Talk: Georg Roth (Universität zu Köln), “Die Rückkehr des Leitfundes? Die Verwendung der ökologischen Indikator-Arten-Analyse als archäologische Indikator-Typen-Analyse.”.
Date: Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Time: starting at 19:00
In der Ökologie wurde die Analyse von Vergesellschaftungstabellen in den letzten Dekaden gleich mehrfach in bemerkenswerter Weise verbessert (z. B. Borcard et al. 2011). Neben vielen für die Archäologien relevanten Methoden wie der deutungsorientierten Ausgestaltung von Ähnlichkeitsanordnungen (kanonische Ordinationen; z. B. C. ter Braak 2005, 136–147), der Qualitätsprüfung von Gruppierungen (Clusteranalysen) mittels Gruppierungsgütekriterien (z. B. Desgraupes 2013) und der Verbindung von Vergesellschaftungsdaten und räumlicher Lage (MEM; Dray et al. 2006) ist nicht zuletzt das Konzept der Indikator-Arten-Analyse (abgekürzt IAA) für archäologische Fragestellungen von bemerkenswerter Relevanz (vgl. Dufrene/Legendre 1997, 349–351; Legendre/ Legendre 2012, 397–401).
Die IAA beantwortet die Frage: Gibt es einen (oder mehrere) Typen, anhand dessen Vorkommen allein man bereits die Gruppenzugehörigkeit eines Falles erkennt (vgl. Legendre 2013, 264)? Dafür wird ein Kennwert (Indikatorkennwert ‘Wurzel aus (INDVAL)’) berechnet und mittels Permutationsteste auf Signifikanz überprüft (zur Berechnung: De Caceres/Legendre 2009, 3567). Der Indikatorkennwert misst also die Stärke des Prognosepotentials eines Typs für eine Gruppe von Fällen.
Eine Variante erlaubt das Messen des bevorzugten oder vermiedenen Auftretens (Phi-Koeffizient) von Typen bei bestimmten Gruppen (ibid.). Damit lassen sich, ohne auf die Prognosefunktion zu achten, Art und Stärke der Beziehung zwischen Typen und Fallgruppen messen, wie sie sich im bevorzugten oder vermiedenen Auftreten widerspiegeln.
Erweiterungen der IAA erlauben die Untersuchung des kombinierten Auftretens von Typen als Indikatoren für die Gruppenzugehörigkeit eines Falles (De Caceres et al. 2012) sowie die Suche nach Indikatoren für Kombinationen mehrerer Fallgruppen (De Caceres et al. 2010).
Als Datengrundlage dienen der IAA Vergesellschaftungstabellen mit Anzahl- oder Präsenz-Absenz-Informationen, wie sie in der Archäologie geläufig sind: die Zeilen beschreiben die Zusammensetzung von Inventaren (Fällen) und entlang der Spalten werden die Anzahlen oder das Vorhandensein von Merkmalsausprägungen (Typen) für den jeweiligen Fall erfasst. Neben dieser multivariaten Information benötigt die IAA noch ein nominales Merkmal zur Gruppierung der Fälle, also eine zusätzliche Spalte mit dem Gruppierungsmerkmal.
Die Datenstruktur archäologischer Vergesellschaftungstabellen entspricht eins zu eins der von ökologischen Abundanzmatrizen, weshalb man die IAA in ihrer archäologischen Anwendung auch Indikator-Typen-Analyse nennen kann.
Das Konzept des Indikators ist in der Archäologie als “Leitfund” altbekannt. Dieser wird in der Regel als Anzeiger einer chronologischen Gruppenzugehörigkeit verstanden (z. B. Goldmann 1979). Trifft man einen solchen an, so nimmt man die Zugehörigkeit des Falles zu einer bestimmten chronologisch definierten Gruppe von Fällen (Zeitstufe) an. Die IAA allerdings erlaubt die Verwendung jeder sinnvollen Gruppierung der Fälle: die Eingruppierung kann, muss aber nicht chronologisch begründet sein. Damit eröffnen sich vielfältige weitere Anwendungsmöglichkeiten, beispielsweise die Auffindung von Indikator-Typen für bestimmte Gruppen/Arten von Siedlungen oder Bestattungen, um nur ein paar Naheliegende zu nennen.
Der erstmalige Methodentransfer der IAA in die Archäologie stellt m. W. eine Premiere in der deutschsprachigen Archäologie dar. Der Vortrag erläutert Grundlagen, Anwendung und Problematik der Indikator- und Präferenz-Kennwerte anhand von Beispieldatensätzen aus der prähistorischen Archäologie. Sämtliche Berechnungen dazu erfolgten mit dem Paket indicspecies (De Caceres/Jansen 2013) für die statistische Programmieroberfläche R (R Core Team 2013).
D. Borcard/Fr. Gillet/P. Legendre, Numerical Ecology with R (New York 2011).
M. De Caceres/P. Legendre, Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 2009, 3566–3574.
M. De Caceres/P. Legendre/M. Moretti, Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 2010, 1674–1684.
M. De Caceres/P. Legendre/S. Wiser/L. Brotons, Using species combinations in indicator value analyses. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 2012, 973–982.
M. De Caceres/Fl. Jansen, indicspecies: Studying the statistical relationship between species and groups of sites. R package version 1.6.7 (14-01-2013). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=indicspecies
B. Desgraupes, clusterCrit: Clustering Indices. R package version 1.2.2. (15-06-2013). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clusterCrit
S. Dray/P. Legendre/ P. Peres-Neto, Spatial modeling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbor matrices (PCNM). Ecological Modelling 3–4, 2006, 483–493.
M. Dufrene/P. Legendre, Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67, 1997, 345–366.
Kl. Goldmann, Die Seriation chronologischer Leitfunde der Bronzezeit Europas (Berlin 1979).
P. Legendre, Indicator Species: Computation. In: S.Levin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Vol. 4 (2nd ed. 2013), 264-268.
P. Legendre/L. Legendre, Numerical Ecology (3rd ed. Amsterdam 2012).
R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (version 2.15.3.: 01-03-2013). \
REXML could not parse this XML/HTML: <ISBN 3-900051-07-0\> <http://www.R-project.org>.
