Folia archeologica 44.

Kovács S. Tibor: Török hatás a magyar fegyvereken a 15-17. században

ARCHAEOLOGICAL GIS IN THE HNM 247 The field called 'INFO' has a special role in the above data structure. It was introduced as a reference number, a measure of the information value of the given information to help research workers. It is well known that objects can be obtained in a collection storing archaeological finds in different ways. They can originate from professional excavations, surface collections, they can be purchased or obtained from donations, etc. Thus the amount and quality of information regarding the individual objects can be ver)' different. Naturally enough, an object coming from authentic excavation, with known stratigraphical position and circumstances of discovery has much more authenticity and information value than a donated object, which can be classified only by typological methods as belonging to a given cultural unit. It can be an important point of view for everybody to keep these indices in mind during analyses. The value of the field Info is a signal for the user on the authenticity and the level of documentation of the site and individual finds studied.

9 Data structure for finds 1. Structured individual tag (Country, Institute, Collection, Inventory Number) 2. Name 3. Material 4. Pieces 5. Chronological classification on two lewels (e.g., Middle Neolithic Period, Linearband pottery culture). From the well-known problems encountered during the construction of archaeological databases (e.g., individual tags, structured chronological classification etc.) only one essential element will be dealt with, which is probably even more significant for ASIS than the other problems. The information content of the field NAME raises the problem of terminology, well known to professionals of archaeology, though the relevance of the problem is wider. On one hand we have a simple transcription conversion for objects where the name for the object in the inventory books serving as a basis for data entry were not consequently used, (cup, small cup, little cup, cuplet...). This actually existing problem can be solved by relatively simple means of information technology. The situation is more complex as there are no accepted terminological schemes in our subject, that is, the same vessel can be called cup, small plate, little vessel etc. depending on individual vocabulary and level of expertise. This problem emerged well before plans of the ASIS during database planning and construction in respect of data content and also, storage capacity. On a preliminary, mainly logical level, two basic concepts were formulated in this matter. One would prefer the construction of a universally accepted terminology prior to data entry based on the consensus of professionals. Others would question the necessity of a constructed terminology, which would be formed as a result of the collection of data as one of the possible output of data collection. In the Hungarian National Museum, efforts were made to create a terminological system in the spirit of the former point of view. At some areas 'first steps' could be laid, but on the whole, these efforts were not successful. Currently we chose two methods for the treatment of the problem in the data entry systems connected to ASIS, i.e., Roman Collection, Prehistoric Collection, Palaeolithic Collection. Thus, for example, by the help of a 'pilot project' on the material of the inventory books of the Roman Collection, a small thesaurus of cca. 130 terms was 9 Andrea VADAY-Ildikó FEJES, Adalértelmezések az információtartalom szerint a gyakorlati és elméleti régészeli feldolgozásokban / Data interpretation according to information content in practical and theoretical archaeological interpretations. Múltunk jövője 1993. (Abstract)