Row, row, row your boat gently… upstream:a methodological approach to access Portuguese bioarchaeological data using a computer database

Cristina Barroso Cruz2, Ana Seabra1,2, Filipa Neto1,3

1 – Research Centre of Anthropology and Health2 – Interdisciplinary Center of Archaeology Human Behavior and Evolution

3 – General Directorate for Cultural Heritage

CAA, Oslo, 29th March – 2nd April, 2016S.4 - Databases and archives – how do we handle the digital archives?

Presentation structure1. General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and

bioarchaeological remains and information: legal, scientific and research context;

2. Endovélico: nation wide archaeological database and its potentialities

3. Limitations to the Endovélico use: research and management of the remains

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico: identifying and correcting fragilities

5. The project proposal

1. General Directorate for Cultural Heritage1.2 Attributes

Management Protection Conservation

Portuguese cultural heritage

Regional directorates

DGPC

RD North

RD Center

RD Alentejo

RD Algarve

1. General Directorate for Cultural Heritage

1.3 Goals for cultural heritage- To ensure a proper management, salvage, rescue and valorization of archaeological

heritage

- To guarantee the preservation of national archeological archives- To maintain an up-to-date inventory of archaeological remains on national territory.

- To implement a national GIS of archaeological finds and sites

- To regulate the procedures to be used on all archaeological work

Normalization Accessibility Timely data

1. General Directorate for Cultural Heritage1.3 Archaeological remains – Legal context

Basic Law of Cultural Heritage (2001)

“all archaeological remains with civilization or cultural values should be protected…”

“the remains from archaeological sites are considered national heritage...”

“the state should promote information and access to this remains...”

1. General Directorate for Cultural Heritage1.3 Archaeological remains – Legal context

Law for Archaeological works (2014)

“redefinition and clarification of the heritage management policies and divulgation of the archaeological results…”

“regulating and normalizing archaeological activities…”

Thus ensuring the continous development and update of the national archaeological database - Endovélico

2. Endovélico: the archaeological database

2.1 History and goals- Being developed since 1997;

- Gathers information on nationwide archaeological records;

- Main source of information from technical field reports;

- Associated to a GIS software;

- Managed by DGPC;

Endovélico was an Iron-Age God in Iberian Península. It’s worship prevailed until the 5th century AC.

2.1.1 The bioarchaeological moduleDeveloped in 2006 in a response to the:- Increase of bioarchaeological data;- Scientific development of

Bioarchaeology in Portugal;- Legal protection and use for

archaeological remains

Bioarchaeological database with unique features and potential

2. Endovélico: the archaeological database

Accessibility: centralized and state managed data;

Geographically: gathers data comprising all the national territory;

Historically: ranges a wide chronological scope, (Pre-historical periods to contemporary contexts)

Bioarchaeologically: gathers information regarding all dimentions of Past Populations:

- Paleodemographic profiles;- Morphological data;- Paleopathological inferences;- Funerary archaeology information;- Sociocultural elements; Abillity to make sense out the

bioarchaeological data to better understand past populations

2.2 The innovative feature of the Bioarchaeological module of Endovélico

2. Endovélico: the archaeological database2.3 The scientific and research potential of the bioarchaeological databaseThrough the analysis of the bioarchaeological data in Endovélico it would be possible to identify and/or determine biosocial patterns:

Health and disease

Migration

Demographic

Geographical

Social & Cultural

...

3. Limitations to the use of the Endovélico bioarchaeological module

3.1 Is it too good to be true?Lack of resources to up-date data systematically:

- Up-dated systematically only in 2014 (Seabra et al., 2016);

Computer structure set for archaeological data and reflecting the 1990 knowledge of bioarchaeology:

- Still manageable but on the verge of becoming dated;

Problems in the reports are reflected in the database:

- Cruz, 2012- Cruz et al., 2015 (Seabra et al., 2016 @ CAA 2016)

3. Limitations to the use of the Endovélico bioarchaeological module

Cruz, 2012

3.2 The limitations

Sample:Reports: 33Individuals: 464

Cruz, Neto & Seabra, 2015

Time frame:1994 - 2007

Data gathered and analyzed:Space and time context: 6cat.Taphonomy & Preservation: 21cat.Demographic: 13catFunerary archaeology: 85cat.Paleopathology:17cat.

Sample:Reports: 11Terminology: 3 terms

Term Meaning

Internment

Subject+space

Depositiontype

Skeleton

Theactionofburying

Physical context

InhumationTheactionofburying

Depositiontype

DepositInhumation

Theactionofburying

Time frame:2000 - 2014

1994 20072001 20061999Law 270/99: mandatory presence of a Physical anthropologist

Endovélico bioarchaeo.

module

Basic Law for Cultural Heritage

Problematic time frameVery thorough analysis (more than 140 categories)

Small sample (11 reports, 9 authors);

Short list of terms;

Qualitative analysis

Data gathered: analysis of the different uses of specific technical and scientific terminology in field reports

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico

4.1 Identifying fragilitiesInconsistencies / Lack of uniformity

Structure- Different perceptions of what a field report is

(field vs laboratory);

Terminology - Literary use of terms vs scientific use of terms;

Content- Different perceptions of what a field report

should contain;;

The main problem are the reports

Work upstream

Results downstream

Bioarchaeological field reports

Computer database

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico

4.2 New field report analysis – preliminary results

Goals:Specific goal:-To identify, at a larger scale the main fragilities of the bioarchaeological field reports;- Develop a strategy to overcome this problems so consistency in report produced can be achieved and the bioarchaeological module can be used;

