I agree with you regarding the problems associated
with curating high volume artifacts such as window
glass, lumps of unidentifiable metal, and
undiagnostic machine-made container glass. However, I
think we should be wary of dismissing artifacts that
are identified as dating to the twentieth century as
"less significant." They seem less significant to
some historical archaeologists because they are "too
recent" and/or are high volume "noise" that clutters
the archaeological record. Twentieth-century
artifacts will be very significant to some
archaeologists in the future (think of how many of us
today work on "significant" nineteenth century sites
that were once deemed insignificant by archaeologists
in the early to mid-twentieth century), and some of
us are interested in twentieth century sites today
(just think.... trailer parks dating to the early
1950s are now old enough for inclusion in the NRHP). 

I think the focus in this debate should be on
determining whether curated undiagnostic machine-made
container glass and lumps of metal hold the potential
for future researchers to reinterpret or synthesize
site data. I think a sample of these items would be
suffificient. I can say personally that if I were
going to use a site assemblage, for say, comparative
purposes, I would likely rely on the previous
analysis for their counts of undiagnostic container
glass and unidentifiable lumps of metal, and perhaps
reanalyze the artifacts with diagnostic traits if I
was looking for something in particular. I may look
over some of the other undiagnostic stuff to see what
condition it's in, but I know I wouldn't spend hours
upon hours counting every piece of it. Hence, I think
a sample of it would be fine.

I have also had to deal with encountering modern
trash at historic sites (Band-Aids, fast food
wrappers, condom wrappers, etc.), and although I
don't feel that all of that stuff should be curated,
I definitely feel that stuff should be counted and
noted in the field.... AND discussed in the report
(i.e., "modern trash, such as a plastic twist tie and
bread wrapper, was observed on the ground surface,
but was not present in the shovel tests," or
conversely, whether that bread wrapper was
encountered in the same shovel test pit as pearlware
sherds). Too many times I have seen situations where
the modern trash was encountered during shovel
testing, but for some reason did not end up being
discussed in the report, likely because it was
"modern." Encountering modern trash alongside
historic materials can suggest that the integrity of
a site, or part of a site, has been compromised, and
if further work is going to be conducted on that
site, I'm sure any of us would want to know if there
is a potential for mixed deposits.

Anyway, that's just my two cents on this Saturday
afternoon...

Cheers,
Tanya 


Tanya A. Faberson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc.
151 Walton Avenue
Lexington, Kentucky 40508
[log in to unmask]
859-252-4737





------- Original Message -------
From    : Ron May[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent    : 10/27/2006 5:20:55 PM
To      : [log in to unmask]
Cc      : 
Subject : RE: Re: curation of hazardous materials

  
In a message dated 10/27/2006 11:19:07 A.M. Pacific
Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Which  raises a bigger question (at least in my mind)
...  Has there 
been  any recent discussion on HISTARCH or elsewhere
relative to the  
curation/non-curation of historic archaeological
materials?  I guess  
I am most concerned about the high-volume, but
(potentially) less  
significant artifacts (e.g., nails, bricks,
unidentifiable ferrous  
lumps, window glass, twentieth century bottle glass,
etc.).

Anybody  like to talk about these as curation
policies or issues, or 
point me  towards such a discussion?



Mark,
 
This always comes down to "it is not my research
interest, so pitch it in  
the dumpster!" when it comes to historical
archaeology. Federal and state  
agencies trip over their shoelaces to get rid of
collections. I have heard the  
State of California, Department of Transportation
recently discarded a huge  
historical archaeology collection. But any area
specialist will always intervene  
and demand his/her part of the collection be spared
(eg. ceramics, or  
insulators, or roof tile, etc.). Speaking as a
tax-payer and one who believes  the 
meaning of sample recovery as a trade-off to allow
complete destruction of  the 
rest of the archaeology, I believe the lead agency is
obligated to  paying for 
permanent conservation and curation of the sample
collections  (permanent, as 
in perpetuity). If you can't preserve it, then you
need to move  your freeway 
to avoid it. Destruction after sampling is the worst
form of  betrayal of 
public trust.
 
Ron May
Legacy 206, Inc.