I've been wrestling with the suggested idea of selling bottles to relieve
storage problems and thus reducing the value of bottles in the
collectors'market.  I am uncomfortable with the suggestion for several
reasons.  First, there would have to be an awful lot of bottles sold to
collectors to impact the value significantly the value of bottles to
collectors.  It may not be feasible.  But more important, I think it would
send the wrong message to collectors.  For years, archaeologists have been
trying to convince collectors and museums that the sale of artifacts is
unethical.  This point was stated very strongly in American Antiquity by the
SAA about 40 years ago.  For archaeologists to start selling bottles to
collectors would seem like an endorsement of the sale of artifacts and might
well appear hypocritical.

One of the suggestions was to lend collections of bottles to organizations.
I liked this suggestion, because the arrangement could be terminated.  We
might ask the recipient organization to agree not to sell any of the bottles
and to insure the collection.  Recipient organizations could include
museums, historic societies, and such.  There is a National Bottle Museum in
Ballston Spa, New York.  One might even donate bottles to worthy
organizations and claim the tax credit.

Allen Vegotsky
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Praetzellis <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: culling


Ned H wrote:

>But I must disagree with Adrian on the subject of industrial products.
This
>has all the characteristics of yet another offhand dismissal. Collectors
>know that industrially-produced  artifacts are  subject to variations.
Just
>ask any dealer in "collectible" model trains, beer bottles, or other
>trinkets.


The alternative being that we treat every last bottle and nail as unique?
Nah, that was a low blow.
Actually I don't suppose we really disagree here. My point is that, in the
light of the curation crisis, it makes sense to think about why we're
keeping the stuff and whether it's future research potential is *likely* to
be worth the cost of holding on to it.

In the old days of the early '70s (oh-oh, he's off again) in the UK, we
were constantly bulldozing off post-medieval deposits to get to the good
stuff--the rule was to stop when you hit the yellow combed slipware. Were
we wrong in going for the medieval and Roman deposits at the expense of the
post-med? Seems to me that archaeologists are constantly doing a juggling
act between competing exigencies.

Adrian Praetzellis
Sonoma State University