Cultural Categorization in Epigraphic Heritage Digitization

Abstract

The digitization of cultural and intellectual heritage is expanding the research scope and methodologies of the scientific discipline of Humanities. Culturally diverse epigraphic systems reveal a range of methodological impediments on the way to their integration into digital epigraphic data preservation systems—EAGLE and FAIR ontologies predominantly based on Greco-Roman cultural categorization. We suggest an interdisciplinary approach—drawing from Heritage Studies, Cultural Epistemology, and Social Semiotics—to ensure the comprehensive encoding, preservation, and accessibility of at-risk cultural artifacts. Heritage Studies emphasize inscriptions as material reflections of historical memory. Cultural Epistemology helps us to understand how different knowledge systems influence data categorization, while semiotic analysis reveals how inscriptions function within their social and symbolic contexts. Together, these methods guide the integration of culturally specific information into broader digital infrastructures. The case of Ukrainian epigraphy illustrates how this approach can be applied to ensure that local traditions are accurately represented and not flattened by standardized international systems. We argue that the same methodology can also support the digitization of other non-Greco-Roman heritage. FAIR Ontology and EAGLE vocabularies prioritize standardization and interoperability, introducing text mining, GIS mapping, and digital visualization to trace patterns across the vast body of texts from different historical periods. Standardizing valuable elements of cultural categorization and reconstructing and integrating lost or underrepresented cultural narratives will expand the capacity of the above systems and will foster greater inclusivity in Humanities research. Ukrainian epigraphic classification systems offer a unique, granular approach to inscription studies as a worthwhile contribution to the broader cognitive and epistemological horizons of the Humanities. Through a balanced use of specificity and interoperability principles, this study attempts to contribute to epigraphic metalanguage by challenging the monocentric ontologies, questioning cultural biases in digital categorization, and promoting open access to diverse sources of knowledge production.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, the Humanities rely on archival research, textual analysis, and interpretative methodologies, often centered on physical documents, artifacts, and linear narratives. However, digitization tendencies in the Humanities introduce computational tools and archiving principles, availing networked scholarship as a new way of engaging with cultural texts, historical records, and linguistic data. Techniques such as text mining, GIS mapping, and digital visualization enable scholars to analyze vast corpora of texts, trace patterns across historical periods, and reconstruct lost or fragmented knowledge. By integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches, DH offers new insights that were previously inaccessible through traditional Humanities methodologies alone.

Another significant contribution of digitization is the liberation of access to historically accumulated cultural knowledge, which often remains on the margins of advanced scholarship. Digital archives, open-access platforms, and interactive databases allow scholars, students, and the general public to engage with historical documents, literary texts, and cultural artifacts that were once confined to specific institutions. This accessibility fosters greater inclusion in Humanities research, allowing it to incorporate underrepresented voices and marginalized histories into scholarly discourse. Furthermore, DH methodologies facilitate collaborative research across disciplines, bridging gaps between the Humanities, Computer Science, and Data Science. Projects in the digitization and computational analysis of epigraphic inscriptions highlight how Digital Humanities facilitate new interdisciplinary dialog between linguistic and computational analyses. Examining such artifacts requires broad linguistic insights in order to trace cultural behavior patterns, reshaping traditional notions of authorship, curation, and scholarly engagement.

Beyond methodology and accessibility, DH is challenging and expanding epistemological frameworks in the Humanities. By exposing biases in digital categorization, questioning the dominance of Western-centric ontologies, and promoting decolonized approaches to knowledge production, DH is reshaping the way cultural heritage and intellectual traditions are represented. For instance, initiatives that digitize non-Western scripts, oral histories, and indigenous knowledge systems counteract the Eurocentric biases that have long shaped Humanities scholarship. By leveraging machine learning, digital archives, and community-driven metadata practices, DH is not merely supplementing the traditional Humanities, it is actively redefining how we engage with history, literature, language, and culture in a networked, data-driven, and globally interconnected world.

Preserving Ukrainian cultural heritage has become increasingly critical in recent years, especially amid ongoing conflicts like the Russo-Ukrainian War. The deliberate destruction of cultural monuments, combined with historical efforts—such as Soviet-era policies of Russification and the removal of artifacts tied to Ukrainian identity—has posed a significant threat to the country’s heritage. Studying Ukrainian epigraphy within digital frameworks necessitates engagement with Heritage Studies, Semiotics, and Sociolinguistics, as these disciplines offer critical insights into how cultural artifacts are encoded and preserved. Heritage Studies emphasize the significance of inscriptions as material records of historical consciousness, while Semiotics provides tools to analyze their symbolic and social–communicative functions. Sociolinguistic approaches, in turn, highlight the intersection of language, identity, and cultural transmission, allowing for a deeper understanding of how inscriptions conceptualize collective memory. By integrating these perspectives, digital epigraphy can stretch beyond cataloging objectives to actively preserve the culture-specific categorization embedded in Ukrainian inscriptions.

