prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What are some reasons for the lack of data sharing in archaeobotany?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Sowing the Seeds of Future Research: Data Sharing, Citation and Reuse in Archaeobotany
Reading: Sowing the Seeds of Future Research: Data Sharing, Citation and Reuse in Archaeobotany
University of Oxford, GB
Lisa is a post-doctoral research fellow at All Souls College, University of Oxford  Her publications include the co-authored volume The Rural Economy of Roman Britain (Britannia Monographs, 2017)  Her research interests are focussed on agricultural practices in the later prehistoric and Roman period and the utilisation of archaeobotanical data to investigate human-plant relationships 
The practices of data sharing, data citation and data reuse are all crucial aspects of the reproducibility of archaeological research  This article builds on the small number of studies reviewing data sharing and citation practices in archaeology, focussing on the data-rich sub-discipline of archaeobotany  Archaeobotany is a sub-discipline built on the time-intensive collection of data on archaeological plant remains, in order to investigate crop choice, crop husbandry, diet, vegetation and a wide range of other past human-plant relationships  Within archaeobotany, the level and form of data sharing is currently unknown  This article first reviews the form of data shared and the method of data sharing in 239 articles across 16 journals which present primary plant macrofossil studies  Second, it assesses data-citation in meta-analysis studies in 107 articles across 20 journals  Third, it assesses data reuse practices in archaeobotany, before exploring how these research practices can be improved to benefit the rigour and reuse of archaeobotanical research 
Keywords: Archaeobotany, Data reuse, Data sharing, Open science
How to Cite: Lodwick, L , 2019  Sowing the Seeds of Future Research: Data Sharing, Citation and Reuse in Archaeobotany  Open Quaternary, 5(1), p 7  DOI: http://doi org/10 5334/oq 62
Accepted on 29 May 2019 Submitted on 25 Mar 2019
Archaeology is a discipline built on the production and analysis of quantitative data pertaining to past human behaviour  As each archaeological deposit is a unique occurrence, ensuring that the data resulting from excavation and analysis are preserved and accessible is crucially important  Currently, there is a general perception of a low level of data sharing and reuse  Such a low level of data availability would prevent the assessment of research findings and the reuse of data in meta-analysis (Kansa & Kansa 2013; Moore & Richards 2015)  As observed across scientific disciplines, there is a major problem in the reproduction of scientific findings, commonly known as the ‘replication crisis’ (Costello et al  2013)  A range of intersecting debates contribute to this, including access to academic findings (open access), open data, access to software and access to methodologies, which can be broadly grouped as open science practices  Without these, the way that scientific findings can be verified and built upon is impaired  Questions of reproducibility have been raised in recent years in archaeology, with considerations of a range of practices which can improve the reproducibility of findings, and a recent call for the application of open science principles to archaeology (Marwick et al  2017)  Discussion has so far focussed on access to grey literature (Evans 2015), data sharing (Atici et al  2013), data citation practices (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018) and computational reproducibility (Marwick 2017), with a focus on lithics, zooarchaeological evidence, and archaeological site reports 
Quantitative assessments of current levels of data sharing, data citation and reuse remain limited in archaeology  The focus of evaluation has been on the uptake of large-scale digital archives for the preservation and dissemination of digital data, such as the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), utilised by developer-led and research projects, and recommended for use by many research funders in the UK (Richards 2002; Wright and Richards 2018)  Much less focus has been paid to the data-sharing practices of individuals or small-groups of university-based researchers who may be disseminating their research largely through journal articles  Recent work on the availability of data on lithics assemblages found a low level of data sharing (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018) and there are perceptions of low levels of data reuse (Huggett 2018; Kintigh et al  2018)  Within zooarchaeology numerous studies have explored issues of data sharing and reuse (Kansa & Kansa 2013, 2014), and the sub-discipline is seen as one of the most advanced areas of archaeology in regards to open science (Cooper & Green 2016: 273)  Beyond zooarchaeology, however, explicit discussion has remained limited 
This paper assesses data sharing and reuse practices in archaeology through the case study of archaeobotany – a long established sub-discipline within archaeology which has well-established principles of data recording  Archaeobotany is an interesting case study for data sharing in archaeology as it straddles the division of archaeology between scientific and more traditional techniques  Quantitative data on archaeological plant remains are also of interest to a range of other fields, including ecology, environmental studies, biology and earth sciences  The key issues of data sharing and data reuse (Atici et al  2013) have been touched upon in archaeobotany over the past decade within broader discussions on data quality (Van der Veen, Livarda & Hill 2007; Van der Veen, Hill & Livarda 2013)  These earlier studies focussed on the quality and availability of archaeobotanical data from developer-funded excavations in Britain and Cultural Resource Management in North America (Vanderwarker et al  2016: 156)  However, no discussion of data-sharing and reuse in academic archaeobotany occurred  A recent review of digital methods in archaeobotany is the notable exception, with discussions of the challenges and methods of data sharing (Warinner & d’Alpoim Guedes 2014) 
Currently, we have no evidence for the levels of data sharing and reuse within archaeobotany  This article provides the first quantitative assessment of 1) data publication in recent archaeobotanical journal articles 2) data citation in recent archaeobotanical meta-analysis 3) the reuse of archaeobotanical datasets, in order to assess whether practices need to change and how such changes can take place 
2  Data Publication and Re-use Practices in Archaeobotany
2 1  History of data production and publication
Archaeobotanical data falls within the category of observational data in archaeology (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018)  Archaeobotanical data is considered as the quantitative assessment of plant macrofossils present within a sample from a discrete archaeological context, which can include species identification, plant part, levels of identification (cf  – confer or “compares to”), and a range of quantification methods including count, minimum number of individuals, levels of abundance and weight (Popper 1988)  Archaeobotanical data is usually entered into a two-way data table organised by sample number  Alongside the counts of individual taxa, other information is also necessary to interpret archaeobotanical data, including sample volume, flot volume, charcoal volume, flot weight, level of preservation, sample number, context number, feature number, feature type and period  Beyond taxonomic identifications, a range of other types of data are increasingly gathered on individual plant macrofossils (morphometric measurements, isotopic values, aDNA) 
Archaeobotanical training places a strong emphasis on recording data on a sample-by-sample basis (Jacomet & Kreuz 1999: 138–139; Jones & Charles 2009; Pearsall 2016: 97–107)  Time-consuming methodologies utilised in the pursuit of accurate sample-level data recording include sub-sampling and splitting samples into size fractions and counting a statistically useful number of items per sample (Van der Veen & Fieller 1982)  The creation of sample-level data means analysis is often undertaken on the basis of individual samples, for instance the assessment of crop-processing stages and weed ecological evidence for crop husbandry practices  The analysis of sample level data also enables archaeobotanical finds to be integrated alongside contextual evidence from archaeological sites  Requirements for the publication of this data are in place in some archaeological guidelines, for instance current Historic England guidelines for archaeological practice in England (Campbell, Moffett & Straker 2011: 8) 
From the earliest archaeobotanical reports, such as Reid’s work at Roman Silchester, the sample from which plant remains were recovered was noted (Lodwick 2017a), but often results were reported as a list of taxa, or long catalogues of detailed botanical descriptions with seed counts, such as Knörzer’s work at Neuss (Knörzer 1970)  Early systematic archaeobotanical reports displayed data within in-text tables, for example Jones’s work at Ashville (Jones 1978) and the two-way data table has been the standard form of reporting archaeobotanical data ever since  Often data tables are presented within book chapters or appendices, but the financial, space and time constraints of book publishing are limiting  Furthermore, there is the perception that specialist data was not necessary for publication (Barker 2001)  Hence, alternative methods of the dissemination of specialist archaeological data were pursued in the later twentieth century 
From the 1980s, archaeobotanical data tables were often consigned to microfiche following a Council for British Archaeology and Department of Environment report (Moore & Richards 2015: 31), with the example of the excavation of Roman Colchester where the contents of all archaeobotanical samples were available on microfiche (Murphy 1992)  An alternative in the 2000s was providing data tables on CD Rom as seen, for instance, in the CD accompanying the study of a Roman farmstead in the Upper Thames Valley (Robinson 2007) or the One Poultry excavations in London (Hill and Rowsome 2011)  Meanwhile, the inception of the Archaeology Data Service, a digital repository for heritage data, in 1996 meant archaeological datasets were increasingly digitally archived, for instance the data from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Project (Foreman 2018) or a recent large-scale research excavation at Silchester (University of Reading 2018)  In these cases, archaeobotanical data is available to download as a  csv file 
Whilst the data publication strategy of large excavations was shifting, the availability of data from post-excavation assessment reports has remained challenging  So-called ‘grey literature’ results from the initial evaluation stage of developer-funded investigations and accompanying post-excavation assessment often contain a semi-quantitative evaluation of archaeobotanical samples on a scale of abundance  Whilst paper reports were initially deposited with county Historic Environment Records, a process of digitisation focussing on the Roman period has meant many pdfs are now available through the ADS (Allen et al  2018), whilst born-digital reports are now deposited through OASIS (Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS), as part of the reporting process (Evans 2015), althought the extent to which specialist appendices are included is variable 
