standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
content_tags↗Spatial analytical methods predate the field of digital humanities, most notably through cartography, the practice of drawing and studying maps. transfersMore recently, the spatial analysis of texts via Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is trending as a research method. sensescontent_tagsMapping pre-modern space is rarely a matter of documenting toponyms or establishing precise coordinates. mechanismssensesRather, space becomes place through interaction with historical agents and the human footprint left on the ground in the form of monuments, religious sites and other infrastructures. limitationsWhile content_tagscontemporary geographic information science and historical modes of describing space often appear to have disparate, even incompatible, viewpoints of the world, there is a growing ecosystem that seeks to remedy the complexity of ancient space. alternativesThis ecosystem of tools, content and communities about ancient place and space illustrate how collaboration within the field of digital humanities can be an opportunity for scientific discovery.
research_questionphenomenonAgainst this backdrop, this paper examines the affordances and challenges in interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, projects and contemporary digital research infrastructures for the analysis of ancient narratives. Our case study is a well-known ancient narrative of space: content_tags↗namely Pausanias’s Periegesis Hellados ( Description of Greece ), a ten-volume description of Greek towns, villages, monuments, works of art and their histories from Attica to Phocis, following a circuit around the Peloponnese. The Digital Periegesis project, funded by the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation (MAW 2017.0057; 2018–2021), and comprising an interdisciplinary team of scholars builds on existing digital spatial research infrastructures, sensescontent_tagsusing maps as visual portals into narratives, as a means to interrogate rather than merely illustrate spatial information. limitationsIn the second phase of the project that is financed by the Swedish Research Council from 2022 to 2026 (Vetenskapsrådet 2021-02799) the Digital Periegesis project is set out to investigate descriptions of time and people and to incorporate this to the ongoing Digital Periegesis’s visualisation.
method↗This long research paper then discusses scientific collaboration between researchers and research infrastructures more generally, incorporating information about space, time and people into a reflexive process to illuminate change and development as a way of understanding place fully. From the outset, the Digital Periegesis’ project team utilize an existing eco-system of digital spatial research infrastructure and analysis but also additional and customized infrastructures that are used more widely, beyond Pausanias’s Description of Greece. contributionsensesThe overarching argument presented here is that Digital Periegesis is not simply a collaboration of scholars from different backgrounds and with different skills, which is a standard interdisciplinary practice in Digital Humanities. claim_typesensesalternativesAdditionally, the Digital Periegesis project team is attempting to break new ground in applying linked data methods and tools and, as such, is establishing a new model of collaboration.
At one level, this collaboration promotes a bottom up approach: that is establishing workflows and pipelines, involving a broader community of classicists, archaeologists and digital humanists. claim_relationsconcept_edgesCollaboration is thus manifested in reusing data— a TEI digital text, as well as reusing tools, more specifically the semantic annotation tool Recogito, developed by the Pelagios Network of Partners. mechanismsconcept_edgesAt another level, the Digital Periegesis project team hosts a private and customized instance of Recogito in order to make use of actual archaeological databases, such as the German Archaeological Institute’s DAI/ ARACHNE for semantically annotating the more granular aspects of Pausanias's description (temples, statues, etc.). content_tagsBut collaboration, recycling and reuse of data and resources does not end there for the Digital Periegesis project team. mechanismsExamples of such reuse and recycling include yet are not limited to, drawing on other resources, namely Wikidata, to provide URIs; providing the enriched, annotated Pausanias’s text back to the Perseus Digital Library; and returning new place information to the Pleiades structured vocabulary of ancient place data. content_tagsAdditionally, the Digital Periegesis research group is developing open source tools in collaboration for enabling the visualization and search of geospatial information specifically in the re-launch of Peripleo — which has subsequently been taken up by other projects, notably the British Library.
claim_relationsclaim_relationsOur project is essentially theoretically and methodologically inspired by the field of spatial humanities (e.g. Bodenhamer–Corrigan–Harris 2010). As is well rehearsed, the value of ‘locating historical and cultural exegesis more explicitly in space and time’ (Bodenhamer 2010: 28) has greatly assisted historical inquiry into places (Gregory and Ell 2007; Gregory–Geddes 2014). Applications of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) hold the promise of facilitating the gathering, management and analysis of spatially based data systematically (Gregory–Healey 2007; Dunn 2019). limitationslimitationsclaim_relationsconcept_edgesYet, the very systematic structure of a GIS is frequently ill-suited to capturing aspects of uncertainty and ambiguity that typically characterise, and explain interest in, Humanities data (Gregory–Healey 2007: 641; Harris–Bergeron–Rouse 2011: 228; Dunn 2019). claim_relationsclaim_relationsSpecifically, our project derives directly from the Hestia project’s blended methodological approach to exploring literary geography, which had highlighted ways in which texts organise spatial knowledge, based on relations between places (Bouzarovski–Barker 2016; Barker–Pelling 2016). concept_edgesThe semantic annotation tool Recogito has been attracting increasing adoption in both the research into, and teaching of, places in historical records (Palladino 2016, 2021; O'Doherty 2021; Dunn–Vitale 2021). mechanismscontent_tagsThe fact that our use of Recogito is the most extensive, dense and complex application of this platform also goes to underline the value of the experience that we can share with the rest of the DH community, as Recogito itself undergoes a major overhaul.
