In regards to your curation of artifacts that we can only get basic information from, for my masters thesis I developed a de-accession policy for historic artifacts.  Meaning what artifacts should we keep for curation and what can be discarded.  It is a difficult decision for some on what to discard because you never know what future research can develop for plain ironstone and what information can we yield from artifacts down the road.  But the fact is that facilities are fiilled to the brim with artifacts from 19-20th century sites and how much undiagnostic clear body glass does one need
 
So if any are interested I can forward my discard policy.> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:26:00 -0500> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: buttons to assemblages to ethics> To: [log in to unmask]> > 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]
_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause