Web-based discovery and integration of archaeological historic properties inventory data: The Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA)

Web-based discovery andintegration of archaeologicalhistoric properties inventorydata The Digital Index of NorthAmerican Archaeology (DINAA)

Joshua J Wells

Indiana University South Bend Indiana USA

Eric C Kansa and Sarah W Kansa

Open Context USA

Stephen J Yerka David G Anderson and Thaddeus G Bissett

University of Tennessee Knoxville USA

Kelsey Noack Myers and R Carl DeMuth

Indiana University Bloomington USA

AbstractIntegrating data from different sources represents a tremendous research oppor-tunity across the humanities social and natural sciences However repurposingdata for uses not imagined or anticipated by their creators involves conceptualmethodological and theoretical challenges These are acute in archaeology a dis-cipline that straddles the humanities and sciences Heritage protection laws shapearchaeological practice and generate large bodies of data largely untapped forresearch or other purposes The Digital Index of North American Archaeology(DINAA) project adapts heritage management data sets for broader open andpublic uses DINAArsquos initial goal is to integrate government-curated public datafrom off-line and online digital repositories from up to twenty US states andwhich qualitatively and quantitatively describe over 500000 archaeological sitesin eastern North America DINAA hopes to promote extension and reuse by gov-ernment personnel as well as by domestic and international researchers interestedin the cultures histories artifacts and behaviors described within these public datasets DINAA innovatively applies methodologies and workflows typical ofmany lsquoopen sciencersquo and digital humanities programs to these data sets The dis-tributed nature of data production coupled with protections for sensitive dataadd layers of complexity Ethically negotiating these issues can wider the collab-oration between stakeholder communities and offer an unprecedented new viewon human use of the North American landscape across vast regions and time scales

Correspondence

Joshua J Wells

Department of Sociology

and Anthropology

Wiekamp Hall 2288

Indiana University South

Bend South Bend Indiana

46634 USA

Email

jowellsiusbedu

Literary and Linguistic Computing Vol 29 No 3 2014 The Author 2014 Published by Oxford University Press onbehalf of EADH All rights reserved For Permissions please email journalspermissionsoupcom

349

doi101093llcfqu028 Advance Access published on 16 June 2014

at Indiana University L

ibraries on October 6 2014

httpllcoxfordjournalsorgD

ownloaded from

1 Introduction

The Digital Index of North American Archaeology(DINAA) project is developing models andapproaches to publish and index archaeologicaldata from multiple historic property inventoriesmanaged by governmental offices These inventoriesdocument historical and archaeological sites acrosslarge areas of North America DINAArsquos initial goal isto integrate data from up to twenty US states whichdescribe over 500000 archaeological sites DINAAdisseminates these data in a common data clearing-house (cf FGDC 2012) making them publiclyavailable as linked open data (LOD) StateHistorical Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and similarfederal and tribal agencies in the USA maintain richrecords of human activity spanning the recent pastto the Pleistocene The primary purpose of thesedata centers on legally mandated cultural resourcemanagement and protection DINAA provides anavenue to expand their reuse for research educa-tion and public outreach including cultural andartistic projects contributing to the lsquopublic goodrsquo(Cameron and Kenderdine 2010 Lunenfeld et al2012) consistent with the original intent of culturalresource protection laws Toward these endsDINAA has adopted aspects of lsquoopen knowledgersquoprograms including open-source software publicversion control of code and data open licensingand iterative development

To responsibly build public goods DINAArequires a strong foundation of information ethicsreconciling ideals of lsquoopennessrsquo with safeguards forsensitive data Recent policy shifts under the bannerof lsquoopen datarsquo lsquoopen governmentrsquo and lsquoopen sci-encersquo (Krikorian and Kapczynski 2010 Nielsen2012 Goldstein and Dyson 2013 White House2013) highlight the value of publicizing publicdata and reflect growing ethical demands withinarchaeology for accessible online linkages betweenrecords primary literature and data sets (Kintigh2006 Snow et al 2006 Kansa et al 2010Xia 2011) SHPO data represent an opportunityfor open knowledge This challenging domain con-tains sensitive information protected by statute butalso reflects archaeologyrsquos sometimes troubled andethically compromised history with indigenous

communities Therefore efforts to lsquoopenrsquo thesedata must carefully account for legal and ethicallimits to openness

