HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:15:30 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Both sides of the artifact-culling argument have strong cases, and to a
certain extent, I don't think it's helpful to apply overall strict
models; this is the sort of decision that surely should be decided on a
case by case basis.

If I can just play advocatus diaboli for a moment to the below post (and
this is me offering a considered point for debate rather than engaging
in one of my occasional rants)...

How do we know that the standards that we apply towards deciding which
artefacts are representative and/or interesting will be the same
standards that future archaeologists will apply towards making the same
decisions?  Our discipline, after all, is not static and unchanging.  Is
there not a risk that the choices we make when discarding finds will be
considered misguided and mistaken in the future?  Perhaps more to the
point, since future archaeologists will almost certainly regard a goodly
portion of our research as misguided and mistaken (that, alas, is the
nature of the beast), is it a risk we're prepared to take?  Just because
a piece of undecorated whiteware is uninteresting to us doesn't mean it
will necessarily be uninteresting to someone else in the future.

As noted, this is not me taking a position on one side or another, but
simply posing a question for debate.



> Some how I missed the original message on culling artefacts, but having read
> the last two messages I feel I have to put my come forth with my opinion.  I
> have worked on both sides of the Pacific and am familiar with many curation
> facilities in the states and now here in Australia.  All facilities now
> require a detailed catalogued of artefacts from a archaeological
> investigation.  Why not just submit examples or a sample of each  artefact
> type catalogued, not the whole collection.  How many fragments of undecorated
> whiteware do we need?  In this manner anyone who wishes to study the
> collection can look at the artefact types submitted and determine the
> criteria used by the original analyst.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Brooks
Department of Archaeology
University of York
King's Manor
York
YO1 7EP
England, UK
phone: 01904 433931
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Buffalo tastes the same on both sides of the border"
Sitting Bull

ATOM RSS1 RSS2