CIDOC CRM and Epigraphy: a Hermeneutic Challenge

1. CIDOC CRM and Epigraphy: a Hermeneutic Challenge Achille Felicetti*, Francesca Murano**, Paola Ronzino*, Franco Niccolucci* * PIN, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy ** Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy

2. General Goals • Epigraphic information: important and valuable knowledge that needs to be digitized and integrated with other cultural heritage information • Primary source • “First hand” knowledge • Unique place of information on past events • To evaluate existing standards, tools and technologies for digital management of epigraphic entities • To propose the use of innovative tools such as ontologies and conceptual models to capture and represent the depth and complexity of the epigraphic world

3. What is Epigraphy? • Scientific discipline with a centuries-old tradition • No shared definition of what an epigraph (or inscription) is • General definition: “direct evidences of the past inscribed on stone or other durable materials” • Materiality of the support to distinguish epigraphy from papyrology (Guarducci, 1967) • “ … any particular type of written humancommunication of the sort that we would today call unidirectional, in the sense that it does not anticipate that a response will be provided to the sender, and which has the characteristic of not being addressed to a person or to a group but to a collectivity, and which for this reason is made with the location, writing technique, graphic form and impagination, mode and register of expression chosen because they are most suitable to the attainment of its intended goal, and which differentiates itself in this manner from other forms of contemporary verbal communication (oral, literary, or documentary) “(Panciera, 2012) • Not sufficiently exhaustive with regard to the huge variety of documents that are the object of epigraphic studies and may be included in epigraphic corpora

4. Epigraphy: a complex word • Different techniques and different supports • Durable but also not intended to be durable (e.g. Linear B tablets) • Different purposes • Mostly public but also private communication (e.g. Vindolanda tablets, defixiones) • Different cultures and different writing traditions • Epigraphic products from the major Western traditions (Latin and Greek) • “Minor” Western traditions (e.g. the languages of ancient Italy) • Non-Western traditions (e.g. inscriptions of the Semitic world)

5. Epigraphy: a complex word • Ambiguity of reference with respect to the term “epigraph” • Used to indicate both the text and the combination of text and physical support • Support often created expressly for bearing the text … but … • Inscriptions may appear on artefacts made for different purposes (e.g. vessels) • Inscriptions may appear on non-artefacts or on natural surfaces (caves, cliffs...)

6. The nature of an epigraph • Epigraphy: from ἐπιγραφή (literally "on-writing”) • Main aspects (according with the tradition of epigraphic studies): • The text-bearing object or monument -> often an archaeological object • The epigraphic field ->aportion of the physical carrier reserved for accommodating an inscription • The feature of the inscription engraved on the support in the form of letters or other symbols • Thetext of the inscription -> a linguistic object • The feature is the element that characterizes and differentiates an epigraph from any other manifestation of written communication (e.g. documents on papyrus and parchment)

7. The Nature of an Epigraph Inscription (feature) Physical Object Inscription (text) Epigraphic Field C. CORNELIVS C. F. Vot. CALVOS VIVOS SIBI ET L. CORNELIO C. F. VOT. FRATRI H. M. H. N. S.

8. The nature of an epigraph • Semiotic purpose of the epigraphic text • Intentional features -> voluntarily created by man with the explicit will of convey a message • Distinguishes inscriptions from features of any kind present on a rigid support (e.g. figurative decoration) • Semiotic features • Non alphabetic feature -> figurative decoration, icons or symbols (e.g. the sign of the Christian Cross) • Alphabetic feature -> which in turn could take on a linguistic or non linguistic value • Non linguistic value -> decorative purpose or used as symbols (e.g. the Aand Ωsigns used as symbols of the beginning and end in the Christian tradition) • Linguistic value -> encoders of linguistic signs. Only in this case we can talk of written communication and specifically of inscriptions

9. Standards for Epigraphy: Leiden Conventions • Standard to publishingtexts using a shared notation • To describe the various observable phenomena they show • To specify features of an inscription besides the text itself • To use a set of standard symbols and text decorations • To reproduce the state of the original document and to report the editors’ interpretations • Created by an international group of scholars in Leiden in 1931 • Still adopted and implemented in many important epigraphic corpora • Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg (EDH) • Inscriptions of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) • Epigraphic Database of Rome (EDR) • Descriptive fields used for metadata • Find locations • Dates • Dimensions • Text field containing the text of the inscription in Leiden format

10. (Digital) Standards for Epigraphy: TEI/EpiDoc • Designed to transcode in digital format the Leiden-encoded printed editions • Developed in the 1990s as a free and unrestricted set of tools supporting the creation of online epigraphic archives • Application profile of TEI specifically adapted to the needs of epigraphy • XML format was identified as the most suitable for this purpose • Quickly adopted by a relatively wide community of re- searchers • Recording of the materiality and history of text-bearing objects • Scholarly editions: commentary, illustrations, bibliography, and publication data. • Detailed description and editorial representation of the texts themselves • Transcription • Readings • Writing system • Form, appearance, layout • Editorial interventions

