Curating Archaeological Provenience Data Across Excavation Recording Formats

Abstract

Archaeological excavations today generate extensive datasets across survey, excavation, and analysis activities, especially when they are conducted in collaborative structures such as field schools. Working across such activities, data archivists contribute to the goals and research outcomes of the dig by establishing data practices that are participatory and educational (two pillars of data literacy) as they permanently record information about the archaeological results. At the Venus Pompeiana Project (VPP), a collaborative archaeological investigation of the Sanctuary of Venus in Pompeii, both provenance and provenience data are recorded into a database at the trenches’ edge, which optimises the accuracy of the data by allowing direct input and review by the data creators and archaeological site experts. When legacy data about work conducted decades or even centuries earlier are brought into the data picture, scholars stand to gain a deeper understanding of the geographic locations of key interest over time. Yet, the integration of analogue legacy and digital archival datasets is collaborative and longitudinal work. In this paper, we bring together experiential reflections on data archiving conducted at both the excavation site and in the physical archives of the Pompeii Archaeological Park. We then provide an integrative analysis of the outcomes of such data curation, highlighting what each data archiving contributor “discovered” about the site as a whole or a specific artefact, feature, or data category. Our findings contribute deeper insights into what data archiving and format-specific curation activities are most effective for learning experiences, archaeological scholarship, and professional practices.

1. Introduction

Archaeological excavations today generate extensive datasets across survey, excavation, and analysis activities, especially when they are conducted in collaborative structures such as field schools. The field school team members bring expertise from multiple disciplines related to the historical site. Working across all three activities (survey, excavation, and analysis), data archivists contribute to the goals and research outcomes of the dig by establishing data practices that are participatory and educational (two pillars of overall data literacy per Bhargava et al. 2015). Archival practices onsite result in the permanent recording of information about stratigraphic units, masonry features, special finds, organic remains, and soil samples, for example. Data archivists manage the daily recording activities of the excavation season. They are especially and uniquely attentive team members who record on a daily basis the provenance of data (who, when, and where it comes from) as well as, of course, the provenience of data (precise geolocations) so central in modern archaeology: work that this paper first describes in detail and then analyses.

At the Venus Pompeiana Project (VPP), a collaborative archaeological investigation of the Sanctuary of Venus in Pompeii (AIA 2019; Battiloro et al. 2018; Mogetta et al. 2022),1 both provenance and provenience data are recorded into a database at the trenches’ edge, a closeness which optimises accuracy of the data by facilitating direct input and review by the data creators and archaeological site experts. The database’s presence on-site serves primarily to inform the direction of the excavation itself by offering knowledge of the recent actions taken and data gathered about a given geographic location. Later, away from the site, the database is queried by project leaders to write interim season reports and scholarly works. The depth of the database is therefore important, and when legacy data about work conducted decades or even centuries earlier are brought into the data picture, scholars stand to gain a deeper comprehension about those geographic locations of key interest over time.

The integration of analogue legacy and digital archival datasets is collaborative and longitudinal work. In this paper, we bring together experiential reflections on data archiving conducted at both the excavation site and in the physical archives of the Pompeii Archaeological Park. We examine the research question, “How are provenience and provenance information recorded and synthesised in multiple data formats in the field school setting (Venus Pompeiana Project)?”. Data archiving of archaeological provenience data is an activity driven by the contexts synthesised for further research by student archivists, as presented in Section 3.4. We then provide an integrative analysis of the outcomes of such data curation, highlighting what each data archiving contributor “discovered” about the site as a whole or a specific artefact, feature, or data category—which at the VPP includes excavation trench stratigraphy, bulk and decorated pottery, special finds (objects which are not ceramic vessel fragments), topography/photogrammetry, site photography, archaeobotany, and numismatics. Our findings provide valuable insights into what data archiving and format-specific curation activities are most effective for learning experiences, archaeological scholarship, and professional practices. Data curation practices have previously been considered for archaeology (Frank et al. 2015) but not at a detailed level (NDSA 2020; Tibbo and Lee 2012).