These varying ‘publication’ strategies means archaeobotanical data is often available somewhere for recent developer-funded excavations and large-scale developer-funded excavations, even if much of this data is as a printed table or  pdf file (Evans 2015; Evans and Moore 2014)  However, academic journals are typically perceived as the most high-status publication venue for archaeobotanical data, and a crucial publication venue for academics in order to comply with institutional requirements and the norms of career progression  Aside from the problem of access to pay-walled journals by those without institutional subscriptions to all journals, the publication of primary data alongside research articles faces various problems, from the outright lack of inclusion of data, to problematic curation of supplementary data and a lack of peer review of data (Costello et al  2013; Warinner and d’Alpoim Guedes 2014: 155; Whitlock, 2011)  The extent of these problems for archaeobotany is currently unknown  Given the growth in archaeobotanical data production as methodologies are introduced into many new regions and periods over the last decade, it is vital that we know whether the mass of new data being produced is made available and is being reused 
Recent important advances within archaeobotanical data sharing have focussed on the construction of the ARBODAT database, developed by Angela Kreuz at the Kommission für Archäologische Landesforschung in Hessen  The database is used by a range of researchers in Germany, the Czech Republic, France and England (Kreuz & Schäfer 2002)  Data sharing enabled by the use of this database has facilitated research on Neolithic agriculture in Austria, Bulgaria and Germany (Kreuz et al  2005), and Bronze Age agriculture in Europe (Stika and Heiss 2012)  The use of this database makes data integration between specialists easier due to the shared data structure and metadata description, but often the primary archaeobotanical data is not made publicly available 
2 2  Meta-analysis in archaeobotany
Beyond the need to preserve information, a key reason for the formal sharing of archaeobotanical data is in its reuse to facilitate subsequent research  There has been a long-standing concern within archaeobotany with the need to aggregate datasets and identify temporal and spatial patterns  The palaeobotanist Clement Reid maintained his own database of Quaternary plant records in the late nineteenth century (Reid 1899), which formed the foundation of Godwin’s Quaternary database (Godwin 1975)  Mid-twentieth century studies of prehistoric plant use compiled lists of archaeobotanical materials incorporating full references and the location of the archive (Jessen & Helbaek 1944)  The International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany was itself founded in 1968 in part with the aim to compile archaeobotanical data, first realised through the publication of Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany (Van Zeist, Wasylikowa & Behre 1991), and subsequently through the publication of annual lists of new records of cultivated plants (Kroll 1997) 
To take England as an example, regional reviews produced by state heritage authorities have provided catalogues of archaeobotanical datasets in particular time periods and regions (e g  Murphy 1998)  When one archaeobotanist has undertaken the majority of study within a region, pieces of synthesis within books have provided a relatively comprehensive review, for instance in the Thames Valley, UK (Lambrick & Robinson 2009)  Over the last decade regional synthesis has occurred within several funded reviews which produced catalogues of sites with archaeobotanical data (Lodwick 2014; McKerracher 2018; Parks 2012) and a series of funded projects in France have enabled regional synthesis (Lepetz & Zech-Matterne 2017)  However, many of these reviews are not accompanied by an available underlying database, and draw upon reports which are themselves hard to access 
Through the 1990s and 2000s, a series of databases were constructed in order to collate data from sites in a particular region and facilitate synthetic research  However, these databases have all placed the role of data archiving onto later projects specifically funded to collate data, rather than sourcing datasets at the time of publication  Such a model is unsustainable, and is unlikely to result in all available datasets being compiled  The Archaeobotanical Computer Database (ABCD), published in 1996 in the first issue of Internet Archaeology, contained much of the archaeobotanical data from Britain available at the time of publication, largely at the level of individual samples  The database was compiled between 1989 and 1994 and is still accessible through the accompanying online journal publication (Tomlinson & Hall 1996)  The ABCD made major contributions to recent reviews of the Roman and Medieval periods (Van der Veen, Livarda & Hill 2008; Van der Veen, Hill & Livarda 2013)  However, the database could only be centrally updated, with the online resource remaining a static version, lacking much of the new data produced subsequent to the implementation of PPG16 in 1990  The ADEMNES database, created through a research project undertaken at the Universities of Freiburg and Tübingen, contains data from 533 eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern sites (Riehl & Kümmel 2005)  Kroll has maintained the Archaeobotanical Literature Database to accompany the Vegetation History and Archaeobotany articles (Kroll 2005) now accessible as a database (Kirleis & Schmültz 2018)  Numerous other databases have collated archaeobotanical studies, including the COMPAG project (Fuller et al  2015), the Cultural Evolution of Neolithic Europe project (Colledge 2016), RADAR in the Netherlands (van Haaster and Brinkkemper 1995), BRAIN Botanical Records of Archaeobotany Italian Network (Mercuri et al  2015) and CZAD – Archaeobotanical database of Czech Republic (CZAD 2019) 
The majority of databases have a restricted regional coverage, whilst research-project driven period-specific databases provide overlapping content  Whilst there are a wide range of archaeobotanical databases available, few contain primary datasets (other than the ABCD) which can be downloaded as  csv files  Data which is most commonly available are bibliographic references per site, with some indications of mode of preservation, quantity of archaeobotanical data, and sometimes taxa present  The databases do not inter-relate to each other, and function primarily as bibliographic sources enabling researchers to find comparative sites or to identify published datasets which need to be re-tabulated prior to meta-analysis  The IWGP website curates a list of resources, but otherwise the resources are often disseminated through the archaeobotany jiscmail list 
Beyond the aim of cataloguing archaeobotanical data within a region and period, meta-analysis is often used in archaeobotany to identify spatial and chronological trends in a range of past human activities, for instance crop choice, crop husbandry practices, plant food consumption, the trade in luxury foods or the use of plants in ritual  Meta-analysis can be undertaken on the basis of simple presence/absence data per site, but in order for such analysis to be rigorous and comparable, sample-level data must be utilised  For instance, sample-level data is required for meta-studies, in order to identify high-quality samples of unmixed crops for weed ecology analysis (Bogaard 2004), to assess the importance of context in the evaluation of wild plant foods (Wallace et al  2019), or to use volumetric measurements as a proxy for scale (Lodwick 2017b)  The reuse of archaeobotanical data also extends to include datasets used as “controls” in commonly used forms of statistical analysis, for instance Jones’s weed data from Amorgos, Greece, which is utilised as a control group in discriminant analysis of crop-processing stage (Jones 1984), and ethnographic observations of crop items in different crop-processing stages (Jones 1990) 
2 3  Open data principles and solutions
Debates over issues of data publication and meta-analysis have been on-going across scientific disciplines over the last decade (Editors 2009), and have been summarised within principles of open science, as recently set out in relation to archaeology (Marwick et al  2017)  Open Data is one of the three core principles for promoting transparency in social science (Miguel et al  2014)  The FAIR principles, developed by representatives from academia, industry, funding agencies, industry and publishers, provide four principles which data sharing should meet for use by both humans and machines – Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability (Wilkinson et al  2016)  A recent report assessing the adoption and impact of FAIR principles across academia in the UK included archaeology as a case study (Allen and Hartland 2018: 46)  It reported how the ADS was often used to archive data, but that “The journal itself provides the “story” about the data, the layer that describes what the data is, how it was collected and what the author thinks it means ” The report also raises the problem that smaller projects may not have the funding to utilise the ADS, meaning that other repositories are utilised  Increasingly, archaeological data is made available through a wide range of data repositories (OSF, Mendeley Data, Zenodo, Open Context), university data repositories (e g  ORA-Data), or social networking sites for academics (Academia edu, ResearchGate)  More widely in archaeology, some have observed that archaeological data is rarely published (Kintigh et al  2014), and recent reviews have reported low levels of data sharing (Huggett 2018; Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018)  A closely related issue is that of data reuse  Responsible reuse of primary data encourages the sharing of primary data (Atici et al  2013), but levels of data reuse in archaeology are thought to remain low (Huggett 2018)  Principles for responsible data citation in archaeology have recently been developed summarising how datasets should be cited (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018) 
In order to assess the current status of data sharing, citation and data re-use in archaeobotany, a review was undertaken of the publication of primary data and the publication of meta-analysis in major archaeological journals over the last ten years, building on recent pilot studies within archaeology (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018)  The review of academic journals provided a contrast to recent assessments of archaeobotanical data deriving from developer-funded archaeology (Lodwick 2017c; Van der Veen, Hill & Livarda 2013)  Journal articles have been selected as the focus of this study as the provision of online supplementary materials in the majority of journals and the ability to insert hyperlinks to persistent identifiers (eg a DOI) to link to datasets available elsewhere should not limit the publication of data and references  Much archaeobotanical data is also published elsewhere, especially from projects not based in the university sector, that is commercial or community archaeology in the UK  Archaeobotanical datasets emanating from this research are more commonly published through monographs, county journal articles, and unpublished (or grey literature) reports, but these are beyond the scope of the current review 
