=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3834/paper99
|storemode=property
|title=Text Mining to unveil Prehistoric Pastness in Museums
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3834/paper99.pdf
|volume=Vol-3834
|authors=Haley Anne Schwartz,Paula Jardón Giner,Xavier Rubio Campillo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/chr/SchwartzGR24
}}
==Text Mining to unveil Prehistoric Pastness in Museums==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3834/paper99.pdf
Text Mining to uncover Prehistoric Pastness in
Museums
Haley Anne Schwartz1,2,∗,† , Paula Jardón Giner2,3,† and Xavier Rubio Campillo1,2,†
1
Departament de Didàctiques Aplicades, Universitat de Barcelona, Pg. de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
2
DIDPATRI Grup de Recerca, Pg. de la Vall d’Hebron, 171, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
3
Departament de Didàctica de les Ciències Experimentals i Socials, Universitat de València, Av. de Blasco Ibáñez, 13, El
Pla del Real, 46010 València, Valencia, Spain
Abstract
This paper is a presentation of a current work in progress, specifically the exploratory phase for deter-
mining a methodological framework, clear objectives, and establishing preliminary results to guide the
future direction of the project. The paper sees the application of text analysis to a corpus body of texts
with a focus on highlighting heritage and intersectional data present within these texts. The approach
of text analysis allows for a quantitative analysis of modern perceptions of the past, narratives given to
the past by modern people, and the resulting context elements of the past are placed in stemming from
modern influences. With a focus on how prehistory is presented to modern people, in the specific con-
text of museums, it is necessary to trace the contents of texts depicting the past in these museums. The
overall goal of this paper is to have a deeper understanding of the impact modern narratives attributed
to the past has on the prehistoric past in an educational context. Specifically, looking at narratives fo-
cused on the process of neolithization as discussed in museums. Additionally, preliminary explorations
give insight into the benefits of the methodology and how to best establish next steps to propel future
research.
Keywords
Text Mining, Topic Modelling, Museums, Prehistory, Digital Humanities
1. Introduction
Museums are integral tools through which the past is understood and interpreted using tan-
gible scientific evidence. These institutions provide modern people with both physical and
experiential elements for developing interpretations and relationships with the past [33] and
educational opportunities [19]. As far as the physical, museums make accessible surviving ma-
terial culture through exhibits and displays, granting visitors direct visual and physical access
to remnants of the past [7]. Museums use storytelling and display techniques that cultivate an
experience for visitors to further build connections [23]. The contextualization of the past in
the form of digestible interpretations for visitors are linked to the place and time of origin for
the material culture used to aid in the storytelling and educational process of the archaeologi-
cal information available [21]. These include, but are not limited to photography, audiovisual
CHR 2024: Computational Humanities Research Conference, December 4–6, 2024, Aarhus, Denmark
∗
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
£ hschwartz@ub.edu (H. A. Schwartz); paula.jardon@uv.es (P. J. Giner); xrubio@ub.edu (X. R. Campillo)
ȉ 0009-0001-8231-3160 (H. A. Schwartz); 0000-0003-1542-7683 (P. J. Giner); 0000-0003-4428-4335 (X. R. Campillo)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
1220
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
supplementation, digital reconstructions, and texts. These modalities consumed by visitors are
available and ripe for analysis.
The following paper details the exploratory stage for an in-progress research project utilizing
quantitative textual analysis applied to a corpus of archaeological museum texts. This stage of
the analysis was used to formulate the best methodological approach to carry out text mining
for this corpus, set parameters, and solidify next steps in this project. This research is focused
on the types of narratives linked with production societies within museums, specifically mu-
seums along the east of the Iberian Peninsula. The interest is in how prehistory-producing
societies are taught in museums by analyzing associated texts.
As this is the first stage of the project all results are beneficial to evaluate the data, any need
for additional data, and exploring the research questions through quantitative text analysis.
The proposed questions are: 1) Through the texts produced in these museums is it possible
to determine the key issues from those societies and periods? 2) Do the narratives fit with
the current accepted research surrounding these societies and periods? 3) Are any problems
from past societies related to problems of the present? and 4) How is the information treated
and presented within these museums? These early results are indicative for next steps in this
research project.