In this context, a key concern is the digital standardization of Cultural Epistemology, which interrogates how classification and metadata systems influence the perception of epigraphic traditions on a global scale. Data classification—through ontologies, vocabularies, and metadata—facilitates accessibility and categorizes contextualized interpretations of inscriptions. Western European classification systems, developed primarily for Greco-Roman traditions, may impose rigid categorizations that fail to accommodate the context-sensitive and fluid nature of Ukrainian epigraphy. Examining how digital infrastructures shape knowledge production is essential in ensuring that Ukrainian inscriptions are integrated into existing systems and represented in a way that respects their cultural specificity and interpretative depth.

Beyond technical concerns, decolonizing cultural heritage is a current issue, particularly in light of the post-Soviet context of the liberalization of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Notably, the erasure and marginalization of Ukrainian cultural artifacts—historically through imperial policies and more recently through geopolitical conflicts—underscore the urgency of reclaiming and asserting a distinct cultural identity in digital spaces. By positioning Ukrainian epigraphy within broader discourses of cultural restitution and linguistic justice, this research attempts to expand Eurocentric heritage frameworks and advocates for a more inclusive, polycentric approach to digital preservation. Ensuring that Ukrainian inscriptions are represented with their historical, linguistic, and religious significance intact is not only a matter of scholarly accuracy, but also an act of cultural resistance and reclamation.

Unlike Greco-Roman epigraphic traditions, which are often centered on formal, monumental inscriptions for public or state purposes, Ukrainian epigraphy is remarkably diverse and deeply personal to its creators, bringing forward untold narratives and voices. It includes church graffiti, commemorative texts, and domestic drawings, reflecting religious devotion, community identity, and everyday life [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].

The destruction and erasure of these artifacts, including epigraphic inscriptions, risk severing future generations from their historical and cultural roots. As primary records of linguistic, artistic, and religious practices, these inscriptions are among the most fragile and vulnerable aspects of Ukrainian heritage. Protecting them is not just about preservation, it is about safeguarding a tangible link to the past of Ukrainian identity and casting a searchlight on future studies. By recognizing the value of accurate documentation, cultural heritage preservation has been emphasized as an axiological priority, particularly in conflict and globalization1. Epigraphy plays a crucial role in shaping cultural memory, as a tangible link between past and present narratives of identity, faith, and historical continuity. Inscriptions are not mere records; they are acts of communication embedded in time, reflecting the values, beliefs, and power structures of the societies that produced them. The ethical dimensions of digital representation arise when these inscriptions are translated into structured datasets, raising questions about who classifies them, how they are contextualized, and whose narratives they represent. In the case of Ukrainian epigraphy, the digitization process must navigate not only technical challenges, but also the responsibility of cultural stewardship, ensuring that inscriptions retain their original meanings rather than being reshaped by predefined classification standards. Therefore, a humanities-centered approach to digital epigraphy must critically examine how digital frameworks mediate the transmission of historical knowledge and whose epistemologies they reinforce or obscure.

Beyond their documentary function, inscriptions possess inherent esthetic dimensions, operating as both esthetic and pragmatic expressions transcending contextual settings. Ukrainian epigraphy, deeply rooted in Orthodox Christian traditions, embodies a fusion of language, iconography, and spatial symbolism, making each inscription not only an artifact of linguistic heritage, but also an expression of religious devotion, political authority, and social identity. The stylistic elements of inscriptions—their calligraphy, materiality, and integration into architectural and ritual spaces—convey meanings that extend beyond the words themselves. Treating epigraphy only as data risks stripping inscriptions of their visual, material, and experiential richness, reducing them to abstract classifications rather than recognizing them as living cultural texts. A Humanities-driven perspective thus calls for a more holistic engagement with epigraphic heritage, one that acknowledges inscriptions as dynamic cultural artifacts that continue to shape and be shaped by historical consciousness. Epigraphy plays a crucial role in shaping cultural memory, serving as a tangible link between past and present narratives of identity, faith, and historical continuity.

In this context, digital preservation has become a powerful tool for safeguarding cultural artifacts and increasing accessibility for researchers and the public. Projects like EAGLE2 and FAIR Epigraphy3 demonstrate how structured vocabularies and digital preservation can transform the diversity of epigraphic data into standardized catalogs and description standards [28,29,30,31,32]. Studies have shown that initiatives like these significantly improve the accessibility, interoperability, and resilience of cultural heritage data.

The EAGLE vocabularies contain over 3000 concepts divided into seven categories: Material4, Execution Technique5, Type of Inscription6, Object Type7, Decoration8, Dating Criteria9, and State of Preservation10. These vocabularies were developed based on Greco-Roman digital collections to enhance global accessibility and interoperability [29]. However, this system contains several challenges, such as a lack of hierarchical structure, duplicate terms, and limited examples.

