The problem is that we tend to work on the idea that storage by museums etc
is permanent. In Britain archaeologists are getting a rude awakening to the
fact that museums are saying this cannot go on and questioning the very
function of collecting. The traditional arguments for preserving culture are
increasingly rejected as elitist as the fashion for replicas and light shows
increases. Disposals is now one of the biggest issues in museums. I suspect
this will increasingly be a problem in the US. It only needs one powerful
bean counter to shed a centuries collecting in a very short period of time.

paul courtney
Leicester
Uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Heite" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: dumping sherds


> Over the years, I have seen many thousands of bricks dumped in the
> field without comment. But what distinguishes bricks from all the
> other ceramics on a site?  Basically bricks are different because
> they are "everywhere" and therefore are dismissed as uninformative.
>
> Bullbleep!
>
> Bricks are a great interpretive class of artifacts, but they are the
> Rodney Daingerfield of historical archaeology.
>
> Bricks should be treated as significant ceramic artifacts and
> analysed as any other artifacts. We are currently working on a
> multiple-site survey of a large tract, and we are saving and
> cataloguing every brick we find. The results have been stunning.
>
> Anita asked for intro, even from the GOF set. Right now I'm busy
> sorting bricks.
>
> --
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Sitting here drinking diet mead
> from my plastic fake auroch's horn
> flagon, I wonder that my
> contemporaries look like a bunch of
> old geezers.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign.
>