将来使用还是完全没有将来?新南威尔士州发掘后的历史考古库的检查

IF 1.1 3区 历史学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Australian Archaeology Pub Date : 2022-03-13 DOI:10.1080/03122417.2022.2046685
Caitlin D’Gluyas, M. Gibbs
{"title":"将来使用还是完全没有将来?新南威尔士州发掘后的历史考古库的检查","authors":"Caitlin D’Gluyas, M. Gibbs","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2022.2046685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In NSW the availability of excavation records, physical remains (primarily artefacts), technical datasets, and reports associated with a historical archaeological project can only be described as varied. These forms of data can be collectively termed an archaeological archive. The storage of archives commonly includes any combination of small-scale centralised repositories, on-site facilities, private (client or investigator) off-site storage, or digital platforms. Archaeologists recognise the value of sustainably archiving these resources, as well as making them available for research, public access, or other intentions, however, what is the status of our combined approaches? Data collected from 40 historical archaeological sites in NSW has been used here to benchmark the current situation in the state. It was found that only three of the investigated sites had a complete and accessible archaeological archive with suitable metadata available before reaching the storage facility. This research outlines the precarious status of our efforts in archiving for perpetuity and the reliance on informal and personal networks within the archaeological community to discover and access archives. It is argued here that a framework of visibility, accessibility, and longevity should be applied to any project to consider the strength of archaeological archive retention methods. While the focus remains on understanding the key issues, several recommendations are also made for improving the consistency and long-term success of accessing historical archaeological repositories and data management systems. Key suggested approaches are to promote significance in the decision to create archaeological archives in the first place, prioritise resolving visibility constraints and focus on small and achievable system improvements.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Future use or no future at all? An examination of post-excavation historical archaeological repositories in NSW\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin D’Gluyas, M. Gibbs\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03122417.2022.2046685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In NSW the availability of excavation records, physical remains (primarily artefacts), technical datasets, and reports associated with a historical archaeological project can only be described as varied. These forms of data can be collectively termed an archaeological archive. The storage of archives commonly includes any combination of small-scale centralised repositories, on-site facilities, private (client or investigator) off-site storage, or digital platforms. Archaeologists recognise the value of sustainably archiving these resources, as well as making them available for research, public access, or other intentions, however, what is the status of our combined approaches? Data collected from 40 historical archaeological sites in NSW has been used here to benchmark the current situation in the state. It was found that only three of the investigated sites had a complete and accessible archaeological archive with suitable metadata available before reaching the storage facility. This research outlines the precarious status of our efforts in archiving for perpetuity and the reliance on informal and personal networks within the archaeological community to discover and access archives. It is argued here that a framework of visibility, accessibility, and longevity should be applied to any project to consider the strength of archaeological archive retention methods. While the focus remains on understanding the key issues, several recommendations are also made for improving the consistency and long-term success of accessing historical archaeological repositories and data management systems. Key suggested approaches are to promote significance in the decision to create archaeological archives in the first place, prioritise resolving visibility constraints and focus on small and achievable system improvements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2022.2046685\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2022.2046685","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在新南威尔士州,与历史考古项目相关的挖掘记录、实物遗迹(主要是文物)、技术数据集和报告的可用性只能被描述为多种多样。这些形式的数据可以统称为考古档案。档案的存储通常包括小型集中存储库、现场设施、私人(客户或调查员)场外存储或数字平台的任何组合。考古学家认识到可持续地归档这些资源的价值,并将其用于研究、公众访问或其他目的,然而,我们的综合方法的现状如何?从新南威尔士州40个历史考古遗址收集的数据已被用于衡量该州的现状。调查发现,在到达储存设施之前,只有三个被调查的遗址拥有完整且可访问的考古档案,并提供了适当的元数据。这项研究概述了我们在永久存档方面的不稳定状态,以及对考古界发现和访问档案的非正式和个人网络的依赖。本文认为,应将可见性、可访问性和寿命的框架应用于任何项目,以考虑考古档案保存方法的优势。虽然重点仍然是了解关键问题,但也提出了一些建议,以提高访问历史考古存储库和数据管理系统的一致性和长期成功性。建议的主要方法是首先提高创建考古档案的决定的重要性,优先解决可见性限制,并专注于小型和可实现的系统改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Future use or no future at all? An examination of post-excavation historical archaeological repositories in NSW
Abstract In NSW the availability of excavation records, physical remains (primarily artefacts), technical datasets, and reports associated with a historical archaeological project can only be described as varied. These forms of data can be collectively termed an archaeological archive. The storage of archives commonly includes any combination of small-scale centralised repositories, on-site facilities, private (client or investigator) off-site storage, or digital platforms. Archaeologists recognise the value of sustainably archiving these resources, as well as making them available for research, public access, or other intentions, however, what is the status of our combined approaches? Data collected from 40 historical archaeological sites in NSW has been used here to benchmark the current situation in the state. It was found that only three of the investigated sites had a complete and accessible archaeological archive with suitable metadata available before reaching the storage facility. This research outlines the precarious status of our efforts in archiving for perpetuity and the reliance on informal and personal networks within the archaeological community to discover and access archives. It is argued here that a framework of visibility, accessibility, and longevity should be applied to any project to consider the strength of archaeological archive retention methods. While the focus remains on understanding the key issues, several recommendations are also made for improving the consistency and long-term success of accessing historical archaeological repositories and data management systems. Key suggested approaches are to promote significance in the decision to create archaeological archives in the first place, prioritise resolving visibility constraints and focus on small and achievable system improvements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Solder scavenging from hole-and-cap food cans in the Western Australian goldfields: Identifying site modification processes Garden Range 2: Taungurung rock art rockshelter site reveals 11,000 years of Aboriginal occupation of the Strathbogie Ranges, Central Victoria ‘Reclaiming their stories’: A study of the spiritual content of historical cultural objects through an Indigenous creative inquiry Jack: Professor Jack Golson, AO, 1926–2023 Scratching the surface: Subtractive rock markings from the Cockburn Ranges, eastern Kimberley, Western Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1