Are you photographing artifacts, documents, or both?  You may want higher resolution camera if you need it for documents.  Most digital cameras connect via USB or you can eject their memory card and download photos from there with a card reader.  Just get a camera that will do close in shots, has a built in flash, and rechargeable battery.

Depending on how budget conscious you need to be I would recommend just finding a cheap point and shoot camera from a reputable company.  You should be able to find a good one between $100 and $125.  You can go cheaper and that might still work fine.  You might also check some electronic clearance websites, or try to find out what the last model series of cameras were and price those.  You can pick up new cameras that aren't made anymore for a lot cheaper if they are trying to get rid of them.  I would also get a tripod, maybe a small one that will sit on a table, or if your department has an old copy stand that they don't use much, try and snag that.

While a webcam will take still shots and they are cheap, you will have to rely entirely on external lighting and in general, still shots from web cams are crappy, especially for a publication.  Just shop around and I bet you can find a good deal on a decent camera, they are getting so cheap these days.

Thanks prisoner,  I do have an older 10.2 mp camera with macro modes that i forgot about.  I do need a tripod for it. 

What size are the artifacts?  You many want to consider a scanner.  I scanned bones for my thesis and they came out great.

interesting, I am unsure of the size at the moment as I have not yet been able to make it down to the labs.  I do have the catalog and some of the artifacts are discoidals, scrapers and points, copper, and some bone.  Some will most likely be fairly big.

Did you have any problems with the light causing sheens or anything?

No problems with sheen/reflective surfaces on the bones.  I used a black piece of felt to make them stand-out vs. just a white background.  I was also able to place a scale on the scanner surface, which was very useful for measuring cutmarks, etc.

I'm sure you could do this with most of your lithics also.

Depending, of course, on exactly what you intend doing, I would recommend a couple of things:

1) Use a camera with a view finder, rather than a screen. It allows you to get a better view of what your picture will look like. I have an older Kodak 710, with an excellent zoom, that takes great artifact pix. If you can find a seller, they should be pretty cheap.

2) Get a program that lets you tweak your pix. I use Picasa, which is a free download, but there are lots of others. This allows me to enlarge beyond the capabilities of my zoom and use the tuning features to bring out the details, whether it's a lithic tool, or rock art, that otherwise are difficult to see.

The result is that unless I managed to jiggle the camera and go out of focus, I never take bad pix.

Look into camera rentals in your area, a professional Canon 2D for a weekend is fairly cheap. It does fantastic stills and full 1080p video. Please don't forget to light your subjects!

I am presently working on a project for the BLM regarding the field documentation of artifacts and features without removing anything from the field.

 I am presently using of all things my iPhone 4 along with the Theodolite application.  Theodolite will do your geotagging directly on the front of your photos if you want it to appear on the photo without secondary processing.  Not only do you have the location in either UTM or LAT/LON you also have the time and direction that the picture was taken.

Thats pretty cool Robert Hafey.  I got access to the universities photography facilities that I am visiting luckily, mine are in a laboratory setting.  

Does the iPhone have decent resolution for publication or is what your working on more of a documenting exercise?  Also, how accurate is Theodolite? I am assuming if you were finding anything particularly important you would go back and use a more accurate device but this gives you a good sense of small, disperse distributions?