Having considered the potential demonstrated by aspects of the Museum Project work one can ask the question: How would it be possible to base a future electronic reference collection on the large and growing collections of digital information available today?
A system similar to the Egge system could be set up to help archaeologists to create reference collection webpages. If the rows in the link table referred to items in collections held in different institutions, and the institutions made images of the artefacts available via their artefact collection databases, a web- page with information about and images of the artefacts could be created by a program similar to the one used for the Egge webpage.
2 http://www.muspro.uio.no/arena/kartpek
ID Category TOPARK TOPARK Acquisition sub id Other Other Other Other Other
ID page catalogue source source source source source
id year description page filename
21 Annual 3435 1871 Round Barrow
report (Zieglers nr. V ?)
22 Report 5388 9 1971 Long elevation
(natural?)
23 Litt. Gerhard 1774 Round Barrow 184 Schoning
Schøning
25 Report 5432 T 545-546 1869 Round Barrow
with grave
44 Report 5414 T 20362 d and q 1978 Casual find from
the barrow (Almås)
45 News- 4612 T 20362 1982 Beautiful Viking
paper sword
46 Report 5431 T 20362 1984 Late Viking age boat
burial (barrow 11)
Table 1. Part of the link table used in the Egge web system.
To build such a system, the various source databases will have to be connected (Table 2). Several projects have taken a similar approach, among them the ARENA project. There are problems to be solved. Firstly, technical interconnections will have to be made. A number of protocols and standards exist and are used for archaeological databases, HTTP, XML, Z39.50, CIDOC/CRM and Dublin Core being among the important ones.
When the technical interconnection problems have been solved, any project will be faced by a second set of problems. The interconnection of contents from different databases is difficult, not least because of language barriers.
5 Static or dynamic?
In addition to the questions of technical, semantic and linguistic standards, there is also the question of whether the connections in such a web-based refer- ence collection should be dynamic or static (Eide et al. forthcoming). If an object – say a sword – from the Norwegian collection is included in a reference collection as a typical Viking age sword, the record will include only the image that exists today, e.g. a scanned black and white image.
Three years from now a series of colour images of the object may be created, and in ten years a 3D model. It would be important to have these images inclu- ded in the reference collection as they are included in the database. This is an argument for dynamic publication, where the website includes whatever information is available from the database.
But what if the object is re-classified? Then the digital e-reference collection might read: ‘Type Viking age sword from Norway: Polish Viking age sword’. Of course, a reference collection including objects with a classification that is different from the one in the museum that owns it is bad practice, but a reference collection with self-contradictory information is worse. In that case, a dated publication would be better, as the information was at least correct at the time of publication.
One possible solution to this is that if a digital e-reference collection is to be dynamic, it will have to have an editor. If something happens to an object in a database, and the owner of the database has included a ‘send a message’- directive, then the database will send an e-mail to the editor stating the changes. The editor can then take action: if the change is a new image, he/she can in-
Table 2 A possible link table for an electronic reference collection application
ID Institution Ref Inst. ID Description
1 The Museum Z39.50:... C13247 This sword is
Project an example of...
2 ADS Z39.50:... ... ... 3 Danish Agency Z39.50:... ... ... for Cultural Heritage 4 Archaeological http:... ... ... Museum in Stavager 5 cIMeC OAI:... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
clude it in the e-reference publication. If the change is a re-classification, he/she can take the necessary action, e.g. removing the object from the e-reference resource.
6 Conclusion
The system suggested here puts the electronic reference collection external to the collection databases. But in linking the items in the electronic reference collection to selected objects in museum databases, it also links each item in a reference collection to all other related object records in the databases. All database objects pointed to from such an electronic reference collection system have a physical object in the collection as the final target, so handling the physi- cal object is always possible (given that access is permitted by the museum and with travel expenses as a limiting factor). If such an application is made with a good user interface and a number of important artefact databases connected, the technical part of creating a reference collection webpage should be solved by the system, so that the archaeologists can invest their efforts in the work they know best: to select which artefacts are to be included in the collection.
References
Eide, Ø., J. Holmen, and A.B. Høy-Petersen, forthcoming. Between the book and the exhibition. Creating archaeological presentations based on database information. In: Beyond the Artefact, Proceedings of the CAA2004 conference at Prato, Italy.
Holmen, J. and E. Uleberg, 1996. Getting the most out of it - SGML-encoding of archaeological texts. Paper at the IAAC’96 Iasi conference, Romania. URL: http://www.dokpro.uio.no/engelsk/text/getting most out of it.html Rygh, O., 1885. Norske Oldsager. Christiania.
1 Introduction
Archaeology is one of the largest and most important parts of cultural heritage in Romania, considering its covering in time and space, its value and diversity. From Early Palaeolithic hand axes to splendid Neolithic painted pottery, from Bronze Age hoards to remains of Roman and Byzantine civilizations, from medieval citadels to churches and cemeteries, from the Carpathian Mountains to the Danube and the Black Sea, the territory has always been a border area where influences from the South, East and West meet. Archaeological excava- tions and chance discoveries have brought to light archaeological material since the middle of the19th century. Unfortunately many finds remain unpublished. Some finds have been lost, others have become useless through lack of documen- tation. Important archaeological cultures in Romanian archaeology are defined in a few preliminary reports and, sometimes, identified by only a few published potsherds. This is an undesirable situation not only for us in Romania, but also for colleagues abroad. Progress of knowledge about our past depends on good documentation of material culture in every part of Europe. There is a growing need for easier access to reference resources on material culture across our national borders in order to compare, identify and interpret our finds.
We should not repeat the mistakes of the past. Only a few years ago, new legisla- tion on the protection of archaeological heritage in Romania made reporting mandatory (through Government Ordinance no. 2053/2000 regarding the pro- tection of archaeological heritage, with its following modifications and additions). Every year about 450 excavations are undertaken in Romania. Like everywhere else in the modern world, more and more of these are preventive and rescue excavations. The modern requirements of efficiency in our work, the growing number of short-term preventive excavation projects and the pressure to produce reports and conclusions soon after excavation, as well as the current professionals’ mobility impose a much shorter road from discovery to identification, processing and publication of the scientific results. Therefore better access to knowledge and reference material to assist our work is vital.