1
The Chicken or the Egg: Highlighng the Importance of Beginning with Deliberate Database Design Jenna Milinsky, Marn P. Walker, Elizabeth Albee, Miranda Campbell, Abigail Huffman, and David G. Anderson Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Introducon One of the basic elements of any current archaeological research project is the database, this could not be more apparent than when looking at the Naonal Science Foundaon’s grant applicaons and the required Digital Management Plans, or such growing projects as the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA) (Anderson et al. 2010) or the Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA) (Wells et al. 2014). Despite the increasing importance of the proper management of data within current research projects, discussion of careful and deliberate database design is rarely noted. This poster aims to present an opmal digital database design that will allow for all current and any future research agendas, as well as being able to integrate seamlessly into GIS plaorms. The specific data that this database is constructed around are from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s ongoing Late Prehistoric archaeological project at the Topper Site (38AL23). The Topper Site is a mul-component site located in Allendale County, South Carolina. Excavaons at this site stretch back several decades and have explored the Paleoindian occupaon in the area extensively. More recently, aenon has turned to the late Precontact presence in the area. With a surge of new data resulng from UTK excavaons, quesons arose concerning data management strategies. Outside of the more well known, larger archaeological databases, such as PIDBA or DINAA, many project-based databases usually conform to the following model: 1) research queson development, 2) fieldwork/data collecon, and 3) analysis, with database design being based upon what is needed to complete the specific analysis being conducted. Unfortunately, this approach oſten leads to databases that are designed almost exclusively for the specific scenario within which they are developed. This leaves any others who wish to ulize the database forced to start from the beginning and recreate their own database from the raw data to obtain what is required for their new analysis. The careful outline of the structure and flow of this database, with the goal of future adaptability, in addion to ensuring the pre-planning of data fields at the outset of the project, has been vital in the efficient management of both field and laboratory me and pracces. Acknowledgements Thank you to Archroma, Inc. for their connued support of the archaeological research on their property and for being such excellent hosts. Thank you to Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey (SEPAS) for providing logiscal, equipment, and volunteer assistance in the field. A mountain of gratude and praise to Cayla Colclasure for providing the GIS maps and showing what this puppy can do. Lastly, many thanks to the students and volunteers for the diligent help processing materials and the hard work and me put into collecng the data for this project. UNIT FORM: Unit Level Informaon FEATURE FORM: Feature Level Informaon Basic Info: Excavators Screeners Dimensions Elevaons Photo Numbers Lithics: Overall Counts Overall Weights Material Types Idenficaons Size Grade Analysis Ceramics: Overall Counts Overall Weights Temper Counts Type Counts Idenficaons Botanicals: Sample Volumes Sample Weights Idenficaons Counts Weights Fauna: Counts Volumes Idenficaons Other: Other Material Culture Counts Figure 1: Without ulizing a database the closing block photo (top leſt) combined with field notes contains the most informaon about the excavaon and features completed. By construcng digital feature forms and syncing them to a database the GIS map (right) now not only contains the most informaon but can generate further data via calculaons, distribuons, and addional analyses. Figure 3: Digital Lithics Form sheet (leſt) which enters data into unique, relaonal forms that can be applied to GIS programs. The map on the leſt illustrates the end product of this process via analyzing debitage density distribuons (Colclasure et al. 2016). Figure 4: On the leſt is a GUI form designed to replicate a physical form that is used in lab analyses. This digital from feeds data into mulple tables (top and boom right). By using a program such as Microsoſt Access, we are able to compile informaon in a convenient and easy to manage manner while sll maintaining specificity in data handling. Figure 2: Design of the flow of informaon within the database and the way that data interacts within its category. We begin with the 1x1m unit as base relaonship among all data. We gather basic excavaon informaon as well as material cultural data from both features and units and are able to organize them by both provenience and category. Methods The database presented here was constructed within Microsoſt Access 2010. One of the reasons for this choice was the ability within Access to build graphic user interface (GUI) forms (see Feature Form in figure 1; Lithics Analysis Sheet in figure 3; Ceramics Analysis Sheet in figure 4) that allow for easy and accurate data entry. This is especially necessary for any ongoing, mul-year project that includes users of all training levels. Within the form building tool in Access we can make certain field mandatory entry, we can make some fields hierarchical, and we can even create limited lists of typologies to limit possible subjecve inputs. Another factor that led to the use of Access for this database was the ability to relate mulple relaonal tables to each GUI form, enabling the creaon of mulple, specific databases with one pass of data entry. This increases the processing of raw data in an efficient manner, as well as increases the capacity of our database to handle mulple parameters of analysis and data sets. Addionally, this streamlines crossover with GIS packages via the synching of specific raw data into geodatabases. Figure 4 illustrates our ability to gather basic informaon regarding units and features that housed ceramic arfacts while also gathering more specific data about these ceramics such as counts and weights but then having these data be stored in unique data tables. These unique data sets enable for efficient linkages to GIS packages that then allow for the creaon of maps such as the lithic debitage density map in Figure 3. Discussion Edward Tennant, in his work with archaeological data and GIS, states, “Datasets used in the creaon of living documents should meet four criteria: (1) that the dataset remain accessible by more than one person; (2) that it can integrate with other types of data such as those from the natural sciences; (3) that it is easily updated with future research; and (4) that it results in the creaon of accompanying documentaon” (2007). These are some of the things we aimed to include in our database construcon. To aid in this goal, we worked to create a database that was accessible, adaptable, and compable with cross-discipline analyses. In creang a full and comprehensive database we avoid leaving out informaon that could be vital for future research and/or that is impraccal or impossible to add at a later me. To maximize accessibility, we intend to make this database open source to enable other researchers to access the informaon in order to employ the data with their own research projects. This is one of the most important aspects to funconal and adaptable database design. By making raw data widely accessible, we enable the largest capacity of future research projects and analyses, allowing for greater collaboraon and furthering the development of our understanding of human history. References Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, J. Christopher Gillam, Erik N. Johanson, Derek T. Anderson, Albert C. Goodyear, and Ashley M. Smallwood 2010 PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings. Archaeology of Eastern North America 38:63-90. Colclasure, Cayla, Marn P. Walker, Brooke Bren-nan, Anielle Duncan, Darcie McCafferty, and David G. Anderson 2016 Scratching the Surface: A Spaal Analysis of Precontact Arfacts and Features from the Topper Site (38AL23). Presented at the Annual Meeng of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 28 October 2016. Tennant, Edward W. 2007 Sample Geodatabase Structure for Managing Archaeological Data and Resources with ArcGIS. Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology 2: 12-23. Wells, Joshua J., Eric C. Kansa, Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Stephen J. Yerka, David G. Anderson, Kelsey Noack Myers, R. Carl DeMuth, and Thaddeus G. Bisse 2014 Web-Based Discovery and Integraon of Archaeological Historic Properes Inventory Data: The Digital Index of North American Archaeology (DINAA). Literary and Linguisc Compung 29(3). Figure 5: Examples of the cord marked poery that was recovered from 2015 and 2016 excavaons.
