John,
For my dissertation, I used Microsoft Access to organize nearly 500,000
pieces of information on prehistoric shell beads from Ecuador. Access
made it much easier and it helped me avoid simple mistakes. For example,
some contexts contained over 100 beads. Because I used a relational
database, I was able to set it up so that I did not have to enter site,
level, unit, etc... over and over again. The biggest issue is that it is
a pain in the behind to set up. It takes a long time to get all of the
settings correct. Even considering this, it saved me a lot of time and I
am quite sure that I made many fewer errors (especially since I used
digital calipers to enter measurements electronically rather than typing
them in).
The main advantage, however was in analysis. I could perform a query and
produce a spreadsheet with only the data that I wanted to analyze, then
export it to a statistical package ( I used SPSS) and analyze it.
Because the database was so large, I would never have been able to do
this with a simple spreadsheet. Actually, I would have been able to do
it, but it would have taken much longer and been much more complicated
and likely would have introduced error.
I have also been using Microsoft Access for excavation. I don't have the
system completed, otherwise, I would send you a copy, but it will be
linked throughout with every piece of data (including student field
notes, Munsell colors, Lat/Long positions, photographs, etc...)
I would also encourage you to look at OpenOffice Base. I have only begun
to see what it looks like, but what I have seen is promising although
support is less than ideal. But, that is the cost of 'free'.
Cheers,
Ben Carter, PhD, RPA
John Foster wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> I was reading Keller's article on relational databases for archaeology in the SAA record and was wondering what people were using and how they liked the various programs. Any information would be appreciated.
>
> John M. Foster, RPA
> Greenwood and Associates
> Greenwood-Associates.com
>
>
|