There are no websites that currently provide bibliographic information on all underwater archaeological site reports. That is because the information does not exist anywhere as a particular data set. The data that would make up that collection largely rests in the hands of over fifty state offices, numerous Army Corp of Engineer district offices, and University libraries. For the purposes of this section however we shall examine sites that perform similar functions to see what may be learned from them. In addition we will take a look at the closest site that in theory should be covering this material and examine the reasons why it is not.

There are numerous databases relating to history and maritime history in general on the web. Not all of which reside in formally structured tables as part of a relational system accessible through queries. Some present their data directly on screen such as A Guide to Underwater Archaeology Resources on the Internet. This may be acceptable for small sets of data where “find on this page” tools are all that is needed to locate specific information. But the inability to query the data for specific subsets quickly rules out this method as an acceptable means of tracking potentially one thousand document titles as maybe the case with the underwater archaeological site report project. Navigation through such a system would be clumsy to say the least.

Even when we know where the documents are located or even when they are located in one specific collection this is still not sufficient. One division of the US House of Representatives (House) support staff possessed a collection of over three hundred documents stored in a shared folder available to all appropriate staff. When users complained about the difficulty in locating particular documents managers decided to use a mysql relational database to track document locations. Fields for metadata were added to track information such as document creation date, last date of review, version numbers, as well as other descriptive fields. In addition a web based front end was created to allow users to search by author, document type (i.e. reference documents, operating procedures, etc.). Managers discovered that the new metadata, previously unavailable without looking at each individual document, could be used to create new reports. By searching fields such as “REVIEW_DATE” where the value was over six months old they could identify which items were expired and in need of review. In another example an author list could be compared against departing staff announcements to see which items had to be reassigned. The database and metadata in particular opened up new avenues for analysis previously not possible or in some cases imagined.

This system has inadvertently served as a prototype for the underwater archaeology report bibliography project. Although the subject matter is vastly different the mysql database and PHP coding for the web front end used at the House offered a chance to learn from their mistakes and successes. The House project however, served a very small audience with a limited, and more clearly defined, list of requirements. Users on the Internet accessing the underwater archaeology report bibliography database would potentially have a greater variety of interests and query needs. Any system developed for their use requires greater flexibility.

Underwater archaeologists for the state of Wisconsin helped develop the shipwreck database at the Wisconsin Maritime Trails web site. It contains over 680 records searchable on at least thirteen fields. While this is not bibliographic data it does offer something not available with the House project. In addition to the ability to search on the various fields it offers a finding aid. A map of Wisconsin's Great Lakes shoreline shows four distinct zones. These zones represent predefined queries that select wrecks from those specific geographic areas. From the resulting table returned to the screen users can select specific shipwrecks and gain more information. This aid offers users quick and easy entry into the database and perhaps encourages users to then create more detailed queries once they have seen what data appears in different fields. In addition to the finding aid this site stands as an excellent design model in terms of layout and color. Alternating lines in the table differ in color allowing the eye to easily comprehend the data. In general the site’s navigation helps the user explore the records without feeling overwhelmed. In short there is much to be learned from this here.

The National Park Service’s Archaeology Program runs the National Archaeological Database Reports module (NADB). At first glance one might conclude that this site should contain the underwater archaeological bibliographic data the MUA project intends to capture. The site states that it contains, “…an expanded bibliographic inventory of over 350,000 reports on archeological investigation…” Further it supposedly, “benefits from the bibliographic records contributed by many partners, particularly State Historic Preservation Offices and federal agencies.” A quick search of the database confirmed it does contain some underwater archaeological reports. What then is left for the MUA to cover one might ask, apparently a great deal. An interview with National Park Service staff suggests that NADB was originally intended to prevent agencies from requiring surveys of the same areas by different organizations that were unaware of past survey activity.5 The database was primarily created to house reports generated by surveys paid for or supported by federal funding. It should be noted, however that the database does include some reports that were not federally funded as well.

While this site seems like the perfect repository for the underwater reports several problems suggest otherwise. For one thing the system is voluntary. Collections for some states are incomplete. Others are missing altogether due to some state's refusal to participate. Reasons for this include some state's desire to maintain separate boundaries. Others cite a lack of funding to prepare materials for inclusion. The results of this can be seen when searching the database on shipwreck related reports. The state underwater archaeologist for Georgia suggested that he has more than one hundred reports on underwater surveys within that state.6 A search on the NADB site for Georgia and the term shipwreck returns two reports. While it is true that the term shipwreck does not necessarily appear in every underwater site report one would expect find more than two titles. Another issue may be related to the site’s original purpose of housing federally funded or supported reports. Results vary from state to state but this may account for why many purely state funded projects do not appear. Clearly a new effort at culling this data is required.

A further question and perhaps the most important one arises from a review of the NADB site. Shouldn’t this data be stored in one location for searching rather than two; the NADB and the MUA? After all the primary goal of the MUA project was to eliminate the need for researcher to have to visit more than one site. Several options are available here. One might be for the MUA to proceed with the project and turn over all the data it gathers to the NADB. Another would be to drop the project altogether and wait for the data to be collected by someone else and placed in the NADB. A third option might be for the MUA to collect the data, create the search tool, and make the data available on its own site and perhaps share it with the NADB. A key point to consider is that up to now the system has not captured all the information. This may be entirely no one’s fault as both state and federal agencies have had to deal with tighter budgets and reduced manpower. According to Terry Childs the former manager of the database for the NPS the database has not been updated in two years and while there are on going discussions on how to proceed there are no immediate plans to update the database anytime soon. Left on it’s own this data might not be collected for several more years. At that point the backlog of titles and the process of removing duplicate information would be huge. Cleaning up formatting issues and typos in the data provided by the states is often a time consuming and therefore expensive task. If the MUA were to collect the data and simply turn it over to the NADB in the proper format this would only solve the problem in the short term. In order to truly make this system work contacts with state agencies must be maintained along with regular requests for additional updates. If that type of communication is not in place now there is no reason to assume it would be in the future. When six state underwater archaeologists were approached about this project by the MUA not one mentioned the existence of NADB. No doubt these professionals are aware of its existence but for whatever reason did not suggest it as an alternative. When asked directly why they don't contribute titles one State Underwater Archeologist replied that they were under the impression NADB had lost it's funding. While this is not entirely accurate budget cuts and manpower are so severe at this time that were the MUA to provide the data they might not be entered into the database until sometime in 2007 and that's assuming money to pay for that update can be found. Finally if the MUA were to gather the data and create a web based front end it makes sense for that group to maintain it since relationships will have been established that can be utilized to keep the database current. When approached about a possible joint project the NPS staff expressed interest in working with the MUA. In order to share the data the MUA's database would have to be structured in the same manner as NADB's. The NPS agreed to supply the MUA with a template. The final result could be that researchers can search for the information on both the NPS and MUA websites. The NPS website would contain a finding aid for submerged cultural resources that recognized the MUA's contribution to the database.

_________________

[5] Personal conversation with Dr. John Knoerl of the NPS GIS Lab and Terry Childs(Washington, 2005) .
[6] Personal conversation with Jason Burns, MA Georgia State Underwater Archaeologist (Savannah, 2005).