2. Background
2.1. Archaeological Heritage Discourse and Text Analysis
In the context of archaeological heritage, textual sources are an important source highlighting
shifting narratives, contexts, and interpretations linked to tangible and intangible archaeolog-
ical heritage – including landscapes, surviving sites, museums, etc. Discourse studies and con-
tinually evolving quantitative methods continue to highlight the benefits of textual analysis
applied to archaeological heritage data [29, 4, 27, 31]. Museums contain a surplus of textual
sources discussing tangible and intangible archaeological heritage.
In previous research, this method has been used to discern how archaeologists discuss so-
cial issues over time [27], temporal shifts within academic articles about archaeological her-
itage landscapes [schwartz2023text ] and tracing geographical dispersion of archaeological
research in regions using historical archive data and newspaper collections [22]. Applying tex-
tual analysis tools on museum texts aids in uncovering subjectivity and biases within museums
in how archaeological knowledge is presented to visitors.
2.2. Museums as facilitators of Memory and Relationships with the Past
Data from surveys and other research provides insight into how modern people cultivate rela-
tionships with the past through perceptions, interpretations, and context in which people are
exposed to the past [2]. These interpretations are correlated with individual experiences and
cultural constructs illustrating that the past is seen by modern people not through the lens of
what the past was but through the lens of the present [2]. Our ability to connect with the past
is relegated to individual and group perceptions, stemming from the context in which the past
is interpreted and presented . There is a cycle in the interpretation, presentation, perception,
1221
and reinterpretation of the past that is dependent upon the era, new discoveries, new research,
and shifting cultural structures.
Looking at museums as agents facilitating that cycle, it is important to look to the exist-
ing presentation of the past within these museums. In order to determine what constitutes the
narratives currently presented to people about the past, to see the effects of archaeological edu-
cation with this modality [11]. It is necessary to make clear that archaeological knowledge – in
whichever context – is a produced knowledge linked to era, bias, interpretation, and existing re-
search and discoveries [9]. Any and all educational pursuits are carried out subjectively, which
is further reflected in museums – that span countries, cultures, and contexts. Furthermore, the
dissemination of archaeological knowledge – in various stages of production or reproduction
– is heavily influenced through social methods rather than more passive techniques [9]. The
more the presentation of the past is considered in the museum context, the more insight we
gain into the specific educational methods and narratives consumed by visitors.
2.3. The Context: Archaeological Museums and Neolithization in the Iberian
Peninsula
Texts appearing within museums linked to the development of early farming societies and
metal age societies– including discussions on the neolithization process – were utilized in this
study. This project aims to gain a better understanding of the words and concepts linked to
this part of the past. Specifically, the way in which narratives of neolithization and early pro-
ducing societies are presented to the public in museums. Within the Iberian Peninsula, there
are regional-specific variations and circumstances in which the overall development of these
production societies occurred [1]. There are differences in which neolithization impacted spe-
cific regions and the people within, in conjunction with clear neolithic traits not dependent on
a region (i.e., farming practices, economic structures, technological advancements, etc.) [12].
Additionally, changes to social structures and interactions between others which impacted the
role of reciprocity, growth of social inequalities, and the development of social networks [1],
will be explored in future research.
Within the Iberian Peninsula, new research and discoveries focused on the region [14, 17,
18] brings attention to the museums displaying these processes and. As the production and
reproduction of this type of archaeological knowledge evolves, how quickly and accurately
does this knowledge evolve within the museums. Analyzing museum texts allows one to see
what contexts and narratives surrounding production societies and neolithization in the Iberian
Peninsula is presented.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Materials
The corpus used in this project was built from a collection of texts in Català, compiled from
permanent exhibitions appearing in eight museums over a period of thirty-years along the east
of the Iberian Peninsula. These texts – with an overall sum of twenty-five thousand words –
were extrapolated from panels that describe the different themes of the museum. They are
1222
explanatory texts of general Neolithic culture characterizations (i.e., farming, work techniques,
religion, etc.). They exclude display cases as the sole interest is the main narratives presented
to visitors. The texts are general descriptors of Neolithic elements, with a select few descriptors
of specific sites. R Statistical Software (v4.2.2)[30] was used to carry out all processing, analysis,
and visualizations of the texts.
