Transdisciplinary approach to archaeological investigations in a Semantic Web perspective

In recent years, the transdisciplinarity of archaeological studies has greatly increased because of the mature interactions between archaeologists and scientists from different disciplines (called “archaeometers”). A number of diverse scientific disciplines collaborate to get an objective account of the archaeological records. A large amount of digital data support the whole process, and there is a great value in keeping the coherence of information and knowledge, as contributed by each intervening discipline. During the years, a number of representation models have been developed to account for the recording of the archaeological process in data bases. Lately, some semantic models, compliant with the CRMarchaeo reference model, have been developed to account for linking the institutional forms with the formal knowledge concerning the archaeological excavations and the related findings. On the contrary, the archaeometric processes have not been addressed yet in the Semantic Web community and only an upper reference model, called CRMsci, accounts for the representation of the scientific investigations in general. This paper presents a modular computational ontology for the interlinked representation of all the facts related to the archaeological and archaeometric analyses and interpretations, also connected to the recording catalogues. The computational ontology is compliant with CIDOC-CRM reference models CRMarchaeo and CRMsci and introduces a number of novel classes and properties to merge the two worlds in a joint representation. The ontology is in use in “Beyond Archaeology”, a methodological project for the establishing of a transdisciplinary approach to archaeology and archaeometry, interlinked through a semantic model of processes and objects.

[1]  M. Sutton Archaeological Investigation , 2022, Discovering World Prehistory.

[2]  Eric C. Kansa,et al.  Digital Data and Data Literacy in Archaeology Now and in the New Decade , 2021, Advances in Archaeological Practice.

[3]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  A Multiple Perspective Account of Digital Curation for Cultural Heritage: Tasks, Disciplines and Institutions , 2020, UMAP.

[4]  Liv Nilsson Stutz,et al.  A future for archaeology : in defense of an intellectually engaged, collaborative and confident archaeology , 2018 .

[5]  Franco Niccolucci,et al.  A CIDOC CRM-based Model for the Documentation of Heritage Sciences , 2018, 2018 3rd Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHERITAGE) held jointly with 2018 24th International Conference on Virtual Systems & Multimedia (VSMM 2018).

[6]  Douglas Tudhope,et al.  A study of semantic integration across archaeological data and reports in different languages , 2018, J. Inf. Sci..

[7]  Fabio Silva,et al.  Amplitude of travelling front as inferred from 14C predicts levels of genetic admixture among European early farmers , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[8]  Carlo Meghini,et al.  ARIADNE: A Research Infrastructure for Archaeology , 2017, ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage.

[9]  Maurizio Forte,et al.  Immersive Visualization and Curation of Archaeological Heritage Data: Çatalhöyük and the Dig@IT App , 2017, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.

[10]  David Myers,et al.  The Arches heritage inventory and management system: a platform for the heritage field , 2016 .

[11]  M. Olsson Making sense of the past: The embodied information practices of field archaeologists , 2016, J. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Line C. Pouchard,et al.  Revisiting the Data Lifecycle with Big Data Curation , 2016 .

[13]  Andre Costopoulos,et al.  Digital Archeology Is Here (and Has Been for a While) , 2016, Front. Digit. Humanit..

[14]  Christopher H. Roosevelt,et al.  Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice , 2015 .

[15]  I. Hodder,et al.  Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük: integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel's edge , 2015, Antiquity.

[16]  Lorna-Jane Richardson,et al.  A Digital Public Archaeology , 2013 .

[17]  Elizabeth Yakel,et al.  The challenges of digging data: a study of context in archaeological data reuse , 2013, JCDL '13.

[18]  Sarah Whitcher Kansa,et al.  We All Know That a 14 Is a Sheep: Data Publication and Professionalism in Archaeological Communication , 2013 .

[19]  Ps Quinn,et al.  Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section , 2013 .

[20]  Gilberto Artioli,et al.  Scientific Methods and Cultural Heritage: An introduction to the application of materials science to archaeometry and conservation science , 2010 .

[21]  Michael J. Winstanley,et al.  The Virtual Representation of the Past , 2010 .

[22]  Manjula Patel,et al.  The Role of OAIS Representation Information in the Digital Curation of Crystallography Data , 2009, 2009 Fifth IEEE International Conference on e-Science.

[23]  Michael Ashley López,et al.  Last House on the Hill: Digitally remediating data and media for preservation and access , 2009, JOCCH.

[24]  Julian D. Richards,et al.  Stepping back from the trench edge: an archaeological perspective on the devleopment of standards for recording and publication , 2008 .

[25]  Sarah Higgins,et al.  The dcc curation lifecycle model , 2008, JCDL '08.

[26]  Martin Doerr,et al.  Research between natural and cultural history information: Benefits and IT-requirements for transdisciplinarity , 2008, JOCCH.

[27]  M. Lake,et al.  Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology , 2006 .

[28]  Gwyn Davies,et al.  Papers from the Institute of Archaeology , 1997 .

[29]  M. Tite ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE ‐ PAST ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS , 1991 .

[30]  L. Heilmann Proceedings, Part II , 1943, Ecology.

[31]  The Future of Archaeology , 1943, Antiquity.

[32]  Vincenzo Lombardo,et al.  Linking Ontological Classes and Archaeological Forms , 2020, SEMWEB.

[33]  Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese,et al.  ArCo ontology network and LOD on Italian Cultural Heritage , 2019, ODOCH@CAiSE.

[34]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  The NeOn Methodology for Ontology Engineering , 2012, Ontology Engineering in a Networked World.

[35]  Elizabeth Yakel,et al.  Digital Curation for Digital Natives , 2011 .

[36]  B. Nicolescu,et al.  Methodology of Transdisciplinarity-Levels of Reality, Logic of the Included Middle and Complexity , 2010 .

[37]  Günther A. Wagner,et al.  New Technologies for Archaeology , 2009 .

[38]  Markus Reindel,et al.  New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru , 2009 .

[39]  Paul J Cripps,et al.  Ontological Modelling of the work of the Centre for Archaeology , 2005 .

[40]  M. Forte,et al.  Virtual Reality in archaeology , 2000 .

[41]  Ian Hodder,et al.  The Archaeological Process: An Introduction , 1999 .

[42]  Paul Reilly,et al.  Towards a virtual archaeology , 1990 .

[43]  Edward C. Harris,et al.  Principles of archaeological stratigraphy , 1979 .