2. Materials and Methods

Provenience legitimises archaeological objects. It is an essential data field to include in the documentary records created during and about an archaeological dig. Defined as “information about an object’s origin” (Nuzzolo and Sugawara 2023), provenience is the preferred term used in archaeology to stand for the precise findspot of a scientifically excavated object: the geolocated place where it came out of the ground in modern times. Provenience thus establishes a starting origin for an object that, after its excavation, makes a journey to some destination: perhaps a curation facility (Johnson 2003), directly into a public museum collection (especially when museums themselves funded such excavations: see Barker 2010), or storage repositories with varied visibility and public awareness (Childs and Stevenson 2022). The presence, or not, of provenience information is the basis for ascribing a status of “grounded” to an archaeological artefact that is circulating away from its place of origin and being evaluated for, among other prospects: accession into a permanent collection; sale, loan, or donation to a museum for display purposes; or description in an auction catalogue as an accessory to its purchase (Marlowe 2016b, p. 220). Building on that essential definition established for grounded objects—and the steps such as chemical analysis that may be required to ascertain a geographic origin—Marlowe helpfully calls attention to “how rare such research is” (Marlowe 2016a, p. 262) and lauds those efforts which are performed thoroughly and collaboratively. To encourage more responsible scholarly interactions with all archaeological objects, Marlowe (2016b, p. 263) presents a trio of “best practices decision trees” for grounded objects, ungrounded objects, and ungrounded objects with a second-hand report of findspot. The trees were created to counter the assumptions attributed to an earlier certainty-scale approach for assessing a given object’s level of findspot information (Chippindale and Gill 2000). The trees refocus the essential work of scholars and curators, together, onto fundamental matters of establishing “evidentiary legitimacy” for the objects under consideration (Marlowe 2016b, p. 226).

The research process, which we will detail in the sections below, is an example of the professionally excavated path outlined in Marlowe’s tree for grounded objects, compliant with the standards developed by the Italian state archaeological service.2 Our case study of the rigorous and participatory data practices conducted during the VPP excavation expands on such scholarship by showing ways to put provenience data and archives to productive and multipurpose use. Specifically, we detail a collaborative data curation process conducted by archaeologists and archivists during field seasons of active excavation and subsequent study. During such a study of the excavation data, individual finds and their multiple contexts are analysed and synthesised into contexts of archaeology and Roman history.

3. Results

3.1. Restudying the Archaeological Archives from Back in Time

The Sanctuary of Venus has been the object of archaeological exploration since 1898, when the temple site was first brought to light by A. Sogliano. Most notable are the extensive campaigns conducted by A. Maiuri in 1935–1936 and 1939–1940 and, more recently, the intensive stratigraphic excavations led by E. Curti between 2004 and 2007. Those investigations have revealed a detailed plan of the sanctuary and produced an impressive array of finds, ranging from architectural ornaments, sculpture, inscriptions, and other votive objects (Lepone 2016). Not all this important evidence, however, has been published systematically or adequately. One of the aims of VPP, therefore, has been to restudy the data obtained from old trenches and ground its interpretation in relation to the results of new targeted excavations that address outstanding questions about the site’s development and sequence of occupation.

As part of a broader study season aimed at the final publication of archaeological research conducted between 2017 and 2022, in the summer of 2023, VPP was granted permission to access the collections of the Scientific Archive of the Pompeii Archaeological Park. The primary objective in 2023 was to survey the available records mentioning the Temple of Venus, with a particular focus on excavation diaries and inventories from excavations predating 2004. The most recent reference contained in the archive dates to 2002.3 The archives are a vital part of site operations, as the next paragraphs illustrate.