C. ter Braak, 5. Ordination. In: R. Jongman/C. ter Braak/O. van Tongeren (ed.), Data analysis in community and landscape ecology (Reprint 2005), 91–173.
Talk: Rainer Komp (DAI), “Chronological Concepts of the Ancient World in Linked Data”.
Date: Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Time: starting at 18:00 c.t. (i.e. 18:15)
Within digital data there is still a strong requirement for linking data in a way, that possible or even real relationships between data items are shown. Ideas of Semantic Web or Linked Data are promising but have not brought a satisfying complete implementation yet.
One of the naturally basic attributes of historic events and specifically archaeological objects is their chronological classification. Therefore this item must be given special attention in the big challenge of linking digital catalogues or even representations of excavation data or museum objects. Similar perceptions on geographic attributes of historic objects have recently led to intense developments of gazetteers successfully representing authorities for historic locations, which themselves also refer to dates. Acting on this assumption time-gazetters have already been proposed, but not yet implemented.
What are the troubles dealing with dates? Unfortunately, due to an extremely manifold field of calendar systems, eponyms and historical period terms there is a challenging diversity of dating practices to be matched. While chronology in terms of numerals seem to be exact and computable, calendar practices from antiquity up to modern times, not to mention historians’ classifications of periods in fact are not easy to implement.
Former initiatives reflected the problem of period names used to classify historic episodes. My research focusses on historic perceptions of time and their presentations in greek and roman testimonials, trying to find approaches to integrate chronology as key token in Linked Data. The aim is to contribute to archaeological object networks by applying the principles of the semantic web. In this paper, which is a work-in-progress report of my thesis, I will be giving an overview of selected chronological concepts and representations known in antiquity and reasoning current efforts of standardisation and relevant projects. I will be happy to discuss ideas of designing chronological concepts as Linked Data with the audience.
Talk: Henry Mendell (California State University, USA), “Visualization of Ancient Cosmological Models: a presentation of completed work and some difficulties”.
Date: Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Time: starting at 18:00 c.t. (i.e. 18:15)
As part of Topoi 1, Group-D, Sebastian Szczepanski and I developed software for the visualization of ancient cosmological theories. These included the 4th cent. BCE planetary models of Eudoxus, Aristotle, and Calippus, as well as the basic planetary models of Ptolemy’s Almagest. Because the visualizations are open source and written in HTML-5, they have a higher likelihood of surviving than many other potential platforms. Most important is the flexibility of the program that allows the user to modify all the parameters, to reveal or hide or even eliminate components of a model, to focus in on certain features of the model, or to change views. In the Ptolemaic models, which are coordinated to Julian, Gregorian, and Egyptian calendars, one may set the clock to where one wishes and see the results.
As a research tool, it allows the user to get a clearer picture of how ancient models work. For example, in the case of the 4th cent. BCE models, the models allow one to see, for example, how well they represent retrograde motion, latitude variation on the horizon, or anomally in invisibility appearances, the three main candidates in modern scholarship for the motivations for the third and fourth sphere of the slow planets in the Eudoxan model. The main value, however, is as a pedagogical tool for anyone wishing to get a deeper understanding of the models or to present it to others.
In the first, main part of my talk, I will present the software and will indicate areas where it can be developed and improved to make it more user friendly. In the second part, I will discuss problems of integrating the visualizations with texts associated with scholarship on them, I will then turn to two features that we did not integrate into the visualizations. The first is coordinating the visualiztions to modern trackings of bodies. This is important for all models. I will argue that even for theories of dubious empirical foundations, it is important to see how well or poorly they preserve the phenomena. The second issue is the construction of tables. An equally important part of the visualization is to be able to coordinate the visualizations with astronomical tables. Yet, tables themselves are a form of visualization. So, for example, Babylonian models, which are table based, are best presented through flexible spread sheets. I shall illustrate this with a simple example. Here is where software advances have been most detrimental. We should employ a standard spread sheet Program such as Excel but modified to present different versions of sexagesimal numbers, including whole number decimal/fraction sexagesimal, base 30 for the first fraction, etc. Unfortunately, software developers have not been kind here. Microsoft no longer, for example, allows DLL’s. So my example will have to use Mac System 9! Hence, I will conclude with a question about how to proceed in this issue.
Talk: Amir Zeldes (HU), “Towards Digital Coptic: Searching and Visualizing Coptic Manuscript Data”.
Date: Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Time: starting at 18:00 c.t. (i.e. 18:15)
The Coptic language of Hellenistic Egypt has been chronically underrepresented in the digital humanities landscape despite the masses of material available and general multidisciplinary interest in Egypt in the first millennium for ancient history, religious studies and the classics. In this talk we present some of the first efforts to offer an open infrastructure for the online representation of Coptic texts using automated tools which have become commonplace for Classical Greek and Latin in the last decade. The talk is divided into two parts, discussing searching and visualizing Coptic data respectively.
Searching through Coptic data using available DH architectures is complex for several reasons. Firstly, most texts come from potentially damaged, incomplete and physically disjoint papyri and codices. Texts must be reconstructed from pieces of manuscripts stored in various libraries and museums worldwide, complicating both metadata management and the concept of a corpus or text. Are resources grouped according to ‘works’, physical repositories or codices? How do we establish what constitutes a ‘work’? Secondly, in Coptic many concepts taken for granted for Greek and Latin are non-trivial. Coptic Manuscripts are written in scriptio continua, without spaces, and modern conventions on word division differ substantially (see Layton 2004: 19–20). Additionally, since Coptic is an agglutinative language, the relevant unit for linguistic analysis is the morpheme, below the ‘word’ level. This means that segmentation guidelines must be developed for both levels of resolution. Thirdly, in order to search through multiple manuscripts, it is necessary to develop guidelines and tools for normalization, part-of-speech tagging and lemmatization of Coptic, all of which do not exist yet, as opposed to the rich morphological, syntactic and lexical analyses readily available for Greek and Latin (e.g. in the Perseus Digital Library, Crane et al. 2009).
