**5. Conclusions**

ORA is evolving far beyond its traditional lab-bound role to become an integrated element of field methodology and a fundamental part of archaeological research design. It moreover stands ready to harness the power of big data to address larger questions of economy, technology, ecology, and environment. The comparative case study above demonstrates the value of legacy objects as candidates for ORA, and highlights new questions such data can be called upon to ask. The development of responsible and nuanced methods for the sampling of legacy objects, when paired with careful consideration of degradation pathways, can substantially broaden the range of viable artifacts for study and therein the field of inquiry. Yet whether from new or legacy artifacts, ORA results must be considered within a comprehensive ecosystem of archaeological, archaeometric, and ethnographic data.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at www.openarchem.org, additional chromatographic, ethnobotanical, and ethnohistorical data.

**Author Contributions:** The analyses and interpretation of the results were coordinated by A.J.K. and carried out together with K.J.B. A.J.K. and K.J.B. wrote and revised the manuscript drafts. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was supported by the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Museum, Department of Chemistry, and School of Arts and Sciences), Wesleyan University (Department of Chemistry, Archaeology Program), Brandeis University (Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, Department of Chemistry, Department of Classical Studies), Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and Archaeological Institute of America.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank the University of Pennsylvania Department of Chemistry for incubating the analytical facets of the ARCHEM project at its start in 2003. Without the guidance of G. Molander and G. Palladino, the project would not have materialized. At the Penn Museum, C. B. Rose, P. P. Betancourt, and L. Makowsky of the Mediterranean Section and J. Houser Wegner, J. W. Wegner, and D. Silverman of the Egyptian Section have been instrumental in supporting the project. L. Grant, M.-C. Boileau, and the Penn Museum Scientific Testing Committee have offered us valuable feedback and the use of the Conservation Department facilities. E. H. Cline, L. Hitchcock, C. R. Floyd, and A. M. Berlin have offered steady advice during the startup of the OpenARCHEM project and its archaeometric database. A. K. Krohn and A. M. Crandall, as senior staff members of the OpenARCHEM Project, continue to offer their unfailing assistance. P. Der Manuelian and J. A. Greene supported this study by arranging our appointments as research associates of the Harvard Semitic Museum. H. N. Lechtman facilitated access to MIT resources through its Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology. We benefited greatly from conversations with A. Kanta, J. Moody, and A. Sarpaki concerning the rich flora of Crete, A. Yasur-Landau and P. Waiman-Barak concerning the same in the Southern Levant, and I. Liritzis concerning the ecology of Southern Phokis. J. G. Younger generously shared his map of East Crete. Colleagues at our institutions—W. Gilstrap, J. Meanwell, C. Parslow, D. Charles, A. O. Koloski-Ostrow, L. Muellner, B. Snider, C. Thomas, C. Wade, M. Sheehy, and I. Roy—have been our pillars of support. We especially thank T. D. Westmoreland and A. Roberts at Wesleyan University Chemistry for their support of OpenARCHEM degradation studies. In Crete, AJK received support from the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, in collaboration with the 24th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and the Museum of Cretan Ethnology Research Centre, under the directorship of C. Vallianos.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
