Added missing sessions for CAA 2025 and 2026

Author: mtomasini

content/sessions/caa2025_session_computational_interfaces.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "Computational interfaces: Exploring the Potential of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) in Archaeology"
+sessionType: session
+date: 2025-05-06
+conference: CAA 2025, Athens
+conferenceUrl: https://2025.caaconference.org/
+sessionCode: S52
+organisers:
+- Martin Hinz
+- Clemens Schmid
+---
+
+**When**: 2025-05-06,18:40-20:10 EEST  
+**Where**: Room 3A, University of Western Attica, Athens, Greece
+
+## Abstract
+The CAA Special Interest Group “Scientific Scripting Languages in Archaeology” (SSLA) invites submissions for a session on the emerging potential of computational interfaces for archaeological research data and tools. This session aims to explore how Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), Command Line Interfaces (CLIs) or Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs)— collectively referred to as computational interfaces—can reduce the complexity of computational processes and can empower archaeologists to conduct more reproducible, transparent, and efficient research.
+
+### Background and Rationale
+As archaeology continues to embrace digital technologies, the need for reproducible research has become more pressing. Scripting languages are essential for this, providing archaeologists with the ability to automate workflows, reproduce analytical processes, and share methods transparently across the discipline. However, many archaeologists may refrain from adopting scripting languages due to the steep learning curve, lack of institutional and pedagogical support, and — perhaps most importantly — an inability to relate abstract computational processes to actual archaeological use-cases. APIs, CLIs, DSLs and other programming interfaces built for (and by) archaeologists offer a unique potential to address this difficulty by providing structured, machine-readable workflows and commands that match archaeological concepts and nomenclature, while simultaneously ensuring that even complex analytical tasks can be performed transparently and consistently. These interfaces therefore serve as bridges between archaeologists and the powerful world of scripting-based computational tools. However, while APIs have already begun to play a significant role in archaeology, enabling the integration of diverse digital resources, the development and application of Command line interfaces is lagging behind, and Domain-Specific Languages remain largely unexplored. **DSLs** are specialized programming languages tailored to the requirements of a particular field or task. They are often not computationally universal, i.e. able to implement any algorithm, but instead only model a narrow target domain. Many are embedded as libraries in a host language (eDSLs) to reuse syntax and compiler of the latter. While tools like **OxCal** have already incorporated DSL-like features for radiocarbon dating and chronological modeling (Bronk Ramsey, 2009), there is a significant opportunity to expand the use of DSLs across other areas of archaeological research: They could streamline processes such as spatial analysis, excavation data management, and artifact classification, allowing archaeologists to focus more on their research questions and less on the technical complexities of the tools they use. By creating languages that align closely with the terminology and workflows of archaeology, DSLs could simultaneously make sophisticated methods like Bayesian analysis, predictive modeling, and data science more accessible to archaeologists who may not have a background in computer science. **CLIs** are a more basic programmable interface. They allow access to the functionality of a software tool by calling it with a set of parameters on the command line. They thus share some of the potential described for DSLs and generally come at a lower cost both for developers and users, because they are easier to implement, run and learn. While they guarantee reusability and interoperability between tools, they also lack some of the advanced abilities of DSLs to empower users to express complex models and workflows. **APIs**, finally, have already demonstrated their value in archaeology by facilitating the integration of various tools and datasets. APIs provide standardized interfaces that allow different software systems to communicate with each other, for example over the internet, enabling archaeologists to combine data from multiple sources, such as GIS platforms and archaeological databases, in a seamless and efficient manner. The use of APIs has proven effective in enhancing data interoperability and enabling collaborative research across different institutions and disciplines. However, while APIs have made significant strides in improving data access and integration, they still require users to understand the underlying systems and data structures they interact with. This is where CLIs and DSLs could complement APIs, providing a higher level of abstraction that allows users to perform complex tasks without needing to engage with technical details. The development of computational interfaces in archaeology is a desideratum, offering the potential to revolutionize how archaeological data is processed, analyzed, and interpreted. By focusing on APIs, CLIs and DSLs, this session seeks to explore the possibilities for creating or adapting languages, both free-standing or embedded, to meet the unique needs of archaeological research.
+
+We encourage submissions that explore various aspects of computational interfaces in archaeology, including their development, potential applications, and integration with existing tools. Suggested topics include:
+
+**The Case for Programming Interfaces in Archaeology**: Discussions on the need for and potential benefits of developing APIs, CLIs and especially DSLs tailored to archaeological research, including how they could simplify complex analyses and make advanced tools more accessible to non-specialists.