Visualizing Coptic manuscript data is also non-trivial. The need for diplomatic transcriptions including line breaks, columns, pages and scribal or manuscript idiosyncrasies often conflicts with the exigencies of a consistent, normalized view of linguistic elements across documents. Typically, structural markup is done in TEI XML, while linguistic annotations (part-of-speech tagging, coreference analyses and more) are done using computational linguistics formats (e.g. PAULA XML, Dipper 2005). To tackle the problem of reconciling conflicting layers of representation we present an implementation of two Sahidic Coptic corpora taken from the writings of Shenoute of Atripe (4th–5th Century) and the Coptic Apophthegmata Patrum, using the multilayer search and visualization platform ANNIS (Zeldes et al. 2009). Users can select whether searches are oriented to word forms, morphemes or diplomatic forms for purposes of setting context size (e.g. ±5 words), distance between search elements (e.g. two verbs within 3–6 morphemes) and visualization of the text. We will show how visualizations can be generated dynamically from the data using simple style sheets, including editionlike diplomatic views, normalized text and aligned translations with which users can interact (Figure 1). The talk will also suggest some directions for future work on representing the relationship between overlapping and conflicting manuscripts of the same or related works.
Crane, Gregory, Babeu, Alison, Bamman, David, Breuel, Thomas, Cerrato, Lisa, Deckers, Daniel, Lüdeling, Anke, Mimno, Daid, Singhal, Rashmi, Smith, David A., and Zeldes, Amir (2009). ‘Classics in the Million Book Library’, Digital Humanities Quarterly 3(1), Available at: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/003/1/000034/000034.html
Dipper, Stefanie (2005). ‘XML-based Stand-off Representation and Exploitation of Multi-Level Linguistic Annotation’, in Proceedings of Berliner XML Tage 2005 (BXML 2005). Berlin, Germany, 39–50.
Layton, Bentley (2004). A Coptic Grammar. Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. (Porta linguarum orientalium 20.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Zeldes, Amir, Ritz, Julia, Lüdeling, Anke, and Chiarcos, Christian (2009). ‘ANNIS: A Search Tool for Multi-Layer Annotated Corpora’, in Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2009. Liverpool, UK.
Talk: Agnes Thomas, Alexander Recht, Karen Schwane (Universität zu Köln), “The Hellespont Project: Integrating Arachne and Perseus in a new Linked Data interface”.
Date: Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Time: starting at 18:00 c.t. (i.e. 18:15)
As a partner of the German Archaeological Institute, the CoDArchLab cooperates with the Perseus Digital Library at Tufts University to combine the digital collections of classical studies of both institutions.
Therefore, within the Hellespont Project we started a case study on integrating the two archaeological object databases Arachne and Perseus based on the CIDOC CRM (CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model). In addition, we chose one part of the ancient textual evidence for further annotation, the so-called Pentekontaetia in Thucydides 1.89-1.118. We thus focus on a limited historical period, the 50-year period in the history of Athens between the end of the Persian Wars (479 BCE) and the outburst of the Peloponnesian War (431 BCE). A both historical and linguistic analysis on the text enables us to extract main information of the narrative including events, historical persons and places mentioned by the author. With this approach we get a twofold list of events, one following the understanding of the text in modern research literature and one coming from a data-driven approach of linguistic annotation. This information of Thucydides’ text is mapped again using the event-based CIDOC CRM. All data output so far is available as RDF (Resource Description Framework) in XML Syntax and can be integrated in a Triple Store with related automatically extracted journal articles from JSTOR.
Combining archaeological and philological data with secondary research literature and historical information, we open up the broader context of related sources of a certain period and thus explore the idea of a VRE (Virtual Research Environment).
Therefore, in the second part of the paper, we want to present the connection between the Linked Data interface, GapVis, and also the links back to Arachne und Perseus as well the technologies behind.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen started a blogging carnival at his blog. I am only 11 days late to the party, so here you have the November steko-blogging-samba.
Why did you start a blog?
Honest: I was not aware I was starting a blog. I just created a website (that is, iosa.it) and after a while trying Mambo CMS, I settled on Drupal (version 4.something). The first year or so was all about creating a structured website, with a directory-like structure. Then came blogging about new free/open source software releases and their usage in archaeology. This blog was covered, to my surprise, in a survey about archaeological blogs conducted by Tijl Vereenooghe and presented at the “Cultural Heritage and New Technologies” Wien workshop in 2006. That same year, I had a separate personal blog created, on a multiblog platform hosted by the Italian Linux Society: that blog was mostly about short rants, politics and the occasional tech-savvy post (including my first steps with developing Total Open Station in 2008). A few years later I merged all my blogs into one, this one. Blogging became the least-cost path to sharing my thoughts and interesting things with other people, often colleagues but also casual readers (and almost always it wasn’t really working as a two-way communication channel).
Why are you still blogging?
With Twitter, and Facebook, and millions of other ways to efficiently have real-time communication with colleagues, researchers and the world, this is actually a question about the inner workings of our minds. My blog is still almost irrelevant ‒ in other words I didn’t succeed in creating a successful blog, mostly out of laziness and to some extent lack of coherence in the topics I am able to write about. Less than 2000 page views per month, 80 comments in several years: a nice definition of irrelevant IMHO. Even more frustrating is that, even though I write a lot in English, the vast majority of visitors come from Italy (ciao!). The truth is then that I’m blogging for myself in first place.
Last month I was very lucky and I took part in a panel about archaeological blogging and bloggers in Paestum. It was a first time in Italy ‒ that perhaps explains how antiquate Italian archaeology is ‒ and most of the discussion we had was about improving how bloggers are perceived as communication mediators by domain experts in archaeology and cultural heritage. It turns out that institutional, personal, academic and “promotional” blogging are quite different beasts and being proficient in one of those will lead you nowhere with the others. My attitude is definitely not appropriate for promotional 2.0 social [insert buzzword here] blogging ‒ I’m not saying it is worthless, just that I don’t feel able to do that, even though outreach efforts towards the public are extremely important: educating, engaging, entertaining are not an optional if our shared cultural heritage is to survive for future generations.