11 BackgroundEfforts to examine archaeological information atlandscape scales date back to early 20th-centuryattempts to recognize cultures through diagnosticartifacts like Bell Beakers in Western Europe orshell tempered pottery in eastern North America(eg Holmes 1903 Childe 1926 1929) Maps ofartifact incidence and cultural traits were used toinfer culture areas migrations and interaction net-works Similar procedures remain common todayalbeit with digital practices incorporating relationaldatabases and geographic information system (GIS)applications (eg Chapman 2006 Conolly andLake 2006 Kvamme 2006 Anderson et al 2010Hochstetter et al 2011 Comer and Harrower2013) Such efforts although easier to produceand query mainly involve archaeological informa-tion from constrained areas such as developmentprojects (ie highways reservoirs) military bases ornature preserves They rarely crosscut state lines tocompletely investigate major physiographic prov-inces (eg Anderson and Horak 1995)

Beginning in the 1920s the National ResearchCouncil issued guidelines for state archaeologicalsurveys and site files (OrsquoBrien and Lyman 2001)The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA 16 USC 470 Section 101 (b)(3)(A)) madestates responsible for archaeological historic prop-erty inventories (National Park Service 2010)Archaeological surveys have since been conductedintensively throughout the USA In 1993 the lasttime such data were compiled through theNational Park Servicersquos National ArchaeologicalDatabase (NADB) almost one million sites wererecorded (NADB Maps 1993) Today the totalhas more than doubled in areas examined indetail like the American southeast (cf Andersonand Horak 1995 Anderson and Sassaman 2012)

Modern historic property inventories includeprecise locations details on temporal periods site-use types associated artifact collections and docu-ments preservation condition National Register ofHistoric Places assessments and many other

J J Wells et al

350 Literary and Linguistic Computing Vol 29 No 3 2014




ownloaded from

variables useful to researchers and managersAlthough these data may illuminate cultural re-sources at a revolutionary scale they have rarelybeen utilized beyond the state level

12 The DINAA approachWith National Science Foundation support theDINAA project is developing methods to integratearchaeological inventory data from large areas ofNorth America into a unified clearinghouse (seecurrent extent in Figure A1) DINAA is openly avail-able to scholarly resource management and publicaudiences The key function of DINAA is a Web-based index of nonsensitive archaeological data Wedeliberately use the term lsquoindexrsquo to emphasizeDINAArsquos primary purpose as an aid for data discov-ery and to fill a critical gap in archaeological infor-mation infrastructure SHPO officials retain fullcontrol over their records Thus DINAA does notsupersede governmental management and regula-tory capacities but publicly complements SHPOsrsquocritical role in heritage management and encouragespublic research partnerships involving governmen-tal products (cf Harris 2012)

DINAArsquos workflows emphasize openness inter-operability contextual controls and securityDINAA does not dictate how SHPOs structure ordescribe their data but reorganizes and annotatesdata for reuse DINAA uses familiar open-sourcetechnologies and methodologies (OpenRefine fordata cleanup Protege for controlled vocabularydevelopment MySQL data store Solr index andGitHub for version control) Evaluation of sensitivedata (site locations land ownership) requiresdomain expertsrsquo curation DINAArsquos procedures fordata transfer processing and publication minimizerisks to sensitive information (Kansa 2012)

121 Using ontologies to enable interoperability

Information organization represents a key aspect ofmaking SHPO administrative data more accessibleAlthough each state has common management re-quirements under Federal statutes their implemen-tations vary Numerous schemas (informationmodels) and vocabularies coexist This diversity re-flects contextually prioritized work flows betweendifferent SHPOs and provides important strengths

in an ecosystem perspective DINAA does notimpose an outside standard to homogenize this di-versity Rather DINAA facilitates interoperabilityby annotating conceptually related data sets throughan ontology a set of concepts organized with for-mally defined relationships Most ontology develop-ment within DINAA focuses on straightforwardoften hierarchical concepts Many archaeologistsare familiar with cultural and temporal periodhierarchies (eg lsquoClovis is a sub-period ofPaleoindianrsquo)

