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!
|
