Melissa,
The future of historical archaeology will one day rely on the collections we
now protect. It is my opinion we have been too quick to dig and too slow to
develop a long-term conservation plan for the evidence that we recover. I
delivered a paper on this topic several years ago at the Society for California
Archaeology Annual Meeting in Riverside, California and argued that the
artifacts used to address research questions must be conserved so future
scientists can re-test the data following standard scientific method and new technical
testing procedures. I argue that if we cannot conserve it, we should not be
digging it up. Moreover, if the recoveries are conducted as federal Section
106 significance testing on eligible archaeology sites, then the data is
critical to substantiating the resource as significant and must be preserved as
the "witness record" to justify future management of the site. Destruction of
artifacts and other samples simply because the federal agency does not want to
pay for a conservation plan in perpetuity is nonsense and unethical because
the evidence is critical to the survival of the resource. We are in a
legalistic world where our artifacts serve as legal evidence. More significantly,
where the Section 106 process leads to a major outlay of public money (or even
private money) to recover a sample of something condemned to destruction, the
recovered sample must be preserved from the same agency and their pot of
money. This is not something that can be debated by museum people or warehouse
owners once the consulting archaeologists have been paid for their fieldwork
and report. Destruction of that artifact-evidence probably could result in a
devastating lawsuit to the lead agency and all involved (and one day that
might happen).
The parts of the sample that cannot contribute to one or more scientific
research problems within the context of Section 106, or some state or local
equivalent, probably is fair game for the dumpster. Bulk concrete, adobe wall
mud, broken lumber, expended fuel, toxic materials, radioactive materials, and
the like are easy candidates for this category, just as long as a sample of
non-dangerous materials is saved for future reference. But what about the
so-called "plain" white ceramics, vessel glass, window glass, and the like? Sure,
I know lots of private company or commercial archaeologists who would like to
dump 90% of historic collections because once they get paid the collection is
their "albatross." But what do we really know about the chemical properties
of the white ware ceramics, glass chemistry, and technology? Once we run
X-ray fluorescence, chemical paste analysis, and a few other tests and determine
redundancy of non-diagnostic redundant objects, then the dumpster is a
possibility. But what if someone might want to reconstruct those vessels for
exhibition? What if some of those glass items might serve in a community education
program?
I vote to avoid digging if we cannot develop and fund a conservation plan
for the collections. And, we should demand the federal and state agencies
creating those collections to own-up to the full cost of long-term conservation.
Down here in San Diego, the Center City Development Corporation (redevelopment
agency) hired consultants to rapidly dig up tons of artifacts so they could
build Petco Park (baseball stadium and acres of parking lots), but then
refused to pay for complete analysis or collection conservation. The Center City
Development Corporation found a Ph.D. archaeologist to justify destruction of
most of the collection. But does that justify digging up the material in the
first place? I feel the National Environmental Policy Act environmental
documents should explain the full financial cost of the conservation plan for
those collections, including the alternative of not digging them up in the first
place.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
In a message dated 1/7/2008 6:26:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
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]
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
|