3.2. Methods
The texts were all collected using the same process of OCR with manual and automatic in-
ference. The individual texts were photographed and converted using OCR, with the texts
manually verified when necessary. During this process, it was decided to record all texts as
a single document per museum. The reasoning is each museum splits the content differently.
Therefore, a side-by-side comparison of each text (i.e., panel) would not be useful and would
include strong biases (i.e., museums where text is split in several panels would have a higher
weight that other ones where text is concentrated on a few large panels). Following the text
collection, Topic modelling was applied as a type of ‘distant reading’ to trace linguistic patterns
regarding the storytelling process between different museums presentation of archaeological
knowledge. R was used to explore content, word appearance, word frequency, and context. All
texts were loaded into, processed, and the corpus built within R using a number of packages:
tidytext (v0.3.4)[32], tm (v0.7.9)[6] and topicmodels (v0.2.13)[8].
Topic modelling was selected for its machine learning prowess in the sorting and classifica-
tion of documents in a corpus, assigning topics, and highlighting temporal distribution of topics
[5]. The process of topic modelling itself is a Bayesian analytic approach which is capable of
identifying semantic structures within documents that make up a corpus and then reorder the
entities within a corpus (words, documents, topics) based on probability distribution between
the entities of a corpus (topics linked with words, documents linked with topics) [3, 26]. There
are a range of methods for carrying out topic modelling with Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA)
chosen due to how the algorithm searches for topics, assigns topics, and having unstructured
topics which fits best with both the small size of the corpus and the datatype [26].Previous
research highlighted the benefits of applying LDA to archaeological heritage texts [27, 31].
Previous research was consulted to determine a preprocessing chain to help remove bias and
noise as much as possible. A metrics test was run to determine the appropriate number of topics
per the corpus, parameters of utilizing stopwords and applying lemmatization, and training an
LDA model was decided upon using previous research as guidelines [26, 27, 31]. Once the
parameters were set, metrics tests were run, and the model trained – the processed corpus
was analyzed using the previously mentioned R packages in conjunction with the additional
package ldatuning (v1.0.2) [24] to run the LDA algorithm.
4. Preliminary Explorations
This first exploration of the data used text mining techniques using R to analyze word frequency
and occurrence. The focus was to find the overall most frequently appearing terms throughout
the corpus and then the most frequently occurring terms for each text per museum. Looking
first at the frequency of term appearance overall, as seen in Figure 1, the entirety of the terms
1223
Figure 1: Overall Term-Frequency
Figure 2: Term-Frequency per Museum
present are of importance. The terms all are indicative and relative to the overall process of
neolithization. As the terms are in Català, translations include: neolitic(neolithic), pedra(stone),
poblats(villages), cova/coves(cave(s)), restes(remains), edat(age), silex(flint), objectes(objects).
Now looking at the frequency of word appearance per text per museum, differences in the
narratives per museum are discernible within Figure 2. For starters, in the entries for M BBAA
Castelló (Museo de Bellas Artes de Castellón), key terms include: coure(copper), vida(life), can-
vis(changes), and all centered around the province Castelló – also a term – located in Valencia.
Whereas, in the entries for MAC Barcelona (Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Barcelona),
key terms are: sílex(flint), cabanes(huts), and fossa(moats).The last example are the entries for
Museu Lleida( Museu de Lleida) with the terms: restes(remains), eines(tools), lloc(site) all per-
taining to Minferri – an additional term – which is an Early Bronze Age settlement located
in Lleida. Just from this intervention, there is a delineation between narratives in museums –
linked to location and elements of value in each location.
1224
Figure 3: Top Ten Terms per Topic
The next step was running topic modelling. In this iteration, the model is made up of nine
topics composed of the ten most frequently occurring terms per topic. These preliminary ex-
plorations made visible the types of topics within the corpus and the trends in each topic, as
illustrated in Figure 3.
Inference based on the terms give insight to the general theme of the topic itself. For example,
in Topic 4 terms include: lloc(place), bronz(bronze), vid(life), cult(worship), and art – which
indicates the context of art and culture within the bronze age. Whereas in topic 8 key terms
are: cov(cave), cultur(culture), décor(decoration), and bronz(bronze) – leading to infer this topic
pertains to cave art during this period. Additionally, it is through interpreting these topics that
names are developed as a result. Proposed names per topic are presented in Table 1.