Since the Scientific Archive offices were recently relocated to a new state-of-the-art building, the materials are currently being reorganised by archivist Dr Rosanna De Simone, whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Work on both the drawings and photographic collections is still underway; hence, some of the records that we were able to inspect might eventually be moved to a different storage location in the future. In the meantime, scans of the excavation diaries, as well as digitised photographs, maps and drawings, could also be accessed through the official digital platforms maintained by the Pompeii Archaeological Park, known as “SIAV” (Information System of the Vesuvian Area) and Tolomeo, respectively.

The Scientific Archive is structured as follows (Figure 1):

• The Photographic Archive, consisting of paper forms to which photographs are attached. The forms are stored in filing cabinets whose drawers are organised first geographically (whether from Pompeii or other Vesuvian sites) and then by category (e.g., inscriptions, graffiti, pottery, etc.);
• The Drawings Archive, containing the collection of hand drawings (architectural plans, elevation drawings, and site maps). This is currently under reorganisation and cannot be accessed in its entirety;
• The “Pratiche Estinte” (closed cases) folders;
• Documents associated with former officers of the Pompeii Archaeological Park: the Antonio Sogliano collection, which mostly contains private correspondence, drafts of publications, lecture notes, as well as documentation related to his official role (he was inspector at Pompeii and curator at the Archaeological Museum of Naples, 1905–1910); and the Olga Elia (Director of the Excavation Office, 1940–1960) and the Alfonso de Franciscis (Superintendent of Naples and Pompeii, 1961–1976) collections, which mostly consist of documents left by them in their offices;
• Registers containing shipping notes to the Archaeological Museum of Naples (MANN);
• The “Ufficio Scavi” collection, which consists of excavation journals, chronologically organised registers, and folders containing mostly typewritten documents, which describe the progress of excavations in the Pompeii Archaeological Park and conservation or restoration work on materials;
• “Librette di scavo”, registers where excavation inspectors logged the findings (the entries are ordered chronologically by date of excavation);
• Folders with catalogue entries for all the archaeological finds from the Vesuvian area which have been provided with a National Unique Code (NCTN), a fixed ID number that more securely tracks an object than the given inventory number, which may be subject to change.

The first step of the research comprised sifting through the photographs stored in the filing cabinets to gain a comprehensive understanding of the site’s history of finds. Then, the Tolomeo platform was used to cross-check whether the items had already been digitised and, if so, whether the entries presented additional information than what was included in the physical version (in some cases, the paper forms provide only basic details besides the image). This and every subsequent examination of archival material was documented through photographs to aid our research progress.

Having identified photos of archaeological materials associated with the Temple of Venus through these initial searches, if the inventory number was available, the “librette di scavo” were consulted. The inventories pertaining to the reorganisation of the Antiquarium in June 1948 were also checked to verify if those objects were lost in the 1943 bombings of Pompeii.

This process progressed in parallel with the direct examination of the Sogliano, Elia and De Franciscis collections. That was the most time-consuming part of the investigation because of the large number of folders that needed to be examined. Moreover, that documentation was very heterogeneous in scope, ranging from private letters to drafts of publications, and handwritten texts often needed more time to be deciphered.

Sometimes the investigation can be frustrating, especially when trying to locate objects that were never given an inventory number. In one case, it was possible to gain some information regarding a group of glass vessels from the area known as the “Fornici” (i.e., the vaulted substructures below the Temple of Venus), stolen in the early 1970s, by consulting the respective “Pratica Estinta” folder, which contained the correspondence between the Superintendency of Pompeii and the Carabinieri in Naples, as well as photos of the crime scene.

Another task was to check the records from SIAV against the paper version, the “Giornali di scavo”. This seemed the best approach because the records from SIAV were few, incomplete and sometimes difficult to interpret, while photos of the original entries were clearer.

Finally, interim pictures of some drawings and plans from the Drawings Archive were taken, with the help of the archivist. It is possible that additional drawings pertaining to the Temple of Venus will be identified and catalogued once the reorganisation of the archive is completed.