All journal articles were included which represent the principle reporting of a new archaeobotanical assemblage  The selected journals fall within three groups  First, what is considered the specialist archaeobotanical journal (Vegetation History and Archaeobotany (VHA))  Second, archaeological science journals (Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, Environmental Archaeology, The Holocene, Journal of Archaeological Science (JAS), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (JASR), Journal of Ethnobiology, Quaternary International, Journal of Wetland Archaeology), which can be considered as specialist sub-disciplinary journals which should be maintaining data-quality  Third, general archaeology journals (Antiquity, Journal of Field Archaeology, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Journal of World Prehistory)  Finally, the broader cross-disciplinary journals PLoS One and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) were included  Published articles from the past ten years (2009–2018) have been analysed in order to assess the availability of plant macrofossil data  This ten-year period brackets the period where most archaeological journals have moved online and adopted supplementary materials 
Data citation in synthetic studies has been assessed in the same range of publications  The extent of data reuse ranges from the analysis of whole sample data to the presence/absence of individual crops  The location of a data citation has been assessed in the same range of publications, with the addition of journals where occasional research incorporating archaeobotanical data is featured (Britannia, Journal of Archaeological Research, Ethnobiology Letters, Medieval Archaeology, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, World Archaeology)  The underlying dataset for the analysis is available in Lodwick 2019 
4 1  Primary data sharing
Here, the location of primary archaeobotanical data, that is sample level counts of macroscopic plant remains, was assessed for 239 journal articles across 16 journals (Lodwick 2019 Table 1)  Figure 1 shows the results grouped by journal  Overall, only 56% of articles shared their primary data  In, Antiquity, JAS, JASR, PLOS One, Quaternary International and VHA, the highest proportion of publications did not include their primary data, that is to say that the sample-by-sample counts of plant macrofossils was not available  This level of data is comparable to the findings of other pilot studies in archaeology  Marwick and Pilaar Birch found a data sharing rate of 53% from 48 articles published in Journal of Archaeological Science in Feb – May 2017 (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018: 7), and confirm previous assertions that data is often withheld in archaeology (Kansa 2012: 499)  This is better than some disciplines, with a 9% data sharing rate on publication found across high impact journal science publications (n = 500) (Alsheikh-Ali et al  2011) and 13% in biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics (n = 4370) (Womack 2015), yet still indicates that nearly half of articles did not include primary data  Primary archaeobotanical data is more likely to be shared in archaeobotanical and archaeological science journals than general archaeology journals  However, within the primary archaeobotanical journal, VHA, 51% of articles do not include their primary data (Figure 1) 
Chart showing the location of primary archaeobotanical data by journal in primary archaeobotanical data publications 
Where primary data was not shared, the data which was available ranged from summary statistics, typically counts or frequencies, reported either by site, site phase, or feature group  Figure 2 summarises these results by year, showing that there is a gradient within articles not sharing their full ‘raw’ data, from those only provided sample counts on one aspect of the archaeobotanical assemblage, to those only presenting data graphically or within discussion  Beyond full data, the most common form of data shared is either summary counts per site or summary counts per feature or phase  Whilst this data does enable some level of reuse, the results of any sample-level data analysis presented within an article cannot be verified, and the data cannot be reused for crop-processing or weed ecology analysis which requires sample level data  Furthermore, such data would have been collected on a sample-by-sample basis, but this information is lost from the resulting publication 
Chart showing the form of archaeobotanical data shared by year in primary archaeobotanical data publications 
The forms in which data are made available vary across journals  The sharing of primary data within an article remains the most common data sharing form in archaeobotany (Figure 1)  Data tables in text require manual handling to extract data, in journals such as VHA, whilst in other journals in-text tables can be downloaded as  csv files  These however would not be citable as a separate dataset  Supplementary datasets are the third most common form of data sharing  Indeed, the use of electronic supplementary material has been advocated recently for by some journals, such as the Journal of Archaeological Science (Torrence, Martinón-Torres & Rehren 2015)  Microsoft Excel spreadsheets are the most common form of supplementary data, followed by  pdfs and then word documents (Figure 1)  Both  xlsx and  docx are proprietary file formats, and not recommended for long term archiving or open science principles  There is no indication of improvement over the last decade in the form of data sharing  In 2018, 50% of articles did not share their primary data, and where the data was shared, it was in proprietary forms ( docx,  xlsx) or those that do not easily facilitate data reuse ( pdf) (Figure 3) 
Chart showing the location of archaeobotanical data from 2009–2018 in primary archaeobotanical data publications 
Just one of the articles included in this review incorporated a dataset archived in a repository (Farahani 2018), in contrast to the substantial growth in data repositories across academic disciplines (Marcial & Hemminger 2010)  Other examples provide the underlying data for monograph publications, such as that of the archaeobotanical data from Gordion, Turkey (Marston 2017a, 2017b), Silchester, UK (Lodwick 2018; University of Reading 2018) and Vaihingen, Germany (Bogaard 2011a; Bogaard, 2011b) 
Several of the journals that have been assessed have research data policies  In the case of Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, sufficient papers have been surveyed to assess the impact of the research data policy on the availability of data  Figure 4 show the proportion of data sharing formats through time just for VHA (note the small sample size)  The introduction of a research data policy in 2016 encouraging data sharing in repositories has not resulted in any datasets being shared in that format  Of the 10 articles published in PLOS One after the introduction of a clear research data policy in 2014, 4 did not contain primary data  However, elsewhere, journals with no research data policy, such as Antiquity, has one of the lower levels of data sharing (Figure 1) 
Chart showing the location of primary archaeobotanical data in Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 
There are various reasons for why a primary dataset may be lacking  The option of providing supplementary datasets has been available in many of the journals here since before the start of the surveyed period (e g  Vegetation History and Archaeobotany in 2004), and so cannot be a reason for the absence of data publication in this journal while it may be a reason in other journals  Reasons suggested for a lack of data sharing within archaeology include technological limitations, and resistance amongst some archaeologists to making their data available due to cautions of exposing data to scrutiny, lost opportunities of analysis before others use it and loss of ‘capital’ of data (Moore & Richards 2015: 34–35)  Furthermore, control over how data tables is presented (taxa ordering, summary data presented) may also contribute to the preferential publishing of data within journal articles  Another factor to consider is the emphasis on the creation of new data through archaeological research (Huvila 2016)  The creation of a new archaeobotanical dataset through primary analysis is a key form of training in archaeobotany, and the perception of the value of the reuse of other previously published archaeobotanical journals may be low, hence not encouraging the sharing of well-documented datasets  Excellent exams of data reuse have resulted in influential studies (Bogaard 2004; Riehl 2008; Wallace et al  2019), and would hopefully encourage further data sharing in the future 
Given that there are numerous examples of meta-analysis which do take place in archaeobotany, it seems likely that the prevalent form of data sharing is through informal data sharing between individual specialists  However, this does not improve access to data in the long term, and is inefficient and time consuming, with large potential for data errors (Kansa & Kansa 2013), and relies on personal networks, which are likely to exclude some researchers  The absence of primary data in many archaeobotanical publications thus inhibits the verification of patterns observed within a dataset, and strongly limits the re-use potential of a dataset 
4 2  Data citation
One of the common arguments for increasing data sharing is an associated increase in the citation of the articles which have data available  Here, the data citation practices of meta-analyses of plant macrofossil data undertaken over the last decade have been reviewed  20 journals were consulted, including a wider range of period-specific journals, and 107 articles were assessed (Lodwick 2019 Table 2)  Data citation was assessed as ‘in text’ or ‘in table’ to refer to when the citation and the bibliographic reference were within the article, as ‘in supplementary data’ when the citation and reference were within the supplementary materials, and as ‘no citation’ when no citation and reference was provided 
21% of articles (n = 22) did not contain any citations to the underlying studies  16% (n = 17) contained citations within supplementary data files  50% of articles (n = 53) contained a citation within a table within the main article, and 14% (n = 15) contained citations within the main text  For the 21% of articles without data citations, the results of these studies could not be reproduced without consulting individual authors  The papers supplying the underlying data also received no credit for producing these datasets  Where articles contain citations within the main article (in text or table), full credit is provided to the underlying studies, a citation link is created through systems such as google scholar, and the study can be easily built upon in the future  Where the citation is provided within supplementary data, the original studies do receive attribution, but are not linked to so easily 
