Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:02:51 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
HISTARCHers,
Thanks to everyone who has responded on and off list about my earlier post concerning the challenges of creating access to archaeological information. Although I haven't had a chance to digest everything in detail, I was able to at least get the gist of the comments.
I was particularly struck by those comments regarding the virtual inaccessibility of gray literature ("fugitive literature"), and also by those noting that, even when gray literature and other forms of data are relatively accessible, as through many SHPO offices, not all archaeologists will make use of the material, even if they are aware of its existence.
Some colleagues suggested regional meetings as an appropriate venue for discussing recent findings and their meaning for broader syntheses and interpretations.
A few pointed to the job the UK's Archaeological Data Service is doing, at least in terms of dissemination of data.
Still others wonder if the problem is best addressed by confronting even more fundamental issues, from how at every level we 'create' data (in the field as well as in the lab) to how long an archaeologist has sole 'rights' to a specific set of data.
Time and money (resources) are of course an issue.
Thank you again and if you have time for one more request: do you have any ideas or examples of good, usable, synthetic or comparative projects that draw on gray literature, whether they be locally or regionally based? Are there models out there worth touting?
Julie King
|
|
|