Hi again,

With regard to images: we can provide 14 Gb of space for the database for now, with a limit of around 2 Mb of space per entry, so that would accommodate 7,000 entries. 

The quality and quantity of the images will be decided by the contributor: you could, for example, choose to upload one ok quality macro photo of the object at around 800 kb, plus one higher quality micrograph of the sample section at 1.2 Mb; so your total database entry would be two images, equaling 2 Mb. 

I've been saving ancient slag micrographs as grey-scale JPGs of around 150 kb each, and the resolution is perfectly fine for interpretation, especially for on-screen reference, which is what the database is designed to provide. So in a 2 Mb entry, I could upload a dozen slag microstructure images. 

There are a lot of problems with promising to provide CDs.....apart from time/cost burning and mailing out the things, they will keep getting out of date with a database that continually has entries added. But most of all, there are copyright issues: the images on the database, and all related uploaded material, will remain copyright of the contributor. Once something is burned onto a CD, a second party has become a 'publisher', and they would need to get permission from each individual contributor to copy and re-distribute their data. So we won't be making CDs; if you want higher resolution copies of the images, you would have to contact the contributor directly. There are fields in EMMA for "Contributor", "Published (yes/no)", and "Reference".

Compositional analyses: spreadsheet lists of numerical, elemental data on the thousands of metal artefacts that have been generated over the years don't present a data storage problem.... if all you have is a verbal description of the object and the analytical data in Excel for example, that might amount to just 50 kb of data. So descriptions plus compositional analysis of 80,000 artefacts could be accommodated in 4 Gb of space.... or less, if there aren't separate speadsheets. EMMA has the facility to accept Excel files, Word docs, or PDF's attached to a verbal description entry (i.e. you don't need to have a picture file, although of course a picture is what ideally would be preferred). 

So I guess the funding resources question is not about numbers of objects or storage space really, but about data-entry time. Our student aide here will scan hard copy submissions and upload, but of course he/she will have to be provided with the descriptive information to enter (e.g. object from which the sample was taken, material, date, provenance, etc). What we could look at for the future would be some scheme of data-entry grants to incorporate existing collections into EMMA.... as with the long-term storage and migration of digital data, this is a general Information Science matter really.....


Cheers,


Evelyne





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Evelyne Godfrey,
Assistant Professor of Conservation,
Department of Historic Preservation,
University of Mary Washington,
1301 College Avenue,
Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22401-5300 USA

Office: 121 Combs Hall
Tel: 540-654-1312   Mobile: 540-429-3767


>>> [log in to unmask] 5/1/2006 11:03 AM >>>
Dear Evelyne,

Not to be downbeat about web resources of archaeometallurgy, especially 
images of microstructures, but the expanding activity worldwide in this 
field means that the number of compositional analyses and images is, by 
any standards, huge. From Europe, including Russia and European CIS 
countries there must be upwards of 80,000 analyses of Bronze Age 
metalwork alone. A current publication project which will collate all 
available analyses of Early Bronze Age metalwork from the British Isles 
will have almost 2,000 analyses. While metallographic data are much 
scarcer I have probably some 3,000 metallographic samples from European 
prehistory in my own collection. This is on my mind at the moment as a 
change in personal circumstances means I have to draw up a new will, and 
my will contain my wishes for the future of these samples and associated 
data and images. One thing is certain is that the primary archaive is 
the samples themselves and hard copies of data and photographs so as not 
to be overreliant on the continuing forward compatibility of database 
software. Plus, I simply do not have the resources to digitise all this 
- does anybody.
Yours
Peter Northover

-- 
Dr Peter Northover,
Materials Science-Based Archaeology Group,
Department of Materials, University of Oxford
Tel +44 (0)1865 283721; Fax +44 (0)1865 841943 Mobile +44 (0)7785 501745
e-mail [log in to unmask]