults.ThestudynotesthatarenotmanysuchcentraldatabasesandnodatabaseexistsattheEuropeanlevel



which integrates themetadataor, even, datasetsof prospections conducted indifferent countriesandregions.Thestudysuggeststhatfore-archaeologyinvolvinggeo-physicalsurveysthereisaneedofstandardiseddatabasesdedicatedtosuchresearch.Suchdatabasesshouldallowdocumentingthesystematicdataacquisition,processingandinterpretation,takingaccountoftheparticularitiesoftheprospectedarea.Furthermore,toallowfurtherprogressintheresearchfieldofgeo-physicalsurveysforarchaeologicalpurposes,scientificpublicationsshouldbepublishedwiththeunderlyingdatasets(i.e. in a publicly accessible repository), so that results can be scrutinized and the data used forinvestigationswithdifferentmethods.

Physical Anthropology: The case study addresses the development of databases in the field ofphysical anthropology, describes some current examples, and points out existing issues aswell aspotential for advances towards innovative e-archaeology. Identified major challenges for e-archaeologyare:datarecordingthatisnotbasedonaninternationalstandard,databasesthathavebeendevelopedwithonlyoneinstitutioninmind,andlackoffederated,cross-searchabledatabases;the latter concerns both collections of skeletalmaterial and research databases. For ARIADNE thecasestudy recommends: to include in theARIADNEregistry/portalmoresetsof researchdataandreportsofphysicalanthropology;tocontributetothestandardisationofdatabasesinthisfieldfromARIADNE’s perspective of dataset registration, federation and integration; and to consider thedevelopment of a virtual research environment that demonstrates the research potential ofinteroperablephysicalanthropologyandotherarchaeologicaldatabases.Thecasestudyemphasisesthat these objectives require a close collaboration between anthropologists, archaeologists,databasemanagers,andtechnicalresearchersanddevelopers.

ArchaeobotanicalResearch:Thecasestudyintroducesarchaeobotanywithregardtoitsdisciplinaryscope and current developments. The latter include an increased accessibility of studies and dataonline,i.e.datasharedthroughopenaccessrepositories,whichcontributetoresearchquestionsofenvironmental archaeology. The case study addresses archaeobotanical research in the context ofarchaeological sites. This concerns the investigation of remains of plants as a contribution to theoverall interpretation of sites. The study focuses on the identification of the plant remains,whichoften requires comparison to archaeobotanical reference material and asking colleagues for helpwith the identification. This couldbeeasedbya virtual reference collectionandenvironment thatcollectsimagesandcontextdescriptionsbymanyresearchersandprovidestoolsfordiscussionandcollaborative identification. However, an appropriate solution has intricate requirements inprofessional, technical and other respects. The case study presents a specification of therequirements which includes also interoperability of data with research e-infrastructures, i.e.ARIADNE.

VRE forCzechArchaeology:Thecasestudy firstpresents recente-infrastructuredevelopments forthe archaeological sector of the Czech Republic, the Archaeological Map of the Czech Republic(AMČR) and ARUP-CAS’ Digital Archive, including the Aerial Archaeology Archive. The case studyargues that these, particularly the AMČR, are elements of an emerging comprehensive VRE forarchaeologicalresearchatthenational level.Thestudythenaddresses importantperspectivesandrequirementsofsuchanintegratingvirtualenvironment.Theseinclude:thatthelong-termvisionoftheVREscopeanddevelopmentmustbecommunicated, followed,andevaluated; standardisationandintegrationofinformationacrossthesectorinthecountry(andbeyond);andtheusersmustbeseen as part of the emerging VRE (i.e. national working groups). The study also stresses thatarchaeologyshouldbeopentothepublicasmuchaspossible,contributingtotherecognitionthat“archaeologicalknowledgematters”.



Summaryofresultsandrecommendations

Webrieflysummarisetheoverallresultsandrecommendationsofthecasesstudies:

Commonthemesofthecasestudies

o The case studies looked into current practices and solutions for e-archaeology, includingshortcomingsandpotentialforimprovements.

o One theme that is present in most cases studies is that any solution, VREs or other, shouldsupport collaborationbetween researchersaimed togenerate, validateand integratearchaeo-logicalknowledge.

o Various resources are addressed includingmethods,models, databases, reference collections,andothers.Amongtheidentifiedneedsfore-archaeologyespeciallyarestandardizationofdataanddatabasesaswellasbettercoverageandaccess.Furthermore,databasesshouldalloweasycontributionaswellasre-useofdata.Alsothereisaneedofdatafederationinitiativestoallowcross-searchingofexistingdatabases.

o Case studies also stressed that enabling advanced e-research capability will require a closecollaborationbetweenarchaeologicalresearchers,databasemanagers,andtechnicalresearchersanddevelopers.

Databases

o DatabasesareessentialelementsofVREsastheyallowresearcherscollect,shareandexpandthefactualevidenceintheirfieldsofstudycollaboratively.Thecurrentstateofdatabasesinvariousfields of study presents a difficult situation,which also limits their potential integration in theARIADNEe-infrastructureandportfolioofservices.

o Standardizationofdatarecordinganddatabasesinparticularfieldsofarchaeologicalresearchisnot a focus area of ARIADNE. However, ARIADNE could promote and contribute tostandardisationinitiatives,especiallyfromtheperspectiveofdatasetregistration,federationandintegration.

o Demonstrationof the researchpotential of interoperabledatabases, i.e. basedonCIDOC-CRManditsrecentextensions(i.e.CRMsci,CRMarchaeoandothers),anddedicatedVREsforcertaintypesofstudies,maypromotefurtherstandardisationandsharingofdatabases.

Scientificreferencecollections

o Acommonneedisreferencecollectionsthatallowcomparisonandidentificationofremainsofculturalproducts,humans,animalsandplantsaswellasphysicalmaterial(i.e.soils,sediments)inthearchaeologicalrecord.

o Some of these need to be developed by expert in the respective specialties to ensure theirpracticalusefulnessinarchaeologicalpractice(i.e.archaeobotany,zooarchaeology,andothers);existing reference collections of natural history museums are not necessarily helpful for theidentificationofarchaeologicalsamples.

o Similar todatabasesof research results, thedevelopmentof these research resources isnot atask in the remit of ARIADNE. However, ARIADNE could promote the creation of VREs thatsupportthebuildingofreferencecollections.Furthermore,exploreifvirtualreferencecollectionscouldbegeneratedfromsamplesdocumentedindatasetssharedthroughtheARIADNEregistry.

3Drepresentationofarchaeologicalknowledge

o 3D models and other visual media are increasingly employed to present outcomes ofarchaeological research. In ARIADNE this has been supported by the development of online



serviceswhich ease the generation, publication and visualization of 3Dmodels of objects andlandscapes(VisualMediaService,LandscapeFactory).

o NowthenextstepcouldbetoprovideacollaborativeVREthatenablesresearcherstoexamineamodel (i.e. meta/para-data of research and technical background), discuss the model andsuggestimprovementstakingaccountofnewresearchresults,ifrequired.

Formaldescriptionofe-researchactivities,methodsanddata

o Tobuildeffectivee-archaeologyenvironmentsthereisaneedtodescribevariouselementsofe-research (i.e.methods, tools,data) inaway thatallows (semi-)automatic supportof tasksandoutcomes.

o ARIADNErecommendsusingtheCIDOC-CRM(withtherecentextensionsCRMsci,CRMarchaeo,CRMba and others) for the description and integration of archaeological documentation. ForVREs in addition ontologies and applications are necessary which support the actual researchprocess.Theresearchprocesscomprisesofsequencesofdifferentactivities(i.e.workflow)whichinvolvecertainmethods,tools,dataandotherresources.Applicationsthatsupporttheresearchprocesswouldsuggestavailableresources,linkthemtogether,andalsoprovideothersupporttocarryoutresearchtasks.



6 ConclusionsandRecommendations

PositioningoftheARIADNEdatainfrastructure

Researche-infrastructuresare implementedbasedonamulti-layeredarchitecturewithmanydataresources (i.e. repositories) at the bottom, a layer of commone-infrastructure and services in themiddle, and flexible combinationsofmore specific servicesand toolson top. The top level canbevirtual research environments (VREs) tailored to the needs of research communities of particulardomainsorcross-domain,multi-disciplinaryresearchprojects.

ARIADNEprovidesadatainfrastructureinthemiddlelayerwhichincorporatesdataresourcesfrommany archaeological institutions in Europe andprovides cross-resourcedata discovery, access andotherservices.ARIADNEhasimplementedaplatformwheredispersedarchaeologicaldataresourcescan be uniformly registered/described, discovered and accessed. The data is being shared byarchaeologicalresearchcentresandprojectstoallowuseandre-usefurtherresearch,forexample,askingnewquestionsfromcombineddatasets.

TheARIADNEe-infrastructurehelpstoovercomeasituationofhighfragmentationofarchaeologicaldatainEurope(andelsewhere).Atthesametime,itisasteptowardstheevenmoreambitiousgoalofprovidingaplatformcapabletosupportweb-basedresearchaimedtocreatenewknowledge.

ThusamajornextstepcouldbetoimplementVREsthat,inadditiontodataaccess,provideservicesandtoolswhichallowarchaeologicalresearcherscarryingoutresearchtasksonline.SuchVREsmayrangefromlooselycoupledservices/toolsanddataresourcestotightlyintegratedworkbenchesforresearchersofdifferentdomainsofarchaeology.

The current ARIADNE project has not been charged to develop VREs, but the implemented datainfrastructureandservicesprovideabasisforfuturearchaeologicalVREs.

ARIADNEande-archaeology

Thepresentreportpresentsaninvestigationofgeneralanddomain-specifice-researchframeworks,especiallyofe-archaeology.E-archaeologyingeneralmeanstheuseofweb-baseddigitaldata,toolsandservicesforarchaeologicalresearchpurposes.

The investigation compared e-archaeology to other “digital humanities” and identified severalimportantdifferences. For example: digital humanities scholarsmostlyworkwithdigitised culturalcontentfromculturalheritageinstitutions,archaeologistsworkwithdatatheyproducethemselves,generated in field and laboratory work with methods and tools typically not used by otherhumanitiesresearchers.

Both e-archaeologists and digital humanities scholars need appropriate solutions for collecting,handling,bringingtogetherandstudyingtheirdata/content.But,exceptgenerictechnologiessuchasdatabases, the digital tools and products are different: Typical digital humanities products arescholarlyeditions(e.g.ofliteraryworks),whichrequiretoolsthatsupporttaskssuchastranscription,translation, annotation etc. Typical for e-archaeology is GIS based integration of data of sites orvirtualreconstructionofancientbuiltstructuresorlandscapes.

Withregardtosupportofe-archaeologythestudyconcludesandrecommends:

o ARIADNEwould not incorporate cultural heritage collections, as for example Europeana does,andnotprovidetoolsfordigitalhumanitiesproductssuchasscholarlyeditions.

o ARIADNE should focus on major archaeological data resources, in particular field survey andexcavationdata,includingdataofresearchspecialties.



o Concerning data of research specialitiesARIADNEwill have to considerwhich fields should befocusareasoffutureincorporationofadditionaldataresources.Forexample,onecasestudyinthis report suggests mobilizing physical anthropology research data (but, similar to culturalheritagecollections,notcataloguesofskeletalmaterialcollections).

o Concerning research tools the focus should be on tools/services of particular relevance toarchaeologists:

- One area already present in ARIADNE’s portfolio is online services for the generation,visualization and exploration of 3Dmodels (VisualMedia Service and Landscape Factory).The case study on 3D Archaeology suggests that a step towards advanced e-archaeologycould be addition of capability for online discussion and verification of the knowledgerepresentedby 3Dmodels,with theoutcome fedback into the knowledge representationprocess.