The FAIR Epigraphy Project addresses these challenges and builds on the EAGLE vocabulary while adhering to the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles. This project emphasizes the importance of open-access, machine-readable data and the development of structured ontologies to support interdisciplinary research and data sharing. Notably, the FAIR Types of Inscription Ontology11 introduces a hierarchical classification system based on the function of inscriptions. Our research focuses on “Types of Inscription” (Figure 1) and “Execution Techniques” vocabularies, as these two categories are inherently epigraphic and do not require interdisciplinary research.

An essential element of digital epigraphy and preservation efforts is using structured vocabularies [33,34], particularly those built with the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). Developed as part of the W3C’s Semantic Web Activity, SKOS provides a standardized, machine-readable framework for organizing and representing knowledge structures. By simplifying knowledge representation, SKOS aligns with Linked Data principles, making it possible to connect datasets across various domains—an essential step for integrating Ukrainian epigraphic terminology into global databases.

Key features of SKOS include its ability to structure concepts, labels, and relationships, ensuring that vocabularies are comprehensive and adaptable for Digital Humanities research. Concepts represent abstract or concrete entities, such as “Πaм’ятнi нaпиcи” (Memorial Inscriptions), while labels provide human-readable terms (preferred, alternative, or hidden). Relationships define connections between concepts, including hierarchical links (broader/narrower) and associative links (related terms). Additionally, SKOS offers mapping properties, such as SKOS:ExactMatch, which facilitate interoperability by linking concepts across different datasets.

For example, an inscription from 14th-century Galicia categorized as “Фpecкoвi poзпиcи” (Fresco Paintings) can be linked to similar categories in European digital libraries, enhancing interdisciplinary research and enriching the study of medieval epigraphy. This interoperability enables researchers to uncover related inscriptions across different regions, offering more profound insights into historical and cultural exchanges and theorization perspectives.

With all the perspectives mentioned, Ukrainian epigraphic heritage remains underrepresented because of limited funds and resources and the lack of specialists and international and interdisciplinary collaboration. Developing a SKOS of Ukrainian vocabulary would address this gap. SKOS is specifically suitable for this task due to its flexibility in modeling hierarchical and associative relationships between terms. Moreover, it is compatible with Linked Open Data (LOD) standards and can be seamlessly integrated with existing international frameworks [29]. These features ensure that Ukrainian inscriptions—rich in historical and cultural significance—become more accessible and interoperable within global digital archives.

Building a robust SKOS epigraphic vocabulary requires a comprehensive understanding of the cultural categorization models and the classification principles used, for instance, in Ukrainian academia, both historically and in contemporary research [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. One of the earliest frameworks in Ukrainian academia is Vysotsky’s event-based classification [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], which organizes graffiti inscriptions into seven thematic categories based on their content, including commemorative inscriptions (Πaм’ятнi гpaфiтi), memorial inscriptions linked to chronicles (Πoминaльнi нaдпиcи, cпopiднeнi з лiтoпиcними), wish inscriptions (Блaгoпoбaжaльнi нaдпиcи), autographs (Aвтoгpaфiчнi нaдпиcи), inscriptions related to frescoes (Haдпиcи, якi cтocyютьcя фpecoк), symbolic drawings (Cимвoлiчнi мaлюнки) (e.g., saints, princely and magical signs, pottery marks, and crosses), and domestic drawings (Πoбyтoвi мaлюнки) (e.g., animals, birds, people, and ornamental figures) [12]. Vysotsky emphasized the interrelation between graffiti across different categories, highlighting the layered purposes of inscriptions, from commemorating historical events to reflecting personal and collective memory.

Rozhdestvenskaya’s classification [17,18] focuses on the linguistic and structural formulae of graffiti, complementing those of Vysotsky and highlighting the prevalence of prayer and memorial inscriptions. These inscriptions often feature formulaic expressions that serve sacred, commemorative, or practical functions, reflecting the dual role of inscriptions in both liturgical practices and individual spirituality.

Rybakov’s foundational approach [1,2] categorizes inscriptions based on the materials and tools used in their creation, offering insights into the technical diversity and craftsmanship involved in creating inscriptions.

Medyntseva expanded this system by proposing a more object-focused classification system, linking graffiti to its physical and cultural contexts [1,4,5]. Finally, Korniyenko synthesized these approaches into a hierarchical framework, dividing the class of graffiti into textual and pictorial subgroups, each furthered by subdivisions based on formal characteristics and thematic content [19] (Figure 2).