Annotating SHPO data with a common ontol-ogy including time-period concepts facilitatesgreater interoperability and ontological formalismfacilitates processing by software and software andapplication programming interfaces (APIs) DINAAannotations represent additional data linking eachsource data set to a common set of concepts main-taining legacy terms Although use of a commonontology underlies most approaches to data integra-tion in practice the use of ontologies is far fromperfect and subtleties may be lost in translationThus DINAArsquos annotation approach enables gen-eral queries across all combined data and nuancedqueries using vocabularies specific to a given sourcedata set Application of lsquoopen datarsquo principles helpsensure that researchers with different concerns andinterpretive priorities can organize the combineddata in different ways The DINAA ontology(expressed in the Web Ontology Language knownas OWL and available at httpopencontextorgvocabulariesdinaa) carries a Creative CommonsAttribution License with explicit legal permissionsfor anyone to duplicate adapt and revise it

122 DINAA and LOD for North Americanarchaeology

In exposing elements of these SHPO databases anddeveloping a common ontology to organize themDINAA helps lay the conceptual and informaticsfoundation for 21st-century North Americanarchaeology DINAA publishes each site recordand ontology concepts with its own unique stableWeb identifier (uniform resource identifier or URI)via Open Context Stable Web identifiers act as bed-rock for interoperability are globally unique andenable easy retrieval of resources online Any data

DINAA Digital Index of North American Archaeology

Literary and Linguistic Computing Vol 29 No 3 2014 351




ownloaded from

publisher can easily link to and reference boththese records and the concepts used to organizethem

Meeting these ambitious goals represents a long-term effort requiring sustained collaborations

between archaeologists informatics researchers

government officials and numerous stakeholders

Fortunately DINAA need not start from scratch

SHPOs have already invested heavily in large cor-

pora of detailed records Open access to these data

will yield immediate research education and public

outreach returns Furthermore DINAA is nimbly

built upon existing initiatives including the

following

Data dissemination systems Open Context(httpopencontextorg) an open-access arch-aeological data dissemination venue hosts andindexes DINAA data sets is recognized by theNational Endowment for the Humanities andthe National Science Foundation for data man-agement and partners with the California DigitalLibrary (a world leader in digital preservation)

Referencing existing ontologies DINAA benefitsfrom international efforts in cultural heritage in-formation management through the freely avail-able CIDOC-CRM and extensions added byEnglish Heritage that helps streamline challen-ging ontology development

LOD DINAA builds upon and contributes tolarger communities of linked open data initia-tives which integrate Web identifiers (URIs) askey aspects of data management DINAA mintsWeb URIs for all records and ontology conceptsand references third-party linked data resourcesto increase connectivity To promote interoper-ability DINAA references GeoNamesorg entitiesto link site file records to GeoNames entitiesdocumenting relevant county and other admin-istrative units

DINAArsquos participation in LOD is a key strategyto maximize the public value of these data (Kansaet al 2010) LOD ensures that data are lsquopart of rsquo theWeb not just lsquoonrsquo the Web LOD involves simpleprinciples including URI use http open licensesand standard open formats such as RDF (ResourceDescription Framework) Once done relevant data

can be found extended and integrated across theWeb to promote reuse

2 Results

DINAA is beginning to illuminate broad patterns inarchaeological data and practices Figure A2 shows adot density distribution of sites within thirteen offifteen participating states these are not exact loca-tions but groups of sites randomly redistributedwithin 400 km2 grid cells Even at this scale(112000000) regional patterning is evident (seeFigures A3ndashA6 based on data from GASF [2013]and FDS-DOHR [2013]) Spatial textual and clus-ter analyses performed on the integrated data willprovide exciting new ways of illuminating culturalresources through the DINAA ontology The occur-rence of sites by major time period across large areasand compared with other data sets encompassingclimate biota and physiography are the kinds ofproducts easily produced using DINAA

Despite the time-consuming nature of curatingthe data including obtaining legal permissions byMarch 2014 DINAA published eight SHPO datasets now available via Open Contextrsquos user-interfaceand APIs and as comma-separated value (CSV) filesor by forking in GitHub Before DINAA OpenContext had not published such geographicallybroad data Map-based browsing and visualizationbased on hierarchic quad-tree geospatial tiles (Liu etal 2011) help meet the new scale demands EachDINAA geospatial tile represents a metadata lsquofacetrsquowith facet counts visualized as color-coded tiles on aWeb map This geospatial indexing and aggregationapproach powers Open Contextrsquos APIs includinggeospatial Atom feeds advocated by Liu et al(2011)

