Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the development of preventive and commercial archaeology in Europe during the last thirty years by examining the case of Italy. This country has a mixed public-private system, where the law establishes that the State manages all archaeological activities, although archaeological services are provided mainly by private individuals or companies and funded by private developers. This framework leads to a mismatch between law and practice, which impedes the development of professional archaeology and the full implementation of the Valletta principles. The issue is examined from an historical perspective, from the 1970s to the present day, and is augmented by a brief analysis of the current trends in cultural heritage policy. The study concentrates on the regulatory elements of archaeological activities, since these legal matters are generally overlooked by scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article tackles various issues related to post-medieval/historical archaeology worldwide as of November 15, 2017. These issues include the laws on archaeological heritage in Spain, the condition of later historical archaeology on Borneo, post-medieval archaeology, and government and professional support for archaeologists.

The article presents a history of bridges in South Africa. Topics discussed include industrial growth and resultant infrastructure development such as the development of the Witwatersrand gold fields, the development of a railway bridge across the Vaal River near Vereeniging in Gauteng/Free State provinces and management and protection of South African heritage resources falls under the South African Heritage Resources Act.

In this article, the author discusses archaeological sites and the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) that was signed into law in 1999. She mentions her appointment in a Writing Committee appointed for the act in 1996 by Dr. Ben Ngubane, the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology; and the team led by town planner Penny Pistorius. She adds significance of the act to archaeologists and palaeontologists as it makes heritage impact assessments mandatory.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Law & Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Societe (Cambridge University Press) is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The author provides an outlook on professional archaeology in Great Britain in 2015. He offers a brief history of professional archaeology in the region with emphasis on the impact of the global economic crisis in 2008 on archaeology practice. He highlights some of the laws and regulations governing archaeological practices. He believes that the future of professional archaeology will be dependent on the economic climate.

The article addresses collecting in the U.S. Archaeological Resources Protection Act. It mentions land designated prohibited and illegal in surface collecting which include land owned by the Federal Government and federal agencies such as National Park Service, and land owned by State and local governments and agencies. It states that Sub-surface Collecting is also prohibited in above two categories.

The article presents the author's insights on several laws passed in the U.S. to limit the collection of artifacts on the Federal and State lands such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Safeguard Trial Objects of Patrimony Act (STOP).

The article discusses laws on heritage in Africa. Topics discussed include protection of unitary entities such as sites and monuments under the state laws, the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting for the Africa region that identified regional priority needs comprising the documentation, recognition, and implementation of Traditional Management Systems (TMS), and case of the Domboshava rock art shelter in Zimbabwe.