- Otherpriority areasof futureadditional tools/services shouldbe investigated. These couldfocus on certain types of data (e.g. remote sensing data) and/or tasks (e.g. collaborativebuildingofonlinereferencecollections).Ingeneraltypesofdataandtasksthatarerelevantforbroadsegmentsofresearchersarepreferable,atleastinafirstphaseofextensionoftheARIADNEserviceportfolio.

Multi-disciplinaryE-archaeologyastheMainChallenge

ThemainchallengeforARIADNEtosupporte-archaeologyisthemulti-disciplinaryofarchaeologicalresearch.Archaeologyindeedutilizesknowledge,methodsanddatafromdifferentdisciplinaryfieldsof which some present mainly characteristics of the humanities (e.g. ancient languages, classicalstudies),others leanheavilytowardsthenaturalsciencesandemploymethodsofarchaeometryorbiologicalsciences,othersrelatetotheearth&environmentalsciences,whilestillothersusemodelsandmethods of the social sciences (e.g.models of social structure and ethnologicalmethods, forinstance).

Archaeology studies past cultures basedon theirmaterial remains and traces in the environment,including remains such as biological material, artefacts, built structures as well as traces in thelandscape (e.g. agriculture, routes between places, etc.). Knowledge, methods and results ofdifferentdisciplinesneedtobecombinedtoarriveatrichandsolidconclusions.

The paradigmatic case of this multi-disciplinary of archaeological research is excavation projects.Theseprojectsarecarriedoutbyteamsinvolvingtheexcavatingarchaeologistsandfindsexpertsofdifferent specialities who identify and analyse physical and biological remains such as ceramics,metals,bones,plants,etc.Theyallcontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsites,buttheirworkrequiresdifferentsubjectknowledge,methodsandtools.

Withregardtomulti-disciplinarye-archaeologythestudyconcludesandrecommends:

o Thereisaneedfortwotypesofcollaborativevirtualresearchenvironments(VREs):

a) VREs that allow to bringing together, integrate and interpret (synthesise) the results of thedifferentinvestigationsonarchaeologicalsites,and

b) VREs for researchers in specialities (e.g. physical anthropology, archaeobotany and others)that are specialised for their particular data (incl. data standards, terminology) and includeservices/tools for the identification, description and analysis of their finds (e.g. access toreferencecollectionsfortheidentificationoffinds).

o Both should be developed in view of wider range investigations (i.e. beyond individual sites)basedonsharingofthecollecteddatathroughARIADNE.



o Also important to consider is that unearthedmaterial remainsof past cultures includeobjectssuch as cuneiform tablets, inscriptions, papyri and others. These are studied by scholars ofancientlanguages,literatures,religions,etc.Inturn,theycancontributetotheinterpretationofarchaeologicalsites.

o However, the studydoesnot recommendARIADNE toengage in thedevelopmentofVREs forsuch humanities scholars. But to explore how information from existing databases might beintegrated.Oneareaofinterestherecouldbeepigraphicaldatabases.

DevelopmentofARIADNEVREs

VREsareweb-basedcollaborationenvironmentthatprovideasetofintegratedtoolsandservicesaswellasdataresourcesasneededbyresearchcommunitiestocarryoutresearchtasksonline.TherearesomecontradictoryoratleastdifficulttofulfilexpectationsfromaVRE,i.e.openvs.controlled,flexible vs. tailored, and domain vs. cross-domain. In any case, VREs should not be stand-alonesolutionforoneprojectorinstitution,butbasedoncommone-infrastructure.

Use of VREs on top the ARIADNE e-infrastructure could bring about significant progress in e-archaeology, in particular through enabling collaboration between and cross-fertilization ofknowledgeandresearchagendasofscholarsofdifferentdomains.

Sharing and linking through the ARIADNE e-infrastructure various data generates some (limited)potentialtostimulatesuchcross-domainfertilization.ThepotentialcouldbeexpandedbyVREsforcross-domainresearch.

Different areas of the multi-disciplinary map of archaeological research will present distinctlydifferent needs with regard to data, services or tools, classical archaeology versus environmentalarchaeology,forinstance.ThereforeVREswilltendtobecomearea-specific,e.g.supporttobuildandstudyadatabaseofclassicaltexts(e.g.epigraphy)or,inthecaseofenvironmentalarchaeology,forexampleaggregation,visualizationandanalysisofvegetation,landuseandotherdata.

Alternatively,VREsforcross-domainresearchwilltendtoprovidegenericservices/toolsorneedtobebuiltspecificallytosupportsuchresearch.ThereforeanessentialquestionishowVREscouldbedeveloped which enable effective cross-domain research aimed at archaeological knowledgegeneration,integrationandsynthesis.

WithregardtothedevelopmentofARIADNEVREsthestudyconcludesandrecommends:

o Investigate further different concepts of virtual environments for archaeological research, e.g.which research tasks could research groups conduct more effectively online and whichrequirementsneedtobefulfilled.

o Promote the development of relevant VREs with functionalities (tools, services) and dataresourcesrequiredbyarchaeologiststocarryoutvariousresearchtasksonline.

o Takeaccountof theparticular requirementsofarchaeological researchers indifferentdomainsaswellasincross-domain/disciplinarycollaboration.

o Consider caseswhere researchers use datamediated by ARIADNE and by data infrastructuresandservicesofotherdisciplines(e.g.geo,environmental,biologicaldata).Forthedevelopmentof cross-domain VREs collaboration between e-infrastructure initiatives of different disciplinesmaybenecessary.

o Support the use of domain-specific vocabulary as well as integrating ontologies such as theCIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CIDOC CRM) and its recent extensions CRMsci,CRMarchaeo,CRMba,andothers.



o AimtodevelopVREsthatenablecollaborationbetweenandcross-fertilizationofknowledgeandresearchagendasofscholarsofdifferentdomains.

o Foster cross-fertilization also between scholars and developers of software tools for researchpurposes, inwhichdevelopers learnabouttherequirementsofscholars’projects,andscholarshowtoapplynoveltechnologicalsolutions.

o ConsiderthatarchaeologicalresearcherscurrentlyseldomuseadvancedcomputationofferedbyGrid/Cloud-based Distributed Computing Infrastructures (DCIs), and explore where suchcomputationmaybeneededbyVREsfor“bigdata”basedresearch.



7 MainReferences

Thischapterliststhereferencesfromchapters1-4and6,aswellasincludespublicationsofgeneralinterest referenced in thecasestudies.All referencesof the individual casestudiesaregiven in therespectivesectionsofchapter5.

3D-ARCHworkshops(ISPRS&CIPA),http://www.3d-arch.org

3D-ICONS(EU,ICT-PSP,2/2012-1/2015),http://3dicons-project.eu

Adema,Janneke(2010a):JALCUserNeeds:ExternalEvaluationReport.SURFshareprojectEnrichedpublicationsinDutchArchaeology.LeidenUniversity,10January2010,https://openreflections.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/wp8-external-evaluation-report.pdf

Adema,Janneke(2010b):EnrichedpublicationsinDutcharchaeology.In:OpenKnowledgeBlog,20September2010,http://blog.okfn.org/2010/09/20/enriched-publications-in-dutch-archaeology/

AinsworthP.&MeredithM.(2009):e-ScienceforMedievalists:Options,Challenges,SolutionsandOpportunities.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly3.4,http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000071/000071.html

AlfaLab(VirtualKnowledgeStudioAmsterdam),http://alfalab.ehumanities.nl

Allan,Robert(2009):VirtualResearchEnvironments:FromPortalstoScienceGateways.Oxford:ChandosPublishing

ALLEAE-HumanitiesWorkingGroup(2015):GoingDigital:CreatingChangeintheHumanities.ALLEuropeanAcademies(ALLEA),Berlin,http://dri.ie/sites/default/files/files/Going-Digital-digital-version.pdf

AllianceofDigitalHumanitiesOrganizations(ADHO),http://adho.org

AloiaN.,PapatheodorouC.,GavrilisD.,DeboleF.&MeghiniC.(2014):DescribingResearchData:ACaseStudyforArchaeology,pp.768–775,in:MeersmanR.etal.(eds.):OntheMovetoMeaningfulInternetSystems:OTM2014Conferences.Springer(LNCS8841),pre-print,https://www.academia.edu/19889230/Describing_Research_Data_A_Case_Study_for_Archaeology

AndersonS.&BlankeT.(2012):TakingtheLongView:Frome-ScienceHumanitiestoHumanitiesDigitalEcosystems.In:HistoricalSocialResearch37.3:147-164,http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-378350

AndersonS.,BlankeT.&DunnS.(2010):Methodologicalcommons:artsandhumanitiese-Sciencefundamentals,in:Watson,P.etal.(eds.):e-Science:past,presentandfuture,I.Phil.Trans.R.Soc.A,368:3779-96,http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1925/3779.full.pdf

Anderson,Sheila(2007):TheArtsandHumanitiesande-Science:ScopingSurveyReportandFindings.CommissionedbytheUKArtsandHumanitiese-ScienceInitiative.King’sCollegeLondon,DepartmentCentrefore-Research,December2007,http://rae2007.cch.kcl.ac.uk/scoping-sa/e-science_report_final.pdf

ArchaeologyDataService(UniversityofYork,UK),http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk

ArchaeoTools-Datamining,facettedclassificationandE-archaeology(UK,e-ScienceResearchGrant,2007-2009),http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/research/archaeotools



ARIADNE-D14.2:PilotDeploymentExperiments,January2017,http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/Resources

ARIADNE-D2.1:FirstReportonUsers’Needs,April2014,http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/Resources/D2.1-First-report-on-users-needs

ARIADNE-D2.2:SecondReportonUsers’Needs,February2015,http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/content/view/full/1188

ARIADNE-D2.3:PreliminaryInnovationAgendaandActionPlan(November2015),http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/Resources/D2.3-Preliminary-Innovation-Agenda-and-Action-Plan

ARIADNE-ExpertForum:DigitalFuturesofArchaeologicalPractice2020-2025(Athens,2-3July2015),http://summerschool.dcu.gr/?page_id=19#expert-forum

ARIADNELandscapeServices(CNR-ITABC),http://landscape.ariadne-infrastructure.eu

ARIADNEReferenceModel:ComprisesoftheCIDOCCRMandextensions,http://www.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/Resources/Ariadne-Reference-Model

ARIADNEVisualMediaServices(CNR-ISTI),http://visual.ariadne-infrastructure.eu

ArthurP.L.&BodeK.(eds.,2014):AdvancingDigitalHumanities:Research,Methods,Theories.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137336996

AspöckE.&GeserG.(2014):Whatisanarchaeologicalresearchinfrastructureandwhydoweneedit?AimsandchallengesofARIADNE.In:Proceedingsofthe18thInternationalConferenceonCulturalHeritageandNewTechnologies(CHNT18),Vienna,November2013,http://www.chnt.at/wp-content/uploads/Aspoeck_Geser_2014.pdf