Focusing on the themes within each of the topics highlight contexts within the text, of what
terms were occurring in proximity together. These early results provided the researchers of
the project the chance to consider potential changes to the dataset, adjustments to the method-
ological approach, and other ways of analyzing the contents of the texts.
1225
Table 1: Interpreted Topic Names
Topic Number Topic Name Terms
Topic 1 ritus funeraris necropol, funer, case
Topic 2 agricultura i ramaderia domestic, societ, agric, cour
Topic 3 materials pedr, ceramic, silex, neolitic
Topic 4 art del bronze bronz, lloc, art, cult, conserve
Topic 5 tipus d’estructures arqueològiques fet, enterr, caracter, period, estr
Topic 6 paleolític paleolitic, punt, represent, comun, product
Topic 7 edat del ferro epoc, ferr, cultur, anim, pobl, trob
Topic 8 art rupestre object, cultur, pres, bronz, cov, decor
Topic 9 treball de camp en arqueologia excav, trev, tip, jac, mater, fin
5. Discussion
Museums are one example of a center for archaeological heritage discourse in which individ-
uals can experience material and immaterial culture which helps develop one’s relationship
with the past [25, 16]. Focusing on archaeological museums specifically, they are a respected
place in which visitors experience, perceive, and learn about archaeological knowledge in a
public setting. Before continuing further, it is important to note the many criticisms and con-
troversies that are necessary in museum discourse today regarding problems and unethical
museum-practices of the past – and in some cases – the present [10]. Regarding the scope of
this paper as the exploratory phase, these points will not be discussed further presently but are
integral to consider and include in the future.
Museums are integral with cultivating memory of the past seen through the interpretations
used to create narratives presented to visitors [15]. Yet, narratives surrounding the past are not
stagnant and as new information becomes available, new technologies allow for more complex
study [20]. It is necessary to trace shifts in changing narratives and interpretations, looking at
how often museums update their presentations and exhibits [15]. Archaeological heritage dis-
course sheds light on the narratives, contexts, and perceptions of the dominating views of the
time – and that extends to discourse in museums. Texts existing within museums should be uti-
lized to the same degree as other archaeological heritage textual sources to gain insight into the
untapped data within. These first results are valuable for reviewing the current methodology
process and determining how the project can best progress.
As far as assessing how text analysis can illuminate key issues from the past as it is con-
nected to early production societies, the present themes and word frequency illuminate the
focal point of the narratives and interpretations presented to visitors. If museums are deter-
mined to provide visitors with insight into all facets of the past, terms and themes related to
said issues should be visible through text mining. At this stage of the project, any answers to
research questions are preliminary and are more valuable in determining next steps. Again,
the primary focus has been on the efÏcacy of the methods, potential changes to the data, and
what adjustments need to be made for parameters.
1226
5.1. Challenges
Originally, during the preprocessing of the texts before building the corpus, there was a limit to
the cleaning of the text. In part, this is due to the text in Català and the need to see how the lan-
guage is recognized within R. There was no general list of stopwords for Català, though there
is one in English. Nor a personalized list of stopwords, something that would aid in removing
noise [28]. Early explorations indicated the necessity and additions to the preprocessing chain
that include: general stopwords (i.e., s’hi(in), d’un(of one), and s’han(they have), lemmatization,
and removing special characters. While these changes were employed and explored, more in-
tervention into the preprocessing chain in the context of working with a non-English language
is needed.
5.2. Exploratory Results
The preliminary figures illustrate how with the strengthening of the methodological approach,
the research questions can be answered through a quantitative analysis. With the goal of
exploring the extent current exhibitions offering this archaeological knowledge consider all
advances of knowledge over the last three decades.
With Figure 1, focusing on early production societies and neolithization, the terms we can ex-
pect about these peoples and societies in general are present (i.e., pedra(stone), poblats(villages),
cerámica(ceramics), silex(flint). For Figure 2, it is further possible to discern the relationship
between topics and museums. For example, looking at M BBAA Castelló, in this area neolithiza-
tion is in relation to animals, with habitat more often in caves which is reflective of the moun-
tain region. Where, MAC Barcelona sees terms that fit more describing the neolithic cultures
in general within Catalunya, with more specialized concepts used by archaeologists. This is
reflective of the museum having an academic and technological discourse.