Through time, there is a steady decrease in the proportion of studies without citations to the underlying data, whereby of the 17 meta-analysis articles published in 2018, only one had no data citations  In comparison, in 2009, 3 out of 8 meta-analysis articles contained no data citation (Figure 6)  Overall this is a more positive outlook on the reuse of published data, but the consistent presence of articles lacking data citation indicates that improvements are needed  Reasons for a lack of data citation may include restrictions on word counts imposed by journals, a lack of technical knowledge in making large databases available, or the wish to hold on to a dataset to optimise usage  Considering the type of journal (Figure 5), levels of data citation are worse in general archaeology journals, with sub-disciplinary journals showing slightly better levels of data citation  In particular VHA has a lack of consistency in where data citations are located 
Chart showing the location of data citations in meta-analysis journal articles by journal type 
Chart showing the location of data citations in meta-analysis journal articles from 2009–2018 
4 3  Reuse of archived archaeobotanical datasets
The majority of data citations assessed in the previous section are to articles or book chapters rather than data-sets  The ADS currently hosts 66 data archives which have been tagged as containing plant macro data, deriving mainly from developer-funded excavations but also some research excavations  However, in some of these the plant macro data is contained within a pdf  As, the archiving of archaeobotanical datasets in data repositories is still at an early stage, the reuse of these datasets is assessed here on a case-by-case basis  The archaeobotanical dataset from the Neolithic site of Vaihingen, Germany (Bogaard 2011b) has not been cited on google scholar  Metrics are provided through the ADS, showing this dataset has been downloaded 56 times with 477 individual visits (as of 25/2/19)  The archaeobotanical dataset from Gordion by Marston has no citations on Google Scholar (Marston 2017b), neither does the Giza botanical database (Malleson & Miracle 2018), but these are both very recently archived datasets  In contrast, the Roman Rural Settlement Project dataset, which includes site-level archaeobotanical data, has received greater levels of use, with 12 citations in Google Scholar, over 40,000 file downloads, and over 35,000 visits (Allen et al  2018) and the archaeobotanical computer database (Tomlinson & Hall 1996) has been cited 44 times, and is the major dataset underpinning other highly-cited studies (Van der Veen, Livarda & Hill 2008; Van der Veen, Hill & Livarda 2013)  Whilst there is clearly precedence for the reuse of archaeobotanical databases, current data citation practices within archaeobotany do not yet appear to be formally citing individual datasets, meaning an assessment of the reuse of archived archaeobotanical datasets is challenging 
5  Steps Forward
This review of data sharing, citation, and reuse practices in archaeobotany has found medium levels of data sharing, good levels of data citation, but so far limited levels of reuse of archived data sets  This picture is similar across archaeology, in part attributed to the status of archaeology as a small-science, where data-sharing takes place ad-hoc (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018)  Here, recommendations are discussed for improving these data practices within archaeobotany, of applicability more widely in archaeology 
Clearly an important step is improving the sharing of plant macrofossil data  Given the reasonable small size of most archaeobotanical datasets (a  csv file < 1mb), and a lack of ethical conflicts, there seems to be few reasons why the majority of archaeobotanical data couldn’t be shared  In the case of developer-funded derived data, issues of commercial confidentiality could limit the sharing of data  A key stage is establishing why levels of data sharing are not higher  Issues within archaeobotany may include the conflict between having to publish results within excavation monographs, which may take some time to be published, and have limited visibility due to high purchase costs and no digital access, and the need to publish journal articles for career progression within academia  The production of an archaeobotanical dataset is very time-consuming, and interim publication on notable aspects of an assemblage may be considered as a necessary publication strategy  More broadly, one important aspect is issues of equity in access to digital archiving resources (Wright & Richards 2018), such as differential access to funds, training and knowledge  A recent study in Sweden found that we need to know concerns, needs, and wishes of archaeologists in order to improve preservation of archaeological data (Huvila 2016), especially when control of ones data may be linked to perceptions of job security  In order to make improvements in data sharing and reuse across archaeology, we need improved training in data sharing and the reuse of data in higher education (Touchon & McCoy 2016; Cook et al  2018), improved training in data management (Faniel et al  2018), and crucially, the necessary software skills to make the reuse of archived datasets attainable (Kansa & Kansa 2014: 91)  Examples of good practice in archaeobotany are the Vaihingen and Gordion datasets which demonstrate how datasets can be archived in data repositories to accompany a monograph (Bogaard 2011b; Marston 2017b), whilst Farahani (2018) provides an excellent example of a journal article, where the primary data is supplied as a  csv in a cited data repository along with the R script for the analysis 
In tandem with the need to encourage authors to share their data, is the need for journals to create and implement research data policies  Given the existence of research data policies in many of the journals included here, this reflects other findings of the poor enforcement of data policies by journals (Marwick & Pilaar Birch 2018), supporting arguments that journals should not be relied upon to make data accessible, and data should instead by deposited in digital repositries  In order to implement change in data sharing, there is a role to play for learned societies and academic organisation in lobbying funding bodies, prioritising data sharing in research projects  A key step is through journal editorial boards, and the enforcement of any pre-existing research data policies (Nosek et al  2015)  Revi
Context 2: South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc  - Harvard Law Review
Fourth Circuit Invalidates Maryland Statute Regulating Price Gouging in the Sale of Generic Drugs 
South Dakota Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional State Law Requiring Internet Retailers Without In-State Physical Presence to Remit Sales Tax 
Judicial junk, the Court has long thought, is easier to scrap when the erroneous precedent cannot be fixed by Congress, as in constitutional cases 1× 1  See Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 405–10 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting); Lee Epstein, William M  Landes & Adam Liptak, The Decision to Depart (or Not) from Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court, 90 N Y U  L  Rev  1115, 1116 (2015) (“[Justice Brandeis’s] dissenting opinion       now has the status of black letter law ”)  On the flip side, whenever a bad precedent can be corrected by Congress, stare decisis applies with “special force ”2× 2  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  The Court, following Justice Brandeis, usually articulates the rule as distinguishing between “constitutional” and “statutory” precedents  See, e g , id  But the distinction is occasionally said to be between “constitutional” and “nonconstitutional cases ” See, e g , Glidden Co  v  Zdanok, 370 U S  530, 543 (1962) (plurality opinion)  Nomenclature aside, the Court has — until now — adhered to Justice Brandeis’s key insight that the important factor is whether or not the mistake may be legislatively corrected  Last Term, in South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc ,3× 3  138 S  Ct  2080 (2018)  the Court tinkered with this thinking in overruling an outdated dormant commerce clause precedent  Dormant commerce clause decisions technically produce constitutional holdings, but Congress may override them at will 4× 4  See Prudential Ins  Co  v  Benjamin, 328 U S  408, 421–27 (1946)  Under the usual logic of stare decisis, it should take special force to dislodge such precedents  But Wayfair applied the weakened stare decisis of constitutional cases, asserting that the Court must “address a false constitutional premise         whether or not Congress can or will act ”5× 5  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Emerging from Wayfair is an odd and ominous development in stare decisis doctrine  Odd, because it turns on a formal classification instead of on Congress’s practical ability to fix the problem  Ominous, because the Court’s logic leads far past the dormant commerce clause  Wayfair grants only feeble stare decisis to precedents that set a “constitutional default rule,”6× 6  Id  at 2096 (“While       Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule ”)  meaning constitutional decisions that allow for legislative adjustment or override  This new stare decisis analysis makes other precedents setting constitutional default rules more vulnerable — including, perhaps, mainstays of criminal procedure like Miranda v  Arizona7× 7  384 U S  436 (1966)  and Mapp v  Ohio 8× 8  367 U S  643 (1961) 
Since its 1967 decision in National Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Department of Revenue,9× 9  386 U S  753 (1967)  the Court has held that, under the “dormant” or “negative” implication of the Commerce Clause,10× 10  The dormant or negative commerce clause is a judicial derivation from the Commerce Clause “prohibiting States from discriminating against or imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval,” which “strikes at one of the chief evils that led to the adoption of the Constitution, namely, state tariffs and other laws that burdened interstate commerce ” Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1794 (2015)  states may not compel remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes 11× 11  See Bellas Hess, 386 U S  at 759–60  In Quill Corp  v  North Dakota,12× 12  504 U S  298 (1992)  the Court refused to overrule the “bright-line, physical-presence requirement” of Bellas Hess, leaning heavily on stare decisis 13× 13  Id  at 317–18  Three Justices joined a concurrence explaining that their decision rested solely “on the basis of stare decisis ” Id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)  So the physical presence test remained the law of the land while the internet conquered the earth  Justice Kennedy had joined the Quill majority and Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion emphasizing stare decisis, but by 2015 he had second thoughts  Writing separately in Direct Marketing Ass’n v  Brohl,14× 14  135 S  Ct  1124 (2015)  Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy” and therefore “Quill now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier ”15× 15  Id  at 1135 (Kennedy, J , concurring)  He concluded with the wish that “[t]he legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess ”16× 16  Id 
