Temples and other such monuments in Pleiades

[Ethan Gruber]

I have noticed that there are a fair number of monuments that have Pleiades IDs. Some extant monuments from Rome have IDs (like temples A and C in Largo Argentina), but the annotation of temples is not consistent (temples B and D do not have IDs). Is Pleiades intended to be so granular as to be used to identify individual structures within a single place? Should topographers be encouraged to become more involved?

The reason I ask is that we are looking to expand the research potential in Online Coins of the Roman Empire to link coins to identifiers for monuments that may be depicted upon them. Would it be worth filling in the gaps in monuments in the Pleiades system or is there another venue for this? I think there is tremendous potential in a LOD network of ancient architecture, especially if you can incorporate printed publications, depictions on coins, and 3D reconstructions.

Ethan

[Johan Åhlfeldt]

Hi Ethan,

I don’t know anything about the future plans of Pleiades, but projects like the “Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire” (DARE) and “Vici.org - Archaeological Atlas of Antiquity” have been mapping and expanding the Barrington Atlas dataset with new places and buildings for two years. Both projects are part of the Pelagios 3 network of gazetteers, see https://github.com/pelagios/pelagios-cookbook/wiki/Joining-Pelagios

There are thousands of structures like temples, theaters, amphitheaters etc. In DARE, such structures belonging to a city or another main site are implemented as sub-places. Regardless of that, they can all be referenced by stable identifiers, for instance,

the Temple of Augustus, Pula in Croatia

http://imperium.ahlfeldt.se/places/20227 and http://vici.org/vici/7872

and the amphitheater of Pula

http://imperium.ahlfeldt.se/places/20225 and http://vici.org/vici/4142

 

Best regards,

Johan Åhlfeldt, Lund University, Sweden

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ethan Gruber

To: pelagios...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:46 PM

Subject: [pelagios] Temples and other such monuments in Pleiades

 

I have noticed that there are a fair number of monuments that have Pleiades IDs. Some extant monuments from Rome have IDs (like temples A and C in Largo Argentina), but the annotation of temples is not consistent (temples B and D do not have IDs). Is Pleiades intended to be so granular as to be used to identify individual structures within a single place? Should topographers be encouraged to become more involved?

The reason I ask is that we are looking to expand the research potential in Online Coins of the Roman Empire to link coins to identifiers for monuments that may be depicted upon them. Would it be worth filling in the gaps in monuments in the Pleiades system or is there another venue for this? I think there is tremendous potential in a LOD network of ancient architecture, especially if you can incorporate printed publications, depictions on coins, and 3D reconstructions.

Ethan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pelagios" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pelagios-proje...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Elliott]

Ethan:

Pleiades welcomes the addition of monuments. Where they can be deemed to have been “places” in and of themselves (e.g., a house in Herculaneum or the mausoleum of Augustus) they can indeed be full-fledged places in Pleiades. There is revised editorial guidance on the hows, whys, and wherefores that is now in final preparation by the editorial college.

Tom

Tom Elliott, Ph.D.
Associate Director for Digital Programs and Senior Research Scholar
Institute for the Study of the Ancient World (NYU)
http://isaw.nyu.edu/people/staff/tom-elliott