AuslanderL.,BentleyA.,HaleviL.,SibumH.O.&WitmoreC.(2009):AHRConversation:HistoriansandtheStudyofMaterialCulture.In:AmericanHistoricalReview,114(5):1355-1404,http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/114/5/1355.full.pdf+html

AverettE.W.,CountsD.&GordonJ.(2014):MobilizingthePastforaDigitalFuture:ThePotentialofDigitalArchaeology.NationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,OfficeofDigitalHumanities–DigitalHumanitiesStart-UpGrants,Level1,application,http://www.neh.gov/files/grants/creighton_university_the_potential_of_digital_archaeology.pdf

Babeu,Alison(2011):RomeWasn’tDigitizedinaDay:BuildingaCyberinfrastructureforDigitalClassicists.Washington,DC:CouncilonLibraryandInformationResources,http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub150/pub150.pdf

Babeu,Alison(2014):Classics,“DigitalClassics”andIssuesforDataCuration(December2014).In:DigitalHumanitiesDataCuration,https://guide.dhcuration.org/contents/classics-digital-classics-and-issues-for-data-curation/

Ball,Alex(2012):ReviewofDataManagementLifecycleModels.REDm-MEDProject,UniversityofBath,UK,13/02/2012,http://opus.bath.ac.uk/28587/1/redm1rep120110ab10.pdf

BeaulieuA.&WoutersP.(2009):e-ResearchasIntervention,chapter3,in:E-Research:TransformationinScholarlyPractice(NewYork:Routledge),enhancedonlinepublication,http://scholarly-transformations.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/table-of-contents/chapter3

BenardouA.,ConstantopoulosP.,DallasC.&GavrilisD.(2010):UnderstandingtheInformationRequirementsofArtsandHumanitiesScholarship.In:TheInternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,5(1):18-33,http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/viewFile/144/206



BenardouA.,DallasC.,AngelisA.,ChatzidiakouN.,ConstantopoulosP.,HughesL.,PapachristopoulosL.,PapakiE.&PertsasV.(2015):DocumentingResearchintheAncientCorinthiaUsingtheNeDiMAHMethodsOntology.AbstractforCAA2015Siena,DCUOntologyTeam,V1.0,17/04/2015,http://nemo.dcu.gr/resources/usecases/UseCaseCAA2015.pdf

Benardou,Agiatis(2007):ThesocialandeconomichistoryoftheCorinthiafromthebeginningofthePeloponnesianLeagueuntiltheKing’sPeace.DoctoralThesis,Kings’CollegeLondon.

Benardou,Agiatis(2011):Classicalstudiesfacingdigitalresearchinfrastructures:frompracticetorequirements.DigitalClassicist&InstituteofClassicalStudiesSeminar,London,July1st,2011,http://www.digitalclassicist.org/wip/wip2011-05ab.pdf

BennettR.,ZielinskiD.J.&KopperR.(2014):ComparisonofInteractiveEnvironmentsfortheArchaeologicalExplorationof3DLandscapeData,pp.67-71,in:IEEEVISInternationalWorkshopon3DVis,Paris,9November2014;pre-print,http://people.duke.edu/~djzielin/papers/3DVIS_2014_Landscape.pdf

Berry,DavidM.(ed.,2012):UnderstandingDigitalHumanities.PalgraveMacmillan,http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780230292642

BevanA.H.&LakeM.W(eds.,2013):ComputationalApproachestoArchaeologicalSpaces.WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoastPress(PublicationsoftheUCLInstituteofArchaeology,60)

BioVeL-BiodiversityVirtuale-Laboratory(EU,FP7,Infrastructures/eScienceEnvironments,CP-CSA,9/2011-12/2014),https://www.biovel.eu

BlankeT.&HedgesM.(2013):Scholarlyprimitives:Buildinginstitutionalinfrastructureforhumanitiese-Science.In:FutureGenerationComputerSystems,29(2):654-661,https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/6253556/BlankeHedges_Humanities_eScience_FGCS_1.pdf

BlankeT.,BodardG.,BryantM.,DunnS.,HedgesM.,JacksonM.&ScottD.(2012):Linkeddataforhumanitiesresearch–TheSPQRexperiment.In:6thIEEEInternationalConferenceonDigitalEcosystemsTechnologies(DEST),Campioned’Italia,Italy,18-20June2012;pre-print,http://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/6789501/SPQR_paper.pdf

BlankeT.,CandelaL.,HedgesM.,PriddyM.&SimeoniF.(2010):Deployinggeneral-purposevirtualresearchenvironmentsforhumanitiesresearch.In:RoyalSociety,PhilosophicalTransactionsA,Vol.368,Issue1925(ThemeIssue:e-Science:past,presentandfutureI),http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1925/3813

BlueBRIDGE(2016a):VRE:threeletterstoenhancethecooperationandcollaborationamongstresearchersinmodernscience(1March2014),http://www.bluebridge-vres.eu/news/vre-three-letters-enhance-cooperation-and-collaboration-amongst-researchers-modern-science

BlueBRIDGE(2016b):WhatareVREs?,http://www.bluebridge-vres.eu/vre-three-letters-enhance-cooperation-and-collaboration-amongst-researchers-modern-science

BlueBRIDGE(H2020,EINFRA-9-2015-e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments,9/2015-2/2018),http://www.bluebridge-vres.eu

BoneCommons(AlexandriaArchiveInstitute),http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/

BordaA.,CarelessJ.,DimitrovaM.etal.(2006):ReportoftheWorkingGrouponVirtualResearchCommunitiesfortheOSTe-InfrastructureSteeringGroup,31March2006.London:OfficeofScienceandTechnology,http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42074/1/VRC_final_report.doc

BorekL.,DombrowskiQ.,PerkinsJ.&SchöchC.(2016):TaDiRAH:aCaseStudyinPragmaticClassification.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,10(1),http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/1/000235/000235.html



Borgman,Christine(2007):ScholarshipintheDigitalAge:Information,Infrastructure,andtheInternet.Cambridge,MA:MITPress

Borgman,ChristineL.(2009):TheDigitalFutureisNow:ACalltoActionfortheHumanities.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,3(4),http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000077/000077.html

Borgman,ChristineL.(2010):ResearchData:Whowillsharewhat,withwhom,when,andwhy?FifthChina–NorthAmericaLibraryConference2010,Beijing,8-12September2010,http://works.bepress.com/borgman/238

Borgman,ChristineL.(2012):TheConundrumofSharingResearchData.In:JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,63(6):1059-1078,http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22634

BosN.,ZimmermanA.,OlsonJ.S.,YewJ.etal.(2007):Fromshareddatabasestocommunitiesofpractice:Ataxonomyofcollaboratories.In:JournalofComputer-MediatedCommunication,12(2),article16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00343.x/full

Bradley,John(2012):Nojobfortechies:Technicalcontributionstoresearchindigitalhumanities,pp.11-26,in:DeeganM.&McCartyW.(eds.):CollaborativeResearchintheDigitalHumanities.Farnham:Ashgate(DH2009conferencescriptonline:https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5530294/script-no-job-for-techies-kings-college-london)

BrickleyM.&McKinleyJ.I.(eds.,2004):GuidelinestotheStandardsforRecordingHumanRemains.IFAPaperNo.7.BABAOandInstituteofFieldArchaeologists,UK,http://dro.dur.ac.uk/6160/1/6160.pdf?DDD6+drk0car+d67a9y

Brown,Christopher(2012):JISC’sVREProgramme–supportingcollaborativeresearch(21/03/2012),http://de.slideshare.net/chriscb/jisc-vreresearch-tools-presentation

BucklandP.I.,ErikssonE.J.&PalmF.(2014):SEAD-TheStrategicEnvironmentalArchaeologyDatabase.MALReportnr.2014-13.EnvironmentalArchaeologyLab.UmeåUniversity,http://www.sead.se/files/buckland_et_al_2014_sead_progress_report_spring_2014.pdf

Buckland,PhilipI.(2014):SEAD-TheStrategicEnvironmentalArchaeologyDatabase.Inter-linkingmultiproxyenvironmentaldatawitharchaeologicalinvestigationsandecology.In:GraemeE.etal.(eds.):ProceedingsofCAA2012Southampton,http://bugscep.com/phil/publications/buckland2014_caa.pdf

BuddenbohmS.,EnkeH.,HofmannM.etal.(2015):SuccessCriteriafortheDevelopmentandSustainableOperationofVirtualResearchEnvironments.In:D-LibMagazine,21(9/10),http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september15/buddenbohm/09buddenbohm.html

BurdickA.,DruckerJ.,LunenfeldP.etal.(2012):DigitalHumanities.MITPress

BVREH-BuildingaVREfortheHumanities(UK,JISCVREproject,OxfordUniversity,2005-2006),http://bvreh.humanities.ox.ac.uk

CampanaS.&RemondinoF.(eds.,2014):3DRecordingandModelinginArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage.TheoryandBestPractices.Oxford:Archaeopress

CandelaL.,CastelliD.&PaganoP.(2009):On-demandvirtualresearchenvironmentsandthechangingrolesoflibrarians.In:LibraryHiTech,27(2):239–251,http://www.nmis.isti.cnr.it/candela/Leonardo_Candela_Website/my_Papers/Entries/2009/3/14_On_Demand_Virtual_Research_Environments_..._files/Library%20hi%20tech.pdf

CandelaL.,CastelliD.&PaganoP.(2013):VirtualResearchEnvironments:AnOverviewandaResearchAgenda.In:DataScienceJournal,Volume12,July2013,http://datascience.codata.org/articles/abstract/10.2481/dsj.GRDI-013/



CandelaL.,CastelliD.,PaganoP.&ManziA.(2014):RealisingVirtualResearchEnvironmentsbyHybridDataInfrastructures:theD4ScienceExperience.InternationalSymposiumonGridsandClouds(ISGC)2014,AcademiaSinica,Taipei,Taiwan,23-28March2014,https://b2share.eudat.eu/record/154/files/ISGC2014_022.pdf

Candela,Leonardo(2010):DataUse-VirtualResearchEnvironments,pp.91-98,in:GRDI2020-GlobalResearchDataInfrastructures:Towardsa10-yearvisionforglobalresearchdatainfrastructures.GRDI2020Consortium,http://www.grdi2020.eu/Repository/FileScaricati/9a85ca56-c548-47e4-8b0e-86c3534ad21d.pdf

Caraher,Bill(2012):SmallArchaeologicalProjectsandtheSocialContextoftheirData.In:MediterraneanWorldweblog,17December2012,http://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/small-archaeological-projects-and-the-social-context-of-their-data/

Caraher,Bill(2013):iPadsintheFieldandReflectionsonArchaeology’sDigitalFuture[Pyla-KoutsopetriaProject].In:ArchaeologyoftheMediterraneanWorldweblog,23May2013,https://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/ipads-in-the-field-and-reflections-on-archaeologys-digital-future/

Caraher,Bill(2013):SomeMoreThoughtsonDigitalHistory.In:MediterraneanWorldweblog,7January2013,http://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/2382/

