My spare room is fairly full but so far I have avoided culling too much.
However I do use some collections as teaching artifacts when talking to
school kids, interested adults or running events such as archaeological fun
days.

I have a collection of Chinese artifacts which are quite useful for that
sort of thing. They were picked up from the surface of Cossack's Chinatown
by someone who was trying to do the right thing and save them from
collectors. But of course the only context they have is Chinatown so their
archaeological usefulness is quite limited. But like most collectors
collections the items tend to be big, eye catching or unusual so the kids
like them.

I also have a dustbin full of artifacts from one archaeological context, a
rubbish dump. The material is both useful and interesting archaeologically
but  since they are all from one context it does not matter if the items get
mixed on a table. The material also runs the gauntlet of stuff we collect
from the interesting to the down right mundane so it good to show that
archaeological collections are not all about the pretty stuff.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Suzanne M. Gurenlian" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2003 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: culling, de-accessioning, ignoring


> Ned,
>
> Has anyone ever thought of providing 'culled' artifacts to local high
school
> collections? How about junior colleges?  This may pique the interest of
some
> youngster. It could be a recruitment tool for our field. It may inspire
one to
> join in the pursuit of historical archaeology if they don't have to travel
to a
> museum to see such a prized possession!
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Sister Mary
> --
> It is within the boundaries of love that you discover life. Enjoy it!
>
>
> Quoting Ned Heite <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > In theory, most of us would like to save everything. There would be
> > no landfills. We would simply number and shelve everything. Okay, I
> > exaggerate. But the fact is that somewhere in the deepest reptilian
> > part of our brains, we have this urge to keep stuff.
> >
> > Those of us with archaeological credentials can legitimately satisfy
> > the primal urge to gather busted bits of bisque. We can do it in the
> > name of science and justify our collecting under the rubric of the
> > public good. Sometimes we call it sampling, but usually we really
> > want to keep it all.
> >
> > Some of us, like the Collier brothers, go overboard. We fill our
> > abodes with STUFF, and then we go to work and fill our labs with
> > STUFF, which we eventually transfer to repositories, which are
> > bulging with STUFF.
> >
> > Lots of really creative arguments have been fashioned to justify the
> > primal urge to curate endless STUFF for endless eternity. Here are
> > three of the more common ones:
> >
> > 1. We need to keep all those environmental samples because some
> > future researcher may devise techniques to better analyse them.
> >
> > 2. Culling a collection might mean disposal of the wrong thing.
> >
> > 3. Saving only a sample will introduce a bias into the collection in
> > favor of whatever system was used to create the sample.
> >
> > The excuses go on, but the fact remains that we, as a profession, are
> > reluctant to come to grips with the reality of artifact storage and
> > curation on a really broad scale. In some parts of the country,
> > artifacts are examined in the field and not returned to the lab. In
> > some states, the official repository doesn't want to see debitage.
> > Some curators have developed an ability to completely overlook
> > anything large or inconvenient to store.
> >
> > To date, many curators and field archaeologists have devised methods
> > for reducing collection bulk, but the problem keeps growing. Let me
> > suggest that we are looking in the wrong places for a solution.
> >
> > To my way of thinking, the time has come to re-define the whole
> > universe of archaeological data collection. We have failed to contain
> > the problem of mushrooming complexity of physical and intellectual
> > control.
> >
> > The first thing we need to do is recognize that much of our attitude
> > toward curation has its roots in the era when most archaeologists
> > worked for museums, bringing in collections from  the far corners of
> > the earth. The whole purpose of archaeology was to gather museum
> > objects.
> >
> > And so today museums continue to absorb expanding numbers of CRM
> > collections "in perpetuity," all the while complaining about space
> > problems. As the museums get bogged down, the collections become less
> > useful, thereby  cancelling the original excuse for stashing
> > everything in museums in the first place.
> >
> > Maybe it's time to divorce the practice of archaeology from the
> > accumulation of museum objects, especially when the objects will
> > never be placed on display.  How can this be done? Not simple, but
> > essential to survival in a world of tight budgets and tighter museum
> > spaces.
> >
> > Can we apply a usefulness test? Useful to whom?
> > Can we charge for curation? Has this worked?
> > Can we select samples with more rigor?
> > Can we omit any artifact that is a standard product, well documented?
> > Can we accept for curation only those artifacts that contribute to a
> > site's eligibility for the National Register?
> >
> > These are questions without answers, but the answers definitely must
> > be forthcoming, or our whole system will collapse.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > All aboard for a special session on ironmaking
> > at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference,
> > Atlantic Sands Hotel, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware,
> > March 14, 2004.  This will be a Sunday session devoted
> > entirely to the archaeology of early ironmaking in America.
> >
> > Go to WWW.MAACMIDATLANTICARCHAEOLOGY.ORG
> >
> > See you there!
> >