Sara raises some good points about assemblages that are not curated and
subsequently conserved for future assessment.  A lot of material from
projects on non-Federal/state property either goes back to the land
owner/client or gets disposed for lack of curatorial funds and/or
facilities.  This is, unfortunately, a common occurrence with no
clear-cut solutions.

 

I would offer on the research end, however, that it is difficult to get
"data out" of cultural material that are in someway significant to the
project if there is no research design or direction being followed.  As
discussed (via NPS) in the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for
Archeological Documentation: "Archeological documentation can be carried
out only after defining explicit goals and a methodology for reaching
them. The goals of the documentation effort directly reflect the goals
of the preservation plan and the specific needs identified for the
relevant historic contexts."

 

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_7.htm#plan

 

Hence, unless the procedure involving the detailed documentation of
firepin markings on rimfire casings is relevant to specific data needs
to support an existing research question/hypothesis set forth to guide
efforts of the funded project, there is little justification for it in
the lab.  In other words, I agree with Carl.  Research designs are
present in a majority of projects to provide research focus and to allow
for more efficient expenditure of time and money in the evaluation of
past behaviors.

 

I think more pertinent questions one should ponder are 1) What are the
criteria for the collection of the base-line data which serves as the
material foundation for analytical research designs and hypotheses?;  2)
How much information should be collected concerning the site and
resulting assemblage during pre-field archival, field documentation, and
lab processing/inventory that would be adequate to form a design for
further analysis?;  and 3) What is the minimum treatment for cultural
material or features within an archeological report that are not
specifically addressed in a functioning research design?  

 

The procedures for collecting base-line data vary widely and are in many
cases project specific.  In fact, some agencies suggest that any
research design-extraneous material collected as base-line data be
mentioned only briefly in an appendix of the report.

 

Collection of incremental data with the purpose of contributing to a
regional database that will ultimately address certain research issues
is allowable in some cases but should be prescribed beforehand in the
research design. 

 

It should also be noted that there are ethical considerations for the PI
in being unable or unwilling to follow a prescribed research design as
put forth in the Sec. of Interior Guidelines for archeological
documentation. 

 

All of this said, it is obvious that Carol cares a great deal about what
she does, and I respect that.

 

 

Paul M. Matchen, M.A., R.P.A.

Staff Archaeologist/Principal Investigator

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRC

 

505 E. Huntland Drive, Suite 250

 

Austin, TX 78752

 

 

 

512.684.3147  phone

512.329.8750  fax

512.964.9987  cell

[log in to unmask]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sara
Rivers
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 7:55 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!