CARE-Corpusarchitecturaereligiosaeeuropeae,IV-Xsaec.,http://care.huma-num.fr

CarusiA.&JirotkaM.(2010):ReshapingResearchCollaboration:ThecaseofVirtualResearchEnvironments,pp.277-294,in:DuttonW.H.&JeffreysP.W.(eds.):WorldWideResearch:ReshapingtheSciencesandHumanities.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress

CarusiA.&ReimerT.(2010):VirtualResearchEnvironment-CollaborativeLandscapeStudy.AJISCfundedstudy.Oxforde-ResearchCentreandCentrefore-Research,King'sCollegeLondon,http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/vrelandscapereport.pdf

CarverM.O.H.&KlápštĕJ.(eds.,2011):TheArchaeologyofMedievalEurope.Volume2:TwelfthtoSixteenthCenturies.AarhusUniversityPress

CaylessH.,RouechéC.,ElliottT.&BodardG.(2009):Epigraphyin2017.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,Winter2009(SpecialIssue:ChangingtheCenterofGravity:TransformingClassicalStudiesThroughCyberinfrastructure),http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000030.html

centerNet-Aninternationalnetworkofdigitalhumanitiescenters,http://dhcenternet.org/

CHARM-CulturalHeritageAbstractReferenceModel(CesarGonzalez-Perezetal.,InstituteofHeritageSciences[Incipit],Spain),http://www.charminfo.org

ChevalierP.,LeclercqE.,Millereux,A.,SapinC.&SavonnetM.(2013):WikiBridge:aSemanticWikiforArchaeologicalApplications,pp.259-265,in:CAA2010-Proceedingsofthe38thConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology,Granada,Spain,April2010.Oxford:Archaeopress2013,https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/60840

CIDOCConceptualReferenceModel(CIDOCCRM),http://www.cidoc-crm.org

ClarkeA.&O’RiordanE.(2009):ManagingChange:Introducinginnovationintowell-establishedsystems.CAA2009-37thAnnualComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeologyconference,22-26March2009,Williamsburg,Virginia,USA,paper,http://archive.caaconference.org/2009/articles/Clarke_Contribution203_a.pdf



CLIR-CouncilonLibraryandInformationResources(2009):WorkingTogetherorApart:PromotingtheNextGenerationofDigitalScholarship.Washington:CLIR,http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub145/pub145.pdf

Colley,Sarah(2013):Socialmediaandarchaeologicalcommunication:anAustraliansurvey.In:ArchäologischeInformationen,Bd.36,https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/arch-inf/article/view/15385

ComputerApplications&QuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology(CAA),proceedings,http://caa-international.org/proceedings/published/

ConollyJ.&LakeM.(2006):GeographicalInformationSystemsinArchaeology.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress

ConstantopoulosP.,DallasC.,AndroutsopoulosI.,AngelisS.,DeligiannakisA.,GavrilisD.etal.(2009):DCC&U:Anextendeddigitalcurationlifecyclemodel.In:InternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,4(1):34-45,http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/100/75

ConstantopoulosP.,HughesL.,DallasC.,PertsasV.,PapachristopoulosL.&ChristodoulouT.(2016):ContextualizedIntegrationofDigitalHumanitiesResearch:UsingtheNeMOOntologyofDigitalHumanitiesMethods,pp.161-163,in:DigitalHumanities2016:ConferenceAbstracts.JagiellonianUniversity&PedagogicalUniversity,Kraków,11-16July2016,http://dh2016.adho.org/abstracts/134

CostaS.&CarabiaA.(2016):GQBWikigoesopen,pp.1033-36,in:CAA2015-Proceedingsofthe43rdAnnualConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology,Volume1.Archaeopress;https://zenodo.org/record/50117/files/CAA2015_GQBWiki.pdf

CraginM.,PalmerC.,CarlsonJ.&WittM.(2010):Datasharing,smallscienceandinstitutionalrepositories.In:TransactionsoftheRoyalSociety,A-368:4023-4038.http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1926/4023.full.pdf

CraneG.,BabeuA.&BammanD.(2007):eScienceandthehumanities.In:InternationalJournalonDigitalLibraries,7(1):117–122,http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/~amahoney/jdlesciencecomm.pdf

CULTURAproject(EU,FP7,ICT,03/2011-02/2014,http://www.cultura-strep.eu

CurcinV.&GhanemM.(2008):Scientificworkflowsystems-canonesizefitall?In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE,CIBEC'08-CairoInternationalBiomedicalEngineeringConference;preprint,http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~vc100/papers/Scientific_workflow_systems.pdf

Curtis+CartwrightConsulting(2010):UsingtheCloudforResearch.FinalReport.Guildford,UK,http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/researchinfrastructure/usingcloudcomp.aspx

D4ScienceII(EU,FP7,2009-2011,http://www.d4science.eu

DADAISM-DiggingintoArchaeologicalDataandImageSearchMetadata(DiggingIntoDataChallenge,round3,UKAHRC/ESRCfunded,6/2014-12/2015),http://dadaism-did.org

Dallas,Costis(2015):CuratingArchaeologicalKnowledgeintheDigitalContinuum:fromPracticetoInfrastructure.In:OpenArchaeology,1(1),176–207,http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opar.2014.1.issue-1/opar-2015-0011/opar-2015-0011.xml?format=INT

DARIAH-DigitalResearchInfrastructurefortheArtsandHumanities(ERIC),https://www.dariah.eu

DataCurationProfilesproject(2008-2012,PurdueUniversity/DistributedDataCurationCenterandUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign/GraduateSchoolofLibraryandInformationScience),http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/datacurationprofiles/



DavidP.A.&SpenceM.(2003):TowardsInstitutionalInfrastructuresfore-Science:TheScopeoftheChallenge.FinalReporttotheJointInformationSystemCommitteeoftheUKResearchCouncils,OxfordInternetInstitute,ResearchReportNo.2,http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/publications/OIIRR_E-Science_0903.pdf

Dávidházi,Péter(ed.,2014):NewPublicationCulturesintheHumanities:ExploringtheParadigmShift.AmsterdamUP,https://oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=515678

Day,Jo(2013):Botanymeetsarchaeology:peopleandplantsinthepast.In:JournalofExperimentalBotany,64(18):5805-16,https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert068

DCCD-DigitalCollaboratoryforCulturalDendrochronology,http://dendro.dans.knaw.nl

deKleijnM.,deHondR.,Martinez-RubiO.&SvetachovP.(2015):A3DGeographicInformationSystemfor‘MappingtheViaAppia’.ResearchMemorandum2015-1,VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam,https://www.academia.edu/10511048/A_3D_Geographic_Information_System_for_Mapping_the_Via_Appia

delaFlorG.,LuffP.,JirotkaM.,PybusJ.,KirkhamR.&CarusiA.(2010):TheCaseoftheDisappearingOx:SeeingThroughDigitalImagestoanAnalysisofAncientTexts,pp.473-482,in:Proceedingsofthe28thACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(CHI2010),Atlanta,USA,http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:8c4181f2-88c5-497d-9485-bc0e7a6d7b5e

DeeganM.&McCartyW.(eds.,2012):CollaborativeResearchintheDigitalHumanities.Ashgate

DeelmanE.,GannonD.,ShieldsM.&TaylorI.(2009):Workflowsande-Science:Anoverviewofworkflowsystemfeaturesandcapabilities.In:FutureGenerationComputerSystems,25(5):528-540;preprint,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220284915_Workflows_and_e-Science_An_overview_of_workflow_system_features_and_capabilities

DegryseP.&ShortlandA.J.(2013):Nourishingarchaeologyandscience.In:PNAS-ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,110(51),https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/437071/1/PNAS-2013-Degryse-20352-3.pdf

DHCommonsinitiative(centerNet),http://dhcommons.org

DiggingintoDataChallenge,http://diggingintodata.org

DigitalClassicistwiki:Projects(ancientandclassicalresearchprojectsapplyingICT),https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Category:Projects

DigitalClassicist,http://www.digitalclassicist.org

DigitalCurationCentre(UK):CurationLifecycleModel[accessed21/11/2016],http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-lifecycle-model

DigitalCurationCentre(UK):Whatisdigitalcuration?[accessed21/11/2016],http://www.dcc.ac.uk/digital-curation/what-digital-curation

DigitalHumanitiesConference,http://adho.org/conference

DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly(since2007),http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/

DigitalKarnak(UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles),http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/

DigitalRomanForum(UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles),http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Forum

DiRT(DigitalResearchTools)directory,http://dirtdirectory.org

DM2E-DigitalManuscriptstoEuropeana(EU,ICT-PSP,2/2012-1/2015),http://dm2e.eu



DombrowskiQ.&PerkinsJ.(2014):TaDiRAH:BuildingCapacityforIntegratedAccess.In:dh+libweblog,21May2014,http://acrl.ala.org/dh/2014/05/21/tadirah-building-capacity-integrated-access/

DunnS.&BlankeT.(2009):SpecialClusteronArtsandHumanitiese-Science.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,3(4),http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000079/000079.html(severalpapers)

Dunn,Stuart(2011):PoorRelativesorFavoriteUncles?CyberinfrastructureandWeb2.0:ACriticalComparisonforArchaeologicalResearch,pp.95-117,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

DuşaA.etal.(2014):FacingtheFuture:EuropeanResearchInfrastructuresfortheHumanitiesandSocialSciences.Berlin:Scivero,http://www.akademienunion.de/fileadmin/redaktion/user_upload/Publikationen/Tagungsbaende/FACING_THE_FUTURE.pdf

DuttonW.H.&JeffreysP.W(eds.,2010):WorldWideResearch:ReshapingtheSciencesandHumanities.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress

DuttonW.H.&MeyerE.T.(2009):ExperiencewithNewToolsandInfrastructuresofResearch:Anexploratorystudyofdistancefrom,andattitudestoward,e-Research.In:Prometheus,27(3):223-238,http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08109020903127802

Dutton,WilliamH.(2013):Thesocialshapingofdigitalresearch.In:InternationalJournalofSocialResearchMethodology,16(3):177-195,http://www.researchgate.net/publication/256014826_The_Social_Shaping_of_Digital_Research

EcoliWiki,http://ecoliwiki.net

EdenG.&JirotkaM.(2012):Digitalimagesofmedievalmusicdocuments:transformingresearchprocessesandknowledgeproductioninmusicology.In:45thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences(HICSS),4-7January2012‚MauiHI.,https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2012/4525/00/4525b646.pdf

EdenG.,JirotkaM.&MeyerE.(2012):InterpretingDigitalImagesBeyondJusttheVisual:CrossmodalPracticesinMedievalMusicology.In:InterdisciplinaryScienceReviews,37(1):69-85,http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:825a24bc-0e91-4ca7-9b9b-4fe7422ded2c

Edgeworth,Matt(2014):FromSpade-WorktoScreen-Work:NewFormsofArchaeologicalDiscoveryinDigitalSpace,pp.40-58,in:CarusiA.,HoelA.S.,WebmoorT.&WoolgarS.(eds):VisualizationintheAgeofComputerization.Routledge;manuscript,https://www.academia.edu/6566988/From_Spadework_to_Screenwork_new_forms_of_archaeological_discovery_in_digital_space