Modern digital resources, such as the “Saint Sophia’s Inscriptions” portal13 and the Inscriptions of the Northern Black Sea Region (IOSPE)14 repository, further enhance the understanding and categorization of Ukrainian epigraphy. The Ukrainian/English bilingual portal “Saint Sophia’s Inscriptions”, based on the corpus of graffiti of Sofia Kyievska [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26], presents a structured digital categorization of inscriptions found in Saint Sophia Cathedral, based on Korniyenko’s classification principle with several adjustments (Figure 3).

By incorporating their focus on content, linguistic structures, materiality, and hierarchical classifications, modern digital methodologies provide a structured, interoperable framework for preserving and studying epigraphic inscriptions. This integration ensures that the historical depth of Ukrainian epigraphy informs contemporary digital preservation efforts, creating a seamless bridge between traditional scholarship and digital practices.

Despite these advancements, the digital epigraphic domain is mainly focused on Western classical languages, often underrepresenting “ex-Soviet” cultures like Ukraine and Armenia [35]. By integrating Ukrainian inscriptions into global Digital Humanities initiatives, this project ensures broader accessibility, while aligning with international digital preservation and interoperability standards under the FAIR principles.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employs a comparative analytical approach to examine the differences between international epigraphic classification systems—specifically the FAIR and EAGLE vocabularies—and the methodologies historically and currently used in Ukrainian academia. Understanding these differences is essential for developing a Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) vocabulary for Ukrainian epigraphy, ensuring that it is both culturally accurate and digitally interoperable.

To achieve this goal, we combine qualitative and quantitative research methods: the former to analyze existing classification frameworks and their cognitive–epistemological underpinnings, and the latter to categorize the epigraphic terms for SKOS development aiming at unified methods in Humanities. Regarding the example of a Ukrainian epigraphic SKOS and comprehensive vocabulary development, Humanities acquires a toolkit for comparative epigraphic data studies across different cultural systems and epochs.

2.1. Data Collection and Sources

The primary sources for this study include a combination of digital epigraphic resources, Ukrainian academic research, and primary inscription corpora.

First, digital epigraphic databases such as the FAIR Ontology, EAGLE vocabularies, the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg (EDH), and the IOSPE corpus provide insights into international classification methodologies. The portal “Haпиcи Cвятoï Coфiï” serves as a key digital repository for Ukrainian inscriptions, offering a valuable collection of epigraphic data. Next, Ukrainian academic research is crucial in shaping the classification framework. The works of prominent Ukrainian scholars—including Vysotsky, Rozhdestvenskaya, Rybakov, Medyntseva, and Korniyenko—offer extensive documentation on historical and contemporary classification methods. These studies highlight the evolution of epigraphic classification in Ukraine and provide a foundation for our comparative analysis. Third, primary epigraphic data collected from historical and religious sites, such as the Saint Sophia Cathedral and various regional churches, provide firsthand examples of inscriptions. These inscriptions are analyzed to determine their thematic content, linguistic characteristics, and execution techniques. Finally, we examine epigraphic encoding standards such as the TEI-XML and EpiDoc guidelines to explore how Ukrainian inscriptions can be digitally structured. This step ensures that the developed SKOS vocabulary aligns with international best practices for digital epigraphy [36].

2.2. The Scope of Comparison

To systematically compare the classification methodologies, we employ a structured framework based on four key aspects:

Functional Classification: We analyze how different systems categorize inscriptions based on their intended function. For instance, commemorative, religious, and record-keeping inscriptions each serve distinct purposes, which must be accurately represented in the SKOS vocabulary.

Material and Execution Techniques: This study examines how different classification systems account for the physical materials and methods used in inscription creation. Ukrainian inscriptions often have unique artistic traditions and technical execution reflected in their categorization.

Hierarchical Taxonomies: We assess the depth and granularity of classification categories across different systems. Some methodologies employ broad categories, while others use detailed subcategories to describe inscriptions.

Interoperability and Digital Integration: We explore how Ukrainian epigraphy can be incorporated into Linked Open Data frameworks using SKOS principles. Ensuring digital compatibility with global classification standards is essential for the long-term accessibility and usability of Ukrainian epigraphic data.

2.3. Data Processing and SKOS Development

The creation of a SKOS vocabulary for Ukrainian epigraphy follows a structured process. First, we identify relevant Ukrainian epigraphic terms from the Ukrainian Epigraphic Corpus, a dataset compiled to support this study. This corpus consists of two primary categories: Web Epigraphy, which includes inscriptions digitized from online sources, and Academic Epigraphy, which is based on scholarly research.

Term divergence and alignment analysis with the FAIR and EAGLE vocabularies demonstrate direct congruence between Ukrainian and international terms. In contrast, in other cases, we observe cultural and historical differences requiring new terms for labeling cultural realia and concepts. The proposed amendments intend to reflect both universal epigraphic categories and Ukraine-specific classifications. We evaluate potential challenges in mapping Ukrainian terms to global digital frameworks to ensure interoperability. This includes addressing differences in terminology, classification principles, and metadata structures. The proposed vocabulary is precise and adaptable to international epigraphic standards. However, integrating Ukrainian epigraphy into FAIR and EAGLE frameworks requires continuous refinement and further interdisciplinary collaboration to explore and improve alignment between regional and international standards.