3.2. Archaeological Finds Inventory

During the process of collecting this information, one author started to organise the data for internal use by the VPP team into a shared folder titled “VPP 2023 General Inventory”, whose arrangement mirrors the current organisational scheme of the Scientific Archive. Individual folders are arranged primarily by room, cabinet, and collection type (physical or digital). Each folder includes an Excel spreadsheet with the inventory of the objects contained therein. A brief introduction describes the nature and content of the different sections to users (Figure 1). Except for the “Librette di scavo”, an internal inventory number (VPP23, initial or abbreviation for the section collection, consecutive number) was assigned to each item. Those numbers correspond to the name of the JPG file.

In the summer of 2024, the research continued, involving the following activities:

• Further research on the Drawings Archive and scanning of any other relevant maps and drawings contained therein;
• Identify and document the objects sent to the MANN, and complete an inventory of that section of the archive;
• Locate the archaeological finds recorded in the librette, the Tolomeo platform, and the Filing Cabinets that are currently not on display at the Casa Bacco repository;

Although the Drawings Archive did not offer any further material, it was possible to identify the current inventory numbers of the objects sent from Pompeii to the MANN. Using the data gathered from the “Note di spedizione” registers, that is the libretta number, the description, place, date of discovery and of shipping, it was possible to find the proper match, so to speak, thanks to the help of Dr. Floriana Miele, one of the curators of the MANN and also responsible for the “Ufficio Catalogo”.

3.3. Reanalysing Legacy Data

The reassessment of the archaeological finds in the Casa Bacco repository entailed the photographic documentation of the objects identified through preliminary archival research. That was particularly useful in the case of objects that had no available photos on record, but also for black and white items in which the colours are not easily perceptible. In that regard, the activity allowed one to finally take pictures in colours, among the many objects, of what Antonio Sogliano identified as a votive rudder at the moment of its discovery (Sogliano 1899, p. 294) (Figure 2).

According to the libretta (LI 22 (1896–1905), cc. 74–75, n. 1934), the object (inv. 54253 ex1934) was found on 3 August 1899 “in the underground area around the platform of the temple of Augustus”. Back then, the monument was interpreted as aedes Augusti, and only a year later, in 1900, August Mau proposed identifying the structure as the temple dedicated to Venus. One of the findings from the 1898–1899 excavations is quite interesting: it is described in the libretta as “a long gilded handle, where in the lower part ends a flat head nail is inserted, while the upper part presents a round ending in a sort of dovetail shape of 210 mm of length”. The description found on the Tolomeo platform, written almost a century after its discovery, interpreted it tentatively as a mirror handle.

The mirror handle interpretation, however, is quite problematic. The flat-head nail, which should have worked as a stud to keep the handle in place and connect it to the disc, is too large compared to exemplars where the handle and disc consist of two separate pieces held together by rivets. Those exemplars are more conspicuous in shape and size than the one from Pompeii. Moreover, comparing it with mirror handles from other areas, like Etruria, Raetia, Moesia Superior, Pannonia and Noricum, and chronologies (from the 4th century BCE to the 1st century CE), the exemplar from Pompeii is longer (21 cm) than the average handle (max. dim. around 10 cm). The presumed handle, moreover, being quite flat in its central part, does not resemble the more recurring tubular shape of the mirror handle, which made holding the object more comfortable.

Given that the hypothetical function of the object as a mirror handle poses more than one reasonable doubt, Sogliano’s original interpretation as a rudder should be reevaluated.

The gubernaculum (rudder) as an attribute of Venus Pompeiana recurs in at least a couple of frescoes, one from the House of Verecundus (IX.7.6) (Figure 3) and the other from the House of Venus and the Four Gods (IX.7.1) (Figure 4). In the latter, the goddess is represented holding a rudder in her left hand, while Eros, who is accompanying her, is lifting up to the top of the rudder a globe or is holding a round mirror. The shape presented by the object in the frescoes consists of a paddle with a central ridge and dovetail-like terminations and a bar connected to it, as a sort of handle. The rudders on both frescoes are represented as gilded objects.