EdwardsP.N.etal.(2007):UnderstandingInfrastructure:Dynamics,Tensions,andDesign.Workshopreport,NSFOfficeofCyberinfrastructure,http://cohesion.rice.edu/Conferences/Hewlett/emplibrary/UI_Final_Report.pdf

EGI.eu-EuropeanGridInfrastructure,http://www.egi.eu

EGI-InSPIRE(2011):IntegrationofcloudsandvirtualizationintotheEuropeanproductioninfrastructure.Projectdeliverable2.6,March2011,https://documents.egi.eu/document/258/

E-HumanitiesGroup(RoyalNetherlandsAcademyofArtsandSciences–KNAW),http://www.ehumanities.nl/archive/2013-2016/

eHumanities.nl-NetherlandsNetworkforHumanities,SocialSciencesandTechnology,http://www.ehumanities.nl



EichmannN.,JorgensenJ.&WeingartS.B.(2016):RepresentationatDigitalHumanitiesConferences(2000-2015).Figshare,1March2016,http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3120610.v1

e-IRG-e-InfrastructuresReflectionGroup(2012):CloudComputingforresearchandscience:aholisticoverview,policy,andrecommendations.e-IRGTaskforce,http://www.e-irg.eu/images/stories/dissemination/e-irg_cloud_computing_paper_v.final.pdf

e-IRG-e-InfrastructuresReflectionGroup(2013):WhitePaper2013.TheHague,TheNetherlands,http://e-irg.eu/white-papers

Eiteljorg,Harrison(2004):ComputingforArchaeologists,pp.20-30,in:SchreibmanS.etal.(eds.):ACompaniontoDigitalHumanities.Wiley-Blackwell

EllB.,SchindlerC.&RittbergerM.(2013):Semanticallyenhancedinteractionsbetweenheterogeneousdatalife-cycles:analyzingeducationallexicainavirtualresearchenvironment,pp.277-288,in:GaroufallouE.&GreenbergJ.(eds.):Proceedingsofthe7thMetadataandSemanticsResearchConference,Thessaloniki,November2013.Springer(CCIS390);preprint,http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Inproceedings3392/en

EncyclopediaofEgyptology(UniversityofCalifornia),https://escholarship.org/uc/nelc_uee

EpigraphicDatabaseHeidelberg,http://www.epigraphische-datenbank-heidelberg.de

eResearch2020(2010):TheRoleofe-InfrastructuresintheCreationofGlobalVirtualResearchCommunities.StudyfortheEuropeanCommission.Empirica etal.FinalReport,BonnandBrussels,February2010

ETANA-ElectronicToolsandAncientNearEasternArchives,http://www.etana.org

EUROCORR–EuropeanCorrespondencetoJacobBurckhardt(EU,ERCAdvancedGrant,6/2010-5/2015),http://burckhardtsource.org

EuropeanScienceFoundation(2011):ResearchInfrastructuresintheDigitalHumanities.SciencePolicyBriefing42.Strasbourg,http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb42_RI_DigitalHumanities.pdf

EuropeanaCloud-eCloud(EU,ICT-PSP,2/2013-1/2016),http://pro.europeana.eu/web/europeana-cloud

Europeana,http://www.europeana.eu

EVER-EST-EuropeanVirtualEnvironmentforResearch-EarthScienceThemes(H2020,EINFRA-9-2015-e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments,10/2015-9/2018),http://www.ever-est.eu

FAIMS-FieldAcquiredInformationManagementSystems(Australia),https://www.fedarch.org

FecherB.&FriesikeS.(2014):OpenScience:OneTerm,FiveSchoolsofThought.In:BartlingS.&FriesikeS.(eds.):OpeningScience,http://book.openingscience.org/basics_background/open_science_one_term_five_schools_of_thought.html

FinholtT.A.&OlsonG.M.(2000):Fromlaboratoriestocollaboratories:Aneworganizationalformforscientificcollaboration.UniversityofMichigan,22September2000,manuscript,http://soc.ics.uci.edu/WorkshopStuff/June2001/pdfs/Finholt_From_laboratories_t.pdf

Finholt,ThomasA.(2002):Collaboratories,pp.73-107,in:Cronin,Blaise(ed.):AnnualReviewofInformationScienceandTechnology,vol.36,https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/34569/1440360103_ftp.pdf?sequence=1



FisherC.,TerrasM.&WarwickC.(2009):IntegratingNewTechnologiesintoEstablishedSystems:acasestudyfromRomanSilchester.In:CAA2009-Proceedingsofthe37thAnnualComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeologyconference,22-26March2009,Williamsburg,Virginia,USA,paper,http://archive.caaconference.org/2009/articles/Fisher_Contribution191_c%20%281%29.pdf

ForteM.&KurilloG.(2010):Cyberarchaeology:Experimentingwithteleimmersivearchaeology.In:VSMMM2010-16thInternationalConferenceonVirtualSystemsandMultimedia,20-23October2010,Seoul,SouthKorea;preprint,http://citris-uc.org/files/vsmm2010_final.pdf

ForteM.&PietroniE.(2009):3DCollaborativeEnvironmentsinArchaeology:ExperiencingtheReconstructionofthePast.In:InternationalJournalofArchitecturalComputing,7(1):57-75,http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/ijac20097104.content.pdf

Forte,Maurizio(2011):Cyber-Archaeology:Notesonthesimulationofthepast.In:VirtualArcheologyReview,2(4):7-18,http://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/var/article/view/4543/4675

Fraser, Michael (2005): Virtual research environments: overview and activity. Ariadne 44:31–40,http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/fraser

FrenkenK.,HoekmanJ.&HardemanS.(2010):Theglobalizationofresearchcollaboration,pp.144-148,in:WorldSocialScienceReport.KnowledgeDivides.UNESCOandInternationalSocialScienceCouncil,http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf

Frischer,Bernard(2008):Introduction:FromDigitalIllustrationtoDigitalHeuristics,pp.5-24,in:FrischerB.&Dakouri-HildA.(eds.):BeyondIllustration.2Dand3DDigitalTechnologiesasToolsforDiscoveryinArchaeology.Oxford:Archaeopress;pre-print,http://frischer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Frischer_Heuristics.pdf

Fry,Jenny(2006):Coordinationandcontrolofresearchpracticesacrossscientificfields:Implicationsforadifferentiatede-science,pp.167-188,inHineC.(ed.):Newinfrastructureforknowledgeproduction:Understandinge-science.London:IDEAGroup

FulfordM.&RainsM.(2007):Silchester:AVirtualResearchEnvironmentforArchaeology(OGHAM).FinalReport,February2007,http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/JISC_UK/V070206F.pdf

GaleazziF.,CallieriM.,DellepianeM.,CharnoM.,RichardsJ.,DarylJ.&ScopignoR.(2016):Web-basedVisualizationfor3DDatainArchaeology:TheADS3DViewer.In:JournalofArchaeologicalScience:Reports,Volume9:1-11;preprint,http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/102438/

Galeazzi,Fabrizio(2015):ADS3DViewer-A3Dweb-baseddynamicworkingenvironmentforthemanagementandanalysisofarchaeologicaldata.In:ADSnews,Issue27,Spring2015,8-9,https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/attach/newsletter/ADSNewsletter27_v2.pdf

GaugneR.,GourantonV.,DumontG.,ChauautA.&ArnaldiB.(2014):Immersia,anopenimmersiveinfrastructure:doingarchaeologyinvirtualreality.In:ArcheologiaeCalcolatori,suppl.5,https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01003383

GeoHumanitiesSIG:HumanitiesGISProjects,http://geohumanities.org/gis

GeserG.&NiccolucciF.(2012):Virtualmuseums,digitalreferencecollectionsande-scienceenvironments.In:UncommonCulture,Vol.3,no.5/6,12-37,http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/UC/article/view/4714/3677

gMan(UK,JISCEngageproject,Kings’CollegeLondon,1-7/2010),http://gman.cerch.kcl.ac.uk;seealsoD4Science:gMan–Projectdescription,http://www.d4science.eu/node/631



GoldM.K.&KleinL.F.(eds.,2012):DebatesinDigitalHumanities.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,http://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/

Gonzalez-PerezC.&Henderson-SellersB.(2008):Aworkproductpoolapproachtomethodologyspecificationandenactment.In:JournalofSystemsandSoftware,81:8:1288-1305,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121207002439

Gonzalez-PerezC.&HugC.(2013):CraftingArchaeologicalMethodologies:SuggestingSituationalMethodEngineeringfortheHumanitiesandSocialSciences,pp.807-820,in:ProceedingsofCAA2012,Southampton,UK,VolumeII,AmsterdamUniversityPress,https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:993413/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Gonzalez-PerezC.&Martín-RodillaP.(2014):IntegrationofArchaeologicalDatasetsThroughtheGradualRefinementofModels,193-204,in:ProceedingsofCAA2014,Paris,22-25April2014,http://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/download.asp?id={5CACE285-4C48-41AE-809E-E98B65C9E4CD}

GoodaleN.,BaileyD.,FondakT.&NaumanA.(2013):iTrowel:MobelDevicesasTransformativeTechnologyinArchaeologicalFieldResearch.In:SAAArchaeologicalRecord,13.3:18-22,http://www.saa.org/portals/0/saa/publications/thesaaarchrec/may2013.pdf

GQBWiki (University of Siena, Department of Historical Sciences and Cultural Heritage),http://www.gortinabizantina.it/wiki/

Graham-CampbellJ.&ValorM.(eds.,2007):TheArchaeologyofMedievalEurope.Volume1.TheEighthtoTwelfthCenturiesAD.AarhusUniversityPress

GrassiM.,MorbidoniC.,NucciM.etal.(2013):Pundit:AugmentingWebContentswithSemantics.LiteraryandLinguistingComputing,28(4):640-659,http://dm2e.eu/files/Graasi-et-al.-2013-Pundit-augmenting-web-contents-with-semantics.pdf

H2020-EINFRA-9-2015:e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments(VRE),calltext,http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/328-einfra-9-2015.html

HallM.&Silliman,S.W.(2006):Introduction:ArchaeologyoftheModernWorld.In:HistoricalArchaeology.Oxford:Blackwell,http://www.faculty.umb.edu/stephen_silliman/Articles/Introduction%20%28Hall%20and%20Silliman%29.pdf

Harley,Dianeetal.(2010):AssessingtheFutureLandscapeofScholarlyCommunication:AnExplorationofFacultyValuesandNeedsinSevenDisciplines.–ArchaeologyCaseStudy.UniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g#page-37

Hedges,Mark(2009):Grid-enablingHumanitiesDatasets.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,3(4),http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/4/000078/000078.html

Higgins,Sarah(2008):TheDCCCurationLifecycleModel.In:InternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,3(1):134-140,http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.48

Hine,Christine(ed.,2006):Newinfrastructuresforknowledgeproduction:understandingE-science.London:InformationSciencePublishing,http://www.igi-global.com/book/new-infrastructures-knowledge-production/800

Hoffmann,Robert(2008):WikiGenes-Awikiforthelifescienceswhereauthorshipmatters.In:NatureGenetics40:1047-51,http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n9/full/ng.f.217.html;WikiGenes,http://www.wikigenes.org



Hu,Di(2012):AdvancingTheory?LandscapeArchaeologyandGeographicalInformationSystems.In:Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 21: 80-90, http://www.pia-journal.co.uk/articles/10.5334/pia.381/

