Abstract
The development of interdisciplinary sciences and the need for researchers to review scientific topics have led to the issue of “reuse of data” in archeology. Before any discussion, it is necessary to examine the challenges and theoretical foundations in this field, because uninformed use and without considering the indigenous needs of the country’s archaeological knowledge in these discussions will lead to opposite results and create consumerism and orientation in producing scientific results. This research has been done by the descriptive-analytical method and in this field from documents and library resources as well as observing the results of invalid scientific databases in the field of archaeological data studies from Digital Science Direct database, and a review of Open Context and CdocRM databases. Also, the results have been published on the T-Dar website. After reviewing and studying effective methods to identify effective strategies for reusing information and using digital tools in this field, finally, three main areas in data re-reading have been identified including standardization, metadata design, and texture documentation by digital tools. These strategies can be effective by combining their capabilities in the process of data reuse and have an intrinsic value according to the standardization frameworks of the obtained information and do not depend on factors such as information provision tools or the foundation itself. For this purpose, in the stages of field studies, classification, laboratory studies, and storing information in databases, scientific principles in this field must be carefully applied so that the information can be reused; Therefore, two main questions are raised in this research. 1) What key issues should be considered in the discussion of data reuse? 2) How can digital tools be useful in meeting the challenge of data reuse? We explored key areas in the reuse of archaeologists’ data and the role of large institutions in this area and introduced digital capabilities to address these challenges.
Keywords: Digital Archeology, Standardization, Metadata, Texture, Digital Documentation.

Introduction
One of the main purposes of designing and using databases in archeology is to reuse data. One of the essential fields in the standardization of topics in our country is the integration of words and terms. For example, in many sources, words such as coarse, rough pottery, as well as red and orange peas, etc. are used, and many researchers use different words instead of each other. Many other basic concepts such as laboratory studies, theoretical studies, and conclusions, etc. also need to use the relevant standard frameworks so that this information can be used and evaluated in other studies.
Proper management and study of digital methods that can be used in archeology is also an important and fundamental issue. There are different study methods and the information obtained from them are reusable provided that the implementation of the standards in different stages is obtained. The rules of regulatory bodies governing archeology are also changing, with many countries now banning the exchange of antiquities and other finds, even for research purposes. Therefore, the use of digital documentation for archaeological research will be important because not only the destroyed sites must be documented, but also the “archaeological data” in their remaining countries of origin should be analyzed accordingly.

Standardization
The information obtained from theoretical and practical research will be monolingual by executive standards that can be understood by researchers at different times and places and can be reused and shared. CIADCC Aram (International Committee for the Conceptual Reference Model of Documentation) has presented the most famous and well-known model of the formal theoretical foundations of archeology. The CID DocC Aram conceptual reference model is a theoretical and practical tool for sharing information on cultural heritage. This model can help researchers, professionals, and the public to answer complex archaeological questions in a diverse and scattered data set. Also, some groups have created vocabulary, controlled, and revised vocabulary (readable by computers), complementing descriptive topics, and their properties are quietly defined by CIADCC. The terms reviewed and controlled have also recently been published by the British Museum as open information and facilitate large-scale access to information from archaeological data classification and typology systems.

Texture
The first question that arises for re-users of this information is the method of collecting archaeological data. In some cases, different methods in a particular research field based on the objectives of the research are understandable. The characteristics of a research field, such as the period of study or the nature of an area, affect the research design, data collection methods, and research strategies. Due to field activities in caves and urban areas, each requires a specific method of drilling, but in many cases, this change of method depends on the excavator, and this makes it difficult for researchers to re-read the data in museums or repositories. Objects, on the other hand, are meaningless on their own, regardless of the texture from which they are derived. The nature of archaeological studies is such that after collecting and studying the data, they lose the interpretation of their original meaning, either by returning to the site or keeping them in museums or reservoirs and they have no original value and cannot be “existent” alone. Without the context in which the archaeological data was located, it is impossible to analyze and study them, and they are only describable in terms of similarities and structure.

