Open Science and Data Management in Rock Art Studies: The Case of Chufín Cave (Cantabria, Spain)

1 Introduction

Archaeological research is characterised by the generation of highly diverse and heterogeneous datasets, which encompass a wide range of elements, including, but not limited to, stratigraphic records, artefacts, ecofacts, spatial information, written documentation, photographs, maps, and laboratory analyses. This multiplicity of sources, formats, and scales reflects the complexity of the archaeological record itself and the interdisciplinary nature of the discipline. Within this panorama, rock art occupies a particularly distinctive position. As an immovable and fragile form of heritage, its study generates specific types of data ranging from field drawings, tracings, and photographic records to 3D models, spectral imaging, and digital enhancement techniques. Unlike other archaeological materials, rock art cannot be extracted or moved without irreparably altering its context (Garate 2022; Potter et al. 2025).

Since the discovery of Palaeolithic rock art at Altamira Cave (Sanz de Sautuola 1880), research in this field has been closely linked to the graphic enhancement of the figures. In its early stages, archaeologists resorted to techniques such as direct and indirect tracings, which enabled initial documentation but, in many cases, proved detrimental to the preservation of the decorated surfaces (Expósito and Ripoll 2022). Technological advances in photography and digital techniques allowed for significant improvements in the quality of reproductions resulting in the digital enhancement, the so called “tracing” (Aujoulat 1987). However, these methods are still a projection of a three-dimensional reality into two-dimensional formats, resulting in the loss of crucial information. This issue concerns the morphology of the rock support and the original volumes of the panels, which can alter the figures depending on the perspective (Domingo et al. 2013; Fritz and Tosello 2007; López-Montalvo 2010).

The development of 3D technologies such as laser scanning and close-range photogrammetry has resulted in a paradigmatic shift in the documentation of rock art. 3D recording is particularly useful when dealing with engraved surfaces (Garate 2022; Rivero et al. 2019) while in the case of paintings, three-dimensional techniques need to be combined with other tools such as DStretch (Harman 2008; Quesada 2008) and additional digital enhancement methods. Digital rock art (Valdez-Tullet and Figueiredo-Persson 2023) has made the workflow more accessible and economic for researchers. Structure from Motion (SfM) in particular has increased the affordability of 3D techniques, as it requires only a camera, illumination and software, whereas Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) represents a considerable financial investment, which varies depending on the brand and model of the scanner (Domingo et al. 2013; García-Moreno and Garate 2013; Lerma et al. 2013; Potter 2025; Robert et al. 2016; Ruiz 2020).

The production of high-quality 3D models has made it possible to comprehensively document rock art, including variables such as panel morphology and volumetric studies of cavities. Three-dimensional reconstruction techniques have also been used for other purposes such as geomorphological analysis, the creation of facsimiles, dissemination through virtual reality experiences, and monitoring the state of conservation of rock surfaces through the numerical recording of the colour values of the paintings, which allows even the slightest colourimetric alterations to be quantified (Azéma et al. 2010; Bruxelles et al. 2016; Domingo et al. 2013; Feruglio et al. 2013; Fritz et al. 2016; Fuentes et al. 2019; Garate and Rivero 2015; Iturbe et al. 2018; Malgat et al. 2015; Ontañón et al. 2019; Pereira 2013; Petrognani et al. 2014; Rivero et al. 2019; Ruiz et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, the very nature of Palaeolithic rock art, as an immovable heritage that is difficult to access and delicately preserved, poses inherent challenges that complicate the replicability of methods and the verification of results (Garate 2022). On the one hand, the procedures for obtaining permits to visit decorated caves are an obstacle to verifying the published information, with certain areas of caves even being closed off due to conservation risks, making them inaccessible to the scientific community. On the other hand, the lack of generalised infrastructure for sharing raw data perpetuates a reliance on arguments from authority and limits the ability to replicate methods, verify results, and independently validate researchers’ interpretations, fostering an untestable subjectivism (Barandiarán 1995).

