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… 1980s Variety of methodologies in use Issues with terminology Rising call for population-based approaches and cross-cultural comparison Difficulties with data-sharing 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 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

The ‘Chicago Standards’ 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…..

“Museums should have a policy to compile and make public an inventory of their holdings of Guidance for the human remains. This Care of Human should include known Remains in Museums information about the date and provenance of (DCMS, 2005:22) 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‘Grey Literature’: Of 311 reports on human skeletal remains considered for use, 38% were unpublished… …many only known about through ‘word-of- mouth’ (2003) Whilst there are now standards for data collection there is NO common standard for how that data is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 HumanDatabases Remains in England; Biological Anthropology

ResearchIncreasing Centre; number of Synthesys databases: ; Living Differences in: with the• Software Dead Database; Early Anglo-Saxon• Accessibility Census Project British • Type of information recorded and IrishIssues On-Line with long-term Databaseupkeep Index to Excavated Skeletons; The Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project; 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. Skeletal collection covers prehistoric to post-medieval periods. Largest scientifically excavated and documented human bone assemblage from any city in the world. The WORD Project

Developed in-house by osteologist Brian Connell & the museum’s IT manager, Peter Rauxloh in 2002 For all holdings of skeletal assemblages of over 50 individuals Planned with aim to publically share data online 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

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

Importance of giving context Inclusion of images, case reports for selected skeletons 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

Format

Tab-delimited data downloads 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 • Archaeological students: from undergrads to PhD candidates • Archaeologists • Medical/ Biomedical researchers ……Artists… …the Media…. …writers……. 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 Further standardisation of data collection methods and range of techniques Reduced manual handling of collections Improvements in skeletal collection management Meta-analyses? Transnational projects? Issues

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