Metadata
Another feature of databases is the inclusion of metadata next to the original information. Providing information that details the subject matter of an object or concept and helps to understand data, object or concept, metadata supports and explains the main information. 
Archaeologists use the research data of others in different ways: 1) the method of sharing person to person 2) sharing through the museum archives and more recently 3) digital databases and it depends on factors such as the scientific ability of the person who obtained the information, the area from which the information was obtained, and whether the information was the result of scientific work or unauthorized excavations.
Digital archaeologists use different technologies in their work. These technologies fall into four main categories: 1) information databases and the Internet, which is known as the main platform for digital activities, and the results of other sections are uploaded to publish and reuse data. 2) Software, which plays an important role in analysis and archaeological information and their results are transmittable to databases. 3) Digital documents that provide researchers with the ability to store virtually and objectively transfer information. 4) Physical and chemical studies and analyzes. To share and reuse data, our most important tool will be the database. Also, to preserve the texture and insert appropriate metadata, we need digital documentation as well as software. Also, to insert appropriate metadata, we need to use chemical and physical analysis.

Conclusion
The application of new archaeological perspectives to previous studies or the reuse of data is a challenge that enable archaeologist to review and share information in the field of interdisciplinary studies. In this regard, the three main areas of standardization, metadata, and context should be considered and planned. Proper use of standards in the study, analysis, and uploading processes and compliance with contractual criteria, make the impact of the person, tools and other issues less. Be confident and valuable. To understand the relationship between the three tools introduced with the steps of the practical study process in archeology, Model 1 is presented. This model shows which steps the tools should be used. It should also be noted that each of these components is associated with other options (Model 2).
 The need to use standardization as an executive framework in the field of metadata is part of the information integration process, and the documentation of its context is part of the metadata. Digital archeology and its tools can solve this challenge based on guidelines, criteria and standards, and theoretical foundations as a procedure in preparing metadata to solve the problem of backup information. Datasets with theoretical foundations based on local needs as well as vocabulary control should go through this path as well. Using three main contexts in re-reading information as complementary concepts can facilitate the study process. There is a practical example of this relationship in the approach of some large organizations in the field of data management. The British Archaeological Information Service (ADS) has launched major plans to develop theoretical foundations and standardize basic information such as dating and metadata (which includes contextual information) to provide free access to standardize information and metadata. Researchers can check the accuracy and validity of information in a database based on their knowledge. The free Orchid Database has been created to identify researchers, using the Orchid Web API to display biographical information and publish information about participants in data collection. The Free Database provides new data on the expertise and credibility of data-gathering archaeologists. This organization presents these metadata in the form of a specific standard framework. Another manifestation of the interaction of these fields in databases is due to their functional nature, include standardization and use of metadata.

Abstract
Grey Ceramic culture in the second millennium B.C. have been the controversial issue in the Iranian Archaeology. Since most of the grey ceramics have been discovered from the burials, it remained some questions regarding the socio-economic conditions of the individuals. Also the rarity of settlement contexts have added some ambiguities as well. For this, material culture and archaeometrical analysis on the grey ceramics might be helpful to clarify some aspects of socio-economic condition such as, ceramic production, standardization and production organization. This paper will attempt to argue about some aspects of ceramic production in Qeytariyeh cemetery at Tehran plain with metric and chemical analysis. Ceramic analysis demonstrated a number of attributes which are including uniformity of decoration and dimensions, homogeneity of ceramic shapes, the variety of resources and preparation processes. The result of the analysis inspired us to draw the ceramic production organization through the standardization indicators. Finally, it can be proposed the scale and intensity of ceramic production in Qetariyeh might be the household industry or workshop industry.
Keywords: Metric Analysis, Chemical Analysis, Standardization, Production Organization, Qeytariyeh.