+
+**Development of Interfaces**: Insights into the design and development of interfaces for archaeology, focusing on how their inherent languages can be created to align with the specific needs and workflows of the field. Key technical challenges of DSLs include for example parsing (transforming code into expressions), evaluation (handling domain logic), tooling (supporting program development), and error messages, with interest in user and developer perspectives on these issues.
+
+**Current Examples and Future Directions**: Exploration of existing tools that provide APIs or CLIs – or incorporate DSL-like features, such as OxCal. Including discussion of how these tools could be expanded or new systems developed to address other areas of archaeological research.
+
+**The Interplay of Computational Interfaces**: Papers that examine how interfaces can complement each other by facilitating data integration and interoperability, enabling them to function more effectively within the broader ecosystem of archaeological software.
+
+**Interdisciplinary Collaboration**: Examples of how collaborative efforts between archaeologists, computer scientists, and other specialists can enhance or can be enhanced by developing interfaces that meet the unique needs of archaeological research.
+
+This session offers a platform for both experienced researchers and emerging scholars to share their insights and ideas. We encourage submissions that focus on the potential and challenges of developing DSLs for archaeology, as well as those that explore the role of APIs, CLIs or other computational interfaces. We welcome live-coding in the presentations.
+
+
+
+## Presentations
+
+1. Building a tree-walk interpreter - a didactic deep dive into the age of modelling language of the currycarbon software tool  
+Clemens Schmid
+
+2. Untapped Potential or Unusable Complexity? Challenges of Providing APIs for Archaeologists  
+Lisa Steinmann and Simon Hohl
+
+3. Open-Source Bayesian Chronological Modeling: The Role of Domain-Specific Language
+Martin Hinz and Joe Roe
+
+4. Etruscan Chamber Tombs Portal: a case study in the use of interconnected web software through dedicated APIs
+Matteo Tomasini, Tristan Bridge, Aram Karimi, and Jonathan Westin
+
+5. A command-line interface for chronological network modelling in R  
+Gilles Geeraerts, Joe Roe, and Eythan Levy
+
+### Reference
+
+- Bronk Ramsey, C. (2009). “Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates.” Radiocarbon, 51(1), 337-360.

content/sessions/caa2026_session_all_models_are_wrong.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: '"All Models are Wrong": Learning from Failure in Computational Archaeology'
+sessionType: session
+date: 2026-04-02
+conference: CAA 2026, Vienna
+conferenceUrl: https://2026.caaconference.org/
+sessionCode: S16
+organisers:
+- Joe Roe
+- Matteo Tomasini
+---
+
+**When**: 2026-04-02,08:30-10:10 CEST  
+**Where**: Hörsaal 05, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
+
+## Description
+
+Box’s oft-quoted law—”all models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box 1976)—tells us that the value of a model is not in precisely reproducing the real world, but failing to do so in a productive way. This is nowhere truer than in computational archaeology, the search for mathematical approximations of a fundamentally unreproducible past. We are voracious producers and consumers of new digital methods, tools, and perspectives (Scollar 1999; Batist and Roe 2024). It is only to be expected that most of these end up going nowhere. Yet only successful models tend to make it into conferences and publications; the lessons we learn from ‘failed’ attempts are kept private. In this session, we call for papers on: models that failed verification, or turned out to be unverifiable; new approaches tried that didn’t work; errors in implementation, large and small; methods and tools that have been left on the wayside; and any other form of failure in computational archaeological research.
+
+## Presentations
+
+1. Can ecological models predict the occurrence of species in the archaeological record? Can I?
