Good points Sara,
Items like ferrous horse shoes, if not conserved, wont 'stick
around'...so measurements are all we have left.
We typically take photos of assemblages of corroded items (groupings by
activity type, etc)...before they fall apart even more...and what they
can tell us is lost forever. These digital images get sent, along with
the curated collection, to our curation facility (on a CD, along with
all the other files)....so any future researchers can LOOK at what used
to be in the collection, but couldn't be saved. Don't attack me about
Not saving ferrous items - our curation facility does NOT want these
items curated, since they continually detereorate and they are not a
conservatory).
We do the best to preserve the value of the artifact...by taking photos
(with a scale).
As for online data....I dream of that day. Ha ha. But, I have been
told by our curation facility...that most companies in this county don't
include 1/2 of the data as I do in our catalogs. I learned this when I
asked if I could simply (electronically) view the catalog files for
collections they have curated - to see if they even held items I was
interested in researching. I was told this info (attribute/s) was not
found in other company catalogs...only mine. I was shocked and appalled
to learn this. That's how those 'other guys' keep under budget (not
that we don't do so most of the time, tho)...they only record the
minimum "required" attributes the facility asks for. That makes their
catalogs pretty useless to me - and other researchers of the
future....sadly. So...we Would need to LOOK at the collection in
person.
I have stumbled upon the Bishop Museum's (HI) online database files at
times in my searching for info (bottle marks) online. While I can glean
limited data from them, these too are lacking other attribute data, that
would be helpful to my research. It is obvious by the phrasing, etc.
that at least 5 different people recorded the data on these
bottles...from the same collection. Some recorded things better (more
accurately) than Others. I don't like the INconsistency of more than 1
brain doing the recording...for this very reason.
It's hard enough to train ONE good Lab assistant. Having 4 or 5
(limitedly trained) people doing the recording on the same collection is
a nightmare to me...but I have seen other CRM companies use such
methods.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Sara Rivers
>Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 5:55 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Management Interference in Standard Archaeology Procedures
>
>This string has brought up so many important issues, some of
>which haven't really been discussed yet:
>
> 1) Are the artifacts (such as horseshoes) going to be
>conserved? If not, it may be the last chance to get any data
>out of them at all. You could always tell the boss poo-pooing
>the measurements that he could foot the bill for conservation
>instead (though it could certainly be argued that both good
>records and conservation should be required for some objects
>anyway). If you don't measure the iron and you don't x-ray it
>or conserve it, you're never going to get much data out of it
>because it'll fall apart on the shelf. Don't we have an
>obligation to retain the data at least?
>
> 2) Speaking of items falling apart on shelves... In response
>to this comment, "a long time ago, all that data was collected
>& recorded & archived somewhere (hint: the sun still never
>shines there) & basically disappeared..." I just have to make
>a plug for those of us working in repositories to make this
>stuff accessible. Really, it hasn't all disappeared, but I
>wish more people would come to use it.
>
> 3) And as to the argument that putting the data on the web
>or in spreadsheets is the answer to making our work more
>palatable, we are also trying to make collections available
>digitally (see www.chesapeakearchaeology.org for a good
>example). However, if anyone thinks that digitizing data is
>more worthwhile than proper collections management of the
>actual field/lab records and objects, consider the rapidity
>with which computer technology and memory storage changes.
>Digital archive management is just as difficult and expensive
>as collections management, if not more so. If we stay on top
>of it, our data may be more accessible, but I don't know if it
>follows that it's more likely to get used. I've never seen
>anyone get as excited about our websites as they do about the
>artifacts in person. Most people prefer the real deal. As a
>result, our websites often serve as an advertisement to get
>people to come here and use the collections as opposed to the
>off-site research tool they were meant to be.
>
> Sara Rivers Cofield
> Curator, Federal Collections
> Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
>
|