A few years back, a land surveyor friend of mine realized he picked up a  
Chinese Bamboo Bowl (a type of ceramics, not made of bamboo) on federal land  
that he thought was private and wanted to arrange a return "without being  
arrested." I made the arrangements, but he got scolded for washing the bowl and  
forever denying the public the benefit of future protein residue analysis (etc.  
etc.). [Silently, I felt most of us have been so-called "guilty" of the same  
"crime," but the reprimand was really for removing the bowl from federal land 
in  the first place.] Why is this relevant to the discussion on the curation 
of  hazardous materials of mega-quantities of 20th century artifacts? Well, it 
has  to do with the forensic tests we can and might some day apply to things  
like bandaids, tobacco waste, candy wrappers, medical waste, and even privy  
soil. Just think of all the chemical and DNA tests that could be done on that  
stuff! Heck, most of the plastic, saran wrap, foil, and bandaids can be tested 
 for fingerprints.
 
Ok, then what about all those "rusted lumps" that we keep hearing about?  
Lets talk about what a half pound of rusted metal, sand, and debris might  
contain. What would we find if we had an x-ray or Cat scan  run? If a conservator 
were to very carefully immerse the lump in a chemical  bath and run electrical 
current, might not the pieces be coaxed out so we  can find the nails, spikes, 
screws, wire, gun plates, needles, thimbles,  scissors, ceramics, arrow 
points, and even a pistol in the mess? Field  archaeologists always run field triage 
in deciding where to spend money now or  delay for some future lab rat to 
clean it up. 
 
But what good does it do for science if some "bozo" tosses it in the  
dumpster? I say bozo because I know plenty of museum or lab people who feel  
disgusted by reddish rusted metal and want nothing better than to discard it en  mass 
to keep the white lab coats clean. And, sheesh, then they have to find a  
budget to keep the corrosion off the cleaned objects! Not to mention the  chemical 
waste by-product of conservation of metal, itself becomes hazardous  waste. 
 
But it always comes down to the biases of the person considering the  
dumping. A bottle and glass specialist will fight hammer and tong to keep  all the 
glass, but argue strongly for dumping "white ware" and rusted metal. A  ceramic 
specialist will fight to save all the ceramics, but be more than willing  to 
dump glass that is not a rim, base, or embossed piece. A construction  
specialist interested in developing a model for determining size and complexity  of 
buildings based on metal fasteners (machine, hand cut, blacksmith made, etc.)  
will provide sound reasons for keeping every complete fastening device, but not 
 give a "rat's ass" about ceramics or glass objects. And, a historic 
restoration  specialist will want to save wall paper, carpeting, paint, stucco, 
plaster,  scratch coat, and all kinds of roofing. We begin to see there are clear 
biases  built into the system of field triage. Finally, you get back to the 
antiquarians  who would only keep the "goodies" (pretty jewelry, whole bottles 
with fancy  embossing, whole serving vessels and flatware with armorial 
decoration, military  badges, gambling tokens, collectible marbles (as opposed to clay 
or stone) coins  (the bigger denominations), bank notes, etc.) that have an 
actual antique market  value.
 
Is it worth spending money running DNA on bandaids or surgery wipes,  protein 
residue on food vessels, desalting ferrous metal, encapsulating  asbestos, 
running fingerprints, hiring hazardous waste chemists to clean  artifacts, 
hiring conservators to clean and preserve artifacts, or playing  "Noah's Ark" with 
samples of all things? The answer lies in why the  archaeologist conducted the 
investigation in the first place: Is this  collection taken to mitigate 
demolition or destruction of an  archaeology site so a new building can be 
constructed? Was there an EIS/EIR  that stated a sample would be preserved in exchange 
for that destruction?  Or, was this just a research project on a 
non-threatened site that some farmer  allowed as long as it does not interfere with 
feeding the hogs or plowing the  fields?
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.