My blogging has always been mostly personal and academic (about research issues and smaller ideas that are not worth a paper ‒ more on this misconception I have below ‒ but also the occasional reporting from a conference I attended), and the two can be quite similar except in the quality of writing and sourcing of information. I struggle with perfectionism and most of the times even the most simple post will take me days, because I can only push that PUBLISH button in the WordPress editor when it’s more than acceptable, not too short, with some decent images, and as many external links as are needed for someone who will want to follow up on every single point.
But the trend for me is really towards consuming ridiculous amounts of written bits, on other blogs and on social networks, and producing a tiny fraction of what I consume. I can’t say I read everything that passes under my eyes any more. I skim a lot and concentrating on text on a screen has become difficult lately: a large screen, lots of zooming and going full-screen help to some extent. As a blogger, the issue with this difficulty is that it equally applies to text I am writing. And, although I have never finished writing the follow up to Archaeology as text and archaeology as image, I know how critical it is to master written archaeology ‒ blogging is a sort of spell to break into the magic world of writing archaeology without the barriers of academic writing. Being a PhD student in archaeology was a very good premise to do some serious blogging, and I utterly failed at that, always procrastinating the significant parts of my research for the “serious writing” that happens only rarely: you will find very little about my recent research on this blog and this is a mistake I hugely regret, especially because I know how much I rely on others’ blogs (Bill Caraher, Colleen Morgan, Kostis Kourelis, Sean Gillies, Giuliano De Felice, just to name a few), not much for the raw informational content but for inspiration.
So the truth about why I’m still blogging is that:
Om de groeiende werking te versterken, is de Erfgoedcel Pajottenland Zennevallei momenteel op zoek naar een nieuwe medewerker (m/v). Hij/zij zal instaan voor de deelwerkingen ‘omgevingsanalyse en interne vrijwilligerswerking’ en ‘ondersteuning van erfgoedactoren’. Kandidaten beschikken over een bachelordiploma (of gelijkwaardig). Solliciteren voor deze voltijdse functie kan nog tot en met 30 december 2013. Je vindt de volledige vacature op www.erfgoedcelpz.be.
NANCHANG, CHINA—Archaeologists have unearthed a 1,200-year-old kiln in the eastern province of Jiangxi, the center of China’s ceramics industry. Called a dragon kiln, it is the longest kiln ever found from the Tang Dynasty, with a fire box at one end of a sloping chamber. Tools and ceramic fragments were also found in the area.
BELFAST, IRELAND—Researchers from the University of Southampton and Queen’s University, Belfast, have conducted a survey of 25 prehistoric sites in the United Kingdom and northwestern France. They found that between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago, Homo heidelbergensis preferred to live on islands in the flood plains of major rivers, where they would have had access to big herbivores that grazed on the rich grasses, water birds and plants with edible roots, and leafy vegetables. The island itself offered protection from other hungry predators, and raw materials such as wood and stone for fashioning tools would have been abundant. “What has amazed us is the degree to which they appear to have deliberately and consistently sought out the same type of ideal location for establishing their major camps,” said Tony Brown of the University of Southampton.
Leeds International Classical Studies is a peer-reviewed on-line journal, associated with the Leeds International Classics Seminar. It publishes articles and interim discussion papers on all aspects of Greek and Roman antiquity, and of the history of the classical tradition.
Potential contributors should read the statement of editorial policy and guidelines for contributors before contacting the editors at the address below.
Copyright in the content of papers published in Leeds International Classical Studies is held by the author. Readers are asked to take note of the statement on copyright.
Volume 1 (2002)
- Editorial introduction, 1.0 (2002)
- Leofranc Holford-Strevens, 'Horror vacui in Lucretian biography', 1.1 (2002)
- Robert Sharples, 'Some problems in the theory of vision in DRN 4', 1.2 (2002)
- Gordon Campbell, 'Lucretius 5.1011-27: the origins of justice and the Prisoner's Dilemma', 1.3 (2002)
- Stephen Harrison, 'Ennius and the prologue to Lucretius DRN 1 (1.1-148)', 1.4 (2002)
- Malcolm Heath, 'Porphyry's rhetoric: texts and translation', 1.5 (2002)
Volume 2 (2003)
- Mary Frances Williams, 'The Sidus Iulium, the divinity of men, and the Golden Age in Virgil's Aeneid', 2.1 (2003)
- Malcolm Heath, 'Metalepsis, paragraphe and the scholia to Hermogenes', 2.2 (2003)
- Marco Fantuzzi, 'Pastoral love and "elegiac" love, from Greece to Rome', 2.3 (2003)
- David Sedley, 'Lucretius and the New Empedocles', 2.4 (2003)
- Hanna M. Roisman, 'Teiresias, the seer of Oedipus the King: Sophocles' and Seneca's versions', 2.5 (2003)
- Editorial introduction, 3.0 (2003/04)
- Alan H. Sommerstein, 'Cuckoos in tragic nests? Kephisophon and others', 3.1 (2003/04)
- William S. Anderson, 'Terence and the Roman rhetorical use of the Andria', 3.2 (2003/04)
- Eckard Lefèvre, 'Asides in New Comedy and the Palliata', 3.3 (2003/04)
- Adele C. Scafuro, 'The rigmarole of the parasite’s contract for a prostitute in Asinaria: legal documents in Plautus and his predecessors', 3.4 (2003/04)
- Colin Austin and S. Douglas Olson, 'On the date and plot of Aristophanes' lost ThesmophoriazusaeII', 3.5 (2003/04)
- Netta Zagagi, 'The dramatic function of "speaking back into the house" in Menander's Dyskolos', 3.6
- J.L. Butrica, 'The date of Aristophanes’ lost Thesmophoriazusae: a response to Austin and Olson', 3.7 (2003/04)
- Peter G.McC. Brown, 'Soldiers in New Comedy: insiders and outsiders', 3.8 (2003/04)