Introduction
Some sudden changes in cultural materials, the widespread cemeteries and unidentified settlement evidence in the second millennium B.C. encouraged scholars to study and propose some theories to interpret these cultural changes. According to the new researches and reassessment projects, it is needed to review and revise the chronology and older theories in this period.(Danti, 2013; Fazeli Nashali & Coningham, 2007; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2017; Fazeli, 2015; Sarlak, 2011; Farokhnia, 2020)
In fact, the comprehensive studies should be conducted to shed some lights on these ambiguities and restudy projects on some discovered collection would be necessary. Since just a few direct evidence related to the occupation have been found from the cemeteries, multidisciplinary studies such as archaeometrical analysis on the material culture (grey ceramics) might be helpful to study on the indirect evidence related to the ceramic production and production organization. In this paper, we have examined the standardization hypothesis in Qeytariyeh ceramic collection through the metric and chemical variabilities.
Qeytariyeh cemetery is located in the Shemiranat County, northern parts of Tehran and in the south of Qeytariyeh Park which is destroyed by construction of buildings and expanding residential areas in 1960s. The rescue excavation was conducted in 1968 and 1969 by Kambakhshfard (Kambakhsh Fard,1991). The restudy project was conducted in the National Museum of Iran (Farokhnia, 2020). The project provided us the opportunity to work on technological behaviors of the ceramic collection. 

Materials and Methods 
During the museum fieldwork, 1809 pottery vessels was registered. The ceramics were classified into different types or forms. The vessels present 23 types and 6 subtypes. The largest color category was grey (78.38). Of these 50% have burnished treatment techniques and 70% of the ceramic wares have fine texture bodies. 
The methodology combines the metric and chemical analysis to trace technological attributes. Metric indexes have been considered to evaluate the degree of standardization. Seven measurements were made on the pottery vessels: rim diameter, base diameter, wall thicknesses, height, pedestal height, spout height and neck height. 
The Potteries also were analyzed with a Portable Energy Dispersive X-Ray Florescence (ED- XRF), to study the compositional data and variability. Among these potteries, one hundred and eighty representative samples belongs to 21 type or forms were analyzed.

Disscusion
Metric indexes demonstrated the homogeneity of some dimensions in different types or forms. Besides that, some distinctive motifs have been used on the specific ceramic forms. 
Despite similarities in production techniques, the chemical composition of raw materials demonstrating two distinct type of clay sources. In this regard, availability of raw material, changing in technology, introducing new function, or even change in technical skills might be considered for changing in the raw source. The chemical composition of pottery samples shows that two distinctive geochemical groups does exist within our database. A calcareous clay composition with visible lime peddles whereas another clay is a siliceous deposit rich in Fe, Rb, and Nb. 
Among the collection, a large number of shapes associated with drinking function such as tankards, spouted jars, handled pitchers, spouted jugs which might be the most distinctive funeral function, have been identified. 
Obviously we don’t have access to the direct evidence of ceramic production in Qeytariyeh. However the recognized ceramic attributes would provide us the evidence of production organization.

Conclusion
Several Factors such as homogeneity in vessel form dimensions, manufacturing technology and chemical composition reflect specialized production in Qeytariyeh collection. In fact, most of the pottery vessels have very close dimensions in the specific form. The specialized production in Qeytarieh can be evidenced by standardized large number of final products, which show a constant formal and technological attribute. The high diversity in ceramic types and the ceramic surface treatment (burnishing surface treatment) brought to light the evidence of proxy of craft specialization and high skills of local producers. 
Thus our examination and documentation suggests Qeytariyeh ceramics have been produced by a given specialist workshop which are extremely homogeneous or standardized. 
Since both type of clay sources have been used simultaneously in manufacturing process, it can be deduced that probably two active Workshops were involved in production of entire manufacturing process.  
Taking in mind, that the calcareous clay has an advantage to form much easier and considering various range of skill level in production specific forms, it can be deduced that beside specialist also trainees were involved in manufacturing of end-product at least in some specific forms. This observation might explain the need for a shift in clay from siliceous to calcareous, as the raw source should also be in adjacent with professional skills. 
At the end, the result support the hypothesis household industry or workshop industry model for production organization in Qeytariyeh based upon standardized ceramic production and skilled producers in the ritual context.

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Dr. Jebraeel Nokandeh Director of National Museum of Iran and his colleagues, Yousef Hassanzadeh, Nina Rezaee and Maryam Panahi. Also we want to thank Dr. Kamoldin Niknami for his comments on the text. We very much to thank Neda Tehrani and Nima Fakoorzadeh for photography of the collection.