In other fields such as Virtual Archaeology for Hypothetical Reconstruction, since the early 2000s there have been attempts to increase the international level of standardisation and to visualise the uncertainty of 3D models such as the London Chart or the Principles of Seville. These proposals help reduce the ambiguity in reconstructions (Di Giuseppantonio Di Franco et al. 2018; ICOMOS 2017; López-Menchero Bendicho et al. 2017). In this context, Open Science emerges as an ideal framework to address these limitations. Open Science is not a specific methodology but a scientific paradigm that promotes free and open access to scientific knowledge, along with the creation of infrastructures that facilitate transparency and data accessibility. The adoption of FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) is key to ensuring that raw and processed data in rock art documentation are locatable, accessible, and reusable (UNESCO 2021; Wilkinson et al. 2016). This includes everything from 3D models and metadata to the procedures used for their acquisition and analysis.

Although Open Science has made significant progress in the STEM disciplines, Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) such as Archaeology and Prehistory studies have lagged behind in integrating these practices (Chowdhury et al. 2018; Stuart et al. 2018; Prost and Schöpfel 2015; Poljak Bilić and Posavec 2024), encountering significant obstacles in their application including limited funding, the heterogeneity of archaeological research data, and a lack of technical expertise. Nevertheless, discussions on Open Science and FAIR practices within Archaeological Science have already led to the development of new policies and the revision of ethical statements by professional organisations. Several initiatives are currently seeking to manage archaeological data according to Open Science principles, such as ARIADNEplus or the Svenskt Hällristnings Forsknings Arkiv (SHFA), which constitutes one of the largest open archives of 2D and 3D rock art data. This paradigm offers a valuable opportunity for these disciplines by facilitating the development of more interoperable, transparent, and objective methodologies.

In this article, we seek to contribute to the discussion on the transparency of methods in the study of rock art, proposing a replicable methodology through the use of FAIR principles and Open Science. This methodology has been developed and applied to the case of the parietal art study of Chufín Cave, using Open Access and Open Source methods so that our data are accessible and replicable for any external researcher, while also enabling while also enabling researchers to further scientific knowledge of palaeolithic rock art in Europe.

2 Materials: The Case Study of Chufín Cave

Chufín Cave is located in the village of Rionansa (Cantabria, Spain) and lies within the Nansa Valley (Figure 1a). It is part of a karst complex that includes other decorated caves such as Micolón, Los Marranos, and Porquerizos (Díaz-Casado 2000). The cave entrance is sheltered by a large overhang, and its interior is organised into a main gallery with side ledges and an artificial lake at the back.

Figure 1:

Map with the location of Chufín Cave in Northern Spain (a), documented panel in this research -CHU.D.I- (b) and a 3D topographic map of the cave (c).

Since its discovery and initial study by Martín Almagro Basch (1973), the cave has been the subject of archaeological research that has identified at least one occupation phase during the Solutrean period, with a non-calibrated C14 dating of 17,420 ± 200 BP (Almagro et al. 1977; Cabrera 1977). Furthermore, the study of its graphic manifestations has been undertaken by various studies (González Sainz 2000, 2010). The rock art in Chufín is distributed across two distinct areas: an external area featuring deep engravings similar to those found in other Cantabrian caves, and the darker sections of the cavity where sets of fine engravings and red paintings are located, depicting various zoomorphic figures and abstract signs such as dots and lines.

As part of a current research project led by one of us (Dr. Diego Garate), 3D technologies such as laser scanning and photogrammetry have been employed to document the graphic elements and their cave environment with precision.

We have selected, as a case study, a specific decorated panel from the interior of the cave (Figure 1b and c). This panel is one of the most richly adorned in the cave and combines painting techniques – largely faded due to conservation issues – with thin engravings. This panel has been designated, and will henceforth be referred to, as Panel CHU.D.I, following the nomenclature of the current project.

3 Methods: 3D Recording and Data Management

In this study we have employed a methodology that combines various techniques for documentation, processing, and graphic enhancement through three-dimensional systems for rock art, as well as the management of the files generated during this process in accordance with FAIR principles. This ensures that these data are not only accessible and findable by other researchers in the future but also interoperable and reusable, thereby promoting the continuity and expansion of archaeological knowledge (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Methodological diagram followed in this research.

3.3 Data Management

The management and storage of the data derived from the graphic documentation of Chufín Cave were designed following FAIR principles, with the aim of guaranteeing traceability, transparency and reuse of the information.

