Introduction
Acts of naming, structuring, synthesising, describing, registering and storing â in short, acts of archaeological documentation and archiving â are significantly formative for the outcomes of archaeology. A central idea in archaeological documentation, as well as in the curation of archaeological archives and collections, is that documentation is not merely for research in the present, but because of the destructive nature of most archaeological investigations, for all researchers to come. This perspective on documentation, the prospect of perpetuation â perhaps taken for granted by most archaeologists â provides a particular framing (or epistemology) for doing and caring for documentation that is not necessarily as self-evident or simple as it might seem. The idea that documentation is to be kept, made to last and used again, penetrates the documentation process from its initial steps throughout the continuum of record keeping and archiving practices. Yet, the idea of perpetuation is subject to negotiations over time. The answers to the questions: what should be documented and at which level of granularity (e.g. objects, contexts, sites), what should be kept (e.g. data, analysis, narrative), why, and for which users and (re)uses (e.g. for researchers, for antiquarian authorities, for a general public), continuously changes as new theories, methods and technologies allow for alternative imaginations of documentation use to take shape. The prospect of perpetuation is thus not one, but that of many, of different configurations of longevities.
Looking back, the ideas from classical antiquarianism to the present-day information management and curation of collections have influenced what has been considered interesting and informative to document, and valuable and relevant for the purposes of knowledge-making. And vice versa, the choices made by practitioners responsible for documenting and archiving, and the things documented and archived, have had an impact on what has been and is possible to study, and consequently, where the interests of the users of the documentation have led (Lucas, 2012; Schnapp et al., 2013; Trigger, 2009). A striking example of how important the idea of keeping and reusing documents is in archaeology, is the trope (and realities) of the ongoing heritage sector âcuration crisisâ (Dallas, 2015; Sullivan & Childs, 2003). The curation crisis (exceeding archaeology and the challenges of keeping documentation, involving the curation of all heritage collections), would not be there were there not certain ambitions about how to keep and reuse documented heritage. These expectations are formed on the basis of both what actually can be done, but also on what can be imagined to be done with documentation, and which future uses it is possible to imagine. A matter-of-fact remark, made by Sullivan and Childsâ in a 2003 (long over a decade ago!) discussion about archaeology repositoriesâ entry into the âcomputer ageâ provides an illustrative example of how fast we remodel our expectations on documentation:
[R]epository staff could not have known that the Internet would permit remote access to collections.
(Sullivan & Childs, 2003, p. 104)
Although computers already had been used for decades in archaeological document creation and management, the evolution of Internet use radically altered the imagination of what computer technology and digital documentation could be used for. This is but one example of how fast and fundamentally expectations on documentation change.
In this chapter, we (keeping the pace of changes in mind) delve into the state of archaeological documentation from the perspective of expectations on documentation. We provide an overview of the institutional infrastructure, and analyse policies and practices contributing to, and working for (different configurations of), longevities of archaeological documentation. The aim is to bring to the fore the expectations on documentation developing as digitisation disperses throughout archaeology. By doing so, we present a perspective on what is being done with documentation in the presence of the digital, without fore-fronting the digital (in contrast to taking the perspective of digital archiving, digital curation, or digital stewardship and so on, cf. Dallas, 2015).
Practices refers to acts of making and unmaking (Pickering, 1992) and directs our attention to what archaeologists and archivists do and do not do with digital archaeological data (comparable to earlier uses of archaeological practices for referring, for example, to methods for doing fieldwork). Thus, attention is directed towards the archaeologists producing and depositing materials and the archivists, rather than the perspective of the archival institution (cf. Dallas, 2015). The archaeologists and archivists act in a field of resources: bodily and material resources, as well as conceptual and social tools and technologies (Pickering, 1992; Talja & Nyce, 2015). Some of these are digital, that is, resources enabling creation, processing and use of digital information, or supporting use of digital resources, for example, policy or ideals directing and encouraging the use of certain digital resources in specific ways (Börjesson et al., 2015; cf. Braman, 2006; Hunt, 2005). Examples of the array of digital resources in archaeological practices are digital maps, e-mail, digital and digitised context sheets (for recording of finds features of sites).
