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.

Keywords:

• Archaeological archives
• data sustainability
• artefacts
• NSW
• historical archaeology
• repositories
• research potential

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the report authors and repository administrators of the 40 sites who responded to our enquiries and for their time in facilitating access, with particular thanks to Wayne Johnson and Denis Gojak for their detailed responses. The authors would also like to sincerely thank and acknowledge the valuable feedback provided by reviewers. Thanks also to Nicholas Pitt, Sophie Jennings, and Jane McMahon for their contributions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.