To conclude, by finding ways to compartmentalize concepts of space, people and time in a centuries’ old narrative the Digital Periegesis research team had the opportunity to engage and consequentially to collaborate with relevant content, but also tools and communities. Ultimately and through this knowledge production process, the Digital Periegesis project team are moving beyond the confines of a Digital Humanities research project and are contributing and enriching the wider and global landscape of digital humanities socio-technical research infrastructure.
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| research_question | What does it take for researchers and digital research infrastructures to collaborate on analysing an ancient narrative of space? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Argues that pre-modern space is not reducible to coordinates, and that maps should interrogate a narrative rather than illustrate it. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | collaborative semantic annotation of ancient spatial narratives | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | practice-report also in: practice-report | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Place is produced by what historical agents did in a space and what they left there, so a toponym with coordinates is not yet a place | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Reuse runs in both directions: the project takes a TEI text and a shared annotation tool, and returns enriched text and new place records to the infrastructures it borrowed from | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | A private instance of the shared tool lets the project reach archaeological databases and annotate at a finer grain than the public version supports | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | Being the heaviest user of a shared tool turns the project's experience into a contribution in its own right, feeding back into that tool's redesign | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper states that the systematic structure of GIS - the class of spatial infrastructure its own method is built on - is frequently ill-suited to the uncertainty and ambiguity characteristic of humanities data. what this limits: any GIS treatment of humanities material: THE VERY SYSTEMATIC STRUCTURE OF A GIS IS FREQUENTLY ILL-SUITED TO CAPTURING ASPECTS OF UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY THAT TYPICALLY CHARACTERISE, AND EXPLAIN INTEREST IN, HUMANITIES D[ata] | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The structure that makes a GIS useful is the same structure that cannot hold the uncertainty and ambiguity humanities data is made of what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - the structure that makes the tool useful is the one that excludes the ambiguity | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Contemporary geographic information science and historical ways of describing space are described as potentially incompatible, not merely different what this limits: any assumed compatibility of the two traditions: CONTEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND HISTORICAL MODES OF DESCRIBING SPACE OFTEN APPEAR TO HAVE DISPARATE, EVEN INCOMPATIBLE, VIEWPOINTS OF THE WORLD | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The second phase, extending the work from space to time and people, was still ahead at the time of writing what this limits: everything beyond space: the extension to time and people belongs to a SECOND PHASE OF THE PROJECT financed from 2022 to 2026, still ahead at the time of writing | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | GIS and spatial analysis carried into the reading of ancient narrative, together with an explicit statement of where the transfer breaks - the formalism cannot hold the uncertainty that makes the material interesting | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | space - as coordinates and toponyms: what a GIS records, and explicitly not what mapping antiquity amounts to | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | place - as space that historical agents have acted in and marked: the sense the project is after | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | map - as illustration: a picture accompanying an argument, which the project rejects | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | collaboration - the standard sense: scholars of different backgrounds and skills working together, which the paper says is ordinary DH practice | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | collaboration - the sense claimed as new: reciprocal exchange with the infrastructures themselves, taking data and tools and giving enriched data back | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: method a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: collaborative semantic annotation of ancient spatial narratives a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: collaborative semantic annotation of ancient spatial narratives — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the Hestia project (Bouzarovski–Barker 2016; Barker–Pelling 2016) | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → spatial humanities (Bodenhamer–Corrigan–Harris 2010) | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Recogito / the Pelagios Network of Partners | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → the Hestia project's blended approach to literary geography | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Bodenhamer and the spatial humanities framing of locating exegesis in space and time | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | supports → the critique that GIS structure is ill-suited to humanities uncertainty | claim_relations[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | uncertainty —contrasted-with→ Geographic Information Systems strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'GIS' and calls it ill-suited to capturing uncertainty; contrasted-with is loose. also in: uncertainty · Geographic Information Systems | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Recogito —part-of→ Pelagios strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says Recogito was DEVELOPED BY the Pelagios Network; part-of is loose. | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Recogito —operationalised-as→ semantic annotation strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span calls Recogito a semantic annotation TOOL; operationalised-as is loose. also in: Recogito · semantic annotation | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ARACHNE —part-of→ Recogito strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but a Recogito instance USES the ARACHNE database; part-of is the wrong type. | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mapping pre-modern space is not mainly a matter of toponyms or coordinates; space becomes place through human interaction. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Contemporary geographic information science and historical ways of describing space can look incompatible. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The maps are meant to interrogate the narrative, not to illustrate it. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the project's use of the shared annotation tool is the heaviest yet attempted, which is itself offered as a contribution | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | tools built for this project were taken up elsewhere, including by the British Library | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the collaboration model is reciprocal: the project returns enriched text and new place records to the infrastructures it drew on | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cartography also in: cartography | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Periegesis Hellados also in: Periegesis Hellados | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.