This is an example of the process followed and field notes taken on a dig by the Museum of London (click on the image to zoom in).
Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn, 2000. Excavation in Archaeology:Theory, Methods, and Practice. 106-116.
National Information Standards Organization, “What is Metadata?” (Bethesda, MD: NISO Press, 2004)
The similarity between metadata for digital object and the cataloging data and field records given to archaeological artifacts is astounding. Because archaeology is a destructive science, precise documentation and careful records of almost every aspect of the excavation are crucial. These pre-set pieces of information are standardized across the field of archaeology, and include data such as the precise location and depth of the object when it was uncovered, its relationship to any stratigraphic elements (stratigraphy is just the study of the successive layering of different soil over time, and to over-simplify, allows one to assume that deeper layers are older, while layers nearer the surface are more recent), and even the consistency and color of the soil it was found in. These types of data are standard across the field – even to the point that there is a standardized scale of soil colors (same concept as the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, TEI, METS, EAD, MODS)– so that archaeologists will have the interoperability that the Open Archives Initiative is striving for. In the same way, the interoperability allows archaeologists who were not in the field to look into the field records and draw their own conclusions or new questions/projects from the universally understandable data.
These archaeological records also include the idea of metadata schema. For instance, the location of the artifact is noted using a predetermined code, which refers to the general area of the excavation down to the actual square meter grid in which it was found. In the United States, archaeological sites themselves have standard coded titles, such as 47-DR153, which refers first to the state, by its numerical location in an alphabetized list, the abbreviation for the county, and the site number.
These records are also crucial for future identification and preservation, both of which are also main goals of metadata. One concern about these digital projects is that the objects themselves will be lost, outdated, or inaccessible in the future, a concern which metadata can alleviate. In much the same way, if an artifact ever becomes lost in transport or in a messy lab, archaeologists can still study the piece through its detailed field records, even well into the future (for example, we still have access to field notes from the late 1800s, even though some of the objects excavated went missing during WWII).
In keeping with this class, a new program is being developed here at UCLA’s Cotsen Institute of Archaeology where archaeologists can use iPads in the field to embed all of this information into a QR code. The code goes on the bag the object(s) are kept in, and all the pertinent data can be accessed immediately with a quick scan!