- Amy C. Smith, 'The politics of weddings at Athens: an iconographic assessment', 4.1 (2005)
- Mary English, 'The evolution of Aristophanic stagecraft', 4.3 (2005)
- Han Baltussen, 'Addenda Eudemea', 5.1 (2006)
- Foivos-Spyridon Karachalios, 'Aristophanes’ lost Thesmophoriazusae revisited: on the date and plot', 5.2 (2006)
- Josèphe-Henriette Abry, 'Manilius and Aratus: two Stoic poets on stars', 6.1 (2007)
- Kathryn L. Tempest, 'Cicero and the art of dispositio: the structure of the Verrines', 6.2 (2007)
- Richard Elfyn Jones, 'Some Platonic implications of Whitehead's concept of God', 6.3 (2007)
- E.E. Pender, 'Sappho and Anacreon in Plato's Phaedrus', 6.4 (2007)
- Richard Hawley, '"Give me a thousand kisses": the kiss, identity, and power in Greek and Roman antiquity', 6.5 (2007)
- Fiona McHardy, 'The "trial by water" in Greek myth and literature', 7.1 (2008)
- Elton T.E. Barker and Joel P. Christensen, 'Oedipus of many pains: strategies of contest in the Homeric poems', 7.2 (2008)
- Chiara Thumiger, 'ἀνάγκης ζεύγματ' ἐμπεπτώκαμεν: Greek tragedy between human and animal', 7.3 (2008)
- F.X. Ryan, 'Pacatus on the mnemonic capabilities of republican political figures', 8.1 (2009)
- Elton Barker et al., 'Mapping an ancient historian in a digital age: the Herodotus Encoded Space-Text-Image Archive (HESTIA)', 9.1 (2010)
- Stratis Kyriakidis, 'Heroides20 and 21: motion and emotions', 9.2 (2010)
- Michael Straus, 'Aristophanes’ Clouds in its ritual setting', 10.1 (2011)
- Kristian Urstad, 'The question of temperance and hedonism in Callicles', 10.2 (2011)
- Myrto Garani, 'Revisiting Tarpeia’s myth in Propertius (IV, 4)', 10.3 (2011)
- Charilaos N. Michalopoulos, 'Feminine speech in Roman love elegy: Prop. 1.3', 10.4 (2011)
- Stratis Kyriakidis, 'Ovid’s Metamorphoses: the text before and after', 11.1 (2013)
- E.E. Pender, '"Perforated right through": why Plato borrows Empedocles' klepsydra', 11.2 (2013)
This section is intended to provide a facility by which papers in a less than finished state can be made public in order to elicit feedback and discussion. Such papers may be withdrawn or revised without notice. The contents of this section will therefore not have the stability guaranteed for the regular volumes listed above.
- Gordon Campbell, Lucretius and the memes of prehistory', Discussion Paper 1 (2002)
- Malcolm Heath, 'Notes on the Anonymus Seguerianus', Discussion Paper 2 (2005)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA—The Annenberg Foundation has announced that it will return the 24 Native American masks and other artifacts it purchased at an auction in Paris earlier this week to the Hopi Nation in Arizona and the San Carlos Apache. French judges had blocked attempts by the tribes and the U.S. Embassy to stop the sale. “The Annenberg Foundation set an example today of how to do the right thing,” commented Sam Tenakhongva, a Hopi cultural leader.
Part of a bracelet
3rd Century AD
(Source: The British Museum)
DURHAM, ENGLAND--Geoarchaeologist Nicholas Felstead of Durham University has conducted a new analysis of human footprints discovered in northeastern Mexico in 1961. The tracks, uncovered during highway construction, had been preserved in travertine, a sedimentary rock that contains traces of uranium. Uranium decays into thorium at predictable rates, allowing scientists to measure the ratio of uranium to thorium and to determine the age of the specimen. Felstead dated the footprints to 10,500 years ago, making them the oldest human footprints in North America. Another track way of 11 prints found in a nearby quarry was dated to 7,250 years ago.
In Nieuwpoort is het nieuwe woonzorgcentrum ‘De Zathe’ een feit. Voorafgaandelijk aan de start van de bouwwerken werden archeologische opgravingen uitgevoerd op het domein. De resultaten van dit archeologisch onderzoek worden bekend gemaakt op vrijdag 13 december in de gebouwen van het OCMW (Astridlaan 103, Nieuwpoort). Geïnteresseerden kunnen er om 19u30 een lezing bijwonen, die wordt verzorgd door een deskundige van het archeologisch team.
It has come to our attention that the gazetteer functionality in À-la-carte was down. It has been fixed and should be functioning as normal.
Learn more about Open Access and Archaeology at: http://bit.ly/YHuyFK
What if I told you that before the first trowel goes into the ground for your public archaeology (#pubarch on twitter) dig you probably have excluded half the population? Would you be shocked? Would you be surprised? Has this ever crossed your mind?
About a month ago I wrote a post on diversity and archaeology, more specifically the lack of it in UK professional archaeology, and how location might be a factor in attracting audiences e.g. if you don’t have a car to get to a dig you won’t be able to participate. In this post I continue that trend by looking at how we schedule our public archaeology digs and how this affects what sort of audiences we attract. In the UK there are roughly 63 million people, as of the 2011 census. As of September there are roughly 30 million Brits in employment. Some quick math tells us that roughly 48% of the population is employed, both full and part time. That means that if you are hosting a #pubarch dig in the UK and it runs from about 9am to 5pm during the week (I have yet to hear of a dig that didn’t run from roughly 9-10am to 4-5pm) you have effectively eliminated half the population from participating in your public archaeology.
It also means that the only people that can participate in archaeology are unemployed, students (school groups or university), retired, or affluent enough to not have to work. Hmmmm- students, retirees, and the well off, also known as the trifecta of public archaeology participants and who you are most likely to find on a public archaeology dig. I know there are many, many, many, many, many, many, public excavations that bring in other types of participants. I use the trifecta as a general reference of who are most often found on #pubarch excavations not as a declaration that they are the only people found on #pubarch events (please don’t leave angry comments, these are just generalizations).