Our data amount to approximately 120 GB of files consisting mainly of high-resolution images for photogrammetry, point clouds from laser scanning, as well as the 3D outputs generated from these techniques and from digital tracing (Figure 3).

Figure 3:

Diagram of captured and generated data stored in this project.

At the moment, there are several initiatives aimed at managing and sharing data according to Open Science principles, such as SHFA, Zenodo, Europeana, or AriadnePlus. However, these practices are not yet fully adopted by all researchers or research groups in Palaeolithic rock art studies. Unfortunately, in some cases, once the research has been completed, the data end up being stored on external hard drives which remain in the custody of the project manager and sometimes by the administration who may request a copy. However, the digital preservation of this information is uncertain, with a high risk of loss of data, particularly when dedicated funding for data curation is lacking (Milotic et al. 2018).

The enrichment of data with standardised metadata is key to enhancing the localisation, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of data in the long term (Börjesson et al. 2020; CNP 2017; Hiebel et al. 2021; Iacopini 2024; Zoldoske 2024). As a first approach to this issue, Dublin Core (ISO 15836) metadata (DCMI 2024) have been implemented to describe and enrich archives, improving their accessibility and interoperability. In the case of 3D files, which do not allow structured embedded metadata, external XML documents with detailed information were generated. The metadata encompasses descriptive elements such as authorship, geographical location, archaeological context and copyright, ensuring effective reuse and traceability of the process.

One of the cornerstones of Open Science is the publication of data in open access. For this purpose, we have used two different repositories (Table 2). On the one hand, the Figshare data repository was used to store the raw and generated data, providing DOI identifiers that guarantee citability and digital permanence (Kansa and Kansa 2022). We have chosen this repository as it is one of the most widely used among researchers in Humanities and Social Sciences (Takhtoukh 2019). However, this repository only offers 20 GB of free storage, with an additional cost of USD 875 per 250 GB. For this reason, we chose Figshare for our 3D models but not for the raw images. All photographs have instead been made available through upload to the Harvard Dataverse repository. On the other hand, the 3D portal Sketchfab was used to host the optimised 3D models, ensuring their visualisation, accessibility and use by both researchers and the general public.

Table 2:

Open access resources table.

Title	Repository	DOI/Url
Chufín Cave: graphic enhancement of CHU.D.I panel	Figshare	https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26927191.v2
Chufín Cave: geomorphologic and taphonomic plans	Figshare	https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26937283.v1
Replication data for: graphic enhancement of CHU.D.I panel. RAW pictures	Harvard Dataverse	https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LU4AJR
Decorated panel of Chufín Cave	Sketchfab	https://skfb.ly/pq68B
Taphonomic processes of CHU.D.I panel (Chufín Cave)	Sketchfab	https://skfb.ly/pqDQD
Open access links	Github	https://github.com/PreGraphity/ENLACES_OPEN_ACCESS

It is important to address the uncertain future of Sketchfab following its acquisition by Epic Games and the launch of Fab. Sketchfab hosts more than 100,000 cultural heritage models, with nearly 20,000 of these available for download and reuse under Creative Commons licenses. These models come from institutions as diverse as the British Museum, the Louvre, the Osaka Museum of Natural History, and the Virtual Museums of Malopolska (Kraków); as well as from funded projects, archaeological teams, independent artists, and hobbyist 3D modellers. The platform’s shift toward a more commercial marketplace raises concerns within the cultural heritage community and highlights the need for infrastructures that balance simplicity with advanced functionality, and accessibility with long-term preservation (Champion and Rahaman 2019, 2020; Papadopoulos et al. 2025).

Finally, all links to the different platforms and repositories have been collected and stored in an open GitHub repository in the PreGraphity GitHub profile.

Replicability and methodological transparency were a priority when developing our methodology. During the workflow, the parameters in which each step was carried out were recorded. The photo editing profile, the chromatic decorrelation matrix and the colour range selection are parameters that have been recorded and put into open access to ensure that other researchers can faithfully reproduce the process, thereby strengthening objectivity and confidence in the results.

4 Results: From the Cave to the User

The methodology that we have followed has allowed us to generate a significant set of results both in terms of documentation of the decorated panel of Chufín Cave and in the effective application of FAIR principles in data management.