Seldom has a concurring opinion signed by a lone Justice prompted a state to officially declare an emergency  Yet in 2016, in response to Justice Kennedy’s overture, the South Dakota legislature passed a law, S B  106, “to provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers       and to declare an emergency ”17× 17  2016 S D  Sess  Laws ch  70 pmbl  217 (codified at S D  Codified Laws § 10-64 (2017))  It required every remote seller to collect and remit sales tax if the seller’s business in South Dakota comprised either a “gross revenue” greater than $100,000 or at least 200 “separate transactions” within one calendar year 18× 18  Id  § 1  Significantly, the law did not apply retroactively 19× 19  Id  § 5  The “emergency” declaration was necessary to give the law immediate effect, for the purpose of “permitting the most expeditious possible review of the constitutionality of this law” by the U S  Supreme Court 20× 20  Id  § 8(8)  As Justice Alito put it, the “South Dakota law [was] obviously a test case ”21× 21  Transcript of Oral Argument at 27, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494), https://www supremecourt gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-494_7lho pdf [https://perma cc/8HYH-VU8N] 
Expeditiously, a group of remote sellers challenged the law  After being sued by South Dakota for refusing to register for the newly required sales tax license, Wayfair, Inc , Overstock com, Inc , and Newegg, Inc  moved for summary judgment in South Dakota circuit court on the grounds that S B  106 was unconstitutional under Quill and Bellas Hess — a point South Dakota conceded, indicating that it was seeking review by the U S  Supreme Court to overturn Quill 22× 22  State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, ¶¶ 9–11, 901 N W 2d 754, 759–60  Accordingly, the South Dakota circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and South Dakota appealed to the state’s highest court 23× 23  Id  ¶ 12, 901 N W 2d at 760  The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, recognizing that South Dakota’s “arguments on the merits” may be “persuasive” but “Quill remains the controlling precedent ”24× 24  Id  ¶ 18, 901 N W 2d at 761  See generally Recent Case, State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, 901 N W 2d 754 (S D  2017), 131 Harv  L  Rev  2089 (2018) 
The U S  Supreme Court vacated and remanded 25× 25  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2100  Writing for the Court one last time, Justice Kennedy26× 26  Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion  pilloried Quill’s physical presence rule as “arbitrary, formalistic,” “anachronistic,” and “unfair and unjust” to both states and brick-and-mortar retailers 27× 27  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092, 2095  After all, the rationale of Quill was that remote sellers lacked a sufficiently “substantial nexus” with the state to justify imposing a duty of tax collection 28× 28  Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  298, 311 (1992) (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc  v  Brady, 430 U S  274, 279 (1977))  This was wrong even in the mail-order catalog days of 1967 and 1992, but “the Internet revolution has made [Quill’s] earlier error all the more egregious and harmful ”29× 29  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2097; see also id  at 2092  The rule deprived the states of billions of dollars, since they could not force remote sellers to collect the tax and consumers hardly ever paid it on their own 30× 30  Id  at 2088 (“[C]onsumer compliance rates are notoriously low ”)  Quill “serve[d] as a judicially created tax shelter” for remote retailers who do a great deal of business online 31× 31  Id  at 2094 
Satisfied that Bellas Hess and Quill were wrongly decided, the Court then jumped the hurdle of stare decisis  The Quill Court had feared upsetting reliance interests 32× 32  Quill, 504 U S  at 317 (“Bellas Hess       has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry ”)  Wayfair shrugged off this concern, noting that “stare decisis accommodates only ‘legitimate reliance interest[s]’”; by contrast, reliance on the physical presence rule was largely due to consumers evading their use-tax obligations 33× 33  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2098 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v  Ross, 456 U S  798, 824 (1982))  Quill had also appealed to Congress’s ultimate authority over interstate commerce as a reason to abide by a precedent, even if wrongly decided 34× 34  See Quill, 504 U S  at 318–19; id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“Congress       can change the rule of Bellas Hess by simply saying so ”)  But Wayfair denied that Congress’s ability to change the law was a proper consideration:
While it can be conceded that Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule  It is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court’s own creation  Courts have acted as the front line of review in this limited sphere; and hence it is important that their principles be accurate and logical, whether or not Congress can or will act in response 35× 35  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Having dispensed with the physical presence rule, the Court remanded the case to the South Dakota courts to determine in the first instance “whether some other principle in the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate the Act ”36× 36  Id  at 2099  But the Court listed “several features [of South Dakota law] that appear[ed] designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce ” Id 
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions  Justice Thomas wistfully likened himself to Justice White — who voted for Bellas Hess but against Quill a quarter-century later — and confessed that he “should have joined [Justice White’s dissenting] opinion ”37× 37  Id  at 2100 (Thomas, J , concurring)  Justice Thomas added that the “Court’s entire negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence” is wrong and should be abandoned 38× 38  Id  Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately to express skepticism of the Court’s dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, raising “questions for another day” of whether the doctrine “can be squared with the text of the Commerce Clause, justified by stare decisis, or defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause ”39× 39  Id  at 2100–01 (Gorsuch, J , concurring) 
Chief Justice Roberts dissented 40× 40  Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the Chief Justice’s dissent  Surprisingly, the dissenting Justices “agree[d] that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided, for many of the reasons given by the Court ”41× 41  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2101 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  The dispute between the majority and the dissent turned entirely on the principles and application of stare decisis  Chief Justice Roberts argued that whether or how to reverse Quill should be left to Congress, which “has the flexibility to address these questions in a wide variety of ways” and “can focus directly on current policy concerns rather than past legal mistakes ”42× 42  Id  at 2104  He also pointed to the “baffling” burdens of compliance with the idiosyncratic tax codes of “[o]ver 10,000 jurisdictions,” particularly for small businesses, and doubted that new “software” — the majority’s proposed solution to this mess43× 43  Id  at 2098 (majority opinion) (“Eventually, software that is available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small businesses to cope with these problems ”)  — would soon solve the problem 44× 44  Id  at 2103–04 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  In Bellas Hess, the Court reasoned that the dormant commerce clause protects interstate business from being “entangle[d]       in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions ” Nat’l Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Dep’t of Revenue, 386 U S  753, 759–60 (1967)  The dissent replied that the Court “vastly underestimate[d] the skill of contemporary man and his machines ” Id  at 766 (Fortas, J , dissenting)  The dispute in Wayfair over whether software is up to the task effectively reprised the old debate from Bellas Hess, only this time couched as part of the stare decisis inquiry’s concern for reliance interests rather than as a matter of dormant commerce clause doctrine  While Wayfair acknowledged that “[c]omplex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce,” 138 S  Ct  at 2099, the Court remarked that “[t]he physical presence rule is a poor proxy” for an inquiry into any actual burdens imposed on interstate commerce, id  at 2093 
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that a “heightened form of stare decisis”45× 45  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  applies when “Congress       can, if it wishes, override this Court’s decisions with contrary legislation ”46× 46  Id  at 2101 (first citing Michigan v  Bay Mills Indian Cmty , 134 S  Ct  2024, 2036 (2014) (tribal sovereign immunity); then citing Kimble v  Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S  Ct  2401, 2409 (2015) (statutory interpretation); and then citing Halliburton Co  v  Erica P  John Fund, Inc , 134 S  Ct  2398, 2411 (2014) (judicially created doctrine implementing a judicially created cause of action))  In Quill, the Chief Justice noted, the Court had taken to heart that “Congress may be better qualified” and “has the ultimate power to resolve” the question47× 47  Id  at 2102 (quoting Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  279, 318 (1992))  while Justice Scalia had “recogniz[ed] that stare decisis has ‘special force’ in the dormant Commerce Clause context due to Congress’s ‘final say over regulation of interstate commerce ’”48× 48  Id  (quoting Quill, 504 U S  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment))  Moreover, “[i]f stare decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment” afterward since Quill effectively “tossed [the ball] into Congress’s court ”49× 49  Id  (alteration in original) (quoting Kimble, 135 S  Ct  at 2409); cf  Bay Mills, 134 S  Ct  at 2039 n 12 (“When we inform Congress that it has primary responsibility over a sphere of law, and invite Congress to consider a specific issue within that sphere, we cannot deem irrelevant how Congress responds ”)  Because the Court invited Congress to act and then “suddenly chang[ed] the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue ”50× 50  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102–03 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
In Wayfair, the Court applied the flimsier form of stare decisis to a precedent that could have been overruled by Congress  It did so in the context of a dormant commerce clause case, but Wayfair’s logic extends to all constitutional default rules — that is, constitutional decisions that Congress remains free to change  Not only does Wayfair deviate from the Court’s decades-old stare decisis analysis, it also imperils other precedents that set constitutional default rules 
The Court’s reasoning in Wayfair departs from its prior stare decisis analysis  In 1932, Justice Brandeis posited that stare decisis must bend “in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible ”51× 51  Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U
Context 3: Football Club Urartu (, translated Futbolayin Akumb Urartu), commonly known as Urartu, is an Armenian professional football team based in the capital Yerevan that currently plays in the Armenian Premier League  The club won the Armenian Cup three times, in 1992, 2007 and 2016  In 2013–2014, they won the Armenian Premier League for the first time in their history 