Regarding these texts reflecting narratives in accepted research, there are discrepancies. For
example, within these texts there is no mention of Mesolithic peoples, nor any mention of the
transformations of neolithic landscapes. There is also a focus on specific neolithic activities
that take precedence over others. There is a larger appearance of farming compared to other
neolithic activities, such as herding. Additionally, there is no mention of the impact of ne-
olithic on prehistoric landscapes. This reflects that some issues are the importance of purely
economic activities and technology beyond other types of traits that define neolithic (i.e., so-
cial structures, sexual division of labor, environmental dynamics, etc.). Furthermore, with the
goal of being able to interpret and understand the treatment and presentation of these texts,
additional analysis can consult linked metadata or comparing the evolution or stagnation of
the information.
5.3. Next Steps
Regarding the selected texts, at the present moment, these are the only texts and only museums
utilized – but there is a potential to bring in texts from an additional four museums in the spec-
ified region. As far as narratives present within museums remaining up to date with current
research, the use of a qualitative approach – ‘close reading’ – of these texts and recent articles
could provide more details. Another option could be adding an additional corpus made up of
1227
recent research to analyze separately and compare results. Comparing corpus to corpus, to see
potential similarities and differences between the narratives presented in museums and those
produced in peer-reviewed journals. Based on the early explorations of the corpus, the final
analysis filtered the corpus for any term not present in at least 2 museums and the number of
topics was set at nine following metrics testing. The number of term appearances can also be
adjusted, along with additional metrics testing to further evaluate the number of topics. The
end result of this stage is a future direction for how this project can further develop, solidify
the code and methodological framework.
6. Conclusion
Our ability to interpret, perceive, and relate to the past is only possible resulting from the
value and significance of surviving material and immaterial culture. The increasing accessibil-
ity of this material and immaterial culture present within museums is linked to what modern
people find valuable and significant enough from the past, to hold this level of presence within
modern culture – on display in the modern collective memory [13]. Much like value and signif-
icance assigned to remnants of the past can change, so does the knowledge and interpretation
of the surviving past change. Text analysis is a valuable tool to trace shifts in the knowledge
and interpretation of archaeological heritage – including texts surrounding archaeological her-
itage currently residing in museums. This project will continue applying the methodological
approach to better understand and disseminate current patterns of archaeological knowledge,
and their respective narratives and contexts as they exist within museums.
References
[1] J. B. Aubán. “The social and symbolic context of Neolithization”. In: SAGVNTVM Extra
5 (2002), pp. 209–234.
[2] A. W. Barker. “Exhibiting archaeology: archaeology and museums”. In: Annual Review of
Anthropology 39.1 (2010), pp. 293–308.
[3] D. M. Blei and J. D. Lafferty. “Topic models”. In: Text mining. Chapman and Hall/CRC,
2009, pp. 101–124.
[4] A. Burkette and R. Skeates. “The Words that Archaeologists Choose: A Maltese Case
Study in Artifact Terminology, Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis”. In: Journal
of Mediterranean Archaeology 35.1 (2022).
[5] A. Daud, J. Li, L. Zhou, and F. Muhammad. “Knowledge discovery through directed proba-
bilistic topic models: a survey”. In: Frontiers of computer science in China 4 (2010), pp. 280–
301.
[6] I. Feinerer and K. Hornik. tm: Text Mining Package. 2022. url: https://CRAN.R-project.o
rg/package=tm.
[7] C. Goulding. “The museum environment and the visitor experience”. In: European Jour-
nal of marketing 34.3/4 (2000), pp. 261–278.
1228
[8] B. Grün and K. Hornik. topicmodels: Topic Models. 2022. url: https://CRAN.R-project.or
g/package=topicmodels.
[9] Y. Hamilakis. “Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy”. In: World archaeology 36.2
(2004), pp. 287–309.
[10] N. Harris. “Museums and controversy: Some introductory reflections”. In: The Journal of
American History 82.3 (1995), pp. 1102–1110.
[11] D. Henson. “Archaeology and education”. In: Key concepts in public archaeology (2017),
pp. 43–59.