Regarding the graphic documentation, three-dimensional techniques have provided us with a detailed reproduction of its morphology and graphic motifs. This panel includes more than 40 graphic units (Table 3), including different zoomorphic figures and groupings of signs, as well as different stains of red pigment (Figure 4).

Figure 4:

Location of Graphic Units in CHU.D.I (a) and graphic enhancement of some of the most significant (b).

Most of these motifs were previously unknown until the recent 3D documentation and are yet to be published. They mainly consist of graphic units associated with traces of reddish pigmentation, which appear to be linked to movement and progression through the cavity (Medina Alcaide et al. 2018). The engraved marks identified on the wall were also previously unknown and are still unpublished. Some of these represent the first examples in this cave of a mixed technique, combining engraving and pigment in the depiction of zoomorphic figures. Thanks to the new methods and techniques employed, our documentation has considerably increased the number of graphical remains found in the cave. This has broadened the knowledge of the decorated space, revealing techniques that had not been previously documented at Chufín, such as the combination of painting and engraving in animal figures.

Moreover, the implementation of FAIR principles constitutes one of the most novel results of the project.

All files, including 3D models, photographs and metadata, were systematically organised and published in open repositories such as Harvard Dataverse and Figshare, ensuring findability by assigning permanent identifiers (DOI) and citation as PreGraphity (2024). The information was uploaded to open access platforms such as Harvard Dataverse, Figshare, Github and Sketchfab, ensuring that researchers and the public are able to consult the data without restrictions. The 3D models were optimised to guarantee their interactive visualisation online, removing technical barriers and allowing their use even on computers with limited resources. While the scientific community strongly relies on digital infrastructures and online repositories to promote transparency, accessibility, and data sharing, it is important to acknowledge that not all researchers or institutions have equal access to stable internet connections or adequate technological resources. This digital divide creates asymmetries in participation. However, in the case of rock art, the fact that research data are made available online is highly valuable, since this immovable and fragile form of heritage is particularly difficult to access directly. The data were enriched with metadata following international standards such as Dublin Core, facilitating their integration into data management systems and their linkage with other digital archaeology projects. Traceability was a priority throughout this process, having recorded and documented the parameters used at each step, from photographic capture to digital processing. The possibility of downloading the 3D files also ensures that other researchers can reproduce the methodology correctly, verify our results and use the data for new studies, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and the generation of cumulative knowledge. 3D models, thanks to the use of free software such as Blender, Reality Capture or QGIS, provide a high degree of interoperability for the reuse of data and models. This is of particular importance in the application of statistical and spatial analysis through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for carrying out visibility and accessibility analysis (least-cost path), etc. (Intxaurbe et al. 2021, 2024; Spaey et al. 2024, 2025), or the development of scientific virtual reality (Torres et al. 2024). In this regard, FAIR data are key to interdisciplinary usage, and can be reused by other disciplines outside archaeology. In our case, these 3D models have been reused to carry out geomorphological and taphonomical analyses of the panels. This geological data complements and provides further information on the degradation processes of the pigment and the karstic support associated with the art, thereby contributing to the broader study of the prehistoric human societies that produced it. This geological data has been treated with the same data management methodology, and have been made open access in the same repositories mentioned above, making it fully accessible and reusable.

5 Discussion: Possibilities, Aims, and Limits

Technological advances in the discipline of prehistoric art in recent decades have led to improvements in the three-dimensional and graphic reproduction of Palaeolithic art, reaching sub-millimetre resolutions (Garate 2022; Garate et al. 2015; García-Bustos et al. 2024; Jouteau et al. 2019; Rivero et al. 2019; Ruiz 2020; Valdez-Tullett and Figueiredo Persson 2023). However, despite technological and theoretical-methodological advances, scientific protocols and workflows that guarantee transparent, interoperable and objective results in the documentation of rock art have not yet been firmly established. Subjectivity still plays an important role in the interpretation and restitution of graphic motifs, and access to raw data remains limited, which favours the opacity of information. The lack of standardised protocols prevents other researchers from verifying, reproducing or contrasting the results obtained, which affects the validity and reliability of scientific interpretations.

