No abstract

No abstract

Archaeology as a field is experiencing a curation crisis—our professional paper trail is extensive, and we are not properly trained to adequately catalogue and curate these records. For decades, a handful of archaeologists have pushed for our discipline to confront this crisis—we need better methods for creating records and maintaining archives, as well as stronger training in how to effectively conduct archival research. This issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice echoes these earlier calls to action, adding new voices and perspectives. In addition to the theme of a curation crisis, our authors discuss access to archival records and the relationship between archives and power. The authors and guest editors of this issue hope the contributions presented here will inspire more sustained engagement with archival training, theory, and praxis.

ON THE PARALLELS BETWEEN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD AND ARCHIVAL RECORDSArchaeologists are not often trained in archival research techniques, but archaeological training can serve archaeologists quite well when they are conducting archival research thanks to the parallels between the archaeological and archival records. Archivists, like archaeologists, focus on the past. While archaeologists work to carefully undo the archaeological record, archivists compile the archival record. By nature, each record is a nonrenewable cultural resource that is vast, fragmentary, fragile, interpretive, and political (Danielson 2010;Eastwood and MacNeil 2017;Foucault 1972;Ketelaar 2002;Thomassen 2001;Williams 2006). The work of archivists, in the form of collections processing, bears striking resemblance to the work archaeologists do in the field and the lab. This work, however, has been greatly affected by the digital age (Averett et al.The building blocks of both disciplines are similar in concepts like context, provenience (or provenance), and stratigraphic sequenc-ABSTRACT Due to various factors, physical archives of archaeological significance are inconsistent in terms of level of organization and ability to access. In addition, while well-versed in archaeological theory and method, archaeologists are seldom trained in archival theory and method. These factors make it challenging for archaeologists to utilize archival records. Given some unique parallels between archival records and the archaeological record, the authors suggest that archaeological field training can, in fact, serve archaeologists quite well when conducting archival research. While this article focuses mainly on primary sources in physical archives, some discussion of digital archives is included here as well.Debido a diversos factores, los archivos físicos de importancia arqueológica son inconsistentes en cuanto de su nivel de organización y capacidad de acceso. Aunque tienen conocimientos en la teoría y el método arqueológicos, los arqueólogos no son entrenados típicamente en teoría y método de archivo. Dados algunos similitudes únicos entre los registros de archivo y el registro arqueológico, los autores sugieren que el entrenamiento arqueológico en el campo puede, de hecho, servir a los arqueólogos bien de realizar investigaciones archivísticas. Aunque este artículo se centra principalmente en fuentes primarias en archivos físicos, también se incluye una discusión de archivos digitales.

No abstract