Part of the problem with sites from the "Consumer Explosion" era,ca.
1870-1930 is that there is as yet little precedent to tell us what we
can learn from the materials recovered. Having excavated a
tenement-turned-boardinghouse from this period, I can say that our
discard policy was in flux right up to the time the artifact catalog was
finished, and is still food for thought today, long after the report was
completed. I found that twentieth century materials, even redundant
ones, have much to tell us, though the information to be gained is
rather different from the kinds of information traditionally derived
from earlier historic materials. Once that information is gained,
however, it is difficult to see what purpose would be served by
retaining and curating some of these materials.

For instance, for some classes of artifacts such as nails, the
information that can be derived seems obvious: structural information
obtained from counts and types of nails.  Once that information has been
obtained any further information, such as metallurgical, can be later be
obtained from smaller samples. Curation space is at a premium, and we
have to assume that saving tens of thousands of identical wire nails is
not appropriate. Likewise, I have a collection from a blacksmith shop
including over 80,000 rusty lumps identifiable only as horseshoe nails
and tips.  It is simply not practicable to conserve these and would
serve no purpose that I can see beyond identifying shoeing areas on site
and the range in types of horses serviced, which has already been done.
Under the circumstances, why not discard them?

What should be collected and what should be conserved are somewhat
different issues and may vary from one site to another on a case-by-case
basis. I think, as our understanding of what the modern materials can
tell us grows, we will find that our discard policies, both in the field
and in the lab, will evolve with our experience and achieve some degree
of standardization, but every site is still different. We should reserve
judgement on discard until we have a good idea what materials need to be
saved from each individual site, and remain flexible throughout the
processes of excavation and analysis, remembering that a collection is
curated not just so that the original research can be revisited, but
also so that it should be available for other kinds of research. Our own
research interests should not bias the discard policy. 

Of course, there is always the chance that in saying "we don't need
20,000 pieces of clear, featureless bottle glass, we are ignoring the
possibility that someone will come along one day and find a way to gain
more information from it, but we do have to draw the line somewhere. 
The storage space might be put to better use housing materials with more
research potential.

I am reminded of a former co-worker, no longer in the field, who
referred to the collection and curation of redundant materials as
"clogging the arteries of Science"! 

Marty Pickands
New York State Museum

>>> [log in to unmask] 10/29/06 10:47 PM >>>
Well, I havent actually had (found) a 'blob'...just used that
term...generically.  Mainly I've seen 'masses' of nails, spikes,
etc....rod shaped things...all 'fused' together from corrosion. Once
described and weighed...and even photo'd ...I don't see the point in
saving that.  Plus...some curation facilities don't even want unstable
material like corroded ferrous.

What does one do with a bunch of itty bits of can wall frags?  Count
them? No. At best...weigh them....and then how else will they
contribute
to our knowledge...if they are Saved?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
>Behalf Of Ron May
>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:25 PM
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Subject: Re: curation of hazardous materials
>
> 
><<well, ok,
>masses of corroded ferrous blobs...I have no  problem discarding), >>
>
>
>I cringe when reading this sort of statement. I distinctly 
>recall a slide show at a former SHA Conference in which a blob 
>of rust had been x-rayed and found to contain a precise mold 
>of a weapon. When drilled, the conservator poured a liquid 
>inside that set up in a day or so. Then, they skillfully 
>cracked the rusted outer surface to reveal a precise casting 
>of the weapon inside. In the ocean, metal converts to oxides 
>that bond with the surrounding sediments,  leaving molds of 
>things like knives, pistols, cannon balls, and jewelry boxes.  
>Can you imagine discarding one of those rusty blobs? 
> 
>Ron May
>Legacy 106, Inc.
>