- Found on Mount Helicon with an arrowhead, 26.7.13
- Northern Boeotia (?), provenience unknown
- From a burial somewhere in the Argolid.
- Thought to be from Cyprus: T.146.II. From Poli? Cf. JHS 1890.
- Unknown, similar to Larnaca, Kamelarga finds
- From Carthage (or other North African site)
- Central Italian, possibly from the vicinity of Rome.
- Cast from an original in the Acropolis Museum, Athens
- Said by vendor to have come from between Thebes and Chalcis
4) Granularity of annotations
If we have an object from Salamis in Cyprus, do we annotate it with both Salamis and with Cyprus or just with the more precise location, Salamis? You wouldn't necessarily expect every item from Rome to also be annotated with Italy so using the more precise location feels sensible. On the other hand it may not do any harm to annotate with both and if we do have two places associated with an object, how do we tell that one is contained within another? Pleiades has information about which places 'connect with' other places and according to Sean Gillies of Pleiades, 'you'd almost never go wrong in Pleiades by inferring containment between a precisely located place of small extent and a much more extensive place' if you used this data. However, there is a great deal of connection information missing from Pleiades, so in practice this approach is unlikely to work well.
Once I have finished on the special cases, the next stage will then be to turn the data into OAC annotations and arranging where the data is going to be hosted.