11. TEI/EpiDoc Open Issues • No native tools fully able to support the text editing • Text edition still remains a manual task • Not suitable for digitalisation of large corpora • Style sheet (DTD or XSD) necessary for rendering of the XML encoded text -> inseparable from it • Portability and sharing of information between archives and on the Web • No features to describe inter and extra textual relationships • Ontologies and semantic tools needed to manage the complexity of the epigraphic world

12. CIDOC CRM and Epigraphy • VBI ERAT LVPA Project (2004) -> to use CIDOC CRM for the integration of epigraphic digital archives • First attempt to describe an epigraph and its various components using conceptual tools • EAGLE Project • Methodological proposals to harmonize EpiDoc and CIDOC CRM • Definition of mappings between EpiDoc and CIDOC CRM • ARIADNE Project • Study of inscriptions as archaeological objects • Summer Schools: interoperability between archaeology and epigraphy • ARIADNE partially supports this research

13. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Physical Support • Points of contact between epigraphy and archaeology • Archaeological object, already investigated in a CIDOC CRM perspective • Specific archaeological aspects (discovery, provenance, archaeological context) documented using the CRMarchaeo extension • Text-bearing objects in epigraphy • Specifically created to accommodate the inscription -> E84 Information Carrier • Made for different purposes -> E22 Man-Made Object • Natural surfaces not created by human activities (i.e. rocks, caves or other natural places) -> E19 Physical Object • All classes linked with the physical features they bear, via the P56 bears feature property (domain = E19 Physical Objecy and inherited by subclasses) • EpiDoc mappings: supportDesc, material, objectType and dimension tags

14. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Inscription • CIDOC CRM E34 Inscription • Scope notes: “this class comprises recognisable, short texts attached to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing” • Brevity or length of an inscription is not among its main characteristics • Res Gestae Divi Augusti • Gortyn Law Code • Too vague and undefined

15. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Inscription • CIDOC CRM E34 Inscription -> Conceptual object • “Non-material products of our minds and other human produced data” • Not consistent with the essence of an epigraph and its “materiality” • Etymology of the word “epigraph” indicates as a fundamental condition of its identity its being written on something • Much more similar to CRM classes created for the description of physical features -> E25 Man-Made Feature • New and more appropriate classes needed for modelling inscription • Engraving -> specific production event

16. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Inscription • EPI1 Epigraph • “Subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a particular feature created by humans in various ways and on various kinds of support with the declared purpose of conveying a specific message towards a given recipient or group of recipients” • EPI2 Engraving • “Subclass of E12 Production indicating the activity of creating inscriptions in an epigraphic sense by using various techniques (painting, sculpture, graffiti etc.) and by means of specific tools on a given physical carrier” • Distinction between creation of inscriptions and production of the physical carriers that host them -> not always contemporary events • Distinction between creation of an epigraph from literary texts written on a papyrus or parchment

17. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Epigraphic Field • EPI3 Epigraphic Field • “Subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature representingthe surface or portion of the physical carrier reserved, delimited and arranged for the purpose of accommodating an inscription, to highlight it and to iso- late it from the other parts of the object or building to which it belongs” • Conceptually: a feature designed to accommodate another feature (the inscription) • EpiDoc mappings: layoutDesc and other related tags • EPP2 is included within property, sub property of P56 bears feature

18. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation The Text • E33 Linguistic Object used to model the text, intended as a linguisticproduct, which the inscription records • Obtained through observation and decoding of the signs of the feature and the interpretation of the linguistic signs they refer to • “Reading” of the epigraph -> event modelled through the S4 Observation class of CRMsci extension • Specific instrumentation to assist reading (microscopes or magnifying glasses) • Documentation of the different processes of analysis and study carried out over the years by various scholars

19. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation Other Entities • S4 Observation -> O16 observed values • Graphemes -> E90 Symbolic Object: abstract representation of the linguistic signs encoded in the text • Definition of the inscription alphabet definition needed (but not easy …)

20. A Tentative CIDOC CRM Representation Other Entities • EPI4 Transcription • “Subclass of E7 Activity describing the specific operation of transliteration that, starting from the symbols observed on the epigraph leads to the creation of a set of instances of E73 Information Object recording the transcription(s) performed” • EPI5 Writing System • “Subclass of E29 Design or Procedure, which refers to a specific sequence of characters chosen from an official alphabet with standard encoding (e.g. Latin letters) and used to transliterate the graphemes

21. CRMepi Model

22. CRMepi Example Oscan Inscription VE.150

23. Conclusions and Further Work • Creating an epigraphic extension of CIDOC CRM: we have just scratched the surface • Representation of thesurface of the inscription by a photo, 3D model or other reproduction to be used as assistance for the observation or being "evaluated" in case of erosion, abrasion etc. • Semantically relevant elements in the text that need to be captured • Actor appellations to be related with actors of the past (commissioners, people to whom epigraphs were dedicated, …) • Place appellations to be related with places where inscriptions were located • Use of thesauri and gazetteers like Pleiades to operate further enrichment

24. Thank you • Achille Felicetti • PIN, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy • achille.felicetti@pin.unifi.it