Like most phenomena of interest to humanistsarchaeological evidence has complexities and subtle-ties that defy easy categorization Developing thecontrolled vocabularies to integrate the varioussource databases involves theoretical and conceptualchallenges For example different administrativeprocesses engage if a site is lsquoHistoric Indianrsquo orlsquoHistoric Non-Indianrsquo Although such clear div-isions are anthropologically unsupportable these

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

terms facilitate efficiency in agency workflows (cfBowker and Star 2000) This instance underscoresimportant challenges associated with classifyinghuman experience especially in a context with along and tragic history of colonialism Solutionswill necessitate detailed discussions with State andTribal officials also researchers educators andother public stakeholders This project prioritizesdeveloping and maintaining lines of communica-tion and support with a broad community of inter-ests to develop and grow in a manner that is bothuseful and ethically reflects stakeholder interests inrepresentation

3 Conclusions and Future Work

The DINAA project is actively preparing data setsfrom over a dozen states for publication In March2014 DINAA staff met with over twenty-five SHPOofficials and other stakeholders to demonstrate theonline data system and solicit feedback The meetinginvolved plans to update DINAArsquos public index asSHPOs expand their records which will be impera-tive as DINAA grows

Given the clear need for lsquohumans in the looprsquo tocurate the data by improving quality annotatingontologies and mitigating risks to sensitive datathe financial sustainability of DINAA remains aconcern There is no easy solution to this issueFinancing public-goods like lsquoopen datarsquo typically re-quires public or philanthropic support Financialsustainability may require that policy makers andlegislatures understand that databases are part ofAmericarsquos national heritage DINAA like otheropen digital humanities efforts needs to make thatpublic case in order to thrive and continue into thefuture

Funding

This work is supported by the National ScienceFoundation [grants 1216810 1217240] and anIndiana University South Bend Faculty ResearchGrant

ReferencesAnderson D G Miller D S Yerka S J et al (2010)

PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010current status and findings Archaeology of EasternNorth America 38 63ndash90

Anderson D G and Horak V (eds) (1995)Archaeological Site File Management A SoutheasternPerspective Atlanta GA Interagency ArcheologicalServices Division National Park Service SoutheastRegional Office

Anderson D G and Sassaman K E (2012) RecentAdvances in Southeastern Archaeology FromColonization to Complexity Washington DC Societyfor American Archaeology Press

Bowker GC and Star S L (2000) Sorting Things outClassification and Its Consequences Cambridge MAMIT Press

Cameron F and Kenderdine S (eds) (2010) TheorizingDigital Cultural Heritage A Critical DiscourseCambridge MA MIT Press

Chapman H (2006) Landscape Archaeology and GISLetchworth Garden City UK Tempus Press

Childe V G (1926) The Dawn of European CivilizationLondon UK Kegan Paul Trench Trubner ampCompany

Childe V G (1929) The Danube in Prehistory OxfordUK Clarendon Press

Comer D C and Harrower M J (2013) MappingArchaeological Landscapes from Space New York NYSpringer

Conolly J and Lake M (2006) GeographicalInformation Systems in Archaeology CambridgeManuals in Archaeology Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee (2012)Clearinghouse Concepts QampA httpwwwfgdcgovdataandservicesclearinghouse_qanda (accessed 4November 2013)

Florida Department of State Division of HistoricalResources (FDS-DOHR) (2013) Florida Site Files(Overview) Open Context httpopencontextorgpro-jects81204AF8-127C-4686-E9B0-1202C3A47959DOI106078M7PC3083 (accessed 15 April 2014)

Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) Curators(2013) Georgia Archaeological Site File (GASF) OpenContext httpopencontextorgprojects64013C33-4039-46C9-609A-A758CE51CA49 DOI106078M7T43R0F (accessed 15 April 2014)






ownloaded from

Goldstein B and Dyson L (eds) (2013) Beyond

Transparency Open Data and the Future of CivicInnovation San Francisco CA Code for America PresshttpbeyondtransparencyorgpdfBeyondTransparency

pdf (accessed 1 November 2013)

