In the following detailed notes explaining the content of each
field in each table, the tables are listed in the numbered order
in which they appear in XXXX. The field
names for each table are given, together with a brief description
of their attributes. Note that, as a rule, '?' or '??' is used
in any alphanumeric field where information is either missing
from a report or could not easily be determined during abstracting.
...provides some very basic information on the archaeological
sites
absite
name of the excavated site and the date of the excavation
location
the nearest modern settlement, usually a village or town (for
rural sites), or the modern town or city in which the site was
located (for urban sites)
categ
a phrase describing the archaeological site type such as 'hill
fort', 'occupation site', 'monastic site'; a coded version of
this is given for individual species lists in sitetype
in REPLISTS
notes
notes relating to the excavation techniques or conditions,
the sampling methodology or the archaeology
period
period(s) covered and/or the date range of the site, in words;
a coded version of this appears at the level of individual species
lists indatecode in REPLISTS
topog
topographical location of the site, at the time of formation
of the archaeological deposits, including any other relevant
information given in the report; not coded (e.g. coastal, hill
top, gravel river terrace, lowland)
condition of site at the time of the excavation, e.g.
under water, waterlogged or dry; two-letter code
gridsq
100 km grid square reference given as both letters and numbers,
e.g. SK 43; for users of the Environmental Archaeology Bibliography
(EAB), 100 m grid co-ordinates are given in table SITES
(these should be available in future releases of the ABCD)
the type of report, i.e. what type of material was analysed;
a one-letter code (where separate reports on different classes
of material appear together in a publication, e.g. reports on
charcoal and on 'seeds', they will usually be given separate report
numbers)
...stores, for each list of taxa, any number of plant identifications
and additional information about these identifications
list
taxon list number: the report number plus a letter to distinguish
the list. Thus 1001a, 1001b and 1001c are the three list numbers
for report 1001. This field links to list in REPLISTS
(and hence to ABREPRTS and ABSITES) N.B. For some sites, published data are compounded, such that
the taxa from more than one sample for a given site are combined
together into a single list (see sno in SAMPLES).
The compound lists may thus represent all taxa from a given phase
or group of related samples.
In future releases of the ABCD it is hoped to indicate which lists
are compound and eventually to include all lists for all samples,
as originally published or as available from the data archives
of the worker concerned.
quant
quantification either as a number (up to 9,999) or a code
indicating abundance, such as, p = present, +++ = abundant
part
three-letter code indicating the plant part, such as, pro
= propagules or 'seeds'; (this field links to the PARTS
table)
taxon name in, conforming to the names in CHECKLST;
if in the report the taxon was given as 'spp.' (i.e. possible
that more than one species is represented) then this will be indicated
in PROBS, as will any other nomenclatural deviation from
CHECKLST
abund
abundance code: a five-point scale converted from the actual
numbers of remains recorded
full name and some indication of the place(s) and dates each
person was working when the analyses published in the report were
undertaken; this information is sometime difficult to deduce from
the report as published
context number(s), as published; this may sometimes be a phase
or trench number N.B. The word context here is being used in its loose sense;
it does not necessarily relate to a single archaeological context
type
context type description, in a minimum number of words, e.g.
pit fill
integrity
context integrity code, on a scale of 0 to 3:
0
integrity cannot be judged
1 (low)
the material is not from a well-defined context, the archaeology
is not particularly clear, or there is doubt about the sampling
methods; samples may not relate to the archaeologist's contexts,
layers or phasing
2 (medium)
the context is from a clearly-defined feature (or features)
and the archaeology is clear but there is no indication that the
context was particularly well sealed; there may be evidence from
artefacts, for example, that the context contained re-worked materials
3 (high)
it is clear that the context is well sealed and clearly defined
and the archaeological methodology was good; chance of contamination
very low
cpres
preservation regime of material in the context
an
anaerobic (but not 'waterlogged')
bu
burnt material
de
desiccated
im
impression
mn
mineralised
mx
mixed material
nr
not recorded
si
silicified
wl
anoxic 'waterlogged'
??
unknown
sediment
sediment or 'soil' description, quoting directly from the
report
cperiod
cultural period/date for the context, using the terminology
given by the excavator
begin
'begin date' -- the earliest likely date of the context, given
in absolute terms, using a minus sign for years BC; thus, 450
BC to AD 750 is recorded as begin date = -450, end date = 750.
