 How can archaeological objects take us from the remains of the past in our world to good, reusable research data, but without losing the object's relationships with their creation and context or their specifics? How do we, for all fascination with digitization and big data, avoid the falling into the positive trap? Against the background of current international endeavors to create a research data infrastructure, these questions have come even more important than we might have been expected a few years ago when efforts were renewed to inter-appropriate archaeological finds and findings into extensive synthesis. Then in an academic world, dependent on external funding and increasingly aligned to current issues, was hard to get funding for corporate editions, registers and inventory lists, playing collection and ordering what comes in for future tourists, but not for modern scholars. However, this has changed a bit now that talk everywhere is about digitalization, link open data, semantic work, open access and data principles. What is more, editions and epistemic, epistemic instrument that in an age of discussion about post-factualism can render knowledge production visible and reusable. As a result, interest has increased greatly in recent years, even if editions are no longer automatically associated with written lists and printed books, but rather with databases and data collections. Prior to this session in Frankfurt at the Römisch-Germanische Kommission, we have been discussing not only the possibilities, but also the challenges of the digital age with colleagues from a variety of disciplines. The following question repeatedly came up. They have various consequences and will perhaps have a role to play in this session, which past dependencies arise when we decide to record specific things and describe particular characteristics, but do not record others. Which ontologies are needed in order to link things and the worldwide web and how do they differ from previous terminologies or ontologies or philosophies? How can we experiment with automatic recognition of artifacts and standardize syntax and vocabulary and so break use of the world that are frozen by classifications? Should entries and databases in the future be regarded as publications? And how can we make use of worsening and multi-outdoor shifts so that they can be referred to even when they are transformed? Who owns or should own the object and the representations? Who sets the agenda and who is allowed to join the new projects? And in the context of the current discussion about materiality, how can we better do justice to things beyond the usual classification and description? Must things and additions always become frozen as objects? Things are not what they used to be, because our use on and our practices with things have changed. We have to deal with plural object epistemologies and politics. For example, the diverse ways of dealing with cultural heritage, the debate on provenance, or material agency and new materialism. Following Markus Hilgert, object epistemologies are a transdisciplinary field of research on the how, why, what, and what for of past and present discourses on the thing. They are the attempt to describe and analyze knowledge about things, the conceptualizing inherent in this knowledge and the relationship between such knowledge and epistemic or scientific practices. As a specific class of academic literature, thing additions are the result of specific object epistemology practiced by scholars. The aim of archaeological additions is to study historical sources critically and by publishing them to improve access to them for a wider circle of researchers. This is particularly relevant for things as they are frequently poor accessible, fragile, often stored in different places or not transportable. Editions enable researchers to compare and evaluate objects regardless of when and where they are, but additions are dependent on the quality of their representations and references. They deal with the predefined limited range of objects and in spite of the intrinsic fragmentary nature of archaeology, always try for an ideal of completeness that can never be attained. This often involves years of collection and research activities normally with institutional support. Thus, additions are among the large academic projects that are expensive in terms of time, work, and finance. Frequently, they set standards through the consequent normalization and standardization of the record current out. The focus of text addition is generally on the reproduction of the original text, genesis, and reception, thereby the text is often regarded as immature. Thing additions, on the other hand, present the challenge of how materiality can be properly re-present in spite of the change of medium. The aim is to record things in their multi-dimensionality and the focus is often on form and decoration, sometimes also on production, origin, and use. Details on the localization of the finds and their context can also play an important role and are often the basis for maps and paths. The Platonic division of the world into reality and imagination sees an analytical differentiation between the two poles of the real world and its representation. However, if we follow the French philosopher Bonolatur and consider instead their praxeological connection, then we see a whole series of small breaks between the world and representations. These arise with each translation of meta into form, where each step is meta for that it follows and form for what it precedes. A precondition of the acceptance for the transformation and thus also for scientific knowledge is the standardize and conventionalize