Document and data continuity at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology
| Published date | 09 September 2019 |
| Pages | 1035-1055 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2018-0216 |
| Date | 09 September 2019 |
| Author | Robert D. Montoya,Katherine Morrison |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Document and data continuity
at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory
of Archaeology
Robert D. Montoya and Katherine Morrison
Department of Information and Library Science,
Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine how archaeological document collections are layered
entities and, thus, consist of documents that may be in discordance with one another. Implications of this
scenario for scientific study are discussed. Tensions arise between archaeological and Information and
Library Science practices. Curators become primary agents in reconstructing the appropriate representational
continuity of these documents.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper is an in-depth examination of documentation in the Glenn
Black Laboratory of Archaeology. It assesses how representations between documents are maintained as part
of the collection management process. A document archaeological analysis of the Angel Mounds Collection
shows how discordant data between documents is reconciled.
Findings –The study shows how documentary institutions are central to maintaining the chain of reference
necessary to maintain the veracity of scientific data. Documents are embedded within a professional network
of classification control that has implications for the conceptualization of documents. The study can help
scholars gain a more nuanced view of the role of documents in scientific knowledge creation.
Social implications –Curatorialinterventionplays a central role inmaintaining the veracityof scientific data.
In this way, the narrative shows how social and professional scientific discourses are impacted by curatorial
interventionand that this process is inextricable from how we understand “knowledge”broadly construed.
Originality/value –This study examines how documents are embedded within a broader collection context
and further studies should acknowledge this. It shows how documents within the domain of archaeology pose
specific issues of concern for document curators and scholars, especially in relation to the documentation of
spatial data, which is central to this work.
Keywords Archives, Documentation, Classification, Archaeology, Museums, Spatiality, Provenance,
Provenience
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology (2018b), located at Indiana University
Bloomington (IUB), is one of the premiere documentary repositories for archeological history
for the state of Indiana. The Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology (GBL) facilitates the
exploration and preservation of ancient cultures from within the Indiana region. In 1965,
through the Angel Mounds Agreement, the stewardship of Angel Mounds (AM) site and the
collections were transferred to Trustees of IU from the Indiana Historical Society. The GBL’s
current building was officially dedicated in 1971 with facilities that consist of a library and
archive, museum and research laboratory. One of the largest artifact collections in the
GBL’s care is the AM collection, artifacts excavated from a once-vibrant crossroads of
Mississippian culture outside the city of Evansville, Indiana (Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, 2018a). This paper addresses the AM documentation housed, collected and
created by the GBL and how these documents collectively constitute a chain of
documentation that reference AM archaeological fieldwork from ca. 1939 to the present day.
The “document chain”refers to the continuity of data related to the AM site.
At the peak of the site’shabitation, AM was an assemblage of waddle anddaub structures,
including a prominent temple and a large,open plaza, and was surrounded by the OhioRiver
to the south andstockaded on its remaining sides(Black, 1967b, p. 491). Mississippian cultures
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 75 No. 5, 2019
pp. 1035-1055
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-12-2018-0216
Received 30 December 2018
Revised 1 May 2019
Accepted 2 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
1035
Document and
data continuity
at the Glenn
were notablefor their use of pyramidal moundsindicative of the AM site, many of whichwere
excavatedin the early half of the twentieth century.These archeologicalexaminations created
an artifact “bonanza”beginning in the 1940s–1960s, many of which would later find homes in
museums and research laboratories (Smith, 2007, pp. xv–xvi). The AM archeological projectis
an ongoing excavation that began in the late 1930s. It was funded, in part, by the Works
Progress Administration (WPA) between 1938 and 1942. Emerging from this excav ation
activity were not only the artifacts themselves, but also a vast array of documentation that
detailed the practices and processes of the excavation by, most notably, Glenn Black, an
archaeologistthat would later be closely associated with IU. These administrative documents
include field site (FS) surveys, human resource paperwork, as well as archaeologically-
significant artifact descriptions. They also outline the organizational structures articulated to
control this heavyinflux of archaeological artifacts and data. In this way,the AM Collection,
now in the GBL, is both artifactual (as in archeologically-unearthed artifacts from the site
itself) and documentary (data and metadata related to the activities and processes of
excavation and the extracted artifacts).
AM documents, despite being products of specific, localized activities, are embedded in a
larger constellation of documentation that altogether reference “Angel Mounds”excavation
activities over time. These data points can be relatively simple, such as artifact identifiers or
descriptions; but they can also be much more complex, such as indicators of artifact spatial
attributes (where the artifact is found in three-dimensional space), or detailed drawings of
excavation site topography. AM documents describe the excavation site and artifacts in
ways useful to WPA-era workers (and, later, by IU students as part of Field Schools
beginning in the 1940s). Of particular interest are these documents’organizational and
descriptive elements and how spatial cues were (and continue to be) recorded. These spatial
indicators are central to the concept of provenience in archaeology, which describes the
specific location of an artifact as it was situated in the ground. Provenience, like provenance
in archives, helps track groups of artifacts to their point of origin, which is central to
long-term organization and artifact continuity in archaeological research.
Tracing chains of reference requires close attention to how artifacts and data are
organized and standardized during and after excavation. The organizational and
descriptive standards instituted by Glenn Black in 1939 were effective: they maintained
physical and intellectual control over a collection that could have easily been left in disarray.
These established standards help researchers –even today –identify the specific in situ
location of AM artifacts, as well as interpret the applied metadata and artifact associations
for excavated objects.
The particular standards set by Black, though mostly retained by subsequent
excavation teams after his death, have been tweaked for a variety of reasons. These schisms
in descriptive practice –discontinuities in the way data points are recorded –create
problems when trying to reconstitute AM activity over this broad range of time.
Maintaining clear provenience relationships for and between objects through these various
teams is essential to the research value of a collection. In particular, these schisms can be
critiqued by examining AM documentation. This paper describes how these schisms are
significant for the research value of an archaeological collection, and how the GBL curators
are the primary agents in reconstructing the appropriate linkage between these documents.
Curators are situated as essential to maintaining a chain of documentation to accurately
represent data collected over a long duration.
AM documentation are filled with punctuated moments of descriptive and record-keeping
practicesthat lead to discordant sets of documents withinthe collection. TheAM Collection can
be imaginedas a series of documentcollections withindocument collections(see Figure 1). The
central sphere in the figurerepresents the Glenn Black era of documentation, whichpresented
the fundamental organizing structure for the collection. Black’s structure included a series of
1036
JD
75,5
To continue reading
Request your trial