It must be noted that in some representations—generally of the goddess Fortuna or Isis-Fortuna—the globe is placed at the bottom of the rudder. This type of Roman iconography, where the goddess is represented standing while holding a rudder, with or without globe, with the right hand and a cornucopia with the left, derived from late Hellenistic prototypes of Tyche. Such pattern is widespread in the Roman West mostly through small bronze statuary, generally associated with lararia and household worship, like the one from the Herculaneaum Antiquarium (inv. 1421, 1st century CE) and large statuary, like the Fortuna Braccio Nuovo type (inv. MV 2444, early Claudian period) at the Vatican Museums (Arslan et al. 1997; Corso 2017; Rausa 1997; Rendini 2013).

Thus, it is possible that the flat head nail in the lower end of the object stands for the globe. Only part of the actual handle would be preserved in the upper section of the object, since the oblique bar used by seafarers to control the navigation is missing.

The iconographic analysis confirms Sogliano’s hypothesis. The gilded bronze rudder would have been attached to a statuette of the goddess, not dissimilar from the representations on the frescoes discussed above.

3.4. Digital Database Documentation in the Student Archivist Experience

Archivists on an archaeological excavation ensure the consistent recording of provenience information into a central resource that is accessible to all team members as they complete their disciplinary activities. While a key concept in archival practice is provenance, defined by Nuzzolo and Sugawara 2023 as an object’s record of ownership, archaeological archivists are particularly interested in ensuring that both data quality and data literacy are as optimal as possible during the excavation season. Notably, scholars have characterised provenance as a “detailed history” that, accordingly, includes provenience within it: “A complete provenance will encompass a record of production, ownership, publication, exhibition and restoration” (Neal 2014, p. 19). In that way, knowledge of one or both of provenance and provenience is of great benefit when working in the context of archaeology. Efforts archivists make to pinpoint gaps in a dataset and conduct source research to supply missing information generally contribute to successful research outcomes, both onsite and later during data analysis. Archival Studies coursework that was completed in the semesters prior to the 2022 excavation season gave one author valuable knowledge about many formative topics related to data archiving, such as pattern recognition within digital datasets to produce data visualisations, ways of gathering provenance information, and creation of searchable archival descriptions at the item and/or collection level. They had examined institutional policies, particularly where provenance principles are applied to digital collections. Learning about how provenance applies to various collection types provided depth and breadth through experiential learning, such as in a ninety-hour archival practicum, where the student developed finding aids for collections housed within an institution. Throughout that process, they followed the Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) guidelines and recorded the provenance of numerous documents and materials. Based on previous archive coursework and practicum experience, one author had garnered a foundational knowledge of provenance which prepared them for the role of a student archivist for VPP.

Upon arriving in Italy, the project began with group orientation activities with fellow students. Instructors and supervisors provided background information on the site, such as historical context, culture, and civilisation development leading up to the volcanic eruption in 79 CE. Additionally, safety measures were discussed, including the handling of shovels, pickaxes, and various archaeological tools. Other safety measures, such as wearing proper summer-weather clothing and maintaining frequent hydration, were emphasised to prioritise student safety. During orientation, they and many other students became acquainted with one another and then divided into separate groups to establish a structured group rotation every half hour to prevent over-exhaustion on the site.

Following the group orientation, the first day of the dig began. In a trench, one author assisted in the excavation of the top layer, which consisted of a thin mortar surface dating to the late 1st century CE and preserved across the open court surrounding the temple. Then the layer was dusted to prepare it for photomodeling and topographic survey with a Total Station.4 Upon observation, the surface appeared cut by a series of cavities, so the first step was to loosen the soil with a trowel and transport the matrix inside the cavities into buckets to be sieved. Once the pits were excavated to a depth at which a solid layer was reached, students measured the depths of the cuts and recorded that information into stratigraphic unit (SU) sheets, which associate unique identifiers to each excavated feature.5 Afterwards, the field workers cleaned the debris from the Flavian-era layer with a dustpan and trowel, all while recording measurements, findings, and soil types into journals to analyse and reference.