HugC.,SalinesiC.,DeneckèreR.&LamasséS.(2011):ProcessModellingforHumanities:TracingandAnalysingScientificProcesses,pp.245-255,in:ProceedingsofCAA2011,Beijing,China.AmsterdamUniversityPress,https://hal-paris1.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/662699/filename/CAA2011_Hug_et_al.pdf

Huggett,Jeremy(2012a):DisciplinaryIssues:ChallengingtheResearchandPracticeofComputerApplicationsinArchaeology,pp.13-24,in:ArchaeologyintheDigitalEra.PapersfromtheCAA2012,Southampton,26-29March2012.AmsterdamUniversityPress,http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=516092

Huggett,Jeremy(2012b):CoreorPeriphery?-DigitalHumanitiesfromanArchaeologicalPerspective.In:ThallerM.(ed.):TheCologneDialogueonDigitalHumanities2012–ControversiesaroundtheDigitalHumanities(SpecialIssueofHistoricalSocialResearch,Vol.37/3),http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/files/Huggett_final.pdf

Huggett,Jeremy(2012c):Whatliesbeneath:liftingthelidonarchaeologicalcomputing,pp.204-214,in:ChrysanthiA.,MurriettaFloresP.&PapadopoulosC.(eds.):ThinkingBeyondtheTool:ArchaeologicalComputingandtheInterpretativeProcess.Archaeopress,http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/61333/1/61333.pdf

Huggett,Jeremy(2015a):ChallengingDigitalArchaeology.In:OpenArchaeology,1(1):79-85,http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opar.2014.1.issue-1/opar-2015-0003/opar-2015-0003.xml?format=INT

Huggett,Jeremy(2015b):AManifestoforanIntrospectiveDigitalArchaeology.In:OpenArchaeology,1(1):86-95,http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opar.2014.1.issue-1/opar-2015-0002/opar-2015-0002.xml?format=INT

Huvila,Isto(2012):Beingformalandflexible:semanticWikiasanarchaeologicale-scienceinfrastructure,pp.186-197,in:CAA2011-Proceedingsof39thConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology,Beijing,12-16April2011,AmsterdamUniversityPress,http://proceedings.caaconference.org/files/2011/21_Huvila_CAA2011.pdf

IANUS-ResearchDataCentreforArchaeologyandClassicalStudies(Germany,DFG-fundedprojectsince2011,coord.GermanArchaeologicalInstitute),http://www.ianus-fdz.de

IntegratedArchaeologicalDatabase(IADB),http://www.iadb.org.uk

ISO/IEC24744:2007,2014:SoftwareEngineering-MetamodelforDevelopmentMethodologies,http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=62644

Jankowski,NicholasW.(ed.,2009):E-Research:TransformationinScholarlyPractice.NewYork:Routledge;enhancedonlinepublication,http://scholarly-transformations.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/

JeffreyS.,RichardsJ.,CiravegnaF.etal.(2008):WhenOntologyandRealityCollide:TheArchaeotoolsProject-FacetedClassificationandNaturalLanguageProcessinginanArchaeologicalContext.36thCAAConference,Budapest,2-6April2008,proceedings,http://proceedings.caaconference.org/files/2008/CD37_Jeffrey_et_al_CAA2008.pdf

JeffreyS.,RichardsJ.,CiravegnaF.etal.(2009):TheArchaeotoolsproject:facetedclassificationandnaturallanguageprocessinginanarchaeologicalcontext.PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyA,2009-367,pp.2507–2519,http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1897/2507.full.pdf



Jessop,Martyn(2004):ComputingorHumanities?In:Ubiquity,December2004,http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1040561

JirotkaM.,LeeC.P.&OlsonG.M.(2013):SupportingScientificCollaboration:Methods,ToolsandConcepts.In:ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),22(4):667-715;pre-print,https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Olson/publication/257552426_Supporting_Scientific_Collaboration_Methods_Tools_and_Concepts/links/53ee3e050cf23733e80b3d1d.pdf

JirotkaM.,ProctorR.,RoddenT.&BowkerG.(eds.,2006):SpecialIssue:Collaborationine-Research.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),15(4),http://link.springer.com/journal/10606/15/4/page/1

JISC(2012):Implementingavirtualresearchenvironment(VRE),https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/implementing-a-virtual-research-environment-vre

Juan A.A., Daradoumis T., Roca M. et al. (eds., 2012): Collaborative and Distributed E-Research:Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications. IGI Global, http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/collaborative-distributed-research-environment-supporting/63504

KansaE.&Whitcher-KansaS.(2011):TowardaDo-It-YourselfCyberinfrastructure:OpenData,Incentives,andReducingCostsandComplexitiesofDataSharing,pp.57-91,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

KansaE.,Whitcher-KansaS.&WatrallE.(eds.,2011):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

Kansa,Eric(2011):Introduction:Newdirectionsforthedigitalpast,pp.1-25,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

Kansa,Eric(2012):Opennessandarchaeology’sinformationecosystem.In:WorldArchaeology,44(4):498-520;preprint,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4bt04063

Kepler(workflowmanagementsystem),https://kepler-project.org/users/projects-using-kepler

Kilbride,William(2006):Grandchallenges:Grandopportunities?Archaeology,thehistoricenvironmentsectorandtheE-scienceprogramme.UKAHDSE-scienceScopingStudy,expertseminar,24July2006,http://www.ahds.ac.uk/e-science/documents/Archaeology-grand-challenges.pdf

Killick,David(2015):Usingevidencefromnaturalsciencesinarchaeology,pp.159-172,in:ChapmanR.&WylieA.(eds.):MaterialEvidence.Learningfromarchaeologicalpractice.London&NewYork:Routledge

Kirschenbaum,Matthew(2014):Whatis“DigitalHumanities",andwhyaretheysayingsuchterriblethingsaboutIt?In:differences25.1(Specialissue:IntheShadowsoftheDigitalHumanities),http://differences.dukejournals.org/content/25/1.toc

KnabbK.A.,SchulzeJ.P,KuesterF.,DefantiT.A.&LevyT.E.(2014):Scientificvisualization,3Dimmersivevirtualrealityenvironments,andarchaeologyinJordanandtheNearEast.In:NearEasternArchaeology,77(3):228-232,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/84n0s1np#page-5

Knowledge Exchange (2010): Virtual Research Environments - The Next Steps. Report on theKnowledge Exchange Workshop, Rotterdam, 23-24 June 2010, http://ke-archive.stage.aerian.com/admin/public/dwsdownload.aspx%3Ffile=%252ffiles%252ffiler%252fdownloads%252fvre+workshop+next+steps%252freport_vre_workshop.pdf



KnowledgeExchange(2011):VirtualResearchEnvironments-CatalystsofChange.ReportontheworkshopinBirmingham,17–18November2011,http://ke-archive.stage.aerian.com/admin/public/dwsdownload.aspx%3Ffile=%252ffiles%252ffiler%252fdownloads%252fvre+workshop+2011%252freport_vre_workshop_2011.pdf

KurilloG.&ForteM.(2012):Telearch–IntegratedVisualSimulationEnvironmentforCollaborativeVirtualArchaeology.In:MediterraneanArchaeologyandArchaeometry,12(1):11-20,http://maajournal.com/Issues/2012/Vol12-1/Full2.pdf

KurilloG.,ForteM.&BajcsyR.(2010):Cyber-archaeologyandVirtualCollaborativeEnvironments,pp.109-117,in:Forte,Maurizio(ed.):IntroductiontoCyber-Archaeology.Oxford:Archeopress,https://www.academia.edu/393635/Cyber-archaeology_and_Virtual_Collaborative_Environments

KutmonM.,RiuttaA.,NunesN.etal.(2015):WikiPathways:capturingthefulldiversityofpathwayknowledge.In:NucleidAcidsResearch,44(D1):D488-D494,https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1024

LandeschiG.,dell‘UntoN.,FerdaniD.etal.(2014):Enhanced3D-GIS:DocumentingInsulaV1inPompeii,pp.349-360,in:CAA2014-42ndAnnualConferenceonComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeology,Paris,http://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/displayProductDetail.asp?id={E35F9954-5653-493D-884B-4A7D2DE66610}

LawM.&MorganC.(2014):TheArchaeologyofDigitalAbandonment:OnlineSustainabilityandArchaeologicalSites.In:PresentPasts,6(1),http://www.presentpasts.info/article/10.5334/pp.58/

LeclercqE.&SavonnetM.(2010):Accessandannotationofarchaeologicalcorpusviaasemanticwiki.In:FifthWorkshoponSemanticWikis-LinkingDataandPeople(Semwiki),Hersonissos,Crete,Greece,31May2010,https://hal-univ-bourgogne.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00934980/document

LeclercqE.&SavonnetM.(2011):AddingSemanticExtensiontoWikisforEnhancingCulturalHeritageApplications,pp.348-361,in:ProceedingsofDICTAP-2011-InternationalConferenceonDigitalInformationandCommunicationTechnologyanditsApplications,Dijon,France,June2010,Part2,Springer(CCIS167);preprint,https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/934969/filename/Leclercq-231.pdf

LeeC.,RibesD,BietzM.,KarastiH.&JirotkaM.(eds.,2010):SpecialIssue:SociotechnicalStudiesofCyberinfrastructureande-Research:SupportingCollaborativeResearch.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),19(3/4),http://link.springer.com/journal/10606/19/3/page/1

Llewellyn-SmithC.,BorysiewiczL.,CasseltonL.etal.(2011):Knowledge,NetworksandNations:GlobalScientificCollaborationinthe21stCentury.TheRoyalSociety,RSPolicydocument,March2011,http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=25069

Mahony,Simon(2011):ResearchCommunitiesandOpenCollaboration:theExampleoftheDigitalClassicistWiki.In:DigitalMedievalist6,http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/6/mahony/

MappingtheViaAppia:3DGIS,http://mappingtheviaappia.nl/3dgis/

MarkauskaiteL.,KennanM.A.,RichardsonJ.etal.(2012):InvestigatingeResearch:CollaborationPracticesandFutureChallenges,pp.1-33,in:JuanA.A.etal.(eds.):CollaborativeandDistributedE-Research:InnovationsinTechnologies,StrategiesandApplications.IGIGlobal;https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235696494_Investigating_eResearch_Collaboration_practices_and_future_challenges



MarstonJ.M.,WarinnerC.&d’AlpoimGuedesJ.(2015):PaleoethnobotanicalMethodandTheoryintheTwenty-FirstCentury,pp.1-15,in:MarstonJ.M.etal.(eds.):MethodandTheoryinPaleoethnobotany.UniversityPressofColorado,http://upcolorado.com/university-press-of-colorado/item/download/413_71219af18691cb3bc3bd4d441a092430

MayaArch3D-Aweb-based3DGISforarchaeologicalresearch,http://www.mayaarch3d.org

McIntoshB.K.,RenfroD.O,KnappG.S.etal.(2011):EcoliWiki:awiki-basedcommunityresourceforEscherichiacoli.In:NucleicAcidsResearch,40(Databaseissue),D1270–D1277,http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr880

MckechnieI.&WhitcherKansaS.(2011):TransformationsinDigitalCommunicationandCollaboration:RecentPerspectivesFromZooarchaeology.In:TheSAAArchaeologicalRecord,11(1):26-29,http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/archive/files/kansa-and-mckechnie-2011-special-issue_3f9061d26f.pdf