In this context, Open Science offers an opportunity to overcome some of the challenges mentioned above. This paradigm promotes free and open access to scientific knowledge, the reuse of data and the creation of more inclusive processes. FAIR principles provide clear guidelines for the management, access and reuse of scientific research data, ensuring that it is easily findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (Wilkinson et al. 2016). The implementation of these principles represents a great opportunity to grant greater transparency, objectivity and access to scientific methods and results, making both the data and our conclusions more verifiable (Arthur and Hearn 2021; Besançon et al. 2021; Curty et al. 2016; Poljak Bilić and Posavec 2024; Ruediger and MacDougall 2023).

In Archaeology, Open Science practices and the FAIR Principles have made significant advances, fostering discussion and advancing dialogue among researchers regarding data sharing (Alexander 2013; Atici et al. 2013; Gupta et al. 2023; Heilen and Manney 2023; Kansa and Kansa 2013; Laguna-Palma and Barruezo-Vaquero 2024; Moore and Richards 2015; Niccolucci 2020; Nicholson et al. 2023; Ortman and Altschul 2023; Ross et al. 2022; Wright and McManamon 2025). By contrast, rock art has yet to fully engage in this conversation, achieving only a limited number of advances in data sharing, with some notable exceptions (Potter et al. 2025), and continues to face several technical and infrastructural challenges within the current disciplinary framework.

Firstly, open repositories have limitations that affect their ability to manage data such as those generated during rock art studies. One of the main problems is storage capacity, as many open repositories have a size limit, which makes it difficult to upload heavy 3D models or many high-resolution images needed for photogrammetry, thus preventing a massive upload of the raw files (Table 4).

Moreover, these data repositories do not have specific tools for the visualisation of 3D models. On the other hand, there are portals that serve as collections, such as Europeana, ARIADNEplus or The Smithsonian Institution, which do allow a preview of the models, but not the download of the 3D and 2D files that compose them, making data reuse impossible (Champion 2021; Champion and Rahaman 2020).

Repositories are an indispensable tool for sharing research data, however, this is not usually a habit for researchers in the Humanities and Social Sciences, disciplines in which Archaeology and the study of rock art are framed. The Open Science paradigm, although it claims to be conceptualised for all scientific disciplines, has emerged and developed more strongly in the field of natural and applied sciences. In these disciplines, research data consists mainly of tabular alphanumeric data that are entirely generated by the researchers themselves and can be stored in CSV or Excel files (Milotic et al. 2018).

In the HSS research data is complex and difficult to manage, being among the most diverse of all scientific disciplines. Currently, there is no clear and concise definition of what constitutes research data in HSS (Moulaison-Sandy and Wenzel 2023; Poljak Bilić and Posavec 2024). This data ranges from primary written sources, photographs, maps, archaeological materials, etc., and often the researchers themselves may not own the rights to these (e.g. archival documents).

In the field of rock art studies, much of the main weight of research data consists of high-resolution images and 3D models associated with rock art documentation, and to a lesser extent alphanumeric data such as results of chemical and pigment analysis, dating, GIS information, etc. These data are very heavy and difficult to manage and share openly in open access repositories.

In our case study, the primary challenge encountered was the management of large datasets, particularly the photographs used for 3D models. We were required to use two different repositories: Figshare for the processed 3D models and Harvard Dataverse for the high-resolution images. Although the latter repository offers a total storage capacity of 1 TB, we encountered several technical difficulties, including restrictions on maximum file size and the inability to organise files into separate folders.

The Social Sciences and Humanities remain underrepresented in data repositories (Ruediger and MacDougall 2023; Seaton et al. 2023; Tenopir et al. 2020; Tederdoo et al. 2020). The full implementation of Open Science methodologies in these fields presents a challenging objective. This entails new challenges and skills that often lie beyond the researchers’ expertise and academic training. Difficulties include organising and presenting data in a useful and reusable ways, applying appropriate metadata standards, legal knowledge about intellectual property laws, selecting suitable repositories, and managing the costs associated with data sharing. Networked management and sharing of research data introduce additional complexities, such as the decentralisation of information and concerns regarding data quality. Consequently, making research data openly available is not yet a common practice among researchers in these fields (Chawinga and Zinn 2019; Chowdhury et al. 2018; Gajbe et al. 2021; Late et al. 2024; Prost and Schöpfel 2015; Rivers-Cofield et al. 2024; Seaton et al. 2023; Stuart et al. 2018; Taylor et al. 2021; Tedersoo et al. 2021; Tenopir et al. 2015).