The following day, they helped remove the Flavian layer with a pickaxe to reveal the second layer, which was dated to the Julio–Claudian period. The second layer had an earthquake crack which one author and other students excavated to deduce what occurred at the site. Using trowels, they dug into the earthquake fissure to examine its depth, which was measured and recorded. Understanding the gravity of the earthquake added context to the material types that all were finding.

Throughout the excavation of the first and second layers, one author and other students drafted the season’s first SU sheets. Guidelines were developed during the first week of VPP by leaders to teach students how to properly write SU descriptions. Throughout the form, students had to specify the matrix and type of unit, for example, whether it was a cut or fill. Other details such as the position of the cut and fill, as well as identifying the sectors and limits of the trench, were essential to include. Additionally, students had to distinguish the colour, composition, and compaction of the matrix, including its formation process, such as accumulation, erosion, cutting, etc. Other important details were the distribution of any finds, depth, and extent. The form concluded with the dates of SU observation and the description and use of tools throughout its excavation. Students also measured artefacts and entered their basic descriptions. Overall, the SU guideline sheet was paramount for many students throughout VPP. Even though they were one of the few student archivists on site, one author found that drafting SU sheets provided them with a deeper understanding of what they were entering into the database, which is kept current by a data archivist.

3.5. Archiving: Emphasis on Context

To emphasise the contextual nature of data archiving during an excavation, we briefly highlight one memorable lesson that has persisted beyond the season for one author: the time spent in the pottery lab. Being able to assemble, identify, and organise the various types of pottery was an intriguing process that provided insight into the lives of Pompeii civilians shortly before the eruption. Their time in the lab taught them the differences between pottery types, whether one was utilised for cookware or sacrificial/religious purposes. Additionally, the team organised the pottery based on its use and material type, placing them into labelled bags and into containers for storage and future assembly.

The SU forms completed at the trenches were initially submitted to trench supervisors for review and then submitted to the Data Archiving team, where two authors entered their data into the Database. That process was new to those who had never worked with SU Sheets before, and students made sure to ask questions and clarification on soil types and findings. Throughout the archiving process, leaders emphasised the importance of legacy data (see Sesartić et al. 2016, for an implementation of “minimalist archiving” in their project begun in 1949). Providing examples and demonstrating how the retrieval of previously entered/archived SU forms was paramount in answering questions for archaeologists. Additionally, the archivists participated in a recording for social media about the role of an archivist on a dig, what data they collect, how the data are used, and how provenance is recorded during topography.

The weekends were scheduled as leisure days for students, and there were some guided weekend excursions by the VPP leaders to explore the city of Pompeii or visit a museum. From those lectures, students learned about the religious backgrounds of the city and its history of urbanisation that signified various centuries of Roman occupation. Additionally, students learned about the city’s construction and the types of materials used for the structures that still stand today. One particular highlight was a lecture with Dr Ilaria Battiloro as she guided students throughout the Naples National Archaeological Museum.

Another favourite activity was exploring the city of Pompeii itself, as permitted upon completion of the dig for the day. Numerous villas are in a magnificent state of preservation. Moreover, these villas provided significant insight into the lives of Pompeii citizens and the city’s advanced level of development for its time. The historical narrative of the Pompeian villas supplemented one’s archival knowledge, and over the weeks, the museum tours and Pompeii explorations provided greater knowledge of the various artefacts encountered throughout the project.

Another defining lesson learned from VPP is the preservation of ceramics. Site supervisors explained the commonality of pottery findings within the various layers of the trench, demonstrating how well clay can preserve itself. Additional lessons learned were related to context, as VPP instructors taught students that context is defined as the situation or circumstance in which an object or group of objects is found. More importantly, when an object loses its geographical or monumental context, it can oftentimes be recontextualised. The realisation is that provenance can be lost.