Harris T M (2012) Interfacing archaeology and theworld of citizen sensors exploring the impact of neo-geography and volunteered geographic information on

an authenticated archaeology World Archaeology 44580ndash91

Hochstetter FT Rapu Haoa S Lipo CP andHunt TL (2011) A public database of archaeologicalresources on Easter Island (Rapa Nui) using Google

Earth Latin American Antiquity 22 385ndash97

Holmes WH (1903) Aboriginal Pottery of the EasternUnited States In Powell JW (ed) Twentieth AnnualReport of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1898ndash99Washington DC Government Printing Officepp 1ndash237

Kansa E C Kansa S W Burton M M and

Stankowski C (2010) Googling the grey opendata web services and semantics Archaeologies 6301ndash26

Kansa S W (2012) Digital Index of North American

Archaeology (DINAA) Heritage bytes updates andnews about open context httpuxopencontextorgblogarchaeology-site-data (accessed 1 November 2013)

Kintigh K (2006) The promise and challenge of arch-aeological data integration American Antiquity 71

567ndash78

Krikorian G and Kapczynski A (eds) (2010) Access toKnowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property New YorkNY Zone Books httpsmitpressmitedusitesdefault

filestitlesfree_download9781890951962_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Age_of_Intellectual_Propertypdf(accessed 10 October 2013)

Kvamme KW (2006) There and Back Again Revisiting

Archaeological Location Modeling In Mehrer MWand Wescott KL (eds) GIS and ArchaeologicalPredictive Modeling Boca Raton FL CRC-Taylor andFrancis Press pp 3ndash38

Liu Y Yang R and Wilde E (2011) Open andDecentralized Access across Location-Based ServicesProceedings of the 20th International ConferenceCompanion on World Wide Web WWWrsquo11 NewYork NY ACM pp 79ndash80 httpdoiacmorg10114519631921963233 (accessed 14 September 2013)

Lunenfeld P Burdick A Drucker J Presner T andSchnapp J (2012) Digital Humanities CambridgeMA MIT Press httpmitpressmitedusitesdefaultfilestitlescontent9780262018470_Open_Access_Editionpdf (accessed 1 October 2013)

NADB-Maps National Archaeological Database (1993)Archeological Site Densities National Park Service StateHistoric Preservation Officers httpcastuarkeduothernpsmaplibUSsitdens1993html (accessed 4November 2013)

National Park Service (2010) The Historic PreservationFund Annual Report Washington DC National ParkService httpwwwnpsgovhistoryhpshpgdown-loads2010_HPF_Reportpdf (accessed 4 November2013)

Nielsen M A (2012) Reinventing Discovery The NewEra of Networked Science Princeton NJ PrincetonUniversity Press

OrsquoBrien M J and Lyman R L (2001) Setting theAgenda for American Archaeology The NationalResearch Council Archaeological Conferences of 19291932 and 1935 Tuscaloosa AL University ofAlabama Press

Snow D R Gahegan M Giles C L et al (2006)Cybertools and archaeology Science 311 958ndash9

White House (2013) Open Government Initiative httpwwwwhitehousegovopen (accessed 1 November2013)

Xia J (2011) Open Access for Archaeological LiteratureA Managerrsquos Perspective In Kansa EC Kansa SWand Watrall E (eds) Archaeology 20 New Approachesto Communication and Collaboration Los Angeles CACotsen Institute of Archaeology Press pp 233ndash50httpwwwescholarshiporgucitem1r6137tb (ac-cessed 1 November 2013)

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix

Figure A1 DINAA extent of data publication of over 270000 archaeological site records representing eight states as ofMarch 2014






ownloaded from

Figure A2 DINAA data partnerships as of March 2014 with dot density plot showing distribution of cultural resourcesat low resolution within states whose data have been received thus far

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Figure A3 Distribution of Paleoindian sites in Georgia and Florida as annotated with DINAArsquos controlled vocabularyof time periods






ownloaded from

Figure A4 Distribution of Archaic sites in Georgia and Florida as annotated with DINAArsquos controlled vocabulary oftime periods

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Figure A5 Distribution of Woodland sites in Georgia and Florida as annotated with DINAArsquos controlled vocabulary oftime periods






ownloaded from

Figure A6 Distribution of Late Prehistoric sites in Georgia and Florida as annotated with DINAArsquos controlled vo-cabulary of time periods

