CAN STANDARDS BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN FIELD AND STORAGE PRACTICE?

Transcription

1

2 CAN STANDARDS BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN FIELD AND STORAGE PRACTICE? The premise of archaeological storage The archaeological cycle in Flanders in the last 50 years Y2K, the slow shift to a new paradigm Theory vs practise, paradigm vs field 2013: Can new tools bridge the gap? Outlook

3 PREMISE In cases where in-situ preservation is impossible, ex-situ preservation is the rule and has its consequences since excavation is destructive by nature Repeatable character Historical Criticism Even more important: public exposure, return to funding bodies and individuals Implications for archaeological cycle (cf. ARCHES) Need for permanent storage facilities Need for high quality processes, procedures, data, Need for clear deposition processes (bottleneck) Archeological depot of Portiva, located in a non desecrated chapel, Mulkkapel Tienen. A Corinthian capital used as an altar in the church of Gijzenzele.

4 HISTORY: 1 Culture-historical archaeology, s Finds were central (ex. amateurs) For systematic field research, universities or government research bodies (NDO) held the monopoly and supposedly had a clear scientific question Exception: short lived BTK project, urban archaeologists Finds Ownership of finds is no central question Rather the focus is on the intellectual property of the researcher, which could block access to peers and the public for years ( awaiting final publication ) Thematic curatorship (ex. all flint finds) Storage situation Museum storages reserves & personal collections Storage facilities do not exist Lithic collection, collected in the field by J. Viérin and rearranged by Casseyas in the 1990s, collection of The Broelmuseum, Kortrijk

5 HISTORY: 2 Roaring nineties: the onset of preventive archaeology 1991: IAP 1993: Flemish archaeology decree ( based on Valletta, 92) First mentioned archive as an integral set and the need for a fixed future deposition Deontologische Code: open data and access after 10 years Mere theory? Rise of project-archaeology (short cycles) Finds No clear change Storage situation No clear change Growing introspect in musea: storage problems Organic growth of storage facilities Local storage conditions at Wervik (Sint-Maartensplein)

6 ELEMENTS OF A NEW PARADIGM? 1. Centraal Archeologische Inventaris = CAI 2000, IAP GIS-base database of archaeological findspots Restricted open access to metadata Deontological Code as an access criterium: code slowly implemented in the archaeological process! Metadata compiled by IAP/VIOE, not by the excavator Selective publication of metadata Increased exchange of data CAI, anno 2013

7 ELEMENTS OF A NEW PARADIGM? 2. Introspective archaeological collections in museums Problems of museum storages detected Evaluation-project commissioned by the Flemish Community 1999, P. Monsieur, honest and up to date evaluation, today still vivid picture of several museum storages General conclusions: Fragmentation on all levels High material variety in collections, decaying collections Important backlog in registration and preservation Insufficient awareness Insufficient means and priority Monsieur, 1999

8 MUSEUMS ACTED UPON THIS EVALUATION Start of the denkgroep archeologische collecties 1999, working group recent results: aanvaardingsvoorwaarden, selectiematrix, 2001, the little orange book Registration as a first and necessary step for high quality curating of collections, a basis for sharing collection information and allowing for collection mobility Core standard for archaeological registration in a museum setting Museum standards-proof (CIDOC, SPECTRUM, ) Three levels of description Minimale Aanvullende Uitgebreide Driesen & Wesemael, 2001

9 A WIDER OPENING UP OF MUSEUMDATA Has found its way to collection management systems in Flanders Procedures: MovE Invulboek Museum Registration software: Adlib software (MovE) & TMS & Erfgoedplus.be & local systems... Effect: diminished backlog, improved reception procedures, collection mobility, improved exchange and cooperation, Especially in the museum and storage world. Still some problems: ex. Thesauri MovE invulboek

10 IN THE MINDS, NOT IN THE FIELD A long-term trend and indeed a new paradigm? Opening data, increasing data exchange Opening standards But only limited impact in archaeological field research where data collection is based on contexts, spatial relations, typology and the archaeological process and cycle (vlak, sleuf, put, coupe, ) In contrast: CAI: Data collection is specifically based on findspots Oranje Boekje: data collection base on individual objects and acts as a management standard for storages

11 A NEW REALITY, A HIGHER TENSION Preventive archaeology in full force Large number of archaeological actors and management systems Automated, well organised field procedures Short archaeological cycles High demands for storage possibilities and procedures Attemps are made to further standardise the field: Minimumnormen, Basisrapportage, Storages are increasingly integrated in policies National (Flanders), 2013 decree, cultural heritage ( ) Regional-Provincial: new storage facilities, guidance, Local: IADs, local museums, Field tot storage remains a bottle neck

12 BRIDGING THE GAP The gap is only in the mind? Minds are open Registration is largely standardised or can be standardised Receptive storage facilities (Ename, Tienen, Tongeren, and several plans) Though at times, the question is evaded and we await the ideal database With adequate links and tools, the gap can be bridged! minimumnormen aanvaardingsvoorwaarden data-standards (COMETA)

13 COMETA Cometa (= Collectiemetadata) Initiative: Vlaamse Erfgoedbibliotheek, PACKED vzw & FARO ( COMETA promotes the description of collections as a first step in collection registration, management, exchange and dissemination. COMETA is no a standard, it is no software, but rather a model a guideline in mapping collections used for all sorts of collections (archives, documents, objects, libraries, ) based on standards (RSLP, ISAD-G, Dublin Core), allows to map relations between collections (and objects) Implemented in erfgoedinzicht.be platform (MovE s newest generation)

14 ONE CAMPAIGN, ONE COLLECTION Allows to save group metadata on a group level Field campaign Who How: method? When Description of important results, finds, structures, conclusions dating Site location Owner? Address, parcel reference, X/Y-coordinates, description, Relations Storage location of paper or digital archives? Reports or publications? Related campaigns (same findspot), related sites other external codes (CAI, OE, internal numbers, ) Collection meta data and history (transferals, )

15 EXAMPLE Example of a historic collection Harelbeke, De Molhoek 1989 Workflow Start by COMETA and record all collection data (field campaign data on COMETA level Choose your level of registration for objects (box, item, context), minimaal, aanvullend, uitgebreid Link all the object data to COMETA

16

17 objectrecord

18 objectrecord collectierecord

19

20 EXAMPLE Recent collection Workflow Fill in COMETA profile, cf. administrative fiche and summary of the results in excavation report Import object data from field system to object management system according to (aanvullende) standard for registration of the storage facility Link all the object data to COMETA Part of the administrative fiche, Dendermonde-Kleinzand 2010/163, GATE Part of the datasheet of the archaeological finds, Lokeren-Markt 2010/332, All-Archeo

21 OUTLOOK Collection register for each storage facility / depot Collection mobility Accessible profile for each depot Aanvaardingsvoorwaarden Clear and uniform deposition workflow Standardised registration

22 DISCUSSION No, there is no unique and ideal database to rule them all. But we re getting close. dbs can talk to one another! Object-ID Field Minimumnormen Depot Aanvaardingsvoorwaarden Archive aanvullende standaard Publications Collection- ID Findspot- ID COMETA Other collections CAI Etc.

23