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
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.”
Guidance for the
Care of Human
Remains in Museums
(DCMS, 2005:22)
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were unpublished…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-ofmouth’
(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
Databases
England; Biological Anthropology
Research
Centre;
Living
Increasing
number ofSynthesys;
databases:
Differences in:
with the
Dead Database; Early
•  Software
•  Accessibility
Anglo-Saxon
Census
Project
British
•  Type of information recorded
IssuesOn-Line
with long-termDatabase
upkeep
and Irish
Index to
Excavated Skeletons; The Sedgeford
Historical and Archaeological
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