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

1 Introduction

The Digital Index of North American Archaeology(DINAA) project is developing models andapproaches to publish and index archaeologicaldata from multiple historic property inventoriesmanaged by governmental offices These inventoriesdocument historical and archaeological sites acrosslarge areas of North America DINAArsquos initial goal isto integrate data from up to twenty US states whichdescribe over 500000 archaeological sites DINAAdisseminates these data in a common data clearing-house (cf FGDC 2012) making them publiclyavailable as linked open data (LOD) StateHistorical Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and similarfederal and tribal agencies in the USA maintain richrecords of human activity spanning the recent pastto the Pleistocene The primary purpose of thesedata centers on legally mandated cultural resourcemanagement and protection DINAA provides anavenue to expand their reuse for research educa-tion and public outreach including cultural andartistic projects contributing to the lsquopublic goodrsquo(Cameron and Kenderdine 2010 Lunenfeld et al2012) consistent with the original intent of culturalresource protection laws Toward these endsDINAA has adopted aspects of lsquoopen knowledgersquoprograms including open-source software publicversion control of code and data open licensingand iterative development

To responsibly build public goods DINAArequires a strong foundation of information ethicsreconciling ideals of lsquoopennessrsquo with safeguards forsensitive data Recent policy shifts under the bannerof lsquoopen datarsquo lsquoopen governmentrsquo and lsquoopen sci-encersquo (Krikorian and Kapczynski 2010 Nielsen2012 Goldstein and Dyson 2013 White House2013) highlight the value of publicizing publicdata and reflect growing ethical demands withinarchaeology for accessible online linkages betweenrecords primary literature and data sets (Kintigh2006 Snow et al 2006 Kansa et al 2010Xia 2011) SHPO data represent an opportunityfor open knowledge This challenging domain con-tains sensitive information protected by statute butalso reflects archaeologyrsquos sometimes troubled andethically compromised history with indigenous

communities Therefore efforts to lsquoopenrsquo thesedata must carefully account for legal and ethicallimits to openness

11 BackgroundEfforts to examine archaeological information atlandscape scales date back to early 20th-centuryattempts to recognize cultures through diagnosticartifacts like Bell Beakers in Western Europe orshell tempered pottery in eastern North America(eg Holmes 1903 Childe 1926 1929) Maps ofartifact incidence and cultural traits were used toinfer culture areas migrations and interaction net-works Similar procedures remain common todayalbeit with digital practices incorporating relationaldatabases and geographic information system (GIS)applications (eg Chapman 2006 Conolly andLake 2006 Kvamme 2006 Anderson et al 2010Hochstetter et al 2011 Comer and Harrower2013) Such efforts although easier to produceand query mainly involve archaeological informa-tion from constrained areas such as developmentprojects (ie highways reservoirs) military bases ornature preserves They rarely crosscut state lines tocompletely investigate major physiographic prov-inces (eg Anderson and Horak 1995)

Beginning in the 1920s the National ResearchCouncil issued guidelines for state archaeologicalsurveys and site files (OrsquoBrien and Lyman 2001)The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA 16 USC 470 Section 101 (b)(3)(A)) madestates responsible for archaeological historic prop-erty inventories (National Park Service 2010)Archaeological surveys have since been conductedintensively throughout the USA In 1993 the lasttime such data were compiled through theNational Park Servicersquos National ArchaeologicalDatabase (NADB) almost one million sites wererecorded (NADB Maps 1993) Today the totalhas more than doubled in areas examined indetail like the American southeast (cf Andersonand Horak 1995 Anderson and Sassaman 2012)

Modern historic property inventories includeprecise locations details on temporal periods site-use types associated artifact collections and docu-ments preservation condition National Register ofHistoric Places assessments and many other

J J Wells et al





ownloaded from















ownloaded from











following






2 Results




J J Wells et al





ownloaded from





Funding





















ownloaded from















567ndash78














J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from















ownloaded from











following






2 Results




J J Wells et al





ownloaded from





Funding





















ownloaded from















567ndash78














J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from











following






2 Results




J J Wells et al





ownloaded from





Funding





















ownloaded from















567ndash78














J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from





Funding





















ownloaded from















567ndash78














J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from















567ndash78














J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Appendix







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from







ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from


J J Wells et al





ownloaded from

Web-based discovery and integration of archaeological historic properties inventory data: The Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA)

Documents