Where a radiocarbon date is used the date range will be given
as twice the standard error, which is not far off the true 95%
confidence limits. Thus '1400+/-40 BC' would be quoted as begin date
= -1480 and end date = -1320. This uses calibrated dates where
possible
main dating method(s) used for dating the contexts -- the
dating evidence (e.g. radiocarbon assay) may not necessarily come
from the actual layer which was sampled, but sufficiently near
to it to be related/associated
validity
validity of the dating (irrespective of the date range shown
in the begin/end fields), on a four-point scale; note, this will
often be an interpretation of the evidence given in the report:
0
validity of dating cannot be judged from the report
1 (poor accuracy of dating)
the dating has been determined using stratigraphic relationship
alone and the limits are only probable
2 (medium)
the dating has been determined using more than one independent
method (e.g. stratigraphy plus artefact evidence) and the limits
are reasonable; if there is a radiocarbon date from associated
contexts, the validity would be medium
3 (high)
the dating has been determined using good stratigraphic and
artefact evidence or good radiocarbon dating, or preferably both;
the probability that the plant material is within the begin and
end date limits is very high (contexts will rarely be given this
high score!)
env
environmental interpretation, mainly taken from the report
arch
archaeological interpretation -- notes on the interpretation
of the context from the archaeological evidence
number of samples combined in the list (see note under list
for TAXLISTS, above)
ssize
three-point scale (a-c) represents the following:
a
small samples, of the order of 0.5 kg or less
b
medium samples, of the order of 0.5-5 kg
c
large, usually bulk-sieved, samples and combined data
cno
total number of contexts represented by the taxon list
stype
type of sample:
c
charcoal and wood identifications
g
charred grain
p
pollen
i
impressions
m
macrofossils
q
not classified
Note: this may duplicate the information under reptype in
ABREPRTS, but is used for each list rather than whole reports.
For example, if one of the lists in what is basically a macrofossil
report happens to be a list of charcoal identifications, then
this field allows this distinction to be recorded. The stype field
is currently incomplete and may be deleted from future versions
of the ABCD
details about the problem; for example the taxonomic name
used in the report, a note about contamination, the level of identification
or an explanation of the quantification codes
...gives a full, unique, list of plant names which occur in the
database. It is used when inputting plant and in future versions
the inclusion of a taxon code field will permit sorting of results
into taxonomic or alphabetic order rather than the order determined
by Paradox® for alphanumeric fields
charcoal/wood: concerned with charcoal and wood identifications
only
g
cereal grain: individual identifications of, usually
charred, cereals collected as 'spot' finds from the excavation
i
individual identifications: similar to 'g' reports but
of non-cereal taxa collected as 'spot' finds
m
macrofossil reports: where actual 'samples' of sediment
were taken from specified contexts and where there is usually
additional information about 'sample' size, processing methods,
and so on
p
pollen: usually pollen analysis carried out on the same
material as the macrofossil work
where different taxonomic names have been used which makes
the identification unclear; the name given in the report should
appear in PROBS with an explanation if necessary
D
if the identification is doubtful (in the opinion of the compiler)
C
if the material is possibly a contaminant (according to original
author's suggestion)
T
if a different taxonomy has been used from the ABCD checklist,
but there is no particular problem with the identification
L
if the naming level is thought to be too precise when compared
with current practice
S
if there are several problems relating to this taxon, listed
separately in PROBS
A
where alternative names have been given in the report; the
broadest identification level in TAXLISTS is usually inserted
Q
if the quantification is not actual numbers of individuals
P
if species are indicated as spp. or sp(p)., i.e. more than
one species may be present, although they have not or cannot be
distinguished; nothing needs to be added to PROBS
X
taxon is not on the checklist; the correct taxonomy will have
to be checked before adding it to the checklist and before the
data are loaded
!
a note about the identification
Ev
where the quantification is an estimated figure, for example
if part of the sample was counted and then multiplied up to get
an estimate of the whole
Z
only vernacular names were used in the report; these have
been converted to Latin names before adding to the DB, using what
is thought to be the most appropriate name