Ron,

 

I appreciate your comments and also welcome others into this discussion.  I read Geoff's email referring to the19th century rules, too and would be interested to know what they are.

 

The Wikipedia article mentioned has a criticism section that discusses what present-day historians think would be valuable in a time capsule and quotes Jarvis (2002), "a time-capsule historian", as saying that most time capsules are filled with "useless-junk". (it gets better...). It goes on to say that historians suggest including "personal notes, pictures, and documents" to "greatly increase the value of the time capsule". 

 

The viewpoint of historians in this critique has a very egocentric vein of the value of time capsules and is consequently intriguing.  What medium do historians deal in? --Documents: the very items being prompted to increase time capsule value. Artifacts, on the other hand, are written off as contributing "limited value" to future historians and referred to as junk.   Speaking as an archaeologist, one person's junk is someone else's dissertation.  

 

I guess it is our job as archaeologists to study and interpret the artifacts recovered from time capsules and produce documentation so that some value can be gleaned from these items by the present-day historians the article references.

 

My two cents on time capsules is that they are intentional interments of goods, unlike Pompeii (referred to in Wikipedia article), which is accidental and archaeological in nature.  What intention they serve is variable and no doubt includes some of the possibilities you mention. They most importantly reflect in some way the lives of the people contributing to them.  To attempt to gain a greater understanding of viewpoints, beliefs, and actions of the larger socio-political realm is what research and theory is all about but is not always possible.

 

On the other hand, if I unearthed a 1968 time capsule that mostly contained newspaper articles about national and worldly events (Kennedy,Vietnam, etc..), I would be left disapppointed, wanting more info about the people that placed it there, and wondering why they left such a generic deposit.  At least in Sarah's example, I could go to the library, watch news footage, etc. to bone up on the happenings of 1968.  So, in turn, the stuff recovered (e.g., children's possessions), albeit marketed and produced for the masses, are eclectic and provide an informative view of what items these children of 1968 may have valued and dealt with on a day-to-day basis. 

 

I agree with the historians concerning the inclusion of personal accounts in time capsules. These documents could convey important information about the folks that contributed to this thing.  But does this inclusion or exclusion make the capsule any less valuable in meaning or purpose?

 

 

Paul

 

Paul M. Matchen,RPA

TRC Environmental Corporation

505 E. Huntland Drive

Suite 250

Austin, TX 78752

phone (512) 684-3147

fax (512) 329-3750





	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Ron May [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

	Sent: Mon 12/11/2006 6:28 PM 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Re: time capsules

	

	



	

	In a message dated 12/11/2006 8:07:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 

	[log in to unmask] writes:

	

	Why?  These were elementary school kids, not adults.  They  placed the

	items in the capsule that were important to them.  Does a  time capsule

	have to be a political/social representation of the whole  country in

	order to be a "good" one?

	

	

	

	

	Paul,

	

	I was not judging the school kids time capsules or the games they played in 

	selecting things for their time capsule. This is a Free Country and anyone can

	 put anything in a time capsule and, in our age, there is no definition of a

	good  or bad time capsule. However, someone did state there were 19th century

	rules  for the contents of time capsules. Having read that, my opinion  is

	(and was) that time capsules should reflect the important issues of  the times

	and that led me to think about the things I would hope people in one  or two

	centuries would think about 1968.

	

	This discussion has opened a new "can of worms." What IS a  time capsule? Is

	it just another form of temporal graffiti, or a joke on time,  or a statement

	of socio-economic and political issues, or a  religious/spiritual message? Are

	time capsules solely created for  dedicating a building? And, what are the

	historical and cultural underpinnings  of time capsules? And to Susan Walter's

	issue of "etic and emic," is anyone in  the future allowed to question the

	value, truth, or meaning of the contents  of a time capsule? Who is to say? I feel

	time capsules are fair game for  open discussion, critique, and exchange of

	ideas.

	

	Ron May

	Legacy 106, Inc.