3. Results

The comparative analysis of epigraphic classification systems reveals clear differences in how inscriptions are understood and categorized in international and Ukrainian frameworks. These differences are based on distinct cultural, historical, and societal contexts, which shape how inscriptions are categorized and understood. While the FAIR and EAGLE models emphasize functional and textual categorization rooted in Greco-Roman traditions, Ukrainian systems highlight cultural specificity, integrating material, symbolic, and religious elements. A balanced approach that incorporates international standards and culture-specific granularity is essential for developing more inclusive digital frameworks.

3.1. Cultural Features and Functional Priorities of Classification

The FAIR Ontology and EAGLE vocabularies are rooted in Greco-Roman community practices, where inscriptions primarily served civic, legal, and administrative functions, alongside religious purposes. Their classification logic is function-oriented and hierarchical, prioritizing standardization across diverse corpora. For example, the FAIR Epigraphy system, particularly the Types of Inscriptions Ontology, is designed to ensure consistency and interoperability by employing a hierarchical structure. At its core, the ontology begins with a root class, “Types of Inscriptions,” which then branches into 15 primary categories, including Anepigraphic (objects or contexts devoid of textual inscriptions), Commemorative (inscriptions created to memorialize events, individuals, or achievements), Didascalic (inscriptions tied to learning or writing practices), Entertainment (inscriptions associated with leisure and games), Expressive (inscriptions that convey emotions, greetings, or personal messages), Honorific (inscriptions celebrating individuals, groups, or deities), Identification (inscriptions that identify ownership, origin, or production details), Non-lexical (inscriptions lacking traditional text but carrying significant symbolic meaning), Pragmatic (inscriptions with functional purposes, such as communication or announcements), Record-keeping (inscriptions that document administrative or historical information), Regulatory (inscriptions tied to laws, agreements, or spatial management), Religious (inscriptions with spiritual or liturgical content), Space organization (inscriptions that facilitate navigation or spatial arrangements), and Unable to determine or Unassigned (categories that account for inscriptions that cannot be definitively classified or remain unassigned). Each category is further subdivided into secondary, tertiary, and additional levels, allowing for precise classification and better interoperability with other digital frameworks. Further analysis of the classes and terms revealed that 14 categories out of 15 are dedicated to textual inscriptions, further subdivided into 114 subcategories. This reflects a text-oriented cultural tradition, where written records were the dominant form of public communication. For example, in the FAIR Ontology, Anepigraphic inscriptions refer to objects that, while typically associated with inscriptions, lack visible text or lettering. These objects may contain decorative elements, images, or paintings, yet they are still classified as epigraphs due to their form, material, and contextual significance. This distinction allows non-textual artifacts to be included in epigraphic studies while differentiating them from purely decorative images. Alternative labels for such inscriptions include “Uninscribed” (English) and “Anepígrafa” (Spanish), closely aligning with the EAGLE vocabulary (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

In the FAIR Ontology and EAGLE vocabularies, no differentiation is made based on the form or content of the images. Instead, emphasis is placed on their shared material and contextual characteristics with traditional inscriptions. This inclusive approach allows the category to accommodate a wide range of anepigraphic objects without introducing further subcategories.

In Ukrainian academia, scholars have taken a more granular approach to classifying these objects, often emphasizing the motivation for their creation or categorizing them based on their form, content, or function. As mentioned earlier, Vasilyev sought to organize these objects by their underlying motivation, offering a broader conceptual framework for understanding the purpose behind their creation [27]. Vysotsky’s classification reflects an early attempt to distinguish between religious or symbolic imagery and everyday artistic expression [12]. Korniyenko further advanced this categorization of “мaлюнки-гpaфiтi” (drawings—graffiti) and organizing them into detailed subcategories based on form and content, (a) Xpecти, мoнoгpaми тa тeoнiмoгpaми (Crosses, Monograms, and Theonymograms) (Figure 6); (b) Зoбpaжeння aнгeлiв тa cвятиx (Images of Angels and Saints) (Figure 7); (c) Cимвoли, пoв’язaнi з чacтинaми людcькoгo тiлa (Symbols Related to Human Body Parts) (Figure 8); (d) Πpeдмeти peлiгiйнoгo вжиткy тa apтeфaкти (Religious Objects and Artifacts); (e) Cимвoли, пoв’язaнi з зeмлeю тa нeбoм (Symbols Related to Earth and Sky); (f) Aнтpoпoмopфнi зoбpaжeння (Anthropomorphic Images); (g) Зooмopфнi зoбpaжeння (Zoomorphic Images) (Figure 9); (h) Ixтioмopфнi зoбpaжeння (Ichthyomorphic Images); (i) Opнiтoмopфнi зoбpaжeння (Ornithomorphic Images); (j) Cюжeтнi зoбpaжeння (Narrative Images); and (k) Eмблeми (Emblems) [19].