production of one's preferences. This latter calls circulating reference. Every stage that produce knowledge is based on a reduction of locality, particularity, materiality, variety, and community, as well as an amplification of compatibility, universality, and standardization. Within the framework of their network theory, the resulting transformation of the world and its network into apparently isolated objects by means of repeatedly performed entanglement, is known as punctualization. This is not just research practice, but also blackmailing that takes place in everyday life. Punctualization are often the starting points for further action and research in digital age. They are a precondition for networking data. They are in principle reversible, known then as depunctualization, but as part of essentialization, they are difficult to undo. Let us look at a concrete example for this process, which is fully integrated into the network of the ideal world and is readily accessible in the new DIE portal for digital archaeological knowledge. Thanks to the NUMISMA org and the participation of numerous international initiatives, NUMISMATIC corpora have become leaders in the field of digital data. Our example is therefore a denarius, from a coinboard from here in Saxony-Anhalt, part of which was found by chance during ploughing together with pottery charts from the two vessels. The coins were recognized as the remains of a long past time and word and so, following law and destiny, become scientific objects. To be precise, objects of NUMISMATIC and archaeology, normally two processes are now initiated. On the one hand, thing identities are determined. Steps are taken to preserve the findings for posterity, to remove them from changeability, and to stabilize them by preservation of archaeology. Thanks to an inventory number and data record, the object can be re-identified. Publications make them citable and referenceable. On the other hand, representation results in object transformations, with exceptional visualization and reference in the objects by, according to the questions being asked, and the find category. With the introduction of new technologies, particular how has often been expressed, that the real world can now be better represented. Whereby it is often forgotten that new technologies also always lead to transpirational nations, even if different ones. 3D scans may mean that we have more opportunity to study an object from different angles at our desk, but it has lost materiality nevertheless. In the printed corpus, the Funt Münzen der Römischen Zeit in Deutschland, FNRD, the following information on our denarius can be found. Denarius, Antonius Pius, 154, 55, Rome, RIC, 214, as well as information on where it is stored, museum standard, inventory number 15363, plus details on its rate in the footnotes. The denarius is also recorded in the corpus der Römischen Funde in Barbaricum, if in test detail, but with a reference from the FNRD. All published information on the coin has been recorded in the web-based or online data biases, antique Funt Münzen in Europa AFB. By using vocabulary and ontology of numismal org, the coin is linked with the virtual union catalog online coins of Rome and Empire, and is displayed on the relevant page for the coin type, both in lists of examples and maps. This allows new contextualization, and thus depunctionalization. In a circular reference, the coin type now becomes an example of a coin type, and so can be used in digital evolution maps for socio-economic and political analyses, for example. Roman coins are particularly very suited for linked open data objects, since they are standardized mobile mass products with ancient artifacts. Less standardized objects, for which there are no widely accepted classification pathologies, present a far greater challenge. Thus, it is no wonder that handmade pottery found together with the denarius got lost in translation into the world. What do we hope that digitization of editions can achieve? First, faster and more mobile access to information. Second, dynamic networking of information. Third, faster evaluation of large numbers of data. Networks are created by a wide team of cross-references whereby the individual pieces of information are embedded and so repartialized. Loud and fair data mean that the data collected are no longer only accessible for a single search project or institution, but essential for research in general. This can generate synergy effects, but there is also a danger that errors can explode exponentially. Making the quality of data, the links, and the standardization of structures all the more important. What needs to be done? Terminologies and description projects must be communicated more explicitly. Classifications and the effects on research processes require new reflection. Source and reference criticism are also the utmost importance for editions. By referring to Datou's concept of circulating reference, the individual transformation steps and repartializations that take place in the course of edition projects can be successfully analyzed and reflected on both of the paper and in the digital world. In this way, the doubts arise about objects' transformation. Data that has been recorded can be checked, including the reference given and the thing identities that have been determined. In some cases, new data can even be recorded when new questions arise as a method may However, it is vital that epistemic practices do not become routine. Otherwise, there is a danger that justice cannot be done to new interests and questions and thus also to object to epistemologies that are being further developed and are changing. Thank you for your attention.