XSTAR uses JAVA-based software and an XML-based data organization plan (neither complete at the time of this writing) for recording, storing, and retrieving archaeological data. Its developers aim to introduce a common archaeological recording system for excavators in order to foster easier access to data. To do so, however, XSTAR has chosen XML, not just common terms and organizational rubrics, as a necessary component. Leaving aside for the moment the possibility of a common recording system, what requires XML if a common recording system is to be used in archaeology? In fact, nothing. If a common recording system can be used, it can be implemented with XML, database management systems, spreadsheets, word processors, or virtually any other underlying computer technology. Indeed, common terms could be used on paper files and card catalogs. As it happens, only one of the computing technologies is both well-suited to the task and widely available in forms that have been thoroughly tested, are robust, and can be obtained from various vendors at reasonable prices -- database management systems.

Some proponents of XML may not appreciate fully the nature of archaeological data and therefore underestimate the problems of organizing archaeological data at the outset, making XML seem more useful than it is. Archaeology is unique in that, even after years of experience in the field, an excavator cannot prepare an a priori system for data recording and be sure that it will escape adjustments in the field. Archaeologists are uniquely at the mercy of what has been left to be found, and archaeologists are uniquely unable to repeat their experiments; so they must make the best of the data they obtain, even when the data are clearly problematic. Doubtless the practitioners of every discipline conceive their own discipline to be unique, but the problems of data organization in archaeology have long been recognized. In a 1994 article in the CSA Newsletter a relevant example of a database system was cited: it had been prepared in advance for use by 26 different scholars who were to work simultaneously in Britain. The scholars were given the same database structure, the same software, and training in the use of the software and data structure. Nevertheless, the resulting databases were different, even to the point that fundamental concepts were differently treated. ("CSA Database Project," VII, 3 [November, 1994] -- accessed 16 March 2005.)

Taking an optimistic stance for the moment and assuming that a common data structure for archaeology can be developed, what are the requirements for such a common structure? First and most obvious, the structure must be developed by the archaeological community in a way designed to make certain that the result is applicable in diverse settings, has broad support, and can be used by a very wide range of scholars. Second, it has to be used and tested in ways that make it possible for anyone considering its use to see exactly how it works in a given context, presumably a similar one. Third, implementing the data structure should be possible with available, robust, reasonably priced tools and minimal training.

Having argued that XML is not a necessary part of a common data organization, I must return to the more basic question. Is a common data organization possible? For an excavation, I believe not. However, it seems to me that it should be possible to develop common data schemes for artifacts of various types, making sure that all data tables for those artifact types use the same terms in the same ways. Similarly, it may be possible to construct a common set of terms for contexts. Other possibilities may also await, but all of these common schemes require the development procedures mentioned above: development by the community, use and testing in open and accessible examples, and the production of good, useful, illustrative examples. Indeed, various initiatives exist at the international level, for instance ICOMOS and FISH (Forum for Information Standards in Heritage), and the Guides to Good Practice of the Arts and Humanities Data Service in England (to which this author has contributed) have been aimed at establishing standards, albeit at a more general level. There are also standards for artifact descriptions that have specific artifact types as their subjects.

Were the archaeological community to attempt to create standards for artifact descriptions or to encourage/enforce the use of existing standards, various archaeological organizations from many countries would need to be involved, as would archival organizations. In addition, the process would require a kind of public-relations campaign to persuade scholars, especially those who are excavating or operating surveys in the field, of the value of common terms and data structures. Finally, I think timing is critical; a long, slow, contemplative process of standards development, despite its intellectual satisfaction, will rob the work of its most important potential advocates, the scholars who must put standards into practice in their projects. Those are the people who have the ability to make the standards useful -- or irrelevant, and they will not be patient with a long, drawn-out process. If they are to participate in the development of such common terms, I believe they will expect useful results without delay. The alternatives are simply not reasonable: stopping projects to wait for the development of terms or constantly re-working data to reflect new terminological standards.

Despite the foregoing and the existing attempts at standards-making already in process, I am not an optimist about the likelihood of developing standard terms. The example cited above, where careful preparation of British scholars came to naught, suggests one problem: getting people to use a system designed by others is possible, but getting them to use it correctly is much more difficult. In addition, I think scholars who perform excavation or survey work in the field -- particularly those who are academics and teach when not in the field -- will not willingly spend their very limited time on the tasks of data standardization. Few of them see a need for such data standards since they are focused on their own data, not the need to use the data from other projects. If those scholars do not participate in the standards development process, other archaeologists who are willing to devote their time to the task, with the aid of the archival community, will be left to do the job. Then I would expect the archaeologists who work in the field to honor the standards by ignoring them. I hope I am wrong. I see no carrots that will bring the use of standards, but there are some large sticks that may work. Archival organizations, funding agencies, and governments hold those sticks; if they use them wisely (and, at least in the case of governments, how likely is that?), useful standards may eventually be developed and put to use.

In the meantime, scholars have the database management tools they have long used or new XML tools for data storage. As the state of the art now stands, I see no advantage whatsoever for XML but many advantages for good database management systems. I can also find numerous vendors of database management systems and very few vendors of XML database systems. XML's time may come for archaeology, but we have a while to wait. Not only would using XML now require spending relatively large sums for software, training, and development -- sums that almost certainly must reduce project budgets for other work, but this seems a good example of the leading edge in technology being, as it is often called, the bleeding edge.