I know these numbers are fuzzy and not perfect. Some areas have higher unemployment than other areas. Part-time employment technically means that one could participate during the week for some of the time. However, if one takes into consideration that most children and all the way to young adults (ages 5-22ish) are in school/university for most of the year then actually only those schools/classes that are invited/can afford to visit a site participate and every other students is excluded. Even during the summer, when school is out, many digs require parent supervision to participate. So if the student’s parents are working it is unlikely that they could participate. Considering that 84% of the population is under the age of 65 it is likely that the majority of the population is unavailable to participate during the week. These people will only be able to participate during the weekends/holidays i.e. days off of work and school (if your school/class does not get invited to participate in a dig).
Now ask yourself how many #pubarch digs have you been on that are only on the weekends? I can think of a few but most run throughout the week. I can even think of a few #pubarch digs that only run during the working week (Mon.-Fri.). I won’t name anyone but you know who you are. In a best case scenario a #pubarch dig runs throughout the week and weekend for a grand total of 28% (2/7ths) of the time which is accessible to those who work/are dependent on those who work. Not horrible but defiantly not great.
Are we really surprised when most people that participate in archaeology tend to be older and/or from more affluent backgrounds (see my previous post)?
I have mention this to several other people and we have had discussed ways to change this. An obvious one is to just hold events on weekends. Of course then you miss out on your captive audience of school classes that you do invite to participate. The solution that we came up with is the Dig-B-Q. Named by David Connolly-actually, the first name he came up (other worse ones too, like bbcavation, but we don’t talk about them). The idea is simple, move the times of the digs to a later time to capture people after they are off work (1-8pm, maybe?). Of course this presents its own set of problems:
….to name a few.
Thus the need to possibly change the format into a more festive atmosphere like a BBQ to bring people out but still get them involved in archaeology. Daylight should not be an issue as most #pubarch is conducted in the summer when the weather is nice and there is more sun. In Scotland we end up with the sun setting at 10pm and 17hrs of sunlight during the summer. Not everyplace will be blessed (and cursed in the winter) with such daylight but most places will have light till at least 7 or 8pm. We are hoping to test this out this summer and I will report back if it actually makes a difference in terms of those that participate. This may turn out to be a failure but we won’t know till we try. At the same time we should be discussing how our current methods of conducting public archaeology tends to eliminate half of the potential participants before we even start to dig.
How cuneiform is tablets are taught & studied at University of California in Los angeles (UCLA)
Bronze Figure of a Man
100 BC - AD 1
Hellenistic/ Roman Period
The figure has been identified as the remaining figure of part of a group showing Herakles subduing the Keryneian hind sacred to Artemis. The facial features also have a general resemblance to Hellenistic royal portraits.
(Source: The British Museum)
The remains of the ancient Greek city-state of Corinth, Greece.
The Corinthian land is a portion of the Argive, and is named after Corinthus. That Corinthus was a son of Zeus I have never known anybody say seriously except the majority of the Corinthians.
Eumelus, the son of Amphilytus, of the family called Bacchidae, who is said to have composed the epic poem, says in his Corinthian History (if indeed the history be his) that Ephyra, the daughter of Oceanus, dwelt first in this land;
that afterwards Marathon, the son of Epopeus, the son of Aloeus, the son of Helius (Sun), fleeing from the lawless violence of his father migrated to the sea coast of Attica;
that on the death of Epopeus he came to Peloponnesus, divided his kingdom among his sons, and returned to Attica;
and that Asopia was renamed after Sicyon, and Ephyraea after Corinthus.
Photos courtesy & taken by Ronny Siegel.
It’s getting to the end of the year, and I’m feeling a little retrospective and I’m (anxiously) looking forward to the future. We have enjoyed a great year with Open Context (see here).
More generally, it’s obviously been a big year for all things “open.” The White House has embraced Open Access and Open Data policies, and even recognized the work of some advocates of reform, and that has been hugely exciting. It seems that the arguments for greater openness have finally led to some meaningful changes. All of these are signs of real progress.
However, I’m increasingly convinced that advocating for openness in research (or government) isn’t nearly enough. There’s been too much of an instrumentalist justification for open data an open access. Many advocates talk about how it will cut costs and speed up research and innovation. They also argue that it will make research more “reproducible” and transparent so interpretations can be better vetted by the wider community. Advocates for openness, particularly in open government, also talk about the wonderful commercial opportunities that will come from freeing research.
This last justification boils down to creating a “research commons” in order to remove impediments for (text, data) mining of that commons in order to foster entrepreneurialism and create wealth. This is pretty explicit here in this announcement from Europeana, the EU’s major open culture system (now threatened with devastating cuts). I don’t have a problem with wealth creation as an outcome of greater openness in research. Who doesn’t want more wealth? However we need to ask about wealth creation for whom and under what conditions? Will the lion’s share of the wealth created on newly freed research only go to a tiny elite class of investors? Will it simply mean a bit more profit for Google and a few other big aggregators? Will this wealth be taxed and redistributed enough to support and sustain the research commons exploited to feed it? The fact that the new OSTP embrace of “Open Data” in research in an unfunded mandate makes me worry about the prospect of “clear-cutting” the open data commons.
These are all very big policy issues, but they need to be asked if the “open movement” really stands for reform and not just a further expansion and entrenchment of Neoliberalism. I’m using the term “Neoliberalism” because it resonates as a convenient label for describing how and why so many things seem to suck in Academia. Exploding student debt, vanishing job security, increasing compensation for top administrators, expanding bureaucracy and committee work, corporate management methodologies (Taylorism), and intensified competition for ever-shrinking public funding all fall under the general rubric of Neoliberalism. Neoliberal universities primarily serve the needs of commerce. They need to churn out technically skilled human resources (made desperate for any work by high loads of debt) and easily monetized technical advancements.