Mehler,Natascha(2013):BreakingnewGround:HistoricalArchaeologyinCentralEurope,pp.11-29,in:HistoricalArchaeologyinCentralEurope.Rockville:SocietyforHistoricalArchaeology,SpecialPublication10,https://histarch.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/ag_histarch/PDF-Dateien/Mehler/SHA_H-A_Central_Europe_Mehler.pdf

Melanie-BecquetF.,FerguthJ.,GruelK.&PoibeauT.(2015):ArchaeologyintheDigitalAge:FromPapertoDatabases.DH2015-DigitalHumanitiesconference,29.6.-2.7.2015,Sydney,Australia,http://dh2015.org/abstracts/xml/POIBEAU_Thierry_Archaeology_in_the_Digital_Age__F/POIBEAU_Thierry_Archaeology_in_the_Digital_Age__From_Pa.html

Meta-Image-ForschungsumgebungfürdenBilddiskursinderKunstgeschichte(Germany,DFG-fundedproject,2009-2014),http://www.meta-image.de

MillsH.&BakerM.(2009):TheVERAInformationEnvironment.CAA2009-37thAnnualComputerApplicationsandQuantitativeMethodsinArchaeologyconference,22-26March2009,Williamsburg,Virginia,USA,paper,http://archive.caaconference.org/2009/articles/Mills_Contribution277_a.pdf

Monasterium.net/ICARUScommunity,http://icar-us.eu/cooperation/online-portals/monasterium-net/

MorkR.,MartinP.&ZhaoZ.(2015):ContemporaryChallengesforData-IntensiveScientificWorkflowManagementSystems.In:ProceedingofWORKS'15-10thWorkshoponWorkflowsinSupportofLarge-ScaleScience,Austin,Texas,15November2015,Article4;preprint,http://www.switchproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/uva-2.pdf

MotzC.&CarrierS.C.(2012):PaperlessRecordingattheSangroValleyProject,pp.25-30,in:ArchaeologyintheDigitalEra:PapersfromCAA2012conference,Southampton,26-29March2012.AmsterdamUniversityPress,http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=516092

NawrotzkiK.&DoughertyJ.(2013):WritingHistoryintheDigitalAge.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,onlinepublication,http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/dh.12230987.0001.001

NeDiMAH-NetworkforDigitalMethodsintheArtsandHumanities(EuropeanScienceFoundation,ResearchNetworkingProgramme,5/2011-4/2015),http://www.nedimah.eu

NeDiMAHMethodsOntology(NEMO),http://nemo.dcu.gr;seealso:http://www.nedimah.eu/workgroups/development-ict-methods-taxonomy

NeurothH.,LohmeierF.&SmithK.M.(2011):TextGrid-VirtualResearchEnvironmentfortheHumanities.In:InternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,6(2):222-231,http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/193



NRC-CSTB–NationalResearchCouncil,ComputerScienceandTelecommunicationsBoard(1993):NationalCollaboratories:ApplyingInformationTechnologyforScientificResearch.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress,http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2109/national-collaboratories-applying-information-technology-for-scientific-research

O’DonnellD.P.,SinghG.&RosselliDelTurcoR.(2015):TheOldFamiliarFaces:OntheConsumptionofDigitalScholarship.DH2015-DigitalHumanitiesconference,Sydney,Australia,http://dh2015.org/abstracts/xml/O_DONNELL_Daniel_Paul_The_Old_Familiar_Faces__On_/O_DONNELL_Daniel_Paul_The_Old_Familiar_Faces__On_The_Co.html

OCHRE-OnlineCulturalHeritageResearchEnvironment(OrientalInstitute,UniversityofChicago,USA),https://ochre.uchicago.edu

OlsonG.M.,ZimmermanA.&BosN.(eds.,2008):ScientificCollaborationontheInternet.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress

OpenContext(AlexandriaArchiveInstitute,USA),https://opencontext.org

OpenInfRA-AnOpenInformationSystemforResearchinArchaeology(Germany,BrandenburgUniversityofTechnology-Cottbus-Senftenberg,DFG-fundedproject,2011-2016),https://www.b-tu.de/openinfra/

Ostia-HarbourCityofAncientRome194(communityproject),http://www.ostia-antica.org

PalmerC.L.,TeffeauL.C.&PirmannC.M.(2009):Scholarlyinformationpracticesintheonlineenvironment.Dublin,OH:OCLC,http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2009/2009-02.pdf

Pearsall,DeborahM.(2016):Paleoethnobotany:AHandbookofProcedures.ThirdEdition.Routledge

Pegasus(workflowmanagementsystem),https://pegasus.isi.edu/applications

PlandeRome(UniversitédeCaenBasse-Normandie,France),https://www.unicaen.fr/cireve/rome/index.php

PokornáA.,DreslerováD.,KřivánkováD.(2011):ArchaeobotanicalDatabaseoftheCzechRepublic,anInterimReport.[includesanoverviewofthecontentofthedatabasearound2010].In:InterdisciplinariaArchaeologica-NaturalSciencesinArchaeology(IANSA)1/II,49-53,http://www.iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2011-01-pokorna.pdf

PompeyProject(Kings’CollegeLondon),http://www.pompey.cch.kcl.ac.uk

Porter,Dorothy(2013):MedievalistsandtheScholarlyDigitalEdition.In:ScholarlyEditing-TheAnnualoftheAssociationforDocumentaryEditing,Vol.34,http://www.scholarlyediting.org/2013/essays/essay.porter.html

PRACE-PartnershipforAdvancedComputinginEurope,http://www.prace-project.eu

PRACE/GuestM.etal.(2012):TheScientificCaseforHPCinEurope.PRACE,October2012,http://www.prace-ri.eu/IMG/pdf/prace_-_the_scientific_case_-_full_text_-.pdf

PRACE-RI-ResearchInfrastructure(since2010),http://www.prace-ri.eu

PriluskyJ.&SussmanJ.L.(2016):PresentingProteopediaforsharingmacromoleculeconceptsonline.eLifeLabsweblog,29June2016,https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/elife-labs-presenting-proteopedia-sharing-macromolecule-concepts-online

ProcterR.,WilliamsR.,StewartJ.etal.(2010a):Ifyoubuildit,willtheycome?Howresearchersperceiveanduseweb2.0.London:ResearchNetworkInformation,http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246/



ProcterR.,WilliamsR.,StewartS.etal.(2010b):AdoptionanduseofWeb2.0inscholarlycommunications.In:Phil.Trans.R.Soc.A2010,368:4039-56,http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1926/4039.full.html#

Prometheus(arthistoryimagearchive),http://www.prometheus-bildarchiv.de

Proteopedia,http://proteopedia.org

Pundit(NetSeven,Italy),http://www.thepund.it

Rains,Michael(2011):Creatingavirtualresearchenvironmentforarchaeology,pp.159-169,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

Rains,Michael(2015):Integrateddatabasedesignanduseintorecordingmethodologies,pp.79-91,in:ChapmanR.&WylieA.(eds.):Materialevidence.Learningfromarchaeologicalpractice.London:Routledge

READ-RecognitionandEnrichmentofArchivalDocuments(H2020,EINFRA-9-2015-e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments,1/2016-6/2019),http://transkribus.eu

ResearchInformationNetwork–RIN(2011):ReinventingResearch?InformationPracticesintheHumanities.London:RIN,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1859267

ResearchInformationNetwork(2010):Ifyoubuildit,willtheycome?Howresearchersperceiveanduseweb2.0.London:RIN,http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246/1/WRAP_Procter_Ifyoubuilditwilltheycome.pdf

ResearchTrends(2013):NewPerspectivesontheArts&Humanities.In:ResearchTrends,Issue32,15-19,http://www.researchtrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Research_Trends_Issue32.pdf

RichardsJ.,JeffreyS.,WallerS.,CiravegnaF.,ChapmanS.&ZhangZ.(2011):TheArchaeologyDataServiceandtheArchaeotoolsProject:FacetedClassificationandNaturalLanguageProcessing,pp.31-56,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

Richardson,Matthew(2013):Multidisciplinarity:MappingthemultidisciplinarityoftheArts&Humanities,pp.15-19,in:ResearchTrends,Issue32:NewPerspectivesontheArts&Humanities,http://www.researchtrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Research_Trends_Issue32.pdf

RidingtheWave(2010):HowEuropecangainfromtherisingtideofscientificdata.FinalreportoftheEuropeanHigh-levelExpertGrouponScientificData.AsubmissiontotheEuropeanCommission,http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf

RomanelloM.,Berra,A.&TrachselA.(2014a):RethinkingTextReuseasDigitalClassicistspanelsessionatthe2014DigitalHumanitiesConference,Lausanne,10July2014,http://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Panel-106.xml

RomanelloM.,Berra,A.&TrachselA.(2014b):TextReusePanelatDH2014.In:Digitalclassicist.orgwiki,https://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/Text_Reuse

RomeReborn-ADigitalModelofAncientRome(maintainedbyFrischerConsulting,USA),http://romereborn.frischerconsulting.com

RossS.,Ballsun-StantonB.,SobotkovaA.&CrookP.(2015):BuildingtheBazaar:EnhancingArchaeologicalFieldRecordingThroughanOpenSourceApproach,pp.111-129,in:WilsonA.T.&EdwardsB.(eds.,2015):OpenSourceArchaeology.EthicsandPractice.DeGruyterOpen,



https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783110440171/9783110440171-009/9783110440171-009.xml

RossS.,SobotkovaA.,Ballsun-StantonB,&CrookP.(2013):CreatingeResearchToolsforArchaeologists:TheFederatedArchaeologicalInformationManagementSystemsproject(FAIMS).In:AustralianArchaeology,No.77,December2013,https://www.academia.edu/5690498/Creating_eResearch_Tools_for_Archaeologists_The_Federated_Archaeological_Information_Management_Systems_project

RutnerJ.&SchonfeldR.C.(2012):SupportingtheChangingResearchPracticesofHistorians.FinalReportfromITHAKAS+R.10December2012,http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/supporting-the-changing-research-practices-of-historians.pdf

SchindlerC.,VejaC.,RittbergerM.&VrandecicD.(2011):Howtoteachdigitallibrarydatatoswimintoresearch,pp.142-149,in:Ghidinietal.(eds.):I-Semantics'11-Proceedingsofthe7thInternationalConferenceonSemanticSystems,7-9September2011,Graz,Austria;preprint,http://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2012/6629/pdf/Schindler_Veja_Rittberger_Vrandecic_2011_Digital_Library_Data_D_A.pdf

Schirmbacher,Peter(2011):VirtualResearchEnvironmentsinGermany-AnOverview.Presentation,Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin,7April2011,https://www.ibi.hu-berlin.de/de/forschung/publikationen/infomanagement/pdfs/Schirmbacher2011.pdf

SchreibmanS.,SiemensR.&UnsworthJ.(2016):ANewCompaniontoDigitalHumanities.2ndEdition.Wiley-Blackwell,http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118680596.html

ScienceofCollaboratories-SoC(USA,NSF-fundedproject,2001-2004),http://soc.ics.uci.edu(listofcollaboratoryprojects,http://soc.ics.uci.edu/Resources/colisting.php

