Databases and the Cataloguing Process
As the lead project archaeologist on this comparative study, I was responsible for seeing that data from each site was collected, standardized, analyzed, and interpreted. This was done by compiling the context and artifact information from each site into a structured database with authorized fields and terms. As a result there are 18 compatible databases available. This is one of the most important products of the project.
The 18 sites used in this project are housed and maintained by six different collections repositories. Each institution sent me their catalogue for their sites. These came in either digital or paper form. In order to ensure database consistency we have had to modify the catalogue information, while retaining all of the data corresponding to each artifact. Due to fiscal and time constraints, we were not able to re-catalogue each collection, and we were limited by the original catalogue as provided by the collection repository.
The artifact and context databases are linked by the context number, which is an arbitrary number often assigned by the original collection repository and or archaeologists. Following the context number there are 20 fields where attributes of the artifact(s) are detailed (see Database Glossary). However there are some inconsistencies; for example in the Camden artifact database I included the artifact number given by Howard McCord and retained in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources files.
While I modified the artifact catalogue, I attempted to keep the context database similar to the original. There are, of course, a few exceptions. One example is Rich Neck, where I wanted to combine certain records (topsoil and plow zone strata of the same unit) for artifact distribution maps. So for the units I included in my maps I created a field titled ‘JPPM Lot’ combining all ‘plow zone’ layers of the same units, and created a field titled ‘Used in JPPM distribution map’ with a simple yes or no.