All,

As I am sure that Karlis recognizes, this is a difficult question. 
Having studied shell beads in great detail- some of which (at least to 
some) were seemingly too insignificant to matter- my suggestion is that 
the museum acquire as much as possible (beads do not have many of the 
curation issues that some artifact types have). However, it is clear 
that the museum will need to make decisions. I would suggest that, if 
there is any context- especially good context ("Picked up at Huaca de la 
Luna, Moche, Peru"), but even questionable is better than nothing- those 
beads should be part of the museum's sample. If there is no context, I 
would have a very difficult time saying what is more important than any 
other. I guess I would use the informal "rule of thumb" for statistics 
of a minimum of 30 of each type. We all know, however, that "type" can 
be simple categories (e.g., "white") or complex (green Venetian glass 
from c. 1600), so ideally, the first thing would be to get an expert to 
identify the different types as finely and accurately as possible. Then 
they could think about how many of each of those types is appropriate.

Cheers,
Ben Carter


On 6/27/2013 11:28 PM, Susan Walter wrote:
> Maybe refer your questions to the Bead Forum?  I've seen it mentioned 
> several times on the list...
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karlis Karklins" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Representative artifact sample size for museum collections
>
>
> Jeff, Susan, and Marybeth,
>
> I was told the "family would like to liquidate the remainder as part 
> of the
> process of closing out the estate" which I think implies selling. I
> understand that the collection is large and diversified but I don't
> know the exact quantities. The bottom line is what would be a "good 
> sample
> size"? Jeff suggests 10. My feeling was 100 per variety (though there may
> not be that many of each, or the family may not want to donate that many)
> as that always seemed to me to be a minimum number for any kind of
> meaningful statistical analysis.
>
> I guess I could put it another way using a different artifact. Say, if as
> happened at one Canadian site, you excavate a large keg of nails, all
> roughly the same, and storage (and weight) is a distinct problem, how 
> many
> do you keep, say out of 1,000? I think many large archaeological 
> facilities
> will be facing this problem in the near future as budgets are cut and the
> extremely clichéd question filters down from above: Why do we need to 
> keep
> artifacts? So this sort of thing needs some serious consideration.
>
> I agree that the museum should do the selection but then you have the
> problem of do they keep a truly random sample (take a tablespoon out of a
> bag) which is best for archaeological studies or pick the nicest ones
> (which they will do as the beads will go on display in the museum). On it
> goes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Karlis
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Karlis,
>> I agree with Susan and Marybeth. I've had to deal with site owners who
>> want the artifacts back after data recovery. I've had to negotiate all
>> that, including trying to get them to donate parts of the 
>> collections. Try
>> to get the family to let you do the sampling, both for the individual 
>> items
>> and the number of items, aiming for a decent sample rather than a single
>> example whenever possible. I don't know how to define "decent" for 
>> sample
>> size but I should think that, if possible, at least 10 of each type 
>> would
>> be good, just off the top of my head.
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
>> Supervisory Archaeologist/Project Director
>> Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
>>
>>   *   The Center for New Mexico Archaeology
>>   *   7 Old Cochiti Road
>>   *   Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
>>   *   tel: 505.476.4426
>>   *   e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> "There comes a time in every rightly-constructed boy's life when he 
>> has a
>> raging desire to go somewhere and dig for hidden treasure."  -- Mark 
>> Twain,
>> The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Karlis
>> Karklins [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:52 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Representative artifact sample size for museum collections
>>
>> Hi Everyone!
>>
>> I have been contacted by a museum person who is dealing with a family 
>> that
>> wants to donate a representative sample of beads from a collector's 
>> estate
>> to a reputable museum and they are wanting to know what would be a"good
>> sample" size; i.e. a sample of sufficient size to allow adequate 
>> study re:
>> manufacturing type, shape and size range, etc.? I have my thoughts but I
>> want to hear what fellow HistArchers think. This information is 
>> needed to
>> be able to explain to the family why x number of specimens are 
>> required and
>> should be donated.
>>
>> I would appreciate your thoughts.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Karlis
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.932 / Virus Database: 3204.1.1/5945 - Release Date: 
> 06/27/13 00:51:00