Moreover, according to Ukrainian traditions, textual and pictorial inscriptions are viewed as parallel categories, emphasizing the theological equivalence of words and images in Orthodox Christianity, where icons and drawings are not considered mere decorations, but spiritual records deeply embedded in religious expression (Figure 6).

This approach is notably distinct from the FAIR Ontology, which may simplify its application across various datasets. Still, it also risks overlooking significant distinctions in specific cultural or regional traditions. The Ukrainian approach focuses on the content and purpose of the images rather than treating them as a unified category. This approach provides the Ukrainian system with a more nuanced framework for understanding their symbolic, cultural, and functional significance.

Another significant difference lies in the treatment of formal aspects of inscriptions. In Ukrainian academia, inscriptions are categorized and analyzed based on their form. For instance, prayer formulas, monograms, and “christograms” consider their content and structure. Ukrainian classification extends beyond function and meaning to explicitly account for visual and structural aspects.

In Greco-Roman traditions, formal aspects of inscriptions are digitally encoded following EpiDoc guidelines [34]. These guidelines provide detailed encoding for elements such as abbreviations, missing letters or words, and textual markers. For example, monograms—which hold symbolic and religious significance in Ukrainian inscriptions—are encoded as abbreviations according to EpiDoc guidelines: <abbr> XP </abbr> <expan> Christos </expan>.

In this case, the abbreviation “XP” (a Christogram) is expanded to “Christos”. The <abbr> tag represents how the text appears on the inscription, while the <expan> tag provides the totally expanded form according to EpiDoc standards. This method ensures textual accuracy, but does not always capture such inscriptions’ symbolic or artistic significance in traditions like Ukrainian Orthodox Christianity.

As we have seen, the Ukrainian tradition adapts a content–form–function model, categorizing inscriptions by purpose, visual structure, and artistic or symbolic elements. This differs from the FAIR and EAGLE Ontologies, in which classification logic is function-oriented and hierarchical, prioritizing standardization across diverse corpora. These differences demonstrate that there is a need for a Type of Inscription vocabulary that balances the universality of FAIR’s categories with the specificity of Ukrainian traditions. Integrating these distinct systems into a SKOS-based vocabulary would enhance interoperability and create a structured framework for preserving and showcasing the unique epigraphic heritage of Ukraine. Moreover, this vocabulary has the potential to bridge global and local perspectives, ensuring that underrepresented traditions gain the visibility and recognition they deserve in digital epigraphic scholarship. This contrast also extends to how each system approaches material and technique—topics explored in the next section.

3.2. Material and Execution Techniques: Integrated vs. Mechanistic Approach

Another point of divergence lies in how material and execution techniques are treated by EAGLE and Ukrainian epigraphic traditions, as exemplified by Rybakov [1,2] and IOSPE. These differences stem from their respective cultural, functional, and technical priorities. EAGLE’s approach, which includes two distinct vocabularies—execution technique and material—offers a universal and hierarchical framework optimized for Digital Humanities and cross-cultural application. On the other hand, Ukrainian traditions place greater emphasis on material, craftsmanship, and cultural context, reflecting the inscriptions’ historical and spiritual significance. This approach acknowledges inscriptions as textual records, artistic and devotional artifacts rooted in religious and cultural practices.

In contrast, EAGLE’s Execution Technique Vocabulary classifies inscriptions primarily based on how the text is created, organizing them into three main categories: subtractive techniques, e.g., engraving or chiseling, additive techniques, e.g., painting, or gilding, and impression techniques, e.g., stamping or molding.

This technique-driven classification focuses on mechanics, overlooking specific materials or cultural contexts as a whole. The EAGLE system has The Material Vocabulary. These terms are based on definitions from the Salzburg Simplified Petrography and the CIL Material Glossary18. This vocabulary is hierarchically structured to accommodate different levels of precision, allowing for both broad and specific categorizations. For example, precise identification is encouraged for precious materials such as gold or onyx, while more generic terms, like “limestone,” are used for common materials. This dual framework ensures flexibility and depth, enabling scholars to describe inscriptions as precisely as the available data allows.

In contrast, Ukrainian traditions integrate material and execution into a unified system. Rybakov [1,2] classifies inscriptions based on tools and materials, such as styluses for soft surfaces like wax or clay, chisels for stone or metal, and engraving tools for wood or bone. His material-focused approach highlights the tangible aspects of inscription creation, emphasizing the craftsmanship and technical diversity of Ukrainian epigraphy. This perspective acknowledges inscriptions as not just textual records, but as artistic and material objects shaped by execution techniques and cultural context. IOSPE builds upon this material-oriented approach, categorizing inscriptions into lapidary inscriptions, graffiti, and paintings, with further subdivisions based on textual formulae and intended function.

