Human Bioarchaeology: a case study for standards in data

collection & curation, with a particular focus on the Museum

of London's WORD database

Victoria Yorke-Edwards

The case for standardisation…

Difficulties with data-sharing

1980s Variety of methodologies in use

Issues with terminology Rising call for population-based approaches and cross-cultural comparison

NAGPRA….

•  The National Museum of the American Indian Act (1989)

•  The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) – Requirement that all US museums and

laboratories: •  Produce inventories of their collections of human

remains •  Consult with Native American Tribes with a view

to repatriation, as appropriate

The ‘Chicago Standards’

A seminar/ workshop was held in 1991, charged with developing data collection

standards, after negotiations began between the Blackfeet

tribe and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

Databases

Requirement for inventories: e.g. The Smithsonian Institution’s •  The Standard Osteological Database •  The Smithsonian Institution’s Repatriation

Osteology Laboratory Database Wider projects: •  The Global History of Health

Project (Ohio State University)

Back in Britain…..

Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums (DCMS, 2005:22)

“Museums should have a policy to compile and

make public an inventory of their holdings of

human remains. This should include known information about the

date and provenance of the remains and their exact nature and the

circumstances of their acquisition.”

Back in Britain…..

British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology (BABAO) / IFA ‘Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains’ (2004)

But what about data curation?

‘Grey Literature’: Of 311 reports on human skeletal remains considered for use, 38% were unpublished… …many only known about through ‘word-of-mouth’

(2003)

Whilst there are now standards for data collection there is NO common standard for how that data is curated. Records are held in the form of card indexes, paper reports…..

Whilst there are now standards for data collection there is NO common standard for how that data is curated. Records are held in the form of card indexes, paper reports…. on obsolete electronic storage devices……. or in Excel & Access spreadsheets on researchers’ computers…..

A Database of Archaeological Sites Yielding Human Remains in England; Biological Anthropology Research Centre; Synthesys; Living with the Dead Database; Early Anglo-Saxon Census Project British and Irish On-Line Database Index to Excavated Skeletons; The Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project;

Databases

Increasing number of databases: Differences in: •  Software •  Accessibility •  Type of information recorded Issues with long-term upkeep

THE WELLCOME OSTEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DATABASE

The Museum of London

Curates more than 17,000 skeletons, excavated in ‘rescue’ digs in Greater London over more than 30 years.

Largest scientifically excavated and documented human bone assemblage from any city in the world.

Skeletal collection covers prehistoric to post-medieval periods.

The WORD Project

Developed in-house by osteologist Brian Connell & the museum’s IT manager, Peter Rauxloh in 2002

Planned with aim to publically share data online

For all holdings of skeletal assemblages of over 50 individuals

Designed to ensure integrity and speed of data

entry

The Database

Inventory of Upper Limbs, showing binary recording

Inventory of Permanent Dentition – using codes for recording (PDF manual)

Age at death data – listed methods applied and coded as per manual

The Museum experience

Standardisation of records of all skeletal assemblages held

Living, changing, database Tool for curation and conservation of collections

Has increased use and interest in collections from outside the museum

Ability to interrogate database and test hypotheses quickly

Sharing the Data

Launch of data downloads online in 2007

Importance of giving context

Inclusion of images, case reports for selected skeletons

Format decision shaped by availability/ cost of software to the public

The ‘outside’ user experience •  Public access to data. BUT:

NO access to Oracle Database •  Downloads •  Extensive guidance documents

online: – To aid downloading – To explain osteological methods

used – To explain recording system

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Collections-Research/LAARC/Centre-for-Human/Bioarchaeology/Database/

Downloads

Tab-delimited data downloads

Format

Advantages: •  Does not require users to have an Oracle

license •  Can be opened by a wide variety of software

packages •  Users can have a copy of the data on their own

computer •  File sizes are small

Disadvantages: •  Database downloaded as separate sheets, not as

relational database, although some standard fields found in all files

•  Does not always convert neatly into tables in the chosen software

•  Converting formats can be time consuming •  Need manual to understand coding

Photographs

Users

International

……Artists… …the Media…. …writers…….

•  Archaeological students: from undergrads to PhD candidates

•  Archaeologists •  Medical/ Biomedical

researchers

User Information

Citing the Database

The Future of Osteological Data Sharing

Increased ability to identify samples for research, leading to use of less heard of collections

Transnational projects? Meta-analyses?

Improvements in skeletal collection management

Reduced manual handling of collections

Further standardisation of data collection methods and range of techniques

Issues

•  Format for data-sharing? •  Software requirements •  Data coding •  Static or updated? •  Citation of data