Hello fellow Histarchers -

This query is for those who curate or otherwise manage archaeological collections that include associated documentation, and in particular, for those who have cataloged or otherwise developed formal metadata for associated documentation. We are beginning to digitize our hard copy documents and create catalog records to facilitate access to them. Various sources suggest treating associated documentation as archival collections, which would mean (1) not reorganizing the documents in any fashion unless you are a trained archivist (and none of us are) and (2) developing a metadata structure that employs a fairly extensive hierarchy (series--subseries--sub-subseries--file unit etc) for organizing the documents.

I am curious to hear if this archival approach to organization is taken by others who curate associated documentation, or whether the real life situation varies. In my experience, associated documents (especially from older projects) are often not in any particularly sensible order and could benefit greatly from gentle reorganization. And, in my assumption, an extensive hierarchy for describing project documents might be overkill.

I welcome any advice or experiences people are willing to share. Please feel free to contact me off-list at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>.

Thanks in advance -

aloha
~Liz


Liz N. Clevenger, MA, RPA
Curator of Archaeology
(415) 561-5086
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



Presidio Archaeology Lab  |  www.presidio.gov/history/archaeology<http://www.presidio.gov/history/archaeology>  |  (415) 561-ARCH  info  |  (415) 561-5089 fax
The Presidio Trust  |  P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.