In early 2016, the Russia-based Armenian businessman Dzhevan Cheloyants became a co-owner of the club after purchasing the major part of the club shares  The club was known as FC Banants until 1 August 2019, when it was officially renamed FC Urartu 

History

Kotayk
Urartu FC were founded as FC Banants by Sarkis Israelyan on 21 January 1992 in the village of Kotayk, representing the Kotayk Province  He named the club after his native village of Banants (currently known as Bayan)  Between 1992 and 1995, the club was commonly referred to as Banants Kotayk  During the 1992 season, the club won the first Armenian Cup  At the end of the 1995 transitional season, Banants suffered a financial crisis  The club owners decided that it was better to merge the club with FC Kotayk of Abovyan, rather than disband it  In 2001, Banants demerged from FC Kotayk, and was moved from Abovyan to the capital Yerevan 

Yerevan

FC Banants was relocated to Yerevan in 2001  At the beginning of 2003, Banants merged with FC Spartak Yerevan, but was able to limit the name of the new merger to FC Banants  Spartak became Banants's youth academy and later changed the name to Banants-2  Because of the merger, Banants acquired many players from Spartak Yerevan, including Samvel Melkonyan  After the merger, Banants took a more serious approach and have finished highly in the league table ever since  The club managed to lift the Armenian Cup in 2007 
Experience is making way for youth for the 2008 and 2009 seasons



ground_truth: Technological limitations, resistance to exposing data to scrutiny, and desire to hold onto data for personal use.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Justice Kennedy argue about Quill in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: S  393, 406–07 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting)  The Court has long since adopted his argument,52× 52  See, e g , Smith v  Allwright, 321 U S  649, 665 (1944)  as well as its corollary — that stare decisis commands “special force in the area of statutory interpretation” where “Congress remains free to alter what [the Court has] done ”53× 53  Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  For normative evaluations of heightened stare decisis for statutory precedents, see generally Einer Elhauge, Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation 211–23 (2008); and William N  Eskridge, Jr , Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 Geo  L J  1361, 1364–1409 (1988)  Justice Brandeis’s logic demands that dormant commerce clause cases, where Congress is free to act, be granted the weightier stare decisis 54× 54  Scholars have noted the curious fact that Justice Brandeis included many dormant commerce clause cases as examples of overruled constitutional precedents  See, e g , Earl M  Maltz, Commentary, Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law, 1980 Wis  L  Rev  467, 468–469, 469 n 11  One explanation for this is that Justice Brandeis sought the authority of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum that the Court’s “opinion upon the construction of the Constitution is always open to discussion” — which referred to the dormant commerce clause  See Burnet, 285 U S  at 408 n 3 (Brandeis, J , dissenting) (quoting The Passenger Cases, 48 U S  (7 How ) 283, 470 (1849) (Taney, C J , dissenting))  In Chief Justice Taney’s time, it was thought that Congress could not override the Court’s dormant commerce clause decisions, see Cooley v  Bd  of Wardens, 53 U S  (12 How ) 299, 321 (1852), so the context of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum does not conflict with Justice Brandeis’s theory of stare decisis  The Court applied this reasoning in Quill, as Chief Justice Roberts underscored 55× 55  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
Yet the Wayfair majority refused to consider Congress’s authority to legislate as a relevant factor for stare decisis 56× 56  Even Justice Kennedy’s earlier opinion in Direct Marketing contemplated judicially overruling Quill, conspicuously neglecting a possible legislative solution  See supra p  278  The Court even insisted that to do so “is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role,” since Quill embodied “a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”57× 57  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096 (emphasis added)  This refusal breaks from the practical Brandeisian wisdom that has guided the Court’s treatment of precedent for the better part of a century  The point is not that stare decisis should have ultimately propped up Bellas Hess yet again, as Wayfair’s dissenting Justices maintained  After all, a realistic approach that is alert to each branch’s institutional capacities might have led to the conclusion that Congress was actually ill-equipped to overrule Quill  In this vein, the Court could have sensibly pointed out that Congress is unlikely to stick its neck out with a tax hike (or a look-alike) from which only the states would benefit 58× 58  For two practical arguments to this effect, see Brian Galle, Essay, Kill Quill, Keep the Dormant Commerce Clause: History’s Lessons on Congressional Control of State Taxation, 70 Stan  L  Rev  Online 158, 160–62 (2018), https://review law stanford edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/70-Stan -L -Rev -Online-158-Galle pdf [https://perma cc/22YP-P4V5]; Edward A  Zelinsky, The Political Process Argument for Overruling Quill, 82 Brook  L  Rev  1177, 1191–92 (2017)  Indeed, South Dakota advanced such practical arguments in its brief 59× 59  See Petitioner’s Brief at 54, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress has little incentive to act here because it would be (or appear to be) authorizing new or greater tax collections from its constituents, while receiving none of the revenue in return ”)  More generally, the Court might have discussed the limits of the states’ influence in the federal system as a reason not to wait for congressional intervention, a topic it has debated on other occasions 60× 60  See Richard H  Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2013 Sup  Ct  Rev  1, 30–32; see also Galle, supra note 58, at 159 (“Congress is not a trustworthy guardian of state fiscal power, making continuing judicial involvement a more appealing prospect ”)  Or it could have argued that new facts on the ground — namely, the blast of e-commerce that hit like a comet after Quill — overpowered stare decisis of any force, special or plain 61× 61  Two recent studies of stare decisis highlighted the physical presence rule as exemplifying a precedent that may reasonably be overruled due to changed facts  See Bryan A  Garner et al , The Law of Judicial Precedent 364–65 (2016); Randy J  Kozel, Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent 112–13 (2017)  It should be noted that the authors of The Law of Judicial Precedent classify the physical presence rule as a constitutional precedent for stare decisis purposes, thus anticipating the Court’s misstep in Wayfair  Garner et al , supra, at 354–65  Because even statutory precedents may sometimes be overruled,62× 62  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 173–74 (1989) (discussing justifications for overruling statutory precedents)  Contra Lawrence C  Marshall, “Let Congress Do It”: The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Mich  L  Rev  177 (1989)  the Court could have killed Quill without first planting its constitutional kiss of death 63× 63  Cf  Thomas R  Lee, Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court, 52 Vand  L  Rev  647, 704 (1999) (“Justice Brandeis’       memorable prose has since become a mandatory part of the burial rite for any constitutional precedent ”) 
The Court resisted such arguments  Instead, Wayfair reasoned that Congress’s total ability to correct an erroneous decision counts for nothing when the Court gets the Constitution wrong  That such a theory sprouts from a case like Wayfair, which repudiated a “formalistic distinction,”64× 64  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092  is ironic  Wayfair’s stare decisis analysis resorts to the formalism of making constitutional a “magic” word65× 65  See Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 21, at 12  rather than asking whether Congress can step in 
Moreover, the Court’s new thinking on stare decisis threatens other constitutional default rules  Wayfair now stands for the proposition that a “constitutional default rule” — a term the Court apparently lifted from South Dakota’s reply brief on the merits66× 66  Reply Brief at 22, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress is polarized, which makes it critical       to get the constitutional default rule right ”)  — gets only weakened stare decisis  To appreciate why this holding matters, it is worth exploring the concept and scope of constitutional default rules  Contract theory describes default rules as legal rules that the parties may “contract around ”67× 67  See, e g , Ian Ayres & Robert Gertner, Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules, 99 Yale L J  87, 87 (1989)  Although “constitutional default rule” could be read broadly to include a variety of actors and contracting mechanisms,68× 68  See John Ferejohn & Barry Friedman, Toward a Political Theory of Constitutional Default Rules, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  825, 826 (2006) (“When we speak of default rules in constitutional law, we typically are talking about specifications of ways the government can act (or modify its behavior) to get around a constitutional prohibition ”)  the Court’s use of the term for purposes of stare decisis may be narrowly defined as judicial precedents of constitutional law that “are ultimately subject to congressional control ”69× 69  Gillian E  Metzger, Congress, Article IV, and Interstate Relations, 120 Harv  L  Rev  1468, 1525 (2007) (describing judicially enforceable “constitutional default rules imposing obligations on the states in the name of union [that] are ultimately subject to congressional control”)  The dormant commerce clause is a paradigmatic constitutional default rule because what the Court does today Congress may undo tomorrow  Justice Scalia declared this fact “[t]he clearest sign that the negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud,” for “[h]ow could congressional consent lift a constitutional prohibition?”70× 70  Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1808 (2015) (Scalia, J , dissenting)  But that’s what a constitutional default rule is  The Court has allowed Congress to overturn its dormant commerce clause cases since 1891 71× 71  See In re Rahrer, 140 U S  545, 560–62 (1891) 
Dormant commerce clause cases are not the only constitutional default rules  Professor Laurence Tribe’s treatise identifies two others 72× 72  1 Laurence H  Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-35 (3d ed  2000)  And in a groundbreaking article, Professor Henry Monaghan revealed “a substructure of substantive, procedural, and remedial rules” forming “a constitutional common law subject to amendment, modification, or even reversal by Congress ”73× 73  Henry P  Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term — Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 Harv  L  Rev  1, 2–3 (1975); see also Susan R  Klein, Identifying and (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, and Incidental Rights in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 99 Mich  L  Rev  1030 (2001) (further developing Monaghan’s theory in criminal procedure context)  What follows is a list of six lines of cases beyond the dormant commerce clause that may be fairly described as constitutional default rules  The first two are drawn from Tribe’s treatise while the next four are found in Monaghan’s article:
(1) State Taxation of Federal Instrumentalities: States may not tax instrumentalities of the federal government74× 74  McCulloch v  Maryland, 17 U S  (4 Wheat ) 316, 436 (1819)  — unless Congress consents 75× 75  See, e g , Helvering v  Gerhardt, 304 U S  405, 411 n 1 (1938) (“Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied or enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being silent, the Court would set its limits ” (citations omitted))  One court has described such judicial decisions as setting a “constitutional default rule ” United States v  Delaware, 958 F 2d 555, 560 n 9 (3d Cir  1992) (“[W]e must decide the constitutional default rule for this type of tax, fully aware that Congress could decide at any time to reverse our decision statutorily ”)  (2) Article I, Section 10 Cases: Article I, Section 10 provides that certain prohibitions on the states may be waived by Congress 76× 76  See U S  Const  art  I, § 10, cls  2–3  The Court has taken note of this when considering whether to overrule, for instance, an Import-Export Clause precedent 77× 77  See Hooven & Allison Co  v  Evatt, 324 U S  652, 668 (1945) (“In view of the fact that the Constitution gives Congress authority to consent to state taxation of imports and hence to lay down its own test for determining when the immunity ends, we see no convincing practical reason for abandoning the test which has been applied for more than a century        ”), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v  Hooven & Allison Co , 466 U S  353 (1984)  In Michelin Tire Corp  v  Wages, 423 U S  276 (1976), the Court left open the question whether “Congress may authorize, under the Import-Export Clause, an exaction that it could not directly impose under the Tax Clause ” Id  at 301 n 13  Metzger, however, argues that the Import-Export Clause is free of other clauses’ limits on congressional power  See Metzger, supra note 69, at 1500 & n 120  (3) Bivens Cases: In Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,78× 78  403 U S  388 (1971)  the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right to sue for damages 79× 79  Id  at 397  But the Court has also held that “[s]uch a cause of action may be defeated       when       Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective ”80× 80  Carlson v  Green, 446 U S  14, 18–19 (1980)  (4) Miranda Cases: The Miranda Court famously “encourage[d]” Congress and the states to explore alternative “procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it ”81× 81  Miranda v  Arizona, 384 U S  436, 467 (1966)  In Dickerson v  United States, 530 U S  428 (2000), the Court struck down a congressional attempt to effectively abolish Miranda, holding that “Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively ” Id  at 444  But Dickerson also stood by Miranda’s “invitation for legislative action” to replace Miranda with an adequate substitute  Id  at 440; see also Michael C  Dorf & Barry Friedman, Shared Constitutional Interpretation, 2000 Sup  Ct  Rev  61 (discussing legislative alternatives to Miranda)  (5) The Police Lineup Case: In United States v  Wade,82× 82  388 U S  218 (1967)  the Court created an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from a police lineup in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel but acknowledged that it could be replaced by “[l]egislative or other regulations       which eliminate the risks of abuse ”83× 83  Id  at 239  (6) The Exclusionary Rule Cases: Mapp v  Ohio made the Fourth Amendment “exclusionary rule” binding on the states,84× 84  367 U S  643, 655 (1961)  yet Congress is thought to have the power to replace it 85× 85  See Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed  Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U S  388, 422–24 (1971) (Burger, C J , dissenting) (inviting Congress to replace the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Harold J  Krent, How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts, 26 Pepp  L  Rev  855, 864–71 (1999) 
All of the above are arguably constitutional default rules set by the Court that remain, to one degree or another, open to congressional revision  The list could be longer or shorter, depending on which default rules the Court will view as constitutional86× 86  A shorter list could be produced by whittling away at the constitutional status of the cases identified by Monaghan  While the Court has held that Miranda is a constitutional decision, Dickerson, 530 U S  at 444, some of the other cases may be viewed as nonconstitutional  See, e g , Collins v  Virginia, 138 S  Ct  1663, 1675–80 (2018) (Thomas, J , concurring) (arguing that Mapp is “nonconstitutional,” id  at 1678 n 5); Richard H  Fallon, Jr  et al , Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 775–77 (7th ed  2015) (discussing whether Bivens is constitutionally required)  Conversely, a longer list might include any constitutional right that can be waived by a party  See, e g , Daniel A  Farber, Another View of the Quagmire: Unconstitutional Conditions and Contract Theory, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  913, 918 (2006) (describing the Eleventh Amendment as “just a contractual default rule that the states are free to barter away”)  Such a list might also include various constitutionally inspired judicial presumptions  See, e g , Jack Goldsmith & John F  Manning, The President’s Completion Power, 115 Yale L J  2280, 2299 (2006) (describing the Chevron presumption of delegated interpretive power to administrative agencies as “a constitutionally inspired default rule”); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv  L  Rev  2085, 2097–98 (2002) (describing clear statement rules as “constitutional default rules” reversible by Congress)  Many other decisions could likely be characterized as constitutional default rules; the list above is only an initial stab  and on how it will answer open questions about congressional authority over certain constitutional provisions 87× 87  See, e g , Thomas v  Wash  Gas Light Co , 448 U S  261, 272 n 18 (1980) (plurality opinion) (leaving unresolved whether Congress may limit constitutional full faith and credit obligations); White v  Mass  Council of Constr  Emp’rs, Inc , 460 U S  204, 215 n 1 (1983) (Blackmun, J , concurring in part and dissenting in part) (leaving unresolved “whether Congress may authorize       what otherwise would be a violation” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); 1 Tribe, supra note 72, § 6-35, at 1243–44 (arguing that Congress cannot override judicial constructions of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); Metzger, supra note 69, at 1486–89 (arguing the opposite)  But the takeaway is clear: weaker stare decisis for constitutional default rules  Pre-Wayfair, one would have thought that stare decisis applies with special force to such precedents, given congressional power to set them straight  Not anymore  Why? Because it is improper to “ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”88× 88  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096  The Latin for Wayfair’s doctrine is not stare decisis, which should reflect a realistic, working relationship between the legislative and judicial branches  It is mea culpa 
In its zeal to update the Constitution for “the Cyber Age,”89× 89  Id  at 2097  the Court deleted Congress from stare decisis doctrine in constitutional cases  The Court had better options  It could have left Quill on Congress’s doorstep, as the dissent argued  Or it could have justified overruling Quill notwithstanding the special force of stare decisis  Instead, the Court reasoned that it doesn’t matter whether Congress is willing and able to do the job: a constitutional mess calls for a judicial clean-up crew  For constitutional default rules — a category of decisions embracing the dormant commerce clause and sweeping far beyond — Wayfair’s new theory of stare decisis makes the Court’s precedents less sticky and Congress less relevant 
Context 3:  The departures of most of the experienced players have left the club's future to the youth  Along with two Ukrainian players, Ugandan international, Noah Kasule, has been signed 