As a consequence of the archaeologistsâ and archivistsâ perspective, the analysis highlights discrepancies (due to, for example, misunderstandings or disagreements) between the policy discourse, the archival institutionsâ discourses and the experiences of those delivering to, and working for, the archives. Analysing practices in this fashion is central for understanding how documentation becomes informative and valued as worthy (or not) to archive (cf. Frohmann, 2004), that is, for understanding what ends up in archives. In the context of research and education, descriptions of research genres (such as those generated through the analysis of documentation and archival practices) is crucial to document usersâ research literacies (Feinberg, 2015; Muckle, 2008), that is, for them to be able to access and assess the content of particular documents today and in the future. Additionally, teaching documentation is arguably improved by empirically based descriptions of documentation and archiving practices, in addition to so called âbest-practiceâ cases depicting ideal orders (e.g. ADS/Digital Antiquity Guides to Good Practice or in Sweden, the guidelines published by the National Heritage Board). From a policy perspective, insight into the discrepancies between policy and practices are crucial for policy development. Managers of archaeological documentation on national and regional (at national and regional heritage administration) and organisational levels (at archaeology departments and in contract archaeology organisations) are served by knowledge about archiving practices in their strivings to improve information infrastructures and the flow of information therein. Last, and importantly, analysis of practices is the starting point for innovations to improve documentation practices. In the discussion concluding this chapter, we place emphasis on how the analysis can inform development of policy for documentation and archiving, and development of documentation practices.
This chapter exemplifies the pertinent issues relating to the general question of archiving digital archaeological data by referring to a case study conducted under the auspices of the ARKDIS project in Sweden. Swedish archaeology, similarly to archaeology in many other countries, is undertaken both as part of academic research, teaching and in the form of contract archaeology prior to land-development. Contract archaeology organisations (government departments, public museums, foundations and commercial firms) do most investigations (RiksantikvarieÀmbetet, 2016; TillÀmpning av 2-4 kap. lagen [1988, 2008]).1 The contract archaeology is organised as a semi-regulated market. Institutions are allowed to compete on tenders. The market is, generally speaking, less regulated than in France and the Netherlands for example, but more regulated than in the UK and the US. National and regional authorities oversee and provide the infrastructure for archiving digital documentation.
The analysis in the chapter is based on policy analysis (made for the purpose of this chapter) and two interview studies. Policy documents is a central resource from a heritage management point of view as policy aims at directing documentation and archiving in archaeology. In this chapter, we analyse how policy documents frame archiving of digital archaeological data, as well as the use and non-use of digital resources in (a) archaeology practitionersâ delivery of digital documentation to archives and (b) in regimes of worth and the making of meanings in the work of archivists. The two interview studies are one about contract archaeologistsâ every-day document practices, including archiving (Börjesson, 2016), and one concerning the experiences and meaning-making of professionals working with the archiving of archaeology (Huvila, 2016a). The former empirical work covers six interviews with contract archaeologists working in commercial firms (ranging in size from only a few to around 20 employees). The latter includes 14 interviewees from stakeholders in archaeological archiving ranging from the national heritage administration to regional actors and small contractors with a handful of employees. The analysis draws on policy and practices in Sweden, but by using literature on archiving of digital documentation to discuss the results, we make suggestions for how the findings can inform policy development, as well as the development of documentation practices elsewhere.