However, Archaeology has always occupied a middle ground between STEM and the Humanities and Social Sciences, adopting practices from other disciplines in order to advance historical knowledge. This position makes it considerably easier for archaeological researchers to embrace Open Science practices.

Finally, another obstacle to the implementation of the Open Access paradigm is the Open Source Software and Open Hardware principles. In many cases, Open Access programs do not meet all the needs of researchers, and are not very accessible to new users, so it is often paid software such as Adobe Photoshop or Agisoft Metashape that serve as reference programs in the disciplines. Gradually, this trend is changing with more and more specialised and complete programmes such as Blender, GIMP or Reality Capture for 3D systems in rock art (Barbuti et al. 2023; CNP 2022; Monney et al. 2025). The democratisation of hardware is also an elusive goal at this point in time. Accurate, sub-millimetre 3D documentation of cave panels and supports often involves the creation of heavy, million-point models that require equipment with powerful processors and graphics cards capable of handling them, driving up the price of the equipment needed for research and making it difficult to reuse the data.

The Open Science paradigm has great benefits, but also great costs for researchers. Open Science and the FAIR principles offer a promising framework for improving data transparency and interoperability in rock art research. Yet there are significant challenges such as the lack of specific standards for data documentation and archiving or the lack of training of researchers themselves in these areas. Furthermore, the lack of adequate mechanisms for the dissemination and transmission of raw data continues to hinder open and shared knowledge in this field (Poljak Bilić and Posavec 2024). In this context of constant change, AI and Machine Learning can provide significant opportunities to revolutionise and automate data management and archiving processes.

6 Conclusions

The graphic documentation of the Chufín Cave, using 3D and graphic enhancement techniques, represents a significant advance in our understanding of how prehistoric societies made use of this cave. This approach has led to a notable increase in the number of graphic units documented in the cave. The methodology applied was conceptualized from the beginning with Open Science framework in mind, opening up new possibilities for the study, dissemination and digital preservation of rock art.

The adoption of advanced 3D documentation technologies, combined with open and accessible data management practices, provides a key tool to improve the research and preservation of rock art. Proper management of research data, its enrichment with metadata and publication on open access platforms not only facilitates access to this information for other researchers, but also promotes greater public participation and interest in heritage conservation.

In this sense, FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles and the Open Science paradigm constitute an essential step towards more open, transparent and objective methodologies. This approach makes it possible to move towards a more inclusive, collaborative and democratically oriented science of tomorrow.

Despite the progress that has been made already in the field of Archaeology, significant challenges remain in the full implementation of Open Science and FAIR principles in rock art research. Amongst these, the main obstacles are as follows:

Established guidelines for data documentation and archiving in this field do not yet exist, and many researchers in the field of Humanities face technical and knowledge barriers when learning to apply advanced data management tools. Some initiatives, such as IIIF standards, aim to coordinate strategies and facilitate conversations about open, interoperable standards that can support complex use cases, including 3D objects and annotations (IIIF 2025). However, the absence of completely free platforms capable of handling large volumes of data, especially 3D models, limits the potential of these initiatives. In this sense, it should be noted that the manner of documenting rock art has changed radically in the last few decades, while scientific publications and repositories continue to be based on traditional 2D formats.

These challenges highlight the need to develop the creation of infrastructures that support the preservation, visualisation and reuse of complex data. This effort must be actively supported by public and heritage institutions, which should provide funding and design specific programmes to promote open science in this area.

It is also necessary to create common standards to guarantee the transparency of the methodology and the verifiability of the results, while also taking into account the variability of workflows adapted to the specific conditions of each case study. Far from seeking a rigid homogenisation of methodologies, priority should be given to the creation of rigorous and scientific tools and processes that respond to the particular needs of each project, while ensuring transparency and open access to data.

Ultimately, the use of open methodologies and transparent documentation practices not only improves the scientific quality of rock art research, but also democratises access to knowledge, reducing reliance on subjective interpretations. This approach fosters a more inclusive and collaborative environment, laying the groundwork for the development of more robust archaeological research in the future.