What then, is the ethical difference between selling artifacts and dumping
them in a dumpster? Several weeks back, one of our prominent colleagues raised
the question concerning shipwreck sites artifacts and questioned why we
should want to keep all the artifacts for all times. Going on your theory that
retaining 10% of non-diagnostic artifacts, lets say we have redundant artifacts
like hundreds of buckets of the same gold coins, then I ask what is the
difference between dumping and selling artifacts? And before you fall into the
ethical trap of saying most artifacts have no financial value, think carefully
about our ethics that address placing monetary value over historical
information value. Which is more important for a gold coin recovered from a site, the
monetary value or the informational value of context and contributing to
science?
And please do not forget that I am only speaking of artifacts that are used
to contribute to interpreting the scientific value of a property. Things found
in secondary deposits with no known provenience that cannot be used as
evidence for something like a Section 106 assessment would not be included in this
discussion.
And finally, just because a State Historic Preservation Officer says
something is ok to do, does not make ok. Those SHPOs sacrifice entire archaeology
sites for political reasons, making the collections that we do manage to
recover all the more valuable.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
In a message dated 1/9/2008 7:26:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Meli
I have been working on an urban site in New Orleans Louisiana and have run
into the same issue. We have about 30 boxes of artifacts for a historic dump
site and need to cull it down for curration. We spoke with the Louisiana
SHPO and they approved keeping a 10% sample of all non-diagnostic artifacts.
The rest are being weighed, counted and discarded. All diagnostics are being
retained for curration of course.
Sarah Paulson
Earth Search, Inc.
New Orleans, LA
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
>From: Meli Diamanti <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jan 7, 2008 8:26 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: buttons to assemblages to ethics
>
>Although Gaye & Carol's messages were meant to be private, I picked up
>on something and would like to use it as a springboard to my own
>question. I noticed that Gaye mentioned a collection of over 8000
>DIAGNOSTIC artifacts (emphasis mine), and Carol mentioned a typical
>collection being about 1000 items (diagnostic or non-diagnostic not
>mentioned).
>
>I have been excavating house yards in the c.1880s-1930s steel towns
>around Pittsburgh, PA for a proposed new turnpike construction project.
>I tend to get over 1000 artifacts in a Phase I survey of a houselot
>(mostly close interval shovel testing and maybe 1-2 test units at most),
>and get closer to 10,000 in a Phase II (maybe 8-12 test units). In
>addition to the usual building materials (including flat glass), these
>sites generate a lot of domestic artifacts. But most of it is from
>trampled yard deposits, where artifacts are small, not from shaft
>features such as privy or cistern, where artifacts tend to be preserved
>in larger pieces.
>Most of the domestic artifacts are ending up in two categories that seem
>to be of little interpretive use: - plain (undecorated) ironstone body
>sherds and unidentifiable fragments of curved glass (could be from
>bottles etc or from tablewares, no diagnostic embossing or other labels,
>not large enough to determine shape/size, etc.).
>Can anyone suggest ways to wring more information out of this data,
>beyond its basic spatial distribution within the site yard? If they are
>non-diagnostic, is it acceptable to propose that not all of them need to
>be curated? This gets back to the problem with state curation
>facilities getting filled up. I would like to cull the collection, such
>as only keeping a sample percentage of these non-diagnostic items.
>Pennsylvania already has a policy in place for discarding portions of
>flat glass and other building materials, as well as unidentifiable rusty
>metal lumps. But the state wants to open the question of discarding
>addition materials from recent historic sites to wider debate before
>making a decision. So I am looking for input, either information on
>curation and discard decisions in other urban projects or other states;
>or information on how to get more data value out of the artifacts and
>therefore consider them worth keeping in full.
>I would like to see discussion on the list, especially since I can't
>attend the SAA and bring this up at the ethics bowl. If you prefer, you
>are also welcome to reply directly to me off-list. Thanks,
>Melissa Diamanti
>Archaeological & Historical Consultants, Inc.
>[log in to unmask]
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
|
