Meli
I have been working on an urban site in New Orleans Louisiana and have run into the same issue. We have about 30 boxes of artifacts for a historic dump site and need to cull it down for curration. We spoke with the Louisiana SHPO and they approved keeping a 10% sample of all non-diagnostic artifacts. The rest are being weighed, counted and discarded. All diagnostics are being retained for curration of course.
Sarah Paulson
Earth Search, Inc.
New Orleans, LA
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
>From: Meli Diamanti <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jan 7, 2008 8:26 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: buttons to assemblages to ethics
>
>Although Gaye & Carol's messages were meant to be private, I picked up
>on something and would like to use it as a springboard to my own
>question. I noticed that Gaye mentioned a collection of over 8000
>DIAGNOSTIC artifacts (emphasis mine), and Carol mentioned a typical
>collection being about 1000 items (diagnostic or non-diagnostic not
>mentioned).
>
>I have been excavating house yards in the c.1880s-1930s steel towns
>around Pittsburgh, PA for a proposed new turnpike construction project.
>I tend to get over 1000 artifacts in a Phase I survey of a houselot
>(mostly close interval shovel testing and maybe 1-2 test units at most),
>and get closer to 10,000 in a Phase II (maybe 8-12 test units). In
>addition to the usual building materials (including flat glass), these
>sites generate a lot of domestic artifacts. But most of it is from
>trampled yard deposits, where artifacts are small, not from shaft
>features such as privy or cistern, where artifacts tend to be preserved
>in larger pieces.
>Most of the domestic artifacts are ending up in two categories that seem
>to be of little interpretive use: - plain (undecorated) ironstone body
>sherds and unidentifiable fragments of curved glass (could be from
>bottles etc or from tablewares, no diagnostic embossing or other labels,
>not large enough to determine shape/size, etc.).
>Can anyone suggest ways to wring more information out of this data,
>beyond its basic spatial distribution within the site yard? If they are
>non-diagnostic, is it acceptable to propose that not all of them need to
>be curated? This gets back to the problem with state curation
>facilities getting filled up. I would like to cull the collection, such
>as only keeping a sample percentage of these non-diagnostic items.
>Pennsylvania already has a policy in place for discarding portions of
>flat glass and other building materials, as well as unidentifiable rusty
>metal lumps. But the state wants to open the question of discarding
>addition materials from recent historic sites to wider debate before
>making a decision. So I am looking for input, either information on
>curation and discard decisions in other urban projects or other states;
>or information on how to get more data value out of the artifacts and
>therefore consider them worth keeping in full.
>I would like to see discussion on the list, especially since I can't
>attend the SAA and bring this up at the ethics bowl. If you prefer, you
>are also welcome to reply directly to me off-list. Thanks,
>Melissa Diamanti
>Archaeological & Historical Consultants, Inc.
>[log in to unmask]
|