SemanticMediaWikiforCollaborativeCorporaAnalysis-SMW-CorA(Germany,DFG-fundedproject,1/2011-10/2014),http://www.semantic-cora.org

SEMLIB-SemanticToolsforDigitalLibraries(EU,FP7-SME,1/2011-12/2012),http://www.semlibproject.eu

SilchesterRomanTownProject,http://www.reading.ac.uk/silchester/

Sinclair,Anthony(2014):ArchaeologyIs...?MappingArchaeologicalResearch2004-2013.CurrentResearchinBritishPrehistory:aLiverpoolsymposium,21-22August2014,Liverpool,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266638775_Archaeology_Is..._Mapping_Archaeological_Research_2004-2013

SmithM.E.,FeinmanG.M.,DrennanR.D.etal.(2012):Archaeologyasasocialscience.In:PNAS-ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences:CurrentIssue,109(20),http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7617.full.pdf

SmithN.G.,KnabbK.,DeFantiC.etal.(2013):ArtifactVis2:Managingreal-timearchaeologicaldatainimmersive3Denvironments,pp.363-370,in:DigitalHeritageInternationalCongress2013,28.10.-1.11.2013,Marseille,Volume1;preprint,http://web.eng.ucsd.edu/~jschulze/publications/Smith2013b.pdf

SpencerD.,ZimmermanA.&AbramsonD.(eds.,2011):SpecialTheme:ProjectManagementinE-Science:ChallengesandOpportunities.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),20(3),http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10606-011-9140-4

StanfordDigitalFormaUrbisRomae(StanfordUniversity,USA),http://formaurbis.stanford.edu

StuijtsI.,O'DonnellL.&LyonsS.(2012):Cloud-computinginAnthracology–ExperienceswiththeWODANonlinedatabaseinIreland,pp.291-299,in:BadalE.etal.(eds.):WoodandCharcoal:



EvidenceforHumanandNaturalhistory.SAGVNTVM,Extra13,UniversitatdeValència,DepartamentdePrehistòriaid’Arqueologia,https://www.sapac.es/charcoal/saguntum/extra13/se13_291.pdf

Stuijts,Ingelise(2012):Cloud-computinginanthracology–developingtheWODANonlinedatabaseinIreland.PresentationatArchaeologicalandHistoricalWoodUtilizationmeeting,EgmondaanZee,29Sept.2012,http://holzverwendung.boku.ac.at/dokumente/secondworkshop/Stuijts.pdf

Svensson,Patrik(2010):TheLandscapeofDigitalHumanities.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,4.1,http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000080/000080.html

Svensson,Patrik(2011):FromOpticalFibertoConceptualCyberinfrastructure.In:DigitalHumanitiesQuarterly,5.1,http://digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000090/000090.html

SwedishPompeiiProject,http://www.pompejiprojektet.se

TaDiRAH-TaxonomyofDigitalResearchActivitiesintheHumanities(v.0.5.1,05/2014),availableonGithub,https://github.com/dhtaxonomy/TaDiRAH

Talia,Domenico(2013):WorkflowSystemsforScience:ConceptsandTools.In:ISRNSoftwareEngineering,Volume2013,ArticleID404525,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258393324_Workflow_Systems_for_Science_Concepts_and_Tools

TerrasM.,NyhanJ.&VanhoutteE.(2013):DefiningDigitalHumanities.AReader.Ashgate,http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409469636

TextGrid-VirtuelleForschungsumgebungfürdieGeisteswissenschaften(BMBF-funded,2016-2015),https://textgrid.de/en/

TextVRE(UK,JISCVREproject,Kings’CollegeLondon,2009-2011),http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/ddh/research/projects/completed/text.aspx

Thaller,Manfred(ed.):TheCologneDialogueonDigitalHumanities2012–ControversiesaroundtheDigitalHumanities,http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/events/CologneDialogue

TheDigitalArchaeologicalRecord–tDAR(DigitalAntiquity,USA),https://www.tdar.org

TheRoyalSociety(2011):Knowledge,NetworksandNations:Globalscientificcollaborationinthe21stcentury,RSPolicydocument03/11,March2011,http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=25069

TheRoyalSociety(2012a):ScienceasanOpenEnterprise.FinalReport,June2012,https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/Report/

TransatlanticArchaeologyGateway–TAG(ArchaeologyDataService[UK]andDigitalAntiquity[USA],2009-2011),http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/research/tag

tranScriptorium(EU,FP7,ICTforaccesstoculturalresources,1/2013-12/2015),http://transkribus.eu

TrognitzM.,NivenK.,GilissenV.etal.(2016):3DModelsinArchaeology(Guide,November2016).In:ArchaeologyDataService&DigitalAntiquity:GuidestoGoodPractice,http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/3d_Toc

UCL&Emerald-UniversityCollegeLondon&EmeraldGroupPublishingLtd(2010):Socialmediaandresearchworkflow(14December2010),http://ciber-research.eu/download/20101111-social-media-report.pdf

UKDataArchive(n.y.):Researchdatalifecycle,http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/create-manage/life-cycle



Unsworth,JohnM.(2000):ScholarlyPrimitives:whatmethodsdohumanitiesresearchershaveincommon,andhowmightourtoolsreflectthis?PartofasymposiumonHumanitiesComputing:FormalMethods,ExperimentalPractice,King’sCollege,London,13May2000,http://people.brandeis.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html

vanderVaart,Lilian(2010):Collaboratories:ConnectingResearchers.Howtofacilitatechoice,designanduptakeofonlineresearchcollaboratories.April2010.Utrecht:SURFfoundation,https://www.surf.nl/binaries/content/assets/surf/en/knowledgebase/2010/Collaboratories+Connecting+Researchers9april.pdf

VanZundert,Joris(2012):IfYouBuildIt,WillWeCome?LargeScaleDigitalInfrastructuresasaDeadEndforDigitalHumanities.In:HistoricalSocialResearch,37(3):165-86,http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/files/vanZundert_0.pdf

ViBRANT-VirtualBiodiversityResearchandAccessNetworkforTaxonomy(EU,FP7,Infrastructures/VirtualResearchCommunities,CP-CSA,12/2010-11/2013),http://vbrant.eu

VirtualKnowledgeStudio(Amsterdam),http://virtualknowledgestudio.nl

VirtuellesdeutschesUrkundennetzwerk(Germany,DFGfundedproject,2010-2013,nowpartofMonasterium.net),www.vdu.uni-koeln.de

VI-SEEM-VREforregionalInterdisciplinarycommunitiesinSoutheastEuropeandtheEasternMediterranean(H2020,EINFRA-9-2015-e-Infrastructuresforvirtualresearchenvironments,10/2015-9/2018),https://vi-seem.eu

VKLandLab–Spatio-temporalLandscapeResearchinaVirtualResearchEnvironment(Germany,DFGfundedproject,2010-2014),http://www.vklandlab.uni-rostock.de/en/

vonSchwerinJ.,LyonsM.,LoosL.,BillenN.,AuerM.&ZipfA.(2016):Showmethedata!:Structuringarchaeologicaldatatodeliverinteractivetransparent3Dreconstructionsina3DWebGIS,pp.198-230,in:MünsterS.etal.(eds.):3DResearchChallengesinCulturalHeritageII.Springer(LNCS10025)

VoßA.&ProcterR.N.(2009):Virtualresearchenvironmentsinscholarlyworkandcommunications.In:LibraryHiTech,27(2):174-190;manuscript,https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220364202_Virtual_research_environments_in_scholarly_work_and_communications

VRE-SDM-VirtualResearchEnvironmentfortheStudyofDocumentsandManuscripts(UK,JISCVREproject,OxfordUniversity,2007-2009),http://bvreh.humanities.ox.ac.uk/VRE-SDM

Waldrop,Mitchell(2008):Bigdata:Wikiomics.In:Nature455:22-25,http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/455022a.html

Wallrodt,John(2013):BeyondTabletComputersasaToolforDataCollection:ThreeSeasonsofProcessingandCuratingDigitalDatainaPaperlessWorld[PARP:PSproject].In:Paperlessarchaeology.com,weblog,25March2013,http://paperlessarchaeology.com/2013/03/25/beyond-tablet-computers-as-a-tool-for-data-collection-three-seasons-of-processing-and-curating-digital-data-in-a-paperless-world/

WarwickC.,FisherC.,TerrasM.etal.(2009):iTrench:AStudyofUserReactionstotheuseofInformationTechnologyinFieldArchaeology.In:LiteraryandLinguisticComputing,24(2):211-223;manuscript,http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13916/1/13916.pdf

WarwickC.,TerrasM.&NyhanJ.(eds.,2012):DigitalHumanitiesinPractice.London:factpublishing

Whitcher-KansaS.&Deblauwe(2011):User-GeneratedContentinZooarchaeology:Exploringthe“MiddleSpace”ofScholarlyCommunication,pp.185-2006,in:KansaE.etal.(eds.):



Archaeology2.0:NewApproachestoCommunicationandCollaboration.CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UCLosAngeles,http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb

Whitcher-KansaS.&KansaE.(2011):BeyondBoneCommons.Recentdevelopmentsinzooarchaeologicaldatasharing.In:TheSAAArchaeologicalRecord,January2011,26-29,http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/archive/files/kansa_kansa_icaz_saa_jan2011_d7f38e2b2b.pdf

WieczorekJ.,BloomD.,GuralnickR.,BlumS.etal.(2012):DarwinCore:AnEvolvingCommunity-DevelopedBiodiversityDataStandard.In:PLoSONE,7(1):e29715,http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715

WikiApiary(seestatisticsforSemanticMediaWiki,https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Semantic_statistics

WillifordC.&HenryC./CLIR-CouncilonLibraryandInformationResources(2012):OneCulture:ComputationallyIntensiveResearchintheHumanitiesandSocialSciences.AReportontheExperiencesofFirstRespondentstotheDiggingIntoDataChallenge.CLIR:Washington,D.C.,June2012,http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub151

Wilson A.T. & Edwards B. (eds., 2015): Open Source Archaeology. Ethics and Practice. DeGruyterOpen,https://www.degruyter.com/viewbooktoc/product/460080

WissKI-ScientificCommunicationInfrastructure(Germany,DFG-fundedproject,2009-12,2014-16),http://wiss-ki.eu

WittM.,CarlsonJ.,BrandtD.S&CraginM.H.(2009):ConstructingDataCurationProfiles.In:InternationalJournalofDigitalCuration,4(3),http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/137

WoutersP.&BeaulieuA.(2006):Imagininge-sciencebeyondcomputation,pp.48-70,in:HineC.(ed.):Newinfrastructuresforknowledgeproduction:Understandinge-science.London:InformationSciencePublishing,http://virtualknowledgestudio.nl/documents/_annebeaulieu/new-infrastructures-for-knowledge-production.pdf

WoutersP.,BeaulieuA.ScharnhorstA.&WyattS.(eds.,2012):VirtualKnowledge.ExperimentingintheHumanitiesandSocialSciences.Cambridge:MITPress

WuchtyS.,JonesB.&UzziB.(2007):TheIncreasingDominanceofTeamsinKnowledgeProduction.In:Science,vol.316:1036-1039,http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/1036

ariadne: report on e-archaeology frameworks and experiments

Data & Analytics