Unlike EAGLE’s system, which separates execution techniques from materials, Ukrainian frameworks treat these elements as interdependent, reflecting a holistic understanding of inscription-making. This integrated approach aligns with Ukrainian traditions, where the choice of material, method of execution, and cultural meaning are inseparable aspects of an inscription’s significance.

Including a distinct Material Vocabulary in EAGLE offers advantages in terms of flexibility and standardization. By accommodating different levels of detail, the vocabulary allows scholars to describe inscriptions precisely when data are available, or opt for more general terms in cases of uncertainty. For example, while The Material Vocabulary can specify rare materials like Proconnesian marble, it also provides broader categories for local or indeterminate stones.

Ukrainian traditions, by contrast, integrate material and technique seamlessly, emphasizing the interplay between the medium and the method. For example, Rybakov’s system recognizes the contextual and cultural significance of materials, such as clay tiles inscribed with prayers or stone carvings on church walls [1,2]. Similarly, in the IOSPE repository, material and technique are treated as interdependent, categorizing inscriptions on the top level by their physical and textual characteristics, while considering their functional purposes on the second level. This integrated approach ensures that inscriptions are contextualized within their cultural and historical settings, offering insights into their use and significance.

The hierarchical structures of the two systems highlight their differing priorities. EAGLE’s Execution Technique Vocabulary organizes inscriptions by the creation method, such as engraving (scalpro) or painting (penicillo), and groups them by hard or soft materials. The Material Vocabulary adds another classification layer, categorizing the substrates used for inscriptions and accommodating terms in multiple languages, including Latin, Italian, and Arabic. Ukrainian traditions, however, adopt a dual focus on material and purpose, integrating materials, tools, and contextual factors, such as authorship and historical significance. IOSPE complements this with a functional perspective, categorizing inscriptions based on textual formulae and their intended roles, such as commemorative or religious functions.

In summary, EAGLE’s dual vocabularies for execution techniques and materials excel in universality and flexibility, providing a robust framework for digital epigraphy. However, their separation can obscure the cultural and functional interdependencies that are central to Ukrainian traditions. Ukrainian frameworks emphasize the integration of material, technique, and context, offering a richer understanding of inscriptions within their historical and cultural settings. A more comprehensive and interoperable system can be developed by combining the precision and standardization of EAGLE’s vocabularies with the contextual depth of Ukrainian methodologies. This integrated approach would preserve the unique characteristics of Ukrainian epigraphy while ensuring its accessibility within global digital frameworks.

4. Discussion

The classification systems used in the FAIR and EAGLE Ontologies differ significantly from those rooted in Ukrainian scholarly traditions. These differences reflect distinct cultural and epistemological foundations, influencing how inscriptions are categorized, interpreted, and digitally preserved. A critical re-evaluation of current digital models is necessary to improve global interoperability while preserving cultural specificity.

4.1. Biases in Digital Categorization: Expanding Western-Centric Ontologies

Classification systems in digital projects are never neutral. They reflect the historical, cultural, and intellectual priorities of the people and institutions that create them. As a result, digitization can unintentionally reproduce existing power imbalances by privileging some worldviews over others. Due to Western dominance in the Digital Humanities, many ontologies and metadata schemas are rooted in Western epistemic traditions, which have historically dominated the structuring and classification of knowledge. These biases manifest in three key ways:

• Structural Bias—Digital databases are often built around Western ways of organizing knowledge. This can make it hard to include or fairly represent non-Western or Indigenous perspectives, which may not fit into those predefined structures. For example, library and archival classification systems like the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) or Dublin Core Metadata were developed in predominantly Euro-American institutions, meaning that non-Western concepts are either absent, misclassified, or subsumed under Western equivalents. This forces cultural heritage data from diverse traditions into rigid, often ill-fitting taxonomies, distorting how knowledge is accessed and interpreted;
• Linguistic and Terminological Bias—Most classification systems use Western languages and concepts, which can make it difficult to describe cultural objects from other traditions. For example, terms used to describe Roman inscriptions might not work for medieval Ukrainian or Indigenous artifacts, which follow different cultural logics. For instance, epigraphic databases primarily categorize inscriptions based on Roman or Greek traditions of documentation, often failing to account for alternative traditions such as medieval Ukrainian graffiti, Armenian khachkars, or indigenous symbolic writing systems, which do not conform to Western notions of public inscriptions, textual authorship, or material categorization;
• Technological Bias—Even the tools we use in digital projects—like search engines or machine learning algorithms—can be biased. Many of them are trained on Western data and work well with Latin-based scripts, but struggle with complex calligraphy, right-to-left scripts, or less common alphabets. Large-scale digitization projects often use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) models that work well for Latin-based scripts, but perform poorly on non-Western writing systems, complex calligraphies, or right-to-left scripts. As a result, even when non-Western cultural data are digitized, they may not be indexed, searchable, or usable at the same level of accuracy as their Western counterparts, creating an uneven digital representation.