This recent White House announcement about making universities “partner at the speed of business” could not be a clearer example of the Neoliberal mindset. It was written by Tom Kalil, one of the administration’s leading advocates for open science. The same White House that has embraced “open government,” “open science,” and “open data” has also ruthlessly fought whistle-blowers (Snowden), perpetuated ubiquitous surveillance (in conjunction with telecom and tech giants), hounded Aaron Swartz (my take here), and secretly negotiated the TPP, a far reaching expansion of intellectual property controls and punishments. All of these developments happened in a context of record corporate profits and exploding wealth inequality. And yes, I think these are all related trends.
How can something so wonderful and right as “openness” further promote Neoliberalism? After all, aren’t we the rebels blasting at the exhaust vents of Elsevier’s Death Star? But in selling openness to the heads of foundations, businesses, governments and universities, we often end up adopting the tropes of Neoliberalism. As a tactic, that’s perfectly reasonable. As a long-term strategy, I think it’s doomed.
The problem is not that the Open Movement is wrong. The problem is that the need for reform goes far deeper than simply making papers and data available under CC-By or CC-Zero. Exploitative publishing regimes are symptomatic of larger problems in the distribution of wealth and power. The concentration of wealth that warps so much of our political and economic life will inevitably warp the Open Movement toward unintended and unwanted outcomes.
Let’s face it. Most researchers that I know who are lucky enough to be employed are doing the work of 4 or 5 people (see also this paper by Rosalind Gil). Even some of my friends, lucky enough to have tenure or tenure-track positions, seem miserable. Maybe it’s survivor guilt, but they are stressed, distracted, and harried. Time and attention are precious and spent judiciously, usually in a manner where rewards are clear and certain. Data management plans, data sharing or collaboration on GitHub? Who has time for all that?! They don’t count for much in the academic rat-race, and so the normative reward structures in the Academy create perverse incentives for neglecting or outright hoarding of data.
Data sharing advocates talk about how data should get rewarded just like other forms of publication. Data should “count” with measurable impacts. As a data sharing advocate, much of this really does appeal to me. Making data sharing and collaboration part of the mainstream would be fantastic. If we convince universities to monitor data citation metrics, they can “incentivize” more data sharing. We can also monitor participation in social media (Twitter), version control (GitHub), etc. All of these statistics can be compiled and collated to provide an even more totalizing picture of a researcher’s contributions.
But are more metrics (even Alt-metrics) really the solution to the perverse incentives embodied by our existing metrics? The much derided “Impact Factor” started out as a way for librarians to make more informed choices about journal subscriptions (at least according to this account). In that context, the Impact Factor was relatively benign, but it then became a tool for Taylorism and the (coercive) monitoring of research outputs by university bureaucracies (see this history). That metric helps shape who gets hired and fired. And while metrics can be useful tools, the Impact Factor case shows hows metrics can be used by bureaucracies to reward and punish.
What does all of this have to do with the Open Movement?
One’s position as a subordinate in today’s power structures is partially defined by living under the microscope of workplace monitoring. Does such monitoring promote conformity? The freedom, innovation, and creativity we hope to unlock through openness requires greater toleration for risk. Real and meaningful openness means encouraging out-of-the-ordinary projects that step out of the mainstream. Here is where I’m skeptical about relying upon metrics-based incentives to share data or collaborate on GitHub.
By the time metrics get incorporated into administrative structures, the behaviors they measure aren’t really innovative any more!
Worse, as certain metrics grow in significance (meaning – they’re used in the allocation of money), entrenched constituencies build around them. Such constituencies become interested parties in promoting and perpetuating a given metric, again leading to conformity.
Metrics, even better Alt-metrics, won’t make researchers or research more creative and innovative. The crux of the problem centers A Hunger Games-style “winner take all” dynamic that pervades commerce and in the Academy. A rapidly shrinking minority has any hope of gaining job security or the time and resources needed for autonomous research. In an employment environment where one slip means complete ejection from the academy, risk-taking becomes quasi-suicidal. With employment increasingly precarious, professional pressures balloon in ways that make risk taking and going outside of established norms unthinkable. Adding more or better metrics without addressing the underlying job security issues just adds to the ways people will be ejected from the research community.
Metrics, while valuable, need to carry fewer professional consequences. In other words, researchers need freedom to experiment and fail and not make every last article, grant proposal, or tweet “count.”
“Big Data,” “Data Science,” and “Open Data” are now hot topics at universities. Investments are flowing into dedicated centers and programs to establish institutional leadership in all things related to data. I welcome the new Data Science effort at UC Berkeley to explore how to make research data professionalism fit into the academic reward systems. That sounds great! But will these new data professionals have any real autonomy in shaping how they conduct their research and build their careers? Or will they simply be part of an expanding class of harried and contingent employees hired and fired through the whims of creative destruction fueled by the latest corporate-academic hype-cycle?
Researchers, including #AltAcs and “data professionals”, need a large measure of freedom. Miriam Posner’s discussion about the career and autonomy limits of Alt-academic-hood help highlight these issues. Unfortunately, there’s only one area where innovation and failure seem survivable, and that’s the world of the start-up. I’ve noticed how the “Entrepreneurial Spirit” gets celebrated lots in this space. I’m guilty of basking in it myself (10 years as a quasi-independent #altAc in a nonprofit I co-founded!).
But in the current Neoliberal setting, being an entrepreneur requires a singular focus on monetizing innovation. PeerJ and Figshare are nice, since they have business models that less “evil” than Elsevier’s. But we need to stop fooling ourselves that the only institutions and programs that we can and should sustain are the ones that can turn a profit. For every PeerJ or Figshare (and these are ultimately just as dependent on continued public financing of research as any grant-driven project), we also need more innovative organizations like the Internet Archive, wholly dedicated to the public good and not the relentless pressure to commoditize everything (especially their patrons’ privacy). We need to be much more critical about the kinds of programs, organizations, and financing strategies we (as a society) can support. I raised the political economy of sustainability issue at a recent ThatCamp and hope to see more discussion.
In reality so much of the Academy’s dysfunctions are driven by our new Gilded Age’s artificial scarcity of money. With wealth concentrated in so few hands, it is very hard to finance risk taking and entreprenurialism in the scholarly community, especially to finance any form of entrepreneurialism that does not turn a profit in a year or two.
