Anteriority index for managing fuzzy dates in archæological GIS

Abstract

During the exploitation of an archaeological geographical information system, experts need to evaluate the anteriority in pairs of dates which are uncertain and inaccurate, and consequently represented by fuzzy numbers. To build their hypotheses, they need to have an assessment, taking value in [0, 1], of the relation ''lower than'' between two FNs. We answer the experts' need of evaluation by constructing an anteriority index based on the Kerre index. Two applications, which constitute a step in the evaluation of the evolution of Reims during the domination of the Roman Empire, illustrate the use of the anteriority index.

Historical Collaborative Geocoding

“…We considered the valid time of each map as the period starting with the beginning of the topographic survey and ending with the publication of the map, which are often uncertain. Representing uncertain or imprecise periods of time is a common issue when dealing with historical information and many authors relied on the fuzzy set theory to represent and reason on imperfect temporal knowledge [23,24].…”

The Temporal Dimension in a 4D Archaeological Data Model: Applicability of the Geoinformation Standard

“…Peuquet's (2001) statement that "it is not always as simple as valid and database time" is illustrated by Katsianis et al (2008) who deduct six potential temporal categories for archaeological finds (Table 1). Table 1 Temporal categories identified by Katsianis et al (2008) A temporal value for an archaeological finding cannot be read on the object itself, but is the result of analysis and interpretation (Smedja, 2009;de Runz et al, 2010;Tsipidis et al, 2011). Consequently, archaeological dates are often subjective, uncertain and imprecise (Katsianis et al, 2008;de Runz, 2010;Green, 2011).…”

The Temporal Dimension in a 4d Archaeological Data Model: Applicability of the Geoinformation Standard

“…Peuquet's (2001) statement that "it is not always as simple as valid and database time" is illustrated by Katsianis et al (2008) who deduct six potential temporal categories for archaeological finds (Table 1). Table 1 Temporal categories identified by Katsianis et al (2008) A temporal value for an archaeological finding cannot be read on the object itself, but is the result of analysis and interpretation (Smedja, 2009;de Runz et al, 2010;Tsipidis et al, 2011). Consequently, archaeological dates are often subjective, uncertain and imprecise (Katsianis et al, 2008;de Runz, 2010;Green, 2011).…”

“…Table 1 Temporal categories identified by Katsianis et al (2008) A temporal value for an archaeological finding cannot be read on the object itself, but is the result of analysis and interpretation (Smedja, 2009;de Runz et al, 2010;Tsipidis et al, 2011). Consequently, archaeological dates are often subjective, uncertain and imprecise (Katsianis et al, 2008;de Runz, 2010;Green, 2011). This uncertainty is inherently linked to archaeological data in general (Katsianis et al, 2008;Cripps et al, 2012).…”

“…This uncertainty is inherently linked to archaeological data in general (Katsianis et al, 2008;Cripps et al, 2012). An anteriority index is proposed by de Runz et al (2010) to indicate the reliability associated to a specific date. Holmen and Ore (2010) present an event-oriented system based on the CIDOC conceptual model (see Crofts et al, 2011) which enables the detection of dating conflicts, the improvement of start and end dates and the display of chronologies.…”