4.2. The Need for Decolonized Approaches to Knowledge Production

Having recognized these biases, decolonizing DH involves rethinking data structures, revising classification ontologies, and integrating community-driven knowledge systems that reflect the epistemologies of the cultures they represent. This requires shifting from abstracted models that impose rigid taxonomies to more flexible, culturally responsive frameworks that allow diverse traditions to shape their digital presence. Key strategies include the following:

• Reclaiming Indigenous and Non-Western Metadata Structures—Instead of forcing non-Western knowledge into existing taxonomies, projects should develop metadata structures that reflect the categories and worldviews of the cultures being digitized. For example, epigraphic vocabularies tailored to Ukrainian, Armenian, or Coptic inscriptions should reflect the spiritual, historical, and social dimensions central to those traditions, rather than being subsumed under Greco-Roman or Western legal–administrative categories.
• Multilingual and Multiscript Representation—Many DH projects prioritize English-language metadata and classification, making it difficult for non-English-speaking scholars or communities to engage with their digitized heritage. Implementing multilingual metadata, classifying inscriptions in their native linguistic frameworks, and ensuring accurate transliteration and transcription systems are critical for decolonizing digital archives.
• Community-Based and Participatory DH—Decolonization also requires a shift in who controls the knowledge production process. Many Western-led DH initiatives collect, catalog, and interpret non-Western artifacts without input from the communities to whom these artifacts belong. Ethical, decolonized DH demands collaborative methodologies that engage local scholars, Indigenous historians, and cultural practitioners in designing classification models, defining metadata, and contextualizing digital collections.

4.3. Reshaping Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Traditions

By questioning the dominance of Western ontologies and advocating for more inclusive, decentralized approaches, DH is actively reshaping how cultural heritage is preserved, represented, and interpreted. Projects like Mukurtu CMS, which was developed specifically for Indigenous communities to manage their digital heritage, or efforts to create SKOS-based vocabularies tailored to non-Western epigraphy, demonstrate that alternative frameworks are possible. These initiatives challenge the idea that digital classification must be strictly hierarchical or abstract, offering community-driven, context-sensitive, pluricentric digital knowledge structures instead.

Decolonizing DH is about redressing historical asymmetries in knowledge production and ensuring that underrepresented traditions have the means to define themselves digitally—on their own terms, in their voices, and within frameworks that respect their epistemologies. By addressing these biases, DH transforms how we interact with data and conceive of history, memory, and cultural identity in the digital age.

5. Conclusions

This study has demonstrated the fundamental differences between international epigraphic classification systems—such as FAIR and EAGLE—and the Ukrainian epigraphic tradition. These differences are not simply technical, but stem from distinct cultural, religious, and historical contexts. While Greco-Roman frameworks emphasize inscriptions as instruments of public administration and civic identity, Ukrainian inscriptions are rooted in Orthodox Christian spirituality, functioning as expressions of devotion, remembrance, and protection.

Ukrainian classifications offer a holistic and granular approach that integrates textual, visual, material, and symbolic dimensions. This richer framework challenges the universalist assumptions embedded in many digital models and calls for a more nuanced strategy towards cultural heritage digitization. In particular, it shows the importance of accommodating local epistemologies and recognizing inscriptions as more than just textual data.

The findings of this study emphasize the importance of a pluricentric approach to digital epigraphy—one that respects cultural specificity while enabling global interoperability. The adoption of SKOS-based vocabularies provides a flexible and scalable mechanism to connect local classification systems to international ontologies without erasing their distinctive features. This not only enhances the digital representation of Ukrainian epigraphy, but also serves as a model for integrating other underrepresented traditions.

Moving forward, the development of structured, replicable workflows for mapping local categories to international frameworks will be essential. Equally important is the expansion of existing encoding systems, such as EpiDoc, to better support inscriptions that combine text, image, and symbolic meanings. These efforts require interdisciplinary collaboration, long-term institutional support, and a commitment to epistemic justice in digital heritage.

Ultimately, this study advocates for a shift in how we conceptualize, classify, and digitally preserve inscriptions. By embracing cultural diversity as a foundational principle rather than a challenge to be managed, DH can contribute to more inclusive, accurate, and ethically grounded representations of the past. The Ukrainian case demonstrates both the limitations of the current systems and the possibilities of reimagining digital classification through culturally responsive frameworks.