Open Access and Open Data will make so much more of a difference if we had the same kind of dynamism in the academic and nonprofit sector as we have in the for-profit start-up sector. After all, Open Access and Open Data can be key enablers to allow much broader participation in research and education. However, broader participation still needs to be financed: you cannot eat an open access publication. We cannot gloss over this key issue.
We need more diverse institutional forms so that researchers can find (or found) the kinds of organizations that best channel their passions into contributions that enrich us all. We need more diverse sources of financing (new foundations, better financed Kickstarters) to connect innovative ideas with the capital needed to see them implemented. Such institutional reforms will make life in the research community much more livable, creative, and dynamic. It would give researchers more options for diverse and varied career trajectories (for-profit or not-for-profit) suited to their interests and contributions.
Making the case to reinvest in the public good will require a long, hard slog. It will be much harder than the campaign for Open Access and Open Data because it will mean contesting Neoliberal ideologies and constituencies that are deeply entrenched in our institutions. However, the constituencies harmed by Neoliberalism, particularly the student community now burdened by over $1 trillion in debt and the middle class more generally, are much larger and very much aware that something is badly amiss. As we celebrate the impressive strides made by the Open Movement in the past year, it’s time we broaden our goals to tackle the needs for wider reform in the financing and organization of research and education.
2013 has been a really big year for open data. In February, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced a new mandate for open access to peer-reviewed outcomes of federally-funded research, including publications and data. The various agencies have been exploring how they will enact this new policy, and have welcomed input from the public.
Beyond these developments on the federal level, many institutions have shifted gears to promote the free exchange of data. New developments in archaeology include the adoption of a data management policy by the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, and special panel discussions relating to open access and publishing at the upcoming AIA and SAA meetings. On a broader scale, the Nature Publishing Group recently announced Scientific Data a new, open access, publication for descriptions datasets (they also provide an excellent video about data publishing). The tragic loss of open access advocate Aaron Swartz in January may well have galvanized a move toward more openness over the course of the year. His case cast a spotlight on the misalignment of scholarship and the exchange of ideas with the laws governing copyright and computer networks. His loss underscored some of the ethical stakes associated with access to knowledge.
We at Open Context have been vocal advocates for open data publishing for some time now. In short, we believe that open data publishing not only makes research more effective, but it better aligns archaeology with the public spirit. We’ve been promoting these perspectives through publications and presentations (see some examples here and here). Our most recent call for open access to research content appeared in The SAA Archaeological Record this fall (the article is available Open Access from SAA). This year also saw a White House honor for Open Context’s Program Director Eric Kansa as a Champion of Change for his contributions to Open Science (see the NEH announcement).
We’re also striving to practice what we preach. Open Context published 18 projects this year. Fourteen of these are already cited in conventional publications. A few examples:
As the ecosystem of open data grows, the various participants are finding innovative ways of leveraging the power of the Web. For instance, online publications like Internet Archaeology and the Journal of Open Archaeology Data are establishing extensive networks of partners to archive data that links to their publications. Open Context is listed by both services as a recommended to host datasets related to their publications. The direction this is going is making sure the linking is two ways—a link from the dataset to the paper, and a link from the paper back to the dataset.
We are delighted to see data publishing catching on and look forward to what 2014 will bring!
Bei den Veröffentlichungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens ist zwischen Editionen und wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen zu unterscheiden. Die Editionsreihe trägt den Titel: Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. In dieser Reihe sind bislang 23 Bände, das sind knapp Zweidrittel der Gesamtausgabe, erschienen. Mit dem 2004 publizierten ersten Teilband des Rahlfs’schen Handschriftenverzeichnisses in der Neubearbeitung von Detlef Fraenkel wurde eine Supplementreihe zur Edition eröffnet. Von den unter dem Gesamttitel Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens (MSU) erscheinenden Untersuchungen, deren Schwerpunkt bisher vor allem auf dem Gebiet der Text- und Überlieferungsgeschichte lag, werden die kürzeren Einzelstudien in den Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Phil.- hist. Klasse, die monographischen Beiträge in den Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften I. Phil.- hist. Klasse veröffentlicht.
Within the body of publications produced by the Septuaginta-Unternehmen, one can distinguish between editions and studies. The series of editions is entitled Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. At present, it comprises 23 volumes—which adds up to about two thirds of the complete Septuagint corpus. In 2004, a supplementary series to the edition was launched with the first volume of D. Fraenkel’s revised edition of A. Rahlfs’ Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Scholarly research on textual criticism and the transmission history of the Septuagint is published in the series Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens (MSU). This collective title is used to gathers studies that are published in the Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Phil.-hist. Klasse (in the case of shorter studies), and in the Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften I. Phil.-hist. Klasse (for monographs).
Vol. 22R. Hanhart, Ein unbekannter Text zur griechischen Esra-Überlieferung, Göttingen 1995.
Vol. 15J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, Göttingen 1979.
Vol. 4A. Rahlfs, Paul de Lagardes wissenschaftliches Lebenswerk im Rahmen einer Geschichte seines Lebens dargestellt, Berlin 1928.
Vol. 3,1A. Rahlfs, Über einige alttestamentliche Handschriften des Abessinierklosters S. Stefano zu Rom, Berlin 1918.
Vol. 2A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1914.
Vol. 1,6L. Lütkemann/A. Rahlfs, Hexaplarische Randnoten zu Isaias 1–16, aus einer Sinai-Handschrift, Berlin 1915.
Vol. 1,5A. Rahlfs, Die alttestamentlichen Lektionen der griechischen Kirche, Berlin 1915.
@ Wonders and Marvels:
… by Adrienne Mayor
If refrains of “Put Christ Back In Christmas” were ever appropriate, this might be it. And given that cats are atheists (except for the ones who hold ancient Egyptian views of their own divinity), this is perhaps unsurprising. Indeed, perhaps they have situated themselves where they have precise in order to demand worship!
Someone at some point in all this ought to quote John 20:13: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”