I have considered adding a feature called "Timelines" that allows the individual researcher to overlay their own metadata on the base metadata, which could for example override the dating of that graffiti. These could be daisy chained / applied in sequence if you had multiple Timelines, where the conflict is resolved by taking the last Timeline specified. Thus they could be shared, mixed and matched.The notion of a "jigsaw puzzle" is best exemplified by the "Christianos Graffito" discovered in Pompeii (1862). It is the earliest entry in your table above. This has been discussed before:
viewtopic.php?t=11616&hilit=pompei
The question is its historical integrity. Some scholars argue it is authentic while others argue it is not. Setting aside the actual answer to this question how can these two opposing views (hypotheses) be represented - for example on your table? How can it be represented that this physical source evidence could be bolted onto the chronological backbone of history in the 1st century or alternatively in the 19th century? This is the 4D puzzle. Where does it belong in time? How may this uncertainty be represented in a general model of "historical evidence".
Perhaps the term "bolted on" is problematic. Nevertheless how can this be modelled?
This of course doesn't help getting better dates (or representing uncertainty) just managing disagreement.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sun Jan 19, 2025 6:26 pm