I have been charged with the task of reworking the Access database in
which our company catalogs and classifies historical artifacts.  Our
database must meet two goals: One, to provide a catalog of artifacts
that is suitable, with some minor manipulation, to meet curational
requirements, and; two, to provide a functional analysis of the
artifacts.  

 

The second part is fairly simple.  We have a classification system that
can be used to describe artifact function.  It is the first part with
which we are struggling.  Information is entered into the database on an
electronic form.  Each artifact or lot of artifacts is given a name such
as "can, fragment," and a series of attributes is entered.  For a can,
possible attributes include such things as side seams, top / bottom
seams, shape, closure, opening, and decoration / label.  Various
attributes, such as "closure: hole-in-cap," are assigned TPQ and TAQ
dates that are automatically entered.  The artifact attributes are
entered through the use of pull-down menus to avoid such things as
misspellings and formatting variations ("can, fragment" versus
"Can,fragment") that can result in sorting errors. 

 

The problem that we're having a hard time getting our heads around is
artifacts, such as ceramics, where the name of the ceramic type is based
on the attributes.  For example, we find a lot of ironstone.
Traditionally, we would include a name such as "ironstone, undecorated"
and have a second pull-down menu indicating the part, such as "rim
sherd, bowl."  These, however, are not attributes.  Attributes for this
item would be things such as paste color (white), degree of paste
vitrification (semi-vitrified), glaze color (clear), decoration (no),
etc.  The list of attributes can become quite long, and are implied by
the name "ironstone, undecorated."  Simply calling something "ironstone,
undecorated" however, creates an inconsistency in the amount of
information that is presented from one artifact type to the other.  We
are no longer providing attributes, but are drawing a conclusion based
on those attributes.  On the other hand, if the analyst can quickly
determine that a particular sherd is "ironstone, undecorated," why spend
the time entering the list of attributes?  If I wished to keep things
entirely consistent, I would simply have the TPQ and TAQ dates for
ceramics linked to a combination of the attributes, however, we are
doing CRM, and reviewers, especially those with a limited knowledge of
historical artifacts, are going to want to see "ironstone" in the table.

 

I would be interested in hearing how others may have dealt with issues
like these.  Perhaps it isn't an issue at all and I just need to go
outside and get some fresh air.  Either way, I'd be interested in
hearing what others have to say.  

 

 

Michael Striker

Principal Investigator, Archaeology

Gray & Pape, Inc.