Source Comparison¶
The most important reading rule in this repository is simple: start from the question you are asking, then choose the source family that can honestly answer it.
That rule sounds obvious, but mixed research products often fail here. A layer that looks precise on a map can still be only contextual. A broad source can be geographically useful while remaining weak for local interpretation. A published point can sit on top of months of recovery work that is still not finished for neighboring projects.
The Fast Comparison¶
| If your question is mainly about... | Start with... | Because it is strongest at... | Main caution |
|---|---|---|---|
| vegetation history and environmental setting | LandClim | pollen sequence and REVEALS context | broad environmental context is not the same as direct sample evidence |
| site-centered pollen records across wider geography | Neotoma | paleoecological pollen-site comparison | coverage and structure differ from LandClim, so the two families should not be collapsed |
| archaeology context across more than one local system | SEAD | environmental archaeology interpretation | it remains contextual support, not direct proof of one sample claim |
| archaeology context inside Sweden and nearby Nordic reading | RAÄ | dense Sweden-specific archaeological framing | rich Swedish coverage should not be mistaken for equal global reach |
| geographic scope, filtering, and public framing | Boundaries | country and regional interpretation | these layers frame evidence; they are not evidence on their own |
| human ancient DNA release context | AADR | release-based human aDNA comparison | it is a distinct human program, not a substitute for animal recovery review |
| non-human ancient DNA project recovery and sample extraction | Animal source intake | showing what had to be recovered before publication | many intake records matter before they are ready for map publication |
| taxonomy, metadata, and multi-repository palaeoecology alignment | PalaeOpen | network-level interoperability and collaboration planning | it is an infrastructure network, not a direct evidence family |
What Changes From One Family To Another¶
What varies most is not only the content. The trust model changes as well.
- Pollenomics families are strongest when you want environmental setting, vegetation history, and landscape comparison.
- Archaeology families are strongest when you want cultural or settlement context around other evidence.
- Boundaries are strongest when you want clean geographic framing.
- AADR is strongest when you want a broad human aDNA context layer.
- Animal intake is strongest when you want to understand recovery status, blockers, and what is truly sample-backed for non-human aDNA.
- PalaeOpen is strongest when you want to think about interoperability, harmonization, and broader palaeoecological collaboration rather than one checked-in evidence layer.
That is why the same public atlas can contain several kinds of layers without pretending they all speak with one voice.
How This Helps Reuse¶
If you want to adapt this repository for a region that does not yet have a published atlas, source comparison is the first practical step.
It tells you:
- which source families are already portable across geographies
- which ones are local or jurisdiction-specific
- which ones are ready to support public interpretation now
- which ones still need recovery, review, or narrower claims
That keeps reuse honest. You begin from the evidence each family can support, not from what would look attractive in a combined visualization.
Best Next Pages¶
- Open Source family matrix if you want the broader repository balance view.
- Open Animal source intake if your question is about projects, papers, supplements, or sample recovery.
- Open Shared normalization if you want to know how these different families can appear together without being flattened into one generic export.