The club headquarters are located on Jivani Street 2 of the Malatia-Sebastia District, Yerevan 

Domestic

European

Stadium

The construction of the Banants Stadium was launched in 2006 in the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan, with the assistance of the FIFA goal programme  It was officially opened in 2008 with a capacity of 3,600 seats  Further developments were implemented later in 2011, when the playing pitch was modernized and the capacity of the stadium was increased up to 4,860 seats (2,760 at the northern stand, 1,500 at the southern stand and 600 at the western stand) 

Training centre/academy
Banants Training Centre is the club's academy base located in the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan  In addition to the main stadium, the centre houses 3 full-size training pitches, mini football pitches as well as an indoor facility  The current technical director of the academy is the former Russian footballer Ilshat Faizulin 

Fans
The most active group of fans is the South West Ultras fan club, mainly composed of residents from several neighbourhoods within the Malatia-Sebastia District of Yerevan, since the club is a de facto representer of the district  Members of the fan club benefit from events organized by the club and many facilities of the Banants training centre, such as the mini football pitch, the club store and other entertainments 

Achievements
 Armenian Premier League
 Winner (1): 2013–14 
 Runner-up (5): 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2018 

 Armenian Cup
 Winner (3): 1992, 2007, 2016 
 Runner-up (6): 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2021–22

 Armenian Supercup
 Winner (1): 2014 
 Runner-up (5): 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2016 

Current squad

Out on loan

Personnel

Technical staff

Management

Urartu-2

FC Banants' reserve squad play as FC Banants-2 in the Armenian First League  They play their home games at the training field with artificial turf of the Urartu Training Centre 