On making digital archaeology documentation last
In the following we provide an overview of archival institutions and standards in archaeology and cultural heritage, and on major trends in digital archiving. In addition to the theoretical and practical developments within archaeology (as illustrated in the Introduction), archival policies are also shaped by ideologies and discourses external to the discipline. One of the most influential discourses during the past decade draws on ideas of openness and has been lobbied for, and longed for, both by actors in the research community (e.g. Peters & Roberts, 2012) and in society at large (cf. to the parallel open government discourse advocating citizen access to government data). Open access to research data and publications is framed as an ideal and mandated by institutions on transnational (e.g. European Union, European Commission, 2012) and national levels (e.g. the US National Science Foundation, National Science Foundation, 2015); the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (House of Commons, Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2012); and the Swedish Research Council (VetenskapsrÄdet, 2015). Traces of the openness movement and other extra-archaeological discourses and research policies blend in archaeological theorising (e.g. Kristiansen, 2014), organisation and institutionalisation of the discipline (e.g. the work of European Archaeologiae Consilium and European Association of Archaeologists, ARCHES-project), writing of guidebooks and best practices (e.g. ADS/Digital Antiquity Guides to Good Practice, or in Sweden, the guidelines published by the National Heritage Board) and in the everyday practices of how archaeology is conducted, documented and archived.
The development of policies and infrastructures for archiving digital archaeology documentation has been supported by a variety of organisations (such as archaeology professional associations, archival institution associations and heritage society associations), but largely driven by a relatively small number of pioneering actors. These forerunners, such as the national trusted disciplinary repositories, the UK Archaeology Data Service (ADS), the US Digital Antiquity (maintaining the Digital Archaeological Record, tDAR, repository) and OpenContext, have gained prominence both in their national contexts and in the international discussion. Even some of the general data repositories, perhaps most prominently the Dutch Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS), have been playing a central role in developing the practices of managing digital archaeological documentation. These forerunners are not mere repositories in a traditional sense, but have, with different methods, expanded the role by aggregating, promoting and distributing digital data and publications in the spirit of âopen archaeologyâ.
These general digital archives, disciplinary specific repositories and organisations tailored to more specific tasks (e.g. specifically archiving research data) have joined forces in a number of influential projects such as ARIADNE (integrating archaeological data infrastructures) and ARCHES (developing an open source data management platform for the heritage field). The major repository institutions and facilitating projects exercise their influence by developing technologies and services for the stewardship and curation of data, by evaluating the progress of their own work and by publishing literature on the experience of the institution from a systems perspective (e.g. Kansa & Kansa, 2013a, 2013b; Kintigh & Altschul, 2010; Moore & Richards, 2015). The motivation, as summarised by Kansa and Kansa is that âThe growth of new, data-intensive research methods will lead to increased pressure for open access and open dataâ (Kansa & Kansa, 2013a, p. 103). They argue that archaeologists need to take on a more professional attitude towards working with data, including familiarity with data curation and preservation requirements. Kansa and Kansa further suggest data publication, similar to the established processes of publishing scientific texts, as a solution to poor archiving of archaeology data (both to solve the problem of non-archiving and to counter archiving with insufficient metadata). By this suggestion, they argue, OpenContext (the organisation Kansa and Kansa represent) takes data stewardship one step further than archiving institutions like ADS and tDAR (Kansa & Kansa, 2013b). In sum, it is evident that while many of the larger (and nationally influential) institutions collaborate internationally, the situations to which each archive tailors its procedures â and the views on how to ameliorate archiving â differs significantly between the institutions.
Looking at this landscape from a policy perspective, archival policies work on two levels: nationally, to align the activities of government departments, disparate actors conducting research and industry, and internationally, to align different national policies and enable international use of data. On a local level, the policy landscape is convoluted further by the existence of more or less explicit policies on, for example, disciplinary, regional and institutional (e.g. university) contexts. On a more practical level, we see discussions of more practical issues related to archiving digital documentation, such as knowledge organisation systems (e.g. Tudhope et al., 2011), document formats (e.g. Evans & Moore, 2014) and emulation and migration between formats (e.g. Papageorgiou, 2015). Another, but substantially smaller, set of literature contains a wider discussion of archaeologistsâ actual documentation and archiving practices and how these practices might affect archaeological knowledge-making (Huggett, 2015). In a discussion of the relation between data and knowledge, Jeremy Huggett argues that âdata ⊠emerge only as a consequence of knowledge and information; in other words, data come into existence in the first place through human engagementâ (2015, p. 18).