Understanding the context of the dig site at VPP was instrumental for students as they ascertained how, over many decades, it had converted from a settlement to a sacred site, and then a production area. For instance, the various small animal bones listed within our SU sheets indicated the sacrificial/religious context of the site. Knowing such context allows students, importantly, to determine the type of artefacts they would discover in the respective stratigraphic trench layers. Finally, participating in VPP was beneficial: one finished the project with more archival knowledge than before. Furthermore, it helped acknowledge that the most challenging lessons are worthwhile, since one emerged from the experience more confident in their abilities and skills as a future archivist.

4. Discussion: Integrative Data Archiving to Support Multidisciplinary Scholarship

Provenance information was presented in the above Section 3.4 as a “detailed history” that (as drawn from archival science) is broader and encompassing of the more specific findspot-data of provenience. Thus, the presence of provenience data as one component of a comprehensive provenance narrative makes for a more complete chronicle of the known history of the item at hand. The provenance concept remains broad enough to include many other components as well: the who, when, and where of its creation or production, its record of ownership, and even perhaps its “publication, exhibition and restoration” history (Neal 2014, p. 19), too. The presence of more of these components serves to maximise data quality and data literacy for both their writers and readers—subsequent researchers and data reusers. Provenance principles from archival science (Schellenberg 1964; Peterson 1984; Tognoli and Guimarães 2019) were applied during the day-to-day tasklists of a student data archivist at the Venus Pompeiana Project.

Provenience at VPP is specifically accommodated in the stratigraphic unit (SU) records through the fields: Elevations (Min and Max), Elevation Drawings, Plans, Sections, and Photos, as well as Orientation for SU Masonry records. Each of those datapoints are thoroughly recorded by the VPP topography team, who use a Total Station, digital camera, notebooks, and photogrammetry software to generate visual representations of an SU in context and in its excavation process. That helps communicate the narrative story of the site and our archaeological work (VPP 2021). In addition to SU information, the archival database also holds Finds information, specifically provenience (geolocation data) and SU context. Alongside those fields, each artefact record has a field for the provenance of the artefact description, detailing who, what, and when it was written. Both the SU and Finds database portions encourage us to incorporate legacy data from several time periods during which the site has been excavated, including the recent 2017–2022 seasons, the 2004–2007 excavations, and prior.

Our pursuit of clearer provenance information for the finds excavated prior to the Venus Pompeiana Project generated useful and novel findings. Photography of the prior finds allowed the team to reanalyse one in particular, possibly a gilded bronze rudder. Such a gubernaculum (rudder) is depicted on at least two frescoes of Pompeii. Continued analysis of such finds, aided by photography, database technology, and archival research, will significantly enhance and lengthen the narrative story about the Sanctuary of Venus.

5. Future Work and Conclusions

Given the site’s continuous history of excavation, future work aims to incorporate forms (with the same data fields) and photos for any stratigraphic unit excavated during the 2004–2007 field seasons into the VPP publication in progress by entering them into our database. The database itself will then ultimately be archived with Open Context as part of our general plan. The permanent structure embedded in Open Context, along with all of its deposited and published data, aligns with the FAIR + CARE principles (Nicholson et al. 2023; Kansa and Kansa 2023). Alongside the meeting of scholarly research needs with Open Context, general audiences can engage with the VPP site through an artefact-embedded virtual tour, hosted and ongoing with Mused (VPP 2021). Since the start of the project, versions of the VPP archive have also been delivered to the Pompeii Archaeological Park. With the archive’s expanded availability, researchers and interested parties will have a comprehensive picture of the discoveries at the site over several decades.

Data archivists aim to see the whole picture and provide such a birds-eye view to team members during and after the excavation. Whether transposing digital photograph filenames from one notebook to another, selecting controlled vocabulary terms to describe colour or composition, or connecting new team members to historical information about a geographic area, archivists move across data formats in pursuit of precise research questions being asked by excavation participants. Consistently, they value a high level of data quality across the phases of activity and must find and integrate information from diverse sources in order to create new understandings. Continued onsite integration of data archiving team members will enhance the quality, accuracy, and long-term reuse potential of the data gathered during excavation field seasons.