+Joe Roe
+
+2. The rise and fall (and rise again?) of cultural phylogenetics in archaeology
+Felix Riede
+
+3. Beyond the Signals: A simulation-based evaluation of the Signal Selection Test (SST)
+Alberto Cooper and Enrico Crema
+
+4. The Data Strikes Back: Overcoming Challenges in Quantitative Approaches to the Roman Settlement Landscape
+Mark Groenhuijzen, Andrew Lawrence, Philip Verhagen
+
+
+### References
+
+- Batist, Z. & Roe, J., 2024. Open archaeology, open source? Collaborative practices in an emerging community of archaeological software engineers. Internet Archaeology 67. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.67.13
+
+- Box, G. E. P. 1976. Science and Statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 71: 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949
+
+- Scollar, I. 1999. 25 Years of computer applications in archaeology. In L. Dingwall, S. Exon, V. Gaffney, S. Laflin and M. van Leusen (eds.) Archaeology in the Age of the Internet. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 5-10. https://proceedings.caaconference.org/paper/02_scollar_caa_1997/

content/sessions/caa2026_session_computational_archaeology_revisited.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+title: "Computational Archaeology Revisited: Building Bridges with Mathematics and Computer Science"
+sessionType: session
+date: 2026-04-01
+conference: CAA 2026, Vienna
+conferenceUrl: https://2026.caaconference.org/
+sessionCode: S31
+organisers:
+- Eythan Levy
+- Martin Hinz
+---
+
+**When**: 2026-04-01,10:30-14:30 CEST  
+**Where**: Hörsaal 01, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
+
+## Description
+
+The official [mission statement](https://caa-international.org/about/) of CAA states:
+
+“Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) is an international organization _bringing together archaeologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists_. Its mission is to encourage and facilitate dialogue between these disciplines, to provide an overview of the present state of the discipline, and to stimulate discussion to progress the field.” (emphasis ours)
+
+Yet, in practice, mathematicians and computer scientists are still under-represented, and most contributions come from archaeologists as end-users rather than as co-developers of new methods. In the early days of computational archaeology, cross-disciplinary collaboration was more common. Especially in the seventies, the pioneering work of the 1970 Anglo-Romanian Conference on Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences conference (Hodson, Kendall and Tautu 1971) brought together a whole array of mathematicians proposing concrete mathematical and computational solutions to archaeological problems. This period also saw the publication of the seminal work of Doran and Hodson on Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology (1975), which embodied the state-of-the art of computational/quantitative archaeology of the time — producing techniques such as seriation algorithms that remain influential today.
+
+Since then, there have been notable breakthroughs, such as Bayesian approaches to radiocarbon dating (Buck et al. 1991; Bronk Ramsey 2009), the application of spatial point process models to settlement patterns, and the adaptation of phylogenetic and network-theoretical methods to study cultural transmission. Yet overall, the field has leaned more towards ready-made tools (GIS, network analysis, semantic modelling, AI applications) than to the joint development of novel mathematical or algorithmic frameworks.
+
+This session aims to reinvigorate that dialogue. Our vision is a CAA that not only showcases applications but also nurtures collaborations where new mathematical models and computational techniques are developed for and with archaeology.
+
+The intended round table would feature the following parts:
+
+1. General introduction and problem statement (Levy and Hinz).
+2. Short interventions by mathematicians, computer scientists, and archaeologists. Mathematicians and computer scientists would present techniques of their choice, which they feel might be of use for archaeology. The intention is, for the archaeological community, to discover techniques they might not be aware of, and which might have significant impact on future quantitative archaeological research. Archaeologists are also invited to present open problem statements: concrete case studies for which they failed to find practical quantitative or algorithmic solutions among the standard toolkits. Each intervention would consist of a short presentation, followed by a longer discussion with the audience.
+3. Brainstorming part. General discussion, hoping to find convergences between the exposed archaeological needs and available computational techniques presented.
+
+We invite colleagues from all three disciplines to participate actively, especially in presenting open problems or potential solutions. Colleagues wishing to present either a mathematical/computational technique of their choice, or an open problem, are invited to submit an abstract to the session via the conference’s standard abstract submission system.
+
+
+## Presentations
+
+0. Introduction to the session
+Eythan Levy, Martin Hinz
+
+1. Herculaneum Scrolls Ink Detection Using Textural Features  
+Oleksandr Korotetskyi and Michal Haindl
+
+2. Probabilistic Geometric Joining for Fragmented Paper: An Algorithmic Pipeline with Markov Assembly under Minimal Supervision
+Terrindeep Sandhu, Deborah LaCamera, Heini Korhonen, Kay Horak, Lorraine Bigrigg, Marie Lassaigne
+
+3. Multiple testing of local maxima for detection of post holes
+Valentina Cammarata
+
+4. What Can Ecological Statistical Methods Bring to Archaeological Research
+Fabrice Rossi
+
+5. Evolutionary Algorithms: An untapped resource for archaeologists?
+Mathys du Plessis
+
+### Reference
+
+- Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360.
+
+- Buck C.E., Kenworthy J.B., Litton C.D., Smith A.F.M. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–21.
+
+- Doran, J. E., Hodson, F. R.  1975. Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press.
+
+- Hodson, F.R., Kendall, D. G., Tautu, P. (eds). 1971. Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences.  Proceedings of the Anglo-Romanian Conference, Mamaia, 1970. Aldine-Atherton, Inc., Chicago.