Material and methods:Sample:N(reports)= 27N(individuals)= 151N(authores)= 15Time range: 2002 – 2015Geographic scope: 13/18 districts

Variables:- Taphonomy;- Preservation: - Inventory:- Graphic registration: - Biological profiles: - Associated archaeological materials

- Funerary anthropology- Paleopathology- Deposit place

Referred / Not referredPresent / Absent

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Representativity

Graphicrepresentation

Photography

Age atdeathassessement

Age atdeathassessement methodologies

Paleopathology

Associatedarchaeologicalremains

Grave type

Grave orientation

Armsposition

Legsposition

Bodydeposition

Referred /Present Unclear /Doesn'tapply Notreferred /Absent

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico4.3 ResultsThe good

Funerary anthropology

Biological profiles

Inventory

Taphonomy and preservation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Taphonomy

Sexualdiagnosisassessement

Sexualdiagnosisassessementmethodologies

Re-useoffunerary space

Skullposition

Depositlocation

Referred /Present Unclear /Doesn'tapply Notreferred /Absent

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico

4.2 ResultsThe bad

Osteological material

Funerary anthropology

Biological profiles

Taphonomy and preservation

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico

4.2 ResultsThe ugly

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Conservation

Descriptive

Fieldregister sheet

Grave class

Referred /Present Unclear /Doesn'tapply Notreferred /Absent

Inventory

Funerary anthropology

Taphonomy and preservation

4. Developing a new approach to the use of Endovélico

4.3 DiscussionPositive aspects in report recording:

- Several categories are being consistently referred:- biological profiles;- funerary anthropology

Negative aspects in report recording:- The information not present, such as the deposit of

osteological material and the conservation state is extremely relevant for researchers and/or scientific posterior analysis

Other aspects that were not assessed:- The difficulty to insert in closed categories subjective

data;- The necessity to adequate the module to a more

bioarchaeological approach (individual first) instead of an archaeological approach (structure first)

5. Project proposal

Understand past population through

bioarchaeological data

Create a national structure to accommodate and conserve and

study osteological material

Make the bioarchaeological module a up to date databasenacional

Open access

Stantardize bioarchaeological data

Define field procedures Create standards for reporting bioarchaeological information

To promote a reflection about the epistemology of bioarchaeology in Portugal

Develop a bioarchaeological thesaurus

Quantitative and qualitative data analysis

Identify biological and sociocultural patterns

5.1 In conclusion

We have a good base of work with a very interesting research and informative potential regarding past populations…

… but there are important problems to overcome:- How to alert the archaeological and anthropological community to the relevance of

consistency/normalization of information produced?- How to categorize subjective data, such as cultural elements?- What is the best database structure (close fields? open fields? both?);- How to treat data so that culture and language aren’t obstacles?- How to overcome the 90’s database structure with no money?

We welcome suggestions to improve our process and/or to adjust our database!

5. Project proposal

ReferencesCruz, C. 2011. Viver a morte em Portugal: o potencial informativo dos relatórios antropológicos de campo (1994-2007). PhD dissertation in Biological Anthropology. Univ. of Coimbra

Cruz, C., et al. (2015) Piecing together terminology in Bioarchaeology: defining concepts. CHNT19, Wein, Austria. November 3-5, 2014

DUARTE, C.; NETO, F. 2010. O Novo m—dulo de Bioantropologia no sistema do IGESPAR. 8.¼ Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve – A Arqueologia e as outras Ciências, Câmara Municipal de Silves, Portugal, 21-23 de Outubro.

DUARTE, C.; NETO, F.; 2013. Vest’gios humanos no sistema nacional de informa‹o arqueol—gica. II International Meeting on Archeology of Transition, The Funerary World, Universidade de ƒvora, Portugal 29-30 de Abril.

IPA. 2002. Endovélico - Sistema de Gestão e Informação Arqueológica. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia. 5(1):277-283

Giesen, M. (ed.) 2013. Curating Human Remains Caring for the Dead in the United Kingdom. Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer. pp: 1-12

Giesen, M, White, L. 2013. 1. International perspectives towards human remains collection. In: (ed.) Giesen, 2013, pp: 13-24

Giesen, M, et al. 2013. 5. Dead and forgotten? Some observations on human remains documentation in the UK. In: (ed.) Giesen, 2013. pp: 53-64

Mays, S. 2002. 14. After bone report: the long-term fate of the skeletal collection. In: (eds) Mays, S, Brickley, M, Dodwell, N. Human bones from archaeological sites: guidelines for producing assessment documents and analytical reports. London: BABAO. pp: 46-47

Mays, S. 2010. Human osteoarchaeology in the UK 2001-2007: a bibliometric perspective. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 20:192-204

Neto, F, Seabra, A. (in press) What to do with Data? The application of an Information system for the collection of anthropological and funerary data from archaeological sites. CHNT19, Wein, Austria.

Neto, F, Duarte, C. 2013. Questions surrounding the management of human osteological remains from archaeological contexts. I BAM, University of Coimbra, Portugal

Redfern, R, Bekvalac, J. 2013. The Museum of London: an overview of policies and practice. In: (ed.) Giesen, M. Curating Human Remains Caring for the Dead in the UK. Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer. pp: 87-98

Roberts, C, Cox, M. 2003. Health and disease in Britain: from prehistory to the present day. Gloucester: Sutton Publishing

Roberts, C, Mays, S. 2011. Study and restudy of curated skeletal collections in bioarchaeology: a perspective on the UK and the implication for future curation of human remains. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 21:626-630