Managerial history
 Varuzhan Sukiasyan (1992–94)
 Poghos Galstyan (July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1998)
 Oganes Zanazanyan (2001–05)
 Ashot Barseghyan (2005–06)
 Nikolay Kiselyov (2006–07)
 Jan Poštulka (2007)
 Nikolay Kostov (July 1, 2007 – April 8, 2008)
 Nedelcho Matushev (April 8, 2008 – June 30, 2008)
 Kim Splidsboel (2008)
 Armen Gyulbudaghyants (Jan 1, 2009 – Dec 1, 2009)
 Ashot Barseghyan (interim) (2009)
 Stevica Kuzmanovski (Jan 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2010)
 Rafael Nazaryan (Jan 1, 2011 – Jan 15, 2012)
 Volodymyr Pyatenko (Jan 17, 2013 – June 30, 2013)
 Zsolt Hornyák (July 1, 2013 – May 30, 2015)
 Aram Voskanyan (July 1, 2015 – Oct 11, 2015)
 Tito Ramallo (Oct 12, 2015 – Oct 3, 2016)
 Artur Voskanyan (Oct 3, 2016 – Aug 11, 2018)
 Ilshat Faizulin (Aug 12, 2018 –Nov 24, 2019)
 Aleksandr Grigoryan (Nov 25, 2019 –Mar 10, 2021)
 Robert Arzumanyan (10 March 2021–24 June 2022)
 Dmitri Gunko (27 June 2022–)



ground_truth: Quill harmed states more than anticipated due to the Internet.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Where is the club's headquarters located?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 4: 338\,GHz with an angular resolution of $2 9''\times 1 4''$
(corresponding to an average linear resolution of 7700\,AU at the
given distance of 3 6\,kpc)  Figure \ref{18089} presents the
integrated C$_2$H emission with a contour overlay of the 860\,$\mu$m
continuum source outlining the position of the massive protostar  In
contrast to almost all other molecular lines that peak along with the
dust continuum \citep{beuther2005c}, the C$_2$H emission surrounds the
continuum peak in a shell-like fashion 

\section{Discussion and Conclusions}

To understand the observations, we conducted a simple chemical
modeling of massive star-forming regions  A 1D cloud model with a mass
of 1200\,M$_\sun$, an outer radius of 0 36\,pc and a power-law density
profile ($\rho\propto r^p$ with $p=-1 5$) is the initially assumed
configuration  Three cases are studied: (1) a cold isothermal cloud
with $T=10$\,K, (2) $T=50$\,K, and (3) a warm model with a temperature
profile $T\propto r^q$ with $q=-0 4$ and a temperature at the outer
radius of 44\,K  The cloud is illuminated by the interstellar UV
radiation field (IRSF, \citealt{draine1978}) and by cosmic ray
particles (CRP)  The ISRF attenuation by single-sized $0 1\mu$m
silicate grains at a given radius is calculated in a plane-parallel
geometry following \citet{vandishoeck1988}  The CRP ionization rate is
assumed to be $1 3\times 10^{-17}$~s$^{-1}$ \citep{spitzer1968}  The
gas-grain chemical model by \citet{vasyunin2008} with the desorption
energies and surface reactions from \citet{garrod2006} is used 
Gas-phase reaction rates are taken from RATE\,06 \citep{woodall2007},
initial abundances, were adopted from the ``low metal'' set of
\citet{lee1998} 

Figure \ref{model} presents the C$_2$H abundances for the three models
at two different time steps: (a) 100\,yr, and (b) in a more evolved
stage after $5\times10^4$\,yr  The C$_2$H abundance is high toward the
core center right from the beginning of the evolution, similar to
previous models (e g , \citealt{millar1985,herbst1986,turner1999}) 
During the evolution, the C$_2$H abundance stays approximately
constant at the outer core edges, whereas it decreases by more than
three orders of magnitude in the center, except for the cold $T=10$~K
model   The C$_2$H abundance profiles for all three models show
similar behavior 

The chemical evolution of ethynyl is determined by relative removal
rates of carbon and oxygen atoms or ions into molecules like CO, OH,
H$_2$O  Light ionized hydrocarbons CH$^+_{\rm n}$ (n=2  5) are quickly
formed by radiative association of C$^+$ with H$_2$ and hydrogen
addition reactions: C$^+$ $\rightarrow$ CH$_2^+$ $\rightarrow$
CH$_3^+$ $\rightarrow$ CH$_5^+$   The protonated methane reacts with
electrons, CO, C, OH, and more complex species at later stage and
forms methane   The CH$_4$ molecules undergo reactive collisions with
C$^+$, producing C$_2$H$_2^+$ and C$_2$H$_3^+$  An alternative way to
produce C$_2$H$_2^+$ is the dissociative recombination of CH$_5^+$
into CH$_3$ followed by reactions with C$^+$   Finally, C$_2$H$_2^+$
and C$_2$H$_3^+$ dissociatively recombine into CH, C$_2$H, and
C$_2$H$_2$  The major removal for C$_2$H is either the direct
neutral-neutral reaction with O that forms CO, or the same reaction
but with heavier carbon chain ions that are formed from C$_2$H by
subsequent insertion of carbon  At later times, depletion and
gas-phase reactions with more complex species may enter into this
cycle   At the cloud edge the interstellar UV radiation
instantaneously dissociates CO despite its self-shielding,
re-enriching the gas with elemental carbon 

The transformation of C$_2$H into CO and other species proceeds
efficiently in dense regions, in particular in the ``warm'' model
where endothermic reactions result in rich molecular complexity of the
gas (see Fig ~\ref{model})   In contrast, in the ``cold'' 10\,K model
gas-grain interactions and surface reactions become important   As a
result, a large fraction of oxygen is locked in water ice that is hard
to desorb ($E_{\rm des} \sim 5500$~K), while half of the elemental
carbon goes to volatile methane ice ($E_{\rm des} \sim 1300$~K)  Upon
CRP heating of dust grains, this leads to much higher gas-phase
abundance of C$_2$H in the cloud core for the cold model compared to
the warm model  The effect is not that strong for less dense regions
at larger radii from the center 

Since the C$_2$H emission is anti-correlated with the dust continuum
emission in the case of IRAS\,18089-1732 (Fig \,\ref{18089}), we do
not have the H$_2$ column densities to quantitatively compare the
abundance profiles of IRAS\,18089-1732 with our model  However, data
and model allow a qualitative comparison of the spatial structures 
Estimating an exact evolutionary time for IRAS\,18089-1732 is hardly
possible, but based on the strong molecular line emission, its high
central gas temperatures and the observed outflow-disk system
\citep{beuther2004a,beuther2004b,beuther2005c}, an approximate age of
$5\times10^4$\,yr appears reasonable   Although dynamical and chemical
times are not necessarily exactly the same, in high-mass star
formation they should not differ to much: Following the models by
\citet{mckee2003} or \citet{krumholz2006b}, the luminosity rises
strongly right from the onset of collapse which can be considered as a
starting point for the chemical evolution  At the same time disks and
outflows evolve, which should hence have similar time-scales   The
diameter of the shell-like C$_2$H structure in IRAS\,18089-1732 is
$\sim 5''$ (Fig \,\ref{18089}), or $\sim$9000\,AU in radius at the
given distance of 3 6\,kpc   This value is well matched by the modeled
region with decreased C$_2$H abundance (Fig \,\ref{model})   Although
in principle optical depths and/or excitation effects could mimic the
C$_2$H morphology, we consider this as unlikely because the other
observed molecules with many different transitions all peak toward the
central submm continuum emission in IRAS\,18089-1732
\citep{beuther2005c}  Since C$_2$H is the only exception in that rich
dataset, chemical effects appear the more plausible explanation 

The fact that we see C$_2$H at the earliest and the later evolutionary
stages can be explained by the reactive nature of C$_2$H: it is
produced quickly early on and gets replenished at the core edges by
the UV photodissociation of CO  The inner ``chemical'' hole observed
toward IRAS\,18089-1732 can be explained by C$_2$H being consumed in
the chemical network forming CO and more complex molecules like larger
carbon-hydrogen complexes and/or depletion 

The data show that C$_2$H is not suited to investigate the central gas
cores in more evolved sources, however, our analysis indicates that
C$_2$H may be a suitable tracer of the earliest stages of (massive)
star formation, like N$_2$H$^+$ or NH$_3$ (e g ,
\citealt{bergin2002,tafalla2004,beuther2005a,pillai2006})  While a
spatial analysis of the line emission will give insights into the
kinematics of the gas and also the evolutionary stage from chemical
models, multiple C$_2$H lines will even allow a temperature
characterization  With its lowest $J=1-0$ transitions around 87\,GHz,
C$_2$H has easily accessible spectral lines in several bands between
the 3\,mm and 850\,$\mu$m   Furthermore, even the 349\,GHz lines
presented here have still relatively low upper level excitation
energies ($E_u/k\sim42$\,K), hence allowing to study cold cores even
at sub-millimeter wavelengths   This prediction can further be proved
via high spectral and spatial resolution observations of different
C$_2$H lines toward young IRDCs 

\acknowledgments{H B  acknowledges financial support
  by the Emmy-Noether-Programm of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  (DFG, grant BE2578)  }






ground_truth: The club's headquarters are located on Jivani Street 2 of the Malatia-Sebastia District, Yerevan.