[12] V.-P. Herva, K. Nordqvist, A. Lahelma, and J. Ikäheimo. “Cultivation of Perception and
the Emergence of the Neolithic World”. In: Norwegian archaeological review 47.2 (2014),
pp. 141–160.
[13] T. Ireland, S. Brown, and J. Schofield. “Situating (in) significance”. In: International Jour-
nal of Heritage Studies 26.9 (2020), pp. 826–844.
[14] N. Isern, J. Fort, A. F. Carvalho, J. F. Gibaja, and J. J. Ibañez. “The Neolithic transition in
the Iberian Peninsula: data analysis and modeling”. In: Journal of Archaeological Method
and Theory 21 (2014), pp. 447–460.
[15] S. Jones. “Dialogues between past, present and future: Reflections on engaging the recent
past”. In: Archaeology, the Public and the Recent Past (2013), pp. 163–176.
[16] O. Knauss. “Museum Best Practices for Managing Controversy”. In: National Coalition
Against Censorship (2019).
[17] Í. G.-M. de Lagrán. “Recent data and approaches on the Neolithization of the Iberian
Peninsula”. In: European Journal of Archaeology 18.3 (2015), pp. 429–453.
[18] Í. G.-M. de Lagrán, E. Fernández-Domı́nguez, and M. A. Rojo-Guerra. “Solutions or illu-
sions? An analysis of the available palaeogenetic evidence from the origins of the Ne-
olithic in the Iberian Peninsula”. In: Quaternary International 470 (2018), pp. 353–368.
[19] J. Lea. “Teaching the past in museums”. In: Museums and Archaeology. Routledge, 2022,
pp. 473–484.
[20] M. D. McCoy and T. N. Ladefoged. “New developments in the use of spatial technology
in archaeology”. In: Journal of Archaeological Research 17 (2009), pp. 263–295.
[21] S. Moser. “Representing archaeological knowledge in museums: Exhibiting human ori-
gins and strategies for change”. In: Public Archaeology 3.1 (2003), pp. 3–20.
[22] P. Murrieta-Flores and I. Gregory. “Further frontiers in GIS: Extending spatial analysis
to textual sources in archaeology”. In: Open Archaeology 1.1 (2015).
[23] J. K. Nielsen. “Museum communication and storytelling: articulating understandings
within the museum structure”. In: Museum management and curatorship 32.5 (2017),
pp. 440–455.
[24] M. Nikita. ldatuning: Tuning of the Latent Dirichlet Allocation Models Parameters. 2020.
url: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ldatuning.
1229
[25] B. L.-A. M. O’Mara. “Museums and controversy: you can’t have one without the other.”
PhD thesis. 2007.
[26] A. Onan, S. Korukoglu, and H. Bulut. “LDA-based topic modelling in text sentiment clas-
sification: An empirical analysis.” In: Int. J. Comput. Linguistics Appl. 7.1 (2016), pp. 101–
119.
[27] G. Park, L.-Y. Wang, and B. Marwick. “How do archaeologists write about racism? Com-
putational text analysis of 41 years of Society for American Archaeology annual meeting
abstracts”. In: Antiquity 96.387 (2022), pp. 696–709.
[28] W. Parwita. “A document recommendation system of stemming and stopword removal
impact: A web-based application”. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 1469. 1.
IOP Publishing. 2020, p. 012050.
[29] G. Plets, P. Huijnen, and D. van Oeveren. “Excavating archaeological texts: Applying
digital humanities to the study of archaeological thought and banal nationalism”. In:
Journal of Field Archaeology 46.5 (2021), pp. 289–302.
[30] R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2022. url: https://www.R-project.org/.
[31] H. A. Schwartz. “Text Mining Analysis of Perception in Archaeological Landscapes: The
Case of Stonehenge”. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop
on Geospatial Humanities. 2023, pp. 40–43.
[32] J. Silge and D. Robinson. “tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles
in R”. In: Joss 1.3 (2016). doi: 10.21105/joss.00037. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.0
0037.
[33] A. Witcomb. “Thinking about others through museums and heritage”. In: The Palgrave
handbook of contemporary heritage research. Springer, 2015, pp. 130–143.
1230